tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5008517438604159901.post6536972200382647058..comments2024-03-10T06:20:10.198+00:00Comments on Markus Vinzent's Blog: Re-discovered writings by Marcion of Sinope - Prologues to Paul's LettersProfessor Markus Vinzenthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18207418071078727708noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5008517438604159901.post-49356860773252810972015-02-06T18:37:54.907+00:002015-02-06T18:37:54.907+00:00I read in your Marcion and the dating of Synoptic ...I read in your <i>Marcion and the dating of Synoptic Gospels</i> (p.275-276) that the parable of new wine into new and not old wineskins is essentially a product of Marcion in his first Gospel, later present (and sanitizied) in all other Gospels.<br />I recognize that Matthew and Luke have cast that parable in a more proto-orthodox sense, in reaction to Marcion.<br /><br />But the problem for me is still the relation Mark <---> Mcn: who is the first between them?<br /><br />Mark doesn't change that parable but describes it in same way like Mcn.<br /><br />I read in this <a href="http://www.amazon.com/The-Gospel-Mark-Hypertextual-Commentary/dp/3631647158" rel="nofollow">book</a> that this parable <br /><br /><i>...by means of the scriptural allusion to Josh 9:4-6.13 LXX futher illustrates the ideas of Paul's coming to the Jewish city in a poor condition from a far Gentile country (Gal 1:18a) and his generally not being welcomed there (Gal 1:19a).</i><br />(p. 56)<br /><br />I am open to the concrete possibility that Marcion derives midrashically from the Septuagint, under the conditio of putting an implicit antithesis between 'Old Testament' hypotext and 'New Testament' hypertext. But what is his point in referring to Josh 9:4 if not (only and only) the allusion to historical contrast Paul versus Pillars during Paul's first visit to Jerusalem? It would seem that the marcionite nature of parable is secondary in respect to this plausible markan interpretation of the same parable based on Galatians.<br /><br />What do you think about Adamczewski’s ideas?<br /><br />Very Thanks (please feel free to reply when and how you want)<br /><br />Cordially,<br />GiuseppeGiuseppe Ferrihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00587305319405093702noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5008517438604159901.post-86732547253446294682015-02-06T08:46:15.626+00:002015-02-06T08:46:15.626+00:00Hi prof Vinzent,
I'm reading this book of B. ...Hi prof Vinzent,<br /><br />I'm reading this <a href="http://www.amazon.com/The-Gospel-Mark-Hypertextual-Commentary/dp/3631647158" rel="nofollow">book</a> of B. Adamczewski that is even more radical than Dykstra into seeing pauline influence in Mark.<br /><br />For an example of that influence, I read:<br /><br /><i>Quite surprisingly, the almost unkown, northern, Galilean village (Jos. Vita 403) or place of Capernaum (Jos. B.J. 3.519) was presented by Mark as a 'city' (pólis: Mk 1:33). Evidently, the evangelist again used here the hypertextual procedure of spatial translation, and by means of the reference to the northern 'city' of Capernaum in fact alluded to the well-known northern city of Damascus (cf. Gal 1:17c; 2 Cor 11:32).</i><br />(<i>The Gospel of Mark</i>, p. 47)<br /><br />This is interesting because if you concede that Mark here has in mind Paul (Gal 1:17c) as reflected image of Jesus and therefore Capernaum=Damascus, and since Marcion begins his Gospel with Jesus came down in Capernaum, I ask you what means for Marcion that particular incipit with ''Capernaum''? Did Marcion think, like Mark after him, that <i>''the Son was revealed in the person, teaching and course of live of Paul''</i>, and therefore that in his first Gospel the life of Jesus was meant as allegory of Paul's life with the aim to vehicle better the meaning of the same historical but docetic Jesus Christ? Jesus came down to ''Capernaum''/Damascus because Paul started his predication of Jesus there? The question more precisely is: is Mark influenced by Marcion for this method so well described from Adamczewski? if yes, then was Marcion the first to allegorize Paul's life (sequentially following Galatians in a hypertextual way) to cast Paul in his Gospel Jesus?<br />If no, then it seems hard to believe that Mark took that idea (of reworking creatively Galatians) from Marcion and not quite vice versa...<br /><br />Very Thanks,<br />GiuseppeGiuseppe Ferrihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00587305319405093702noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5008517438604159901.post-18030198634848592082012-11-29T19:33:02.074+00:002012-11-29T19:33:02.074+00:00And to repeat the Commentary of Ephrem is decisive...And to repeat the Commentary of Ephrem is decisive in acknowledging that Catholics (of some stripe = Palutians) had a Galatians first canon. If the original source behind Tertullian and Epiphanius (it is certainly a common source because all our other sources i.e. the Philosophumena, Clement of Alexandria, Origen, Adamantius, Ephrem etc give us DIFFERENT alterations; Schmid and other scholars just pretend that Tertullian and Epiphanius are independent sources so as to allow them to have something 'firm' on which to build a thesis - we know less than nothing for certain about the Marcionites) came from that Galatians first tradition (which is quite reasonable given the likelihood that Irenaeus is the original source and Irenaeus's citations of New Testament scripture agrees with the Old Syriac) then all that is certain is that BOTH the Galatians-first Catholic tradition and the Marcionites saw the epistle as being of 'principle' (or 'of the first order') in significance. <br /><br />It's like my finding my wife has lots of receipts from Marks and Spencer and then she tells you that 'it's our favorite store' - that doesn't mean that Marks and Spencer is my favorite store (or store of the first rank). All that we can be certain of is that there were Catholics who (a) had a Galatians first canon (b) had a Corinthians first canon cf. Muratorian canon but also numerous parallel references in Tertullian Against Marcion (= "Let us consider what milk it was that Paul gave the Corinthians<br />to drink, by the line of what rule the Galatians were again made<br />to walk straight,b what the Philippians, the Thessalonians, and<br />the Ephesians are given to read, what words are spoken also by<br />our near neighbours the Romans, to whom Peter and Paul left<br />as legacy the gospel, sealed moreover with their own blood" (Against Marcion 4.5). There are other references in Against Marcion which reflect the Corinthians first ordering. <br /><br />This is the problem with Trobisch's theory (and most everyone else). He (they) over simplifies the actual situation with respect to the New Testament canon. I guess that's how you 'make it' in scholarship (i.e. have everyone agree to an oversimplification and then pontificate in this artificially created universe). The reality is much less certain. Stephan Hullerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07712300237611095445noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5008517438604159901.post-60604048576642328802012-11-29T05:42:20.148+00:002012-11-29T05:42:20.148+00:00I am not convinced that the Syriac canon is 'M...I am not convinced that the Syriac canon is 'Marcionite' or even that the Marcionite canon was Galatians first. How do you explain Ephrem's commentary where Galatians appears first? And Tertullian never says that Galatians appears first in Marcion's canon. It just appears first in his commentary because it did in his source (Epiphanius follows the same source or one closely related and goes on to develop his own conclusions). <br /><br />The same goes for the structure of Book Four of Tertullian. The order as it now stands parallels Luke but the original source references saying in other gospels. I am not sure the Marcionite gospel necessarily followed Luke line by line. The Fathers were self-centered, making the writing of the heresies conform to their 'truths' - so the Marcionite gospel is Luke (even though it wasn't). When commenting on the Marcionite Apostolikon they made it conform to the order in 'the true canon.' <br /><br />Again look at the first line of the Galatians commentary in Latin:<br /><br />Principalem adversus Iudaismum epistulam nos quoque confitemur quae Galatas docet.<br /><br />It's curious that Tertullian 'also' acknowledges the Marcionite contention that the letter is 'first' in some respect. Yet the traditional translation assumes that he 'acknowledges' 'gives thanks' or 'praises' (confiteor) that the letter to the Galatians is 'against Judaism.' Really? But where is this argument anywhere in what follows? All Tertullian does in fact is attack the Marcionite proposition that Christianity is against Judaism. Stephan Hullerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07712300237611095445noreply@blogger.com