Basic reason why Mark is NOT marcionite

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
Giuseppe
Posts: 13732
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: Basic reason why Mark is NOT marcionite

Post by Giuseppe »

Kunigunde Kreuzerin wrote: Tue Jan 03, 2023 12:03 pm - conclusion not coherent
But if you're right, then Matthew should be even more embarrassed than Mark. But as we know, that was not the case.
Matthew sounds surely more anti-marcionite in virtue of the simple presence of the birth in the incipit. Really, the birth is so much anti-marcionite by definition, that I would avoid any discussion involving Matthew. My focus is only about Mark versus Marcion.
Kunigunde Kreuzerin wrote: Tue Jan 03, 2023 12:03 pm As I have said, I am not convinced that the baptism was a historical fact as these HJ-scholars have claimed, but their reasoning is of course a compelling argument for Markan priority. :thumbup: :cheers:
do you agree with me that the fact that John the Baptist didn't see the dove in Mark is part of the messianic misunderstanding (Mark would like to justify why the Baptist didn't recognize soon Jesus as the Christ)?

We have already discussed in another thread about the Baptist, and I was rather embarrassed by your emphasis on the presence of Luke 20:3-8 in Marcion, as presumed evidence of an unusual (=anti-marcionite) alliance between Jesus and John against the common enemy (=pharisees). I am expecting the Vinzent's book for a solution of that little dilemma. (As you know, my argument is that in Mark there are still presumed traces of the marcionite rivarly between Jesus and John: apart the baptism, they are always distant one from the other, and the pharisees would like surely more the John's disciples than the Jesus's disciples).
schillingklaus
Posts: 645
Joined: Sat Dec 11, 2021 11:17 pm

Re: Basic reason why Mark is NOT marcionite

Post by schillingklaus »

There is no compelling reason for Markan Prioritism, only superstition.

There is absolutely no embarrassment, either, as the Judaizing church argued that Jesus had to be initiated to his mission by John in order to fulfil the words of Moses and the Prophets, especially Isaiah. Embarrassing is only the demeanour of Markan Prioritists like Farrer and Kreuzerin.
Kunigunde Kreuzerin
Posts: 2110
Joined: Sat Nov 16, 2013 2:19 pm
Location: Leipzig, Germany
Contact:

Re: Basic reason why Mark is NOT marcionite

Post by Kunigunde Kreuzerin »

Giuseppe wrote: Tue Jan 03, 2023 11:31 pm do you agree with me that the fact that John the Baptist didn't see the dove in Mark is part of the messianic misunderstanding (Mark would like to justify why the Baptist didn't recognize soon Jesus as the Christ)?
Methinks that our differing understandings are often based on the fact that we both see a different function of these scriptures. You seem to assume that these writings are primarily written against someone, namely rival factions. I believe that these scriptures are primarily written for someone, namely Christian followers, and contain a teaching message.

imho Mark's message is here

- to understand baptism not as an external Jewish purification ritual, but as an inner spiritual experience and birth of a new life (Romans 6:3f Do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? 4 We were buried therefore with him by baptism into death, in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, we too might walk in newness of life.)

- and that this new life begins with the indwelling of the spirit (Romans 8: 9 You, however, are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if in fact the Spirit of God dwells in you. Anyone who does not have the Spirit of Christ does not belong to him ... 14 For all who are led by the Spirit of God are sons of God. 15 For you did not receive the spirit of slavery to fall back into fear, but you have received the Spirit of adoption as sons, by whom we cry, “Abba! Father!” 16 The Spirit himself bears witness with our spirit that we are children of God, 17 and if children, then heirs—heirs of God and fellow heirs with Christ, provided we suffer with him in order that we may also be glorified with him.)

Imho the emphasis here is not on what is happening on the outside, but on the inner personal experience. Spirit communicates with spirit.

Romans 8:16 Mark 1:10-11
The Spirit himself bears witness with our spirit that we are children of God And immediately ascending out of the water he saw tearing open the heavens and the Spirit like a dove descending into him. And a voice came out of the heavens, “You are my Son, the beloved; in you I am well pleased.”

In GMark the spirit is descending like a dove and not as a dove. I suspect the dove has two main causes. Intended to evoke the image of the receding waters after the Noachian flood (new life !!!), it also serves as an intra-Markan reference to Mark 11:15 - the dear reader may understand that the mentioned dove-sellers are also sock puppets for Christian "hawkers of the Holy Spirit".

In short, I friendly disagree that Mark 1:10-11 tells a story which is part of an „messianic misunderstanding“.
schillingklaus
Posts: 645
Joined: Sat Dec 11, 2021 11:17 pm

Re: Basic reason why Mark is NOT marcionite

Post by schillingklaus »

The aspect of spiritual rebirth is pre-Christian gnosticism; thus it is far from Markan origin and only present therein as a case of severe redactional fatigue. The rebirth had long since been transormed from an individual metanoia into a collective evolution from second-temple Judaism (destroyed in the violent conflicts with Rome) into the gentile-dominated Christian church. This occurs in all canonical gospels, whence singling out Mk is absolutely inappropriate.
Kunigunde Kreuzerin
Posts: 2110
Joined: Sat Nov 16, 2013 2:19 pm
Location: Leipzig, Germany
Contact:

Re: Basic reason why Mark is NOT marcionite

Post by Kunigunde Kreuzerin »

schillingklaus, who is currently on your ignore list, made this post.
lclapshaw
Posts: 777
Joined: Sun May 16, 2021 10:01 am

Re: Basic reason why Mark is NOT marcionite

Post by lclapshaw »

Kunigunde Kreuzerin wrote: Wed Jan 04, 2023 4:09 am
schillingklaus, who is currently on your ignore list, made this post.
:cheers:

Think he'll ever give up and just go away?
Giuseppe
Posts: 13732
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: Basic reason why Mark is NOT marcionite

Post by Giuseppe »

Very interesting:

W. R. Farmer suggested that Wrede, by virtue of an uncritical assumption of Markan priority, had therefore missed the very opportunity to which his study of Mark had led — Markan posteriority.

https://books.google.it/books?redir_esc ... &q&f=false
Giuseppe
Posts: 13732
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: Basic reason why Mark is NOT marcionite

Post by Giuseppe »

http://etheses.dur.ac.uk/7982/

Glaswell, in the thesis available in this link, has argued for the secrecy in Mark as evidence of Markan priority. I should read it to see if his arguments are persuasive.

Warning: just I see that he assumes too much a historical Jesus in his analysis, then ipso facto his entire thesis will be totally wrong.
schillingklaus
Posts: 645
Joined: Sat Dec 11, 2021 11:17 pm

Re: Basic reason why Mark is NOT marcionite

Post by schillingklaus »

Yeah, Markan priorists like Wrede were all misguided by their own naivity. This has not changed ever since.
User avatar
mlinssen
Posts: 3431
Joined: Tue Aug 06, 2019 11:01 am
Location: The Netherlands
Contact:

Re: Basic reason why Mark is NOT marcionite

Post by mlinssen »

Giuseppe wrote: Fri Jan 06, 2023 10:45 pm http://etheses.dur.ac.uk/7982/

Glaswell, in the thesis available in this link, has argued for the secrecy in Mark as evidence of Markan priority. I should read it to see if his arguments are persuasive.

Warning: just I see that he assumes too much a historical Jesus in his analysis, then ipso facto his entire thesis will be totally wrong.
Giuseppe, the best gems are found in those papers where either the analysis is right and the conclusion is wrong, or vice versa.
Research almost always is useful
Post Reply