Marcion versus Mark: who comes first?

[lsayre]

Admittedly this is speculation, but Canonical Mark might be a selectively neutered version of what might have been the earliest edition of Marcion's Gospel. The Orthodox seem to be likely suspects as to whom did the neutering.

If the Patrictics proclaimed that Mark wrote down Peter's stories out of order, why are Mathew and Luke highly Synoptic with respect to Canonical Mark?

[Giuseppe]

The Gospel of Mark's polemic is most barbed against the Peter-led catholic church. Perhaps the gospel was written in response to catholic attacks on Paul, just as Paul's Galatians was written in response to attacks from those following "the Jerusalem pillars". I liked Raschke's suggestion that Matthew responded to Mark's polemic with puns on Saul-Paul's name with his "gates of hell" line that he put in Jesus' mouth.

the term "demiurge" occurs in all the book only 6 times and only 2-3 times about a particular passage of Mark. At least in Luke we have the logion about the explicit abolition of the Law and Prophets.

[neilgodfrey]

The Gospel of Mark's polemic is most barbed against the Peter-led catholic church. Perhaps the gospel was written in response to catholic attacks on Paul, just as Paul's Galatians was written in response to attacks from those following "the Jerusalem pillars". I liked Raschke's suggestion that Matthew responded to Mark's polemic with puns on Saul-Paul's name with his "gates of hell" line that he put in Jesus' mouth.

the term "demiurge" occurs in all the book only 6 times and only 2-3 times about a particular passage of Mark. At least in Luke we have the logion about the explicit abolition of the Law and Prophets.

Yes, these are all factors to consider. But they alone cannot decide the question, imo.

I think it's better to try to study what is in the gospel and understand it on its own terms rather than focus on what isn't in it and what it's not. I am always learning new things about what the Gospel of Mark actually is. And we cannot forget, of course, that our knowledge of Marcionism is filtered through very dirty vents.

On first reading Hermann Raschke presents what seems to me to be a reasonable case (not a watertight one in all its details but a reasonable and certainly informed case). So I'm interested in thinking more about the thesis. I'm confident that when I'm through (if ever) I will at least have learned lots more about the gospel.

[rgprice]

Mark is, as Marcion's Gospel was said to be, short, missing birth account, missing many of the speeches of Jesus -- and used by heretics. Raschke posits a simple explanation for how and why the Gospel of Luke came to be understood as the Marcionite one and why Mark came to be attached to Peter legends. I still have some big questions about his thesis but I don't think it's one to be dismissed without a fair hearing.

Was Marcion's Gospel reported to be missing many of the teachings? I thought that Marcon's Gospel included the teachings we find in Luke? To me it makes more sense that Luke is derived from Marcion's because so many other things go hand-in-hand, not to mention that Luke 3:1 is apparently identical to Marcion 1:1.

It makes sense that the writer of Luke would have worked with a copy of Marcion's scriptures in hand, which would have included his Gospel and the Pauline letters. From this the writer of Luke produced a Gospel, an account of Paul's ministry that subordinated Paul to the other apostles and the Law, and a revised version of the Pauline letters. This explains where Luke, Acts and the Catholic Pauline letters came from and how they were produced.

It also makes sense that the Gospel used by Marcion would need to be one in which Jesus is a clear teacher, because Marcion needed Jesus to be a figure who was able to announce the existence of the unknown Father to the world. The Jesus of Mark is an opaque figure who doesn't really reveal anything.

[neilgodfrey]

Mark is, as Marcion's Gospel was said to be, short, missing birth account, missing many of the speeches of Jesus -- and used by heretics. Raschke posits a simple explanation for how and why the Gospel of Luke came to be understood as the Marcionite one and why Mark came to be attached to Peter legends. I still have some big questions about his thesis but I don't think it's one to be dismissed without a fair hearing.

Was Marcion's Gospel reported to be missing many of the teachings? I thought that Marcon's Gospel included the teachings we find in Luke? To me it makes more sense that Luke is derived from Marcion's because so many other things go hand-in-hand, not to mention that Luke 3:1 is apparently identical to Marcion 1:1.

It makes sense that the writer of Luke would have worked with a copy of Marcion's scriptures in hand, which would have included his Gospel and the Pauline letters. From this the writer of Luke produced a Gospel, an account of Paul's ministry that subordinated Paul to the other apostles and the Law, and a revised version of the Pauline letters. This explains where Luke, Acts and the Catholic Pauline letters came from and how they were produced.

It also makes sense that the Gospel used by Marcion would need to be one in which Jesus is a clear teacher, because Marcion needed Jesus to be a figure who was able to announce the existence of the unknown Father to the world. The Jesus of Mark is an opaque figure who doesn't really reveal anything.

The "catholics" accused Marcion of deleting much from the "original gospel", including much of the teaching material.

The historical date factor of Luke 3:1, in context of anti-Marcionite diatribes, can be understood as a convenient shorthand expression for when Marcion's gospel began its account of Jesus. It had a ready meaning for sympathetic catholic readers but it is apparently (from what I understand at this point) was not identified as actually being part of Marcion's Gospel text.

For us, we easily think of Marcion as the one who taught a new alien God, but that's our framing of Marcionism. There is no reason that the Gospel of Marcion had to have Jesus standing up and shouting "I am here to tell you about a new God". Rather, the narrative can simply assume the alien God and construct its story around that assumption. There are details even in our version of the Gospel of Mark that hint at a docetic Jesus.

As for Paul, I know you know as well as anyone that the Gospel of Mark is full of Paul's ideas and terms taken from the epistles. The Gosepl of Mark can be interpreted as promoting Paul over the Peter led church. Mark does certainly savage Peter and the other disciples.

Paul does not present Jesus as a teacher and nor does the Gospel of Mark. Paul speaks of preaching with power and authority and that's how Mark presents Jesus -- so much power the demons tremble.

[Charles Wilson]

It also makes sense that the Gospel used by Marcion would need to be one in which Jesus is a clear teacher, because Marcion needed Jesus to be a figure who was able to announce the existence of the unknown Father to the world.

This is at the Junction of two stories:

1. "I taught daily at the Temple." Of Hannah the Prophetess (in Luke): "...She did not depart from the temple, worshiping with fasting and prayer night and day..." It's gonna get crowded in the Temple if all of these people hang around the Temple all the time, watching the Show.

Who runs the Temple anyway? What Job gets done in the Temple? The people running the show are gonna let some "teacher" have a run in the Temple area telling everyone that the Temple will fall with not one stone left on top of another? REALLY? The Priesthood represents the people in front of GOD. Hannah prays for the Redemption of Jerusalem. Does she believe that this Redemption involves the DESTRUCTION of Jerusalem? SERIOUSLY?

2.

The Jesus of Mark is an opaque figure who doesn't really reveal anything.

This reveals Intentionality on the Author's Part. The Character Identity must be hidden but a look at the BACKGROUND reveals details not seen in the "Person".

If this is of Marcion then we see the pattern: You are correct concerning the TEACHER. The character "Jesus" must be seen as someone other than a Priest. "Hannah" must be seen as a character with Powers who basically "lives in the Temple" to deflect a focus from who she truly is in History (I see her strongly as Queen Salome, wife of Jannaeus. YMMV).

Which means that the surprise in the diaper here is the "Unknown Father" since Jewish Sensibilities already have had the Holy Story given to them.

"Who would that Unknown Father be, I wonder?"

CW

[rgprice]

The "catholics" accused Marcion of deleting much from the "original gospel", including much of the teaching material.

The historical date factor of Luke 3:1, in context of anti-Marcionite diatribes, can be understood as a convenient shorthand expression for when Marcion's gospel began its account of Jesus. It had a ready meaning for sympathetic catholic readers but it is apparently (from what I understand at this point) was not identified as actually being part of Marcion's Gospel text.

For us, we easily think of Marcion as the one who taught a new alien God, but that's our framing of Marcionism. There is no reason that the Gospel of Marcion had to have Jesus standing up and shouting "I am here to tell you about a new God". Rather, the narrative can simply assume the alien God and construct its story around that assumption. There are details even in our version of the Gospel of Mark that hint at a docetic Jesus.

Maybe there is a case to be made, but I just don't see it at the moment. Certainly canonical Mark may be different from ur-Mark, but it can't be very different. Marcion's Gospel included the Sermon on the Plain, and several other elements of supposed "Q" according to BeDuhn, as well as several teachings on love. All of this fits with Marcion.

BeDuhn notes the following:

3.1 Epiphanius, Pan. 42.11.5; Tertullian, Marc. 1.19.2, 4.7.1; Irenaeus, Haer.
1.27.2; Adam* 2.3, 19; Ps.-Eph A 1; Hippolytus, Ref. 7.31.5. Irenaeus and
Adamantius att est a text reading “now in the fifteenth year of Tiberius
Caesar, at the time of Pilate” (en etei de pentekaidekatō Tiberiou Kaisaros
epi tōn xronōn Pilatou). Tertullian ends the quote aft er “Tiberius,” omitting
“Caesar” and the reference to Pilate. Epiphanius also omits the
reference to Pilate, and opens the passage with different wording for
the date (en tō pentekaidekatō etei in place of en etei de pentekaidekatō).
Hippolytus’ wording on the date is similar to that of Epiphanius, and
characterizes it as the “year of the hegemony of Tiberius Caesar” (etei
pentekaidekatō tēs hēgemonias Tiberiou Kaisaros). Pseudo-Ephrem A (1)
gives only the wording “in the years of Pontius Pilate.”

As for Paul, I know you know as well as anyone that the Gospel of Mark is full of Paul's ideas and terms taken from the epistles. The Gospel of Mark can be interpreted as promoting Paul over the Peter led church. Mark does certainly savage Peter and the other disciples.

There was no "catholic church" until the 3rd or fourth century though...

What evidence is there that any "Peter led church" existed before the Gospel of Mark or before Marcion?

I don't think there was a "Peter led church", so much as Marcion simply identified the other apostles in the Pauline letters as Judaizers. Out of Marcion's identification of Peter, James and John as Judaizers, his opponents took them up as champions.

[neilgodfrey]

Maybe there is a case to be made, but I just don't see it at the moment. Certainly canonical Mark may be different from ur-Mark, but it can't be very different. Marcion's Gospel included the Sermon on the Plain, and several other elements of supposed "Q" according to BeDuhn, as well as several teachings on love. All of this fits with Marcion.

BeDuhn notes the following:

3.1 Epiphanius, Pan. 42.11.5; Tertullian, Marc. 1.19.2, 4.7.1; Irenaeus, Haer.
1.27.2; Adam* 2.3, 19; Ps.-Eph A 1; Hippolytus, Ref. 7.31.5. Irenaeus and
Adamantius att est a text reading “now in the fifteenth year of Tiberius
Caesar, at the time of Pilate” (en etei de pentekaidekatō Tiberiou Kaisaros
epi tōn xronōn Pilatou). Tertullian ends the quote aft er “Tiberius,” omitting
“Caesar” and the reference to Pilate. Epiphanius also omits the
reference to Pilate, and opens the passage with different wording for
the date (en tō pentekaidekatō etei in place of en etei de pentekaidekatō).
Hippolytus’ wording on the date is similar to that of Epiphanius, and
characterizes it as the “year of the hegemony of Tiberius Caesar” (etei
pentekaidekatō tēs hēgemonias Tiberiou Kaisaros). Pseudo-Ephrem A (1)
gives only the wording “in the years of Pontius Pilate.”

What is meant exactly by "attest" in the above: attest marginal notes in a canonical gospel or what, exactly? What I want to look into is the actual source for the claims, to consult those citations and others and see as far as possible "what's what" -- are the claims taken from scholia or redactional markings in an "orthodox" copy of the Gospel of Luke? Do all of those citations really say exactly what is claimed for them? Does not Tertullian say he is working from memory? What is the value of each of those sources in comparison with each other? etc etc etc. The question in relation to the beginning of the gospel being in the 15th Year of Tiberius is what, exactly, is being said and why -- what are the sources and history of those sources and basis for the claims?

As for Paul, I know you know as well as anyone that the Gospel of Mark is full of Paul's ideas and terms taken from the epistles. The Gospel of Mark can be interpreted as promoting Paul over the Peter led church. Mark does certainly savage Peter and the other disciples.

There was no "catholic church" until the 3rd or fourth century though...

I never said "catholic church". I spoke of "catholics" in inverted commas to refer to "proto-orthodox" if you will (because I have seen the word used to describe the same in more recent scholarly literature). I mean it in the sense of those who saw their brand of Christianity as "universal" in the sense of having been derived from the twelve apostles who they said went out to evangelize the world. That is, those opposed to Marcion who followed Paul.

What evidence is there that any "Peter led church" existed before the Gospel of Mark or before Marcion?

I don't think there was a "Peter led church", so much as Marcion simply identified the other apostles in the Pauline letters as Judaizers. Out of Marcion's identification of Peter, James and John as Judaizers, his opponents took them up as champions.

The Gospel of Matthew speaks of a Peter-led church. Justin, Irenaeus, they speak of their Christianity being derived from the twelve apostles of whom Peter was the leader. Paul in Galatians speaks of the Jerusalem pillars, first naming Peter. I trust it's obvious I never meant a hierarchical organization led by the see of Peter. Peter is surely in this context short-hand for those opposed to Pauline-based Christianity that was critical of the brand of Christianity claiming descent from the Twelve, and of Peter.

[MrMacSon]

Marcion's Gospel included the Sermon on the Plain, and several other elements of supposed "Q" according to BeDuhn, as well as several teachings on love. All of this fits with Marcion.

BeDuhn notes the following:

3.1 Epiphanius, Pan. 42.11.5; Tertullian, Marc. 1.19.2, 4.7.1; Irenaeus, Haer. 1.27.2; Adam* 2.3, 19; Ps.-Eph A 1; Hippolytus, Ref. 7.31.5.

Irenaeus and Adamantius attest a text reading “now in the fifteenth year of Tiberius Caesar, at the time of Pilate” (en etei de pentekaidekatō Tiberiou Kaisaros epi tōn xronōn Pilatou). Tertullian ends the quote after “Tiberius,” omitting “Caesar” and the reference to Pilate. Epiphanius also omits the reference to Pilate, and opens the passage with different wording for the date (en tō pentekaidekatō etei in place of en etei de pentekaidekatō).

Hippolytus’ wording on the date is similar to that of Epiphanius, and characterizes it as the “year of the hegemony of Tiberius Caesar” (etei pentekaidekatō tēs hēgemonias Tiberiou Kaisaros).

Pseudo-Ephrem A (1) gives only the wording “in the years of Pontius Pilate.”

What is meant exactly by "attest" in the above: attest marginal notes in a canonical gospel or what, exactly?

"attest to" as in 'literary evidence for' (?)

What I want to look into is the actual source for the claims, to consult those citations and others and see as far as possible "what's what" -- are the claims taken from scholia or redactional markings in an "orthodox" copy of the Gospel of Luke? Do all of those citations really say exactly what is claimed for them? ... What is the value of each of those sources in comparison with each other? etc etc etc. The question in relation to the beginning of the gospel being in the 15th Year of Tiberius is what, exactly, is being said and why -- what are the sources and history of those sources and basis for the claims?

The best discussion of what might or might not have been in Marcion's Gospel might be

Matthias Klinghardt's The Oldest Gospel and the Formation of the Canonical Gospels
(that link is to the 2020 English version of the 2015 German-language original)

The author presents a meticulous reconstruction ... Part I contains the methodological foundation ... A detailed epilogue comments on recent research on and reconstructions of Marcion’s Gospel and analyzes the methodological differences of these approaches.

Part II offers a reconstruction of the oldest Gospel. Its text is established on the basis of evidence provided by the heresiological witnesses and the textual variants. A detailed commentary makes every single decision of the reconstruction transparent and carefully traces the steps of the tradition history for individual sayings and pericopes. The volume includes an English translation as well as an extensive list of the correspondences between the attestations for Marcion’s Gospel and the variants of canonical Luke.

[neilgodfrey]

"attest to" as in 'literary evidence for' (?)

I want to know exactly what the source says, where exactly it says it (e.g. a marginal note?), its status and context (e.g. memory? derived from so-and-so (who?) and ultimately from where and whom? In other words, I want to do with the claims of attestation the same I always try to do in the secondary literature -- go back to check the citations for myself. Not because authors are dishonest (though some are lazy or superficial or careless), but because every author has their own frame of reference and asks different questions and sees/interprets the sources accordingly, taking for granted a little detail that might mean more to another researcher.