Basic reason why Mark is NOT marcionite

[Giuseppe]

.
Happy New Year, Giuseppe. (I have lentils for the occasion, such is the influence of my Italian friends ).

Happy New Year! (Only 23 minutes!)

[Giuseppe]

The messianic secret is nothing other than the attempt made by Mark Wrede to account for the absence of messianic claims by Jesus himself. Mark's Jesus until such a claim directly and rationally furthers the mission.

Well. I am open to that definition.

And I want to give this kind of ultimatum.

I am sure that prof Vinzent, in his coming book




...will make the same point more or less clear:

Mark was embarrassed by the absence of Messianic claims in the Evangelion, and accordingly he introduced the command to silence by Jesus, implying so that at least secretly Jesus was the Jewish Messiah during his ministry.

[Kunigunde Kreuzerin]

I am sure that prof Vinzent, in his coming book ...will make the same point more or less clear:

For sure - and most likely he will write more nonsense.

It is an anti-marcionite motif since Marcion didn't aim at self-concealment of his own Jesus, but, at contrary, at his self-promotion as new deity known only now for the first time in the world.

The thread is a good example of why modern scholars see Mark as Paul's heir rather than Marcion. Marcion (opposing Galatians and 1 Corinthians) is here in good company with Matthew, Luke and John, while Mark alone strictly follows Paul's theologia crucis.

[Giuseppe]

Mark alone strictly follows Paul's theologia crucis.

this view assumes that the secrecy is an effect of the Mark's paulinism, an expedient designed to explain that Jesus revealed his messianic identity only on the cross, against rival Christians who claimed that Jesus was messiah even before the crucifixion.

I.e. Kunigunde is obliged to think that before Mark, there were not-pauline Christians who preached a Jesus who claimed messianic claims also before the execution.

At contrary, I think that Mark is contrasting rival Christians (= Marcion) who claimed that Jesus didn't messianic claims before and during the execution.

P.S. Kunigunde, Happy New Year! It is always a pleasure to comment your posts.

[schillingklaus]

Mark's gospel is right-wing anti-Marcionist because it explicitly identifies the Father with the Creator, even where the Matthean parallel doesn't. No other reason is inecessary for seeing the Mk is not Marcionite by any stretch whatsoever.


This proves once more the absolute falsity of Markan Prioritism.

[mlinssen]

The messianic secret is nothing other than the attempt made by Mark Wrede to account for the absence of messianic claims by Jesus himself. Mark's Jesus until such a claim directly and rationally furthers the mission.

Well. I am open to that definition.

And I want to give this kind of ultimatum.

I am sure that prof Vinzent, in his coming book




...will make the same point more or less clear:

Mark was embarrassed by the absence of Messianic claims in the Evangelion, and accordingly he introduced the command to silence by Jesus, implying so that at least secretly Jesus was the Jewish Messiah during his ministry.

The whole goal of Mark is to counter all the anti-Judaism in Marcion, and the absence of Messianic claims in Marcion is completely logical: Marcion doesn't present his IS as a Messias but simply as one that nullifies the Judaic Law and Prophets - and Vinzent has some work to do there, perhaps

Yet Mark also needs to come up with a good excuse why he is the first to bring up the Messianic claims, and the resurrection.
He blames the lack of knowledge of the resurrection on the Thomasine / Chrestian women who never told anyone, and likewise he introduces the Messianic secret: "everyone knew, but they just didn't tell anyone - for perfectly clear and solid reasons"

Mark rewrites all of Chrestianity, he inverts all the anti-Judaism and turns it into the opposite: Chrestianity is the fulfillment of YHVH's promise! Yet because he really can't go into that convoluted argument at length, Paul does so, and because Paul conveniently sets his story in Chrestianity he can pretend to not need excuses. Whereas Mark sets his in the context of a living IS, a setting that is contemporary with his life, so that he can use him as sock puppet.
"Dear audience, IS himself instructed no one to tell about him, that's why nobody knew"

"Paul" is just an expansion of the singular Apostolikon which was nothing more than a single letter to the most important congregations, and it is greatly expanded to fake a Judaic and historical background to the Christianity that Mark had invented.
Naturally, Paul and Mark pretend to not have any knowledge of one another: multiple independent attestation #FTW, just as in LukeMatthew

But the entire goal of Mark is to counter all the anti-Judaism in Chrestianity / Marcion, Giuseppe - and he greatly succeeds in doing so even if that happens at the cost of a relatively great amount of inconsistencies and problems, that Matthew has to fix afterwards

[dbz]

Mark's gospel is right-wing anti-Marcionist because it explicitly identifies the Father with the Creator, even where the Matthean parallel doesn't. No other reason is inecessary for seeing the Mk is not Marcionite by any stretch whatsoever.


This proves once more the absolute falsity of Markan Prioritism.

"[It] must be said that Mark can not be characterised by anti-Judaism" —therefore the autograph "Marcionite Mark" (if it ever existed) has been redacted by the orthodoxy school.

Mark goes beyond Paul, specifically in areas where – in my view – he is dependent on Marcion (such as his criticism of Peter, see Dykstra, 119ff). And you are right, he might even have taken Marcion’s criticism of Peter a step further, you indicate the relation between the healing of the blind man of Bethsaida with the following pericope of Jesus rebuking Peter. Mark, however, is also deviating from Marcion’s position, particularly in altering Marcion’s antithetical position to an interaction between Jesus and Judaism that ‘presents Jesus as a rabbi among rabbis’, as By Robert McFarlane ‘The Gospel of Mark and Judaism’ put it: ‘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, it is no surprise that you are rightly reminded of a midrash from Judges 9:8-15 and make the connection to the story about Peter. As often in Marcion’s Gospel, the weak, the ill, the marginal and the excluded people are closer than any of the disciples, especially than Peter. and, as in Marcion, Paul is the unique true Apostle.

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.

---

Vinzent (17 November 2014). "Markus Vinzent's Blog: What is the relation between Mark, 'canonizer of Paul', and Marcion's Gospel?". Markus Vinzent's Blog.

[Kunigunde Kreuzerin]

Kunigunde, Happy New Year!

Same applies to you as well, dear Giuseppe.

It is always a pleasure to comment your posts.

I suspect you will have ample opportunity to do so after Vinzent's book comes out.

Kunigunde is obliged to think that before Mark, there were not-pauline Christians who preached a Jesus who claimed messianic claims also before the execution.

It seems to me that Mark 8:29ff is sufficient evidence for this or a similar preaching. (And since Theodore Weeden this has been a respected opinion within scholarship.)

Peter answered him, “You are the Christ.”

[Giuseppe]

Kunigunde is obliged to think that before Mark, there were not-pauline Christians who preached a Jesus who claimed messianic claims also before the execution.

It seems to me that Mark 8:29ff is sufficient evidence for this or a similar preaching. (And since Theodore Weeden this has been a respected opinion within scholarship.)

Peter answered him, “You are the Christ.”

This point appears obviously innocuous under the historicist paradigm, but it is not at all so under the mythicist paradigm, because it is equivalent to the confession that a Jesus-who-was-called-Christ-before-the-execution was found in an oral or written story preceding Mark, pace the so-called Markan priority.

Have we independent evidence of a such story preceding Mark and where Jesus does messianic claims before the execution? No.

Have we independent evidence of a story preceding Mark and where Jesus didn't messianic claims before the execution? I would like to answer 'yes', obviously, but I am wisely expecting the Vinzent's book

[Kunigunde Kreuzerin]

Kunigunde is obliged to think that before Mark, there were not-pauline Christians who preached a Jesus who claimed messianic claims also before the execution.

It seems to me that Mark 8:29ff is sufficient evidence for this or a similar preaching. (And since Theodore Weeden this has been a respected opinion within scholarship.)

Peter answered him, “You are the Christ.”

This point appears obviously innocuous under the historicist paradigm, but it is not at all so under the mythicist paradigm, because it is equivalent to the confession that a Jesus-who-was-called-Christ-before-the-execution was found in an oral or written story preceding Mark, pace the so-called Markan priority.

Have we independent evidence of a such story preceding Mark and where Jesus does messianic claims before the execution? No.

Have we independent evidence of a story preceding Mark and where Jesus didn't messianic claims before the execution? I would like to answer 'yes', obviously, but I am wisely expecting the Vinzent's book

I think you need to consider not only a Jesus making messianic claims, but also preachers proclaiming Jesus as Christ.

It seems to me that Paul did not invent the title "Christ". There is no evidence of this in his letters. (Beyond the discussion about "Chrestians",) Jesus' title "Christ" was already circulating in the tradition before Paul.

Mark tells us that the title comes from the Petrine tradition. This may be Mark's historical knowledge, which is at least not refutable for us.