Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Toto · 08-18-2013, 05:19 PM

Duvduv's hobby horse has been split off here and locked.

Please stick to the subject.

Vorkosigan · 08-19-2013, 06:50 AM

So... This argument that P69 is the marcionite gospel, if true, would mean that the Dutch Radical position on who edited what is true? The church altered marcion...

More interesting, we know that Luke depends on mark. What then is the origin and relationship of the synoptics if the first one held by marcion is the third or fourth one written...?

stephan huller · 08-19-2013, 08:38 AM

I don't know what the greater implications are for this but Vinzent has worked out a scenario where the Marcionite gospel is ur-Mark

andrewcriddle · 08-19-2013, 12:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vorkosigan

So... This argument that P69 is the marcionite gospel, if true, would mean that the Dutch Radical position on who edited what is true? The church altered marcion...

Whatever is the case with verses 43-44, (missing in many ancient manuscripts), if Marcion's Gospel lacked verse 42 then this was a deliberate omission. Given the Markan parallel verse 42 is almost certainly original.

Andrew Criddle

avi · 08-19-2013, 04:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stephan huller

I don't know what the greater implications are for this but Vinzent has worked out a scenario where the Marcionite gospel is ur-Mark

maybe I simply don't understand the concept of "ur-Mark", a term which I take to mean, something written that preceded Mark, and upon which, Mark was based.

Working backwards:
Justin Martyr, (if we believe the single extant manuscript copy from the Italian monastery in the dark ages) wrote about the writings of the apostles, from which he offers several quotes, which appear, to most folks, to be right out of Matthew, i.e. suggesting that Martyr possessed a copy of Matthew.

We also "know", or at least, accept, that Matthew had a copy of Mark.

We also believe, on what basis, I am unable to explain, that Marcion's text was based, not on the gospels, but rather, on the letters of Paul.

So, if Vinzent is correct, then Paul must have preceded Mark, and Marcion could have developed his text, absent input from the gospels, based only on the epistles. Is that reasonable? I don't think so.

Here's my sequence:

Mark
Matthew...........Justin Martyr and Tatian
Luke
Paul
John

I have no idea where ur Mark fits into this scheme, and I have never encountered an Ur-Mark document. How does it differ from Mark? Does Ur-Mark 1:1 include "son of god"? Did Marcion imagine/believe/teach that Jesus was "son of god"? "Son of God", implies to me, at least, that Jesus lived on planet earth as a human. Did Marcion, following Paul, imagine that Jesus was the human son of god, living as a human, on earth? Since the earliest extant copy of Mark 1:1 fails to include, in the original text, "son of god", or the single letter equivalents, scribbled in the margin, it would seem to me, that the earliest version of the text (wouldn't that be Ur-Mark?) failed to make this announcement in the first verse of the first chapter.

stephan huller · 08-19-2013, 05:01 PM

Quote:

andrewcriddle: if Marcion's Gospel lacked verse 42 then this was a deliberate omission

Quote:

saying, "Father, if You are willing, remove this cup from Me; yet not My will, but Yours be done."

I am not sure why we would expect a monarchian gospel to have these words

stephan huller · 08-19-2013, 05:03 PM

Quote:

Mark 14:36 And He was saying, “Abba! Father! All things are possible for You; remove this cup from Me; yet not what I will, but what You will.”

I don't see why this 'authentic.' It is only so if we assume the Son and the Father were separate.

stephan huller · 08-19-2013, 05:19 PM

The earliest allusion is Justin:

Quote:

And when I had said these words, I continued: "Now I will demonstrate to you that the whole Psalm refers thus to Christ, by the words which I shall again explain. What is said at first--'O God, my God, attend to me: why hast Thou forsaken me?'--announced from the beginning that which was to be said in the time of Christ. For when crucified, He spake: 'O God, my God, why hast Thou forsaken me?' And what follows: 'The words of my transgressions are far from my salvation. O my God, I will cry to Thee in the day-time, and Thou wilt not hear; and in the night-season, and it is not for want of understanding in me.' These, as well as the things which He was to do, were spoken. For on the day on which He was to be crucified, having taken three of His disciples to the hill called Olivet, situated opposite to the temple in Jerusalem, He prayed in these words: 'Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me.' And again He prayed: "Not as I will, but as Thou wilt;' showing by this that He had become truly a suffering man. But lest any one should say, He did not know then that He had to suffer, He adds immediately in the Psalm: 'And it is not for want of under standing in me.' Even as there was no ignorance on God's part when He asked Adam where he was, or asked Cain where Abel was; but [it was done] to convince each what kind of man he was, and in order that through the record [of Scripture] we might have a knowledge of all: so likewise Christ declared that ignorance was not on His side, but on theirs, who thought that He was not the Christ, but fancied they would put Him to death, and that He, like some common mortal, would remain in Hades. [Dialogue 99]

and again:

For as he had deceived Adam, so he hoped that he might contrive some mischief against Christ also. Moreover, the statement, 'All my bones are poured out and dispersed like water; my heart has become like wax, melting in the midst of my belly,' was a prediction of that which happened to Him on that night when men came out against Him to the Mount of Olives to seize Him. For in the memoirs which I say were drawn up by His apostles and those who followed them, [it is recorded] that His sweat fell down like drops of blood while He was praying, and saying, 'If it be possible, let this cup pass:' His heart and also His bones trembling; His heart being like wax melting in His belly: in order that we may perceive that the Father wished His Son really to undergo such sufferings for our sakes, and may not say that He, being the Son of God, did not feel what was happening to Him and inflicted on Him. Further, the expression, 'My strength is dried up like a potsherd, and my tongue has cleaved to my throat,' was a prediction, as I previously remarked, of that silence, when He who convicted all your teachers of being unwise returned no answer at all. [ibid 103]

And then an allusion rather than a citation in Irenaeus Demonstration 75:

Quote:

That He should endure these things, and that too by the will of the Father, he manifestly declared: for by the will of the Father He was to endure sufferings.

andrewcriddle · 08-20-2013, 12:02 PM

My point was that (assuming Markan priority) verses in Luke with parallels in Mark which are absent in Marcion's Gospel but otherwise present in almost all manuscripts of Luke are almost certainly deliberate omissions by Marcion.

At least this is by far the simplest scenario.

Andrew Criddle

Bingo the Clown-O · 08-21-2013, 06:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by avi

I simply don't understand the concept of "ur-Mark", a term which I take to mean, something written that preceded Mark, and upon which, Mark was based.

Here:

http://www.freeratio.org/showpost.ph...&postcount=135

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

08-18-2013, 05:19 PM	#11
Toto Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Los Angeles area Posts: 40,549	Duvduv's hobby horse has been split off here and locked. Please stick to the subject.

08-19-2013, 06:50 AM	#12
Vorkosigan Contributor Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: Barrayar Posts: 11,866	So... This argument that P69 is the marcionite gospel, if true, would mean that the Dutch Radical position on who edited what is true? The church altered marcion... More interesting, we know that Luke depends on mark. What then is the origin and relationship of the synoptics if the first one held by marcion is the third or fourth one written...?

08-19-2013, 08:38 AM	#13
stephan huller Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: seattle, wa Posts: 9,337	I don't know what the greater implications are for this but Vinzent has worked out a scenario where the Marcionite gospel is ur-Mark

08-20-2013, 12:02 PM	#19
andrewcriddle Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: Birmingham UK Posts: 4,876	My point was that (assuming Markan priority) verses in Luke with parallels in Mark which are absent in Marcion's Gospel but otherwise present in almost all manuscripts of Luke are almost certainly deliberate omissions by Marcion. At least this is by far the simplest scenario. Andrew Criddle

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.