The first Gospel: surprise, indifference or hostility?

[Giuseppe]

The wineskin parable is very easy and clear to interpret when put in mouth of Marcion. It becomes virtually enigmatic in Lk and Mt. The distinction between old and new assumes that a division is already happened. The harmonizing verses of Mt and Lk betray the previous presence of a marcionite wineskin parable.
Couchoud was right: Marcion wrote the first Gospel therefore he historicized Jesus. The wineskin parable is the surprising marcionite essentia of any gospel Jesus. It's revolutionary because Marcion was the first to distinguish Christianity from Judaism.
Marcion didn't show Jesus as a rabbi among rabbis: Mark did so. Therefore Marcion historicized Jesus while Mark euhemerized Jesus (by calling him a rabbi).

[iskander]

New Labour was the same political party it had always been .The New were the beneficial changes that Tony Blair was proposing to get the British Labour Party elected . His intention was to make the Labour Party capable of winning a general election and form the next government of the country .
New is often used for desirable changes that make something stronger , and the conclusion of the debate between the defenders of the new and those defending the old may not affect the unity of their common purpose.



Matthew 27 :51, 51At that moment the curtain of the temple was torn in two, from top to bottom. ... is a forceful statement .


Martin Luther also makes his point clear

... a 33-year-old theology professor at Wittenberg University walked over to the Castle Church in Wittenberg and nailed a paper of 95 theses to the door,





Giuseppe Garibaldi and the camicie rosse are a better choice than the French Revolution

[Giuseppe]

The rending of veil is a marcionite metaphor for the hangry failure of Demiurg when he realizes that the absolutely innocent is punished on the cross (another surprising antithesis!).

[Michael BG]

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.

I am glad you have now conceded that the Jews did not expect a Messiah to be crucified, but did have traditions about a suffering one. This is the reason they would have been surprised by a crucified Messiah. As far as I can tell this is the only original thought in the earliest oral gospel.

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.

Firstly maybe I should point out my simplistic use of the term “Q”. I believe that both Luke and Matthew used Mark as a source. Where Luke and Matthew agree without agreeing with Mark this I term Q. In the same way as that which is unique to Matthew I term M and what is unique to Luke I term L. I have not come to a conclusion about the composition of Q; whether it is one, two or more sources. I would like to believe it is two sources but I haven’t gathered enough evidence to conclude this.

The existence of Q material is not killed if the Marcion gospel was the first gospel because there are still verses in Matthew and Luke where they agree but neither Marcion or Mark has them. An example is Lk 13:34-35 Mt 23:37-39. I can post a comparison of the text and the reasons why I conclude that Luke has the earlier version if you wish. Also it would show why in places it is easy to see the text of Q. In these verses there are 52 words and 45 of them are in both Luke and Matthew.

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. ...

I do not think anyone would agree with you as your presentation is flawed especially if your aim was to present a case that the Marcion was earlier than either Mark’s or Luke’s version.

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.

How can you say that “it seems safe to conclude that Marcion does not deviate significantly from the Lucan text here” ?

In my discussion with Ben I was looking for differences between the text of Luke and Marcion and not considering the text of Luke that Marcion does not have. It is only by considering what is there that anyone can decide which is earlier.

My translation of Mark’s text is:
[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."

The Marcionite version according to what Ben posted is:
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’

This is based on a translation of the Lucan Greek and is in complete agreement with what we have in Luke. Therefore in the recreated text of Marcion the wineskins burst and if you go back to the Greek of Mark they do not burst. The bursting of the wineskins is from what I call Q - those parts where Matthew and Luke agree but are missing from Mark.

In Mark the wine pours out of the wineskins and the wineskins are destroyed but no reason is given, it is only from Q that we find the reason – the wineskins burst. The Q text reads better and this is normally considered as evidence for something being later because it has been improved. We can therefore conclude that Mark has the earliest version and Marcion has the Lucan wording.

Unfortunately we have no idea if Marcion’s gospel included Lk 5:38-39. Ben produces the evidence for this section here - viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1765#p39309 and concludes with a quote from Dieter T Roth “concerning verses 36-38: This parable is attested in multiple sources; however, the precise wording can no longer be reconstructed."
No one is attesting to these verses being missing and it is wrong of you to conclude they are missing unless you can provide the attestation that they are missing.

Therefore it is quite possible that the Marcionite text included “But new wine must be put into fresh wineskins”. (Please accept my apologies Luke does not have “καὶ ἀμφότεροι συντηροῦνται - both are preserved”.)

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.

Please can you point out where in Luke 5:37-38 and Mk 2:21-22 there is a different meaning?

It is possible that Christians created this saying to show that the Torah had ended with Jesus; one should not put old wine - the Law into new wineskins – Christians.

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 seems you are saying that Mark has reasons to change this possibly by adding “and preserve both” but doesn’t, but even here where there is no evidence that Mark is later than Marcion you conclude he is. It appears you have a theory and even where there is no evidence for it you conclude it supports your theory! Also of course you have ignored the lack of bursting wineskins which is my evidence for Mark being the earliest.

[Michael BG]

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.

I think you should take the credit for posting the text here based on Roth and BeDuhn. You did the formatting; you have posted the attestations and I think the translations from the Latin. As I had earlier given the link to your posts I assumed if anyone was very interested in your methodology they could look there.

Also the text in red is attested as not present – which is none of the text we are discussing here.

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.

NO! NO! NO!
Before you can say anything about the dating of the Marcionite gospel you have to have a discussion of the text and its attestation. Each word is vital for determining lateness or earliness. If you don’t understand this, then none of your posts regarding the dating of the Marcionite gospel have any basis except your faith.

Another problem with the argument about dating is the dating given in those people who you need to quote to discover the text. If the attester is wrong about the claim that the Marcionite gospel is a reduced gospel based on Luke then why do you credit that person with quoting the text faithfully?

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).

The split from Judaism was gradual.
There were financial pressures for Christians not to be seen as Jews and so have to pay the fiscus Iudaicus imposed by the Emperor Vespasian after the fall of Jerusalem in 70 CE. It seems that by 98 CE and the Emperor Nerva most Christians didn’t have to pay the tax unless they were practising Judaism.
It seems clear that by the time of Ignatius of Antioch there was pressure to not practice the customs of Judaism - letter to Magnesians c 107 – “If we are still living in the practice of Judaism, it is an admission that we have failed ...”; “so they have given up keeping the Sabbath and now order their lives by the Lord's day, ..”. “To profess Jesus Christ while continuing to follow Judaism customs is an absurdity.” (ch. 8, 9, 10 trans. Maxwell Staniforth).
There was also what is often termed an anti-Christian prayer (Birkat ha-Minim) in the Talmud (Berakot 28b-29a) said in the synagogues dated c 90 CE. It was really a test of orthodoxy said by someone who wished to use the synagogue.
Many scholars see in John’s gospel a community that has been expelled from Jewish synagogue worship before the final version of the gospel was produced, which is hard to date after 130 CE.
Another factor in the division of Christianity from Judaism was the Jewish revolt of 115-17 CE.

[Ben C. Smith]

I think you should take the credit for posting the text here based on Roth and BeDuhn. You did the formatting; you have posted the attestations and I think the translations from the Latin.

Well, granted; I did the formatting, and I took the lists of references/sources from BeDuhn and Roth, tracked down the original texts, linked them to translations, and presented them all as footnotes to the text.

I was just cautioning that statements like this...:

Ben gives the Marcion text as: ....

...may obscure the fact that I might disagree with Roth or BeDuhn or both at points. Absolutely no critical evaluation of the validity of each inclusion or exclusion went into the presentation.

No problem, by the way. Just a comment.

[Giuseppe]

As far as I can tell this is the only original thought in the earliest oral gospel.

I can recognize this your point, but note that originality is not surprise. The crucifixion in Ascension of Isaiah (if it was a pre-christian text) or in ''the earliest oral gospel'' or in Paul may be original, but it's not surprising, or at least not in a such measure ''to move the mountains''. After 2000 years, we are still surprised by the written Gospels. Therefore the first written Gospel was a very surprising thing, able ''of moving the mountains''. We are talking about something that was surprising for both the Gentiles, the Jews and the same previous Christians. And I insist that that something was Mcn.

The split from Judaism was gradual.

Ok, but Mcn was what marks the explicit split at his climax.

In this parable, we have a literally identical text for Marcion's Gospel and Luke, except for the last two verses. We all know the story. New wine cannot be poured into old wineskins, as the fermenting wine would crack and burst them and they would both perish, while when wine is put into new wineskins, both will be preserved. So far the logical conclusion. Luke must have adopted this story, but needed to change the ending, as Marcion used this story, as we are told by Tertullian, to show that the novelty of Christianity makes the new religion distinct from Judaism: the New Testament cannot be put together with the Old Testament, or even worse it cannot be integrated into the old wineskins of the Old Testament. To allow this inclusion, Luke cuts short Marcion's ending and replaces it with an addition that even the most traditional New Testament scholars have felt to be a radical breakdown in the logic of this pericope.

After having endorsed that new wine has to go into new wineskins, Luke adds, almost consternating the reader: 'No one after drinking old wine wants the new, for he says, "The old is good enough." So - why the story about the new wine and the wineskins at all? Is the novelty of Christianity not what one wants, because the traditional religion, Judaism with its Scriptures, 'is good enough'? Indeed, nobody before Marcion, with the exception of Hebrews, had picked up Paul's sole direct quote of the Lord from 1 Cor. 11 about his blood being 'the new covenant'; people who were called Christians had remained in ther old religious tradition of Judaism, as it was 'good enough' without feeling the need to see themselves or Christ's message as 'new wine' which needed 'new wineskins', new forms of literature, new sacraments, new liturgical rites, a New Testament, etc.

(Markus Vinzent, Marcion and the Dating, Peeters 2014, p. 275-276)

The existence of Q material is not killed if the Marcion gospel was the first gospel because there are still verses in Matthew and Luke where they agree but neither Marcion or Mark has them. An example is Lk 13:34-35 Mt 23:37-39.

Klinghardt would say that in that case Lk is based on Mt.
Vinzent would concede that in that case Lk is more old than Mt because he argues that all the Gospels were written disorderly in reaction to Mcn: therefore in some points Mt sounds more old that Lk and in other points the contrary happens.

Michael_BG, I am not an expert but my ''method'' is this:

I want to express first what my instinct says me and in a second step to examine in depth any scholars who agree with what my perception of evidence. I renounce what says my perception only in the absence of scholars who support my perception.

Therefore, since at moment I am unarmed regarding the textual arguments (waiting the next academic book on Marcion), the maximum that I can do is to provide a justification of why my solution is simpler on a theological intepretation of the parable of wineskins.

My translation of Mark’s text is:
[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."

The Marcionite version according to what Ben posted is:
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’

Now that I think about it, even Mark had a theological reason to add somethin that in Mcn there is not.

So it's Mark about wineskins:

Mark 2:21-22

21 “No one sews a patch of unshrunk cloth on an old garment. Otherwise, the new piece will pull away from the old, making the tear worse. 22 And no one pours new wine into old wineskins. Otherwise, the wine will burst the skins, and both the wine and the wineskins will be ruined. No, they pour new wine into new wineskins.”

It's realtively easy to see the distinction from Mcn:

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.

Note the fatidic, SURPRISING difference:


Mcn has a negative fate only for the wineskins (the Judaism):

or else the new wine will burst the skins, and it will be spilled, and the skins will be destroyed

That the wine ''will be spilled'' in Mcn is a positive destiny: it means that the Gospel of the God of Love will reach the ends of the world (in despite of the Jewish opposition). In Mcn only the wineskins (the guardians, more precisely the demiurgical guardians) were doomed, in that case.

Mark has a negative fate for the wine, too (for the true Gospel) and not only for the wineskins (the Judaism) :

Otherwise, the wine will burst the skins, and both the wine and the wineskins will be ruined.

In Mark, the message is: if the Christians observe still the Torah, then the providential ruin will befall on Judaism and Christianity, as well.

In Mcn, the message is: if the Christians observe still the Torah, then only the Judaism will be ruined, while the Gospel of God of Love will find nonetheless a way to get out of those who want to eclipse it in Judaism and ''dilate'', but will not be lost, indeed it still manages to go to total profit of the Christian Gentiles.

In essentia: the love of true God is so great [NOTE THE SURPRISE!], that it will save all those that are open to the gospel of Marcion. Note that this interpretation is coherent with the interpretation of the destruction of the Temple in Mcn: the Temple is the ''wineskins who will be ruined,'' while the true Christianity of Paul (and of Paul of Marcion) will be saved from the destruction (''the time of Gentiles will arrive'').

Note that Mt and Lk have the negative fate of only the wineskins (as in Mcn) ergo they are in need of adding the final ''harmonizing verses'' (as I call them): a compromise between old and new is researched espliciter.

Mark has no need of that compromise, because he says in short: if you Christians are conservative, then the ruin will befall on both you and Judaism and even the Gospel will be ruined. Therefore the only way to preserve the true Gospel and the true Judaism is to distance from Judaism: et voilà, a proto-catholic compromise is there even in Mark!

[Michael BG]

I was just cautioning that statements like this...:

Ben gives the Marcion text as: ....

...may obscure the fact that I might disagree with Roth or BeDuhn or both at points. Absolutely no critical evaluation of the validity of each inclusion or exclusion went into the presentation.

No problem, by the way. Just a comment.

It does depend on how one defines “gives”. I was using it as in “posted” rather than “translated”. I suppose I should try to use “posted” in future.

As far as I can tell this is the only original thought in the earliest oral gospel.

I can recognize this your point, but note that originality is not surprise. The crucifixion in Ascension of Isaiah (if it was a pre-christian text) or in ''the earliest oral gospel'' or in Paul may be original, but it's not surprising, or at least not in a such measure ''to move the mountains''. After 2000 years, we are still surprised by the written Gospels. Therefore the first written Gospel was a very surprising thing, able ''of moving the mountains''. We are talking about something that was surprising for both the Gentiles, the Jews and the same previous Christians. And I insist that that something was Mcn.

The Ascension of Isaiah was either written or edited by a Christian.

I am not surprised by anything in the gospels. When I was a child I thought the miracle stories were OK but the teaching was oh so boring.

Michael_BG, I am not an expert but my ''method'' is this:

I want to express first what my instinct says me and in a second step to examine in depth any scholars who agree with what my perception of evidence. I renounce what says my perception only in the absence of scholars who support my perception.

My method is the opposite I read what scholars write and decide if they have a convincing case (and this process takes a lot of time and new ideas can displace old ones). I also question their evidence an example is Richard I Pervo Dating Acts he makes a strong case for it being later than c 94 CE, but before I can accept this I need to consider all of the quotes from Josephus and check he hasn’t pushed the evidence further than it can go. Also when discussing gospel texts I try to decide which is likely to be the older Q version and not just accept the main stream position.

In this parable, we have a literally identical text for Marcion's Gospel and Luke, except for the last two verses. We all know the story. New wine cannot be poured into old wineskins, as the fermenting wine would crack and burst them and they would both perish, while when wine is put into new wineskins, both will be preserved. So far the logical conclusion. Luke must have adopted this story, but needed to change the ending, as Marcion used this story, as we are told by Tertullian, to show that the novelty of Christianity makes the new religion distinct from Judaism: the New Testament cannot be put together with the Old Testament, or even worse it cannot be integrated into the old wineskins of the Old Testament. To allow this inclusion, Luke cuts short Marcion's ending and replaces it with an addition that even the most traditional New Testament scholars have felt to be a radical breakdown in the logic of this pericope.

After having endorsed that new wine has to go into new wineskins, Luke adds, almost consternating the reader: 'No one after drinking old wine wants the new, for he says, "The old is good enough." So - why the story about the new wine and the wineskins at all? Is the novelty of Christianity not what one wants, because the traditional religion, Judaism with its Scriptures, 'is good enough'? Indeed, nobody before Marcion, with the exception of Hebrews, had picked up Paul's sole direct quote of the Lord from 1 Cor. 11 about his blood being 'the new covenant'; people who were called Christians had remained in ther old religious tradition of Judaism, as it was 'good enough' without feeling the need to see themselves or Christ's message as 'new wine' which needed 'new wineskins', new forms of literature, new sacraments, new liturgical rites, a New Testament, etc.

(Markus Vinzent, Marcion and the Dating, Peeters 2014, p. 275-276)

Firstly Vinzent is wrong, we just do not know if the last verse was included while as Ben has pointed out BeDuhm does think verse 38 of Luke is there generically.

Secondly why doesn’t Vinzent quote Tertullian stating that Marcion used verse 37 to show that the novelty of Christianity makes the new religion distinct from Judaism? Is it because that isn’t what Tertullian writes? Please quote the passage of Tertuullian that Vinzent is talking about if he even gives a reference to it.

Thirdly Vinzent is wrong when he writes, “Luke cuts short Marcion's ending”. There is no evidence for this.

(On the question of verse 39 we just do not know if it was in the Marcionite gospel or not. However I do agree that it seems strange placed after verses 37-38.)

Fourthly Vinzent is wrong when he states that up until Marcion split from Rome (July 144) “people who were called Christians had remained in their old religious tradition of Judaism, as it was 'good enough” as I have already outlined in my last post.
Also it seems clear that baptism and the Lord’s Supper were very early new Christian rites.

The existence of Q material is not killed if the Marcion gospel was the first gospel because there are still verses in Matthew and Luke where they agree but neither Marcion or Mark has them. An example is Lk 13:34-35 Mt 23:37-39.

Klinghardt would say that in that case Lk is based on Mt.
Vinzent would concede that in that case Lk is more old than Mt because he argues that all the Gospels were written disorderly in reaction to Mcn: therefore in some points Mt sounds more old that Lk and in other points the contrary happens.

The only way that Luke can have the older tradition than Matthew is either Matthew used Luke or there was a common source that both Matthew and Luke used. I don’t think anyone believes that Matthew used Luke.

There is another problem with dating the Marcionite gospel as the earliest and that is Ignatius of Antioch writing c 107 to the Smyrnaeans seems to be aware of things that are only in Matthew's gospel and only in Luke’s gospel. It therefore seems safe to conclude that by 107 CE both Matthews and Lukes gospels existed. How do Vinzent and Klinghardt deal with the problem of Ignatius of Antioch?

Mark has a negative fate for the wine, too (for the true Gospel) and not only for the wineskins (the Judaism) :

In Mark, the message is: if the Christians observe still the Torah, then the providential ruin will befall on Judaism and Christianity, as well.

This is not very likely to have been Mark’s interpretation. It is possible that Mark still believed that the eschatological event would happen soon and this might be reflected in this saying, while having the position that Gentiles did not need to observe the Torah – Old wineskins.

Mark is the more natural saying and this is why it is older. Also the second half (pouring new wine into new wineskin) is very much less developed than in Matthew and Luke. When wine bursts a wineskin it is ruined. The leakage is implied by the bursting and so it is ruined. The Q version makes it clearer that the wine is spilled.

Note that Mt and Lk have the negative fate of only the wineskins (as in Mcn) ergo they are in need of adding the final ''harmonizing verses'' (as I call them): a compromise between old and new is researched espliciter.

Indeed they have the Q version with both new and old being preserved, which might be seen as recognition that there were still Jewish Christians around when Q was written. Both Matthew and Luke have “καὶ οἱ ἀσκοὶ ἀπόλλυνται (and the wineskins shall-be-destroyed) and Luke has αὐτὸς ἐκχυθήσεται (it pouring-out) and Matthew has ὁ οἶνος ἐκχεῖται (the wine pouring-out). I would argue this is because the saying was also in Q, but Matthew has the older version and Luke has improved it with “it pouring-out”.

That the wine ''will be spilled'' in Mcn is a positive destiny: it means that the Gospel of the God of Love will reach the ends of the world (in despite of the Jewish opposition). In Mcn only the wineskins (the guardians, more precisely the demiurgical guardians) were doomed, in that case.

In Mcn, the message is: if the Christians observe still the Torah, then only the Judaism will be ruined, while the Gospel of God of Love will find nonetheless a way to get out of those who want to eclipse it in Judaism and ''dilate'', but will not be lost, indeed it still manages to go to total profit of the Christian Gentiles.

In essentia: the love of true God is so great [NOTE THE SURPRISE!], that it will save all those that are open to the gospel of Marcion. Note that this interpretation is coherent with the interpretation of the destruction of the Temple in Mcn: the Temple is the ''wineskins who will be ruined,'' while the true Christianity of Paul (and of Paul of Marcion) will be saved from the destruction (''the time of Gentiles will arrive'').

I am not sure that you understand the prophet tradition in Judaism where God desires mercy not sacrifice (Mt has the saying twice 9:13 and 12:7). I see Jesus in this tradition and the early Christians adding the idea of Jesus as a sacrifice. It seems clear from some of the stories in the gospels that Jesus was preaching the forgiveness of sins and that the only requirement was repentance. No God looking back on all of a person’s actions and judging them on these.

It is possible that the Marcionites, as well as the Q community did interpret this saying in the way you set out but do you have any evidence this is so?

However you do make a strong case for the lateness of the Marcionite gospel. You make a case that Marcion is developing Christianity to remove it further from its Jewish roots which can be more clearly seen in the gospels of Matthew, Mark and Luke.

[Giuseppe]

Firstly Vinzent is wrong, we just do not know if the last verse was included while as Ben has pointed out BeDuhm does think verse 38 of Luke is there generically.

I wait to know the Klinghardt's view about it before I can answer.

Secondly why doesn’t Vinzent quote Tertullian stating that Marcion used verse 37 to show that the novelty of Christianity makes the new religion distinct from Judaism? Is it because that isn’t what Tertullian writes? Please quote the passage of Tertuullian that Vinzent is talking about if he even gives a reference to it.

I wait to read the Vinzent's commentary about Marcion before I can answer.

Thirdly Vinzent is wrong when he writes, “Luke cuts short Marcion's ending”. There is no evidence for this.

(On the question of verse 39 we just do not know if it was in the Marcionite gospel or not. However I do agree that it seems strange placed after verses 37-38.)

Fourthly Vinzent is wrong when he states that up until Marcion split from Rome (July 144) “people who were called Christians had remained in their old religious tradition of Judaism, as it was 'good enough” as I have already outlined in my last post.
Also it seems clear that baptism and the Lord’s Supper were very early new Christian rites.

John the Baptist baptized, too. Where is the surprise? The Lord's Supper may be an anti-marcionite interpolation.

The only way that Luke can have the older tradition than Matthew is either Matthew used Luke or there was a common source that both Matthew and Luke used. I don’t think anyone believes that Matthew used Luke.

The Catholic priest Adamczewski argues that Matthew used Luke.

There is another problem with dating the Marcionite gospel as the earliest and that is Ignatius of Antioch writing c 107 to the Smyrnaeans seems to be aware of things that are only in Matthew's gospel and only in Luke’s gospel. It therefore seems safe to conclude that by 107 CE both Matthews and Lukes gospels existed. How do Vinzent and Klinghardt deal with the problem of Ignatius of Antioch?

Ubi maior, minor cessat. If, as Vinzent promises:

when you read Matthias Klinghardt's new 2 vols with his reconstruction of Marcion's Gospel you will see that he constantly shows Luke's anti-Marcionite reactions ...

...I will have no problem to reject Ignatius as pure late II CE invention.

Mark has a negative fate for the wine, too (for the true Gospel) and not only for the wineskins (the Judaism) :

In Mark, the message is: if the Christians observe still the Torah, then the providential ruin will befall on Judaism and Christianity, as well.

This is not very likely to have been Mark’s interpretation. It is possible that Mark still believed that the eschatological event would happen soon and this might be reflected in this saying, while having the position that Gentiles did not need to observe the Torah – Old wineskins.

You cannot deny the evidence of what Mark says:

both the wine and the skins will be ruined

Ask yourself: if Mark is prior, why Marcion and/or Luke and/or Matthew take the disturb of making a distinction between the fate of the old skins (destruction) and the fate of the wine (only ''spilled'', presumably on the entire world) ?

''To be spilled'' is not ''to be ruined or destroyed''.

Marcion is saying: if we remain Judaizing Christians, then the true Gospel will be ''spilled'' by need on the entire world, even against our Judaizing will.

Mark is intimating: if we remain Judaizing Christians then we lose the true Gospel, too. It's implicit in Mark the proto-catholic desire that the old wineskins are saved, and Mark saves them simply by not putting the new wine in them (because otherwise they will be ruined). For Marcion, the fate of the old wineskins is indifferent, but if the old wineskins withhold the new wine, then they are doomed (something happened historically after the 70 and the 135) while the new wine is ''spilled'' but neither destroyed nor ruined.
Marcion is saying that it's destiny that his true Gospel will triumph at end, velim nolim .

Mark is the more natural saying and this is why it is older. Also the second half (pouring new wine into new wineskin) is very much less developed than in Matthew and Luke. When wine bursts a wineskin it is ruined. The leakage is implied by the bursting and so it is ruined. The Q version makes it clearer that the wine is spilled.

If Mark is prior as you say, I don't see no need for Luke or Marcion to use two different verbs to specify respectively the fate of the skins and the fate of the wine. This is surprising (=unlikely, =unexpected, =not probable).

Both Matthew and Luke have “καὶ οἱ ἀσκοὶ ἀπόλλυνται (and the wineskins shall-be-destroyed)

Because they follow Marcion on the tragic fate of the wineskins only (differently from Mark), Matthew and Luke have need of the final harmonizing verses.

It is possible that the Marcionites, as well as the Q community did interpret this saying in the way you set out but do you have any evidence this is so?

If I remember well, Vinzent does a partial suggestive argument based on the synoptic lecture of apocalyptic prophecies of Mark 13 that fits with my intepretation of parable of wineskins.

Only Marcion’s version without the verses Luke 21:21-2 is consistent, as here, the Daniel-hint of the desolation receives an interpretation which is not a fulfilment of this prophecy, but its correction: Against Daniel, the city and the temple will not and has not been destroyed by the Messiah and his people, but by the Gentiles. There were not ‘days of vengeance’ of the Lord, but days where ‘the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled’. Those who bring the sword and lead away captives will see that such times become fulfilled – overcome, as we will see by an all-loving God. This first comparison may give us a taste of what will be encountered later in the commentary.

In Marcion, the sense would be: there will be a collective ruin of only the Jews, the temple (the wineskins?) will be destroyed, etc, BUT not by the Messiah because finally the time of the gentiles (i.e. marcionite Christians) will be realized (the new wine will be 'spilled' on the entire world?).

Against Luke’s (and Marcion’s) blaming of the Gentiles, by using Daniel Mark and Matthew make the destruction the work of ‘the people of the coming prince’ and the Messiah, who by destroying the Temple and the city, by halting ‘sacrifices and offerings’ is ‘the one who destroys’.

It seems that Mark is correcting Marcion here just as he did about the parable of wineskins : the ruin is collective of both Jews and Gentiles, because the Messiah will arrive to destroy all (''both the wine and the skins will be ruined'').


I thank you because this discussion allowed me to better appreciate the post of Vinzent in the light of the parable of the wineskins.

[Michael BG]

I thank you because this discussion allowed me to better appreciate the post of Vinzent in the light of the parable of the wineskins.

Glad to have been of assistance.

I will have no problem to reject Ignatius as pure late II CE invention.

I would be happy to reach this conclusion too. Does Vinzent present a very persuasive case for it?

The Lord's Supper may be an anti-marcionite interpolation.

The Didache has the Eucharist but not in the Pauline and Marcan forms (maybe an earlier form) and this is usually seen as late first century or early second century tradition. (I also see in it a reference to Sunday worship not Saturday indicating a split from Judaism to add to my earlier evidence.)

You cannot deny the evidence of what Mark says:

both the wine and the skins will be ruined

Ask yourself: if Mark is prior, why Marcion and/or Luke and/or Matthew take the disturb of making a distinction between the fate of the old skins (destruction) and the fate of the wine (only ''spilled'', presumably on the entire world) ?

''To be spilled'' is not ''to be ruined or destroyed''.

If you spill wine can you drink it afterwards? I say no! You mob it up but you don’t then squeeze the cloth to get the wine out of it so you can drink it. The spilled wine is ruined and thrown away! And this is so with the Q version. While the Q version is different the end result is the same. It is only in your interpretation of it (which is no longer from real life) that the spilled wine is a good thing.

You keep asserting how Marcion used this saying but you haven’t yet quoted any “church father” quoting him.

It is possible that the Marcionites, as well as the Q community did interpret this saying in the way you set out but do you have any evidence this is so?

If I remember well, Vinzent does a partial suggestive argument based on the synoptic lecture of apocalyptic prophecies of Mark 13 that fits with my intepretation of parable of wineskins.

Do you understand how weak your comment is here?

Only Marcion’s version without the verses Luke 21:21-2 is consistent, as here, the Daniel-hint of the desolation receives an interpretation which is not a fulfilment of this prophecy, but its correction: Against Daniel, the city and the temple will not and has not been destroyed by the Messiah and his people, but by the Gentiles. There were not ‘days of vengeance’ of the Lord, but days where ‘the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled’. Those who bring the sword and lead away captives will see that such times become fulfilled – overcome, as we will see by an all-loving God. This first comparison may give us a taste of what will be encountered later in the commentary.

Against Luke’s (and Marcion’s) blaming of the Gentiles, by using Daniel Mark and Matthew make the destruction the work of ‘the people of the coming prince’ and the Messiah, who by destroying the Temple and the city, by halting ‘sacrifices and offerings’ is ‘the one who destroys’.

Marcion not including the Lucan only wording here does not give the desolation of Jerusalem surrounded by armies a new meaning. Marcion still has the expectation of evil things as the time of the coming of the Son of Man. Also Vinzent does not seem to be aware that Mark here (13:14ff) is quoting from a pre-Christian source talking about Gaius Caligula (c 40 CE) in the same way as Daniel is talking about Antiochus IV Epiphanes (c 167 BCE which is remembered at Hanukkah each year).

It seems that Mark is correcting Marcion here just as he did about the parable of wineskins

But Mark isn’t correcting Marcion here he is quoting his written source that is talking about events under the Emperor Gaius Caligula. This is clear because Mark has Jesus say “"But when you see the desolating sacrilege set up where it ought not to be (let the reader understand), then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains;”
Mark is showing fatigue and quoting the whole of his written source, Jesus is not reading anything he is talking to the disciples.