Do you see canonical gJohn as the layer cake seen by scholars such as Dennis R. MacDonald?
Mimetic Synopsis of Three Gospels of John, Volume 3, compares the three compositional stages that produced the Fourth Gospel: (1) the Dionysian Gospel, which extensively imitated Euripides’ Bacchae; (2) the Anti-Jewish Gospel; and (3) the Beloved Disciple Gospel.
--"Vol. 3: Mimetic Synopsis of Three Gospels of John". Synopses of Epic, Tragedy, and the Gospels. Mimesis Press. 2022. ISBN 979-8-9867801-1-5.
IMO, John-prime did not feature canonical 2:13-17
davidmartin wrote: ↑Thu May 25, 2023 3:24 amThere is no name for a non-gnostic, mystical branch of Christianity even though it leaves traces everywhere, why is that?
The implication that the opponents to Phillip did not know the holy spirit would make them complete outsiders, not even Chrestians or Christians
I see the original pre-Christian "Gnosticism" as worshiping Sophia/Wisdom as second-god.
The pre-Christian John-prime begins by saying there is a Mother who was with God and is God. N.B. per Philo, the mother of the "Son of God" was Sophia/Wisdom.
But the parallels in the Gospel of Mark are not intended to show that Jesus fulfilled prophecy, rather they highlight the Jewish God's displeasure with the Jewish people.
This is false and demonstrates a lack of understanding of Jewish messianic beliefs in the Second Temple period.
As noted by Vorster, Matthew and Luke use the Old Testament within a promise-fulfilment scheme. And Vorster following Alfred Suhl 1962, Die Funktion der alttestamentlichen Zitate und Anspielungen im Markusevangelium, argues that Mark's use of the Old Testament is totally different from Matthew and Luke.
You should read Joel Marcus, a true Markan and second temple judaism specialist.
Joel Marcus - The way of the Lord
The New Testament’s messianic interpretation of the Old is an important key to its theology. This book examines the way the author of the Gospel of Mark uses the Old Testament to convey the identity of Jesus. Joel Marcus examines in detail several important Markan passages which use the Old Testament. His central thesis is that Mark’s Old Testament usage follows paths already made by Jewish exegesis, particularly apocalyptic reinterpretations of Old Testament texts. Giving such eschatological exegesis his own characteristic twist, Mark presents Jesus as God’s true Messiah who brings the prophesied victory in eschatological holy war. Unlike the Jewish War against Rome in A.D. 66-72, however, the holy war portrayed by Mark is not fought with conventional weapons but won through the apocalyptic event of Jesus’ death and resurrection. This thoroughly documented and closely argued study is an important contribution to our understanding of the Gospel of Mark.
Sinouhe wrote: ↑Sun Oct 29, 2023 1:11 pm
You should read Joel Marcus, a true Markan and second temple judaism specialist.
[...]
This book is a reference in Markan studies.
Do you concur that gMark's use of the Old Testament is unique in comparison to other gospels?
Do you concur that a sub-textual narrative via Old Testament allusions, references, etc. occurs in gMark? Given that said sub-textual narrative may be in composite form so that narrative may be bundled with unrelated literary goals of the Markan author. For example:
Paul the Uncertain wrote: ↑Fri Sep 01, 2023 3:54 pm
The issue between us was whether Jonah 1 contains elements present in the stilling pericope which cannot be inferred from Psalm 107. It does.
I see the original pre-Christian "Gnosticism" as worshiping Sophia/Wisdom as second-god.
The pre-Christian John-prime begins by saying there is a Mother who was with God and is God. N.B. per Philo, the mother of the "Son of God" was Sophia/Wisdom.
hmm,
as a cosmological thing or mystery one might look to marriage or when Eve was in Adam then the two are one, not sure they'd have seen a second god for sure from this kind of thinking but were they thinking about it, well, it seems so yes. Would the son have been unique i wonder...!
Sinouhe wrote: ↑Sun Oct 29, 2023 1:11 pm
Joel Marcus, a true Markan and second temple judaism specialist.
[...]
This book is a reference in Markan studies.
[T]he present study will concentrate on the way in which Mark uses the Old Testament specifically for his christology . . . It would be ideal if we could study not just Mark's christological exegesis but all of his Old Testament citations and allusions, but such an exhaustive study would be of prohibitive length. This is especially true because, as we shall see, Mark's narrative has been influenced by the Old Testament more than is generally thought. Some limitation of focus, therefore, is necessary...
R.G. Price is doing an analysis of all the Old Testament citations and allusions in the Markan text.
I do not know his viewpoint on Marcus' arguments.
I do not know his viewpoint on Vette's 2022 arguments per Writing with scripture: scripturalized narrative in the Gospel of Mark. London; New York. ISBN 978-0-5677-0466-5.
Vette also borrows from Dimant the terms to describe these two types of Scripture reference: expositional and compositional. Most scholarship has attended to the expositional use of Scriptures in the Gospel of Mark, seeking to explain how the Gospel can be interpreted through its Scriptural references; but Vette seeks to redress that balance by examining the compositional function of biblical texts in the Gospel.Intertextual production of the Gospel of Mark. Wikipedia.
Last edited by dbz on Mon Oct 30, 2023 11:53 am, edited 1 time in total.
Schmithals explains how he is using the term “Gnosticism”. He uses the term to refer to
that religious movement which teaches man to understand himself as a piece of divine substance. Although he has fallen, through a disastrous fate, into captivity to an alien world and its demonic rulers, he may be certain of liberation from that captivity because he possesses the awareness of his inalienable divine being.
There appears to be a contradiction between this description by Schmithals and the received history of Christian philosophy. The New Testament does not make any reference to the divine substance or essence of Jesus. The New Testament gospels mention the role of material essence (as in property inheritance, possessions, etc) but make absolutely no reference to, or mention of, the divine essence of Jesus. Finding elements of gnosticism in the psychiatric visions and writings of Paul is not a cohesive philosophical solution.
Identification of this omission in the NT writings was brought to the surface of history only by means of the Neo-Platonic terminology which characterised the 4th century Arian controversy over the nature of the divine essence of Jesus.
This philosophical controversy highlighted the difference between homoousios - "of the same substance," and homoiousios "of a similar substance." The two terms refer to subtly different beliefs capable of being expounded in philosophical terms about God and Jesus.
It would therefore appear to me that any gnostic origin of Jesus worship that relates directly to a philosophical exposition of the divine essence of Jesus necessarily post-dates the Nicene council and the Arian controversy.
Leucius Charinus wrote: ↑Wed Nov 22, 2023 6:13 am
There appears to be a contradiction between this description by Schmithals and the received history of Christian philosophy. The New Testament does not make any reference to the divine substance or essence of Jesus.
[...]
It would therefore appear to me that any gnostic origin of Jesus worship that relates directly to a philosophical exposition of the divine essence of Jesus necessarily post-dates the Nicene council and the Arian controversy.
If *Ev attributed to Marcion was labeled a "Gnostic" heresey that referenced the "divine substance or essence of Jesus".
Perhaps Marcion featured the ‘cosmocrator’ in the Greco-Roman context of Plutarch's thought on the ‘cosmocrator’ as a power/principle of Middle Platonism responsible for "Negative Demiurgy" (i.e. evil in the world is caused by malicious/ignorant demons and malicious/ignorant humans lacking virtue/knowledge/wisdom, etc.).
mlinssen wrote: ↑Fri May 26, 2023 9:14 am
Marcion never existed, but creating him as a sock puppet allowed for the FF to address the gospel of Chrestianity - which *Ev was
Which explains why we can not locate his drivers license or birth certificate
A fun one: when did Marcion first get "Patricised" and when was the last on those?
Justin Martyr (c. 100 – c. 165 CE)
Irenaeus (c. 130 – c. 202 CE)
Clement of Alexandria (c. 150 – c. 215 CE)
Tertullian (c. 155 – c. 220 CE)
Origen (c. 185 – c. 253 CE)
Epiphanius (c. 310–320 – 403 CE)
Jerome (c. 345 –420 CE)
Easily 250 years are covered this way; 250 continuous years during which apparently “the writings of Marcion” formed a great enough problem to be addressed by Church Fathers in multiple volumes per Church Father. Something that size doesn’t attest to some heretic distorting orthodox writings and publishing his own version of the mainstream document(s) on the side, such instead attests to an enormously influential, popular and persistent movement that was nigh impossible to suppress
Leucius Charinus wrote: ↑Wed Nov 22, 2023 6:13 am
There appears to be a contradiction between this description by Schmithals and the received history of Christian philosophy. The New Testament does not make any reference to the divine substance or essence of Jesus.
[...]
It would therefore appear to me that any gnostic origin of Jesus worship that relates directly to a philosophical exposition of the divine essence of Jesus necessarily post-dates the Nicene council and the Arian controversy.
If *Ev attributed to Marcion was labeled a "Gnostic" heresey that referenced the "divine substance or essence of Jesus".
We have physical exemplars of canonical codices from the 4th century. We have physical exemplars of "Gnostic" apocryphal codices (NHL) from the 4th century. These represent the earliest physical primary evidence for "Gnostic origins"
When we turn to Marcion and his *Ev our sources (Tertullian, Irenaeus etc) are secondary sources and are often over a thousand years removed from the 4th century. Secondary sources are equivalent to hearsay.
From the OP:
However, it is very difficult to be fully confident because the material we have have been subject to an unknown level of redaction and alteration from the original forms of the materials.
So, if I were to consider the possibility that the worship of Jesus began as a Gnostic mystery religion, what might that look like?
I do not think either Paul or Jewish influence contributed to the appearance of these so-called "Gnostic writings" that are physically present as 4th century artefacts in the NHL. I'd be inclined to suggest that gnostic writings began as philosophical (Platonic) abstractions from the canonical writings.
mlinssen wrote: ↑Fri May 26, 2023 9:14 am
Marcion never existed, but creating him as a sock puppet allowed for the FF to address the gospel of Chrestianity - which *Ev was
Which explains why we can not locate his drivers license or birth certificate :D
A fun one: when did Marcion first get "Patricised" and when was the last on those?
Justin Martyr (c. 100 – c. 165 CE)
Irenaeus (c. 130 – c. 202 CE)
Clement of Alexandria (c. 150 – c. 215 CE)
Tertullian (c. 155 – c. 220 CE)
Origen (c. 185 – c. 253 CE)
Epiphanius (c. 310–320 – 403 CE)
Jerome (c. 345 –420 CE)
Easily 250 years are covered this way; 250 continuous years during which apparently “the writings of Marcion” formed a great enough problem to be addressed by Church Fathers in multiple volumes per Church Father. Something that size doesn’t attest to some heretic distorting orthodox writings and publishing his own version of the mainstream document(s) on the side, such instead attests to an enormously influential, popular and persistent movement that was nigh impossible to suppress
