Under the marcionite priority, how is it explained the paulinism of Mark?

[Giuseppe]

Under the marcionite priority, how is it explained the paulinism of Mark?

Justin didn't know a catholicized Paul, but only proto-Luke (=Mcn) (and presumably: the marcionite Paul).

After Justin, Paul becomes domesticated by catholics. Now the epistles can be used also by catholics. The Gospel of Mark is paulinist because it proves the possibility of a such use.

There is a problem: Mark's paulinism is too much gentilizer, even if a moderate gentilizer: Matthew is a correction of Mark in this sense: even a judaizer could sound "pauline".

In whiletime, after Mark and after Mattew, Acts goes beyond Mark in this co-optation of Paul. Now Paul is totally removed from the Marcionite field.

[Giuseppe]

Hence I see the following evolution of Paul:


The Marcion's Paul + the Evangelion ---> Justin ---> the Catholic Paul ----> Mark ---> Matthew ---> Luke-Acts


Mark is the terminus ante quem for the domesticated (catholicized) Paul. Since Justin doesn't know Mark, then Justin doesn't know the domesticated Paul too.

[rgprice]

Firstly, it would seem that Justin did know "Mark". Justin provides quotes that today are only known from the Gospel of Mark, such as his reference to James and John Zebedee, the "sons of thunder". Secondly, Justin seems to identify the passage he refers to as coming from the "memoirs of Peter".

As I think you know, I view Mark as the first Gospel, from which "proto-Luke" (or really, IMO, what we should call "original Luke") was derived. And from this original version of Luke that Marcion's collection was derived.

It is notable that Mark contains parallels with the Pauline letters that are both part of Marcion's Pauline collection and that are not present in Marcion's Gospel. See Sinouhe's posts in my thread here for examples: viewtopic.php?f=3&t=10461&start=20

As I briefly mention in my presentation, Mark and the original version of Luke are "open" to Marcionite interpretation. There are certainly many elements of these works that are compatible with Marcion's views.

My understanding of this is that Marcion's views arose in the context of these works, which made the development of his theology possible.

Marcion believed that Paul was the one true apostle and that the so-called disciples were false apostles. This is certainly a view that can be obtained from the Gospel of Mark. In fact, it is more readily apparent in the Gospel of Mark than in Marcion's own Gospel. Thus is is not plausible that the Gospel of Mark is written in opposition to Marcion.

Polycarp was clearly a major advocate of Paul and Paul's legacy. Our knowledge of Polycarp provides us with no information about Polycarp's views of Peter. Yet from what we can determine, Polycarp gave no importance to Peter. We also know that Polycarp was staunchly anti-Marcionite.

Thus, we can see that there was a "pre-Catholic" strain of Jesus worship that was deeply rooted in Paulinism and also strongly opposed to Marcionism and Gnosticism in general.

It seems to me that the Gospels of "Mark" and (original) "Luke" provide us with pre-Marcionite and pre-orthodox versions of the Jesus story, which were open to both Gnostic/Marcionite and proto-orthodox interpretation. From this basis, a variety of interpretations arose, including Marcionite, Gnostic and proto-orthodox views.

In response to Marcion's interpretation, put forward when he attached his Antithesis to an existing collection consisting of a Gospel and Pauline letters, opposing interpretations were then put forward and works such as Matthew and the canonical Lucan collection, consisting of the enlarged version of the Gospel of Luke, along with Acts of the Apostles, and epistles attributed to Peter, James, and John, along with a heavily revised version of the Pauline letters were presented as counter's to Marcion's reading.

But the Gospel of Mark (and the main body of the Gospel of Luke) preserves the pre-Marcionite narrative that contributed to the development of Marcion's views.

The Paulinism of Mark is a refection of pre-Marcionite theology, before Paul became heavily associated with Marcion. The Paulinism of Mark contributed to the rise of Marcionism.

[maryhelena]

Under the marcionite priority, how is it explained the paulinism of Mark?

Justin didn't know a catholicized Paul, but only proto-Luke (=Mcn) (and presumably: the marcionite Paul).

After Justin, Paul becomes domesticated by catholics. Now the epistles can be used also by catholics. The Gospel of Mark is paulinist because it proves the possibility of a such use.

There is a problem: Mark's paulinism is too much gentilizer, even if a moderate gentilizer: Matthew is a correction of Mark in this sense: even a judaizer could sound "pauline".

In whiletime, after Mark and after Mattew, Acts goes beyond Mark in this co-optation of Paul. Now Paul is totally removed from the Marcionite field.

Acts is not history.

Acts, in it's pseudo-history about early christianity, has simply turned the tables, as it were, upside down. When some modern day NT scholars move the figure of Paul outside the Acts storyline i.e placing Paul later - they are moving Paul to around the time of Marcion. A connection is seen between the gospel of Mark and Paul. Leading to the idea that Mark is the first gospel. However, turn the table back to it's correct upright position - thereby placing the writings attributed to, or in the hands of, Marcion, early. This would indicate a development of the Jesus and Pilate story. A development, of course, not welcome by church fathers who are reading the gospel Jesus story as a historical account of a flesh and blood historical man. The gospel of Luke became the big stick used, by the church fathers, to brand Marcion as the arch-heretic.

here

Using Luke to savage Marcion has resulted in these church fathers becoming hoist upon their own petard. The gospel of Luke, straddled as it is with its own contradictions - is their Achilles heel.

Deriving history from Acts is an enterprise fraught with difficulty. I firmly maintain that Luke the Historian has very little to wear and have striven to demonstrate the point, but I shall not close without acknowledging my admiration (and even envy) for the splendid outfit worn by Luke the author. In that costume lurk mysteries galore, and because of it the story of Christian origins is more mysterious than ever.

Richard Pervo: The Mystery of Acts: Unraveling Its Story

[Giuseppe]

Marcion believed that Paul was the one true apostle and that the so-called disciples were false apostles. This is certainly a view that can be obtained from the Gospel of Mark. In fact, it is more readily apparent in the Gospel of Mark than in Marcion's own Gospel. Thus is is not plausible that the Gospel of Mark is written in opposition to Marcion.

surely where Marcion and Mark diverge is about John the Baptist. Given the extreme easiness by which the incipit of an epistle or a gospel is very much often vulnerable to interpolations, then an incipit with the Baptist in Mark is probably more anti-marcionite than merely pre-marcionite. But then there is the problem that a proto-Mark without the baptism in the incipit is hardly conceivable... ...hence the entire gospel is probably more anti-marcionite than merely pre-marcionite.

[Giuseppe]

Vinzent writes about why John the Baptist figures in the incipit of Mark, inter alia:

The title of Marcion’s book on Jesus words and deeds, The Gospel, was adopted, but adapted with a shift of meaning from an angelic and wonderful message of the angelic Christ in Marcion to a message of a prophetic messanger who announces Jesus Christ in Mark.

http://markusvinzent.blogspot.com/2011/ ... n.html?m=1

Marcion's incipit had the following words (it doesn't matter if they were interpolated by Marcion: Mark would have read them in any case in his version of the Evangelion):

… the delightful message [Gospel] of
Christ

‘O wonderful wonder, delight, power and astonishment we find in faith what is unspeakable, beyond thinking and uncomparable’

The focus is on the Gospel itself. Mark replaces it with the "beginning" of the Gospel, accordingly it comes with no surprise that he introduces the Baptist as an example of what happened shortly before the proclamation of the gospel by Jesus himself.

[MrMacSon]

Secondly, Justin seems to identify the passage he refers to as coming from the "memoirs of Peter".

Dialogue 100:

Justin:
" ... For [Christ] called one of His disciples—previously known by the name of Simon—Peter since he recognised Him to be Christ the Son of God, by the revelation of His Father. And, since we find it recorded in the memoirs of His apostles that He is the Son of God and, since we call Him the Son, we have understood that He proceeded before all creatures from the Father by His power and will (for He is addressed in the writings of the prophets in one way or another as Wisdom, and the Day, and the East, and a Sword, and a Stone, and a Rod, and Jacob, and Israel); and that He became man by the Virgin, in order that the disobedience which proceeded from the serpent might receive its destruction in the same manner in which it derived its origin. For Eve, who was a virgin and undefiled, having conceived the word of the serpent, brought forth disobedience and death ..."

https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/01287.htm
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/t ... rypho.html

Dialogue 106:

Justin:
"The remainder of the Psalm makes it manifest that He knew His Father would grant to Him all things which He asked, and would raise Him from the dead; and that He urged all who fear God to praise Him because He had compassion on all races of believing men, through the mystery of Him who was crucified; and that He stood in the midst of His brethren the apostles (who repented of their flight from Him when He was crucified, after He rose from the dead, and after they were persuaded by Himself that, before His passion He had mentioned to them that He must suffer these things, and that they were announced beforehand by the prophets), and when living with them sang praises to God, as is made evident in the memoirs of the apostles. The words are the following: 'I will declare Your name to my brethren; in the midst of the Church will I praise You. You that fear the Lord, praise Him; all you, the seed of Jacob, glorify Him. Let all the seed of Israel fear Him' [Psalm 22:23]. And when it is said that He changed the name of one of the apostles to Peter; and, when it is written in the memoirs of Him that this so happened, as well as that He changed the names of other two brothers, the sons of Zebedee, to Boanerges, which means sons of thunder, this was an announcement of the fact that it was He by whom Jacob was called Israel, and Oshea called Iesous [Yeshua], under whose name the people who survived of those that came from Egypt were conducted into the land promised to the patriarchs. And that He should arise like a star from the seed of Abraham, Moses showed beforehand when he thus said, 'A star shall arise from Jacob, and a leader from Israel' [Numbers 24:17]; and another Scripture says, 'Behold a man; the East is His name' [Zech 6:12; Philo de Conf; 62]. Accordingly, when a star rose in heaven at the time of His birth, as is recorded in the memoirs of His apostles, the Magi from Arabia, recognising the sign by this, came and worshipped Him."

https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/01287.htm
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/t ... rypho.html

Firstly, it would seem that Justin did know "Mark". Justin provides quotes that today are only known from the Gospel of Mark, such as his reference to James and John Zebedee, the "sons of thunder".

• I think the direction — whether Mark —> Justin or Justin —> Mark — is up for debate
  (or the passages in question could be contemporaneous and by close associates)

It is notable that Mark contains parallels with...Marcion's Pauline collection [yet those parallels] are not present in Marcion's Gospel.
See Sinouhe's posts in my thread here for examples: viewtopic.php?f=3&t=10461&start=20

• That's noteworthy!

[MrMacSon]

Dialogue 106:

Justin:
"... And when it is said that He changed the name of one of the apostles to Peter; and, when it is written in the memoirs of Him that this so happened, as well as that He changed the names of other two brothers, the sons of Zebedee, to Boanerges, which means sons of thunder, this was an announcement of the fact that it was He by whom Jacob was called Israel, and Oshea called Iesous [Yeshua], under whose name the people who survived of those that came from Egypt were conducted into the land promised to the patriarchs.

https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/01287.htm
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/t ... rypho.html

• Another slightly different translation:
  
  
  “It is said that he [Jesus] changed the name of one of the apostles to Peter; and it is written in his memoirs that he changed the names of others, two brothers, the sons of Zebedee, to Boanerges, which means ‘sons of thunder’….”
  
  

[ebion]

Under the marcionite priority, how is it explained the paulinism of Mark?

Acts is not history.

Acts is history at its finest: see Paul On Trial The Book Of Acts As A Defense Of Christianity by John Mauck

There's a fascinating detail, intended for the consumption by a Roman(Pagan) prosecutor, that only shows up in Young's Literal Translation of Acts 16:16

And it came to pass in our going on to prayer, a certain maid, having a spirit of Python, did meet us, who brought much employment to her masters by soothsaying, (Acts 16:16 [YLT])

The Pythia, one of the highest paid Pagan entities, is obscured or smoothed over, in the KJV or Tyndale bibles.

It seems perhaps that she thought highly of Paul..

[ebion]

There are a couple of videos on YouTube on this:

20230208@5 Who was Theophilus to Whom Luke Acts were Addressed Review of Mauck s Defense of Paul@EL6lGR7OtyI (https://youtube.com/watch?v=EL6lGR7OtyI)

20230218@Mauck Meant to say Collegium Illicitum not Religio Illicita as Roman Law Luke was trying to satisfy@CUiX1Q6Cr3Y (https://youtube.com/watch?v=CUiX1Q6Cr3Y)