A Marcionite Antithesis behind Jesus Bar-Abbas?

[Kunigunde Kreuzerin]

In the limited synoptic passages I have examined so far on my own, I have also concluded that Mcn was based on Mark, and Matthew in turn was based either on Mcn or proto-Luke (precursor to Mcn). Canonical Luke, in turn, was a revision either of proto-Luke or of Mcn with additions from Josephus, Matthew, and possibly John, as well as unique material added by the Luke-Acts redactor. This is basically Klinghardts's theory, from what I understand.

In his new books "The oldest gospel and the origin of the canonical gospels" he sees Marcion as the first gospel.

about the realitonship between Marcion and Mark from the table of contents

§ 11 The literary relationship between Mcn and Mk
1. On the way to Jerusalem: * 9:51 to 19:28 and Mk 8:(22-26)27 to 10:52
2. Mk 6:45 to 8:26: "Great omission" or "Great addition"?
3. The "Mk-Q-Overlaps": Mk 9:41 to 10:12 and the correlation in Mcn
4. The Mcn priority over Mk: the beginning and end of the Gospel

[Secret Alias]

This is what is so silly about 'hobbyist' investigations of Christian origins. The idea that even considering Marcionite-primacy is a 'waste of time' (to paraphrase Pete) is ridiculous simply because we know that the Marcionites claimed that their gospel was the original gospel. I am sure that people lied in antiquity and am even more certain that Marcionites lied about things. But to dismiss the claims about the Marcionites merely because it takes us to far from more important issues (like charting all the different recensions of Josephus) is downright silly.

Any ancient claim deserves to be considered seriously. And what are the rival claims in antiquity? Did anyone claim Mark was the ur-gospel. No. Did anyone claim Matthew was? Maybe. Luke? No. So right off the bat we are left with very few possibilities judging by ancient witnesses. This does not mean that we should limit ourselves to what the ancients claimed. But surely we should start there.

[Secret Alias]

And why do we prefer modern studies of what Marcionitism might have been - viz. what their gospel 'might have looked' like'? I am not saying these studies are worthless but almost worthless is about right.

[Tenorikuma]

The only thing I would say is a "waste of time" is any Synoptic solution that doesn't take Mcn into account at all. Which describes most of the "non-hobbyist" studies published by tenured professors with alphabet soup after their names.

[Peter Kirby]

The idea that even considering Marcionite-primacy is a 'waste of time' (to paraphrase Pete)

It should already be clear, but I'll state the obvious: that is not what I said.

The only thing I would say is a "waste of time" is any Synoptic solution that doesn't take Mcn into account at all. Which describes most of the "non-hobbyist" studies published by tenured professors with alphabet soup after their names.

I agree with this. Marcion is a very important part of the synoptic problem.

It's also possible that a Marcionite gospel came first, and I left room for that in my comments. So Huller can apologize now (like that's happening).

Likewise, if the first gospel were 'Marcionite', then Huller would have to be right about it looking very different than the Gospel of Mark.

[Secret Alias]

I apologize. I am Canadian so I can always say 'sorry.'

[Peter Kirby]

Cheers.

[Peter Kirby]

Indeed, both Mcn and Mark lack the birth story, they are much shorter than all the others, have fewer oracles, but instead deeds of the Lord: these similiarities between them require an explanation.

What explanation is being proposed?

Honestly, as I've said before in this thread already, I know too little about what you're trying to say to be confident about interjecting. I am trying to help push a conversation forward, but I don't have all of the pieces needed to do so. Yet I went ahead and waded in anyway, out of courtesy. Now perhaps we can try filling in some of those missing pieces of what you are saying.

Perhaps one place to start is whether the Gospel of Mark--the one we know and can read--were "Marcionite." What would that mean? What would it mean to say that the Gospel of Mark were "Marcionite"? What would it mean to say that any gospel were "Marcionite"?

[Giuseppe]

I'm just an amateur in the matter. I think Mcn was the oldest gospel, and that all others are Catholic reactions to it (although John is a Gnostic gospel later catholicized). Vinzent 2014 has not persuased me entirely about it (it seems that he wants a proof based only on an alternative interpretation of words of Tertullian, Ireneus, etc, and not directly on Gospel texts), therefore I'm waiting to know more things about Klinghardt, language permitting.

I'm not saying that Mark is a marcionite gospel, but that seems only a mitigated Catholic reaction to Mcn (very soon to accuse Mcn of ''heresy'').

In this thread I just wanted to describe my view about Barabbas and Cyrenaic episodes.

And I wanted to raise only my personal dilemma: given a priori that all our literature comes ultimately from marcionite texts (Mcn + Paul's letters), which was the true origin of Marcionism? One can speak of Jewish origin of Marcionism? At moment I do not know the answer, but I'm reading the text of Ory translated by Tenorikuma (thank you ) and I'm learning that he was open to put the presumed ''100% Judaism of Jesus & christian origins'' as a consequence and not a cause of entire process.

I can propose a mental experiment. Imagine that a guy enters in this room and claims dogmatically that historical Jesus was an Aryan and antisemit. Our natural reaction would be that no, it's not true, historical Jesus was a Jew son of Jews at 100%, and therefore who claims the contrary is a bad nazi ideologue, etc.

Until here it's easy to reply. But prove to substitute any occurrence of 'Aryan and antisemit' into expression above with 'son of a Stranger God'. I think that the natural reaction of some Jews that listened the first time this claim would be to insist that Jesus was the true Jewish Messiah, True Son of YHWH, at the price of distorting the entire Jewish theology in order to say such a thing, *even though they had never heard of a Messiah who dies and rises again before then*.

I find prima facie that Ory's conclusion are not so different from my view.

All here. Until now.

[Kunigunde Kreuzerin]

And why do we prefer modern studies of what Marcionitism might have been - viz. what their gospel 'might have looked' like'? I am not saying these studies are worthless but almost worthless is about right.

Thanks for this enlightening saying, spoken openly.

The only thing I would say is a "waste of time" is any Synoptic solution that doesn't take Mcn into account at all. Which describes most of the "non-hobbyist" studies published by tenured professors with alphabet soup after their names.

I agree with this. Marcion is a very important part of the synoptic problem.

It seems that a synopsis including Marcion is not so easy to create because of the textual problems of the gospel of the Lord (*hobbyistic conclusion after following the hint of "Secret Alias" and reading again Old Harnack*)