John the Baptist is what does the difference in deciding on priority between Mark and *Ev

[Giuseppe]

Marcion did not craft his gospel to suit his theology, but, as some scholars have suggested, he crafted his theology around an existing document, one that did not include much of the additional non-Markan text found in canonical Luke, and perhaps, as suggested by Klinghardt, provides all the explanatory power of (and so could take the place of) ‘Q’ in the synoptic problem.

Klinghardt also thinks that *Ev was only used by Marcion, not written by him.
My great problem with Klinghardt's view is that, against his opinion of a not-marcionite paternity of *Ev, the criticism raised by Kunigunde (= *Ev 20:1-4 being supportive of John's authority, pace Marcion's denigration of the Baptist) becomes persuasive (since you can't more confute her by saying that *Ev 20:1-4 was invented by Marcion to make a marcionite anti-demiurgist point). So, only Vinzent's interpretation (= Mcn written and used by Marcion) would preserve successfully the priority of *Ev against Kunigunde's objection about *Ev 20:1-4.

[mlinssen]

Marcion did not craft his gospel to suit his theology, but, as some scholars have suggested, he crafted his theology around an existing document, one that did not include much of the additional non-Markan text found in canonical Luke, and perhaps, as suggested by Klinghardt, provides all the explanatory power of (and so could take the place of) ‘Q’ in the synoptic problem.

Klinghardt also thinks that *Ev was only used by Marcion, not written by him.
My great problem with Klinghardt's view is that, against his opinion of a not-marcionite paternity of *Ev, the criticism raised by Kunigunde (= *Ev 20:1-4 being supportive of John's authority, pace Marcion's denigration of the Baptist) becomes persuasive (since you can't more confute her by saying that *Ev 20:1-4 was invented by Marcion to make a marcionite anti-demiurgist point). So, only Vinzent's interpretation (= Mcn written and used by Marcion) would preserve successfully the priority of *Ev against Kunigunde's objection about *Ev 20:1-4.

It is highly likely that no Marcion ever existed and that the FF just invented a person so they could personify Chrestianity and accuse them of plagiarism. Look at it all, it is incredible from the start till the very end: he buys his way into Christianity, miraculously acquires a very large number of followers by writing his own gospel, then gets kicked out and his money back (yeah right) - how obvious must it all be? And then it goes on for centuries?!

Just read between the lines, it is evident that Marcion didn't create a gospel where his Jesus gets executed by Romans at the instigation of his arch enemies, the Judaics, only to rise from the dead and do nothing further after that.
What is important is that we get clear what *Ev looked like, and Vinzent is spot on with his role for John B: brilliant mockery of Judaism, using it as nemesis just as Harry Potter's greatest achievement is nothing but surviving an attack from the mighty Voldemort: Voldemort's failure turns him into a loser and Harry into a winner, and John B's failure to recognise *Ev's Jesus exposes his own incompetence and that of all of Judaism

The only thing that matters is what is in *Ev - who gives a damn about who allegedly wrote or copied it? There was a text that caused great havoc and forced the Roman rulers to create Christianity on top of it.
It is evident that it was based on Thomas with Luke having 59 of the 72 logia, 13 of which are known as parables. Mark has 35 logos and only 6 parables from Thomas, and while he invents 1 of his own making, Luke creates 14 out of the blue - the majority of which are Matthew's I think as they're all lame and mundane

Which baptism are they even talking about? Whose?

[Giuseppe]

It is highly likely that no Marcion ever existed and that the FF just invented a person so they could personify Chrestianity and accuse them of plagiarism.

obviously when I say "Marcion" I mean an entire sect (and related various branches), of which the basic feature is: anti-demiurgism, i.e. the idea that YHWH is an evil deity who in virtue only of his evil acts (described in the OT) reveals the existence of a higher deity, the Unknown Father.

I want to play honest with the intelligent objection raised by Kunigunde: if *Ev 20:1-4 doesn't assume anti-demiurgism, then Kunigunde is right: the episode supports John the Baptist, pace the anti-demiurgists.

So, only if Vinzent is right in claiming that an anti-demiurgist wrote *Ev, only then, Kunigunde's objection is definitely confuted.

[Giuseppe]

What is important is that we get clear what *Ev looked like, and Vinzent is spot on with his role for John B: brilliant mockery of Judaism, using it as nemesis

I can see, as you say, "the brilliant mockery of John in *Ev etc" only if I follow prof Vinzent that the author of *Ev was an anti-demiurgist, i.e. an enemy of YHWH.

Beyond if he was called Marcion. Beyond if he was Jew or Gentile.

To think the contrary (that the author of *Ev adored YHWH as supreme god) is equivalent to reiterate de facto the Mark's priority.

Do you agree with me on this?

[mlinssen]

What is important is that we get clear what *Ev looked like, and Vinzent is spot on with his role for John B: brilliant mockery of Judaism, using it as nemesis

I can see, as you say, "the brilliant mockery of John in *Ev etc" only if I follow prof Vinzent that the author of *Ev was an anti-demiurgist, i.e. an enemy of YHWH.

Beyond if he was called Marcion. Beyond if he was Jew or Gentile.

To think the contrary (that the author of *Ev adored YHWH as supreme god) is equivalent to reiterate de facto the Mark's priority.

Do you agree with me on this?

Oh yes, absolutely - although that would make matters even worse if that isn't adoration but merely abuse.
If *Ev abuses YHWH for his own purpose, that would be truly grand: John B is a loser who fails to recognise Jesus, the Pharisees are showcases of dumb ruminating of stupid habits, yet Jesus cosily sits in YHWH's lap caressing his thighs

Imagine, after all those alleged centuries of YHWH kicking his pet Judaics around for fun, making empty promises about a Promised Land and such - only to wrap it all up with Jesus, the Messiah of the Gentiles. Approved by YHWH himself

Holy shit LOL

[Giuseppe]

Well, "Marcion" (author) thought that the disciples had always believed until to end, in their blindness, that Jesus adored YHWH as supreme god. So there would be surely some deliberate ambiguity in such sense in *Ev. Afterall, the same ambiguity is found also in Mark, where the disciples are idiotic etc.

So, again, it is crucial for me to insist on the question of John the Baptist as the real decisive factor that does the difference in terms of priority, between *Ev and Mark.

[mlinssen]

Well, "Marcion" (author) thought that the disciples had always believed until to end, in their blindness, that Jesus adored YHWH as supreme god. So there would be surely some deliberate ambiguity in such sense in *Ev. Afterall, the same ambiguity is found also in Mark, where the disciples are idiotic etc.

So, again, it is crucial for me to insist on the question of John the Baptist as the real decisive factor that does the difference in terms of priority, between *Ev and Mark.

Where do you get that? The disciples serve more or less as satyr choir from beginning to end, in Thomas as well as Matthew and everything in between

[Giuseppe]

The Mark's episode of the blind of Betshaida ("men as trees walking") is an elaboration, according to Klinghardt, of the same theme found in *Ev: apparently, Jesus appears as the Jewish traditional messiah, a military conqueror, just as prima facie the men appear, for the blind, as trees who walk (to proclaim their king) , when really he represents another type of Messiah, with true discioles who are totally different from the disciples he has in the story.

So prof Markus Vinzent:

Mark goes beyond Paul, specifically in areas where – in my view – he is dependent on Marcion (such as his criticism of Peter, see Dykstra, 119ff).

[Giuseppe]

If Inglis is right in his denial that Marcion wrote Mcn, then Klinghardt can't say that Jesus is distant from John also in Mark 20:1-4, accordingly I should conclude for the Mark's priority, since the first gospel can't have a double view (now positive, now negative) of the Baptist.

What will persuade me that Mcn was not written by Marcion (and that therefore Mark precedes Mcn), however, are not arguments of the kind as the following:

FWIW, it is my firm opinion that Marcion did not write the gospel attributed to him (as Tertullian noted, Marcion refused to give it a name). Also, an examination of Tertullian's comments on that gospel clearly show that he was only interested in its portrayal of Jesus, and hence his lack of comment on anything in it other than the details of Jesus' interactions with other people is (to use an IT expression) a feature, not a bug (i.e. it says nothing about the presence or absence of anything outside those interactions in that gospel), leading to Tertullian ending his Book IV with: "Marcion, I pity you; your labour has been in vain. For the Jesus Christ who appears in your Gospel is mine."

I would base my opinion more on the ability or less by prof Vinzent in giving a plausible marcionite interpretation of Mcn 20:1-4.

[Giuseppe]

Even if Klinghardt has a good technical argument in his commentary about Mcn 20:1-4 (basically, the fact that the minor agreements in Luke and Matthew are explained easily as only Mark diverging from Mcn), the difficulty remains for him to explain why Jesus is always distant from John the Baptist and then, bluntly (=unexpectedly, =improbably), Jesus supports John in Mcn 20:1-4.

That problem disappears only if the cryptical marcionite meaning (=anti-YHWH and/or anti-John) of Mcn 20:1-4 can be brought successfully to light by prof Vinzent.