Anti-Marcionism in Mark about the calling of the Pillars

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

Anti-Marcionism in Mark about the calling of the Pillars

Post by Giuseppe »

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.

A second marcionite threat perceived by "Mark" (editor) in Mcn figures clearly in the episode of the calling of the Pillars.

The original text of Mcn 5:1-11 is the following:

But it happened that the crowd pressed upon him and heard the word of God. And when he was standing beside Lake Gennesaret, there he saw two boats lying by the lake. But the fishermen had gone out of them and washed their nets. He entered into one of the boats which belonged to Simon and asked him to put out a little way from the shore; he sat down in the boat and taught the crowds. But when he had finished speaking, he said to Simon, "Put out into the deep water and let down your nets for a catch!" But Simon answered, saying to him, "Teacher, we have toiled all night long but caught nothing. But I will not disobey your word". And immediately they threw out their nets and enclosed such an amount of fish that their nets were tearing. And they waved to their partners in the other boat to come and to help them. And they came and filled both boats, so that they almost sank. But Simon fell down at his feet, saying, "Please! Go away from me, for I am a sinful man, Lord!" For amazement had seized him about the catch of fish they had taken. But his partners were James and John, the sons of Zebedee. But he said to them, "Come on! You are no longer fishermen of fish, for I will make you fishermen of people!" But when they heard that, they left everything on the shore behind and followed him.

The brutum factum signaled by Klinghardt is that "Mark" (editor) divided this episode, by placing the calling of the Pillars in the beginning and especially separating it from the miracle of the miracolous cath of fish.

Klinghardt doesn't reveal (still) the theological reason, however I can see easily it.

In Mcn, the calling of the Pillars appears clearly to be a coincidential event: if Jesus was not pressed by the crown all around him, then he would have had no need of a boat and hence of the Pillars. They are useful only insofar Jesus wants to be separated ("a little way from the shore") from the crowd around him. This may allegorize the need of a hierarchy to rule the crowd. Even so, even if evidently separated from the crowd (and in this fact there is apparently his privilege), that hierarchy has to remember that his mission is to conquer further new crowd (=the "fish").

"Mark" (editor) didn't like this marginal role of the Pillars, their being chosen only in function of the need of ruling the growing number of Christian proselites.

By having made the calling of the Pillars an isolated episode, "Mark" (editor) made their calling an imperscrutable act of the divine will, and not more contingent and relative to the caprices of the crowd and the mere "technical" need of Jesus (as it appears clearly in Mcn).


Being chosen by the imperscrutable divine will, the anti-marcionite motif becomes clearer: the Pillars don't derive their power by being casually separated from the crowd around them in virtue of a mere technical contingency (their being found fortuitely by Jesus on a boat), the Pillars derive their power by being divinely separated from their families in virtue of a pure divine caprice.

Now they are predestined in their role of fishermen (just as Paul was predestined to be apostle), not more coincidentially chosen as such.

Thanks to Mark's corruption of Mcn, now Marcion can't say more: "Alas! You Pillars had been chosen only to help Jesus to evangelize the gentiles, not because you were predestined from the birth as my Paul was".
Last edited by Giuseppe on Sun Apr 18, 2021 7:00 am, edited 2 times in total.
Giuseppe
Posts: 13732
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: Anti-Marcionism in Mark about the calling of the Pillars

Post by Giuseppe »

In short, "Mark" (editor) wants to give a Pauline reason to justify the calling of the Pillars. If the Pillars — as the logic goes — are called by imperscrutable divine will (just as Paul was), then the pauline Christians can better accept their legitimacy as well as that (already recognized as such) of Paul.

In Mcn, at contrary — and surely Marcion profited from this fact — the Pillars appears to have been called only as result of a pure casuality. Hardly a calling that can rival seriously with the predestination of Paul from his birth.
Giuseppe
Posts: 13732
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: Anti-Marcionism in Mark about the calling of the Pillars

Post by Giuseppe »

The presence and the absence of the crowd at the moment of the calling of the Pillars plays an essential role, indeed:
  • In Mcn: if the Pillars are called by Jesus under the eyes of a crowd around them, then their authority exists only in virtue of the witness of the (ideally Gentile) crowd.
  • In Mark: if the Pillars are called by Jesus with no other witness around them, then their authority exists in virtue of the ab-solute divine decision.
Another great difference:

  • In Mark the disciples can be totally idiots, the important thing is that their legitimacy is founded ab-solutely by Jesus once for all in a pauline way (=imperscrutable choice)
.
  • In Mcn, even a blind realizes that the Pillars are reduced ab initio to mere role of multiplicators of proselites and only as such they derive their legitimacy.
Marcion could well say: if you Judaizers abandon your role as multiplicators of proselites among Gentiles, then you have betrayed Jesus.
Giuseppe
Posts: 13732
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: Anti-Marcionism in Mark about the calling of the Pillars

Post by Giuseppe »

Other anti-marcionite contrast created by "Mark" (editor):
  • In Mcn the Pillars, being on their boats, were de facto separated from the crowd: an implicit accusation of phariseism? For the crowd is allegory of a Gentile crowd of proselites. After their calling by Jesus, not only they become proselites (as the others), but they are also made multipliers of new and new proselites.
  • In Mark the two Pillars were separated from their father: a paulinization in action? For also Paul was "set apart from his mother’s womb and called by his grace" (Mark 1:15). After their calling by Jesus, not only they become the first proselites, but they are also made multipliers of new and new proselites.

The temporal sequence is equally important:

  • In Mcn the Pillars were not the first followers: already an anonymous crowd followed behind Jesus before. Even the "fishes" (!) were captured before their becoming officially followers.

  • In Mark the Pillars were the first followers in absolute terms. The crowd will appear only after.


The anti-Marcionism is evident in this editorial choice of Mark: why did he point out the supremacy of the Pillars as FIRST disciples? He did so only against Marcion.
Giuseppe
Posts: 13732
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: Anti-Marcionism in Mark about the calling of the Pillars

Post by Giuseppe »

Note the curious Marcionite antithesis between the reaction of Simon:

But Simon fell down at his feet, saying, "Please! Go away from me, for I am a sinful man, Lord!"

...and the fact that Jesus comes to call just him, as sinner.

"Mark" (editor) eclipsed deliberately also this fact, since in his version of the calling of the Pillars, he doesn't reveal that Simon was a sinner.

Barnabas knew Mcn, therefore, since he wrote somewhere that the first apostles were evildoers (the precise quote to be found on this forum).

Mcn 5:1-11 is evidence that Mark falsified Mcn.
Giuseppe
Posts: 13732
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: Anti-Marcionism in Mark about the calling of the Pillars

Post by Giuseppe »

So the fool Christian apologist Origen imagined that Barnabas was the source of the Celsus's claim that the 12 were evildoers:

Now in the general Epistle of Barnabas, from which perhaps Celsus took the statement that the apostles were notoriously wicked men, it is recorded that "Jesus selected His own apostles, as persons who were more guilty of sin than all other evildoers."

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/t ... en161.html

Origen was wrong (as it is typical of Christian apologists): Barnabas was not the source of the Celsus' claim that the 12 were sinners.

Celsus knew that the 12 were sinners because he read Mcn 5:1-11.

The same source that so much embarrassed "Mark" (editor), moving him to displace the episode of the calling of the Pillars from his original context (docet Klinghardt).
Giuseppe
Posts: 13732
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: Anti-Marcionism in Mark about the calling of the Pillars

Post by Giuseppe »

A great point about Markus Vinzent (P.-L. Couchoud)'s views:

Even if he is (probably) wrong about Marcion being the author of Mcn, the fact remains that the plausibility of a marcionite interpretation of passages in Mcn (as that given in this thread) can only make stronger and stronger the case for Mark, Matthew and Luke being all a mere reaction against Mcn.
Giuseppe
Posts: 13732
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: Anti-Marcionism in Mark about the calling of the Pillars

Post by Giuseppe »

Another evidence, along the same lines of this thread, that "Mark" (editor) wanted to rehabilitate Peter against his defamation in Mcn.

Mcn 7:39 Mark 14:3-4

But when Simon Peter saw this, he said to himself: "If this man were a prophet, he would know who and of what kind the woman is who touches him, for she is a sinner".


3 And being in Bethany in the house of Simon the leper, as he sat at meat, there came a woman having an alabaster box of ointment of spikenard very precious; and she brake the box, and poured it on his head. 4 And there were some that had indignation within themselves, and said, Why was this waste of the ointment made?


Note how the sinner in question — Peter, in the original text (=Mcn) — has become an anonymous "some" in Mark.


Mark possibly wanted to remove Peter — criticized in *Ev — from the line of attack.

(Matthias Klinghardt, The Oldest Gospel, p. 664)

Given this evidence, how do people still think that Mark precedes Mcn? It is virtually impossible.
Post Reply