Did Mark introduce a sword?

[Giuseppe]

I can't check at the moment the Klinghardt's volumes but going to memory the episode of the servant's ear cut by the sword is not in *Ev.

Now, if I am correct, the sword never occurs in all *Ev.

Hence Marcion had the logion: I don't bring peace but division.

While Matthew corrected it in: I don't bring peace but a sword.

In this way Jesus ceases to be the Good God, since he appears as a warrior, a bellator, pace Marcion.

The sword is indeed used in the episode of the ear of the servant of the high priest.

Now, a such episode is found in Mark too.

Hence this appears as a little clue to Mark's expansion of *Ev.

[maryhelena]

I can't check at the moment the Klinghardt's volumes but going to memory the episode of the servant's ear cut by the sword is not in *Ev.

Now, if I am correct, the sword never occurs in all *Ev.

Hence Marcion had the logion: I don't bring peace but division.

12,49 “I have come to throw fire onto the earth. 51 Do you think that I have come to throw peace across the earth? No, I say to you, but rather the sword!

Klinghardt, Matthias. The Oldest Gospel: A Missing Link in New Testament Scholarship (p. 50). Quiet Waters Publications. Kindle Edition.

While Matthew corrected it in: I don't bring peace but a sword.

In this way Jesus ceases to be the Good God, since he appears as a warrior, a bellator, pace Marcion.

The sword is indeed used in the episode of the ear of the servant of the high priest.

Now, a such episode is found in Mark too.

Hence this appears as a little clue to Mark's expansion of *Ev.

[Paul the Uncertain]

GMark offers no direct disclosure about who cut the ear off. The only people in the scene described as bearing swords are the arresting "multitude" (14:43, 48). The scene is chaotic, with uncertain illumination. There is no textual foundation to eliminate what in modern times is called "friendly fire," and no textual basis in GMark to indict any of the followers of Jesus. The injury does not figure in either trial of Jesus, and there is no law enforcement interest in arresting Peter in the courtyard.

[Giuseppe]

I can't check at the moment the Klinghardt's volumes but going to memory the episode of the servant's ear cut by the sword is not in *Ev.

Now, if I am correct, the sword never occurs in all *Ev.

Hence Marcion had the logion: I don't bring peace but division.

12,49 “I have come to throw fire onto the earth. 51 Do you think that I have come to throw peace across the earth? No, I say to you, but rather the sword!

Klinghardt, Matthias. The Oldest Gospel: A Missing Link in New Testament Scholarship (p. 50). Quiet Waters Publications. Kindle Edition.

While Matthew corrected it in: I don't bring peace but a sword.

In this way Jesus ceases to be the Good God, since he appears as a warrior, a bellator, pace Marcion.

The sword is indeed used in the episode of the ear of the servant of the high priest.

Now, a such episode is found in Mark too.

Hence this appears as a little clue to Mark's expansion of *Ev.

Maryhelena, do you find in this new book by Klinghardt something of different from the mere exposition of *Ev as reconstructed by the author?

In particular, what does he write about the fatidic verse Luke/*Ev 7:27 ?

[Giuseppe]

GMark offers no direct disclosure about who cut the ear off. The only people in the scene described as bearing swords are the arresting "multitude" (14:43, 48). The scene is chaotic, with uncertain illumination. There is no textual foundation to eliminate what in modern times is called "friendly fire," and no textual basis in GMark to indict any of the followers of Jesus. The injury does not figure in either trial of Jesus, and there is no law enforcement interest in arresting Peter in the courtyard.

do you agree that the episode of the ear cut off is the earthly translation of the logion about the sword, just as the resurrection of Lazarus in the Fourth Gospel is the earthly translation of the Parable of the Rich Man and Lazarus ?

My point is that everywhere the logion or the parable comes before, and only after the earthly translation of said logion.

Hence, if your answer is yes, then Mark comes after Marcion.


I am the first, frankly, to say that these kind of arguments don't satisfy me. The true battlefield where challenging the Markan priority is comparing Mark and Marcion on John the Baptist.

Hence my question above for Maryhelena.

[Paul the Uncertain]

do you agree that the episode of the ear cut off is the earthly translation of the logion about the sword,

No. There is no logion about "the sword" in GMark.

just as the resurrection of Lazarus in the Fourth Gospel is the earthly translation of the Parable of the Rich Man and Lazarus ?

I think the raising of Lazarus has more to do with completing the transformation of Mark's version of Jairus's daughter into a "resurrection" miracle rather than (as believed by physicians at the time) a simple gynecological treatment.

Hence, if your answer is yes, then Mark comes after Marcion.

Although I do credit Markan priority, I find it less important that Markan excellence. Among English speakers Shakespeare is widely considered a master dramatist, and few seem to think less of him for using antecedent sources.

[maryhelena]

I can't check at the moment the Klinghardt's volumes but going to memory the episode of the servant's ear cut by the sword is not in *Ev.

Now, if I am correct, the sword never occurs in all *Ev.

Hence Marcion had the logion: I don't bring peace but division.

12,49 “I have come to throw fire onto the earth. 51 Do you think that I have come to throw peace across the earth? No, I say to you, but rather the sword!

Klinghardt, Matthias. The Oldest Gospel: A Missing Link in New Testament Scholarship (p. 50). Quiet Waters Publications. Kindle Edition.

While Matthew corrected it in: I don't bring peace but a sword.

In this way Jesus ceases to be the Good God, since he appears as a warrior, a bellator, pace Marcion.

The sword is indeed used in the episode of the ear of the servant of the high priest.

Now, a such episode is found in Mark too.

Hence this appears as a little clue to Mark's expansion of *Ev.

A previous post:

Now....everyone began to praise God, saying ''A great prophet has arisen among us, '' and, ''God has visited his people.'' And this idea about him spread.....''as far as John the Washer in prison, who when he had summoned....his pupils, said, Go and ask him, 'Are you the Coming One, or are we to expect a different one?'' Jason D. BeDuhn: The First New Testament.

.. 16 Fear seized them all, and they glorified God, saying, “A great prophet has risen among us, and God has visited his people.”

*7,17–23: John the Baptist Taking Offense and His Request

7,17 And this news about him spread throughout Judea, even to John the Baptist. 18 When he heard of his deeds, he took offense. And he summons two of his disciples, 19 {saying, “Go, say to him,} ‘Are you the one who comes, or shall we wait for another?’” 20 But when the men came to him, they said, “John the Baptist has sent us to you, saying, ‘Are you the one who comes, or shall we to wait for another?’”

Klinghardt, Matthias. The Oldest Gospel: A Missing Link in New Testament Scholarship (p. 32). Quiet Waters Publications. Kindle Edition.

OK - seems to me this whole argument by Giuseppe rests on the Klinghardt translation/reconstruction. Not knowing any Greek - perhaps someone who does can explain why Klinghardt has used the word ''offense' when BeDuhn has not.

My kindle version is dated 2023. I don't find any explanation re why the word 'offense' has been used by Klinghardt.

[Giuseppe]

I can't check at the moment the Klinghardt's volumes but going to memory the episode of the servant's ear cut by the sword is not in *Ev.

Now, if I am correct, the sword never occurs in all *Ev.

Hence Marcion had the logion: I don't bring peace but division.

12,49 “I have come to throw fire onto the earth. 51 Do you think that I have come to throw peace across the earth? No, I say to you, but rather the sword!

Klinghardt, Matthias. The Oldest Gospel: A Missing Link in New Testament Scholarship (p. 50). Quiet Waters Publications. Kindle Edition.

While Matthew corrected it in: I don't bring peace but a sword.

In this way Jesus ceases to be the Good God, since he appears as a warrior, a bellator, pace Marcion.

The sword is indeed used in the episode of the ear of the servant of the high priest.

Now, a such episode is found in Mark too.

Hence this appears as a little clue to Mark's expansion of *Ev.

A previous post:

Now....everyone began to praise God, saying ''A great prophet has arisen among us, '' and, ''God has visited his people.'' And this idea about him spread.....''as far as John the Washer in prison, who when he had summoned....his pupils, said, Go and ask him, 'Are you the Coming One, or are we to expect a different one?'' Jason D. BeDuhn: The First New Testament.

.. 16 Fear seized them all, and they glorified God, saying, “A great prophet has risen among us, and God has visited his people.”

*7,17–23: John the Baptist Taking Offense and His Request

7,17 And this news about him spread throughout Judea, even to John the Baptist. 18 When he heard of his deeds, he took offense. And he summons two of his disciples, 19 {saying, “Go, say to him,} ‘Are you the one who comes, or shall we wait for another?’” 20 But when the men came to him, they said, “John the Baptist has sent us to you, saying, ‘Are you the one who comes, or shall we to wait for another?’”

Klinghardt, Matthias. The Oldest Gospel: A Missing Link in New Testament Scholarship (p. 32). Quiet Waters Publications. Kindle Edition.

OK - seems to me this whole argument by Giuseppe rests on the Klinghardt translation/reconstruction. Not knowing any Greek - perhaps someone who does can explain why Klinghardt has used the word ''offense' when BeDuhn has not.

My kindle version is dated 2023. I don't find any explanation re why the word 'offense' has been used by Klinghardt.

Thank you! So it seems that the core of the K's argument for thinking that John was an enemy of Jesus in *Ev is based on that single verse. It is not found in our Luke but probably it is attributed by Tertullian to Marcion. I should see once I return from beach holidays.

If it was the case, then the K's argument is even more powerful than I would have imagined. Since the message from that

When he heard of his deeds, he took offense

...is so evidently, obviously clear as evidence of hostility against John, that the verse 7:27 may only pale in comparison, as evidence of Marcion's knowledge of Mark.

Why didn't Ken and Peter realize it?