Mark as an introduction to Galatians...

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
User avatar
Giuseppe
Posts: 12008
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: Mark as an introduction to Galatians...

Post by Giuseppe »

Yet curious about rgprice's answer on this precise point:
Giuseppe wrote: Fri Jan 20, 2023 9:29 am How can the Pauline epistles explain the Mark's reverence for the figure of John the Baptist?

Paul didn't even know the man. How could a radical Paulinist (as "Mark" was, in your scenario), praise a such enigmatic figure?
rgprice
Posts: 1240
Joined: Sun Sep 16, 2018 11:57 pm

Re: Mark as an introduction to Galatians...

Post by rgprice »

Giuseppe wrote: Fri Jan 20, 2023 11:11 am Yet curious about rgprice's answer on this precise point:
Giuseppe wrote: Fri Jan 20, 2023 9:29 am How can the Pauline epistles explain the Mark's reverence for the figure of John the Baptist?

Paul didn't even know the man. How could a radical Paulinist (as "Mark" was, in your scenario), praise a such enigmatic figure?
Mark is clearly not simply just based on the Pauline letters. It is also a story about the destruction of the Temple that relates the events that led up to the destruction of the "Second Temple" to the events that led up to the destruction of the "First Temple". And, the writer of Mark also used the works of Josephus. JtB of course comes from Josephus.

The Pauline inclusion of JtB is on the basis of his role as Elijah.

Romans 11:
1 I say then, God has not rejected His people, has He? May it never be! For I too am an Israelite, a descendant of Abraham, of the tribe of Benjamin. 2 God has not rejected His people whom He foreknew. Or do you not know what the Scripture says in the passage about Elijah, how he pleads with God against Israel? 3 “Lord, they have killed Your prophets, they have torn down Your altars, and I alone am left, and they are seeking my life.”

And indeed, the kill both JtB and Jesus.
robert j
Posts: 934
Joined: Tue Jan 28, 2014 5:01 pm

Re: Mark as an introduction to Galatians...

Post by robert j »

rgprice wrote: Fri Jan 20, 2023 10:41 am
So actually nothing derives from Marcion.
In terms of texts, my studies have led me to the same conclusion, with one exception --- the Marcionite Antitheses.

In his Five Books Against Marcion, Tertullian clearly acknowledges that he had in his possession and was at least partially working from a Marcionite text that he called the Antitheses that he characterized as an “opus” (Adv Marc, 4.1).

Sticking with Pail’s letters here, is it possible that Tertullian did not have a specifically Marcionite collection of 10 Pauline letters?

In addition to his own collection of Paul’s letters, is it possible that Tertullian’s comments were based upon (and in response to) the Marcionite Antitheses that included a number of passages from Paul’s letters that were deemed useful, along with running Marcionite commentary?

BeDuhn admits the possibility (highlighting mine) ----

Although few have questioned that Tertullian had direct access to the Evangelion and Apostolikon, we cannot be absolutely sure. A couple of features of his discussion invite caution. First, he frequently comments on Marcion’s interpretation and application of a particular verse, as if he is looking at Marcion’s Antitheses and drawing scriptural quotations from it, rather than directly from the Evangelion and Apostolikon. Second, Tertullian’s selective quotations from the Apostolikon possess a kind of running logic, as one quoted verse follows upon another in what has the appearance of a connected argument; yet that argument is not Tertullian’s. Rather, by selectively skipping over intervening material, a cogent Marcionite reading of Paul comes sharply into focus, which Tertullian does his best to disarticulate and refute. This impression is subjective, of course, and may be an illusion. But if Tertullian relied completely on the quotations of scripture in Marcion’s Antitheses, and did not have direct access to the Evangelion and Apostolikon, any comment he makes about passages missing from these texts would be suspect, the result of mere supposition on his part based on Marcion’s failure to quote them. (BeDuhn, The First New Testament, p. 35-36)

Last edited by robert j on Fri Jan 20, 2023 8:23 pm, edited 1 time in total.
rgprice
Posts: 1240
Joined: Sun Sep 16, 2018 11:57 pm

Re: Mark as an introduction to Galatians...

Post by rgprice »

Hi Robert. Yes, you are correct!

I've been waffling back and fourth on so many issues, but I feel like I finally have clarity on the issue.

The things that the Patristic fathers said never really made sense. According to Vinzent and Klingardt we have to think they were either liars or just woefully mislead. This reaches a solution that explains their confusion.

Apparently, the original version of the Gospel of Luke had become unknown, and they didn't realize that that the version of Luke in the four Gospel collection was not the same as the original. Essentially Luke 3-23.5 is essentially the original version of Luke. To that someone added Luke 1&2 and the end of 24.

What Tertullian said was essentially right, but it related to the original version of Luke, not the canonical version of Luke. Likewise, what he said about the Pauline letters was correct too! But again, he himself was unknowingly referring to the wrong version of the Pauline letters!

Marcion derived his copy from a source, and the orthodox letters also come from the same source that Marcion copied. Maybe Marcion redacted his version of the letters and maybe he didn't. BUT, for sure whoever made the orthodox copy did edit and revise them when they made their copy. Yes, they didn't derive their version FROM Marcion's collection, they worked from the "originals", but they also altered the originals.

So what Tertullian says may be true about the actions of Marcion, what he either does not understand himself or does not admit is that the orthodox versions of these works have also been altered from the original as well.

Neither did Marcion derive his versions from the orthodox version, nor did the orthodox derive their versions from him. They both derived from a common source. Maybe people may call that source "proto-Luke" (as I have in the past), but I now think it should really be called Luke', or original Luke. It was almost certainly actually called the Gospel of Luke. But it didn't have the birth story.
User avatar
MrMacSon
Posts: 8093
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 3:45 pm

Re: Mark as an introduction to Galatians...

Post by MrMacSon »

rgprice wrote: Fri Jan 20, 2023 11:46 am And, the writer of Mark also used the works of Josephus. JtB of course comes from Josephus.
The passage about JtB in Josephus' Antiquities is, as a few people have pointed out, suspect b/c it seems to interrupt a flow from the passage beforehand and the passage afterwards. Which raises the prospect the account about JtB in Antiquities is a latter addition and that it was inserted there around the same time or even after the account in/for G.Mark was written (and maybe both accounts were written separately by different people of groups of people).
User avatar
MrMacSon
Posts: 8093
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 3:45 pm

Re: Mark as an introduction to Galatians...

Post by MrMacSon »

robert j wrote: Fri Jan 20, 2023 2:01 pm In his Five Books Against Marcion, Tertullian clearly acknowledges that he had in his possession and was at least partially working from a Marcionite text that he called the Antitheses that he characterized as an “opus” (Adv Marc, 4.1).
  • Good point
robert j wrote: Fri Jan 20, 2023 2:01 pm is it possible that Tertullian’s comments* were based upon the Antitheses that included a number of passages from Paul’s letters that were deemed useful, along with running Marcionite commentary?
* Can you clarify this? ie. Tertullian's comments about Marcion's version or edition of Pauline letters? Something else eg. Marcionism in general?
User avatar
MrMacSon
Posts: 8093
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 3:45 pm

Re: Mark as an introduction to Galatians...

Post by MrMacSon »

rgprice wrote: Fri Jan 20, 2023 11:46 am Mark is clearly not simply just based on the Pauline letters. It is also a story about the destruction of the Temple that relates the [alleged] events that led up to the destruction of the "Second Temple" to [accounts of] the events that led up to the destruction of the "First Temple".
  • I don't recall having see commentary about relating the fate of the two temples. Can you elaborate?

rgprice wrote: Fri Jan 20, 2023 11:46 am
The Pauline inclusion* of JtB is on the basis of his role as Elijah.

Romans 11:
1 I say then, God has not rejected His people, has He? May it never be! For I too am an Israelite, a descendant of Abraham, of the tribe of Benjamin. 2 God has not rejected His people whom He foreknew. Or do you not know what the Scripture says in the passage about Elijah, how he pleads with God against Israel? 3 “Lord, they have killed Your prophets, they have torn down Your altars, and I alone am left, and they are seeking my life.”

And indeed, the[y] kill both JtB and Jesus.
  • Did you mean the Markan inclusion, rgp? ie. Mark's narration about JtB? on the basis of Romans 11:2 (+/- other references to Elijah in Paul +/- elsewhere)?
User avatar
MrMacSon
Posts: 8093
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 3:45 pm

Re: Mark as an introduction to Galatians...

Post by MrMacSon »

rgprice wrote: Fri Jan 20, 2023 2:23 pm The things that the Patristic fathers said never really made sense. According to Vinzent and Klingardt we have to think they were either liars or just woefully mislead ...
  • There's anothe possibility: that Patristic Fathers like Irenaeus and Tertullian sought to mislead. To rewrite 'history.'
    rgprice wrote: Fri Jan 20, 2023 2:23 pm ... what he [Tertullian] either does not understand himself or does not admit is that the orthodox versions of these works have also been altered from the original as well.
robert j
Posts: 934
Joined: Tue Jan 28, 2014 5:01 pm

Re: Mark as an introduction to Galatians...

Post by robert j »

I think the John the Baptist figure was a literary invention of the author of GMark to solve the problem of how to present Paul’s pre-existing heavenly JC figure having come in the likeness of men. And the clever Mark also wove-in OT relevance.

When the Galilean came out of the water having been baptized by John, he was possessed by the heavenly spirit. Voila, Paul’s heavenly spirit having come in the likeness of men.

And this clarification ---
MrMacSon wrote: Fri Jan 20, 2023 4:00 pm
robert j wrote: Fri Jan 20, 2023 2:01 pm is it possible that Tertullian’s comments* were based upon the Antitheses that included a number of passages from Paul’s letters that were deemed useful, along with running Marcionite commentary?
* Can you clarify this? ie. Tertullian's comments about Marcion's version or edition of Pauline letters? Something else eg. Marcionism in general?
comments* = everything Tertullian wrote in his Adv Marc about the Marcionite treatment of Paul's letters. And it is the Antitheses that may have included a number of passages from Paul’s letters that were deemed useful by the Marcionites and were interspersed with running Marcionite commentary.
User avatar
MrMacSon
Posts: 8093
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 3:45 pm

Re: Mark as an introduction to Galatians...

Post by MrMacSon »

:thumbup:
Post Reply