In this thread, I am doing use of Klinghardt's reconstruction of the Oldest Gospel (*Ev or Mcn) and in the same time I am applying portions of the MacDonald's arguments to argue not for the priority of Q over Mark, but for the priority of Mcn over Mark:
*Ev 3:1a, 4:31-32
Mark 6:1-2
In the 15° year of the reign of the Emperor Tiberius, Jesus went down to Capharnaum, a city of Galilee. And he taught them on the Sabbah days. And all were astounded at his teaching because he spoke with authority.
And he left there [Judea] and came to his homeland, and his disciples followed him. When the Sabbath arrived, he began to teach in the synagogue. And many people on hearing were amazed and said,...
In the incipit of *Ev, Jesus has not yet disciples behind him. Mark adds the disciples, but they don't play no role in this episode. Hence probably they are a secondary addition by Mark, who therefore is based on *Ev.
"Is not he the carpenter, the son of Mary and he brother of James, Joses, Judah and Simon? Are not his sisters here with us?"
Mark is adding the entire list of the relatives of Jesus, reminding the reader that Jesus has relatives who were not believers in Jesus (just as the people of Nazareth: 3:32) and in the same time reminding the reader that Jesus was fully human (pace Marcion), a Judean and not a Samaritan (i.e. a "son of Joseph").
About the marcionite use of Samaritan titles for arguing for the total foreignness of Jesus from this material world, docet Stuart.
Last edited by Giuseppe on Sun Oct 09, 2022 12:35 am, edited 1 time in total.
Neither does Ev* depend on Mk nor vice versa, but both of them depend more or less directly on some common source gospel, which is also abused by Lk and Jn. Mk also depends on a source gospel shared with Mt, as denied by right-wing simpletons like Kreuzritterin and Sinouhe.
And when he returned again to the sea and a crowd followed him, he taught. And in passing, he saw Levi, son of Alphaeus, sitting at the tax booth, and he says to him, "Follow me!". And he left everything, got up, and followed him. And Levi gave a large dinner for him in his house. And a large crowd of tax collectors and others was there lying at the table with them. And the Pharisees and their scribes grumbled at his disciples and said, "Why do you eat and drink with the tax collectors?" And Jesus answered, saying to them, "Not those who are healthy need a physician, but those who are not well. I have not come to call the righteous".
As he walked along, he saw Levi son of Alphaeus sitting at the tax collector’s booth. “Follow me,” Jesus told him, and Levi got up and followed him.
While Jesus was having dinner at Levi’s house, many tax collectors and sinners were eating with him and his disciples, for there were many who followed him. When the teachers of the law who were Pharisees saw him eating with the sinners and tax collectors, they asked his disciples: “Why does he eat with tax collectors and sinners?”
On hearing this, Jesus said to them, “It is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick. I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners.”
Mark adds the clarification "for there were many who followed him" to explain why the presence of so many people at the table, an explanation that is absent in Mcn.
Note the unnecessary repetition in Mark "him eating with the sinners and tax collectors": it is a secondary change by Mark.
And they said to him, "Why do the disciples of John and the disciples of the Pharisees fast steadily and carry out prayers, but yours eat and drink?" Jesus said to them, "Can the wedding guests possibly fast as long as the bridgegroom is with them? But days will come, and when the bridgeroom is taken away from them, then they will fast in those days.
New wine is not poured into old wineskins. But if so, the new wine will burst the skins, then the wine is lost and also the skins. Instead, new wine is poured into new wineskins. And both remain preserved.
The John’s disciples and the Pharisees used to fast. Some people came and asked Jesus, “How is it that John’s disciples and the disciples of the Pharisees are fasting, but yours are not?” Jesus answered, “How can the guests of the bridegroom fast while he is with them?
They cannot, so long as they have him with them.
But the time will come when the bridegroom will be taken from them, and on that day they will fast. “No one sews a patch of unshrunk cloth on an old garment. Otherwise, the new piece will pull away from the old, making the tear worse. 22 And no one pours new wine into old wineskins. Otherwise, the wine will burst the skins, and both the wine and the wineskins will be ruined. No, they pour new wine into new wineskins.”
Mark adds background information (missing in Mcn) about fasting by the disciples of John and the Pharisees: "The John’s disciples and the Pharisees used to fast."
Mark adds the Jesus's answer (missing in Mcn) to his same rethorical question: "They cannot, so long as they have him with them".
And it happened on the Sabbath that he went through the grain fields, and his disciples even so began to pluck the heads of grain, rubbed them between their hands, and ate them. But the Pharisees said to him, "See, why are your disciples doing what is not allowed on the Sabbath?" But Jesus answered, saying to them, "Have you never read what David has done? He went into the house of God and ate the bread off the altar and gave it also to those who where with him, although it is lawful for no one to eat but the priests alone?"
On the same day he saw someone work on the Sabbath and said to him, "Man, if you know what you are doing, you are blessed. But if you do not know it, you are cursed and a trespasser of the law".
[...]
And he said to them, "The Son of Man is Lord also over the Sabbath".
One Sabbath Jesus was going through the grainfields, and as his disciples walked along, they began to pick some heads of grain. The Pharisees said to him, “Look, why are they doing what is unlawful on the Sabbath?”
He answered, “Have you never read what David did when he and his companions were hungry and in need? In the days of Abiathar the high priest, he entered the house of God and ate the consecrated bread, which is lawful only for priests to eat. And he also gave some to his companions.”
Then he said to them, “The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath.
So the son of man is lord even of the Sabbath.”
Mark adds "Abiathar the high priest" while the priest in 1 Samuel 21:1-6 was Abimelech.
What is more, by adding the logion:
The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath.
...Mark is de facto transforming the title 'Son of Man' mentioned shortly after in Mcn (where it is meant as a divine title) into a Semitic circomlocution for a mere human being.
This reduction of the divine Son of Man to a mere son of man, a man, would fit perfectly the agenda of an anti-marcionite (and Mark is one).
Later Mark will do the same, by transforming "the Son of Man" into "the sons of men" in 3:28 ("Truly I say to you, all sins shall be forgiven the sons of men, and whatever blasphemies they utter;") when rewriting Mcn.
Thus Mark allows humans, not only Jesus, to violate the Sabbath: therefore Jesus is a man, pace Marcion.
Neither did Mk invent the human Jesus, as it is inherited from pre-synoptic gospels; nor did Marcion invent the non-human Jesus, as that one predceded the first Euhemerization.
Salt is good. But when even salt becomes dull, what shall be used for seasoning? It is fit neither for the field nor for the manure pile; it will be thrown away and crushed by the people.
49 Everyone will be salted with fire.
50 “Salt is good, but if it loses its saltiness, how can you make it salty again? Have salt among yourselves, and be at peace with each other.”
So prof MacDonald:
The logic of Mark 9:48-50 is notoriously obtuse and issues from an infelicitous concatenating of metaphors: fire ⟶ fire and salt ⟶ salt. The first use of fire refers to the inextinguishable flames of Gehenna (v. 48, cf. Logoi 8:56); the second refers to God's purification: "everyone with fire will be salted" (v. 49), implying the painful but purifying "salt in an open wound". Mark's reader thus would understand the expression "salt is good" in v. 50a still to refer to divine purification, but v. 50b cannot substain this interpretation: God's salt cannot lose its saltiness. Mark thus shifts the meaning of salt from God's purification to the disciples' care for each other: "have salt among yourselves and be at peace with each other". Surely Mark's forced logic is secondary to Logoi's linear use of the trope to criticize the religious elites who oppress the Twelve. When such authorities oppress Jesus's followers, they resemble insipid salt, and thus God will toss them out.
(From the Earliest Gospel (Q+) to the Gospel of Mark: Solving the Synoptic Problem with Mimesis Criticism, p. 143)
Note that even MacDonald doesn't realize that in Mcnthe saltiness measures the people's independence from the material world of the demiurge, not (or not only) the legitimacy of the authorities.
If someone dismisses the wife and marries another, he commits adultery; and if someone marries someone dismissed by a husband, then he commits adultery.
He answered, “Anyone who divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery against her. And if she divorces her husband and marries another man, she commits adultery.”
So prof MacDonald:
Deut 24:1-4 makes no provision for a wife to divorce her husband; Logoi's prohibition likewise pertains only to the man. But "Mark reflects Greek and Roman law according to which the woman also had the right to initiate a divorce. This shows that the Q saying is the original one, and that the Marcan saying adapts the thought to the changed circumstances of the Gentile mission". Lambrecht: "Much is to be said in favor of the conclusion that... he utilized the vocabulary of Q. There is no need to postulate a pre-Markan tradition that is independent of Q".
And do not judge, so that you will not be judged.
And not condemn, so that you will not be condemned.
Forgive, and you will be forgiven.
Give, and you will be given. A good measure, pressed down and running over, will be placed into your lap! By the measure you will be giving out, you will be measured.
“Consider carefully what you hear,”
he continued.
“With the measure you use, it will be measured to you—and even more".
In Mcn the Golden Rule is a general principle for ethical conduct in general.
Mark narrows its scope to understanding the parables.
Since the sadistic cruel judge by definition is the demiurge ('Just' is his title), an anti-marcionite Mark would have all the interest to eclipse a logion that is implicitly critical againt the demiurge, by urging the disciples not to imitate him.
