The Celestial Messiah in the parables of Enoch

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
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 »

4/ In their Synagogue
Capture d’écran 2022-05-23 à 14.38.07.png
Capture d’écran 2022-05-23 à 14.38.07.png (42.93 KiB) Viewed 1252 times
The combination "crowds" in the plural + "follow him" (οἱ ὄχλοι + ἠκολούθησαν) appears 5 times in Matthew, never in Mark, 1 time in Luke (here) and never in Acts.
It is thus a combination of words typically Matthean and not characteristic of the style of Luke that we find both in the same correction of a verse of Mark.
To support the marcion priority here, we must therefore imagine that Mark corrected Marcion's text, but that Matthew and Luke used Marcion's text instead of Mark's.

Or Mark is the last one and correct his source.


5/ The feeding of the five thousand
Capture d’écran 2022-05-23 à 14.50.23.png
Capture d’écran 2022-05-23 à 14.50.23.png (101.11 KiB) Viewed 1252 times
To support Marcion priority, Mark must have mutilated Marcion's text once again by removing the precision "about" the 5000 men. And Mark must have replaced the word pieces in the singular form. And again here, one would have to imagine that Matthew and Luke follow Marcion at the expense of Mark.

Or Mark is the last one and correct his source.


Conclusion :
These examples are not sufficient to establish that Marcion is later than Mark. But if Marcion is the first gospel, then it is likely that :

- Mark regularly corrects Marcion's text by removing details, not adding.
- Matthew and Luke depend on Marcion in these examples. I quickly checked with other examples, this was also the case.
- To explain that Matthew and Luke prefer the text of Marcion over Mark, even though Matthew is anti-Marcionite (according to Giuseppe, I have no opinion on the matter) seems a bit complicated. We could also imagine that Mark is the last gospel. And maybe Luke and Matthew use a proto-mark that we don't have. Otherwise I would not be able to understand why Matthew and Luke would prefer Marcion to Mark.

In any case, these 2 solutions seem to me less fluid than imagining that Marcion depends on Mark and most likely on Matthew too.
This would confirm Goodacre's findings on editorial fatigue which places Mark and Matthew before Marcion .
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 »

lsayre wrote: Mon May 23, 2022 4:26 am 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?
It were possible, if all the pro-Judaic elements are removed from Mark: his start with buddy the Baptist as Elijah, the wilderness, etc. A real proto Mark being a proto *Ev would be around half the size if what we currently have, I think
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 5:24 am Note beforehand :
I do not have the Greek manuscripts of the quotations from the church fathers of Marcion's gospel.
Try

viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1765

It's Ben's fantastic transcription, based on Roth. Now Roth is not the most objective source but his is better than using plain Luke
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 »

For me, if also Mark had a birth story, there would be no doubt a priori about Mcn preceding also Mark. So much the presence of a birth story in a gospel is a sure anti-marcionite signature.

But Mark has no birth story, hence the challenge is open, between Mcn and Mark.

I should examine every single point raised by Sinouhe, in the light of Klinghardt's book about them. I would do it more willingly if Matthew was removed entirely from the discussion. :confusedsmiley:
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 5:24 am 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

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

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

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.
2) As you can see in viewtopic.php?p=137976#p137976 Bezae has (κράβαττον) in Luke...

Klinghardt formed the working assumption at some point that was NA in fact has done at points is to establish the earliest gospel - which is *Ev in his very well reasoned opinion

1) Likewise for Luke 4:16, look at the tons of MSS that have something else but Nazara:
Luke4-16_Nazareth.jpg
Luke4-16_Nazareth.jpg (569.78 KiB) Viewed 1212 times
3) only Epiphanius attests to this in Marcion, none of the others do (Klinghardt page 1154-5)

4) the whole feeding of the 5 thousand is hardly attested. Yet there no comment at all about the plural crowds. 9:12 in NA is divided into plural and singular, and again Bezae is among those who have singular crowds

5) the whole feeding of the 5 thousand is hardly attested.
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 »

So in brief, don't underestimate the giant harmonisation attempts to get Luke and Mark into line with Matthew. If you go by NA28, it becomes clear that Matthew hardly ever has variants whereas the others do a few times that

And Ben's is a fair source to Marcion
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 »

mlinssen wrote: Mon May 23, 2022 5:49 am
Sinouhe wrote: Mon May 23, 2022 5:24 am Note beforehand :
I do not have the Greek manuscripts of the quotations from the church fathers of Marcion's gospel.
Try

viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1765

It's Ben's fantastic transcription, based on Roth. Now Roth is not the most objective source but his is better than using plain Luke
thanks :cheers:
mlinssen wrote: Mon May 23, 2022 6:18 am 2) As you can see in viewtopic.php?p=137976#p137976 Bezae has (κράβαττον) in Luke...

Klinghardt formed the working assumption at some point that was NA in fact has done at points is to establish the earliest gospel - which is *Ev in his very well reasoned opinion

1) Likewise for Luke 4:16, look at the tons of MSS that have something else but Nazara:
3) only Epiphanius attests to this in Marcion, none of the others do (Klinghardt page 1154-5)
Personally, I prefer to rely on the Vaticanus and Sinaiticus codex which are older than the Bezae.
But of course, if we look, thanks to the harmonization of the scribes that has been done on certain gospels, we will find manuscripts that will agree with the other gospels. I don't think that our purpose and our interest should be to look in manuscripts if we find harmonizations of certain terms that are lacking in the older manuscripts.
4) the whole feeding of the 5 thousand is hardly attested. Yet there no comment at all about the plural crowds. 9:12 in NA is divided into plural and singular, and again Bezae is among those who have singular crowds
5) the whole feeding of the 5 thousand is hardly attested.
What do you mean by that ? I find the feeding of the thousand in Marcion here : http://gnosis.org/library/marcion/Tert5.html#AM213
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:
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
It could be. Why not. But it still don't explain this :
Capture d’écran 2022-05-23 à 08.40.08.png
Capture d’écran 2022-05-23 à 08.40.08.png (56.56 KiB) Viewed 1184 times
Goodacre
It might be added, as further evidence from the same pericope, thatLuke MARCION 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 MARCION 5.21). This is in spite of the fact that Jesus goes on to question them, in both Luke MARCION and Mark, why they have been debating 'in' their 'hearts' (en taiV kardiaiV umwn, Mark 2.8 // Luke MARCION 5.22). (19) The latter phrase has simply come in, by fatigue, from Mark. (20)

and other examples provided by Goodacre, which I think he got from Goulder and another one I have forgotten.
User avatar
maryhelena
Posts: 2899
Joined: Tue Oct 08, 2013 11:22 pm
Location: England

Re: The Celestial Messiah in the parables of Enoch

Post by maryhelena »

Giuseppe wrote: Mon May 23, 2022 5:55 am For me, if also Mark had a birth story, there would be no doubt a priori about Mcn preceding also Mark. So much the presence of a birth story in a gospel is a sure anti-marcionite signature.
A birth narrative is anti-marcionite?

A birth narrative can indicate a birth on terra-firma ie a connection to historical realities. Lack of a birth narrative would indicate something different happened. Jesus, for Marcoin came down from heaven...ie a spiritual/intellectual birth, a new beginning, a new world view. Marcoin's gospel places this in the time of Tiberius and Pilate . (the 15th year being questionable re various sources.)

Gmark has no birth narrative..... Leaving open the question of spirituality or historicity for his Jesus figure... .. Perhaps - viewing Marcoin's gospel as primary - a storyline developed. Gmatthew comes along with a full blown birth narrative followed by gluke who turns gmatthew's birth narrative upside down.... having not one but two birth dates. 6 ce in the time of Quirinus and around 1 bc/1ce for his Jesus being 6 months younger than John the Baptist in the 15th year of Tiberius.

So there you go... two Jesus stories in the gospels. One Jesus comes down from heaven. The other Jesus is connected to history, related to Jewish history, reflecting that history. After all.... body and spirit are part of our human reality....can't have one without the other.

That Marcoin's gospel has no birth narrative does not make a gospel with a birth narrative anti-Marcoin. Horses for courses and all that...

Marcoin's evil god of the OT does not make him anti-Jewish. It makes him a Jewish philosopher acknowledging that a negative dualism between Jew and Greek was not a humanitarian approach to living on terra-firma. Paul developed Marcoin's negative dualistic philosophy with his Jesus/Christ figure crucified by evil rulers in outer space...
;) ie Paul changed the context....he returned, resurrected, Marcoin's Jesus to his heavenly intellectual home. Life, death and rebirth of the spirit is where value is to be found............
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 5:55 am I would do it more willingly if Matthew was removed entirely from the discussion. :confusedsmiley:
This example is terrible for Marcion priority over Matthew :
Capture d’écran 2022-05-23 à 18.02.21.png
Capture d’écran 2022-05-23 à 18.02.21.png (273.48 KiB) Viewed 1174 times
  • 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.
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 8:03 am
This example is terrible for Marcion priority over Matthew :
In the judgement on priority, I base myself more on the rivalry between opposed theologies.

The final verse (19:27) is not found in Mcn with certainty, Klinghardt put it between brackets:

But those enemies of mine who did not want me to be king over them—bring them here and kill them in front of me.’”

I find easily the reason why "Matthew" (editor) added that verse on the previous Mcn:
in this way, the king in the parable is surely cruel and vendicative just as YHWH in the OT, with great embarrassment for Marcion's worship of a higher god of love.
In the original marcionite parable, the king is not so vendicative: he limits himself to remove from him what he gave to the evil servant: the his same Gospel.

ADDENDA: so ask yourself: could "Matthew" (author) hate so much the rebels against Jesus to the point of placing such a cruel threat of death on his enemies in the mouth of Jesus? I think that "Matthew" would overcome a such embarassment only by being polemical against Marcion.
Post Reply