Marcion versus Mark: who comes first?

[rgprice]

I'm saying one possibility is that proto-Luke preceded Marcion. I define proto-Luke as essentially Luke 3-23. In this case, Marcion would have been derived from what we now see as Luke 3-23. Canonical Luke was then the addition of Luke 1-2 & 24 (well the last half of 24), plus some other revisions throughout 3-23.

The error of the ancient critics was thinking that Marcion worked from Canonical Luke, but he did not, he worked from what I'm calling proto-Luke, which had no birth narrative.

[neilgodfrey]

But I do want to highlight this:

V. John - Mark in Acts
__A. Acts 12: 25 (RSV):
[25] And Barnabas and Saul returned from Jerusalem when they had fulfilled their mission, bringing with them John whose other name was Mark.
__B. Our old friend and Poster Jay Raskin, believes that there was a Document, an Ur-Document, that "Mark" took apart while writing his book. "John" came after and literally cut and Pasted his parts from the pieces that were left:

"Mark has the stone being placed in front of Jesus' tomb but does not have the spices being placed with Jesus. John has the spices being placed with Jesus but does not have the stone. It would seem that both would necessary in both stories. Mark would not want us to think of Jesus' body stinking without spices and John needs the stone placed in front of the tomb so that Mary can see it missing. There is one explanation for such enormous lapses and for the pieces in Mark fitting so well into John. Originally the two texts were one and contained both bits of important information. We may deduce that Mark was literally cutting out the text of a manuscript to create his new manuscript. Whoever published John must have had the very same manuscript with the holes Mark had left in it..."
Jay Raskin, Christs and Christianities, p 149

I think the scenario set out here is certainly courageous and imaginative.

It presumes to know of a source now lost and what it contained as well as how two different authors interpreted and mangled that source each in their own way, and that one of those authors had read both his peer's work and the source, and decided to write something equally one-sided and incomplete -- so that readers would be expected to read both Mark and John in order to make sense of the story; simply reading one would never do!

I find all of that difficult to accept.

Mark surely left out the spices at the moment of burial, a burial that took place, it is noted, much sooner than anticipated, in order to have a motive to bring the women to the tomb to witness the evidence of the resurrection. It is a coherent narrative: Jesus dies sooner than anyone anticipated, so burial must be rushed prior to the sabbath and women are unable to purchase and deliver the spices till later. If only Jesus had a normal human body and took his time to die like mere mortals!

John has been demonstrated in so many instances to be a direct engagement with Mark. He counters Mark at almost every opportunity he can. He is not trying to complement him so readers can get the full picture by reading both Mark and John -- why they couldn't be directed to the original source that had it all together remains a mystery.

[neilgodfrey]

Here is an area of disagreement. Compare:

Mk 6: [45] Immediately he made his disciples get into the boat and go before him to the other side, to Beth-sa'ida, while he dismissed the crowd.
Mt 14: [22] Then he made the disciples get into the boat and go before him to the other side, while he dismissed the crowds.

Mark adds detail: ("Bethsaida" => "Bezetha", possibly). "Immediately" = "Then". A common simple Matthean rewording of Mark (Or opposite?...)
Mark adds detail: See, for ex.: "Are we to drown, for all you care?" Compare with the variants on "Master, we are perishing!" If Mark is the simpler,"less elegant" Greek, why the additional detail? Fr. Fitzmyer complains about "Unnecessary detail..." in Mark with notes of "Cushions, spread all around". Here, you see Mathean addition to counter the decremented treatment of the Disciples by Mark.
The following verses in Matthew continue the slight rewording of Mark with no loss in descriptive power.

Mk 6: [47] And when evening came, the boat was out on the sea, and he was alone on the land.
[48] And he saw that they were making headway painfully, for the wind was against them

Mt 14: [24] but the boat by this time was many furlongs distant from the land, beaten by the waves; for the wind was against them.

Is this a difference in composition?

Mk 6:[48 B] And about the fourth watch of the night he came to them, walking on the sea. He meant to pass by them
Mt 14: [25] And in the fourth watch of the night he came to them, walking on the sea.

Is this a difference in composition? IT CERTAINLY IS!!!
Mark is implying Intentionality and Internal States! "...he meant to pass them by..." This is not merely descriptive! Further, it is not about Wayward Disciples. It is a statement about "Jesus".

Mt 14:
[28] And Peter answered him, "Lord, if it is you, bid me come to you on the water."
[29] He said, "Come." So Peter got out of the boat and walked on the water and came to Jesus;
[30] but when he saw the wind, he was afraid, and beginning to sink he cried out, "Lord, save me."

This may seem strange but, "What is the purpose of "And" at the beginning of verse 28?" This could support either of our positions. "And..." continues the Story quite smoothly - "There must've been an Ur-Text!"
"And..." marks the point where Matthew adds Value to deflect the treatment of the Disciples - "There could not have been an Ur-Text here. Matthew is just being Matthew..."
I vote for Ur-Text. You, Neil, do not.
***

I don't think anyone has suggested that the Gospel of Mark was written with the sole and exclusive aim of denigrating the Twelve. There is much more to the gospel than denigration of the other party, but that other material is in the context of, or associated with, a deprecating of the Twelve.

Mark's Jesus is a dark figure throughout and his appearing to pass them by is the way gods would make their appearances to mortals. Not only in the Greek world but even in the Pentateuch Yahweh shows himself by "passing by" in front of Moses. It is Jesus as divinity that terrifies the disciples in Mark. Jesus is aloof throughout -- he deliberately confuses hearers and shows his impatience with his disciples for getting things wrong; he leaves people who are looking for him to be healed etc; he is an unpredictable and dark character.

Matthew's Jesus is the good shepherd behaving as a good shepherd should. He is coming "to" the disciples in the boat. Matthew is rejecting Mark's depiction of Jesus, it would seem to me.

If we approach Mark with the idea that "real Mark" is always shorter and bare-bones stuff then we will be confused when we find that Mark is not like that. Sometimes he is brief, bare-bones, but other times he expands. We see this throughout. It is our fault if we don't accept Mark as he is.

I don't see why "And" has to indicate the use of an ur-text. If it makes sense without an ur-text then why add an ur-text to the hypothesis?

[Charles Wilson]

I come in Peace, my friend (So pass that joint my way, Ace...).

I don't think anyone has suggested that the Gospel of Mark was written with the sole and exclusive aim of denigrating the Twelve. There is much more to the gospel than denigration of the other party, but that other material is in the context of, or associated with, a deprecating of the Twelve.

You are quite correct - "What was the purpose of Mark? Whose life was it anyway?"

Mark 1: 8 (RSV):

[8] I have baptized you with water; but he will baptize you with the Holy Spirit."

Hmmm... Who was this Holy Spirit guy anyway? Supersessionism is such a tricky thing. You may end up implying that a Holy Spirit might even impregnate a virgin...

Mark's Jesus is a dark figure throughout and his appearing to pass them by is the way gods would make their appearances to mortals.

Fortunately, we have another example:

Luke 4: 28 - 30 (RSV):

[28] When they heard this, all in the synagogue were filled with wrath.
[29] And they rose up and put him out of the city, and led him to the brow of the hill on which their city was built, that they might throw him down headlong.
[30] But passing through the midst of them he went away.

Is there a Non-God-Like Passage we could compare this to?

Josephus, War..., 4, 1, 10:

"...At which time Titus, who was now returned, out of the indignation he had at the destruction the Romans had undergone while he was absent, took two hundred chosen horsemen and some footmen with him, and entered without noise into the city. Now as the watch perceived that he was coming, they made a noise, and betook themselves to their arms...But then Vespasian himself came to his assistance against those that had fled to the citadel, and brought his whole army with him; now this upper part of the city was every way rocky, and difficult of ascent, and elevated to a vast altitude, and very full of people on all sides, and encompassed with precipices, whereby the Jews cut off those that came up to them, and did much mischief to others by their darts, and the large stones which they rolled down upon them, while they were themselves so high that the enemy's darts could hardly reach them. However, there arose such a Divine storm against them as was instrumental to their destruction; this carried the Roman darts upon them, and made those which they threw return back, and drove them obliquely away from them; nor could the Jews indeed stand upon their precipices, by reason of the violence of the wind, having nothing that was stable to stand upon, nor could they see those that were ascending up to them; so the Romans got up and surrounded them, and some they slew before they could defend themselves..."

Waydaminnit, Josephus calls it a Divine storm so mebbe that was how gods made their appearance to mortals.
That kinda' makes sense if Vespasian and Titus were to be represented as gods and... Nah! That wouldn't have happened, now would it?

Not only in the Greek world but even in the Pentateuch Yahweh shows himself by "passing by" in front of Moses. It is Jesus as divinity that terrifies the disciples in Mark. Jesus is aloof throughout -- he deliberately confuses hearers and shows his impatience with his disciples for getting things wrong; he leaves people who are looking for him to be healed etc; he is an unpredictable and dark character.

Matthew's Jesus is the good shepherd behaving as a good shepherd should. He is coming "to" the disciples in the boat. Matthew is rejecting Mark's depiction of Jesus, it would seem to me.

Well stated:
A. If this is a Priest finding himself in close quarters around the Temple as Soldiers are hacking thousands to bits, he would be trying to find ANY WAY OUT. He would pass by anyone in or around Antonia looking for an entrance.

He is a dead man.

Vonnegut, Slaughterhouse Five:

"He was down in the meat locker on the night that Dresden was destroyed. There were sounds like giant footsteps above. Those were sticks of high-explosive bombs. The giants walked and walked. The meat locker was a very safe shelter. All that happened down there was an occasional shower of calcimine. The Americans and four of their guards and a few dressed carcasses were down there, and nobody else. The rest of the guards had, before the raid began, gone to the comforts of their own homes in Dresden. They were all being killed with their families.
So it goes.
The girls that Billy had seen naked were all being killed, too, in a much shallower shelter in another part of the stockyards.
So it goes.
A guard would go to the head of the stairs every so often to see what it was like outside, then he would come down and whisper to the other guards. There was a fire-storm out there. Dresden was one big flame. The one flame ate everything organic, everything that would burn."

He is a dead man.

B. If this is Transvaluation, then the savior/god has nothing to fear:

Mark 6: 48 - 51 (RSV):

[48] And he saw that they were making headway painfully, for the wind was against them. And about the fourth watch of the night he came to them, walking on the sea. He meant to pass by them,
[49] but when they saw him walking on the sea they thought it was a ghost, and cried out;
[50] for they all saw him, and were terrified. But immediately he spoke to them and said, "Take heart, it is I; have no fear."
[51] And he got into the boat with them and the wind ceased. And they were utterly astounded

However, what does it mean to state that they "...thought it was a ghost"?
"Oh, that's easy! See, in Judaic Culture, "Ghosts" don't exist. "The dead know nothing, they have no part in this world...and...ummm..."
Even assuming "Jesus" was a ghost, he would be a dead man. Mebbe it's a Judaic Figure of Speech. "Jesus" was AS a dead man would be.
Why?

It is our fault if we don't accept Mark as he is.

That's been my problem for over a decade now, Neil. I've been TRYING to accept Mark as Mark. I get strange looks as people spread their arms and look to the sky. Are they accepting Mark? I don't think so but they sure do act funny.

"Existence in not a Predicate, except for Jesus."

I don't see why "And" has to indicate the use of an ur-text. If it makes sense without an ur-text then why add an ur-text to the hypothesis?

Yeah, I know.

Thanx again,

CW