Evidence that Mark hated the Book of Revelation

[Giuseppe]

I have only made 2 plus 2, also here:

Because this apostolic conflict is not resolved within the lifetime of Paul, Sim claims that later Christian authors were forced to align themselves with one figure or the another, and he argues that Mark chooses to position himself with Paul. Sim first looks at Mark’s attitude towards Jesus’ family. At Mk 3:20-35, which opens with Jesus’ returning “home” (ἔρχεται εἰς οἶκον [Mk 3:20], likely a reference to the place he was staying at Capernaum [see Mk 2:1]), Mark informs his audience that Jesus’ family (οἱ παρ᾽ αὐτοῦ) attempted to restrain him (κρατῆσαι αὐτόν) because they believed he was “out of his mind” (ἔλεγον γὰρ ὅτι ἐξέστη [Mk 3:21]). Sim takes Mark’s use of ἐξέστη (“out of his mind”) to imply that Jesus’ family believed him to be possessed by a demon.18 Because the Beelzebul controversy with the scribes (Mk 3:22-30) immediately follows, Sim infers that, with his pronouncing blasphemy against the Holy Spirit an eternal sin (Mk 3:29), Jesus implicitly declared his family guilty of the same sin as the scribes. By calling him mad, they have blasphemed the Holy Spirit within his person

(extracted from C. E. Ferguson, A New Perspective on the Use of Paul in the Gospel of Mark, my bold)

• A mother for Jesus was introduced not by Mark but by the Book of Revelation (I am assuming that "born by woman" of Gal 4:4 is a catholic interpolation meant to harmonize Paul and Mark with the Book of Revelation).

Hence, by attacking the mother of Jesus, Mark is de facto attacking the community behind the Book of Revelation, of which the Woman is the allegory in Revelation.

Volkmar was right: Mark hated the Book of Revelation.

[Giuseppe]

• Revelation was anti-Roman.

• Mark was pro-Roman.

[Giuseppe]

To understand Volkmar, one must recognize that, as the last great member of the Tübingen School, he was indebted to F.C. Baur’s famous Tendenzkritic and his conviction that much of early Christian literature could be explained on the basis of the conflict(s) between a Petrine “Jewish Christianity” and a Pauline “Gentile Christianity.”60 Volkmar’s particular contribution was to argue that that conflict began in earnest with the Book of Revelation. He understood this text to be a challenge to Pauline Christianity and its message of salvation for all,61 and he considered the Gospel of Mark to be its direct, literary rebuttal.

(my bold)

[Giuseppe]

Sim gives also a good argument for 1 Cor 15:3-8 being genuine and, collaterally, that the Pillars were hallucinators, too:

David C. Sim, “The Family of Jesus and the Disciples of Jesus in Paul and Mark: Taking Sides in the Early Church’s Factional Dispute,” in Wischmeyer, et al., Paul and Mark, 73-97. He argues that Paul’s most complete recitation of his “gospel” (1 Cor 15:3-8) implicitly suggests that the apostle was not originally included in an official list of witnesses to the resurrection of Christ (76). Instead, the apostle adds himself, and, because he is “last of all” (ἔσχατον δὲ πάντων [1 Cor 15:8]) in the temporal sequence, he effectively becomes the final revelatory word, immune to those who might claim “that they were later visited by Jesus who communicated a message that differed from that of the apostle” (77). At the conclusion of this dissertation, I will have opportunity to expand upon Sim’s provocative conclusion regarding Paul’s final apostolic authority.

Hence, all fits:
The Pillars were hallucinators, Paul was a hallucinator, the John of Revelation was a hallucinator, Mark was the inventor.