The opening of Mark really Marcion's?

[Charles Wilson]

More scholarly citations are available, if you are open to them.

OK.
That's History and I don't disagree at all.
In fact, it's interesting to follow how Judaism survived at all after 70.
I've focused on Zakkai and a few others on this subject but there were other alternatives offered
I agree with what you state.

FWIW,It's important to what I see:

Acts 5: 34 - 39 (RSV):

[34] But a Pharisee in the council named Gama'li-el, a teacher of the law, held in honor by all the people, stood up and ordered the men to be put outside for a while.
[35] And he said to them, "Men of Israel, take care what you do with these men.
[36] For before these days Theu'das arose, giving himself out to be somebody, and a number of men, about four hundred, joined him; but he was slain and all who followed him were dispersed and came to nothing.
[37] After him Judas the Galilean arose in the days of the census and drew away some of the people after him; he also perished, and all who followed him were scattered.
[38] So in the present case I tell you, keep away from these men and let them alone; for if this plan or this undertaking is of men, it will fail;
[39] but if it is of God, you will not be able to overthrow them. You might even be found opposing God!"

I have this as a semi-opaque Fragment on the origins of Modern Judaism. It is not Messianic or overtly Anti-Roman. It is REASONED. It points to the development of another approach. It considers the possibility that, however certain you are of Religious Position, you may be found (...by whom?) opposing God.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TkkUzTgh68Q
https://www.criticsatlarge.ca/2014/09/a ... -song.html

On this view, I agree with what you wrote.

Best,

CW

[RandyHelzerman]

I would say firstly that in whatever the original version of the story was, it is not at all certain that "John" was "John the Baptist". Maybe, maybe not. I would leave that open.

Its an intriguing idea to frame this story as perhaps yet another dig by Jesus at John, one of Paul's opponents. But if John *didn't* baptize Jesus, why is he "the anointed?" Where does he get the title "Christ" from?

Clearly John is supposed to represent a "changing of the guard", a transition from old to new. Jesus appears to the last of the Jewish prophets, then bids him adieu.

That....is another good point. Its a reading that even Marcion might very well feel comfortable with, and it make the question of why the whole scene is missing from Marcion's gospel even more urgent.

... then I may agree that Marcion's Gospel came first, but it would mean that Mark is a redaction of Marcion's Gospel in which mostly what was done to arrive at Mark from Marcion was simply to remove material.

This is a real puzzler for me. The bits of Mark which are in Marcion do seem to be in a more "primitive" state, missing some of the very distinctive Markan touches, like nesting stories inside each other, so it's very plausible that Canonical Mark is downstream from Marcion. It certainly would neatly explain our Baptist absconditus. And yet....try as i may, I just can't imagine anybody leaving, say, the beatitudes, on the cutting room floor. Swapped out for what? Yet another story of Jesus multiplying loaves and fishes??

And Marcion being cut-down Luke is hard for me accept too. it would make him the only evangelist in history to make a *shorter* gospel. Why would he only cut out Luke's sondergut, and leave practically all of Mark in there? Everybody from Tertullian on is mystified by his putative editorial choices.

EXTREME cognitive dissonance!!!! help me out here guys, if you can.

[MrMacSon]

But if John *didn't* baptize Jesus, why is he "the anointed?" Where does he get the title "Christ" from?

• There's a view that anointing with an oil or balm ['anointment'] was a key early rite,*
  more so than or even before immersion in or sprinkling with water
  
  * chrism

[RandyHelzerman]

There's a view that anointing with an oil or balm ['anointment'] was a key early rite,*
more so or even before immersion in or sprinkling with [or whatever] water
* chrism

There is the scene where the woman anoints his feet with oil, perhaps that would do. Dr. Bilby suggests that, which is why he up-fronts that scene in his reconstruction of Q.

[RandyHelzerman]

There's a view that anointing with an oil or balm ['anointment'] was a key early rite,*
more so or even before immersion in or sprinkling with [or whatever] water
* chrism

There is the scene where the woman anoints his feet with oil, perhaps that would do. Dr. Bilby suggests that, which is why he up-fronts that scene in his reconstruction of Q. Having a woman be the anointer would be very Marcionite.

[John2]

... The bits of Mark which are in Marcion do seem to be in a more "primitive" state, missing some of the very distinctive Markan touches, like nesting stories inside each other, so it's very plausible that Canonical Mark is downstream from Marcion. It certainly would neatly explain our Baptist absconditus. And yet....try as i may, I just can't imagine anybody leaving, say, the beatitudes, on the cutting room floor. Swapped out for what? Yet another story of Jesus multiplying loaves and fishes??

EXTREME cognitive dissonance!!!! help me out here guys, if you can.

Marcion's gospel appears to be downstream from Mark to me, since the first person to mention any gospels by name is Papias (c. 100 CE) and he is said to have known only Mark and Matthew, and Marcion and his gospel are not mentioned by anyone until the mid to late second century.

My view is that Marcion and Luke used one of the translations of the original Hebrew version of Matthew that Papias mentions (one that became the Ebionite Matthew). This would explain why Marcion, Luke and the Ebionite Matthew resemble each other to some extent, and why Marcion espoused Ebionite-like beliefs (vegatarianism, celibacy and rejection of the Torah/OT; large parts of it for the Ebionites and entirely for Marcion) and why Marcion's gospel is said to have had parts of Matthew in it (because it was Matthew, or derived from a kind of Matthew, the Ebionite Matthew).

So Marcion's gospel presumably was indeed closer than Luke to what I think was the original source (the Ebionite Matthew), but this source would still post-date Mark and the original Hebrew Matthew.

[MrMacSon]

There is the scene where the woman anoints his feet with oil, perhaps that would do. Dr. Bilby suggests that, which is why he up-fronts that scene in his reconstruction of Q. Having a woman be the anointer would be very Marcionite.

• I didn't point out anointing as a Mark vs. Marcion thing
  I think it was a significant thing somewhere, sometime.
  (that didn't necessarily involve or specify women or feet)

• From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chrism (and https://orthodoxwiki.org/Chrism)
  
  
  
  Early Christian usage

  ---

  Multiple early Christian documents discuss the "ordinance" or "several ceremonies...explained in the Apostolical Constitutions" of "chrism", including documents by Theophilus (d. 181) and Tertullian (d. 220).
  
  The most detailed version of the practice is by Cyril of Jerusalem who details how ointment or oil was "symbolically applied to the forehead, and the other organs of sense" and that the "ears, nostrils, and breast were each to be anointed." Cyril states that the "ointment is the seal of the covenants" of baptism and God's promises to the Christian who is anointed. Cyril taught that being "anointed with the Holy anointing oil of God" was the sign of a Christian, and a physical representation of having the Gift of the Holy Spirit ..." (On the Mysteries 3.5)
  .
  
  

• From https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03696b.htm
  
  
  
  Frequent reference is made in the Old Testament to the use of oil in religious ceremonies. It was employed in the coronation of kings, in the consecration of the high priest and in the ordination of the Levites, and indeed, it figured very prominently in the Mosaic ordinances generally, as can be abundantly gathered from Exodus (30:22 sqq.), Leviticus (viii), and Deuteronomy (xxvii, 40).
  
  ... "For we are the good odour of Christ unto God" (2 Corinthians 2:15).
  .
  
  

• From https://www.goarch.org/-/the-sanctifica ... oly-chrism
  
  
  The use of the Holy Chrism was introduced to the Christian Church from the existing Old Testament practice. It is stated that, "The Lord said to Moses, 'Take the finest spices ‑‑ 12 pounds of liquid myrrh, 6 pounds of sweet‑smelling cinnamon, 6 pounds of sweet cane, and 12 pounds of cassia (all weighted according to official standard). Add one gallon of olive oil, and make a sacred anointing oil, mixed like perfume.''' (Exodus 30:22‑25)
  
  

[MrMacSon]

Marcion's gospel appears to be downstream from Mark to me, since the first person to mention any gospels by name is Papias (c. 100 CE) and he is said to have known only Mark and Matthew, and Marcion and his gospel are not mentioned by anyone until the mid to late second century.

1. That 'statement' by Papias is one put in his mouth by Eusebius,
   ie. we don't have a primary source for it (and Eusebius was a rewriter of "history")
   .
2. Papias was [probably] contemporaneous with Marcion (and others) or even slightly later ("c.100 CE" is spurious)

[MrMacSon]

My view is that Marcion and Luke used one of the translations of the original Hebrew version of Matthew that Papias mentions (one that became the Ebionite Matthew). This would explain ...

• That there was an original Hebrew version of Matthew is mere conjecture

eta:
wrt this post and my previous one)

The Elder also said this, “Mark, being the interpreter of Peter, whatsoever he remembered he wrote accurately, but not however in the order that these things were spoken or done by our Lord. For he neither heard the Lord, nor followed him, but afterwards, as I said, he was with Peter, who did not make a complete [or ordered] account of the Lord’s logia, but constructed his teachings according to chreiai [concise self-contained teachings]. So Mark did nothing wrong in writing down single matters as he remembered them, for he gave special attention to one thing, of not passing by anything he heard, and not falsifying anything in these matters.” Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History, 3.39.15

Concerning Mark, these things were related by the father [John the Elder]. Concerning Matthew these other things were said, “Therefore, Matthew set in order the logia (“divine oracles”) in a Hebrew dialect, and each interpreted them, as he was able.” Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History, 3.39.15-16.

eta #2: https://web.archive.org/web/20171014085 ... xxxix.html

“... Papias, an ancient man who was a hearer of John and a companion of Polycarp .."

[John2]

Marcion's gospel appears to be downstream from Mark to me, since the first person to mention any gospels by name is Papias (c. 100 CE) and he is said to have known only Mark and Matthew, and Marcion and his gospel are not mentioned by anyone until the mid to late second century.

1. That 'statement' by Papias is one put in his mouth by Eusebius,
   ie. we don't have a primary source for it (and Eusebius was a rewriter of "history")
   .
2. Papias was [probably] contemporaneous with Marcion (and others) or even slightly later ("c.100 CE" is spurious)

The key for me is that Eusebius doesn't mention Papias after EH 3 (which ends c. 110 CE), whereas Marcion is first mentioned in EH 4 (in the context of the mid second century CE):

The work of Papias is dated by a few modern scholars to about 95–110 ... Eusebius refers to Papias only in his third book, and thus seems to date him before the opening of his fourth book in 109 ...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papias_of_Hierapolis

Papias doesn't evince any knowledge of Marcion and no one to my knowledge associates him with Marcion or Marcion's time (excepting maybe the anti-Marconite prologues, IIRC, which I don't buy). And Eusebius cites Papias' own words about Mark and Matthew in EH 3.39.14-16:

But now we must add to the words of his which we have already quoted the tradition which he gives in regard to Mark, the author of the Gospel. This also the presbyter said: Mark, having become the interpreter of Peter, wrote down ... whatsoever he remembered of the things said or done by Christ ... But concerning Matthew he writes as follows ...

These writings that Papias said were written by Mark and Matthew gave Eusebius (and Irenaeus in the mid to late second century CE) the impression that Papias was talking about the gospels of Mark and Matthew.