neilgodfrey wrote: ↑Sun May 22, 2022 1:38 pm
I wonder if that mysterious "miracle' gap in the question of Paul in our scenarios is the elusive Marcion.
If I recall correctly, certain people have theorized that Marcion may have been a fiction (or a misunderstanding of references to Mark). Are you more familiar with such arguments than I am?
Anything is possible. But whoever or whatever Marcion was, the evidence of the dramatic explosions of new types of writings in the apparent wake of his innovation of "a New Testament corpus" indicates his historical or fictional status was a major turning point in Christian history. I think the contemporary reference to him in Justin indicates his historicity, but some have suggested Justin was a fiction, too!
eta:
If he were not a real person it would be necessary to invent him.
Giuseppe wrote: ↑Sun May 22, 2022 7:36 am
Of possible interest for a first answer to Sinohue's objections.
Yes, that is a good account of a contrarian reading of the Jewish scriptures on Marcion's part. We know how Jesus is not merely "found" in the Jewish scriptures according to our "orthodox" readings but he surpasses them. This surpassing of the OT was picked up by Marcion's opponents and used to establish the Jewish Scriptures as the "foreshadowing" of Christ -- a shadow of the real thing. Marcion, however, was opposing the real thing against the Jewish god's Scriptures. The opponents of Marcion turned that around to the shadow-reality concept.
neilgodfrey wrote: ↑Sun May 22, 2022 2:33 pm
Yes, that is a good account of a contrarian reading of the Jewish scriptures on Marcion's part. We know how Jesus is not merely "found" in the Jewish scriptures according to our "orthodox" readings but he surpasses them. This surpassing of the OT was picked up by Marcion's opponents and used to establish the Jewish Scriptures as the "foreshadowing" of Christ -- a shadow of the real thing. Marcion, however, was opposing the real thing against the Jewish god's Scriptures. The opponents of Marcion turned that around to the shadow-reality concept.
Vinzent has said (in at least two different articles that I know of) that he thinks Marcion was Jewish or raised Jewish eg. he refers to Marcion was a "Jewish teacher" in an article when he says "Why did he, like so many other Jewish teachers later considered Christians, move to Rome after the war?" (which may also be a reason he was side-lined as a heretic ie. he was not just seen a 'Christian' "heretic")
Also, in terms of framing this, I was recently reading April DeConick discussing differences in Valentinian theology (ie. b/w eastern and western Valentinianism), and between Valentinian and Sethian theologies, and she framed some of them as counterpoint/s and counterparts (and seemed to do so in three way comparisons). Those terms might be an interesting way of teasing or trying to tease apart (i) Marcion vs the Jewish scriptures and his stated perceptions of the Jewish god, YHWH(?), and (ii) Marcion's stated or perceived new theology (involving his Jesus) vs those of his opponents (who may or may not include some or all of the authors of the canonical gospels)
MrMacSon wrote: ↑Sun May 22, 2022 6:29 pm
Vinzent has said (in at least two different articles that I know of) that he thinks Marcion was Jewish or raised Jewish
Yes, that's quite plausible. Gnosticism itself began as Jewish engagement with (in order to repudiate) Jewish Scriptures and Marcion's ideas are certainly part of that scenario. And I think it more likely than not that the earliest gospel narrative appeared only after the Bar Kochba war -- again, as a repudiation of the Judeans' god.
Giuseppe wrote: ↑Sun May 22, 2022 7:36 am
Of possible interest for a first answer to Sinohue's objections.
Mention is made in that article from Markus Vinzent that he has available on academia.edu an article on Marcion, the Jew. I've requested the article as it's not available for automatic download. Thanks for the link.
Last edited by maryhelena on Sun May 22, 2022 10:10 pm, edited 1 time in total.
If you're looking for the Chapter in the same book, which is highly likely, then here is its citation:
MOLL, Sebastian. “Which Paul Did Marcion Know?” Studia Patristica. Vol. XCIX - Marcion of Sinope as Religious Entrepreneur, edited by MARKUS VINZENT, vol. 99, Peeters Publishers, 2018, pp. 109–14. JSTOR, https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctv1q26tfc.10. Accessed 23 May 2022.
I have a copy of Moll's PhD thesis: The University of Edinburgh, 2009 (found that online years ago....) I searched for Dennis MacDonald which, according to your link, he mentions in this later article (2018) - no luck. The book is the published thesis.
At the Left Hand of Christ:
The Arch-Heretic Marcion
by
Sebastian Moll
neilgodfrey wrote: ↑Sun May 22, 2022 1:25 pm
The reaction of the canonical authors to Marcion was not to introduce and replace Marcion's gospel by the introduction of a Jewish Scripture midrash etc, but to claim the story in a way that reclaimed the Jewish Scriptures as a "prophetic foundation" for their faith. Marcion appears to have used the Scriptures to draw attention to the superiority of the god of Jesus.
This is interesting and can certainly explain certain allusions or midrash in Gmarcion. But it is far from explaining all the allusions. Especially the pesharim, which are meant to show that Jesus fulfilled the writings of the prophets.
I am also thinking of certain problems that may arise from this Gmarcion priority.
In particular the "editorial fatigue" that Goodacre presented in his book. His examples are valid also with GMarcion and seem to demonstrate that Mark and Matthew are earlier than Marcion.
Mark Goodacre - Fatigue in the Synoptics :
For a second example of Lucan fatigue, it will be instructive to look at the Healing of the Paralytic (Matt 9.1-8 // Mark 2.1-12 // [50] Luke 5.17-26), to which Michael Goulder has drawn attention. (17) Here Luke omits to mention entry into a house, unlike Mark in 2.1 which has the subsequent comment that 'Many were gathered together, so that there was no longer room for them, not even about the door' (Mark 2.2). In agreement with Mark, however, Luke has plot developments that require Jesus to be in a crowded house of exactly the kind Mark mentions:
- Mark 2.4: 'And when they could not get near him because of the crowd, they removed the roof above him; and when they had made an opening, they let down the pallet on which the paralytic lay.'
- Luke 5.19: 'Finding no way to bring him in, because of the crowd, they went up on the roof and let him down with his bed through the tiles into the midst before Jesus.'
There are obvious difficulties here similar to those that Matthew has with Jesus' Mother and Brothers (above): continuity errors like this are natural when a writer is dependent on the work of another. Luke omits to mention Mark's house and his inadvertence results in men ascending the roof of a house that Jesus has not entered. (18)
It might be added, as further evidence from the same pericope, that Luke has the scribes and the Pharisees debating not, as in Mark, 'in their hearts' (en taiV kardiaiV autwn, Mark 2.6) but, apparently, aloud (dialogizesqai . . . legonteV, Luke 5.21). This is in spite of the fact that Jesus goes on to question them, in both Luke and Mark, why they have been debating 'in' their 'hearts' (en taiV kardiaiV umwn, Mark 2.8 // Luke 5.22). (19) The latter phrase has simply come in, by fatigue, from Mark. (20)
Capture d’écran 2022-05-23 à 08.40.08.png (56.56 KiB) Viewed 1081 times
And this example :
Mark Goodacre - Fatigue in the Synoptics
The best example of the phenomenon, though, is Luke's version of the Feeding of the Five Thousand (Matt 14.13-21 // Mark 6.30-44 // Luke 9.10-17). In spite of, or perhaps because of, the familiarity of the story, a feature in Luke's account is sometimes [51] missed. (21) Mark says that the disciples go away with Jesus into a desert place (eiV erhmon topon, Mark 6.31). Luke, however, resets the scene in 'a city (poliV) called Bethsaida'. (22) This then causes all sorts of problems when Luke goes on to agree with Mark:
- Mark 6.35b-36: 'And when the hour was already becoming late, his disciples having approached him were saying, "This is a desert place (erhmoV estin o topoV) and already the hour is late; send them away so that they may go into the surrounding country and villages to buy something for themselves to eat."'
- Luke 9.12: 'And the day began to draw in and the twelve having approached him said, "Send away the crowd, so that they may go into the surrounding villages and countryside to lodge and find provisions because we are here in a desert place (wde en erhmw topw esmen)."'
The adjective used by both Mark and Luke is erhmoV, lonely, desolate, abandoned.
Clearly it is nonsense to say 'we are here in a desolate place' when in the Lucan setting they are not. After all, if the crowd were in a city, they would not need to go to the surrounding villages and countryside to find food and lodging. (23)
Further, since in Bethsaida food and lodging ought to be close to hand, Luke's comment that the day was drawing to a close lacks any relevance and, consequently, the feeding lacks the immediate motive that it has in Mark. In short, by relocating the Feeding of the Five Thousand, without being able to sustain the new setting with its fresh implications throughout, Luke has spoilt the story. (24)
In fact we can even find the same kind of problem in the double tradition, letting appear a dependence of Marcion on the Gospel of Matthew :
Mark Goodacre - Fatigue in the synoptics
Let us look at two pericopae, first (36) Matt 10.5-15 // Mark 6.6b-13 // Luke 9.1-6 (Mission Charge). (37) The relevant section is Luke 9.4-5:
- Luke 9.4-5: And into whatever house (oikian) you enter, stay there, and from there depart. And wherever they do not receive you, as you leave that [55] town (thV polewV ekeinhV), shake the dust from your feet as a testimony against them.'
'As you leave that town,' Jesus says. The reader naturally asks, 'Which town?' - none has been mentioned in the previous verses. The answer to the question is found in Matthew. His version of this passage reads:
- Matt 10.11: And whatever town (polin) or village you enter, find out who is worthy in it, and stay with them until you depart.
12. As you enter the house (thn oikian), salute it . . .
14. And if anyone will not receive you or listen to your words, as you leave that house or town (thV oikiaV h thV polewV ekeinhV), shake off the dust from your feet.'
It seems likely that Luke has imagined the disciples in a town, the one mentioned in Matthew, but he has forgotten that he omitted to mention entry into that town. Once more, editorial fatigue will explain the incongruity but this time there may be a cost: the suggestion of Lucan dependence on Matthew. (38)
Another one :
Mark Goodacre - Fatigue in the synoptics
For a second example from double tradition, it will be fruitful to turn to the Parable of the Talents/Pounds (Matt 25.14-30 // Luke 19.11-27). (39) The Matthean version of the parable is deservedly the more popular of the two, for it is simpler, more coherent and easier to follow. There are three servants; one receives five talents, one two and the other one. The first makes five more talents and is rewarded, the second two more and is rewarded; the other hides his talent and is punished.
The Lucan version begins with ten servants and all receive one pound. When the nobleman returns, he summons the servants and we hear about 'the first' (19.16), 'the second' (19.18) and amazingly, 'the other', o eteroV (19.20). (40) It turns out, then, that Luke has three servants in mind, like Matthew, and not ten after all. (41)
Further, in Luke's parable, the first two servants receive 'cities' [56] as their reward (19.17, 19), the first ten and the second five, whereas in Matthew they are 'put in charge of much' (25.21, 23). It is striking then that Luke seems to share Matthew's story-line towards the end of the parable:
Matt 25.28: 'So take the talent from him and give it to him who has the ten talents.'
Luke 19.24: 'Take the pound from him and give it to him who has the ten pounds.' (42)
The account lacks cohesion: the man in Luke actually has ten cities now, so a pound extra is nothing (43) and, in any case, he does not have ten pounds but eleven (19.16: 'your pound made ten pounds more'; contrast Matt 25.20). (44)
Luke's version of the Parable, then, does not hold together well (45) and there is a straightforward explanation to hand: Luke has attempted to reframe the parable that he found in Matthew but his ambition, on this occasion, exceeds his capability. Editorial fatigue soon drags the plot of the parable back to Matthew, with its three coherent servants, the first earning his five coherent talents.
Or these ones :
Mark Goodacre - Fatigue in the synoptics
Other, similar examples from the double tradition could be adduced. Among them are Matt 8.5-13 // Luke 7.1-10 in which Luke begins by describing the Centurion's boy as a douloV (Luke 7.2-3; cf. 7.10) but continues with paiV (Luke 7.7), in agreement with Matthew who calls him paiV throughout (Matt 8.6, 8, 13). (46)
Or in Matt 13.16-17 // Luke 10.23-24, Luke apparently begins by dropping 'and your ears because they hear' as inappropriate, only to include the related clause in the next verse. (47)
Or in Matt 18.6-9 // Luke 17.1-2 (cf. Mark 9.42-48), Luke, unlike Matthew, has no referent for toutwn.
In fact, Marcion's theory of primacy does not fit well with the Farrer hypothesis or the Markan priority.
How would we explain all these problems if GMarcion is the first gospel ?
Sinouhe wrote: ↑Sun May 22, 2022 11:09 pm
How would we explain all these problems if GMarcion is the first gospel ?
Are you assuming that our Luke = Marcion's gospel plus redactions?
But what if our "Luke" was using Marcion's gospel as his primary source instead of our Mark or Matthew? -- would not then the signs of fatigue relate to Marcion's original rather than with the Gospels of Mark or Matthew?
