Biblical Criticism & History Forum - earlywritings.com

Still, the dating question is not proven

Really? Well how would one 'prove' Marcionite primacy? It reminds me of the police investigating a murder. Do they investigation suspects based on whom they have the best information or most information or which candidate makes much more 'sense' as the suspect regarding of the amount of information they have on the suspect. People at this forum 'love' the fact we have manuscripts of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. How preferable that is to the Marcionite gospel. But how do solve the inconsistencies within texts and when compared to the others? All these charts and graphs but never any answers. I sometimes think people like just diddling around making charts and graphs. Why not grow some plants or rabbits in your backyard and chart their growth life expectancy and the like on a series of charts and graphs if this is your hobby? You can extend it to other things too. My son has a Fitbit. You can start exercising and chart your times running around a track with graphs and charts too. How long, far etc.

This thread is called 'why is Jesus rejected in his hometown?' It begins by noting how the narrative makes little sense. But what is the motive? Why on earth would someone pretend that Jesus was rejected by his hometown other than owing to some relationship with the second century controversies over Marcion and whether Jesus was a human being (and whether Jesus was 'born' or known to any townspeople)? All the comparative synoptic analysis won't come up with an answer any more than looking in fridge for the answer. I defy anyone to come up with a plausible explanation to the original question.

Ulan wrote:I give Stephan this point: I don't think that the current reconstructions of Marcion's gospel hold any water. See Ephrem. We also have Justin as witness that things are not as they are usually depicted. Even Tertullian mixes things in a way that are not compatible with our current model. These points are usually explained away as "mistakes".

Still, the dating question is not proven. But that's mostly due to the complete lack of evidence.

Edit: I guess I should put it less wishywashy: Stephan suggested the Marcionite reading as witnessed by Ephrem.

This may be. But I think you know that this kind of interpretation is for me, personally, an absolute no-go. It has nothing to do with the primacy of Marcion. It is just the question whether I interpret a concrete text or whether I make general considerations far away from this text.

Kunigunde Kreuzerin wrote:Do you wish to say that Mark, Matthew, Luke and John are nitwits who didn't understand what they wrote?

Secret Alias wrote:This thread is called 'why is Jesus rejected in his hometown?' It begins by noting how the narrative makes little sense.

Secret Alias wrote:

Still, the dating question is not proven

Really? Well how would one 'prove' Marcionite primacy? It reminds me of the police investigating a murder. Do they investigation suspects based on whom they have the best information or most information or which candidate makes much more 'sense' as the suspect regarding of the amount of information they have on the suspect.

I agree so far. However, note that you have just a proof that textual history as it is assumed most of the time is probably wrong, as the witnesses tell different stories. However, it's not proof for an alternative solution. It's just a very solid reason for doubt.

Secret Alias wrote:People at this forum 'love' the fact we have manuscripts of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John.

It's normal to grasp the tangible. That's why we have outhouse's brand of "evidence". Bird in the hand and all that jazz...

Secret Alias wrote:How preferable that is to the Marcionite gospel. But how do solve the inconsistencies within texts and when compared to the others? All these charts and graphs but never any answers.

But that's the crux: Proving that all fits together still is not proof. See the standard model of historicity. It fits nicely. Some people lie. It's yours to decide which one. Do you know?

Secret Alias wrote:This thread is called 'why is Jesus rejected in his hometown?' It begins by noting how the narrative makes little sense. But what is the motive? Why on earth would someone pretend that Jesus was rejected by his hometown other than owing to some relationship with the second century controversies over Marcion and whether Jesus was a human being (and whether Jesus was 'born' or known to any townspeople)? All the comparative synoptic analysis won't come up with an answer any more than looking in fridge for the answer. I defy anyone to come up with a plausible explanation to the original question.

Well, I acknowledge your answer is a viable one. For this particular point, it's attested by multiple sources. However, that still doesn't serve as proof that this is the earliest answer.

Kunigunde Kreuzerin wrote:

Ulan wrote:I give Stephan this point: I don't think that the current reconstructions of Marcion's gospel hold any water. See Ephrem. We also have Justin as witness that things are not as they are usually depicted. Even Tertullian mixes things in a way that are not compatible with our current model. These points are usually explained away as "mistakes".

Still, the dating question is not proven. But that's mostly due to the complete lack of evidence.

Edit: I guess I should put it less wishywashy: Stephan suggested the Marcionite reading as witnessed by Ephrem.

This may be. But I think you know that this kind of interpretation is for me, personally, an absolute no-go. It has nothing to do with the primacy of Marcion. It is just the question whether I interpret a concrete text or whether I make general considerations far away from this text.

Sure. I only wanted to answer the question you posed. And personally, I find it very elucidating that the question of this thread has, indeed, another answer that deals with the problem in a very unique way.

And you know that I don't think that "Nazarene" in gMark has anything to do with "Nazareth".

Ulan wrote:And you know that I don't think that "Nazarene" in gMark has anything to do with "Nazareth".

I have come to that understanding, as well. However, it makes Mark 1.9 rather confusing.

And you know that I don't think that "Nazarene" in gMark has anything to do with "Nazareth".

Of course not. Ephrem thinks it does. But notice the ambiguity in Tertullian (Adv Marc near the beginning).

However, that still doesn't serve as proof that this is the earliest answer.

But it's a start. Can we at least start with the parallels between Mark and Luke (Mark pushing the narrative much further back than Luke). How is this explained by Marcan primacy? I think this long diatribe was an attempt to put that prejudice in perspective. This narrative is one clear example where Luke is closer to the ur-text. Jesus comes down from heaven in Marcion and goes to THAT synagogue. Luke reflects that and Mark and Matthew (I assume) rework the narrative into a 'they know Jesus' narrative. Why a 'they know Jesus narrative'? Because the Marcionites say that they rejected him because he was a stranger. What lies beyond that is anyone's guess. But the prehistory is:

1. Marcion's gospel this narrative at the very beginning
2. Luke's gospel this narrative at the very beginning (relative to Marcion)
3. Mark pushes the narrative to chapter 6

Good enough? Clear enough?

I only wish I could make headway with the Canaanite woman. There are some parallels with the Samaritan woman narrative which Ephrem seems to echo. But how is this reconciled in the 'super gospel'? Did Jesus fly to the Canaanite woman? No because there seems to be a sense of the 'Jews' or 'Israelites' in the synagogue/temple knowing or seeing that Jesus went to the woman first. Did the Jewish 'super gospel' add the Canaanite woman story to a Marcionite gospel which didn't have the narrative? I don't know. The fact that Ephrem and Tertullian's source are reverse mirrors of one another with regards to the significance of the story (Ephrem saying it proves Jesus preferred the Gentiles and Tertullian's source that he preferred 'the house of Israel') is problematic. It is worth noting that this Canaanite woman is named in the Pseudo-Clementines and is layered into the core of the text. She seems to be the mother of Clement in the earliest strata of the text if my memory serves me right and is named 'Justa' and the daughter 'Berenice' - Berenice being of course the woman who holds the handkerchief to wipe Jesus face in another narrative that was edited out of the Passion narrative (only preserved in the Stations of the Cross and other literature). Note again that Eznik says that Jesus snatched up 'several' people - not just Paul - redeemed them from the 'Jewish god' who went on to preach the word. If Berenice appears at the beginning and the end she is a central character to the story who oddly is systematically removed from the orthodox narrative. If Berenice is the woman in the statue at Panias as John Malalas and others preserved she was important to early traditions before the Catholic Church.

Another thing that should be considered is that Ephrem (from what I remember) makes a play on words that she is 'pushy' or 'zealous' which is the root of the (later) identification of her as 'Canaanite' - http://cal1.cn.huc.edu/showjastrow.php?page=1388 Was she originally 'the Canaanite' woman or was she the 'pushy' woman? Mark's 'Syrophoenician' is IMO clearly secondary AGAIN.