Guy Fau: why Marcion precedes Mark

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
Post Reply
Giuseppe
Posts: 13732
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Guy Fau: why Marcion precedes Mark

Post by Giuseppe »


Mr. Weill-Raynal, - who admits after all that the Evangelion preceded Luke and Matthew - believes he can place Mark before the Evangelion. [86] His main argument is summarised in three points:

(a) Passages are found in the Evangelion that Mark does not contain (the 15th year of Tiberius, the meal with the Pharisees, the wicked rich man and poor Lazarus, the appearance before Herod), and 'it is not seen why, if Mark had found these passages in an earlier Evangelion, he would have suppressed them'; but it would be necessary to know the intention of Mark's writer, and this remains a much-debated point.

(b) The method of 'doublets' favours a priority of Mark: the argument would be serious if Mark formed a homogeneous whole, but it is no longer valid if disparate fragments are distinguished, some of which may predate the Evangelion in a later adaptation. But the author has already referred to Goguel's conclusion:[87] 'The priority of Mark's Gospel (in relation to Matthew and Luke) can and must be admitted, with this reservation, however, that that priority applies only to the Gospel taken as a whole, and not necessarily to each particular detail'.

c) Finally, the Evangelion comes from Antioch, and 'it seems improbable that the author of the Gospel of Mark, written in Rome according to a general opinion, used an Evangelion spread mainly in the East'. But all Christianity comes from the East, and the same objection would apply to Luke; it vanishes if Mark, like Luke, aims to supplant the Evangelion already introduced in Rome.

These arguments therefore seem to me to be of little consequence and I will try, on the contrary, to show that our Mark, - in its present state -, or at least a part of Mark, necessarily derives from the Evangelion.

One would first have to know when the Evangelion dates back to. It certainly predates the date on which it was imported to Rome: nothing prevents it from having existed in the East even before the proto-Mark known by Papias around 135. If it comes from a source identical to that of the gospel of Basilides, introduced in Alexandria around 120, one is induced to backtrack it to the early years of the 2nd century.

Secondly, if our Mark is much shorter than the other two synoptics, it does not differ substantially: it was written in the same spirit, i.e. as a weapon in the fight against Marcion and the Gnostics: this supposes a rupture already consummated, and still takes us back to around 150.

Finally, and this is what seems to me to be most decisive, if the author of Mark dropped (we do not know why) passages that he found in the Evangelion, he on the other hand retained some that necessarily came from Marcion, since they were turned against him, exactly as in Luke, and could not make sense in an earlier draft.



For example, only Marcion's anti-Judaism can explain the survival of these images, which have become inconsistent with the thesis of a fulfilment of Jewish law: "No one sews a piece of new cloth over an old garment, no one puts new wine into old wineskins. [88] The Christ of Marcion could well say: "I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners", [89] dispense from fasting, [90] proclaim himself master of the Sabbath; [91] contrary to the prescriptions of Jewish law, he could even touch a leper, [92] perform healings on the Sabbath day, [93] abolish the divorce permitted by Moses: [94] all this is contrary to Jewish law, which the Christ of Mark nevertheless claims to fulfil and confirm.

Some expressions included in Mark do not make sense unless one compares them with the Evangelion. For example, the Gnostic Christ could reproach Peter for having spoken evil by answering "You are the Christ", but it is not at all clear why, in Mark, that answer still provokes the wrath of Jesus, who forbids Peter to repeat that to anyone, and insults him by calling him "Satan". [95]

Similarly, Marcion's Christ, who had no earthly birth and descended from heaven, could well answer the tempters, "Who is my mother? Who are my brothers?" This denial, in Mark, would be hateful, if it were not devoid of sense: yet it has been preserved there. [96] The Christ of Marcion could well proclaim himself superior to David, but how is it that, in Mark, the descendant of David can call himself the "Lord of David"? [97]

All these expressions, we know, appeared in the Evangelion, where they formed a coherent whole, opposed to Jewish law and Davidic filiation. That they passed without correction into our Mark may seem surprising, but it is certain that the opposite is not possible.

Only from Marcion can finally come the expression, devoid of sense in Mark: "No one is good except the one God",[98] an expression that Origen explains:[99] for the Gnostics, the supreme God, sometimes also called the "one God", is not the creator of our evil world, he is an inferior demiurge who created this world; but this demiurge could not be called "good", he is himself evil as his behaviour in the Bible often shows. Only the supreme God is truly good. Worshipping the biblical creator and calling him 'good' actually amounts to committing a grave error and taking the side of Evil, of matter, of darkness. It may seem surprising that, in a dualistic system, the good God is called one God; but in the Christian religion there is also one God... and Satan. Can the children of Light recognise the divinity of Belial?



As can be seen, Mark necessarily derives from Marcion, and not the other way around. That it was derived before the other two synoptics and was used by the authors of the latter is very likely. But the primary source of all, in their present state, is Marcion's Evangelion.

That, moreover, our Mark contains in addition elements which predate Marcion, or which, in any case, do not come from him, is what we shall see in the next chapter: but it is then one of Mark's sources, not of the Mark which has come down to us, and which is later than 150.

If this were not so, if Mark had been written (in Rome) before the break with Marcion in 144, how is it that Justin would have no knowledge of such an important document?

(my quote and translation from Les puzzle des Evangiles)
Post Reply