Peter Kirby wrote:
Can you give some examples of the priority of the Marcionite Gospel to the Gospel of Mark, what changes were made, why, and perhaps even why that makes more sense?
I can't. I'm more interested in the fact that several scholars are tying the synoptics to a Marcionite Gospel.
I think that is profound. It raises the question of what came before Marcion if the synoptics didn't, among other things.
Peter Kirby wrote:
Can you give some examples of the priority of the Marcionite Gospel to the Gospel of Mark, what changes were made, why, and perhaps even why that makes more sense?
I can't. I'm more interested in the fact that several scholars are tying the synoptics to a Marcionite Gospel.
I think that is profound. It raises the question of what came before Marcion if the synoptics didn't, among other things.
It first raises the question of whether it is true.
"... almost every critical biblical position was earlier advanced by skeptics." - Raymond Brown
MrMacSon wrote:With that being Marcion's theology, and with several scholars in recent years arguing that Marcion's theology preceded the writing of the synoptic gospels - Jason BeDuhn1, Markus Vinzent2, and Matthias Klinghard3 - to add to the similar previous arguments of Joseph B Tyson (2006)4, John Knox (1940s)5, and even Charles B Waite in the 1880s6, it would seem reasonable to propose that....
MrMacSon wrote:"Vinzent’s views are unique* in the renewed debates concerning Marcion’s Gospel in that he believes that Marcion wrote the first Gospel ever written and that all four of our canonical Gospels used Marcion’s Gospel as a source. In his own words, 'Marcion, who created the new literary genre of the ‘Gospel’ and also gave the work this title, had no historical precedent in the combination of Christ’s sayings and narratives' (p. 277). .... https://larryhurtado.wordpress.com/2015 ... n-marcion/
If Vinzent's views on Marcion preceding all four canonical gospels are unique* ...
* Hurtado said that 2 yrs ago. We're getting this stuff 2nd hand.
Well, that makes sense; things can either change or get more entrenched over the span of two years. I guess I am just interested in tracking down the actual arguments.
ETA: To be clear, I am familiar with a few arguments both for and against the proposition that the/a Marcionite gospel preceded Luke; and I even have some opinions on that intertextual relationship. I am not as familiar with arguments for or against the proposition that the/a Marcionite gospel preceded Matthew, Mark, and/or John; nor do I have any real opinion worth defending on that topic as of yet. Hence my interest in tracking down the arguments that are being made on that front.
Peter Kirby wrote:
It first raises the question of whether it is true.
Whether the synoptics arose subsequent to or concurrent with a Marcionite Gospel? Sure. But it give 'the academy' something concrete to sink their teeth into.
Ben C. Smith wrote:
... I guess I am just interested in tracking down the actual arguments.
eta: To be clear, I am familiar with a few arguments both for and against the proposition that the/a Marcionite gospel preceded Luke; and I even have some opinions on that intertextual relationship. I am not as familiar with arguments for or against the proposition that the/a Marcionite gospel preceded Matthew, Mark, and/or John; nor do I have any real opinion worth defending on that topic as of yet. Hence my interest in tracking down the arguments that are being made on that front.
I appreciate that. I am interested in making people aware of the arguments that are being made to increase interest for wider investigation and discussion.
It will be interesting to see how academia processes it all over the next few years.
Peter Kirby wrote:
It first raises the question of whether it is true.
Whether the synoptics arose subsequent to or concurrent with a Marcionite Gospel? Sure.
So... to beat a dead horse here... have we found any reasons to believe that a Marcionite Gospel came first (before the synoptics, before Mark)? I guess you're personally unaware, at this moment? Would you be willing to look into it?
That would... uh... help 'make people aware of the arguments', pretty directly.
"... almost every critical biblical position was earlier advanced by skeptics." - Raymond Brown
Thanks. From your links, we can find a couple "older" works -- Klinghardt (2008) and Roth (2009) -- online in English.
Klinghardt offers this diagram:
In 2008, Klinghardt was noncommittal regarding the relative priority of Mcn and Mark. Without argument, he offered an account under Markan priority:
Roth takes no position on the matter, although we can be assured that the (now-humble) assumption of Marcionite priority to canonical Luke has venerable lineage, stretching back a long time before any recent spate of interest.
Knowledge of German and a good interlibrary loan may be advised for the one who wants to track down Klinghardt's latest.
"... almost every critical biblical position was earlier advanced by skeptics." - Raymond Brown
Thanks. From your links, we can find a couple "older" works -- Klinghardt (2008) and Roth (2009) -- online in English.
In 2008, Klinghardt was noncommittal regarding the relative priority of Mcn and Mark. Without argument, he offered an account under Markan priority...
I'm pretty sure Klinghardt has shifted on that. Klinghardt may have shifted on that.
Peter Kirby wrote:
.. we can be assured that the (now-humble) assumption of Marcionite priority to canonical Luke has venerable lineage, stretching back a long time before any recent spate of interest.
Yep, eg. Waite in the 1880s, and Tyson's supervisor/mentor Knox in the 1940s, at least.
Last edited by MrMacSon on Sun May 07, 2017 7:57 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Thanks. From your links, we can find a couple "older" works -- Klinghardt (2008) and Roth (2009) -- online in English.
That Klinghardt article is the one that Ken Olson criticizes (calling it a "methodological nightmare") right here on this forum: viewtopic.php?f=3&t=2159&p=48234#p48234 and viewtopic.php?f=3&t=2159&p=48396#p48396. I know that when I read the article (before reading Olson's comments about it) I came away with a similar feeling about the methodology. I say this as someone who is fairly convinced that the Marcionite gospel is not simply a revision of Luke.
That Roth thesis is what preceded his book, The Text of Marcion’s Gospel, which is what I used in the main for my reconstruction of Marcion's gospel: viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1765. As you say, he takes no position on Marcionite priority vis-à-vis Mark.
