The first Gospel: surprise, indifference or hostility?

[Giuseppe]

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?

On the close relation between 2Peter and Ignatius see A. le Boulluec, La notion d'hérésie dans la literature grecque II-III siècles (1985), 23-5: the term 'heresy', used in the plural, is employed for the first time in the New Testament in the second quarter of the 2 c., in 2Petr. 2:1, a text that shows 'une affinitée particulière' with Ignatius, bout authors write against 'teachers'.
(Marcion and the dating, p. 279, n. 9)

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.)

The Didachè may be even more late...

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.

In the parable of the sowner, the evangelist says espliciter when the Word is lost (for example, when it falls on rocks). About the wineskins, Mcn or Luke is precise: only ''the wineskins will are destroyed''. The new wine, by his allegorical definition (the true Gospel), cannot be never lost (if not specified otherwise, as Mark does).

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

Please have patience: any 'problem' about church fathers I will resolve in future.

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.

No. The marcionite Jesus is not a failed apocalyptic prophet as the synoptical Jesus. He has no interest about the future of this world. He prophetizes only that when Jerusalem will be surrounded by armies, that is not the effect of the Jewish Messiah but of Titus (a surprising antithesis!), meaning that ''the times of Gentiles'' [i.e. Marcionites] are arrived.
In this way you cannot apply more the ''criterion of embarrassment'' (even conceding you his 'legitimate' use!) on the failure of apocalyptic prophecies in Mark, Matthew and Luke (to prove the historicity of Jesus): by correcting Marcion, the authors of Mark, Matthew and Luke have created virtually a ''failed apocalyptic prophet Jesus''.

1) Daniel prophetizes that Jerusalem will be destroyed by the Jewish Messiah.
2) but the marcionite Jesus prophetizes that Jerusalem will be destroyed by Gentiles.
3) Titus destroyes Jerusalem, therefore: antithesis.


Note the logical error of Mark:


1) Daniel prophetizes that Jerusalem will be destroyed by the Jewish Messiah.
2) Accordingly in Mark Jesus prophetizes that Jerusalem will be destroyed by the Jewish Messiah.
3) Titus destroyes Jerusalem, therefore: Jesus is a failed apocalyptic prophet.


I see the same logic in the wineskins:

1) no put the new wine (=Gentiles) in old wineskins (=Judaism)
2) because otherwise the old wineskins (Judaism) will be destroyed by the new wine (=Gentiles)
3) but put the new wine (=Gentiles) in new wineskins (the new marcionite scriptures).


So Mark:


1) no put the new wine (=Gentiles) in old wineskins (=Judaism)
2) because otherwise the old wineskins (Judaism) and the new wine (=Gentiles) will be destroyed by the Messiah
3) but put the new wine (=Gentiles) in new wineskins (proto-catholicism) in order to save the old wineskins (as ''Old Testament'')


Note that differently from Mark, in Mcn and Luke and Matthew is the new wine the direct cause of the destruction of the old wineskins: how can the destroyer be in turn destroyed, if not otherwise specified (as in Mark) ???

By putting the right emphasis on the loss of the new wine (and not only of the wineskins), Mark wants to point out that his desire is the salvation of both, old wineskins (with the old wine) and new wine. Namely: Mark still wants the preservation of the Old Testament as Christian scriptures prophesying the Christ.

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.

[/quote]
I find this article of dr. Detering conclusive about the enigma of desolating sacrilege, etc. It's sufficient only to remember that Hadrian, differently from the insignificant Caligula, did really that 'sacrilege'. Secondly, I am persuased by prof Adamczewski that Mark did know and use often again and again the Antiquities and War of Jews of Josephus, therefore he is at least from 110 CE.

Frankly, I find the argument of Caligula (to date Mark) worth of a Christian apologist, not of Michael_BG.

[Ben C. Smith]

Frankly, I find the argument of Caligula (to date Mark) worth of a Christian apologist, not of Michael_BG.

Come, Giuseppe. Play nice. It is quite unfair to compare anyone to a Christian apologist simply because of his or her view of Mark 13 and the Caligula crisis. On the one hand, James Crossley is an atheistic scholar who uses Mark 13 (and other passages) to date Mark to the fifth decade of century I; on the other hand, dating Mark 13 does not necessarily date the entire book of Mark. Michael explicitly opined that Mark 13 was drawn from a pre-Christian source; therefore, Michael is not using that chapter to date Mark as a whole.

Ben.

[Giuseppe]

Frankly, I find the argument of Caligula (to date Mark) worth of a Christian apologist, not of Michael_BG.

Come, Giuseppe. Play nice. It is quite unfair to compare anyone to a Christian apologist simply because of his or her view of Mark 13 and the Caligula crisis. On the one hand, James Crossley is an atheistic scholar who uses Mark 13 (and other passages) to date Mark to the fifth decade of century I; on the other hand, dating Mark 13 does not necessarily date the entire book of Mark. Michael explicitly opined that Mark 13 was drawn from a pre-Christian source; therefore, Michael is not using that chapter to date Mark as a whole.

Ben.

Objectively, the threat of Caligula (who never put into practice) is compared to the desecration of Hadrian as a fly compared to a storm. I have the same scripture supporting my use of the word ''Christian apologist'':
"Why do you look at the speck of sawdust [Caligula] in your brother's eye and pay no attention to the plank [Hadrian] in your own eye?

[DCHindley]

... then it seems reasonable ...

I deal with "reasonableness" every day in my job. I am examining payroll records to determine how the employer came to report a certain payroll to their insurance carrier. Now I get the pleasure of calculating what should have been reported, and compare this to what they did report. Most of the time it is rather straightforward. There are a couple of common errors that I can easily explain. Then there are cases that stump even me (and I've been at this for 28 years).

For instance, the US Internal Revenue Service interpretive rules say that officers of S-Corps must take a "reasonable" wage from their corporations, even though they will receive any "ordinary" (net) income, at least on paper, at the year end. They are still free to draw against this surplus (provided there was any) above and beyond their "reasonable" salary. However, if they take $25,000 as salary for running a successful business and their ordinary income from the corporation is $500,000, then $25,000 does not appear to be a "reasonable" salary.

In those cases I have to go to our state's Business Statistics bureau website to see what a "first line manager of a XXX' earns on the average, and I can use that. If it seems low, for whatever reason I can quantify, I can bump that up to a certain maximum, as long as they have realized ordinary income from their business up to that amount. I can also go the other way if someone else is running the business for them and the officer has an oversight capacity only. It may dawn on me that the low amount the officer took (and reported) in wages actually was reasonable after all.

In effect I have great flexibility in determining reasonableness, but only when interpreted against other known things (average wage for duties performed compared to other similar businesses, actual duties performed, amount of ordinary income from the business at year end, etc.), but I cannot just decide arbitrarily what is "reasonable", as our review staff will catch it and ask me to quantify.

Can you quantify what makes what you asserted was reasonable actually "reasonable"?

DCH

[iskander]

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!).

Who--or what-- is the Demiurge?

[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!).

Who--or what-- is the Demiurge?

the god of the Jews.

This is a strong clue of Mcn priority:

Mark starts with Jesus being bapized by John. This is exactly where Matthew re-starts his Gospel, having jumped straight from Jesus' birth and Herod to the beginning of Mark. This is a good indicator that Matthew indeed used Mark as his source. It would also discount Marcion's Gospel as their source, as that began not with Jesus being baptized by John, but with Jesus' starting teaching in Galilee. Unfortunately, we cannot take Q here either, as scholars are divided on whether or not the sayings source started with the baptism narrative. With Q being a sayings source, there is also a dispute as to what extent it displayed an overall narrative structure - a major difference to the one preserved sayings'gospel, the Gospel of Thomas. We have to move to Luke: Luke is the literally closest text to Marcion's Gospel. And, indeed, Luke does not start like Mark, his potential source, or re-start like Matthew with Jesus' Baptism, but, like Marcion, with Jesus' teaching in Galilee. If Luke were based on Mark - why did he choose a different opening which coincides with that of Marcion? Of course, Marcion could have simply followed Luke. The parallels and discrepancies above show that our three Synoptics must have been related in this passage, most likely Luke being the source for the other two, as where his text is given, the other two coincide as well. When we look further, however, into details of what happens between Marcion, Luke, Mark and Matthew, we will discover a general rule that can be supported by a series of examples: more clearly than here with Luke very often where Marcion is missing, our three Synoptics are at variance, either entirely, or almost entirely as in the birthstories, but as soon as we know of verses which are attested for in Marcion, the Synoptics not only starte getting closer, but they are often literally identical - following Marcion word by word, sometimes only with minimal, theological corrections. As soon as Marcion's texts end, however, our Synoptics begin to diverge again.

(M. Vinzent, Marcion and the Dating, p. 263)

It's sufficient, to prove the Mcn priority, not to show that for each his episode there is a marcionite essentia. Mcn may be no marcionite at all (i.e., written not by Marcion in person), but still to be the first Gospel. In order to prove that point, I can limit myself only to prove that any other Gospel is based (directly or less) on Mcn.

[iskander]

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!).

Who--or what-- is the Demiurge?

the god of the Jews............

So, the Demiurge is the God of the Jews and Jesus is the God of Marcion. Are you an apologist for the Christian Marcionite Church?

[Michael BG]

Frankly, I find the argument of Caligula (to date Mark) worth of a Christian apologist, not of Michael_BG.

Come, Giuseppe. Play nice. It is quite unfair to compare anyone to a Christian apologist simply because of his or her view of Mark 13 and the Caligula crisis. On the one hand, James Crossley is an atheistic scholar who uses Mark 13 (and other passages) to date Mark to the fifth decade of century I; on the other hand, dating Mark 13 does not necessarily date the entire book of Mark. Michael explicitly opined that Mark 13 was drawn from a pre-Christian source; therefore, Michael is not using that chapter to date Mark as a whole.

Ben.

Thank you.

While I do believe that Mark 13 is the best way to date Mark I was not dating Mark by his use of a source that may have been written c 40 CE. I have not been convinced that Mark used Josephus and I haven’t pinned Mark down except to assume it was written after 66 CE and if there is no evidence of use of Josephus (c 75 CE) then it can be seen as earlier than when we would except him to have known Josephus. I think when at university I was content with a date of 73 CE, but I haven’t a totally fixed date.

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.

I find this article of dr. Detering conclusive about the enigma of desolating sacrilege, etc. It's sufficient only to remember that Hadrian, differently from the insignificant Caligula, did really that 'sacrilege'. Secondly, I am persuased by prof Adamczewski that Mark did know and use often again and again the Antiquities and War of Jews of Josephus, therefore he is at least from 110 CE.

Frankly, I find the argument of Caligula (to date Mark) worth of a Christian apologist, not of Michael_BG.

I have never been called a Christian apologist before. It would be bad enough to be called a conservative, but a Christian apologist – well I never saw it coming.

I understand why you dismiss the Caligula argument. It is because Detering does not present it very well. In fact he includes large sections of redaction and then makes a case why they don’t apply rather than just discussing what I assume Theissen actually sees as this source.

Detering at least agrees that “the desolating sacrilege set up where it ought not to be” does refer to an emperor. He has to create a new shared source for this section of Mark and Matthew – SynApoc. And I thought you didn’t like hypothetical sources? Also he wants to make a link to the date of the Apocalypse of Peter. He wants to date the Apocalypse of Peter to after 135 CE by referring to something in it that is not in either Mark or Matthew – “in conjunction with the parable of the fig tree, a “lying Christ” is mentioned who persecutes the Christians” (p176) but should we be concerned that he doesn’t quote it especially as I couldn’t find in the James translation (http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/t ... james.html) but Muller also seems to see something there about persecuting Christians to date it to 135 CE.

It is my understanding that the Jewish source dated c 40 CE is generally considered to include only Mk 13:7-8, 14-20, 24-7 (Catchpole Jesus People p 240).

[7] And when you hear of wars and rumors of wars, do not be alarmed; this must take place, but the end is not yet.
[8] For nation will rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom; there will be earthquakes in various places, there will be famines; this is but the beginning of the birth-pangs.
[14] "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;
[15] let him who is on the housetop not go down, nor enter his house, to take anything away;
[16] and let him who is in the field not turn back to take his mantle.
[17] And alas for those who are with child and for those who give suck in those days!
[18] Pray that it may not happen in winter.
[19] For in those days there will be such tribulation as has not been from the beginning of the creation which God created until now, and never will be.
[20] And if the Lord had not shortened the days, no human being would be saved; but for the sake of the elect, whom he chose, he shortened the days.
[24] "But in those days, after that tribulation, the sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light,
[25] and the stars will be falling from heaven, and the powers in the heavens will be shaken.
[26] And then they will see the Son of man coming in clouds with great power and glory.
[27] And then he will send out the angels, and gather his elect from the four winds, from the ends of the earth to the ends of heaven. (RSV)

Catchpole makes the point that the pre-Marcan threat and fears “were not in fact realised, whereas the second time” the threat and fears were “coming to life once more.” (p 240) I think he might also imply that because they don’t closely follow what happened in 70 CE this is further evidence of Mark being written before the fall of Jerusalem. Detering points out that there were earthquakes after 37 CE but just ignores the possibility that it is these that are referred to in Mk 13:8 if it was part of a Jewish source c 40 CE. He also points out that the phrase “desolating sacrilege” is likely to refer to a statue but ignores the possibility that this is the Gaius Caligula one.

Detering when arguing against an early date for what Catchpole sees as redaction even uses Acts as if it is factual history without assessing the text of Acts. Detering states that Christians were not beaten (as in Mk 13:9) but if 2 Cor 11:25 is not an interpolation then Paul was beaten three times with rods (I am not aware of anyone who sees this as an interpolation). It is possible (as I am sure Giuseppe is aware having referenced Adamczcewski) that Mark would be aware of this tradition. Detering seems to suggest that there were not periods of persecution for the Christians pre-76 CE but he doesn’t produce any argument for the Nero persecution of 64 CE being a later creation rather than factually reported by Tacitus. Detering also seems to be confused about the statue and the winter reference (Mk 13:18). He states that Philo has negotiations with Gaius Caligula in the spring, but records Caligula’s death in January 41 CE that is in winter and it is my understanding that it was only his death that stopped the statue being setup in the Temple. It seems to me that Detering misrepresents Theissen on purpose so he can attack not Theissen’s real position but the one painted by Detering himself.

It seems that Detering sees the text of Mt 24:5 “For many will come in my name, saying, `I am the Christ,' and they will lead many astray” (RSV) as very important to give SynApoc a post 135 CE date. This verse is clearly Christian and not a Jewish document. Therefore Detering should not be trying to use it to date a common source for both Mark and Matthew as late. Detering recognises that Q had is own false prophets tradition before the coming of the Son of Man (Lk 17:22-37 and par) and therefore he should be able to see Mk 13:21-23 as a Marcan variation that could have fed into Matthew’s addition of Christ and Mark 13:6. I find his aversion to “redactional insertions” completely unfathomable.

Detering states (p 194):

A piece of important legal evidence that Christians were exposed to the pressure of persecution at this time—to be sure, by the state—would be the so-called aposynagogos, i.e., the banishment from the synagogue. On the basis of the expansion of the twelfth of the daily “eighteen prayers,” presumably through Gamaliel I at the end of the first century, to include the words, “Let there be no hope for apostates, and may you uproot the kingdom of insolence speedily in our days, and let the Nazarenes and the heretics perish in a moment,” Christians could be excluded from the fellowship of the synagogue and thus given up to persecution by the Romans.

Detering is much less cautious with this evidence than I am. I referred to it thus “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.”

Detering dates 4 Ezra to c 115 without discussing if it might in fact contain older traditions about the rumours and wars that come before the eschatological end of time. (He quotes 13:30-31 which is in my RSV Bible which include Apocrypha and Deuterocanonical books as 2 Esdras.)

Detering does not really discuss if there is evidence that Jewish Christianity as seen in Matthew’s gospel could still exist post 135 CE over 40 years since what he calls “the banishment from the synagogue”. This banishment is seen clearly in the gospel of John but I am not aware of it being present in the gospel of Matthew.

I am not familiar with Bartosz Adamczewski but I found this on the internet http://ntweblog.blogspot.co.uk/2011/02/ ... -area.html which makes me think his methodology might also be flawed when discussing Mark as it appears it was when discussing Matthew posteriority. Please can you post Adamczewski’s argument for Mark’s use of Josephus?

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.)

The Didachè may be even more late...

I thought I was clear that I was dating the Eucharist tradition in the Didache and not dating the Didache as we have it today.

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 failed to answer this, but that might be because you can’t!

No. The marcionite Jesus is not a failed apocalyptic prophet as the synoptical Jesus. He has no interest about the future of this world. He prophetizes only that when Jerusalem will be surrounded by armies, that is not the effect of the Jewish Messiah but of Titus (a surprising antithesis!), meaning that ''the times of Gentiles'' [i.e. Marcionites] are arrived.

I would conclude that it is clear that Luke places the time of troubles to the time when Titus surrounded Jerusalem – 70 CE. This is often used as evidence that Luke used Josephus and so dates Luke after c 75 CE. I am not aware of the attestation for what is missing from Luke’s gospel regarding the eschatological end of time, so I can not assess if your opinion is based on the evidence or not.

I find your understanding of Daniel 11:31 strange considering you should have read the article you linked to by Detering. This verse is about Antiochus IV Epiphanes c 167 BCE who was clearly a Gentile. Your interpretation of these texts seems like a conservative Christians rather than the more accepted scholarly view of them.

It's sufficient, to prove the Mcn priority ... In order to prove that point, I can limit myself only to prove that any other Gospel is based (directly or less) on Mcn.

I agree this is what you have to do, but it just is not possible.
When you look at what Marcion doesn’t have but Luke has you assert this as proof of Marcion earliness, but that is no more likely than it is evidence of Marcion lateness. You reject the statement of those who quote the Marcionite text that it an edited down form of Luke while wanting to use them as reliable in their assessment of what is in or not in the Marcionite gospel.

As a first step you haven’t proved Marcion priority over Luke and until you can do that you can’t take the steps to prove Marcion priority over Mark and Matthew.

[Giuseppe]

So, the Demiurge is the God of the Jews and Jesus is the God of Marcion. Are you an apologist for the Christian Marcionite Church?

I like very much Marcion, his Gospel and his marcionite theology. It surprised me since the first time I realized that, if Jesus is a celestial archangel in Paul, then the best way to half-historicize him (as distinct from to euhemerize him, attention) is to make him an angel coming down from heaven to Capernaum.
Yes, Adamcezwki does a good case for Mark as a pauline allegory. I started the reading of Adamczewski because I was galvanized by Parvus hypothesis of ur-Mark as simonian allegory, but what I find in Adamczewski is an optimal convincing case for Mark as SAINT-pauline allegory with no historicity at all. An example: Jesus coming from Nazareth eager of being baptized by John is (midrash from) Paul zealot Jewish persecutor of the church in Gal 1 (!), i.e. just these passages in Galatians that I consider (prima et secunda facie) proto-catholic interpolations without no shadow of doubt. This is enough in my opinion to suspect Mark of being a proto-catholic allegory and therefore late. Mark knows only the Saint Paul, not the original Paul.

While I do believe that Mark 13 is the best way to date Mark I was not dating Mark by his use of a source that may have been written c 40 CE.

no excuse. Even with Mark 13 as a previous source, the idea that a Jew had to worry about that fly of Caligula (and not of that storm of Hadrian) does merely giggle.

I read from Adamczewski:

The opening idea of seeing the pagan 'abomination of desolation' ... as having been placed in the Jerusalem temple, as the reader who knows the Scriptures (Dan 9:27; 11:31; 12:11; 1 Macc 1:54 LXX) should understand it, so that those who will be in Judaea should flee to the mountains, presumably in order to flee from pagan ungodliness (Mk 13:14), illustrates the Pauline thought that the believers should become consciously righteous, apparently in a Jewish-style way, refrain from sinning, and avoid pagan-like people who have no knowledge of God (1 Cor 15:34a-c). For Mark, the Pauline remark concerning those who have no knowledge of the true God (1 Cor 15:34c) could apply to the Romans, as the scriptural-historical allusion to a pagan who has stood .... in the Jerusalem temple, where he ought not to be (Mk 13:14a-d), evidently shows.140

Note 140: Mark's use of Josephus' writings generally suggests that the date of the composition of the Gospel was no earlier than AD 100. However, the allusion to some pagan person and/or object as having stood in the place of the Jerusalem temple (Mk 13:14) could suggest that the Marcan Gospel was composed c. AD 130-135, under the rule of the emperor Hadrian. The lack of undisputed manuscript attestation or quotations from the Gospels before the second half of the second century AD allows for such a hypothesis.

(p. 158-159)

Please can you post Adamczewski’s argument for Mark’s use of Josephus?

He doesn't reserve an entire chapter for that topic, but when he finds a particular term, construct or name of town during his commentary of Mark he refers to the (only similar) occurrence found in Josephus.
For example:

Moreover, Mark describes James, togheter with John, as the sons of Zebedee (Ζεβεδαΐοζ: Mk 1:19-20; 3:17; 10:35). In this way, he alluded to the scriptural character of Achan (Josh 7:1-26), who was identified by Josephus as a son of Zebedee (Ζεβεδαίου παΐζ: Jos. Ant. 5.33). In the scriptural story, Achan was a greedy person, who took ('stole') some of the things which were devoted to Yahweh (Josh 7:1.11.21). Mark used this negative scriptural example to illustrate the decision of the Jerusalem 'pillars', who demanded financial support from Gentile believers (Gal 2:10a), thus changing their religiously motivated, voluntary gift to the 'saints' of Jerusalem (cf. 1 Cor 16:1-4; 2 Cor 8-9) into an authoritatively imposed financial obligation for the benefit of the Jewish Christian community.

(p. 46)

Another examples:

The toponym Capernaum (Καφαρναούν: Mk 1:21;2:1;9:33), which could not be found in the Old Testament, and whose Greek version is surprisingly identical with that in Jos. B.J. 3.519 [Cf. A. Yarbro Collins, Mark, 161], notwithstanding the fact that the name could have been rendered from Aramaic in various Greek forms (cf. Jos. Vita 403: Κεφαρνωκόν), must have been borrowed by the evangelist from Jos. B.J. 3.519. The evangelist most probably used precisely this toponym because of its prominence in Josephus' description of the Galilean country of Gennesaret (Jos. B.J. 3.516-521).

(p. 47)

As concernes the Marcan topographical details, the name of the Gerasenes (Γερασηνοί: Mk 5:1) could have been borrowed from Jos. B.J. 2.480; 4.503; Ant. 13.398 (cf. also B.J. 1.104; 2.458; 3.47; 4.487), and the name of the Decapolis (treated as one feminine word Δεκάπολιζ: Mk 5:20; 7:31) could have been borrowed from Jos. B.J. 3.446.

(p. 74)
And so on, here and there Adamczewski refers to Josephus in a similar way.

You failed to answer this, but that might be because you can’t!

I read the parable of the clothes preceding the wineskins in Luke/Mcn and I find that the new clothes is destroyed when trying to put on old clothes, so this convinces me that the new wine is also lost when it breaks the old wineskins. So you are right: I have no way to distinguish Mark from Mcn basing only on that episode. But note that prof Vinzent names some scholars who have recognized previously the intrinsic difficulty of reading our enigmatic Matthew and Luke about wineskins with their obvious harmonizing final ''corrective'' verses of compromise. You should recognize that, too (that I have proved Marcion priority over Luke and Matthew only in virtue of wineskins affair).

I find your understanding of Daniel 11:31 strange considering you should have read the article you linked to by Detering. This verse is about Antiochus IV Epiphanes c 167 BCE who was clearly a Gentile.

But I was alluding to this Daniel:

9:25 So know and understand:
From the issuing of the command to restore and rebuild
Jerusalem until an anointed one, a prince arrives,
there will be a period of seven weeks and sixty-two weeks.
It will again be built, with plaza and moat,
but in distressful times.
9:26 Now after the sixty-two weeks,
an anointed one will be cut off and have nothing.
As for the city and the sanctuary,
the people of the coming prince will destroy them.
But his end will come speedily like a flood.
Until the end of the war that has been decreed
there will be destruction.
9:27 He will confirm a covenant with many for one week.
But in the middle of that week
he will bring sacrifices and offerings to a halt.
On the wing of abominations will come one who destroys,
until the decreed end is poured out on the one who destroys.”

It's difficult to think that the ''coming prince'' (destroyer of the city and sanctuary) is a Gentile, since that same prince is called ''an anointed one'' in Daniel 9:25. Please read well the following post:

http://markusvinzent.blogspot.it/2011/1 ... n-has.html

[Michael BG]

So, the Demiurge is the God of the Jews and Jesus is the God of Marcion. Are you an apologist for the Christian Marcionite Church?

I like very much Marcion, his Gospel and his marcionite theology. It surprised me since the first time I realized that, if Jesus is a celestial archangel in Paul, then the best way to half-historicize him (as distinct from to euhemerize him, attention) is to make him an angel coming down from heaven to Capernaum.

You accept that you are a Marcionite believer – a Marcionite apologist and not a critical student seeking what is probable.

Yes, Adamcezwki does a good case for Mark as a pauline allegory. I started the reading of Adamczewski because I was galvanized by Parvus hypothesis of ur-Mark as simonian allegory, but what I find in Adamczewski is an optimal convincing case for Mark as SAINT-pauline allegory with no historicity at all. An example: Jesus coming from Nazareth eager of being baptized by John is (midrash from) Paul zealot Jewish persecutor of the church in Gal 1 (!), i.e. just these passages in Galatians that I consider (prima et secunda facie) proto-catholic interpolations without no shadow of doubt. This is enough in my opinion to suspect Mark of being a proto-catholic allegory and therefore late. Mark knows only the Saint Paul, not the original Paul.

I am becoming to understand why Adamcezwki was given such a bad review.

Please can you post Adamczewski’s argument for Mark’s use of Josephus?

He doesn't reserve an entire chapter for that topic, but when he finds a particular term, construct or name of town during his commentary of Mark he refers to the (only similar) occurrence found in Josephus.
For example:

Moreover, Mark describes James, togheter with John, as the sons of Zebedee (Ζεβεδαΐοζ: Mk 1:19-20; 3:17; 10:35). In this way, he alluded to the scriptural character of Achan (Josh 7:1-26), who was identified by Josephus as a son of Zebedee (Ζεβεδαίου παΐζ: Jos. Ant. 5.33) ...

(p. 46)

I assume you didn’t check this reference in Jos. Ant. 5.33
I found this “But there was one Achar, the son [of Charmi, the son] of Zebedias,” Jos. Ant. 5.1.10.
I find this extremely weak.

Another examples:

The toponym Capernaum (Καφαρναούν: Mk 1:21;2:1;9:33), which could not be found in the Old Testament, and whose Greek version is surprisingly identical with that in Jos. B.J. 3.519 [Cf. A. Yarbro Collins, Mark, 161], notwithstanding the fact that the name could have been rendered from Aramaic in various Greek forms (cf. Jos. Vita 403: Κεφαρνωκόν), must have been borrowed by the evangelist from Jos. B.J. 3.519. The evangelist most probably used precisely this toponym because of its prominence in Josephus' description of the Galilean country of Gennesaret (Jos. B.J. 3.516-521).

(p. 47)

This is just stupid both Mark and Josephus could be just talking about a village in Galilee. The same applies to Gerasenes and the Decapolis.

While I do believe that Mark 13 is the best way to date Mark I was not dating Mark by his use of a source that may have been written c 40 CE.

no excuse. Even with Mark 13 as a previous source, the idea that a Jew had to worry about that fly of Caligula (and not of that storm of Hadrian) does merely giggle.

Do you understand this is not a way to argue your case to convince someone that your interpretation is correct?
A Jew living in 40 CE would not have to worry about an Emperor Hadrian who hadn’t even been born then!

Please read well the following post:
http://markusvinzent.blogspot.it/2011/1 ... n-has.html

markusvinzent wrote:

Let us compare Marcion’s gospel with the ‘missing verses’ of Luke 21:21-2 and Luke to see what drastic difference these ‘missing’ or ‘added’ verses make. Like Mark and Matthew also Luke sees the destruction of Jerusalem as a prophetic fulfilment of ‘all that is written’, although he does not detail which scriptural reference he has got in mind, and yet he hinted at Daniel having used the term ‘desolation’ in Luke 21:20. Of course, as we have seen from Mark and Matthew, Luke’s account, as it stands, is inconsistent. While Daniel mentions the Messiah and his people as causes for the destruction of Jerusalem, in Luke this prophecy is fulfilled by Gentiles. 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.

I think this is a great example of how the evidence can be read both ways. According to Vinzent Marcion has:

[20] "But when you see Jerusalem surrounded by armies, then know that its desolation has come near.
[23] Alas for those who are with child and for those who give suck in those days! For great distress shall be upon the earth and wrath upon this people; (RSV)

Luke has the word “desolation” and Vinzent links it to Daniel 9:25-26 and states that Daniel has the Messiah destroy the city and temple. I don’t think this the correct interpretation it seems very clear to me that in verse 26 there are two people one an anointed-one who is cut of and has nothing and secondly a prince who destroys the city and sanctuary. It has been suggested that the anointed one here is the High Priest Onias II c 175 BCE. And it is generally recognised that Daniel chapters 7-12 were written between 167 and 164 BCE and include historical events but given as prophecy.

Mark has “desolating sacrilege” that Matthew links to Daniel and I suggest it is to verse 11:31

Forces from him shall appear and profane the temple and fortress, and shall take away the continual burnt offering. And they shall set up the abomination that makes desolate. (RSV)

So I want to be very clear, in neither 9:26 nor 11:31 does the author of Daniel have the Messiah destroyed the city and Temple in both it is the Seleucids. This is an example of someone reaching conclusions by misrepresenting the evidence.

What can be argued is that Marcion has removed the reference to the fulfilment of Old Testament prophecy which seems consistent with what the Christian writers write about Marcion. Mark does not have any reference to fulfilling Old Testament prophecy.

Vinzent writes, “There were not ‘days of vengeance’ of the Lord, but days where ‘the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled’” but he has made up this interpretation himself without it seems any reference to Marcion. Tertullian, in Against Marcion 4.39.1-3 does not state that Marcion doesn’t have the parousia and none of the gospels has judgement featured in these sections.

that I have proved Marcion priority over Luke and Matthew only in virtue of wineskins affair

But you have failed to do this.
We both can recognise that Luke has another saying in verse 39 and Matthew has “and both are preserved”.
However your interpretation is that both Matthew and Luke see the old as good and worth preserving. You then conclude from this that this idea is newer than the Marcion idea that the Old Testament old God has been replaced with the New God of Jesus. However you also recognise that before Marcion there were Jewish Christians who would have seen the old God of the Old Testament as worth preserving, but fail to recognise that it is just as likely that these people already had the text in Matthew and Luke before Marcion came along.
Therefore you have failed to prove your interpretation. In fact I think you have failed to prove that your interpretation is even the most likely.