Freethought & Rationalism Archive

spin · 02-10-2007, 07:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jakejonesiv

The gospel attributed to Marcion by the heresiologists is not the one produced by him. There are far too many passages, including the one in Luke 8:20, that are contradictory to Marcionite dogma. At best, Tertullian knew of a text of the Evangelion that had already been somewhat catholicized.

There is also evidence to suggest that Tertullian didn't even have a copy of Luke and was working from memory. Several times he accused Marcion of hacking something out of Luke that actually never was in Luke, but in Matthew.

The gospel of Luke is plainly based on Mark, which has the parallel for Luke 8:20. Matthew got the same material so this was intrinsic to Mark. One has to attempt to relate the gospel of Marcion to that of Mark. Later commentators related Marcion's gospel to Luke, suggesting that Marcion's gospel had traits recognizable in the later Lucan tradition, yet Luke is based on Mark. The situation is problematic however one looks at it.

Tertullian may have been using some other work, or misrepresenting the Marcionite gospel, but we still have to say what relationship Mark and Marcion's gospel share. If it was pre-Marcan then it shouldn't have any traces of Lucan material and therefore should not have been recognizable to late 2nd c. analysts as somehow Lucan to accuse Marcion of having bowdlerized Luke. I don't think that you can blame Tertullian on this, unless you'd like to locate what one can get from the Marcionite gospel in some part of the tradition evolution which makes sense.

spin

dog-on · 02-12-2007, 08:44 AM

How close does everyone believe the current Mark is to the original? Without the JtB/baptism section and the initial diciple recruitment in Mark, wouldn't Mark and Marcion's gospel have started with Jesus comes down to Capernaum? Could Marcion's gospel have been first?

gstafleu · 02-12-2007, 09:10 AM

Isn't the problem here the assumption of linear descent? The standard assumption is:

Code:

       Matthew
      /
Mark
      \
       Luke

Couldn't it be:

Code:

   Mark
 /
X-----Matthew
 \
  ----Luke
   \
    Marcion

Where "X" could be oral tradition?

Gerard Stafleu

Casper · 02-12-2007, 09:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dog-on

How close does everyone believe the current Mark is to the original? Without the JtB/baptism section and the initial diciple recruitment in Mark, wouldn't Mark and Marcion's gospel have started with Jesus comes down to Capernaum? Could Marcion's gospel have been first?

I think it was, although a proto-gospel of some sort could have been a source for both. Doesn't the current Mark seem like it was written by a non jew with some knowledge of Jewish culture and literature? Like maybe someone born a jew to non-practicing parents. I'm thinking in the context of the situation you could have today, with a nominally protestant American family; their child may know just enough of the basic cultural mythology, and given a bible might be able to cobble together the "gospel" of Paul Bunyan and how he cut down trees for our sins, etc.

Ben C Smith · 02-12-2007, 09:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gstafleu

Isn't the problem here the assumption of linear descent? The standard assumption is: ....

Couldn't it be: ....

Where "X" could be oral tradition?

I think there are serious problems with any schema that has oral transmission as the only hard connection between the synoptics. Refer to my page on oral and literary connections, especially the evidence of literary relationship section.

Ben.

spin · 02-12-2007, 09:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gstafleu

Isn't the problem here the assumption of linear descent? The standard assumption is:

Code:

       Matthew
      /
Mark
      \
       Luke

Couldn't it be:

Code:

   Mark
 /
X-----Matthew
 \
  ----Luke
   \
    Marcion

Where "X" could be oral tradition?

Order of material says that we are dealing with a major written source. Take out the unique, and that which is called Q, material and we have essentially the same order between the three gospels. Therefore we have a written source. Mark of course is the closest to the original source because almost all of it is in Matt, and the vast majority of it is in Luke. X looks like Mark, so Occam says it's Mark, or at least the vastest amount of Mark.

Mark features the family material that shouldn't be in the Marcionite gospel.

dog-on's thought is the closest to what I thought would explain the data, but its complication is that the Marcionite gospel is related by Irenaeus et al. to Luke, not Mark.

spin

gstafleu · 02-12-2007, 09:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ben C Smith

I think there are serious problems with any schema that has oral transmission as the only hard connection between the synoptics.

OK, so maybe "X" has to be a written document. The diagram is still possible. What I'm getting at here is that where it is said that "A derives from B" (e.g. man descended from the apes) it might sometimes be better to say "A and B have a common ancestor" (as in the case of man and the apes).

Gerard Stafleu

Casper · 02-12-2007, 09:43 AM

I was thinking more like:

Code:

 
                    Q 
                     \
Q-----------Mark-----Matthew
           /  \
   proto-gspl  \      
           \    \     
            \    \
       Marcion -- Luke      
                 /
                Q

But yours is more elegant.

Casper · 02-12-2007, 09:54 AM

Actually, what I wrote first would be

Code:

Marcion---Mark---Matthew
    |        \
     \        \
      ---------Luke

Place Q wherever.

jakejonesiv · 02-12-2007, 11:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dog-on

How close does everyone believe the current Mark is to the original? Without the JtB/baptism section and the initial diciple recruitment in Mark, wouldn't Mark and Marcion's gospel have started with Jesus comes down to Capernaum? Could Marcion's gospel have been first?

Yes. It is the Gospel of MARK, in a state former to that which we have, which would have been the closest to the primitive text of Evangelion. *

The synoptic problem discussed above, merely relates the text of three of the canonical gospels, one to the other. Of these, Mark is undoubtably first. This does not preclude earlier proto- or heretical gospels.

I think a good deal of work could be done on a hypothetical proto-Mark. I agree totally with dog-on that a redactor was at work before Mark 1:21.

Jake Jones IV

*I am of the opinion that Marcion did not create the Evagelion from scratch, but took an existing proto-gospel and modified it to his purposes.

02-12-2007, 09:10 AM	#13
gstafleu Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: London, Ontario, Canada Posts: 1,719	Isn't the problem here the assumption of linear descent? The standard assumption is: Code: Matthew / Mark \ Luke Couldn't it be: Code: Mark / X-----Matthew \ ----Luke \ Marcion Where "X" could be oral tradition? Gerard Stafleu

02-12-2007, 09:43 AM	#18
Casper Regular Member Join Date: Jul 2004 Location: Texas Posts: 430	I was thinking more like: Code: Q \ Q-----------Mark-----Matthew / \ proto-gspl \ \ \ \ \ Marcion -- Luke / Q But yours is more elegant.

02-12-2007, 09:54 AM	#19
Casper Regular Member Join Date: Jul 2004 Location: Texas Posts: 430	Actually, what I wrote first would be Code: Marcion---Mark---Matthew \| \ \ \ ---------Luke Place Q wherever.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

02-12-2007, 08:44 AM	#12
dog-on Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: The Netherlands Posts: 3,397	How close does everyone believe the current Mark is to the original? Without the JtB/baptism section and the initial diciple recruitment in Mark, wouldn't Mark and Marcion's gospel have started with Jesus comes down to Capernaum? Could Marcion's gospel have been first?

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.