Basic reason why Mark is not pauline

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
User avatar
mlinssen
Posts: 3431
Joined: Tue Aug 06, 2019 11:01 am
Location: The Netherlands
Contact:

The outside is bad and wrong, only the inside counts: that's where the kingdom is (logion 3)

Post by mlinssen »

Giuseppe wrote: Wed Dec 07, 2022 9:22 am
RParvus wrote: Wed Dec 07, 2022 12:16 am Giuseppe,

I’m surprised at you. You are thinking like those “on the outside” (Mk. 4:11) for whom Jesus was just a man, son of Mary. Stop thinking like those “standing outside” (Mk. 3:31). Jesus doesn’t have human mother, brothers, or sisters. You need to look at Proto-Mark like the Simonian insider riddle it was intended to be and you will figure out Jesus’ secret identity. And once you figure that out, you will know what those on the inside know about the pre-existence of the sower named “Hear!” (Mk. 4:3). The cryptic Markan “son of man” sayings can help you by pointing you in the right direction: “How is it that the scriptures say of the son of man that he is to endure great suffering and be treated with contempt?” (Mk. 9:12). Find that scripture about that mysterious son of man and you will be well on your way to insider status.
Hi Roger, I have not seen your post.

I know that a good argument has been made for the baptism in Mark being a late addition, but as Klaus Schilling says in the same thread:

A Mk without a baptism is not a Mk.

In addition, Mary and the entire family don't appear in Marcion, where the question "there is outside your family who wants to see you" is a lie designed to tempt Jesus, to make he recognize that he has a human family. Contra factum that in Marcion he has not one.

Mark's genius has been to introduce an entire family standing physically there outside, so transforming the lie in a true proposition. Contra Marcionem.
Nope.
Thomas has them standing outside, which is the very reason why they should be rejected: everything that is not from our in the inside is wrong

of-inside ⲛϩⲟⲩⲛ Adjective 22, 89
of-outside ⲛⲃⲟⲗ Adjective 22, 40, 64, 89, 99

Logion 22 is the famous dual one

Logion 40:

40. IS said a vine of grape she was planted within the part of outside of the father and not made strong; she will be plucked out at her root and destroyed.

That doesn't need explanation, I hope

Logion 64:

those have you summon they to the Dinner did they Beg-off said the slaveowner to his slave : go to the part of-outside to the(PL) paths they-who you(SG) will fall to they bring they in-order-that they will make-be Dine the(PL) man-who buy with the(PL) traders they will go-inward not to the(PL) Place of my father

The paths - ALL paths - reside on the outside. Every path is wrong save the one that you follow via Thomas. The Seeker is desperate after having found out that his alleged friends are all strangers (to his cause) and now lashes out in anger and despair; even those who follow the paths are less bad than the buyers and the traders (he thinks). And the canonicals invent the money changer scene in the temple on this basis - or perhaps John 2:12-16 is the original here, which seems much more likely to me

Logion 89:

89. said IS : because-of who/at? you(PL) wash~ [dop] the part of-outside of the Cup you(PL) make-be Conceive not : he-who have create [dop] the part of-inside he also he-who have he create [dop] the part of-outside

And this is the most brilliant one of course: why wash the outside? Wash the inside in stead or as well, or don't wash at all

Logion 99:

99. said the(PL) Disciple to he : your(PL.SG) brothers with your(F.SG) mother they standing-on-foot they on the part of-outside said he to they : they-who of these place who/which make-be [dop] the desire of my father these-ones are my(PL) brothers with my(F) mother themselves is who/which will go-inward to the(F) reign-of(F) king of my father

Even if your closest relatives are standing on the outside: reject them. It is a simple message really, and perhaps *Ev didn't have it but it certainly doesn't come from Mark
Giuseppe
Posts: 13732
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: The outside is bad and wrong, only the inside counts: that's where the kingdom is (logion 3)

Post by Giuseppe »

mlinssen wrote: Wed Dec 07, 2022 10:09 am

Even if your closest relatives are standing on the outside: reject them. It is a simple message really, and perhaps *Ev didn't have it but it certainly doesn't come from Mark
The fact continues to be true that we can be 100% sure that Marcion didn't have a family standing physically there outside. So what Mark is doing, by introducing their physical presence, is a mere anti-marcionite reaction. Accordingly, Thomas also.
User avatar
mlinssen
Posts: 3431
Joined: Tue Aug 06, 2019 11:01 am
Location: The Netherlands
Contact:

Re: The outside is bad and wrong, only the inside counts: that's where the kingdom is (logion 3)

Post by mlinssen »

Giuseppe wrote: Wed Dec 07, 2022 10:47 am
mlinssen wrote: Wed Dec 07, 2022 10:09 am

Even if your closest relatives are standing on the outside: reject them. It is a simple message really, and perhaps *Ev didn't have it but it certainly doesn't come from Mark
The fact continues to be true that we can be 100% sure that Marcion didn't have a family standing physically there outside. So what Mark is doing, by introducing their physical presence, is a mere anti-marcionite reaction. Accordingly, Thomas also.
Nor did Thomas, nor did Mark - but no one can be more than 50% sure of anything in this regard, as all of this is either true or false.
And it would seem that you think that Mark reacts to Marcion, which makes perfect sense - but where do you place Thomas then? In between Marcion and Mark, or after Mark?

And can you give one argument for that?
Giuseppe
Posts: 13732
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: The outside is bad and wrong, only the inside counts: that's where the kingdom is (logion 3)

Post by Giuseppe »

mlinssen wrote: Wed Dec 07, 2022 11:58 ambut where do you place Thomas then? In between Marcion and Mark, or after Mark?
Thomas and Marcion share the fact that the family is mentioned only in a report by disciples (really, by tempters, since the presence of the family "there out" is a mere lie to tempt Jesus).
mlinssen wrote: Wed Dec 07, 2022 11:58 amAnd can you give one argument for that?
Because the Logion 99 figures in Thomas:

99. said the(PL) Disciple to he : your(PL.SG) brothers with your(F.SG) mother they standing-on-foot they on the part of-outside said he to they : they-who of these place who/which make-be [dop] the desire of my father these-ones are my(PL) brothers with my(F) mother themselves is who/which will go-inward to the(F) reign-of(F) king of my father

nothing is said about the family being really there outside, just as in Marcion.

So the report by the "disciples" is a way to persuade Jesus that he has a family when really he (in a marcionite universe) has not a family at all.

Based only on this point, I cannot say who is first, between Thomas and Marcion.

But then I remember that Thomas exalts James the Just, which is not a marcionite thing to be said. So the positive view of James the Just makes Thomas a post-marcionite thing.
Giuseppe
Posts: 13732
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: Basic reason why Mark is not pauline

Post by Giuseppe »

Logion 12 is really an anti-marcionite point.

However, we know that the anti-demiurgist Naassenes considered James the Just a good guy.

And the Naassenes rejected probably a birth just as Marcion did.

It seems that James the Just appeared the first time not as a brother of Jesus, and not as a Judaizing icon.
User avatar
MrMacSon
Posts: 8798
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 3:45 pm

Re: Basic reason why Mark is not pauline

Post by MrMacSon »

Giuseppe wrote: Mon Dec 05, 2022 11:46 pm
I have always thought that the adoptionism is a first timide reaction against Marcion's Jesus descending from above. Kok gives indirectly new evidence supporting my view:

Contrary to some commentators, I do not see any notion of Jesus’s heavenly pre-existence in Mark, while I would maintain that this view is held by Paul (e.g., 1 Corinthians 8:6; 15:47; 2 Corinthians 8:9; Philippians 2:6; cf. Colossians 1:15-17)

https://jesusmemoirs.wordpress.com/2022 ... ristology/

Well, Duh! Mark is an 'advance' on Paul's Jesus : an anthropomorphised - 'personified - advance on Paul's Jesus

There's plenty of scholars, both academic and couch, who think that.

Even Kok himself in that blog-post:

I largely agree with Daniel Kirk’s assessment, on the other hand, that the depiction of Jesus in the Synoptic Gospels fits the category of an “idealized human agent”

Kok starts that blog-post with -

Undoubtedly there are points of agreement between Mark and Paul on the subject of Christology. For instance, they both identify Jesus as the Christ, the Son of God, and the exalted Lord after his resurrection. However, while I would hesitate to claim that these were consensus positions shared by everyone who identified themselves as followers of Jesus in the first century CE, it seems to me that these views were quite widespread in the early Christ movement.

- even though there's also a few problems with some of those statements.

As for the rest of the excerpt that Giuseppe thinks is another 'revelation' ('revelation'-to-Giuseppe #1,034,739 or thereabouts)

We can also look at the later reception of Mark’s Christology. During the Patristic period, there were a number of reports about Jewish Christ followers who may have designated themselves as Ebionites or “poor ones.” Certain Ebionites rejected Jesus’s divinity and pre-existence, insisting that Jesus was an ordinary human being who had been exalted due to his exemplary obedience to the Law of Moses, and the belief in Jesus’s virginal conception was debated among them. Although the Patristic writers conclude that the Ebionites were readers of Matthew’s Gospel (or were later thought to be readers of the “Gospel according to the Hebrews”), their Christology seems much closer to Mark’s than to Matthew’s as Mark lacks the virgin birth and narrates how Jesus was elected to be the Messiah at his baptism. In forthcoming publications I will suggest that the heresiologists referred to diverse Jewish Christ followers as Ebionites and some of them could have been reading Mark and others Matthew, so the ones who rejected the virgin birth likely did not accept Matthew’s infancy narrative. Furthermore, many of the Ebionites detested Paul and Paul’s literary legacy. Cerinthus and Carpocrates may have also been readers of Mark’s Gospel when they denied that Jesus was pre-existent

- this is superficial whataboutery.

As for coming to a 'conclusion' -

In conclusion, there seem to be significant differences between the Markan and Pauline Christologies, but the inclusion of these texts together in the canon alongside other texts such as the Johannine literature assisted later Christian theologians in carving out a more systematic theology about Jesus’s divine and human natures.

- it's a good motherhood statement, but that blogpost doesn't deserve a conclusion; particularly not that conclusion
  • eg. that last sentence is the first reference to Johannine literature: what a muppet
Last edited by MrMacSon on Wed Dec 07, 2022 1:44 pm, edited 2 times in total.
User avatar
MrMacSon
Posts: 8798
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 3:45 pm

Re: Basic reason why Mark is not pauline

Post by MrMacSon »

lclapshaw wrote: Wed Dec 07, 2022 6:34 am Giuseppe, seemingly a chatbot designed to systematically post (for vetting?) every retarded theory conceivable
Guesseppe, trying to riff an abstract notion from everyone else's abstract riff of an abstract notion

Giuseppe, perhaps stop trying to make mountains out of molehills day after day after day after day after day after day ...
User avatar
mlinssen
Posts: 3431
Joined: Tue Aug 06, 2019 11:01 am
Location: The Netherlands
Contact:

Re: Basic reason why Mark is not pauline

Post by mlinssen »

Giuseppe wrote: Wed Dec 07, 2022 12:42 pm Logion 12 is really an anti-marcionite point.

However, we know that the anti-demiurgist Naassenes considered James the Just a good guy.

And the Naassenes rejected probably a birth just as Marcion did.

It seems that James the Just appeared the first time not as a brother of Jesus, and not as a Judaizing icon.
Jacob the Righteous points to the Jacob of Genesis - and this logion is meant to portray the disciples as dumb drones who desperately desire a leader so they can delegate their responsibilities next to thinking for themselves

12. The Disciples said to IS: we know you will go from the hand of us; who is who that will make be great upward upon us?
IS said to them: the place you have come therein, you will go toward Jacob the Righteous; this one has the heaven with the earth come to be because of him.

That Jacob doesn't get called righteous in the Tanakh, at least not in an isolated case, save for Psalms:

Psalms 99:4 The King's strength also loves justice. You establish equity. You execute justice and righteousness in Jacob.

The first few actions of Jacob are filled with deceit, against his own family - but he is called righteous nonetheless? What about this heaven and earth then?

Genesis 28:12 And Jacob had a dream about a ladder that rested on the earth with its top reaching up to heaven, and God’s angels were going up and down the ladder. 13 And there at the top the LORD was standing and saying, “I am the LORD, the God of your father Abraham and the God of Isaac. I will give you and your descendants the land on which you now lie. 14 Your descendants will be like the dust of the earth, and you will spread out to the west and east and north and south. All the families of the earth will be blessed through you and your offspring. 15 Look, I am with you, and I will watch over you wherever you go, and I will bring you back to this land. For I will not leave you until I have done what I have promised you.” 16 When Jacob woke up, he thought, “Surely the LORD is in this place, and I was unaware of it.” 17 And he was afraid and said, “How awesome is this place! This is none other than the house of God; this is the gate of heaven!” 18 Early the next morning, Jacob took the stone that he had placed under his head, and he set it up as a pillar. He poured oil on top of it, 19 and he called that place Bethel, though previously the city had been named Luz. 20 Then Jacob made a vow, saying, “If God will be with me and watch over me on this journey, and if He will provide me with food to eat and clothes to wear, 21 so that I may return safely to my father’s house, then the LORD will be my God. 22 And this stone I have set up as a pillar will be God’s house, and of all that You give me I will surely give You a tenth.”

That heaven and earth. And that Jacob, who dares to barter with God after that same God promises him in a dream to bless him and his offspring, be with him, watch over him, and not leave him until fulfilling his promise.
That Jacob. That kind of righteousness. But there is more:

Genesis 35:9 After Jacob had returned from Paddan-aram, God appeared to him again and blessed him. 10 And God said to him, “Though your name is Jacob, you will no longer be called Jacob. Instead, your name will be Israel.” So God named him Israel. 11 And God told him, “I am God Almighty. Be fruitful and multiply. A nation - even a company of nations - shall come from you, and kings shall descend from you. 12 The land that I gave to Abraham and Isaac I will give to you, and I will give this land to your descendants after you.”

To state that IS despises the passive, inactive Disciples is putting it mildly. He has already rebuked the Disciples on their first encounter with him - and this is the second. Very strong disagreement is shown by countering their temporal question about the future with a location while using the Past Perfect, and the remote pointer of 'the place there' - and Thomas takes the opportunity to show his disdain of them by associating them with that what he despises even more: Judaism, and its destructive "dream" that leaves no place for anyone outside it.

The Disciples pose another question to Thomas, and again it is an open one, attesting to their complete lack of prior thought about any of it - and not only that, Thomas portrays their complete inaction as their only intent expressed is one of being "mastered"; if not by IS, then who does he have in mind as his successor? IS lashes out with full force, highly likely at the entire Israeli dream, by dismissing them to the Jacob of Isaac and Rebecca, also known as Israel: that Jacob who is considered so very righteous yet who lied to and betrayed his father, his brother, his uncle, and likely some others as wellRelation to previous logia The first time that the Disciples get told off occurred in logion 6, and Thomas will have them ask "dumb questions" until the bitter end. Time and again IS demonstrates that their questions are completely wrong, and the only function of the Disciples is to serve as a pretext for refuting and rejecting religion in general and Judaism in particular, and to redirect their strongly eschatological questions by repeating his own answers, the epitome of which is the penultimate logion, 113, which contains a question by them about something that got unequivocally stated in logion 3 already: have they learned nothing at all, between beginning and end of this text?

How can Thomas mean "James the Just" with this? There is nothing like that in all of the NT.
Next to the complete 4 gospels he then must have also had access to the following:

Clement of Alexandria, Hypotyposes, in Eusebius, Hist. eccl. 2.1.3

Epiphanius, Pan. 78,7.7-8

There is no Jacob the Righteous anywhere save for Thomas. Unless I have overlooked something
User avatar
mlinssen
Posts: 3431
Joined: Tue Aug 06, 2019 11:01 am
Location: The Netherlands
Contact:

Re: Basic reason why Mark is not pauline

Post by mlinssen »

MrMacSon wrote: Wed Dec 07, 2022 12:42 pm - it's a good motherhood statement, but that blogpost doesn't deserve a conclusion; particularly not that conclusion
  • eg. that last sentence is the first reference to Johannine literature: what a muppet
The average biblical academic hasn't gotten the memo on the little rule that the conclusion can only be a summary of what precedes it. I've even had some surprises while reading a fairly solid paper - only to be utterly disappointed in the end upon being smacked in the face with a most conservative and mundane a dime a dozen conclusion
Secret Alias
Posts: 18362
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Basic reason why Mark is not pauline

Post by Secret Alias »

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.
The implication being .... and again
Matthew, again, relates His generation as a man, saying, "The book of the generation of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham;" and also, "The birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise." This, then, is the Gospel of His humanity for which reason it is, too, that a humble and meek man is kept up through the whole Gospel. Mark, on the other hand, commences with the prophetical spirit coming down from on high to men, saying, "The beginning of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, as it is written in Esaias the prophet,"--pointing to the winged aspect of the Gospel ... (a)fterwards, being made man for us, He sent the gift of the celestial Spirit over all the earth, protecting us with His wings ... the third, the giving of the law, under Moses; the fourth, that which renovates man, and sums up all things in itself by means of the Gospel, raising its wings into the and bearing men upon heavenly kingdom.
It certainly sounds that those who thought Mark told of a heavenly Christ who descended from heaven to earth were nevertheless influential on Irenaeus's understanding of the four gospels.
Post Reply