I already said "Mark" gave Peter the opportunity to know the God of Jesus is the Jewish God (10:6, 12:26).
As I told you, Marcion, in his gospel, is never specific about matters he defended in his antitheses. His gospel allows for the anthitheses, but does not show them.
Which is rather strange if that gospel was written from scratch. Why would he miss the opportunity?
One thing is to have the opportunity, another thing is to
know effectively how to take advantage of it. In Mark Peter falls into the error that Jesus is
only the davidic Christ. Why
should Marcion show
explicitly that opportunity you mean? This would go
against his intention, that is to invent a Jesus who has to appear
enigmatic to the end, in order to deceive the Creator god.
You, in place of Marcion,
do not have the need of inventing a solution to a problem that still does not exist. So Marck did feel the
need to be more explicit about the God of OT because he is embarrassed by the
enigmatic Jesus of Marcion.
Thank you for pointing out this point, because it would reveal - against Stuart - that before
Mcn there was no people claiming explicitly the identity ''Jesus = Son of YHWH''.
But in gMarcion his indepedent authority (, a ''new'' teaching, or ''my words'' versus ''the will of God'') is allusive of the his true provenance.
What is allusive about ''my words'' replacing ''the will of God'' is that Marcion did not want to connect Jesus with the will of the Jewish God, that is his many laws. The ultimate God of Marcion was not known to have issued laws, so the replacement has to be expected.
Precisely. But this is inconclusive as evidence.
Listen, Bernard: you seem to want me to convince with mere rhetorical questions that gMarcion was not the first gospel, but I do not see anything of wrong in reading personally the arguments that Klinghardt will do about in favor of marcionite priority, if only he will decide to publish in English.
Did you mean Klinghardt has the right arguments "in favor of marcionite priority", even if you did not read them yet?
I think is entirely
innocent have sympathy for the thesis of a book before of starting to read it, because otherwise not even I would start to read it. I have
read Markus Vinzent 2014 in favor of
Mcn priority and frankly I was disappointed because it claims to make his case basically
only puzzling over the words of Irenaeus, Tertullian, Epiphanius, etc., And not on the Gospels themselves.
In gMarcion and gLuke, Jesus (alive or dead) has a solid body which can be touched such as in:
7:39-46, 22:47, 54, 64, 23:53.
in 7:39-46, the Simon in gMarcion is not a pharisee but is Simon Peter.
http://markusvinzent.blogspot.it/2014/0 ... simon.html
If I am not mistaken, Judas the traitor is not found in gMarcion, and marcionites believed that the suffering of the Son was
real even if his body was ethereal: this may explain the
physical touch of the woman with the alabaster (7:39-46) as foreshadowing the
real sufferings of the death. This may explain why in Luke 8:44 is
not the body that is touched, but his dress: the theme of the death is absent in that case.
But you can always read these info about himself as a reaction against gMarcion. The point remains that Peter in gMark, until the end, remains semi-ignorant about the true identity of Jesus.
NO: in gMark, Peter has opportunity to know that Jesus is the Christ (but not of David's descent) of the Jewish God. And "Mark" "knew" Jesus was the son of that God.
as above, Peter has the opportunity but doensn't take it in Mark, therefore the 'opportunity' is addressed to readers, as reaction against Marcion (who has no need to identify explicitly the father of Jesus).
According to Marcion, Peter had completely misrepresented the gospel of Jesus. So it is totally expected (=highly probable) that in gMarcion Jesus remains very enigmatic about his identity.
Don't you have to accept here there were other gospels preceding gMarcion? If not, what would be the basis of this misrepresentation if Marcion was not reacting against existing gospels?
You touch a critical point. A point where precisely I disagree with Stuart. I think it's legitimate to ask, under the
Mcn priority, if Peter and the 12 in gMarcion didn't represent
real Christian opponents at time of the writing of gMarcion, but only simbolic characters allusive of
generic Jewish messianists: the real polemical target of gMarcion. Note that Stuart thinks, differently, that in gMarcion the opponents of Jesus are allusive of the protocatholics.
My point is that you should open yourself to the idea that your claim above may be true also for Tertullian & co.
Tertullian himself wrote the hypothesis of a temptation (gMarcion 8:21-22), in order to find out if Jesus has a human blood family or not, came from heretics on "the other side". Certainly not what Tertullian & co, with knowledge of gLuke, would accept as a hypothesis.
I marvel that Tertullian, after rejecting
rather effectively all the criticisms, when he introduces the hypothesis of a temptation, then he falls back on the defensive and shifts the argument about the presumed presence -
not confirmed - by official census which establish the birth of Jesus from human parents by name.
More attention, please: the words of Jesus are not absolute but relative because there's at least a sense in Luke where it's true the sentence: ''Jesus had truely blood family''. In gMarcion that relative sense is totally absent (if not in the words of the tempters, not of the evangelist, nor of Jesus), therefore the words of Jesus are absolute.
Marcion never said in his gospel Jesus has not a blood family. So he did not close the door to this possibility.
If in gMarcion Jesus had said
explicitly to have not a blood family, then the Demiurg would realize it taking precautions in order to prevent his death (and with his death, his own loss). Hence the overall allusive, enigmatic nature of Jesus.
good continuation,
Giuseppe
