Marcion versus Mark: who comes first?

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
Post Reply
Giuseppe
Posts: 13732
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: Marcion versus Mark: who comes first?

Post by Giuseppe »

Stuart wrote: Wed Apr 14, 2021 10:37 am The key on the Baptism is it's relationship to the Source of Authority parable. The entire purpose of Jesus responding when asked where his authority comes from is to show that his authority derives from John's baptism of him, the source that brought the spirit to descend upon him. To deny Jesus' authority would be to deny John's.
I will think about it.
In the Marcionite gospel this is nonsense. But there it stands (AM 4.38), an example of editorial fatigue, or perhaps the author didn't recognize that the passage's message was dependent upon John's baptism of Jesus.
for Klinghardt, Mcn is not a Marcionite gospel, meaning that Marcion didn't corrupt it. I have abandoned definitively the idea that Marcionites would have removed from their gospel something that could disturb them. Marcion could be a "conservative protector" of the Oldest Gospel, even against his theological interests.
Klinghardt in my view has it backwards, because he doesn't recognize the role sectarianism had in developing the gospels. So instead of tendentious motivations he is looking for a general Catholic evolutionary line of development. My view is that the proliferation of gospels is the result of intense sectarian competition in the mid-2nd century and that Catholicism developed later on through the synthesis of some of these sects (the triumph of ecclesiastical politics), and is only present in the later layers of the gospels.
this accusation against Klinghardt doesn't hold more. Klinghardt confirms that he will write about 'the role sectarianism had in developing the gospels' in a next book, since now he has confined himself deliberately to literary questions only.
As for order, my view is we started with a synoptic prototype, which developed as something of a snowball.
In this, in nuce, yourself are a Klinghardt without knowing it. By saying so, de facto, you are adding not new knowledge about what preceded Mcn.

For me, the discussion ends by recognizing that Mark doesn't precede Mcn. Period.

It may appear as a drastic decision, but I insist: what new knowledge do you introduce, when you say that:
  • a synoptic prototype started it all
  • this synoptic prototype was not Mark

Mark can be anywhere in the order from the time of the Marcionite gospel until Luke is written to replace the Marcionite.
this your claim makes you a full member of the Klinghardt's school of thought.
Giuseppe
Posts: 13732
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: Marcion versus Mark: who comes first?

Post by Giuseppe »

Then, I have read about it (the Source of Authority Parable) and Klinghardt has some good points:

  • “Tell us by what authority you are doing these things,

    "These things" refer to the mere teaching in the Temple, not to the seditious trouble in Temple (= notoriously missing in Mcn). Hence the question on the authority makes more sense if the pharisees are pacifically continuing the discussion, because otherwise the Temple Incident would have drastically interrupted any discussion on the authority: the pharisees would have started rather to conspire against Jesus to kill him, not to talk still with one who had just thrown the mask. (While it is clear that in Mark "these things" refer to the Temple Incident).
  • About the baptism of John, Klinghardt insists that there were only disiecta membra about John in the Oldest Gospel: the readers would have understood.

    At contrary, the fact that "Mark" (author) gives further framework to explain these disiecta membra about John and have them together, is evidence of Mark's editorial fatigue.
Stuart
Posts: 878
Joined: Mon Apr 14, 2014 12:24 am
Location: Sunnyvale, CA

Re: Marcion versus Mark: who comes first?

Post by Stuart »

There is no Mark dependency for either Matthew or the Marcionite gospel, and no need for dependency in the first published version of John (which itself is blending of a commentary layer with an earlier draft). Only the later revisions of Luke and John have dependencies on Mark. Mark itself has no dependencies on the other gospels (maybe a few minor agreements that suggest some later editorial harmonization, but do not suggest to me any relationship at the authorial stage).

All that says nothing about Mark's timeline placement. Merely that Mark was composed outside the framework of the sectarian battles which framed the other gospels. Mark is not pointedly anti-Marcionite and not pointedly against any particular sect I can determine.

What I can tell is he is pro-Andrew, adding him to the list of privileged disciples, those three pillars, in Jesus' inner circle who accompany him to all the key events. (Philip seems to be the favored disciple in the first version of John.) There are some signs of later development of myths, with more details given (e.g., Salame being the name of the dancing girl who asks for John's head). Also the version of the prototype "M" appears to be slightly more developed than the one Mathew used; which suggests later, but it could merely be his locale copy was more recent than the one Matthew made use of.

As for the idea of the Marcionite or any other gospel being or not being a corruption is ridiculous. I think it's possible Mark did not exclude anything from his prototype sources, but who knows. Definitely every other gospel did a little pick and choosing, and all of them had thick layers of sectarian material and/or opinion which they wove into their text. For the most part each author simply copied the text he knew, maybe adjusting for voice or grammar here and there. But they all (except maybe Mark) chose spots to freely change the story or dump in their sectarian editorial material, or make up new stories from whole clothe. In this respect the Marcionite gospel is no different than the others.

I'll review Klinghardt. I suspect you do not completely accurately portray his opinion.
Giuseppe
Posts: 13732
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: Marcion versus Mark: who comes first?

Post by Giuseppe »

Stuart wrote: Wed Apr 14, 2021 12:21 pm There is no Mark dependency for either Matthew or the Marcionite gospel,
Are you saying that Mark is not based on Mcn? Are you saying that Mark is not based directly on Mcn?

If yes, then this is a possible point of strong disagreement between you and Klinghardt.

You use too much often the term "sectarian" and relatives but Klinghardt has made it clear that he is talking, at the moment, only about literary relations to have results methodologically more strong.
Giuseppe
Posts: 13732
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: Marcion versus Mark: who comes first?

Post by Giuseppe »

Stuart wrote: Wed Apr 14, 2021 12:21 pmMark is not pointedly anti-Marcionite and not pointedly against any particular sect I can determine.
the way "Mark" deals with the Independant Exorcist (see my quote about it) proves at contrary that Mark was aware of growing sectarian divisions he didn't like.

You said somewhere in the past that Mark is only a short synthesis even later than Matthew. Surely this is clearly false for Klinghardt, who considers Mark as:
  • a highly sophisticated gospel;
  • directly based on Mcn and preceding all the other Gospels.
Giuseppe
Posts: 13732
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: Marcion versus Mark: who comes first?

Post by Giuseppe »

About the Source of Authority Parable found both in Mcn and in Mark:


The presumption of specific, text-external knowledge constitutes an unmistakable literary inconsistency. Such a defect of coherency may have only two explanations. Either it conveys the sloppy carelessness of the compositional approach, or the author expected that this knowledge about John's ministry as a baptizer be recognized by the intended readers as a matter of course. In any case, the John-the-Baptist tradition in the canonical Gospelss demontrates a tendency of picking up these loose narrative ends and merging them in an account of correlating facts.

(ibid., p. 1061, my bold)

Hence Stuart is in error when he says that Mcn had to know about the baptism of Jesus by John from Mark.

At contrary, Mark is "picking up these loose narrative ends" about John the Baptist (what I have called disiecta membra) and "merging them in an account of correlating facts".

Mcn had only a generic 'baptism of John'. But not a baptism of the Jesus by John.

The implication is that Mark invented ex novo the baptism of Jesus by John. Against Marcion.



This says a lot about Mark's theology: surely "Mark" (author) adored YHWH as supreme god.
Stuart
Posts: 878
Joined: Mon Apr 14, 2014 12:24 am
Location: Sunnyvale, CA

Re: Marcion versus Mark: who comes first?

Post by Stuart »

Correct. Mark is dependent upon two versions of the prototype gospel and his own editorial hand. He does not know LXX and he does not know Hebrew/Aramaic (despite the use of a few color words, complete with Greek translation).

The literary relationship may be only to the common prototype L and not to the Marcionite gospel. To show a relationship you have to show that an element in Marcion has diverged from the prototype L and is also in Mark. This seems to me to be difficult, because L is the base document for both gospels (well M is also used by Mark).

To establish a relationship you need to find words and phrases which are uncommon in the triple tradition, or the double tradition, but present in Luke and not part of the Lukan layer. You would then need to show that some of these divergences found their way into Mark, either directly or through specific retort. That pretty much forces you to establish a Marcionite scriptural tendency as opposed to a coincidence. Otherwise you are left with nothing more than a personal interpretation.

This may be where the difference in model makes it impossible to reconcile, as I have a two-form synoptic prototype out there as a common document. My proofs would be an examination of the text of Mark to show how he conflates the underlying L and M as reflected in Matthew and Luke.
Stuart
Posts: 878
Joined: Mon Apr 14, 2014 12:24 am
Location: Sunnyvale, CA

Re: Marcion versus Mark: who comes first?

Post by Stuart »

Giuseppe,

Klinghardt is wrong. Tertullian (AM 4.38.1-2) knows immediately what the passage is about and says so:

Christ knew "the baptism of John, whence it was ... (it) belonged to Him whose sacrament John was administering.

The sacrament John was administering is the baptism of Jesus. And "Him" here is he to whom it belonged, the one whom John was the prophet of, the creator.

It was clear in 200 AD why Jesus responded to the question of his authority by asking where the authority for John came from.

Klinghardt claims it is a narrative loose end, I think to dismiss it without explanation about where it came from. In this he is wrong, because he has predetermined that the Marcionite gospel was first, and somehow special. But we should not apply a special status to that gospel, rather evaluate it's composition upon the same grounds as the others, and expect the same compositional techniques and tendencies of the others.

Klinghardt needs to explain the loose end, and why his analysis disagrees with the earliest witnesses.
Last edited by Stuart on Thu Apr 15, 2021 8:38 am, edited 1 time in total.
Giuseppe
Posts: 13732
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: Marcion versus Mark: who comes first?

Post by Giuseppe »

Stuart wrote: Thu Apr 15, 2021 1:55 am Giuseppe,

Klinghardt is wrong. Tertullian (AM 4.3.1-2) knows immediately what the passage is about and says so:

Christ knew "the baptism of John, whence it was ... (it) belonged to Him whose sacrament John was administering.

Klinghardt mentions the Tertullian's reference to "baptism of John". And so? What is your point, apart pointing out the fact that Tertullian assumed that Jesus was baptized by John?
Stuart wrote: Thu Apr 15, 2021 1:55 am The sacrament John was administering is the baptism of Jesus. And "Him" here is he to whom it belonged, the one whom John was the prophet of, the creator.
again: what can you infer from this? That in Mcn the "baptism of John" was assumed to have been imparted on Jesus? Where is the evidence?
Stuart wrote: Thu Apr 15, 2021 1:55 am It was clear in 200 AD why Jesus responded to the question of his authority by asking where the authority for John came from.
it was clear for Tertullian, and for you, that Jesus was alluding to his (= of Jesus) baptism by John, but not for Mcn.


Again: where is the evidence that in the answer of Jesus we have to read a baptism of Jesus by John?
Stuart wrote: Thu Apr 15, 2021 1:55 am Klinghardt claims it is a narrative loose end, I think to dismiss it without explanation about where it came from.
yes, Klinghardt does so with full reason. Why should Klinghardt give explanation about the source of the "baptism of John" in Mcn?

Assuming Mark's priority (on this point), are you able to give us the source of why Jesus had to be baptized by John? Isn't it equally a "narrative loose end" left unexplained by Mark?
Stuart wrote: Thu Apr 15, 2021 1:55 am In this he is wrong, because he has predetermined that the Marcionite gospel was first, and somehow special. But we should not apply a special status to that gospel, rather evaluate it's composition upon the same grounds as the others, and expect the same compositional techniques and tendencies of the others.

Klinghardt needs to explain the loose end, and why his analysis disagrees with the earliest witnesses.
Klinghardt doesn't need to explain it, not more than he needs to explain the absence of explanation, in Mcn, about who is Pilate.

In my view, he has described very well how, by reading the Source of Authority Parable and deriving inspiration from it, "Mark" (editor) invented the detail of Jesus being one of the many who were baptized by John.

If the contrary (= Mcn based on Mark) was true, then how can you explain that "Mark" (author) didn't explain why John was "put in prison"? My point is that you have a lot of "loose ends" left unexplained in the Gospel tradition. Under any model.

The Klinghardt's solution may give good reasons about the origin of the Mark's adoptionism: as mere man, Jesus was "less than" John (the latter being already described in Mcn as "more than a prophet") and as such an apt candidate, inter alia, to receive his baptism. While, as adopted son of God (=YHWH), Jesus becomes more great than John.
Giuseppe
Posts: 13732
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: Marcion versus Mark: who comes first?

Post by Giuseppe »

Stuart wrote: Thu Apr 15, 2021 1:55 am Klinghardt needs to explain the loose end, and why his analysis disagrees with the earliest witnesses.
Klinghardt mentions the 'earliest witness', i.e. Tertullian, but he arrives to a conclusion entirely different from Stuart's precisely from his words:

It is obvious, on the other hand, that within this context Tertullian had read the corresponding refrences in *20,4-6 at least in substance (baptisma Ioannis; quare non credidistis ei). The phenomenon correlates to the designation of John as ὁ βαπτιστής (*7,17, see there). *Ev presumes that John baptized and that he was known as the baptizer, but he does not relate anything about it.

(ibid., p. 1061, my bold)

it was "Mark" (editor) who tried unsuccessfully "to read" — just as Stuart is doing 2000 years after! — in the answer of Jesus ("Was the baptism of John from heaven or of men?") a presumed baptism of Jesus himself (sic) by John, when really there is nothing of all this in Mcn.
Post Reply