Jesus is not the Christ: A Reading of Mark

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
User avatar
JoeWallack
Posts: 1577
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 8:22 pm
Contact:

Re: Jesus is not the Christ: A Reading of Mark

Post by JoeWallack »

Kunigunde Kreuzerin wrote: Sun Feb 11, 2024 9:46 am
Peter Kirby wrote: Sun Feb 11, 2024 9:32 am
rgprice wrote: Sun Feb 11, 2024 9:12 am This is such a slippery text. I can see how there were so many varied and conspiratorial interpretations swirling around.
Right? For example, I know that modern Christians sometimes interpret Mark's "I am" here as a reference to the divine name, YHWH, claiming identity and equality with God. I think that's a little nutty, but that's how they read it.
In principle I would too, but imho with Mark 6:49-50 that may become more likely
49 but when they saw Him walking on the sea, they cried out, thinking He was a ghost— 50 for they all saw Him and were terrified. But Jesus spoke up at once: “Take courage! It is I (ἐγώ εἰμι). Do not be afraid.”

JW
Agreed. I think the "I am" is also referring to one of God's names. See the who is who's son riddle.Again, not necessarily a theological statement, maybe just really good literary irony. Or maybe intended prequelle to Paul. Jesus ironic/ambiguous intentionally or unintentionally to hide Jesus until revelation to Paul.


Joseph
rgprice
Posts: 1961
Joined: Sun Sep 16, 2018 11:57 pm

Re: Jesus is not the Christ: A Reading of Mark

Post by rgprice »

robert j wrote: Sun Feb 11, 2024 10:11 am I think it helps to understand GMark if the author is recognized as a very clever writer with a devious sense of humor drier than the sands of Arabia --- and a Paulinist. And at least some passages are like icebergs --- with 90 percent of the message below the surface.
Indeed. You know when people ask, "If you could have dinner with anyone from history, who would it be?" For sure it would be whoever wrote the first Gospel, whether we want to call it proto-Mark or Mark or whatever. Whoever was the original author of this material, that's who I want to talk to, cause this guy was on another level for sure. He was like the friggen Einstein of allegory.

As an atheist, I wish there was an afterlife, just so this guy could be sitting around watching what he unleashed on the world. He deserves eternal laughter for it.
User avatar
Peter Kirby
Site Admin
Posts: 7539
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 2:13 pm
Location: Santa Clara
Contact:

Re: Jesus is not the Christ: A Reading of Mark

Post by Peter Kirby »

I like the idea that Mark is the Mr Magoo of great literature.

He's oblivious and clumsy, but somehow the twists and turns come together to have deep, complex readings.
robert j
Posts: 1001
Joined: Tue Jan 28, 2014 5:01 pm

Re: Jesus is not the Christ: A Reading of Mark

Post by robert j »

I think Philo is an under-appreciated source for Paul. Not for direct citations, but rather for thematic elements. I suspect the author of GMark was familiar with Philo as well.

I think the following from Philo is directly relevant to the issue at hand ---

(120) Let not any one then fancy that the word shadow is applied to God with perfect propriety. It is merely a catachrestical abuse of the name, by way of bringing before our eyes a more vivid representation of the matter intended to be intimated. (121) Since this is not the actual truth, but in order that one may when speaking keep as close to the truth as possible, the one in the middle is the Father of the universe, who in the sacred scriptures is called by his proper name, I am that I am; and the beings on each side are those most ancient powers which are always close to the living God, one of which is called his creative power, and the other his royal power. And the creative power is God, for it is by this that he made and arranged the universe; and the royal power is the Lord, for it is fitting that the Creator should lord it over and govern the creature. (Philo, On Abraham, 120-121)

robert j wrote: Sun Feb 11, 2024 10:11 am
And Jesus said, “I am (ἐγώ εἰμι)". (Mark 14:62)

... He was the Lord and creator of the entire universe.
User avatar
Peter Kirby
Site Admin
Posts: 7539
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 2:13 pm
Location: Santa Clara
Contact:

Re: Jesus is not the Christ: A Reading of Mark

Post by Peter Kirby »

Giuseppe wrote: Sat Feb 10, 2024 10:40 pm
Peter Kirby wrote: Sat Feb 10, 2024 10:23 pm Both of these arguments fall under the heading of subtle readings of the text.
that Mark 1-13 (minus the incipit and the stupid Parable of the Vineyard) denies the messianic status is not a subtle reading. It is simply the obvious reading. It doesn't require a great subtlety.
Peter Kirby wrote: Sat Feb 10, 2024 10:41 pm I don't even understand what you're saying here (honestly), so yeah, what you're saying is subtle enough.
I now see what you were saying here. The only reason that I had difficulty understanding it was that I found it hard to process; because it read as a much stronger endorsement of the OP's idea (within the confines of the parts of Mark you outline) than I could have imagined from you or anyone, the plain sense eluded me. That is my fault.
Giuseppe
Posts: 13570
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: Jesus is not the Christ: A Reading of Mark

Post by Giuseppe »

Peter Kirby wrote: Tue Feb 13, 2024 10:08 pm
Giuseppe wrote: Sat Feb 10, 2024 10:40 pm
Peter Kirby wrote: Sat Feb 10, 2024 10:23 pm Both of these arguments fall under the heading of subtle readings of the text.
that Mark 1-13 (minus the incipit and the stupid Parable of the Vineyard) denies the messianic status is not a subtle reading. It is simply the obvious reading. It doesn't require a great subtlety.
Peter Kirby wrote: Sat Feb 10, 2024 10:41 pm I don't even understand what you're saying here (honestly), so yeah, what you're saying is subtle enough.
I now see what you were saying here. The only reason that I had difficulty understanding it was that I found it hard to process; because it read as a much stronger endorsement of the OP's idea (within the confines of the parts of Mark you outline) than I could have imagined from you or anyone, the plain sense eluded me. That is my fault.
A little group of scholars, in primis Étienne Trocmé, insisted on the internal contradiction between the "Jesus is not Christ" propaganda in the first half of Mark and the opposed propaganda "Jesus is the Christ" in the Passion story. To the point that they refuse the definition of Mark as "a Passion story preceded by a long introduction", since the two parts don't come from the same hand.

My criticism to this thesis is the fact that even in the Passion story we have at least two thiny episodes where the message is: "Jesus is not the Christ":
  • The answer to Pilate: tu dices. Interpreted by Marcion as: tu dices, ego non.
  • The rending of the veil, meaning the anger of the demiurge (YHWH).
Which makes the *Ev priority a more parsimonious solution.
User avatar
Peter Kirby
Site Admin
Posts: 7539
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 2:13 pm
Location: Santa Clara
Contact:

Re: Jesus is not the Christ: A Reading of Mark

Post by Peter Kirby »

Giuseppe wrote: Tue Feb 13, 2024 10:30 pm
Peter Kirby wrote: Tue Feb 13, 2024 10:08 pm
Giuseppe wrote: Sat Feb 10, 2024 10:40 pm
Peter Kirby wrote: Sat Feb 10, 2024 10:23 pm Both of these arguments fall under the heading of subtle readings of the text.
that Mark 1-13 (minus the incipit and the stupid Parable of the Vineyard) denies the messianic status is not a subtle reading. It is simply the obvious reading. It doesn't require a great subtlety.
Peter Kirby wrote: Sat Feb 10, 2024 10:41 pm I don't even understand what you're saying here (honestly), so yeah, what you're saying is subtle enough.
I now see what you were saying here. The only reason that I had difficulty understanding it was that I found it hard to process; because it read as a much stronger endorsement of the OP's idea (within the confines of the parts of Mark you outline) than I could have imagined from you or anyone, the plain sense eluded me. That is my fault.
A little group of scholars, in primis Étienne Trocmé, insisted on the internal contradiction between the "Jesus is not Christ" propaganda in the first half of Mark and the opposed propaganda "Jesus is the Christ" in the Passion story. To the point that they refuse the definition of Mark as "a Passion story preceded by a long introduction", since the two parts don't come from the same hand.

My criticism to this thesis is the fact that even in the Passion story we have at least two thiny episodes where the message is: "Jesus is not the Christ":
  • The answer to Pilate: tu dices. Interpreted by Marcion as: tu dices, ego non.
  • The rending of the veil, meaning the anger of the demiurge (YHWH).
Which makes the *Ev priority a more parsimonious solution.
Are you saying that you think Mark has holdovers of the anti-messianic bits of *Ev, clashing with his own narrative?
Giuseppe
Posts: 13570
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: Jesus is not the Christ: A Reading of Mark

Post by Giuseppe »

Peter Kirby wrote: Tue Feb 13, 2024 10:36 pm
Giuseppe wrote: Tue Feb 13, 2024 10:30 pm
Peter Kirby wrote: Tue Feb 13, 2024 10:08 pm
Giuseppe wrote: Sat Feb 10, 2024 10:40 pm
Peter Kirby wrote: Sat Feb 10, 2024 10:23 pm Both of these arguments fall under the heading of subtle readings of the text.
that Mark 1-13 (minus the incipit and the stupid Parable of the Vineyard) denies the messianic status is not a subtle reading. It is simply the obvious reading. It doesn't require a great subtlety.
Peter Kirby wrote: Sat Feb 10, 2024 10:41 pm I don't even understand what you're saying here (honestly), so yeah, what you're saying is subtle enough.
I now see what you were saying here. The only reason that I had difficulty understanding it was that I found it hard to process; because it read as a much stronger endorsement of the OP's idea (within the confines of the parts of Mark you outline) than I could have imagined from you or anyone, the plain sense eluded me. That is my fault.
A little group of scholars, in primis Étienne Trocmé, insisted on the internal contradiction between the "Jesus is not Christ" propaganda in the first half of Mark and the opposed propaganda "Jesus is the Christ" in the Passion story. To the point that they refuse the definition of Mark as "a Passion story preceded by a long introduction", since the two parts don't come from the same hand.

My criticism to this thesis is the fact that even in the Passion story we have at least two thiny episodes where the message is: "Jesus is not the Christ":
  • The answer to Pilate: tu dices. Interpreted by Marcion as: tu dices, ego non.
  • The rending of the veil, meaning the anger of the demiurge (YHWH).
Which makes the *Ev priority a more parsimonious solution.
Are you saying that you think Mark has holdovers of the anti-messianic bits of *Ev, clashing with his own narrative?
that is precisely the point made in the last book by Markus Vinzent, Christ's Torah.

Share my enthusiasm for the book here.

(Mlinssen advised me to content myself with the ebook, something of which I repent now, since the physical book deserved to be taken, rather).
User avatar
Peter Kirby
Site Admin
Posts: 7539
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 2:13 pm
Location: Santa Clara
Contact:

Re: Jesus is not the Christ: A Reading of Mark

Post by Peter Kirby »

Giuseppe wrote: Tue Feb 13, 2024 10:42 pm
Peter Kirby wrote: Tue Feb 13, 2024 10:36 pm
Giuseppe wrote: Tue Feb 13, 2024 10:30 pm
Peter Kirby wrote: Tue Feb 13, 2024 10:08 pm
Giuseppe wrote: Sat Feb 10, 2024 10:40 pm that Mark 1-13 (minus the incipit and the stupid Parable of the Vineyard) denies the messianic status is not a subtle reading. It is simply the obvious reading. It doesn't require a great subtlety.
Peter Kirby wrote: Sat Feb 10, 2024 10:41 pm I don't even understand what you're saying here (honestly), so yeah, what you're saying is subtle enough.
I now see what you were saying here. The only reason that I had difficulty understanding it was that I found it hard to process; because it read as a much stronger endorsement of the OP's idea (within the confines of the parts of Mark you outline) than I could have imagined from you or anyone, the plain sense eluded me. That is my fault.
A little group of scholars, in primis Étienne Trocmé, insisted on the internal contradiction between the "Jesus is not Christ" propaganda in the first half of Mark and the opposed propaganda "Jesus is the Christ" in the Passion story. To the point that they refuse the definition of Mark as "a Passion story preceded by a long introduction", since the two parts don't come from the same hand.

My criticism to this thesis is the fact that even in the Passion story we have at least two thiny episodes where the message is: "Jesus is not the Christ":
  • The answer to Pilate: tu dices. Interpreted by Marcion as: tu dices, ego non.
  • The rending of the veil, meaning the anger of the demiurge (YHWH).
Which makes the *Ev priority a more parsimonious solution.
Are you saying that you think Mark has holdovers of the anti-messianic bits of *Ev, clashing with his own narrative?
that is precisely the point made in the last book by Markus Vinzent, Christ's Torah.
Why would *Ev be written in a way that is anti-messianic?
Giuseppe
Posts: 13570
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: Jesus is not the Christ: A Reading of Mark

Post by Giuseppe »

Peter Kirby wrote: Tue Feb 13, 2024 10:44 pm
Giuseppe wrote: Tue Feb 13, 2024 10:42 pm
Peter Kirby wrote: Tue Feb 13, 2024 10:36 pm
Giuseppe wrote: Tue Feb 13, 2024 10:30 pm
Peter Kirby wrote: Tue Feb 13, 2024 10:08 pm



I now see what you were saying here. The only reason that I had difficulty understanding it was that I found it hard to process; because it read as a much stronger endorsement of the OP's idea (within the confines of the parts of Mark you outline) than I could have imagined from you or anyone, the plain sense eluded me. That is my fault.
A little group of scholars, in primis Étienne Trocmé, insisted on the internal contradiction between the "Jesus is not Christ" propaganda in the first half of Mark and the opposed propaganda "Jesus is the Christ" in the Passion story. To the point that they refuse the definition of Mark as "a Passion story preceded by a long introduction", since the two parts don't come from the same hand.

My criticism to this thesis is the fact that even in the Passion story we have at least two thiny episodes where the message is: "Jesus is not the Christ":
  • The answer to Pilate: tu dices. Interpreted by Marcion as: tu dices, ego non.
  • The rending of the veil, meaning the anger of the demiurge (YHWH).
Which makes the *Ev priority a more parsimonious solution.
Are you saying that you think Mark has holdovers of the anti-messianic bits of *Ev, clashing with his own narrative?
that is precisely the point made in the last book by Markus Vinzent, Christ's Torah.
Why would *Ev be written in a way that is anti-messianic?
Two answers:

1) because the principal hero in it is an unknown figure ("unknown" means that he is not even the messIah of YHWH).

The first sentence of the Marcionite gospel book gives the fifteenth year of Tiberius as the date and has an unknown character walk down to “Capharnaum, a city in Galilee,” where people call him “Jesus of Nazareth.”

(E. Trobisch, On the Origin of Christian Scripture, p. 106, my bold)

2) because, even if the original author meant it in a messianic sense (the Klinghardt's position), the point continues to be true, that *Ev in the hands of Marcion was brandished as attesting the non-messianic status of Jesus, obliging even Mark to take the "right" measures against it. The principal measures are listed by me here.
Post Reply