Alternating Marcionite and synoptic priority & posteriority?

[Ben C. Smith]

Again, I do not see a problem here.

...http://historical-jesus.info/53.html....

Cordially, Bernard

For the record, Bernard, I have now taken a closer look at your other two examples of Marcionite posteriority: Luke 16.17 (not one tittle) and Luke 8.19 (mother and brothers).

I find your arguments on the latter, Luke 8.19, to be completely reversible. You seem to confuse the Marcionite version of the text with the Marcionite interpretation of that text. I think even the Marcionite text implies, as you indeed argue, that Jesus has a mother and brothers. It may well be only Marcion who believes that the mother and brothers are not really blood relatives, not the (original author of the) Marcionite text itself. That is a crucial distinction, because it then opens up another possible line of transmission: 1. Marcion replicates a gospel text which lacks the direct statement that the mother and brother are standing outside; he himself seizes upon the slim opportunity afforded him by the fact that this information is transmitted only in dialogue, not directly by the narrator, and argues that they are not really blood relatives. 2. Later on, after Marcion has published his gospel, the editor of canonical Luke imports the directly narrated statement about the mother and brothers from the other synoptics. I wish to emphasize again, lest I be misunderstood, that I think that even Marcion's own text implies a mother and brothers; it is just that the directly narrated statement about them would make the case all the more clearly antidocetic. Also, I am not arguing (at least not yet) that this is the more probable direction of development. Pending further thought on the issue, I can hypothetically see it going in either direction: Marcion eliminating the explicit reference, or the Catholics interpolating an explicit reference.

Your arguments on the former, Luke 16.17, however, I do find to be persuasive. I would add to your analysis one more point: Marcion apparently has "one tittle of my (Jesus') words", yet a "tittle" (Greek κεραία) is a written mark, a stroke or a serif on certain letters. Such a term makes far more sense when applied to the law, which had been written for centuries, than it does applied to Jesus' own (as yet unwritten) words while he is still speaking them. I find, like you, in favor of Marcionite posteriority in this case.

Ben.

[Ben C. Smith]

Because at this point Luke is copying principally from Mark.

But if "Luke" did that, that would mean he/she was not copying from gMarcion.

Not at this point, no. He would be copying from multiple sources (confer Luke 1.1), sometimes one at a time, sometimes conflating two or more.

So you replace one awkwardness with another, two adjacent instances of "you" which apply to two different groups, whereas the Marcionite version contains no such issues to explain.

The "awkwardness" is fully explained by "Mark" going out of character and having Jesus addressing Christians of his community who are alive right after the fall of Jerusalem.

I do not buy that Mark is having Jesus go out of character here. I think the assumption is that at least some of the disciples would still be alive to see these signs. After all, that is pretty much what "this generation will not pass away" means: at least some contemporaries will still be alive when it happens.

Ben.

[Bernard Muller]

I think even the Marcionite text implies, as you indeed argue, that Jesus has a mother and brothers.

It may imply that, but the deletion allows a different interpretation, away from Jesus having a blood mother & brothers. gLuke version is clear, not allowing for a different interpretation.

It may well be only Marcion who believes that the mother and brothers are not really blood relatives, not the (original author of the) Marcionite text itself.

What evidence do you have gMarcion was not written initially by Marcion?
Could a Marcionite writer be totally unaware of Marcion's thought on the matter?
Cerdo, considered by Tertullian as Marcion's predecessor, also believed Jesus on earth did not have a blood family. So I cannot see how you can squeeze in the mix a Marcionite writer who thought Jesus had a blood family.
According to the testimony of Tertullian and Epiphanius, that would not be the first time gMarcion avoided to have Jesus as a normal human. Actually, I do not think gMarcion and Marcionite Pauline epistles can be proven, contrary to the other gospels and Paul's letters, to describe once Jesus as "born of a woman" (or conceived by a man, as in Paul's epistles). So I do not think who ever wrote gMarcion believed Jesus had a blood family (or if no blood family is reported, it was by accident).

Cordially, Bernard

[Ben C. Smith]

I think even the Marcionite text implies, as you indeed argue, that Jesus has a mother and brothers.

It may imply that, but the deletion allows a different interpretation, away from Jesus having a blood mother & brothers. gLuke version is clear, not allowing for a different interpretation.

Exactly my point. A very good reason for a Catholic writer to insert it, to shore up the text against Marcionite abuse of it.

It may well be only Marcion who believes that the mother and brothers are not really blood relatives, not the (original author of the) Marcionite text itself.

What evidence do you have gMarcion was not written initially by Marcion?

I am in the process of assembling evidence for or against that proposition. Alternating priority and posteriority would be such evidence.

Could a Marcionite writer be totally unaware of Marcion's thought on the matter?

I have no idea what this is in reference to, sorry.

Cerdo, considered by Tertullian as Marcion's predecessor, also believed Jesus on earth did not have a blood family. So I cannot see how you can squeeze in the mix a Marcionite writer who thought Jesus had a blood family.

I do not think there was a Marcionite writer who thought Jesus had a blood family. I am saying that it is possible that Marcion (or other Marcionites) found certain early gospel writings which could be, with some forcing, interpreted along Marcionite lines... just like the Catholics found early gospel writings which could be, with some forcing, interpreted along Catholic lines.

So I do not think who ever wrote gMarcion believed Jesus had a blood family (or if no blood family is reported, it was by accident).

I think that the publisher (or editor) of the Marcionite gospel (Marcion himself, most likely) considered Jesus to be docetic. But the possibility I am entertaining here is that Marcion made use of an already existing gospel text that was not, at its core, Marcionite.

Ben.

[Bernard Muller]

Because at this point Luke is copying principally from Mark.
Not at this point, no.

Can you decide what "Luke" is copying at this point: gMark ("you ... so you also") or gMarcion ("men ... so you also").

I do not buy that Mark is having Jesus go out of character here. I think the assumption is that at least some of the disciples would still be alive to see these signs. After all, that is pretty much what "this generation will not pass away" means: at least some contemporaries will still be alive when it happens.

Maybe you are right here: no need to argue about going out of character.
But, because of the lack of punctuation in the Greek text of this period, the "also" can be envisioned as separated from "so you" by a comma. Therefore, we would have, as per the YLT translation:
"'And from the fig-tree learn ye the simile: when the branch may already become tender, and may put forth the leaves, ye know that nigh is the summer;
so ye, also, when these ye may see coming to pass, ye know that it is nigh, at the doors."
"also" introduces the next phrase and is not related to "so you".
Other translations for Mk 13:28-29:
RSV "From the fig tree learn its lesson: as soon as its branch becomes tender and puts forth its leaves, you know that summer is near.
So also, when you see these things taking place, you know that he is near, at the very gates."
KJV "Now learn a parable of the fig tree; When her branch is yet tender, and putteth forth leaves, ye know that summer is near:
So ye in like manner, when ye shall see these things come to pass, know that it is nigh, even at the doors."

Cordially, Bernard

[Bernard Muller]

I think that the publisher (or editor) of the Marcionite gospel (Marcion himself, most likely) considered Jesus to be docetic. But the possibility I am entertaining here is that Marcion made use of an already existing gospel text that was not, at its core, Marcionite.

And that already existing gospel would be gLuke, according to Irenaeus, Tertullian and Epiphanius.

Cordially, Bernard

[Secret Alias]

No according to our surviving copies of those works

[Bernard Muller]

No according to our surviving copies of those works

Which works? gLuke, Irenaeus, Tertullian & Epiphanius?

Irenaeus, Against Heresies:
- I, XXVII, 2 "he [Marcion] mutilates the Gospel which is according to Luke, removing all that is written respecting the generation of the Lord, and setting aside a great deal of the teaching of the Lord, in which the Lord is recorded as most dearly confessing that the Maker of this universe is His Father."
- III, XI, 7 "But Marcion, mutilating that according to Luke, is proved to be a blasphemer of the only existing God, from those [passages] which he still retains."
- III, XIV, 4 "And if indeed Marcion's followers reject these, they will then possess no Gospel; for, curtailing that according to Luke, as I have said already, they boast in having the Gospel."

Tertullian, Against Marcion:
- IV, II "Now, of the authors whom we possess, Marcion seems to have singled out Luke for his mutilating process."
- IV, IV "For if the Gospel, said to be Luke's which is current amongst us (we shall see whether it be also current with Marcion), is the very one which, as Marcion argues in his Antitheses, was interpolated by the defenders of Judaism, ..."
- IV, V "Luke's Gospel also has come down to us in like integrity until the sacrilegious treatment of Marcion. In short, when Marcion laid hands on it, it then became diverse and hostile to the Gospels of the apostles. I will therefore advise his followers, that they either change these Gospels, however late to do so, into a conformity with their own, whereby they may seem to be in agreement with the apostolic writings (for they are daily retouching their work, as daily they are convicted by us); ..."

Epiphanius, Panarion:
- I, III "But I shall come to his writings, or rather, to his tamperings. This man has only Luke as a Gospel, mutilated at the beginning because of the Savior’s conception and his incarnation. But this person who harmed himself < rather > than the Gospel did not cut just the beginning off. He also cut off many words of the truth both at the end and in the middle, and he has added other things besides, beyond what had been written. And he uses only this (Gospel) canon, the Gospel according to Luke"
- I, III "For the (Marcionite) canon of Luke is revelatory of < their form of the Gospel >: mutilated as it is, without beginning, middle or end, it looks like a cloak full of moth holes."
- I, III "This is Marcion’s corrupt compilation, containing a version and form of the Gospel according to Luke, ..."
- I, III "I have made this laborious, searching compilation from the scripture he has chosen, Paul and the Gospel according to Luke ...."

Cordially, Bernard

[Ben C. Smith]

Because at this point Luke is copying principally from Mark.
Not at this point, no.

Can you decide what "Luke" is copying at this point: gMark ("you ... so you also") or gMarcion ("men ... so you also").

Mark... or something very much like Mark.

I do not buy that Mark is having Jesus go out of character here. I think the assumption is that at least some of the disciples would still be alive to see these signs. After all, that is pretty much what "this generation will not pass away" means: at least some contemporaries will still be alive when it happens.

Maybe you are right here: no need to argue about going out of character.
But, because of the lack of punctuation in the Greek text of this period, the "also" can be envisioned as separated from "so you" by a comma. Therefore, we would have, as per the YLT translation:
"'And from the fig-tree learn ye the simile: when the branch may already become tender, and may put forth the leaves, ye know that nigh is the summer;
so ye, also, when these ye may see coming to pass, ye know that it is nigh, at the doors."
"also" introduces the next phrase and is not related to "so you".

I covered this either in the OP or in an ensuing post. Your observation would explain the kai; what it fails to explain is the emphatic pronoun humeis.

Ben.

[Bernard Muller]

to Ben,

I covered this either in the OP or in an ensuing post. Your observation would explain the kai; what it fails to explain is the emphatic pronoun humeis.

I do not know where you addressed that. But I want to make another point: I looked at your OP and "men" appears here:
Reflect, in short, on the picture presented in the parable: "Behold the fig-tree, and all the trees; when they produce their fruit, men know that summer is at hand. So likewise ye, when ye see these things come to pass, know ye that the kingdom of God is very near." Now, if the fructification of the common trees be an antecedent sign of the approach of summer, so in like manner do the great conflicts of the world indicate the arrival of that kingdom which they precede.
I am not sure Tertullian extracted that saying from gMarcion. He did not say it. He said "his" saying is "the picture presented in the parable". He probably paraphrased the saying & made some changes, having fruits being "shoot forth" and the fructification observed by men (not the disciples!).
Something also very awkward: "the fig-tree and all the trees". Well, fig trees and all other (deciduous) trees produce leaves when summer is approaching, but most trees do not produce fruits at any time.
So either Tertullian is paraphrasing carelessly (and replacing a "you" by "men"), or Marcion made a stupid mistake by having all other trees producing fruits, a mistake not done in gLuke (it has only "shoot forth" with no mention of fruits).
I would opt for the first option: why would Marcion write "all other trees, when they produce their fruit"?
Also, I want to point out another reconstruction of gMarcion does not agree with you on that passage:
29 And he spake to them a parable;
Behold the fig tree, and all the trees;
30 When they already shoot forth,
ye see it, and know your own selves
that summer is already near.
31 So likewise ye, when ye see these things come to pass,
know ye that the kingdom of God is near.
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/t ... cion5.html

Cordially, Bernard