Marcion versus Mark about who recognizes Jesus the first time

[Giuseppe]

The identification of Jesus by the synagogue visitors (*4,22c: 'Is not this Joseph's son?') plainly expresses their distance and Jesus' inadequate qualification. After that, the demons declare again who Jesus really is: 'You are the Son of God' (*4,41). This applicable identification of Jesus — uttered of all things by the demons — is unwieldy. Perhaps the opposition between the demons with the correct identification and the humans with the false one is intended, but that is not likely.

(Klinghard, The Oldest Gospel and the Formation of the Canonical Gospels, p. 231, my bold)

Strangely, Klinghardt doesn't explain why he thinks that 'is not likely' the opposition between a "Jesus son of Joseph" and a "Jesus son of God". If he had conceded a such opposition, then it would be somewhat tautologically equivalent to claim that Jesus in *Ev is not a man born by woman.

Klinghardt writes only two pages after what, I think, he should have written first, in strict correlation with the 'opposition' described above:

The Markan report of Jesus' baptism ... also provides the opportunity to have God himself proclaim the true identity of Jesus as 'my beloved son' (Mark 1, 11). Compared to Jesus' identification by the demons at the beginning of *Ev, this is a skilled and advanced development.

(ibid. p. 233)

"Mark" (author) wants to have YHWH proclaim Jesus 'my beloved son' in order to remove the threat of a "opposition between the demons with the correct identification and the humans with the false one".

Why doesn't Klinghardt conclude so?

My suspicion is that Klinghardt wants to minimize the allusions in *Ev pointing to Marcionite ideology. He wants that Marcion only inherited the text. He concedes at most that somewhere Marcion would have edited the text, but not much.

I am inclined to follow a third way between Klinghardt's position (Marcion preserved faithfully a gospel where the anti-demiurgism was absent) and Vinzent's position (Marcion wrote directly an anti-demiurgist gospel):

Marcion inherited *Ev, but he edited it, at least slightly, according to the marcionite ideology. The Jesus being recognized by demons in despite of him being wrongly 'humanized' ('isn't he the son of Joseph?') by the crowd is clearly a classical example of Marcionite ideology.

So, surprisingly, if I am correct, the first gospel had Jesus euhemerized by a crowd who misunderstood him as a man born by woman.

[mlinssen]

The title to Klinghardt's work is

The Oldest Gospel and the Formation of the Canonical Gospels

Marcion's point is that the synagogue visitors don't recognise Jesus...
However the demons do (again in *4:41), and so does the crowd (in *4:43) - page 231

Mark indeed, again also according to Klinghardt, pretends that there is presupposed knowledge about Jesus (which highly likely was true at that point!)

And again we find a subtle anti-Judaism in *Ev.
I highly doubt that "Marcion" wrote anything on a demi-urge or any other god than that of the Tanakh - he simply refuses to let Jesus play on the Judaic team, and naturally the only way to contest that is to have him say silly things about that other god

[schillingklaus]

The demiurge is the god of the Tanakh.

[Giuseppe]

Marcion's point is that the synagogue visitors don't recognise Jesus...
However the demons do (again in *4:41), and so does the crowd (in *4:43) - page 231

The crowd doesn't recognize the entirely celestial origin of Jesus. The crowd only is surprised for his new teaching. Only the demons recognize the divinity of Jesus.

So "Mark" (author), by having Jesus sent to baptism, makes the readers 100% sure about the humanity of Jesus, and only after he has Jesus adopted by YHWH.

Too much planning by "Mark" (author).

If this is not a strong evidence of Marcionite priority, then what is it?

[arnoldo]

The god of this age has blinded the minds of unbelievers, so that they cannot see the light of the gospel that displays the glory of Christ, who is the image of God

[schillingklaus]

The demons falsely recognize Jesus as the messiah of YHWH, not as Son of The Father.

[mlinssen]

Marcion's point is that the synagogue visitors don't recognise Jesus...
However the demons do (again in *4:41), and so does the crowd (in *4:43) - page 231

The crowd doesn't recognize the entirely celestial origin of Jesus. The crowd only is surprised for his new teaching. Only the demons recognize the divinity of Jesus.

So "Mark" (author), by having Jesus sent to baptism, makes the readers 100% sure about the humanity of Jesus, and only after he has Jesus adopted by YHWH.

Too much planning by "Mark" (author).

If this is not a strong evidence of Marcionite priority, then what is it?

The baptism by Mark is a mistake but he has to fulfill

Malachi 3:1 Behold, I send my messenger, and he will prepare the way before me. And the Lord whom you seek will suddenly come to his temple; and the messenger of the covenant in whom you delight

What were those two going to do? Smoke cigars, drink beer - over a conversation of any kind? The content of any conversation would give rise to an overwhelming backlash of unasked questions - so Mark decides to go for pure action

If Coptic Thomas was Marcion's source, and I presume it was, then logion 28 is pivotal:

28. IS said: I stood to my feet in the middle of the World and I revealed outward to them in Flesh. I fell to them all being drunk; I did not fall to anyone in them who was thirsting, and my Soul gave pain upon the children of the humans; blind persons they are in their heart/mind, and they see not: they have come to the World they empty, they seek also to cause them come forth in the World they empty. Anyway now they are being drunk; Whenever if they should cast off their wine Then they will make be Conceive afterwards.

This is what the Coptic says. The Greek fragment explicitly reverses that:

λέγει ις ἔ[σ]την ἐν μέσῳ τοῦ κόσμου καὶ ἐν σαρκ{ε}ὶ ὤφθην αὐτοῖς καὶ εὗρον πάν τας μεθύοντας καὶ οὐδένα εὗρον δειψῶ(ν) τα ἐν αὐτοῖς καὶ πο 7 νεῖ ἡ ψυχή μου ἐπὶ 7 τοῖς υἱοῖς τῶν ανων ὅτι τυφλοί εἰσιν τῇ καρ δίᾳ αὐτῶ[ν] καὶ [οὐ] βλέπ

Says IS I-stood in the-middle of-the world and in flesh I-was-seen to/by-them and I-found all- them drunken and no-one I-found thirsti-ng in them and suf- 7 fers the soul of-me over 7 the sons of-the humans because blind they-are in-the hea-rt of-the[m] and [not] see

The 7 is a scribal sign and it mimics the apostrophe in the Coptic at most places in this fragment, by the way

What *Ev has is very simple: it is not outspoken about a fleshy nature of Jesus. Likely a debate ensued and the Christian response obviously - at some point - emphasised his human nature.
But you are turning things upside down if you look for proof in *Ev; the Falsifying Fathers go to extreme lengths to stress the fleshy nature of Jesus which can only mean that their own writings weren't convincing enough - exactly because there was nothing to undo, refute or twist & turn

So just leave it be, it is completely irrelevant.
Tertullian has the demon call Jesus ὁ Ἅγιος τοῦ Θεοῦ but I'd have to take a closer look to see what really is said

Marcion just has Jesus come down to Capernaum, spirit or not, and then has him recognised not by Judaics, but by Gentiles, and even demons. The entirely goal is to portray all of Judaism as a miserable failure

And of course Marcion precedes Mark - you have Klinghardt, right? It takes months to get through it but it will change the world

[Giuseppe]

Marcion just has Jesus come down to Capernaum, spirit or not

spirit or not, someone who descends from above already adult is humanoid, not very human. While one who goes to be baptized by another man can be also a god but he is surely already a man. This point alone is fatal to Mark's priority over *Ev.

Precisely, the extreme, emphatic, chirurgical precision by which "Mark" (author) before secures us about the humanity of Jesus (via baptism) and only after he starts with the divine adoption, divine miracles, etc.

[rgprice]

I don't see it this way. I think Mark was writing in reaction to the story that we find in Vision of Isaiah. I think the oldest version of the story is something like Vision of Isaiah, which says that the Beloved descends in order to defeat Belial/Satan, and does so by fooling the Belial's minions along the way. Vision of Isaiah matches the worldview and language that we find at Qumran, in which Belial/Satan has taken on responsibility for the ills of the world. In many ways, Belial/Satan is used to absolve both God and people of blame for the ills of the world. Mark is writing in reaction to this, putting the blame squarely on people, showing that Satan cannot be a scape goat.

Keep in mind that in Vision of Isaiah Jesus is also heavenly, not a man. The writer of Mark is countering the heavenly Jesus of VoI, not of Marcion.

The reason I think this is the case is because of the agreement between Vision of Isaiah and the letters of Paul. The Jesus described by Paul best fits with Vision of Isaiah IMO. Paul clearly did not know the Jesus of Marcion's Gospel. But the savior described in VoI matches Paul's description of Jesus - a heavenly being who defeats Satan through his crucifixion.

In Mark, the writer indicates that Satan's minions where not fooled, but it didn't matter, because the Jewish people boor the responsibility for killing Jesus, not Satan.

[rgprice]

Marcion's point is that the synagogue visitors don't recognise Jesus...
However the demons do (again in *4:41), and so does the crowd (in *4:43) - page 231

The crowd doesn't recognize the entirely celestial origin of Jesus. The crowd only is surprised for his new teaching. Only the demons recognize the divinity of Jesus.

So "Mark" (author), by having Jesus sent to baptism, makes the readers 100% sure about the humanity of Jesus, and only after he has Jesus adopted by YHWH.

Too much planning by "Mark" (author).

If this is not a strong evidence of Marcionite priority, then what is it?

Except that Marcion isn't the only one claiming that Jesus was celestial...