No "Descending" - The Myth About Marcion's Incipit

[schillingklaus]

Klinghardt believes apologistically in Judaist origins of Christianity, thus he is unable to see the origin in the antinomianist interpretation of the Old Testament.

[Kunigunde Kreuzerin]

sincerely, also I am interested more about Klinghardt's position than about your position. I cannot explain to myself why he so acritically assumes a descent from Nazareth when:

That is not uncritically. In Klinghardt's view, GMark, GMatthew, and GLuke are based on GMarcion, so Mark 1:21ff and Matthew 4:13ff should also reflect what both found in GMarcion. In this context he refers to the reading of the Codex Bezae (D) (mixing Lukan and Matthaean elements), which he considers to be more original. It is likely that Klinghardt feels (assuming Marcionite priority) that neither Mark nor Matthew interpreted Marcion's "coming down" as a descent from heaven, so he does not consider this interpretation to be the original one. From Klinghardt's pov, this is only logical.

[Giuseppe]

From Klinghardt's pov, this is only logical.

you are not representing faithfully the Klinghardt's pov, since you are ignoring again and again that Mark and Matthew had an enormous theological agenda in introducing an earthly provenance from Nazareth, contra Marcion. Their opinion can't count in deciding on this point so charged theologically.

Unfortunately, Klinghardt has decided that only in a future book he will do a commentary of Mcn focused exclusively on theological features of it and of its editors. So I hope that in this next book he will give up to talk about an oral tradition assumed uncritically in the background of the incipit of Mcn.

[Kunigunde Kreuzerin]

.
That's just your guess Giuseppe, which doesn't find any clue in the texts.

It is well known, that the canonical gospels "quarrel" over the question of Bethlehem or Nazaret(h). It could also be said that Luke, Matthew and John somehow want to introduce a heavenly origin (supernatural birth without a father or the incarnation of the word) and the first two additionally the Davidic hometown (Bethlehem) against Mark.

There is no such thing as a "hometown of Nazareth" in GMark either. On the one hand there is only a "patris" in Mark 6:1ff and on the other hand the statement in Mark 1:9, that Jesus' journey to baptism started in Nazareth of Galilee. Nothing indicates that Mark 1:9 was directed against Marcion. Then Mark would have specifically spoken of the hometown of Nazareth and mentioned mom, dad and all the siblings.

It's a game "against" Mark. Marcion is not even on the pitch here.

[Giuseppe]

Kunigunde, with all the due respect, you appear to be too much fixed on your preferred paradigm (= Mark's priority, and the rest of the world against Mark). But since in this thread (at least) we are talking about Klinghardt's paradigm (= an anonymous gospel ended in the hands of Marcion, and for that only wrong it had all the other gospels against itself), what escapes me is why Klinghardt is ignoring deliberately the interests by Mark and Matthew in mentioning 'Nazareth' as place of provenance of Jesus, when he is interpreting the 'coming down' in Capernaum precisely in the same way those first editors wanted eagerly that it was interpreted, in order to confute the marcionite claim that Jesus came out of nowhere.

While Klinghardt is very scientific here:

The revelation-theological interpretation of Jesus' descent was most likely not part of *Ev (Marcions Gospel). It is not even certain that *Ev mentioned a descent from above. Whether *Ev assumed that Jesus descended from heaven or from Jerusalem or only from the Galilean hills to the Sea of Galilee therefore remains open.

Immediately after, he ruins his same theorem:

However, the last possibility is the most likely.

Is this a false dilemma? If I deny an earthly descent ,then virtually what I am implying is that the entire gospel was written directly by Marcion?

I don't think so, since the same Klinghardt has no problems in assuming that Marcion would have had, in an episode about John the Baptist, these words of clear marcionite tenor: "...And John was scandalized by the news about Jesus" vel similia.

So Klinghardt could well go with the idea that Marcion himself edited the incipit, by introducing so a descent from above.

[John T]

"The last possibility is the most likely" as kind concession to apologists, isn't it?

Kunigunde, do you believe really that Klinghardt isn't doing here a timide concession to apologists to exorcise suspicions about a possible "hidden agenda" behind his research on Marcion ?

Not a concession to the apologists but a concession to common sense.

The Gospel of the Lord according to Marcion the Gnostic.

11. And he [Jesus] came to Nazareth, and went into the
12. synagogue [on the Sabbath day] and sat down. And the eyes of all in the synagogue fastened on him,
13-14. And he began to speak to them; and all wondered
15. at the words which proceedeth from his mouth.

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/t ... llord.html

Obviously, this grand entrance was not about Jesus descending/floating from heaven. Instead, the people were amazed at his oratory skills and made no mention that he floated down to them. Worse yet, Jesus sat down, that is, he touched the ground and could be touched by others.

Marcan Priority stands.
Marcion was a Gnostic that tried to corrupt the faith.
You don't have to be an apologist to understand the simple meaning of words.

[Giuseppe]

"The last possibility is the most likely" as kind concession to apologists, isn't it?

Kunigunde, do you believe really that Klinghardt isn't doing here a timide concession to apologists to exorcise suspicions about a possible "hidden agenda" behind his research on Marcion ?

Not a concession to the apologists but a concession to common sense.

[...]
You don't have to be an apologist to understand the simple meaning of words.

John T, i.e.: of how a thread is soiled by a Christian apologist in only one move.

P.S. was necessary just Marcion to corrupt the faith?
isn't sufficient the presence of a Christian à la John Stauros?

[John T]

"The last possibility is the most likely" as kind concession to apologists, isn't it?

Kunigunde, do you believe really that Klinghardt isn't doing here a timide concession to apologists to exorcise suspicions about a possible "hidden agenda" behind his research on Marcion ?

Not a concession to the apologists but a concession to common sense.

[...]
You don't have to be an apologist to understand the simple meaning of words.

John T, i.e.: of how a thread is soiled by a Christian apologist in only one move.

Actually it was your first move (post) that lost the game, unwittingly of course.
You can't put the horsey on the wrong starting spot when playing chess.

[schillingklaus]

John T is only spreading right-wing apologist drivel, as do all Markan Prioritists and Judean Originists.

Others know that pre-Christian gniosticism got euhemerized and judaized step by step, forming Christianity. None of the known gospels is the first or even early, but they are all late piecemeal.

All canonical gospels have Jesus come from heaven, with or without virgin birth. For only a heavenly being can walk on water, beguile a gale, or be Lord of thye Sabath.

[John T]

John T is only spreading right-wing apologist drivel, as do all Markan Prioritists and Judean Originists.

Others know that pre-Christian gniosticism got euhemerized and judaized step by step, forming Christianity. None of the known gospels is the first or even early, but they are all late piecemeal.

All canonical gospels have Jesus come from heaven, with or without virgin birth. For only a heavenly being can walk on water, beguile a gale, or be Lord of thye Sabath.

In other words, only the Gnostic position is credible and only neo-athiests are smart enough to understand early Christian history?

Got it!