More I think about it, more I am persuaded that Marcion (beyond of what he was or represented) has marked so strongly the other gospels (the incipit of Mark in primis) that, even if there were pre-marcionite traditions incapsulated inside our gospels masked as episodes and/or sayings, they are in the form of disiecta membra without a real logical order or recognizable pattern behind them. The rest is all artificially designed to polemize against Marcion.
Hence I will start the reading of the next book of prof Vinzent with this question in mind: until what measure the Marcionite priority has broken any hope of finding a sense in presumed pre-marcionite fragments of a story inevitably affected, velim nolim, by the marcionite invasion?
The loss of sense strikes both mythicists and historicists: it strikes the mythicists, because the artificial fabrication of a fictitious figure would require a sense behind all, and it strikes the historicists, because the belief that some traditions dated back to a Jesus crucified under Pilate would require so much "faith" as and more than what is sufficient to believe differently.
What is the modern attachment to the Markan priority, if not the fear that the acceptation of the Marcionite priority can break the belief in the sense of the story, for both mythicists and historicists?
It is impossible to escape from Marcionite priority
-
schillingklaus
- Posts: 645
- Joined: Sat Dec 11, 2021 11:17 pm
Re: It is impossible to escape from Marcionite priority
It can only strike pseudo-mythicists like Sinouhe, who believe in pro-demiurgist origins of Christianity.
Those who realize the anti-demiurgist origins, such as Gerardus Bolland, do not succumb to Markan prioritism like corpses to decay.
Those who realize the anti-demiurgist origins, such as Gerardus Bolland, do not succumb to Markan prioritism like corpses to decay.
-
davidmartin
- Posts: 1621
- Joined: Fri Jul 12, 2019 2:51 pm
Re: It is impossible to escape from Marcionite priority
that is all very well schillingklaus but mild anti-demiurgism blends into various existing stratums like Philo, the Therapeutea, who basically are looking at philosophy and the human condition. They say stuff like, oh God isn't jealous and they don't take that as evidence for a jealous demiurge
On the other side are the hard cheeses that think the truth lies within their more limited spectrum (which they magically happen to represent) - agreed the origins don't lie there... sure, but it's not binary, one thing or the other like childrens cartoon logic
no, it's only clearly recognisable as anti-demiurgist when its all amped up and plainly dualistic like Marcion and the Gnostics
so its perfectly reasonable to see an original that was nothing like as dual as Marcion and had not much of his final end position to it, it just blended right into a fairly standard philosophical mix of the time. maybe a little spicy, but not the ring of fire of a gnostic vindaloo
there is some evidence for that, or at least, you can re-arrange the puzzle pieces that way, which is what we are doing
that's why i dig the odes, they represent exactly what i'd expect to see if this were true
so the Marcion comes along and amps up the existing rejection of the bull in a china shop deity into a demiurge and John isn't far behind, this drags along the previous moderate element which shows up in the gospels quite legitimately half the time but agrees it's nothing Jewish anymore so happy to stomp the pharisees and even the disciples for not being mini-me church fathers. cause at the start it was probably just a strand of the eclectic 2nd temple spirituality, it wasn't Christianity TM, made in Rome at a quiche conclave with a guy in a turnip hat
and here's why no-one likes that thought...
cause it gives a legitimate origin to Christian origins so anyone with an agenda contra that is miffed!
it ruins the idea of a purely mythological origin so mythicists are butt hurt
it doesn't support an uber Judaic backstory so the Qumran style boot disk is worthless garbage
and for apologists nothing is good enough for them unless Jesus appears with his own signed copy of the bible
either there was a prior iteration of the movement X that said Y and it wasn't identical to what we see - and needs reconstructing, or there wasn't. the debate hasn't advanced to the place where we're free to talk about that it's all Marcion this or that. The debate is still largely in reconstructing it from the standpoint of later developments doubting there was an earlier phase at all. This is what's lost when we stop talking about the disciples as if they were real characters who might have existed and said Y in movement X
On the other side are the hard cheeses that think the truth lies within their more limited spectrum (which they magically happen to represent) - agreed the origins don't lie there... sure, but it's not binary, one thing or the other like childrens cartoon logic
no, it's only clearly recognisable as anti-demiurgist when its all amped up and plainly dualistic like Marcion and the Gnostics
so its perfectly reasonable to see an original that was nothing like as dual as Marcion and had not much of his final end position to it, it just blended right into a fairly standard philosophical mix of the time. maybe a little spicy, but not the ring of fire of a gnostic vindaloo
there is some evidence for that, or at least, you can re-arrange the puzzle pieces that way, which is what we are doing
that's why i dig the odes, they represent exactly what i'd expect to see if this were true
so the Marcion comes along and amps up the existing rejection of the bull in a china shop deity into a demiurge and John isn't far behind, this drags along the previous moderate element which shows up in the gospels quite legitimately half the time but agrees it's nothing Jewish anymore so happy to stomp the pharisees and even the disciples for not being mini-me church fathers. cause at the start it was probably just a strand of the eclectic 2nd temple spirituality, it wasn't Christianity TM, made in Rome at a quiche conclave with a guy in a turnip hat
and here's why no-one likes that thought...
cause it gives a legitimate origin to Christian origins so anyone with an agenda contra that is miffed!
it ruins the idea of a purely mythological origin so mythicists are butt hurt
it doesn't support an uber Judaic backstory so the Qumran style boot disk is worthless garbage
and for apologists nothing is good enough for them unless Jesus appears with his own signed copy of the bible
either there was a prior iteration of the movement X that said Y and it wasn't identical to what we see - and needs reconstructing, or there wasn't. the debate hasn't advanced to the place where we're free to talk about that it's all Marcion this or that. The debate is still largely in reconstructing it from the standpoint of later developments doubting there was an earlier phase at all. This is what's lost when we stop talking about the disciples as if they were real characters who might have existed and said Y in movement X
-
StephenGoranson
- Posts: 2608
- Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2015 2:10 am
Re: It is impossible to escape from Marcionite priority
davidmartin, I don't understand parts of your post above.
You think odes are key.
But, for example,
"....doesn't support an uber Judaic backstory so the Qumran style boot disk is worthless garbage...."
?
You think odes are key.
But, for example,
"....doesn't support an uber Judaic backstory so the Qumran style boot disk is worthless garbage...."
?
-
Leucius Charinus
- Posts: 2842
- Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 4:23 pm
- Location: memoriae damnatio
Re: It is impossible to escape from Marcionite priority
It's impossible to escape from one's assumptions
unless they are identified and made explicit.
What are the assumptions inherent in Marcionite priority?
EXAMPLES:
(1) An historical Marcion existed in the 2nd century as described by various "Fathers".
(2) The Gospel of Marcion was written by (1) but no copy survives
(3) The Gospel of Marcion can be reconstructed from the quotations found in the "Fathers".
(4) The Gospel of Marcion is "more primitive" than some of the other NT canonical stuff.
(5) Various other assumptions need to be made as a result of the "Fathers"
(6) Feel free to keep going .....
unless they are identified and made explicit.
What are the assumptions inherent in Marcionite priority?
EXAMPLES:
(1) An historical Marcion existed in the 2nd century as described by various "Fathers".
(2) The Gospel of Marcion was written by (1) but no copy survives
(3) The Gospel of Marcion can be reconstructed from the quotations found in the "Fathers".
(4) The Gospel of Marcion is "more primitive" than some of the other NT canonical stuff.
(5) Various other assumptions need to be made as a result of the "Fathers"
(6) Feel free to keep going .....
Re: It is impossible to escape from Marcionite priority
6) An early and unpublished Euangelion was stolen, and soon after the Synoptics appeared.
7) Per MV, when a story line theme is present within the Euangelion the Synoptics are highly in sync with it, and when not, they have each gone off in independent and unsyncrinized directions. These latter are the places where Gospel harmony fails to resonate.
8) Matthew's 'Sermon On The Mount' contains elements of Marcion's Antitheses.
9) The Dogma of Ignatius and Proto-Orthodoxy evolved as a consequence of and in refutation of Marcionite priority.
10) The Proto-Orthodox fabrication of a historical Apostolic succession evolved whereby to refute Marcion and deny his priority.
7) Per MV, when a story line theme is present within the Euangelion the Synoptics are highly in sync with it, and when not, they have each gone off in independent and unsyncrinized directions. These latter are the places where Gospel harmony fails to resonate.
8) Matthew's 'Sermon On The Mount' contains elements of Marcion's Antitheses.
9) The Dogma of Ignatius and Proto-Orthodoxy evolved as a consequence of and in refutation of Marcionite priority.
10) The Proto-Orthodox fabrication of a historical Apostolic succession evolved whereby to refute Marcion and deny his priority.
Re: It is impossible to escape from Marcionite priority
Could you please link me to data on point #7? I would really like to look into this.lsayre wrote: ↑Mon Dec 11, 2023 4:27 am 6) An early and unpublished Euangelion was stolen, and soon after the Synoptics appeared.
7) Per MV, when a story line theme is present within the Euangelion the Synoptics are highly in sync with it, and when not, they have each gone off in independent and unsyncrinized directions. These latter are the places where Gospel harmony fails to resonate.
8) Matthew's 'Sermon On The Mount' contains elements of Marcion's Antitheses.
9) The Dogma of Ignatius and Proto-Orthodoxy evolved as a consequence of and in refutation of Marcionite priority.
10) The Proto-Orthodox fabrication of a historical Apostolic succession evolved whereby to refute Marcion and deny his priority.
Lane
Re: It is impossible to escape from Marcionite priority
I'm working from memory, and may not be able to pin down the actual source for this, but I believe (with no guarantee due to lingering uncertainty as to source, but not as to content) that it may be an early youtube video of Markus Vinzent that had terrible audio. I will call for help here from the forum at large.
Re: It is impossible to escape from Marcionite priority
The written source would be Vinzent's 2014 book, 'Marcion and the Dating of the Synoptic Gospels' pp.255 ff.lsayre wrote: ↑Tue Dec 12, 2023 1:38 pmI'm working from memory, and may not be able to pin down the actual source for this, but I believe (with no guarantee due to lingering uncertainty as to source, but not as to content) that it may be an early youtube video of Markus Vinzent that had terrible audio. I will call for help here from the forum at large.
The quote is : "..we will discover a general rule that can be supported by a series of examples : more clearly than here with Luke very often where Marcion is missing, our three Synoptics are at variance, either entirely, or almost entirely as in the birthstories, but as soon as we know of verses which are attested for in Marcion, the Synoptics not only start getting closer, but they are often literally identical - following Marcion word by word, sometimes only with minimal, theological corrections. As soon as Marcion's texts end, however, our Synoptics begin to diverge again" (p.263).
While several examples are laid out here, AFAIK he has not followed it up with a more comprehensive demonstration.
And of course "word by word" is a bit disingenuous, it depends on which reconstruction you are using, as well as which version of an NT text. These days MV uses Klinghardt as his basic guide, but with numerous variations; as he sees it, Klinghardt is reconstructing the ur-gospel appropriated by Marcion, while he is more interested in the published-by-Marcion "copy that Tertullian had access to" [sic !]. And if you want to source that quote, treat yourself to MV's forty-page article, 'Methodological Assumptions in the Reconstruction of Marcion's Gospel : The Example of the Lord's Prayer'..........
Re: It is impossible to escape from Marcionite priority
Right on mbuckley, thanks.mbuckley3 wrote: ↑Tue Dec 12, 2023 6:18 pmThe written source would be Vinzent's 2014 book, 'Marcion and the Dating of the Synoptic Gospels' pp.255 ff.lsayre wrote: ↑Tue Dec 12, 2023 1:38 pmI'm working from memory, and may not be able to pin down the actual source for this, but I believe (with no guarantee due to lingering uncertainty as to source, but not as to content) that it may be an early youtube video of Markus Vinzent that had terrible audio. I will call for help here from the forum at large.
The quote is : "..we will discover a general rule that can be supported by a series of examples : more clearly than here with Luke very often where Marcion is missing, our three Synoptics are at variance, either entirely, or almost entirely as in the birthstories, but as soon as we know of verses which are attested for in Marcion, the Synoptics not only start getting closer, but they are often literally identical - following Marcion word by word, sometimes only with minimal, theological corrections. As soon as Marcion's texts end, however, our Synoptics begin to diverge again" (p.263).
While several examples are laid out here, AFAIK he has not followed it up with a more comprehensive demonstration.
And of course "word by word" is a bit disingenuous, it depends on which reconstruction you are using, as well as which version of an NT text. These days MV uses Klinghardt as his basic guide, but with numerous variations; as he sees it, Klinghardt is reconstructing the ur-gospel appropriated by Marcion, while he is more interested in the published-by-Marcion "copy that Tertullian had access to" [sic !]. And if you want to source that quote, treat yourself to MV's forty-page article, 'Methodological Assumptions in the Reconstruction of Marcion's Gospel : The Example of the Lord's Prayer'..........
Lane