Why the absence of Luke 18:31-33 in *Ev is highly revealing

[Giuseppe]

Mark 10:33

“We are going up to Jerusalem,” he said, “and the Son of Man will be delivered over to the chief priests and the teachers of the law. They will condemn him to death and will hand him over to the Gentiles, 34 who will mock him and spit on him, flog him and kill him. Three days later he will rise.”

Luke 18:31-33:

31 Jesus took the Twelve aside and told them, “We are going up to Jerusalem, and everything that is written by the prophets about the Son of Man will be fulfilled. 32 He will be delivered over to the Gentiles. They will mock him, insult him and spit on him; 33 they will flog him and kill him. On the third day he will rise again.”

Now Luke 18:31-33 is absent in *Ev.

If you consider that Luke 18:31-33 was added in *Ev by "Luke" (catholic) then accordingly you have to concede that also Mark 10:33 reveals a post-marcionite writing.

[Giuseppe]

Marcion never removed parts from Luke: it is always and only Luke who expanded Marcion.

If we see a passage added by Luke in Mcn (for example: the baptism episode), and that same passage is found also in Mark, then it is impossible that Marcion removed a such passage in his presumed new version of Mark, with Luke re-inserting it in his new version of the Marcion's new version of Mark.

Markan priority can be proved only on the assumption that Marcion added new items in Mark. Just the Markan priority is going to be proved on the assumption that Marcion removed items from Mark, then those same items can't be the same items interpolated by Luke in Marcion, since we are sure that the latter items are by definition a Catholic expansion of the Evangelion.

Basically, the Markan priority collapses when one realizes that the assumption of the Markan priority is not reconcilable at all with the assumption that Luke had only expanded Marcion's Evangelion and never reduced it.

[Stuart]

OK. Let's break this down. It is correct that the third prediction of the passion passage is missing from the Marcionite gospel as Epiphanius reports that specifically. And it's clear that Luke's version was derived from the Matthew and Mark version. But I think you jump to conclusions based on your model and not upon analysis of the content, independent of order.

The second error is you take a general rule of redaction, i.e., later texts have (significantly) more accretion than deprecation, and turn it into an absolute, even when you have not established that it was in fact accretion in this case. Note, this is not an absolute either.

So let's analyze this right. You flat missed the best evidence of all, Luke 18:31 Jesus tells his disciples they are going up to Jerusalem so that

"and everything that is written by the prophets of the Son of man will be accomplished.
καὶ τελεσθήσεται πάντα τὰ γεγραμμένα διὰ τῶν προφητῶν τῷ υἱῷ τοῦ ἀνθρώπου·

This cannot be Marcionite, as it has Jesus stating that his work is to fulfill prophesy of the OT. Remember "law and prophets" refers to the two parts of the Jewish bible: law = Torah (books of Moses), prophets (major and minor) = Neviʾim. The NT definition of prophets seems to include both Neviʾim and Ketuvim. But the Marcionites rejected the OT, presenting Jesus as from an unknown God and not fore announced in the Jewish writings. So it would be impossible for the Marcionite Jesus to reference himself to OT prophesy.

And if we look at that reference, we see it's unique in the triple tradition, unknown to Matthew (the simplest and likely closest to original) and Mark. In fact the Luke version in verse 18:32 omits the delivery to the chief priests and scribes first before handing over to the gentiles (e.g., the Romans and Pilate). In doing so Luke doesn't follow the sequence of the passion in this foretelling. It's not a straight copy from Mark, as the omission is deliberate. Further by having Jesus turned over to the gentiles without mention of the Jewish priests, he is removing an element of the Marcionite narrative, that of the Jewish authorities acting on behalf of the creator and law giver to oppose Christ. He's not changing the passion merely emphasizing the fulfillment of prophesy.

This is internal evidence for an interpolation. We see the passion sequence narrative lost, in favor of making a later church theological/political point. There is no need to reference a particular model for redaction order, only that it is late in Luke. The inclusion of certain Mark language mentioning spitting, not found in the more simple Matthew passage, does point to Mark as the source of the passage in Luke.

If you are arguing against Mark priority, you would do better here to compare Mark 10:32-34 as an expansion of Matthew 20:17-19. Mark inserts several phrase to show the state of the followers and explain the reason for Jesus telling the followers these things, mostly as framing (as is Mark's style). Matthew simply tells straight forward what Jesus says to them, likely reflecting more closely their common source. But this expansion by Mark shows that it cannot be original for this passage.

Note: It is my view that all the gospels expanded upon their sources, as their authors felt necessary, and each also occasionally omitted material, including the Marcionite author, which might have caused problems in their presentation (at the time of writing, as none could see generations into the future). But the expansions were always greatly larger than the omissions. There are technical and logistical reasons why that would be so. There is also evidence that the Marcionite author and Matthew's author felt great freedom in moving stories around from the layout of their sources. Mark did not feel such freedom.

Note also, no argument based on presumed gospel order carries much weight because it is a circular argument, petitio principii. The use of gospel order models is more for demonstration purposes. You know you might be right if you can show theological trajectory or purpose from one document to the next, and if you can show vocabulary or paradigm shifts with one way dependencies, and perhaps sectarian alignment. But if you have inconsistencies in any of these areas or as pretty much all models popular have problems in multiple of these areas, then it's probably not right. I remember my father who described to me the then (back in the 50s and 60s) consensus in seminary, the gospels interacted repeatedly with each other, each borrowing from the other. Or as we moderns these days might put it, only an OCD mind would feel compelled to make a neat graph of it.

[Giuseppe]

This cannot be Marcionite, as it has Jesus stating that his work is to fulfill prophesy of the OT.

its not being marcionite doesn't matter. As I have tried to explain here, what mattered really was the connection Marcion/proto-Luke.

It is similar to swastika. It doesn't matter more that it was an old hinduist/buddhist symbol. Once it was connected with hitlerism, it is and will be forever a symbol of evil. Idem with proto-Luke: once it was brandished by Marcion, all the evangelists who come after Marcion were obliged to read proto-Luke with marcionite lens.

If you are arguing against Mark priority, you would do better here

Klinghardt would agree with you insofar both you assume that:

• Mark was not the first gospel

• The first gospel was not even marcionite, but at most it was used by Marcion (and in virtue of a such use it received forever a negative notoriety in catholic circles).

But where I and Klinghardt continue to diverge from you is about the presence of the baptism by John in the earliest gospel: you are really obstinate to consider it as genuine, while Klinghardt sees the baptism as a mere anti-marcionite antidote.

Insofar you consider the baptism by John found in the earliest gospel, then you seem to be a Markan prioritist, in my eyes, Stuart.

[Stuart]

You see too much as anti-Marcionite. The Marcionite issue only become an issue of primacy when the sect ruptured from the main church and set up it's own organization in parallel. Before that time revisions would have addressed various sects across the spectrum. This pattern would return in late revisions as well. In short you overstate the impact of the Marcionites.

The biggest problem with seeing the Baptism as anti-Marcionite is that you are left to explain the question of authority, when Jesus asks where John's Baptism comes from to his religious opponents, represented by the Chief Priests. It is without context if there is no baptism scene. But it does make sense if the baptism scene is part of the prototype which the Marcionite gospel was built, but left out because of desire to separate Jesus from earthly endorsement by John. That is simply not explained by Klinghardt at all. I also think he does not explain why the Marcionite author would bother to denigrate John in Luke 7:17-28 if there was no baptism. Why even mention him? The gospel is about Jesus, and except for that interaction John doesn't matter. I further think the evidence for Mark creating stories out of whole clothe is ridiculous, as he lacks the understand of the OT from which the stories are derived. There are simply too many holes in Klinghardt's theory for this section.

[Giuseppe]

But it does make sense if the baptism scene is part of the prototype which the Marcionite gospel was built, but left out because of desire to separate Jesus from earthly endorsement by John. That is simply not explained by Klinghardt at all.

have you a valid explanation for the introduction of the baptism already in the earliest gospel? You can't simply give it as a brutum datum. How can you explain its fabrication without assuming a particular embarrassment for a Jesus baptized by John? My point is that the only justification able to justify a such high embarrassing price is the use of the baptism as anti-marcionite antidote.

[Stuart]

Wrong. The baptism is part of the last prophet theology and is highly developed, drawing from Isaiah and Malachi, by the time it enters the pre-gospel. It from an era before the Marcionite split. Mark in fact is ignorant of it's origin, as he messes up the his source attribution (makes it rather difficult to claim he dreampt it up as you do).

Your perception and that of Klinghardt places the Marcionite gospel too close to prototypes origins, upon which they built, freely moving material and rearranging order as they saw fit. Vinzent goes further and has the prototypes coming from Marcionite circles. But this would be a stark departure from the Pauline literature in Marcionite form, which shows many different sectarian views. This indicates the Marcionite rupture was not near the origin, but after generations.

To claim that Mark's baptism is original, you need to demonstrate his understanding of prophecy (which is very weak). Simply not done.

[Giuseppe]

I also think he does not explain why the Marcionite author would bother to denigrate John in Luke 7:17-28 if there was no baptism. Why even mention him? The gospel is about Jesus, and except for that interaction John doesn't matter. I further think the evidence for Mark creating stories out of whole clothe is ridiculous, as he lacks the understand of the OT from which the stories are derived. There are simply too many holes in Klinghardt's theory for this section.

Klinghardt doesn't require to confute this your point above, since for him proto-Luke was not written by Marcion, hence Marcion inherited a gospel where the Baptist was mentioned (only not, absolutely not, at the incipit).

Where you are going directly against Klinghardt's view is when you write:

The biggest problem with seeing the Baptism as anti-Marcionite is that you are left to explain the question of authority, when Jesus asks where John's Baptism comes from to his religious opponents, represented by the Chief Priests. It is without context if there is no baptism scene. But it does make sense if the baptism scene is part of the prototype which the Marcionite gospel was built, but left out because of desire to separate Jesus from earthly endorsement by John. That is simply not explained by Klinghardt at all.

Now I will quote Klinghardt about the Question of Authority, where he proves that Mark comes after Marcion even there:

Or — this case can also be made plausible — Tertullian referenced the *Ev-text accurately, since an inadvertent entry of 'Pharisees' from the Synoptic parallels is impossible because they are not even mentioned there: Mark has 11,27 οἱ ἀρχιερεῖς καὶ οἱ γραμματεῖς καὶ οἱ πρεσβύτεροι; and Matt 21,23 has οἱ ἀρχιερεῖς καὶ οἱ πρεσβύτεροι τοῦ λαοῦ. The Lukan formulation follows Mark; the 'chief priests, scribes, and elders' are the questioners, a designation that meaningfully realizes the editorial concept in which the various groups of adversaries in the Jerusalem disputations are successively presented.

A corresponding editorial interest in changing the conversation partners according to the Mark-text is also suggested by Luke keeping the Pharisees (since Jesus' entry into Jerusalem) from partaking in the plot against Jesus. Regarding the question about paying taxes to the emperor 20,20-26, Luke also mentions those 'who pretended to be righteous' (ὑποκρινομένους ἑαυτοὺς δικαίους εἶναι) instead of the Pharisees cited in Matt 22,13 || Mark 12,13. The criterion of higher editorial plausibility suggests that *Ev mentioned the Pharisees as Jesus' conversation partners, and that Tertullian's presentation is accurate. This means that in Mark 11,27 already, the 'Pharisees' of the *Ev-text were replaced by 'the chief priests and the scribes and the elders'. The replacement is plausible, since Mark had indeed introduced the Jerusalem 'temple-authorities' into the account of cleansing the temple (Mark 11,15-19). That means, on the other hand, that the Pharisees cited in *Ev — during Jesus' entry into Jerusalem and during the first described activity in the temple — acted as Jesus' adversaries.

(Matthias Klinghardt, The Oldest Gospel and the Formation of the Canonical Gospels, p. 1058-1059, my bold)


Now about the origin of the baptism of John:

*Ev presumes that John baptized and that he was known as the baptizer, but he does not relate anything about it.
The presumption of specific, text-external knowledge constitues an unmistakable literary inconsistency. Such a defect of coherency may have only two explanations. Either it conveys the sloppy carelessness of the compositional approach, or the author expected that this knowledge about John's ministry as a baptizer be recognized by the intended readers as a matter of course. In any case, the John-the-Baptist tradition in the canonical Gospels demonstrates a tendency of picking up these loose narrative ends and merging them in an account of correlating facts. Mark and Matthew did this already by inserting their John-the-Baptist narratives; Luke, moreover, imparted also the Pharisees' refusal to submit to this baptism of repentance, and he reflected on that in a theological evaluation. The significantly higher narrative coherency of Luke in comparison with *Ev is a clear indication for the editorial direction advancing from *Ev to Luke.

(ibid., p 1061-1062, my bold)

Hence Stuart you can't even confute Klinghardt by insisting that a lost gospel preceded proto-Luke, one where the baptism of Jesus by John was in the incipit and was removed by Marcion, since the mere presence of the baptism of Jesus by John is designed to remove the literary inconsistency found in proto-Luke.

[Stuart]

I also think he does not explain why the Marcionite author would bother to denigrate John in Luke 7:17-28 if there was no baptism. Why even mention him? The gospel is about Jesus, and except for that interaction John doesn't matter. I further think the evidence for Mark creating stories out of whole clothe is ridiculous, as he lacks the understand of the OT from which the stories are derived. There are simply too many holes in Klinghardt's theory for this section.

Klinghardt doesn't require to confute this your point above, since for him proto-Luke was not written by Marcion, hence Marcion inherited a gospel where the Baptist was mentioned (only not, absolutely not, at the incipit).

Where you are going directly against Klinghardt's view is when you write:

This is an argument by model, which is by definition circular. Internal evidence points stringly in the opposite direction.

The biggest problem with seeing the Baptism as anti-Marcionite is that you are left to explain the question of authority, when Jesus asks where John's Baptism comes from to his religious opponents, represented by the Chief Priests. It is without context if there is no baptism scene. But it does make sense if the baptism scene is part of the prototype which the Marcionite gospel was built, but left out because of desire to separate Jesus from earthly endorsement by John. That is simply not explained by Klinghardt at all.

Now I will quote Klinghardt about the Question of Authority, where he proves that Mark comes after Marcion even there:

Or — this case can also be made plausible — Tertullian referenced the *Ev-text accurately, since an inadvertent entry of 'Pharisees' from the Synoptic parallels is impossible because they are not even mentioned there: Mark has 11,27 οἱ ἀρχιερεῖς καὶ οἱ γραμματεῖς καὶ οἱ πρεσβύτεροι; and Matt 21,23 has οἱ ἀρχιερεῖς καὶ οἱ πρεσβύτεροι τοῦ λαοῦ. The Lukan formulation follows Mark; the 'chief priests, scribes, and elders' are the questioners, a designation that meaningfully realizes the editorial concept in which the various groups of adversaries in the Jerusalem disputations are successively presented.

A corresponding editorial interest in changing the conversation partners according to the Mark-text is also suggested by Luke keeping the Pharisees (since Jesus' entry into Jerusalem) from partaking in the plot against Jesus. Regarding the question about paying taxes to the emperor 20,20-26, Luke also mentions those 'who pretended to be righteous' (ὑποκρινομένους ἑαυτοὺς δικαίους εἶναι) instead of the Pharisees cited in Matt 22,13 || Mark 12,13. The criterion of higher editorial plausibility suggests that *Ev mentioned the Pharisees as Jesus' conversation partners, and that Tertullian's presentation is accurate. This means that in Mark 11,27 already, the 'Pharisees' of the *Ev-text were replaced by 'the chief priests and the scribes and the elders'. The replacement is plausible, since Mark had indeed introduced the Jerusalem 'temple-authorities' into the account of cleansing the temple (Mark 11,15-19). That means, on the other hand, that the Pharisees cited in *Ev — during Jesus' entry into Jerusalem and during the first described activity in the temple — acted as Jesus' adversaries.

(Matthias Klinghardt, The Oldest Gospel and the Formation of the Canonical Gospels, p. 1058-1059, my bold)

Klinghardt does not in fact address the baptism itself, that is who it is that is that was baptized by John, and why his authority matters, and thus it's origins matter. If he's just baptizing regular folks then it's not a point of concern. But if he baptized the Christ, then it is a great issue and it directly reflects upon Jesus. Common sense tells us this questioning is really about Jesus, as all the questioning by the religious authorities (IMO stand-ins for the author's Christian critics) is directed at Jesus to attempt to discredit him and undermine his claim to authority.

We see the same question about paying taxes to the Romans. It is asking a question of real importance, seeking theological support for doing so or not. It was put as a challenge to Jesus, but the real challenge was to Christians. It was answered by bifurcating reality into realms, one of God and one of earthly rulers, where one respects the realm. This answer cause "embarrassment", such that Peter drawing a coin from a fish so as not to have Jesus himself defiled by paying the temple tax --actually a reference to fiscus Iudaicus-- (Matthew 17:27).

But this question about John's authority singularly stands apart among challenges as not being at all about Jesus in Klinghardt's reading. That is wrong.

My view the question was left in the text because the Marcionite redactor and author did not see the immediate problem. But Tertullian writing at the turn of 3rd century, when examining the passage says of the Christ "belonged to Him whose sacrament John was administering" (AM 4.38.2), the sacrament is clearly his Baptism. In chapter 10 of On Baptism, Tertillian again refers to the authority as being heavenly and then transferred to Christ, at which point onward his prophecy failed. The early church understood the issue of the John's authority was about his baptism of Jesus. So did the earliest anti-Marcionite writers.

Now about the origin of the baptism of John:

*Ev presumes that John baptized and that he was known as the baptizer, but he does not relate anything about it.
The presumption of specific, text-external knowledge constitutes an unmistakable literary inconsistency. Such a defect of coherency may have only two explanations. Either it conveys the sloppy carelessness of the compositional approach, or the author expected that this knowledge about John's ministry as a baptizer be recognized by the intended readers as a matter of course. In any case, the John-the-Baptist tradition in the canonical Gospels demonstrates a tendency of picking up these loose narrative ends and merging them in an account of correlating facts. Mark and Matthew did this already by inserting their John-the-Baptist narratives; Luke, moreover, imparted also the Pharisees' refusal to submit to this baptism of repentance, and he reflected on that in a theological evaluation. The significantly higher narrative coherency of Luke in comparison with *Ev is a clear indication for the editorial direction advancing from *Ev to Luke.

(ibid., p 1061-1062, my bold)

Hence Stuart you can't even confute Klinghardt by insisting that a lost gospel preceded proto-Luke, one where the baptism of Jesus by John was in the incipient and was removed by Marcion, since the mere presence of the baptism of Jesus by John is designed to remove the literary inconsistency found in proto-Luke.

This is a conclusion based on incorrect reading of evidence above. And again you appeal to model. Model is being used to "define" as a device to declare challenges out of bounds. But the model is far from proven, and far from accepted, even by those scholars of Marcionite studies.

One of the weaknesses of Klinghardt's model is that is requires the other gospels to have known it and derived from it. But no such contact can be presumed. This is a logical fallacy, as other explanations exist.

Finally, I am not in the least convinced that all the gospels knew of all the prior gospels nor even the Marcionite. They didn't need to to explain their content and editorial adjustments.

[Giuseppe]

it's origins matter. If he's just baptizing regular folks then it's not a point of concern. But if he baptized the Christ, then it is a great issue and it directly reflects upon Jesus.

You seem to do a great point supporting your view.

But Klinghardt admonishes caution. He writes:

A small but important detail about the literary character of *Ev lies in *20,4-6. Jesus' question and the Pharisees' quiet contemplation about answering-alternatibes not only require knowledge about the baptism by John, but also about the Pharisees' refusal to subject themselves to it. Neither of these elements were part of *Ev; they were added by the Lukan redaction: Luke 3,3.7-9 and 7,30 were certainly (or most probably) absent (see there). It is obvious, on the other hand, that within this context Tertullian had read the corresponding references in *20,4-6 at least in substance (baptisma Ioannis, quare non credidistis ei). The phenomenon correlates to the designation of John as ὁ βαπτιστής (*7,17, see there): *Ev presumes that John baptized and that he was known as the baptizer, but he does not anything about it.

(ibid., p. 1061)

Have you a Markan equivalent for Luke 7:30 ?

But the Pharisees and lawyers rejected the counsel of God against themselves, being not baptized of him.

No, you don't have it for Mark. But it is a FACT that Luke 7:30 has been added by Luke against Marcion.


Hence, how do you explain the fact that in Marcion we have:

If we say 'from heaven', he will say 'Why then did you not believe him?'

...without something of similar to the post-marcionite interpolation Luke 7:30 ?

My point is that, according to your logic, just as you claim to have inferred, from the mere presence in Marcion of Luke 20:1-8, the presence in a previous gospel of the baptism of Jesus by John in the incipit, then accordingly you are obliged to assume, in this your presumed lost previous gospel, the presence of something of similar to Luke 7:30, contra factum that Luke 7:30 is clearly a post-marcionite interpolation.

Don't you note a contradiction in your logic, here?

If you recognize that the Pharisaic opposition to John is post-marcionite (Luke 7:30 being blatantly an anti-marcionite interpolation), then you have to recognize accordingly that also the baptism of Jesus by John in the incipit is exquisitely post-marcionite.