The Temptation Story in Mark is anti-marcionite

[Giuseppe]

An interesting variant of this technique of extracting information about the present from the Old Testament is found in the references in Hebrews to Jesus's temptation. 94 Hebrews says: (2: 8)

'He himself hath suffered being tempted';

(4:15)

'He was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin.'

The author clearly assumes that Jesus was tempted, in order to be like other men. But no details are given, and the most pregnant part of the passage, (3:8)

'As the Holy Ghost saith ... Harden not your hearts as in the day of provocation, in the day of temptation in the wilderness'

harks back to Psalm 95:8:

'Today if ye will hear his voice, Harden not your heart, as in the provocation, and as in the day of temptation in the wilderness, when your fathers tempted me, proved me, and saw my work. Forty years long was I grieved with this generation.'

Accordingly, the words of God, directed to the ancient Jews in the desert, are here applied to the earthly Jesus. It is the last part of this passage that apparently forms the basis of the elaboration in Mark 1: 12-13:

'And he was there in the wilderness forty days, tempted of Satan, and was with the wild beasts'

, with 'forty days' substituted for 'forty years'.

(Alvar Ellegard, Jesus — One Hundred Years Before Christ, p. 72, my bold)

• In Mark the Temptation Story is an elaboration of Hebrews 4:15.

• But Hebrews 4:15 is an anti-marcionite passage.

• Therefore in Mark the Temptation Story is anti-marcionite.

The point is the same of Hebrews 4:15: Jesus is fully human, only remember that the his humanity was without sin.

You don't need to explain that his humanity was without sin, unless you are addressing people who didn't accept a human Jesus, i.e. Marcionites.

[Giuseppe]

Weakness of the Markan prioritist Bruno Bauer in this case.

Bruno Bauer interpreted the Temptation Story as an event related to the community 'Jesus', not as an event related to the man Jesus.

He was wrong because he interpreted the Temptation Story as an innocent story (not as wickedly anti-marcionite).

[Giuseppe]

No difference from this POV between Mark and Matthew and canonical Luke:

• Mark: Jesus was tempted like ordinary men, yet he resisted to temptation.

• Matthew and canonical Luke: Jesus was born like ordinary men, yet his birth was through the holy spirit.

At this point, yes: Mark could introduce equally well the birth story, and to be in every way similar to Matthew, only more gentilizing.

He would have saved us a lot of trouble.

[rgprice]

Well, I'm quite confident at this point that this passage has been thoroughly misinterpreted to begin with. I'm sure you've seen my other threads about this. In the original story, it was John who was tempted by Satan, not Jesus, and the narrative element is based on the story of Elijah in 1 Kings, when he goes into the wilderness and it tended to by angles. So... no the scene is not anti-Marcionite in origin. Maybe it became anti-Marcionite in interpretation when it was revised in Luke and Matthew and that then got read back into Mark, which was edited to conform to Matthew.

[GakuseiDon]

The point is the same of Hebrews 4:15: Jesus is fully human, only remember that the his humanity was without sin.

You don't need to explain that his humanity was without sin, unless you are addressing people who didn't accept a human Jesus, i.e. Marcionites.

A 'Jesus without sin" is consistent with early Ebion-like beliefs, where Jesus was a naturally born man who was elected Christ due to perfect adherence to the Law, as described in Justin Martyr's "Dialogue with Trypho":
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/t ... rypho.html

And Trypho answered, "The Scripture has not, 'Behold, the virgin shall conceive, and bear a son,' but, 'Behold, the young woman shall conceive, and bear a son,' and so on, as you quoted. But the whole prophecy refers to Hezekiah, and it is proved that it was fulfilled in him, according to the terms of this prophecy. Moreover, in the fables of those who are called Greeks, it is written that Perseus was begotten of Danae, who was a virgin; he who was called among them Zeus having descended on her in the form of a golden shower. And you ought to feel ashamed when you make assertions similar to theirs, and rather[should] say that this Jesus was born man of men. And if you prove from the Scriptures that He is the Christ, and that on account of having led a life conformed to the law, and perfect, He deserved the honour of being elected to be Christ,[it is well]; but do not venture to tell monstrous phenomena, lest you be convicted of talking foolishly like the Greeks."
...
[Justin] For other nations have not inflicted on us and on Christ this wrong to such an extent as you have, who in very deed are the authors of the wicked prejudice against the Just One, and us who hold by Him. For after that you had crucified Him, the only blameless and righteous Man,-- through whose swipes those who approach the Father by Him are healed...

According to my own 'head canon', this was part of the earliest beliefs of Christianity. Marcion came later on.

[Giuseppe]

Ebionism is a post-Marcion phenomenon, for three reasons:

• since Justin (the earliest polemical reference you have about ebionism, in addition to Cerinthus) comes after Marcion.

• Since the adoptionism requires the Temptation Story (the human recipient has to be perfect in order to work as recipient of the spiritual Christ: cfr. Cerinthus), and since the Temptation Story is anti-marcionite (Hebrews 4:15 being anti-marcionite), then the adoptionism is post-Marcionite.

• the ebionites used Matthew, but obviously Matthew comes after Marcion.

Surely Hebrews 4:15 is not an ebionite belief! So much high is the christology in Hebrews that it is virtually impossible its presence in ebionite circles.

Mark is based on Hebrews 4:15 on this point. Hence the order of derivation is the following:

Hebrews 4:15 ---> temptation story in Mark ---> ebionite reading of Mark: adoptionism.

But my case is built on Hebrews 4:15 being anti-marcionite (docet Joseph Turmel).

Even so, there is evidence of a link between the Pillars and the ebionites: Paul calls the Pillars 'the poors' and his efforts are designed to give the collection for the 'poors' of Jerusalem. By saying that their founder is "Ebion" (a word pun on the 'poors'), the Fathers of the Church were claiming that the founder of the Pillars was a fictional person. There is a curious irony in all this, since it is implicitly a mythicist accusation coming from the same Catholics.

[Giuseppe]

In the original story, it was John who was tempted by Satan, not Jesus

speculation is free in recostructing lost proto-gospels, but in this confusion I get up to a certainty:
more precisely, I see a trend from a not-human not-davidic divine Jesus in *Ev to a human not-davidic in canonical Mark, to a human and davidic in Matthew and Luke-Acts.

If there is a way to prove that in proto-Mark Jesus is not human (in addition to be not davidic), then the probability may increase, that Mark preceded *Ev and not the contrary.

[Peter Kirby]

Hebrews is working out a concept of a perfect sacrifice, in order to provide an explanation of how Jesus replaced once and for all the use of sacrifices.

None of the claims in this thread were well argued.

[Giuseppe]

Hebrews is working out a concept of a perfect sacrifice, in order to provide an explanation of how Jesus replaced once and for all the use of sacrifices.

are you aware of Turmel's case for the Hebrews's passage being anti-marcionite?

We read in II, 16-17 the following observation:

“Surely it is not angels that he helps, it is the posterity of Abraham. Therefore he had to be like his brothers in every way, so as to be a merciful and faithful high priest in the service of God to atone for the sins of the people.”

Strange observation! We wonder with surprise how the idea could have come to the author to explain that Christ came to bring help, not to the angels, but to the posterity of Abraham. And we can only answer this question by appealing to polemical concerns. The author found himself faced with adversaries who claimed to put Christ outside the human condition. And he replied to them: “You attribute to Christ an angelic condition. Your theory would be entirely acceptable if Christ had come to help the angels. But it was to the posterity of Abraham, that is to say, to men that he came to the aid. He appeared, in fact, on earth with the mission to atone for the sins of men. To carry out this program Christ did not have to come in the angelic condition. He had to be like his brothers in every way and submit to the human condition.” This is the meaning of II, 16-17. Now it was Marcion who, around 140, claimed to put Christ outside of humanity. It is therefore to the doctrine of Marcion that the epistle to the Hebrews responds here. And the danger against which it strives to protect the faithful is, above all, the Marcionite danger

https://vridar.org/wp-content/uploads/2 ... EBREWS.pdf

[Peter Kirby]

The comment "And we can only answer this question by appealing to polemical concerns" is not well argued.