Markus Vinzent's claim about Marcion

[andrewcriddle]

The similarity of Luke and Marcion is a given. That's not the point he is trying to discuss. His point was that this whole passage in Luke, Matthew, John and gPeter Is only in parallel to Mark when the verse is also present in Marcion. If the verse isn't in Marcion, the text in the other gospels diverges from Mark.

I have no time to check that now, but that's what this post was trying to say.

Epiphanius (Panarion) attested for Marcion (24:5) the greek wording (last paragraph here):

Εἶπαν οἱ ἐν ἐσθῆτι λαμπρᾷ· τί ζητεῖτε τὸν ζῶντα μετὰ τῶν νεκρῶν; ἠγέρθη, μνήσθητε ὅσα ἐλάλησεν ἔτι ὢν μεθ' ὑμῶν, ὅτι δεῖ τὸν υἱὸν τοῦ ἀνθρώπου παθεῖν καὶ παραδοθῆναι

Of interest are only the first words

Εἶπαν οἱ ἐν ἐσθῆτι λαμπρᾷ· τί ζητεῖτε τὸν ζῶντα μετὰ τῶν νεκρῶν;
They said – (they) in the splendid robes –: Why seek you the living among the dead?

Marcion here differs slightly from Luke 24:5

τὸ πρόσωπον εἰς τὴν γῆν εἶπον πρὸς αὐτάς Τί ζητεῖτε τὸν ζῶντα μετὰ τῶν νεκρῶν·
the faces to the ground, they said (εἶπον) to them (πρὸς αὐτάς), Why seek you the living among the dead?

Note: No minor reading for the differences to Marcion is attested!

two differences
1. Luke does not mention here the clothes
2. Luke's wording is "they said to them"

Luke does mention the shining clothes at the end of 24:4.

Andrew Criddle

[Kunigunde Kreuzerin]

Luke does mention the shining clothes at the end of 24:4.

Andrew Criddle

Of course. That's exactly my point. In all the gospels we have one or two men or angels with clothes that say something to the women. But only in Marcion we find the clothes after the word "said". This should be a little difficulty for Prof. Dr. Vinzent's assumption that Marcion is our first Gospel.


I would go one step further. I think in this small point something speaks in favor of a priority of Luke against Marcion (Stephan will be very angry with me, but he may forgive me my sins).

There could be many reasons why Luke reduced Marcion or Marcion added two words. But I would say that at least one thing is clear.

Luke's wording is not clearly defined here. Of course, we know from the context that the two men speak to the women, but the wording is not clear on this point. With the intention to eliminate this ambiguity, the editor Marcion could have made the adding for more clarity.

Luke 24:4
καὶ ἐγένετο ἐν τῷ ἀπορεῖσθαι αὐτὰς περὶ τούτου καὶ ἰδοὺ ἄνδρες δύο ἐπέστησαν αὐταῖς ἐν ἐσθῆτι ἀστραπτούσῃ·
And it came to pass while are perplexed they about this, that behold, men two stood by them, in garments dazzling.

Luke 24:5
ἐμφόβων δὲ γενομένων αὐτῶν καὶ κλινουσῶν τὰ πρόσωπα εἰς τὴν γῆν, εἶπαν πρὸς αὐτάς Τί ζητεῖτε τὸν ζῶντα μετὰ τῶν νεκρῶν;
terrified moreover having become of them, and bowing the faces to the ground, they said to them, Why seek you the living among the dead?

The first they's and them's refer all to the women, but the next "they" refers to the two men.

Marcion
Εἶπαν οἱ ἐν ἐσθῆτι λαμπρᾷ· τί ζητεῖτε τὸν ζῶντα μετὰ τῶν νεκρῶν;
They said – (they) in the splendid robes –: Why seek you the living among the dead?

[ficino]

Luke's wording is not clearly defined here. Of course, we know from the context that the two men speak to the women, but the wording is not clear on this point. With the intention to eliminate this ambiguity, the editor Marcion could have made the adding for more clarity.

Luke 24:4
καὶ ἐγένετο ἐν τῷ ἀπορεῖσθαι αὐτὰς περὶ τούτου καὶ ἰδοὺ ἄνδρες δύο ἐπέστησαν αὐταῖς ἐν ἐσθῆτι ἀστραπτούσῃ·
And it came to pass while are perplexed they about this, that behold, men two stood by them, in garments dazzling.

Luke 24:5
ἐμφόβων δὲ γενομένων αὐτῶν καὶ κλινουσῶν τὰ πρόσωπα εἰς τὴν γῆν, εἶπαν πρὸς αὐτάς Τί ζητεῖτε τὸν ζῶντα μετὰ τῶν νεκρῶν;
terrified moreover having become of them, and bowing the faces to the ground, they said to them, Why seek you the living among the dead?

The first they's and them's refer all to the women, but the next "they" refers to the two men.

Marcion
Εἶπαν οἱ ἐν ἐσθῆτι λαμπρᾷ· τί ζητεῖτε τὸν ζῶντα μετὰ τῶν νεκρῶν;
They said – (they) in the splendid robes –: Why seek you the living among the dead?

Luke's prose style is not classical Attic, with the women the reference of the genitive absolute and then of the accusative αὐτάς, but since the latter pronoun is feminine, it's clear that the subject of εἶπαν is the two men. The ambiguity comes through more in English translation then in the more gendered Greek.

[DCHindley]

I am a little confused. Who is Vincent, and in what book does he make claims about the relationship between Lk 24:5 and the corresponding passage in Mark 16:6? Markus Vinzent? I'll admit I haven't been following Stephan's thread on "Only Fantastically Amazing People Think We Have The Urkel Cannon" (misspelled on purpose, as a testament to Steve Urkel).

Jason BeDuhn has the text of Marcion's Evangelion as:

1 Now on the first (day) of the week they went well before dawn to the tomb, carrying the aromatics they had prepared. 2. ... 3 But when they entered they did not find the body. 4 And . . . look, two men in shining clothing ...

5 ... said to them, "Why are you looking for the living one among the dead? 6 He was awoken. Remember what he spoke to you in Galilee, 7 saying that it is necessary that the Human Being be handed over, and be staked, and awaken on the third day."*

This reconstruction as derived from Epiphanius, Panarion, Scholion 76; Tertullian, Against Marcion 4.43.2, 5

He only shows passages in Luke that are positively identified as present in Marcion's Evangelion by ancient sources, which here would be Epiphanius and Tertullian. I think he does modify the English to reflect peculiarities in the wording that differ from that in canonical Luke.

DCH

*Jason goes a little overboard with using Jesus seminar type language ("Human Being" for "Son of Man", and "arisen" for both ἠγέρθη (aorist passive = be awakened, be raised up) in 24:6 and ἀναστῆναι (aorist = to rise up) in 24:7. Sigh ...

[Kunigunde Kreuzerin]

...accusative αὐτάς, but since the latter pronoun is feminine, it's clear that the subject of εἶπαν is the two men.

Thank's ficino

I forgot and must confessed my sins. Marcion's version may be clearer than Luke's, but this is not strong enough as an argument.

@David

Epiphanius (Panarion) attested for Marcion (24:5) the greek wording (last paragraph here):

Εἶπαν οἱ ἐν ἐσθῆτι λαμπρᾷ· τί ζητεῖτε τὸν ζῶντα μετὰ τῶν νεκρῶν; ἠγέρθη, μνήσθητε ὅσα ἐλάλησεν ἔτι ὢν μεθ' ὑμῶν, ὅτι δεῖ τὸν υἱὸν τοῦ ἀνθρώπου παθεῖν καὶ παραδοθῆναι

[DCHindley]

Luke does mention the shining clothes at the end of 24:4.

Of course. That's exactly my point. In all the gospels we have one or two men or angels with clothes that say something to the women. But only in Marcion we find the clothes after the word "said". This should be a little difficulty for Prof. Dr. Vinzent's assumption that Marcion is our first Gospel.

I didn't come off with that (the shining clothes) as the point of the OP, but rather that it was the absence of the phrase "He is not here."

Regardless, Jason BeDuhn has argued that Marcion's Evangelion (Gospel) was a variant form of the same proto-gospel from which sprang Luke. While the gospel of Luke (and by extension Marcion's gospel) seem to have used the gospel of Mark as a source (among others), and by extension also Marcion's Gospel seems to also do so, I do not think that we have to expect authors to quote their sources verbatim every time.

Is your point to suggest that Marcion altered a canonical text for ideological reasons? BeDuhn thinks he has demonstrated that there are plenty of cases where ancient opponents have indicated either directly or indirectly that Marcion's gospel included text also found in Luke that was antithetical (no pun intended) to his ideological agenda. There are at least as many such cases as there are cases where Marcion's opponents charged him with removing material found in Luke that contradicted his agenda. BeDuhn thinks that it is more likely that Marcion's Gospel and the Gospel of Luke are both derived from a common source that has not survived than that one derives from the other.

DCH

[Kunigunde Kreuzerin]

Is your point to suggest that Marcion altered a canonical text for ideological reasons? DCH

Oh, no no, but thank´s for your informations.

Ulan linked to Prof. Vinzent’s blog and wrote: "But he (Vinzent) sees Marcion at the base of many gospels"

I do not know anything about Marcion and was surprised by the opinion of Vinzent. At first glance Vinzent’s post seemed quite interesting. He follows Timothy P. Henderson (The Gospel of Peter and Early Christian Apologetics, WUNT 301,Tübingen, 2011) and compares the gospels of Mark, Matthew, Luke, John, Peter and Marcion. He shows which verses of all gospels correspond with each other.

Although I did not understand how he could based his argumentation on “verses”, I tried to understand what he meant. (Due to the differences in the gospels, it seems to me more promising to investigate in specific literary elements, specific words or phrases.) I spent a lot of time to understand him. I expected that Vinzent as a scholar had carefully checked his facts and reproduced correctly. But finally I saw that his facts were wrong and I was a little mad at him.

two small examples

1. Vinzent wrote:

If Mark had been the source of our Synoptics (and therefore to Marcion, had he copied Luke), why does none of the witnesses follow Mark 16:1 – but all have Mark 16:2 parallel?

But it is easy to see that Matthew has shortened two verses of Mark (Mark 16:1-2) to one verse (Matthew 28:1 - Now after the Sabbath, toward the dawn of the first day of the week, Mary Magdalene ...). Furthermore the gospel of Peter follows Mark’s verses.

Mark 16
1 When the Sabbath was past, Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James, and Salome bought spices, so that they might go and anoint him.
2 And very early on the first day of the week, when the sun had risen, they went to the tomb.

Peter
50 And at daybreak of the day of the Lord Mary Magdalene, female disciple of the Lord, who was afraid on account of the Jews since they were inflamed by wrath, had not done for the tomb of the Lord the things that women were accustomed to do for the those who have died and were beloved by them.
51 Having taken female friends with her she came to the tomb where he had been placed.


2. Vinzent wrote

Why, if Luke followed Mark, did he – like the other witnesses pick up exactly and only these verses of Mark 16:2.5, but jumped over verses 16:3-4?

But Peter jumped clearly not over Mark 16:3-4

Mark 16
3 And they were saying to one another, “Who will roll away the stone for us from the entrance of the tomb?”
4 And looking up, they saw (θεωροῦσιν) that the stone had been rolled back—it was very large.

Peter
53 But who indeed will roll away for us the stone that was placed upon the doorway of the tomb, that we, having gone in, might sit alongside him and do the things that are owed?
54 For great is the stone, and we fear lest anyone see us. And if we are not able, let us put the things that we bring for his memorial at the doorway, weep, and beat until we come to our house.

Furthermore: I think it is obvious that Matthew (28:1) used the Greek word for “to see” (θεωρῆσαι), because Mark has used it in Mark 16:4. Matthew used it only twice, taken from the markan material. He prefers a form of ὁράω or βλέπω in his own material.

Matthew 28:1 Now after the Sabbath, toward the dawn of the first day of the week, Mary Magdalene and the other Mary went to see (θεωρῆσαι) the tomb.

Mark 16:4 And looking up, they saw (θεωροῦσιν) that the stone had been rolled back—it was very large.


Finally, I was asking myself whether Vinzent has ever read the texts of the gospel of Peter. I was really angry and began to drain frustration here

[Ulan]

I didn't check the stuff, but I should probably have mentioned that his recent book about this wasn't well received, for what it's worth.

However, one remark: You are putting way too much detail work into this. He wasn't talking about exact words or anything like that, but about the sequence of the themes. I guess you covered that too and found it lacking.

Anyway, my main point was that he claimed that Justin was quoting Marcion in all cases where he explicitly said that he was quoting from a written gospel. Which isn't very often. I wasn't really really checking this other claim, as I have my difficulties with a Marcion priority. I'm pretty sure that Marcion used something that already existed, whatever that was. And Vinzent's first claim is fully compatible with such a notion. Justin used some text with resemblance to Marcion's gospel and something that resembles the Infancy Gospel of James.

Which reminds me that I should really check one day whether Carrier's claim is true that Clement's alleged use of Matthew's Christmas story really describes Jesus as the Christmas star himself. But that's a different workplace.

[Kunigunde Kreuzerin]

However, one remark: You are putting way too much detail work into this. He wasn't talking about exact words or anything like that, ...

It seems to me that the problem is Vinzent's criterion of the "verses". The numbers suggest mathematical precision, but the differences between the Gospels are so substantial that the "verse" is a false criterion.

He wasn't talking about exact words or anything like that, but about the sequence of the themes. I guess you covered that too and found it lacking.

two examples

theme of the spices
Mark, Luke and Marcion agree. Matthew and John reject the spices completely. Peter is a bit oracular ("had not done for the tomb of the Lord the things that women were accustomed to do for the those who have died and were beloved by them.")

first look in the grave
Mark, Peter: the woman see the messenger in the grave
Luke, Marcion: the woman do not see Jesus, they are perplexed, then the messengers appeared
Matthew: the messenger appeared in front of the grave and then he asks the women to look in the grave
John: Mary does not see Jesus, runs to Peter, Peter and the other disciple run back, finds the linen, after that Mary sees two angels in the grave, but they had no message, then the Mary-Jesus-scene (noli me tangere)

How can you compare "verses" here?

[Ulan]

first look in the grave
Mark, Peter: the woman see the messenger in the grave
Luke, Marcion: the woman do not see Jesus, they are perplexed, then the messengers appeared
Matthew: the messenger appeared in front of the grave and then he asks the women to look in the grave
John: Mary does not see Jesus, runs to Peter, Peter and the other disciple run back, finds the linen, after that Mary sees two angels in the grave, but they had no message, then the Mary-Jesus-scene (noli me tangere)

How can you compare "verses" here?

As far as I understood him (I may be wrong), you could have stopped at "first look at the grave".

I guess it would have been clearer if he had added some cases where he thought this would be not the case, which means you would have to look at verses that are not in Marcion, but in Mark. Or just drop it .

Edit: I guess the latter. Just forget about it. Sorry for that.