A case for Mary interpolated in Mark

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
Post Reply
Giuseppe
Posts: 13732
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

A case for Mary interpolated in Mark

Post by Giuseppe »

The only possible explanation for ''son of Joseph'' is the controversial jewish tradition of the Messiah son of Joseph.

In this case probably it is Mcn who comes before (introducing only the expression ''son of Joseph'' by who doesn't recognize the true identity of Jesus):
All spoke well of him and were amazed at the gracious words that came from his lips. “Isn't this Joseph's son?” they asked.
(Luke 4:22)

Then Matthew replaced ''son of Joseph'' with ''son of carpenter'', to remove the allusion to the ''Messia son of Joseph'' in order to fulfill uniquely davidic prophecies about the Messiah. Joseph is reduced so to simple brother of Jesus.
Is not this the carpenter's son? Is not his mother called Mary? And are not his brothers James and Joseph and Simon and Judas?
(Matthew 13:55)

And, since the proto-catholics were embarrassed by the presence of some heretics (Irenaeus, 3.11.2-3):
but others allege him to be the Son of the Demiurge, upon whom the dispensational Jesus descended
...they corrected the relation in their interpolation in Mark 6:3 :
Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, the brother of James, and Joses, and of Juda, and Simon? and are not his sisters here with us?

Therefore who wrote Mark 6:3 knew already the proto-catholic tradition about Joseph and Mary from previous Gospels. Also in this case, the absence of apology to cover the embarrassment of a Jesus who didn't miracles in Nazaret may be evidence that there was no need of an apology, since it was already known via previous Gospels.
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.
Giuseppe
Posts: 13732
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: A case for Mary interpolated in Mark

Post by Giuseppe »

If I am right, then, Mary was interpolated later in proto-Mark.
This would explain the possible use of Mark by separationists who accepted a human birth for the man Jesus (the same followers of 'Cerinthus?'), not wanting that he, also, and not only Christ, was the spiritual being descended on earth in the incipit of proto-Mark (in my view without the baptism episode).
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.
Giuseppe
Posts: 13732
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: A case for Mary interpolated in Mark

Post by Giuseppe »

Therefore the identity of the man in proto-Mark (assuming here that proto-Mark was a separationist Gospel) is ''the Son of the Demiurge'' (i.e., ''son of the carpenter''). Is the title ''Son of Man'' equivalent to ''Son of Demiurge'''? The Man is made in the image of the Creator God, according to Genesis. But the Gnostics talked about the Primeval Man or ''Son of Man'' as Jesus.
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.
Giuseppe
Posts: 13732
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: A case for Mary interpolated in Mark

Post by Giuseppe »

Matthew redacted surely Mark 10:35 when he introduced (in Matthew 20:20) the ''mother of John and James son of Zebedee'' to replace the her same sons, clearly embarrassed from the fact that were the same Pillars to do the request of glory.

But if Mary of Magdala is the lost Sophia possessed by the seven planetary Archons:
and also some women who had been cured of evil spirits and diseases: Mary (called Magdalene) from whom seven demons had come out
(Luke 8:2)


...then she is an apt mother for the Demiurge: in this case, Jesus would be identified with the Demiurge son of Sophia. Matthew would have derived the name 'Mary' for the mother of Jesus from 'Mary of Magdala', to distract the suspicion that Mary of Magdala was identified with the lost Sophia mother of Demiurge.

Still some suggestions in future.
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.
Giuseppe
Posts: 13732
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: A case for Mary interpolated in Mark

Post by Giuseppe »

It is curious that also in Mark 16:9 (not part of the so-called true epilogue of Mark) Mary of Magdala (alias Sophia) appears:
When Jesus rose early on the first day of the week, he appeared first to Mary Magdalene, out of whom he had driven seven demons
This would make sense if Mary of Magdala was the lost Sophia now saved by the Illuminator Jesus. She had recognized the true identity of Jesus on the cross:
Some women were watching from a distance. Among them were Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James the younger and of Joseph, and Salome.
(Mark 15:40)

The meaning is clearly that, ''from a distance'', i.e. lost in the abyss of the Creation, the lost Sophia recognized the light in the darkness allegorized by the cross of Jesus: the Father had sent his Son to save her. It is not a coincidence, therefore, that the eclipse of Sun in Mark 15:33
At noon, darkness came over the whole land until three in the afternoon
...represents the same darkness of the first days of the Creation: the precise time when the gnostic Sophia escaped to Pleroma and was lost in the archontic territory.

THerefore the irony of Mark 6:3 :
Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, the brother of James, and Joses, and of Juda, and Simon? and are not his sisters here with us?
...is that the inhabitants of Nazaret believe Jesus the Demiurge son of Sophia, when really he is the Alien God.

Therefore this fits with the intention of Matthew to make ''carpenter''/Demiurge the father of Jesus and not himself:
Is not this the carpenter's son? Is not his mother called Mary? And are not his brothers James and Joseph and Simon and Judas?
(Matthew 13:55)

But the echo of an allusion to Demiurge remained. So Luke resolved the problem, by introducing a verse absent in Mcn:
All spoke well of him and were amazed at the gracious words that came from his lips. “Isn't this Joseph's son?” they asked.
(Luke 4:22)

In this way Jesus is misguided by the people as the Jewish Messiah son of Joseph, while he is - for the proto-catholic Luke - the Messia son of David.
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.
Giuseppe
Posts: 13732
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: A case for Mary interpolated in Mark

Post by Giuseppe »

So there is a possible solution to the proliferation of ''Mary''-es towards the end of Mark (''Mary of Magdala, Mary mother of Joses and James, Salome''). Could be the same Mark to repeat deliberately these names, so to deceive the reader about the true identity of the Mary presumed carnal mother of Jesus in the eyes of the people of Nazaret ? Was she the same mother of James the less and Joses? Or was she the same Mary of Magdala and as such distinct from Salome and the other Mary?
Surely there is some competition among these women about who saw really the crucified Jesus ''from a distance'': was Mary of Magdala the only woman to see really the true identity of Jesus, differently from the other two women ? If she is Sophia, surely she would have more that right over the other.
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.
Giuseppe
Posts: 13732
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: A case for Mary interpolated in Mark

Post by Giuseppe »

Salome is an allusion to Salomon, the king who asked the wisdom to God. Still another echo to the Gnostic Sophia or Wisdow.
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.
Post Reply