Why Mark's Theology Is Adoptionism

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

Why Mark's Theology Is Adoptionism

Post by Giuseppe »

When I did this question to prof. Vinzent, I had not read still the Klinghardt's opus magnum. Now I can know better why Vinzent wrote:
Put the other way around and follow the traditional model – why, if Marcion’s copied Mark on this, did he leave out the story of Bethany which would be so close to his chest? The opposite can be easily shown that Mark redacts Marcion’s Gospel and gets rid of the antithesis of Christianity and Judaism, although he still shows and maintains a number of other Marcionite features.
He gave only half of the answer.

The other half is resumed so by me (from Klinghardt):

Giuseppe wrote: Tue Apr 13, 2021 4:23 am It is particularly cogent the reason why "Mark" (editor) added the healing of the blind of Bethsaida in a previous gospel (=Mcn) that was without it, having only the healing of the blind Bartimeus.
  • Bartimeus is an example of blind who immediately recognises Jesus and as well immediately follows him. Thank the faith.
  • The idiot blind of Bethsaida is an example of a blind who gradually recovers the sight and is even sent back by Jesus, not becoming a his disciple. He has not sufficient faith.
Who introduced the healing of the blind of Bethsaida could do so only having him in deliberate contrast against the healing of the blind Bartimeus.

The author of Mcn couldn't remove the healing of the blind of Bethsaida, had he seen it in Mark.

Again, Klinghardt is going to apply correctly, in my view, the Argument from the Extreme Improbability of a Destruction of an Elaborate Construction.

He quotes Burnett Streeter:

A theory which would make an author capable of such a proceeding would only be tenable if, on other grounds, we had reason to believe he was a crank.


Unfortunately, the link given by prof. Vinzent to McFarlane's article doesn't work more.

Only his quote given by Vinzent is left:

‘the interactions between Jesus and the others concerns establishing his way as the legitimate reading of the Torah. In this sense it must be said that Mark can not be characterised by anti-Judaism. Rather, Mark appears to have the qualities of a sectarian group, seeking to establish a new interpretation of Torah.’

Hence this is my actual view of the theologies behind the Gospels:

GospelOriginal readers
Mcn Moderate Gentilizers, Paulinists, adopted by a radical Gentilizer: Marcion
MarkModerate Gentilizers, Paulinists, anti-Marcion, adoptionism
MatthewRadical Judaizers, anti-Paulinists, anti-Marcion, anti-adoptionists
proto-JohnRadical Gentilizers, anti-YHWH
JohnCatholics, anti-Marcion
LukeCatholics, anti-Marcion

Last edited by Giuseppe on Sat Apr 17, 2021 12:03 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Giuseppe
Posts: 13732
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Why Mark's Theology Is Adoptionism

Post by Giuseppe »

Adoptionism is probably the original theology of Mark.

It fits perfectly
the presence of a not-embarrassing-at-all baptism of Jesus by John: only after the act itself of the baptism by John, the mere man is adopted by God (=YHWH) and identified by him the first time as His Beloved Son (against his being first identified as such by the demons in Mcn). The Mark's Christians can be equally adopted as the Mark's Jesus (and as him, they can go to an allegorical "Galilee"), only if they are "baptized", too: only if they recognize YHWH as supreme god.


What "Mark" (editor) feared more than all in Mcn was the (alleged) pre-existence of Jesus (= implicit, at least in potentia, in his descent on Capernaum from above) joint with the latter's recognition by the demons first. Mark denied both the Jesus' pre-existence and the demons as first knowers of said pre-existence. Mark realized that these two items could support – as de facto they did – the Marcion's interpretation of an alien and unborn god.
Post Reply