The Celestial Messiah in the parables of Enoch

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

Re: The Celestial Messiah in the parables of Enoch

Post by Giuseppe »

Please Sinohue don't cite Matthew.

While the Mark's priority is yet for me a plausible theory, however I have no intention of defending Mark's priority by defending, in the same time, Matthew's priority on Mcn.

If Markan priority implies necessarily Matthean priority over Mcn, then so much worse for Markan priority!

The birth stories in Matthew are pure anti-marcionite inventions, sic et simpliciter.

So the real challenge has to be only between Mark and Mcn.

Matthew, John and our Luke just don't matter. They come after Mark and Mcn in all the possible cases.
User avatar
mlinssen
Posts: 3431
Joined: Tue Aug 06, 2019 11:01 am
Location: The Netherlands
Contact:

Re: The Celestial Messiah in the parables of Enoch

Post by mlinssen »

Sinouhe wrote: Mon May 23, 2022 1:31 am
mlinssen wrote: Mon May 23, 2022 1:26 am
If I understand you correctly, you currently assert that among others Goodacre demonstrates Luke to be dependent on Matthew, which would somehow rule out Marcionite priority?

Exactly how? Someone must have redacted Marcion into Luke - what if that were Matthew himself?
Wouldn't that be the most straightforward and sensible solution to all of the Synoptic Problem? It would explain how sometimes Luke depends on Matthew, and sometimes vice versa
I don't know about you, but apparently Neil thinks that Marcion is the first gospel.
Prior to Mark, Mt and Lk.

If we take a reconstruction of Marcion, then we find signs of editions of Marcion coming from the text of Mark.
And signs of editions of Marcion coming from the text of Matthew.
Not the other way around.

How then can we explain that Marcion was written before Mark and Mt if his text shows signs of dependence on Matthew and Mark?
I bought the 200+ euro/ 1,400+ page Klinghardt book. And I am completely convinced - but long before they it was evident to me that Thomas precedes all of the NT, so I didn't need a lot of convincing. I clearly see Mark depends on Marcion as well with e.g. his seed growing secretly, where Matthew took the cult straight from Thomas / Marcion

Can you give 1 example of Marcion depending on any of the NT? Not all of them are clear-cut examples
User avatar
Sinouhe
Posts: 495
Joined: Tue Dec 28, 2021 1:12 pm

Re: The Celestial Messiah in the parables of Enoch

Post by Sinouhe »

Giuseppe wrote: Mon May 23, 2022 3:09 am Please Sinohue don't cite Matthew.

While the Mark's priority is yet for me a plausible theory, however I have no intention of defending Mark's priority by defending, in the same time, Matthew's priority on Mcn.

If Markan priority implies necessarily Matthean priority over Mcn, then so much worse for Markan priority!

The birth stories in Matthew are pure anti-marcionite inventions, sic et simpliciter.

So the real challenge has to be only between Mark and Mcn.

Matthew, John and our Luke just don't matter. They come after Mark and Mcn in all the possible cases.
Sorry Giuseppe but i will cite Matthew and others as long as i think it predates Marcion. I don't have an agenda here.
Marcion priority would be the best solution possible for me to explain everything.
But i will not use a false theory (imo) just because it is more convenient for me.
Can you give 1 example of Marcion depending on any of the NT? Not all of them are clear-cut examples

I did here : viewtopic.php?p=137953#p137953

You just have to replace the word Luke with Marcion in the Goodacre text.

I will test the Marcion priority with more examples. I will put my results here later.
User avatar
neilgodfrey
Posts: 6161
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 4:08 pm

Re: The Celestial Messiah in the parables of Enoch

Post by neilgodfrey »

Sinouhe wrote: Mon May 23, 2022 1:48 am Yea we could explain these dependencies of Marcion on Mark and Mt. by the fact that GMarcion we have is a version corrupted by Luke, by a confusion of the church fathers between the 2 texts by example.
But this complicates the case.
But it coheres with the external evidence so elegantly. Can we reconcile the data rather than ditching one lot in favour of the other?
Giuseppe
Posts: 13732
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: The Celestial Messiah in the parables of Enoch

Post by Giuseppe »

Sinouhe wrote: Mon May 23, 2022 3:35 am Sorry Giuseppe but i will cite Matthew and others as long as i think it predates Marcion. I don't have an agenda here.
No doubt that you don't have an agenda here. Only, I point out that the anti-marcionite character of the birth stories - of any birth story, was it even "born by woman" of Gal 4:4 - is sure evidence of anti-marcionism. Which excludes a priori Matthew from the question under exam.
User avatar
MrMacSon
Posts: 8798
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 3:45 pm

Re: The Celestial Messiah in the parables of Enoch

Post by MrMacSon »

fwiw,
Here's a synopsis of Thomas L Brodie's The Birthing of the New Testament: The Intertextual Development of the New Testament Writings
https://www.google.com.au/books/edition ... =en&gbpv=1

BrodieBirthing1.png
BrodieBirthing1.png (477.77 KiB) Viewed 1071 times
BrodieBirthing2.png
BrodieBirthing2.png (627.2 KiB) Viewed 1071 times
User avatar
mlinssen
Posts: 3431
Joined: Tue Aug 06, 2019 11:01 am
Location: The Netherlands
Contact:

Re: The Celestial Messiah in the parables of Enoch

Post by mlinssen »

Sinouhe wrote: Mon May 23, 2022 3:35 am I did here : viewtopic.php?p=137953#p137953

You just have to replace the word Luke with Marcion in the Goodacre text.

I will test the Marcion priority with more examples. I will put my results here later.
First one then: it is clear that Mark sees the missing word in Marcion and goes through a lot of cringing trouble to insert the house:

Mark 2:1 Καὶ (And) εἰσελθὼν (He having entered) πάλιν (again) εἰς (into) Καφαρναοὺμ (Capernaum) δι’ (after some) ἡμερῶν (days), ἠκούσθη (it was heard) ὅτι (that) ἐν (in) οἴκῳ (the house) ἐστίν (He is).
2 καὶ (And) συνήχθησαν (were gathered together) πολλοὶ (many), ὥστε (so that) μηκέτι (no more) χωρεῖν (to have space), μηδὲ (not even) τὰ (-) πρὸς (at) τὴν (the) θύραν (door);
καὶ (and) ἐλάλει (He was speaking) αὐτοῖς (to them) τὸν (the) λόγον (word).

It was heard that he is in a house! How cringing and useless info is that, really. Then Mark continues and has to replace the crowd, so he goes through his usual Markan mansplaining in order to place the crowd inside the house without mentioning the word. And it is evident how even the detail of the door are all results of Mark inventing the house with in mind what he read in Marcion - who either did have the roof without the house, or none of the letting down of the Paralytic at all

And Matthew confirms that presumption:

Matthew 9:1 Καὶ (And) ἐμβὰς (having entered) εἰς (into) πλοῖον (a boat), διεπέρασεν (He passed over) καὶ (and) ἦλθεν (came) εἰς (to) τὴν (the) ἰδίαν (own) πόλιν (city). 2 Καὶ (And) ἰδοὺ (behold), προσέφερον (they were bringing) αὐτῷ (to Him) παραλυτικὸν (a paralytic) ἐπὶ (on) κλίνης (a bed) βεβλημένον (lying). καὶ (And) ἰδὼν (having seen) ὁ (-) Ἰησοῦς (Jesus) τὴν (the) πίστιν (faith) αὐτῶν (of them), εἶπεν (He said) τῷ (to the) παραλυτικῷ (paralytic), “Θάρσει (Take courage), τέκνον (son); ἀφίενταί (have been forgiven) σου (of you) αἱ (the) ἁμαρτίαι (sins).”

Matthew reads Marcion, the mess that Mark made, and decides to get rid of it all just as he cuts short the blame game of the resurrection story. Naturally he finishes Luke who says nothing but the people carrying the paralytic upon a house across the tiles

Luke 5:19 καὶ (And) μὴ (not) εὑρόντες (having found) ποίας (what way) εἰσενέγκωσιν (they should bring in) αὐτὸν (him) διὰ (on account of) τὸν (the) ὄχλον (crowd), ἀναβάντες (having gone up) ἐπὶ (on) τὸ (the) δῶμα (housetop), διὰ (through) τῶν (the) κεράμων (tiles) καθῆκαν (they let down) αὐτὸν (him), σὺν (with) τῷ (the) κλινιδίῳ (mat) εἰς (into) τὸ (the) μέσον (midst) ἔμπροσθεν (before) τοῦ (-) Ἰησοῦ (Jesus).

Naturally, Bezae disagrees:

19και μη ευροντες
ποιας εισενεγκωσιν αυτον δια τον οχλον
ανεβησαν επι το δωμα και αποσ
τεγασαντες τους κεραμους οπου ην
καθηκαν τον κραβαττον συν τω
6παραλυτικω εις το μεσον ενπροσθεν
του ιηυ
20ϊδων δε ιης την πιστιν αυτων
λεγει τω παραλυτικω ανθρωπε

Here it explicitly says that the tiles were uncovered / removed in some places where he was

It's a complete mess really, and Goodacre cunningly doesn't mention any of it - certainly not that Matthew strikes it all

For *Ev have an explicit house? Likely not.
Mark reads it and inserts it, Luke leaves it out because he's a copy of *Ev, and Matthew looks at both extremes and decides to ditch all of it. Does Bezae contain something before either Luke or Marcion? Dunno

Now that is the story - but Goodacre will never tell you the whole story. What's more, when he tells about Thomas he first falsifies the translation, so he gets a setup that benefits him. But then again they all so
lsayre
Posts: 769
Joined: Sun Jan 04, 2015 3:39 pm

Re: The Celestial Messiah in the parables of Enoch

Post by lsayre »

Is it possible that GMark was merely an incomplete and rough early draft/outline for GMarcion, and the draft somehow wound up being published unintentionally?
User avatar
neilgodfrey
Posts: 6161
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 4:08 pm

Re: The Celestial Messiah in the parables of Enoch

Post by neilgodfrey »

Sinouhe wrote: Mon May 23, 2022 1:48 am But this complicates the case.
As for complications, we are only getting started . . . .
Marcion, as one can deduce from Tertullian, did not produce his Gospel in one go, but in two stages, first he had provided a draft that, against the will of Marcion, found its way to the public, was copied and altered, and second in a published version (with the Antitheses and Paul’s letters attached) which takes critical notice of these alternative versions.
https://www.academia.edu/31939279/Marci ... ristianity -- p. 63
User avatar
Sinouhe
Posts: 495
Joined: Tue Dec 28, 2021 1:12 pm

Re: The Celestial Messiah in the parables of Enoch

Post by Sinouhe »

Note beforehand :
I do not have the Greek manuscripts of the quotations from the church fathers of Marcion's gospel.
I am therefore working on the assumption that the Greek words used by Luke in my examples are the same in Marcion.
If anyone has the Greek manuscripts of Marcion's quotations, they can verify.


1/ The synagogue in Nazareth
Capture d’écran 2022-05-23 à 13.59.00.png
Capture d’écran 2022-05-23 à 13.59.00.png (76.06 KiB) Viewed 1041 times
One interesting point here : Our 2 evangelists use a rare form of the word Nazareth: Ναζαρὰ in Greek instead of Ναζαρέτ or Ναζαρὲθ. The word Ναζαρὰ in this form occurs only here in the entire New Testament and appears in the other forms elsewhere. This is a wonderful match between our three authors (Marcion, Matthew and Luke).

To support Marcion's priority here, one must consider that Mark removed the Marcion pericope in Nazareth. Then Matthew mixed up Marcion's for the rare word Ναζαρὰ with Mark text about Galilee and Caphernaum. Then luke, follow Matthew or Follow Marcion + Mark. In every case, it's far stretched.
Or Mark is the last Gospel, remove the nazareth pericope (why ?) and follow Matthew + Luke for "Galilee" and "Caphernaum".


2/ The Pallet and the paralyzed
Capture d’écran 2022-05-23 à 14.11.57.png
Capture d’écran 2022-05-23 à 14.11.57.png (78.29 KiB) Viewed 1041 times
Mark use the word "pallet" (κράβαττον) and omits the introduction "And behold" (Καὶ ἰδού) in his text. Marcion, Matthew and Luke use the word "bed" (κλίνης) to replace the word Pallet and they all introduce the story with the expression "And behold" (Καὶ ἰδού).

To support Marcion's priority here, we must then imagine that Mark modified Marcion's text but that Matthew and Luke used Marcion's version and not of Mark.
Or Mark is the last gospel and correct Marcion, Luke or Matthew. Matthew and Luke just follow Marcion without any knowledge of Mark as we know it.

3/ Who is he that smote thee ?
Capture d’écran 2022-05-23 à 14.25.40.png
Capture d’écran 2022-05-23 à 14.25.40.png (45.59 KiB) Viewed 1041 times
We still have the same thing here. To support the Marcion priority, Mark must have mutilated Marcion's text even though it depends on him. And that Matthew and Luke are still following Marcion here at the expense of Mark. Or Mark is the last gospel and correct Marcion, or Matthew or Luke.
Post Reply