DCHindley wrote: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