Why the birth story was not added to Mark

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
Giuseppe
Posts: 6993
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy, or wherever Joseph D.L. is not there

Why the birth story was not added to Mark

Post by Giuseppe » Wed Jan 29, 2020 12:09 pm

Usually the explanation given is that Mark was too much diffuse (after all, Mark would be the first gospel) therefore it was too late to edit it.

But the words of Irenaeus make me think:

Those, again, who separate Jesus from Christ, alleging that Christ remained impassible, but that it was Jesus who suffered, preferring the Gospel by Mark, if they read it with a love of truth, may have their errors rectified.

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0103311.htm

The suspicion is that the birth story was not added on Mark because that gospel served still to neutralize the "heretics" in virtue of a reading of it "with a love of truth".

The birth stories served to claim that Jesus was true man, but also true god. In Mark the man and god seem to be distinct... so, it would seem prima facie that just Mark required in primis the interpolation of a birth story in the incipit, from a catholic POV...

Basically, when is Mark read "with a love of truth?

When the readers are able to realize that the sound humanity of Jesus is, afterall, the best evidence of the his divinity. Pace the separationists.

In Mark, Jesus is humble but the reader has to be even more humble than Jesus, by recognizing that he is still a god, despite of so much humanity. That means a reading of Mark "with a love of truth".

Hence in Mark the same effect is gained, of the birth stories in Luke and Matthew: Jesus is born by woman as the reader, but even so the reader has to note the great difference between him and Jesus.

The problem with Mark is that it is not sufficient the removal of the his ending to recover a presumed separationist gospel. Insofar the man Jesus moves to compassion the reader because the man Jesus is a poor victim IN THE PLACE of a presumed spiritual Christ abandoning him, the man Jesus is considered velim nolim a god by the reader. That means to read Mark "with love of truth".

The implication of Irenaeus is:

you see, Mark moves any his rational reader to compassion about the poor man Jesus, but these evil people of Separationists hated just (!) that poor man Jesus, despite of their being readers of Mark.

CONCLUSION:

Suspicion is raised against Irenaeus's claim that Mark was read by "heretics" so-called separationists. The Irenaeus's irony is the deliberate contrast between a Gospel inspiring compassion about a poor man Jesus and his presumed Separationist readers who hated the idea of a poor man Jesus.
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.

Giuseppe
Posts: 6993
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy, or wherever Joseph D.L. is not there

Re: Why the birth story was not added to Mark

Post by Giuseppe » Wed Jan 29, 2020 12:30 pm

I confess that I am still expecting eagerly the future monograph of prof Vinzent about how he justifies Mark as reaction against Marcion.
It doesn't matter that the reconstruction of Mcn by the modern scholars is full of defects, we have at least a basic certainty: his hero was a god, as such he was a robot, as such he doesn't move to compassion (I am assuming that a robot can't move really to compassion) . From this POV, proto-John is really the marcionite gospel, since his Jesus is a robot.

Basically, if the Jesus of the Earliest Gospel was only a robot, the his disappearance is not a great loss.

I am sure that prof Vinzent will give great insights about new readings of Mark as reaction against Marcion, on a level of subtle irony of the kind alluded partially by Irenaeus (see above).
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.

User avatar
Peter Kirby
Site Admin
Posts: 5392
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 2:13 pm
Location: Santa Clara
Contact:

Re: Why the birth story was not added to Mark

Post by Peter Kirby » Fri Jan 31, 2020 1:18 am

Not everyone agreed with Irenaeus. Some people sided with the basic idea that Irenaeus criticized here:

Epistle of Barnabas (5.6, 7.3)
Shepherd of Hermas (5.6.5-7)
Melito, On Easter (46-47, 66-67)
Clement of Alexandria, De princ. 2, 6, 2.
Tertullian, Against Praxeas (27), On the Flesh of Christ (5)
Novatian, On the Trinity (24)
Cyprian, On the Vanity of Idols (11)
Origen, Contra Celsus (4.15)
Athanasius, On the Incarnation (9.1-10)

The reason why is simple - the church fathers were educated, and it was a stupid idea to an educated Greek mind to think that the divine could suffer and die. So the logical ancient Christian concluded that it was only the human nature that suffered and died, in which the divine nature dwelled. Some degree of separation was a widespread and orthodox view, even in the fourth century.

The support for Irenaeus is rather slim, actually. The texts of Ignatius and 2 Clement agree with him. Irenaeus was an outlier and, in this case, displays a willingness to operate outside the canons of logic for the sake of doctrine.

(We do have to be careful not to confuse this separationism with other ideas, such as adoptionism and docetism. There were some textual variants in Luke for example that regarded docetic interpretation, and the first line of Mark had "the Son of God" bit that could be added against adoptionism. It was considered orthodox enough to be philosophically a separationist regarding the divine and human natures of Christ, but not to believe that the spirit of Christ descended at the baptism or that Jesus himself was a phantom that had floated down from heaven.)

For the references, see Kelly, pages 142 and following: https://archive.org/stream/pdfy-CY7YNVn ... s_djvu.txt
"... almost every critical biblical position was earlier advanced by skeptics." - Raymond Brown

Kunigunde Kreuzerin
Posts: 1361
Joined: Sat Nov 16, 2013 2:19 pm
Location: Leipzig, Germany
Contact:

Re: Why the birth story was not added to Mark

Post by Kunigunde Kreuzerin » Fri Jan 31, 2020 6:55 am

Giuseppe wrote:
Wed Jan 29, 2020 12:30 pm
I am sure that prof Vinzent will give great insights about new readings of Mark as reaction against Marcion, on a level of subtle irony of the kind alluded partially by Irenaeus (see above).
:D

I, on the other hand, seriously fear :( that Prof Vinzent will shatter his last scientific reputation :tombstone:

Giuseppe
Posts: 6993
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy, or wherever Joseph D.L. is not there

Re: Why the birth story was not added to Mark

Post by Giuseppe » Fri Jan 31, 2020 7:59 am

Kunigunde Kreuzerin, two questions for you, please:

I remember very well that I have sound respect for your knowledge of Mark, his subtle ironies, etc. I am sure that you (presumably a Jesus Agnostic) would like a lot the mythicists who agree with Mark's priority and make it even a mythicist argument (you know better than me, probably, what I allude: Mark as midrash from Paul, etc), the precise reason why Volkmar was liked by a lot of mythicists of past.

I have this problem worthy of an Amleth :consternation: :consternation: :consternation: :
  • from one hand, I would like a lot that kind of mythicist arguments based on Mark's priority…
  • ...but from the other hand, I see that the Barabbas episode proves very probably the priority of proto-John:
    the criminal and "absolute evil" Jesus Barabbas as caustic parody of the Jesus who proclaimed himself the Son of Father (not the god of Jews) in proto-John.
Can you persuade me, by giving all your possible alternative interpretations of Barabbas (ignoring the boring Leviticus 16), that I am wrong about Barabbas ?

Thank you in advance for this.
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.

Kunigunde Kreuzerin
Posts: 1361
Joined: Sat Nov 16, 2013 2:19 pm
Location: Leipzig, Germany
Contact:

Re: Why the birth story was not added to Mark

Post by Kunigunde Kreuzerin » Fri Jan 31, 2020 8:35 am

Giuseppe wrote:
Fri Jan 31, 2020 7:59 am
Can you persuade me, by giving all your possible alternative interpretations of Barabbas (ignoring the boring Leviticus 16), that I am wrong about Barabbas ?
Hi Giuseppe, probably not ;) But I take a look at it over the weekend. Could you please explain the thesis again?

Have a nice weekend,

Kunigunde

Giuseppe
Posts: 6993
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy, or wherever Joseph D.L. is not there

Re: Why the birth story was not added to Mark

Post by Giuseppe » Fri Jan 31, 2020 9:29 am

Kunigunde Kreuzerin wrote:
Fri Jan 31, 2020 8:35 am
Could you please explain the thesis again?
I will try again.

The thesis: something as proto-John preceded all our Gospels.

The premises:


all the explanations given to the Barabbas episode have failed to explain it. For example, the two goats from Leviticus 16 (so Carrier answered me to in absolute the my first post in all Internet about Jesus! :lol: ) don't work, since the two goats have to be similar in beauty (so Barnabas, Justin and Tertullian), while Barabbas is clearly different, for his intrinsic and explicit criminal nature, so different from Jesus called Christ.
  • Bar-Abbas was the Jewish name given to the bastards, i.e. the natural sons of unknown father, just as in the World of Westeros Snow is the name of the bastards.
This view is given without reference by Jean Radermakers, S. J., Au fil de l'Evangile selon saint Matthieu, 2, s° ed. p. 342.

The proof:
  • The only Gospel where Jesus proclaims himself totally identical to his Father is the Gospel of John: cfr John 10:30, 14:11, 14:9,23.
The idea is totally foreign and alien to Judaism. See for example Ehrman who insists that Jesus, despite of the his extreme exaltation in Paul, was NEVER one and the same with YHWH. At contrary, Zeus is both the "Son and the Father", for the Pagan Chrysippus:
everything is aither, which itself is both father and son, so that even at the start it does not conflict that Rhea is both the mother of Zeus and his daughter.

https://books.google.it/books?id=ethjDw ... od&f=false
  • The Jesus of proto-John rejects entirely the Judaism and all the OT prophets:

All who have come before me are thieves and robbers, but the sheep have not listened to them.

(John 10:8)
  • Tertullian claims again and again that the marcionite Christ suffered really on the cross: cfr Adv. Marc., 1, 11, 25; 3, 8, 9,23; 4
By itself, this insistence on the death of Jesus is a marcionite anomaly, differently from other Gnostics (see Basilides, see Valentinus) who were so embarrassed for the death of a god.

"Mark" (author) ridiculed this name of "Son of Father" of the Jesus of proto-John by reducing it to the Aramaic form of Bar-Abbas. So Stahl and Couchoud:

This son-of-Father who treats the old prophets as robbers and brigands, himself is treated as a brigand.

The message was implicit: pace Marcion and the marcionites, the true Christ who is really crucified was not the Son of Father of proto-John, since the only "Son of Father" found on the spot was a mere criminal and son of unknown father. The true crucified Christ is Jesus called "king of Jews" (i.e. "Christ"), the son of YHWH, not of an unknown father.

The son of Mary, because mater semper certa.
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.

Kunigunde Kreuzerin
Posts: 1361
Joined: Sat Nov 16, 2013 2:19 pm
Location: Leipzig, Germany
Contact:

Re: Why the birth story was not added to Mark

Post by Kunigunde Kreuzerin » Fri Jan 31, 2020 11:50 am

Giuseppe wrote:
Fri Jan 31, 2020 9:29 am
The thesis: something as proto-John preceded all our Gospels.
...
The proof:
  • The only Gospel where Jesus proclaims himself totally identical to his Father is the Gospel of John: cfr John 10:30, 14:11, 14:9,23.
The idea is totally foreign and alien to Judaism.
It looks a bit circular. 😉

What is the reason that in the first gospel Jesus must be totally identical with his father?

Giuseppe
Posts: 6993
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy, or wherever Joseph D.L. is not there

Re: Why the birth story was not added to Mark

Post by Giuseppe » Fri Jan 31, 2020 10:42 pm

Kunigunde Kreuzerin wrote:
Fri Jan 31, 2020 11:50 am
It looks a bit circular. 😉

What is the reason that in the first gospel Jesus must be totally identical with his father?
is that really necessary to my argument? I mean: if the appellative "son of unknown father" is usually even today used as insult to allude to bastard/illegitimate origins (bastard/illegitimate insofar unknown), then it becomes ipso facto highly plausible to see that insult addressed against the marcionite Jesus: he was of illegitimate/bastards origin insofar his divine Father was unknown and totally alien. It is clearly a sarcastic parody.

Hence the Barabbas episode is evidence of resistance, before Mark, against the reduction of a crucified Jesus Son of Father to a crucified Jesus called Christ.
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.

Kunigunde Kreuzerin
Posts: 1361
Joined: Sat Nov 16, 2013 2:19 pm
Location: Leipzig, Germany
Contact:

Re: Why the birth story was not added to Mark

Post by Kunigunde Kreuzerin » Sat Feb 01, 2020 3:15 am

Hi Giuseppe,

I want to make sure whether I have understand the thesis. So check it out please.

  • It cannot be assumed that the Barabbas incident is a historical account.
  • One of our main reasons is the improbability that both „our“ Jesus, who is the son of God the father, and Jesus Barrabbas, who is the named „son (Bar) of the father (Abbas)“ are available as candidates.
  • These two „sons of the father“ are not equal. Barabbas is a sheer „son of the father“, but Jesus is as well the Christ and was crucified as the King of the Jews.
  • The two figures „son of the father“ and „Messiah“ have a different origin, the Messiah is not necessarily the son of a divine father.
  • There was a sect or number of early Christians, who rejected the idea that Jesus was as well the Jewish Messiah. Their Jesus was the sheer son of the one unknown divine father.
  • Therefore the Barrabas incident is a polemical story against those Christians with which the Orthodox claimed that the sheer „son of the father“ was released and the crucified redeemer was in fact Jesus Messiah + son of God.
  • The thesis becomes completely plausible when we also note that the name Barabbas is likewise an insult for a man with an unknown father (bastard).
  • The Barabbas incident is obviously a later addition to GJohn. Jesus is the perfect son of God the father in GJohn, namely equal with God.
  • Therefore Proto-John is older than the Synoptics


Post Reply