The first Gospel: surprise, indifference or hostility?

[Michael BG]

I am sorry this is not quoting any Jewish text. As it appears your answer is – read all these posts yourself rather than pointing me to the right ones, would I be correct to assume you do not know of any at all? (If you think Vridar found one saying the Messiah will be crucified please let me know what it is? The closest I saw was the Wisdom of Solomon which reminded me that I have said somewhere that there is a link between the Wisdom tradition to the passion. I need to find what I was saying and see if I included that verse.)

Stevan Davies says that the Odes of Salomon are a pre-christian text, and there a celestial Christ is suffering celestial pains. At moment I cannot quote the text, but I'm sure you know what I allude.

I had not heard of the Odes of Salomon, I refer you to Earl Doherty (http://jesuspuzzle.humanists.net/supp04.htm) where he sees them as part of the Wisdom tradition. Celestial pains are not a crucifixion. Doherty also argues that the references to out stretched hands and wood are not references to crucifixion which interpretation is what I would say is an over interpretation of the text to find links to Jesus that don’t exist. Doherty I think implies this is because those doing it see them as being written or edited by a Christian.

Maybe you should concede that there is no Jewish text referring to a crucified Messiah?

I did see this, but it does not answer my question. To me it is a meaningless list with no examples of anything creative or surprising. In fact it might be possible to find other first century writings that included these.

the parable of new wine in new skins should arouse surprise if you read it in a marcionite perspective as if it was the first time.

Mark 2:21-22

[21] No one sews a piece of unshrunk cloth on an old garment; if he does, the patch tears away from it, the new from the old, and a worse tear is made.
[22] And no one puts new wine into old wineskins; if he does, the wine will burst the skins, and the wine is lost, and so are the skins; but new wine is for fresh skins."

Mt 9:16-17

[16] And no one puts a piece of unshrunk cloth on an old garment, for the patch tears away from the garment, and a worse tear is made.
[17] Neither is new wine put into old wineskins; if it is, the skins burst, and the wine is spilled, and the skins are destroyed; but new wine is put into fresh wineskins, and so both are preserved."

Lk 5:36-39

[36] He told them a parable also: "No one tears a piece from a new garment and puts it upon an old garment; if he does, he will tear the new, and the piece from the new will not match the old.
[37] And no one puts new wine into old wineskins; if he does, the new wine will burst the skins and it will be spilled, and the skins will be destroyed.
[38] But new wine must be put into fresh wineskins.
[39] And no one after drinking old wine desires new; for he says, `The old is good.'"

Ben gives the Marcion text as:

‘36 He also told a parable to them. “No one puts a piece of unshrunk fabric from a new garment on an old garment, or else he will tear the new, and also the piece from the new will not match the old. 37 No one puts new wine into old wine skins, or else the new wine will burst the skins, and it will be spilled, and the skins will be destroyed’ (underlining where Ben said the Marcion deviates from Luke, I think verses 36-37 are only generically attested).

Here I concluded “it seems safe to conclude that Marcion does not deviate significantly from the Lucan text here.”

I see the Marcan version as the earliest. Mark uses two different words for new here – νέον and καινούς and maybe the first two uses should be translated as young and the third as new to get:

καὶ οὐδεὶς βάλλει οἶνον νέον εἰς ἀσκοὺς παλαιούς εἰ δὲ μή, ῥήξει ὁ οἶνος τοὺς ἀσκούς, καὶ ὁ οἶνος ἀπόλλυται καὶ οἱ ἀσκοί ἀλλὰ οἶνον νέον εἰς ἀσκοὺς καινούς.

[22] And no one pours young wine into old wineskins; if so the wine will pour out of the wineskins, and the wineskins shall be destroyed; but young wine pour into new wineskins." (my own translation)

Luke has (and I assume Marcion when recreated has the same):

καὶ οὐδεὶς βάλλει οἶνον νέον εἰς ἀσκοὺς παλαιούς: εἰ δὲ μή γε, ῥήξει ὁ οἶνος ὁ νέος τοὺς ἀσκούς, καὶ αὐτὸς ἐκχυθήσεται καὶ οἱ ἀσκοὶ ἀπολοῦνται:

[37] And no one pours young wine into old wineskins; if so the young wine shall burst the wineskins and it shall pour out of the wineskins - shall be destroyed.

ἀλλὰ οἶνον νέον εἰς ἀσκοὺς καινοὺς βλητέον.

[38] but young wine pour into new skins and both are preserved." (my own translation)

Matthew has:

οὐδὲ βάλλουσιν οἶνον νέον εἰς ἀσκοὺς παλαιούς: εἰ δὲ μή γε, ῥήγνυνται οἱ ἀσκοί, καὶ ὁ οἶνος ἐκχεῖται καὶ οἱ ἀσκοὶ ἀπόλλυνται: ἀλλὰ βάλλουσιν οἶνον νέον εἰς ἀσκοὺς καινούς, καὶ ἀμφότεροι συντηροῦνται.

[17] Neither pour young wine into old wineskins; if so the young wine shall burst the wineskins and it shall pour out and the wineskins shall be destroyed but they pour young wine into new wineskins and both are preserved. (my own translation)

It is possible that Matthew has the Q version here where the old wineskins are burst and at the end the young wine is preserved, which Luke also has but Mark doesn’t.

However I don’t find anything surprising in a saying that young wine should be put into new wineskins because if it put into old ones the wine shall pour out. As it is possible that the new wine keeps developing and the old skins no longer have the flexibility to cope with this.

I don’t know why you think your quote from Justin shows surprise.

It refers to a unknown Christ from unknown origin, a Christ unknown even to himself. By definition, everything that is unknown should cause surprise. It was designed for that purpose.

And I thought he was making fun of their silly beliefs and that was why he expressed them in that way.

Listing people who also think Marcion is early is not a counter argument to my opinion.

you are mature enough to understand that I just want to examine in the future why some scholars think that Mcn comes first (when they will decide to publish their arguments).

If you can not defend your belief that Marcion is the earliest gospel you should not assert it so forcibly, but wait until you can defend your belief.

David Trobisch states in the YouTube video that Marcion is probably the first gospel without making out why it is older than the gospel of Mark. He states the text is quoted in Tertullian, (which was written in Latin) and Epiphanius and someone else and so we can recovery the text. This is not true as I discovered when studying the text (viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1770&start=110) as posted on this site by Ben C Smith (viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1765).

1) Tertullian quotes Matthew again and again in polemic against Marcion (to prove the priority of Luke).
2) We know that according to proto-catholics, Mcn is the corruption of Luke.
3) Therefore : the lukan verses parallel to Matthew quoted by Tertullian (in anti-marcionite function) was likely found in Mcn.

I am not denying that a gospel of Marcion existed; what I am saying is it is impossible to recover its (Greek) text especially where (Latin) Tertullian is the only authority for the wording.

too easily and too often (why?) you forget that Mcn is a subset of our Luke and we know Luke. Therefore, if Tertullian quotes Matthew in Latin precisely where according to him Matthew parallels and confutes Mcn, then we may be relatively sure that the corresponding verses in Luke are found in Mcn.

I don’t believe this is true. It certainly was not the impression I gained while trying to discover what the text of Marcion’s gospel was. I recall there were places where it seems that the Marcion text as presented by Tertullian agreed with Matthew against Luke. You really should quote some examples with the Greek and Latin texts.

[Giuseppe]

I had not heard of the Odes of Salomon, I refer you to Earl Doherty (http://jesuspuzzle.humanists.net/supp04.htm) where he sees them as part of the Wisdom tradition. Celestial pains are not a crucifixion. Doherty also argues that the references to out stretched hands and wood are not references to crucifixion which interpretation is what I would say is an over interpretation of the text to find links to Jesus that don’t exist. Doherty I think implies this is because those doing it see them as being written or edited by a Christian.

Stevan Davies thinks that the Odes are Cre-christian even where it seems talking about potential references to crucifixion (he doesn't call it a crucifixion, at any case). According to him, the Odist is possessed by the spirit of the celestial Christ.

Maybe you should concede that there is no Jewish text referring to a crucified Messiah?

Apart the Odes (where it's only a mere possibility) I concede I don't see reference to crucifixion per se. But I suspect that you have an interest in hyper-defining the presumed originality of a crucifixion. The castration of Attis is an original pain but this doesn't make it more historical. And frankly, even if the crucifixion is unique and original in the original Christian belief, I don't find no reason why the Jews of I CE had to be surprised. While I would be surprised and I should be surprise when I read the Gospel.

Mark 2:21-22

[21] No one sews a piece of unshrunk cloth on an old garment; if he does, the patch tears away from it, the new from the old, and a worse tear is made.
[22] And no one puts new wine into old wineskins; if he does, the wine will burst the skins, and the wine is lost, and so are the skins; but new wine is for fresh skins."

It's similar to Marcion therefore of no use here.


See rather the harmonizing verses in Mt and Lk:

Mt 9:16-17

[16] And no one puts a piece of unshrunk cloth on an old garment, for the patch tears away from the garment, and a worse tear is made.
[17] Neither is new wine put into old wineskins; if it is, the skins burst, and the wine is spilled, and the skins are destroyed; but new wine is put into fresh wineskins, "and so both are preserved''.

Lk 5:36-39

[36] He told them a parable also: "No one tears a piece from a new garment and puts it upon an old garment; if he does, he will tear the new, and the piece from the new will not match the old.
[37] And no one puts new wine into old wineskins; if he does, the new wine will burst the skins and it will be spilled, and the skins will be destroyed.
[38] But new wine must be put into fresh wineskins.
[39] And no one after drinking old wine desires new; for he says, `The old is good.'"

Ben gives the Marcion text as:

‘36 He also told a parable to them. “No one puts a piece of unshrunk fabric from a new garment on an old garment, or else he will tear the new, and also the piece from the new will not match the old. 37 No one puts new wine into old wine skins, or else the new wine will burst the skins, and it will be spilled, and the skins will be destroyed’ (underlining where Ben said the Marcion deviates from Luke, I think verses 36-37 are only generically attested).

Here I concluded “it seems safe to conclude that Marcion does not deviate significantly from the Lucan text here.”

How can you say that “it seems safe to conclude that Marcion does not deviate significantly from the Lucan text here” ?
The difference is abyssal: Marcion had a simple parable. New in new, old in old. Period. The more simple solution is his parable. Any other version of that parable different from it gives a very difficult interpretation, since it assumes already the presence of people denying any link between Judaism and Christianity. In other terms, I find difficult to accept the idea that Matthew wrote that parable in I CE, when there were not marcionites yet at all. These harmonizing verses in Mt and Lk are there only as reaction against a marcionite oral or written Gospel. It's clear!

I see the Marcan version as the earliest. Mark uses two different words for new here – νέον and καινούς and maybe the first two uses should be translated as young and the third as new to get:

καὶ οὐδεὶς βάλλει οἶνον νέον εἰς ἀσκοὺς παλαιούς εἰ δὲ μή, ῥήξει ὁ οἶνος τοὺς ἀσκούς, καὶ ὁ οἶνος ἀπόλλυται καὶ οἱ ἀσκοί ἀλλὰ οἶνον νέον εἰς ἀσκοὺς καινούς.

[22] And no one pours young wine into old wineskins; if so the wine will pour out of the wineskins, and the wineskins shall be destroyed; but young wine pour into new wineskins." (my own translation)

If I have already (see above my explanation of the evidence) the conclusion that Matthew and Luke are answering to Marcion by adding their harmonizing verses, then I have Mark who is practically equal to Marcion: who comes before? Marcion has a theological reason to be the first to invent that parable: it talks clearly about the departure of gentile Christianity from Judaism, without any kind of compromise. Mark has no theological reason to break so drastically with Judaism, since Mark is competing (as sectarian Jew) against other sectarian Jews (the scribes and pharisees, allegories of Jewish Christian Pillars, too). What I'm saying is that Mark has need to add harmonizing verses to find a compromise, but it's a fact that these harmonizing verses are not there (while they are in Mt and Lk). Indeed the more simple explanation in this case is that Marcion is first and that even Mark, without knowing it, is moving in a ''marcionite'' narrative.

It is possible that Matthew has the Q version here where the old wineskins are burst and at the end the young wine is preserved, which Luke also has but Mark doesn’t.

Very too complex as solution, the addition of Q et similia speculation.

However I don’t find anything surprising in a saying that young wine should be put into new wineskins because if it put into old ones the wine shall pour out. As it is possible that the new wine keeps developing and the old skins no longer have the flexibility to cope with this.

The surprise is not the solution. The surprise is the distinction without compromise between new and old. A distinction made magically ex nihilo. That is surprising.

I don’t know why you think your quote from Justin shows surprise.

It refers to a unknown Christ from unknown origin, a Christ unknown even to himself. By definition, everything that is unknown should cause surprise. It was designed for that purpose.

And I thought he was making fun of their silly beliefs and that was why he expressed them in that way.

Yesterday as today, the more natural reaction in front of a Gospel Jesus is : did he exist?

If you can not defend your belief that Marcion is the earliest gospel you should not assert it so forcibly, but wait until you can defend your belief.

I would say ''half and half'', since at least about the parable of wineskins I am able to confute your theories.

[Ben C. Smith]

Ben gives the Marcion text as:

‘36 He also told a parable to them. “No one puts a piece of unshrunk fabric from a new garment on an old garment, or else he will tear the new, and also the piece from the new will not match the old. 37 No one puts new wine into old wine skins, or else the new wine will burst the skins, and it will be spilled, and the skins will be destroyed’ (underlining where Ben said the Marcion deviates from Luke, I think verses 36-37 are only generically attested).

Here I concluded “it seems safe to conclude that Marcion does not deviate significantly from the Lucan text here.”

How can you say that “it seems safe to conclude that Marcion does not deviate significantly from the Lucan text here” ?
The difference is abyssal: Marcion had a simple parable. New in new, old in old. Period. The more simple solution is his parable. Any other version of that parable different from it gives a very difficult interpretation, since it assumes already the presence of people denying any link between Judaism and Christianity. In other terms, I find difficult to accept the idea that Matthew wrote that parable in I CE, when there were not marcionites yet at all. These harmonizing verses in Mt and Lk are there only as reaction against a marcionite oral or written Gospel. It's clear!

I have not been following this thread with anything resembling close attention, but I did notice my name. Just to make sure everyone is on the same page here, (A) the work is that of Roth and BeDuhn, not of me personally; (B) the words underlined in boldfaced blue are attested as unique to Marcion; (C) the words in boldfaced blue (but not underlined) are attested in Marcion, but not unique to Marcion; and (D) the words in italicized blue (which are by far the majority in the 3 or 4 verses apparently most under scrutiny here) are attested according to Roth only in generic content, not necessarily verbatim. Words in black italics are the same, but according to BeDuhn, not Roth. Words in plain black are not attested either way.

33 They said to him, “Why do John’s disciples often fast and pray, likewise also the disciples of the Pharisees, but yours eat and drink?” 34 He said to them, “The friends of the bridechamber cannot fast as long as [Marcion: while] the bridegroom is with them, can they?35 But the days will come when the bridegroom will be taken away from them. Then they will fast in those days.” 36 He also told a parable to them. “No one puts a piece of unshrunk fabric from a new garment on an old garment, or else he will tear the new, and also the piece from the new will not match the old. 37 No one puts new wine into old wine skins, or else the new wine will burst the skins, and it will be spilled, and the skins will be destroyed. 38 But new wine must be put into fresh wine skins, and both are preserved. 39 No man having drunk old wine immediately desires new, for he says, ‘The old is better.’”

Ben.

[Giuseppe]

It doesn't help in this discussion about wineskins to be so perfectionist about the original marcionite version, as if the change even of a word does imply (only God knows) sound effects on the our conclusion. The evidence about wineskins is really simple in this case: the parable is simple insofar it's saying "new in new, old in old". The parable is simple insofar the only theological reason for his presence is marcionite in essentia and designed to cause surprise. And Mt and Lk about wineskins can do sense only if meant both as anti-marcionite reaction: "the new in new, the old in old but... ...there is still compromise with the old". Mark has no harmonizing verses ok, but can Mark give his theological reason for that version so similar to marcionite? I doubt the answer is yes. Mark betrays passively marcionite influence, here.

[Giuseppe]

The parable of wineskins is surprising because it's revolutionary. Sometimes I think of two only events in all the human History that have changed really his course:
The French Revolution.
And the creation of the marcionite Jesus by the first Gospel.

[iskander]

The parable of wineskins is surprising because it's revolutionary. Sometimes I think of two only events in all the human History that have changed really his course:
The French Revolution.
And the creation of the marcionite Jesus by the first Gospel.

How-- or why-- is it revolutionary ?

[Giuseppe]

The parable of wineskins is surprising because it's revolutionary. Sometimes I think of two only events in all the human History that have changed really his course:
The French Revolution.
And the creation of the marcionite Jesus by the first Gospel.

How-- or why-- is it revolutionary ?

Because the first (marcionite) Gospel Jesus marks the precise moment in which Christianity is defined as distinct religion from Judaism (an event revolutionary per se). Until that moment, 'christianity' was only a thin Jewish movement destined to obsburity for at least other years (if not to total extinction).

[iskander]

The parable of wineskins is surprising because it's revolutionary. Sometimes I think of two only events in all the human History that have changed really his course:
The French Revolution.
And the creation of the marcionite Jesus by the first Gospel.

How-- or why-- is it revolutionary ?

Because the first (marcionite) Gospel Jesus marks the precise moment in which Christianity is defined as distinct religion from Judaism (an event revolutionary per se). Until that moment, 'christianity' was only a thin Jewish movement destined to obsburity for at least other years (if not to total extinction).

Thank you Giuseppe,
Christianity began as a "Jewish movement", you say.
What make you believe that?

[Giuseppe]

Because for Paul the apostle Jesus was Son of the god of the Jews.

I believe it even if no people had proved that claim (the our epistles say so, but we don't know to which extent the epistles are Judaized, i.e. proto-catholicized).

[iskander]

As a dramatic statement marking the departure from a religion, the wineskin episode is not a very clear one and bringing in the riddle of Marcion turns this discussion into an illustration for the Babble Tower .

Christianity and Islam are biologically rooted in Judaism; one as descendant of King David and the other as descendant of Abraham. Judaism is the mother and the father of the slaves whose fate is to obey.


What did Marcion say to make him important?