Mark's relation to Gnosticism...

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
rgprice
Posts: 2058
Joined: Sun Sep 16, 2018 11:57 pm

Mark's relation to Gnosticism...

Post by rgprice »

Of course "Gnosticism" is a somewhat loaded term, and covers a wide range of different views, but in this case I generally mean non-orthodox worshipers of Jesus who believed that the God of the Jews was evil or an oppressor of some kind and that there was a higher God of love and goodness, who was the Father of Jesus.

I believe I have an understanding of the relationship of the Gospels of Matthew, Luke and John to Gnosticism. Matthew and Luke are reactionary to Gnosticism -- produced in response to Gnostic teachings. Both appropriate Marcion's Gospel. The Gospel of John is actually Gnostic, or at least certain layers of it are. The canonical version of John is an orthodox revision of a prior Gnostic work that was itself a compilation of multiple Gnostic interpretations of the Markan story.

But what was Mark? I've long though that Mark was the first narrative about Jesus being a person on earth. Mark was the first narrative to claim that Jesus was crucified under Pilate. Mark doesn't shows obvious signs that it was written in reaction to Marcionism or other forms of Gnosticism, at least not that I see.

But, was Mark written in reaction to Gnosticism or was Mark written as an advancement of Gnostic ideas? Is Mark completely unaware of Gnosticism?

Mark clearly makes extensive use of the Jewish scriptures, but does so in a peculiar way. In most case Mark uses the scriptures in a covert way, building upon them without overtly citing them. The disciples don't understand who Jesus is or what his teachings mean. Peter is identified as Satan. None of the disciples are present at the Crucifixion.

Is the use of the Jewish scriptures a connection to Judaism or meant as a refutation of it? The events of the narrative come from the scriptures, but was this meant to show that the Jews didn't understand their own scriptures? That was certainly a later charge.

So does Mark use the Jewish scriptures to refute the Gnostic claim that Jesus wasn't foretold by the Jewish scriptures?

Does Mark use the Jewish scriptures to support the Gnostic claim that the Jews didn't understand their own scriptures?

Does Mark use the Jewish scriptures in a way that had nothing to do with Gnosticism one way or another?
Giuseppe
Posts: 13732
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: Mark's relation to Gnosticism...

Post by Giuseppe »

It seems that Mark is obliged to not mention explicitly the Jewish Scriptures, as per Mark 8:12:
He sighed deeply and said, “Why does this generation ask for a sign? Truly I tell you, no sign will be given to it.”

The same logion is found in Marcion (for Marcion, the 'heaven' from which no sign will be given is the heaven of the creator, without connection at all with Jesus Son of Father/"Bar-Abbas"), while in Matthew and Luke at least a sign is given.

Mark appears to believe in the resurrection of the bodies (for example, Herod believed that Jesus is John redivivus), hence this puts him against Paul who denied that flesh and blood can inherit the kingdom of God (1 Corinthians 15:50).

In Mark, Jesus drinks his own blood during the eucharist, and obviously the 'blood' was denied by Marcion for his ethereal Jesus.
Giuseppe
Posts: 13732
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: Mark's relation to Gnosticism...

Post by Giuseppe »

Mark wants to prove that Jesus is the Jewish Messiah, hence he has Jesus who carries the cross, as per Genesis 22:6 where Isaac is a type of the Jewish Messiah:
And Abraham took the wood of the burnt offering, and laid it upon Isaac his son; and he took the fire in his hand, and a knife; and they went both of them together.

Against Basilides who claimed that Simon of Cyrene carried the cross in the place of Jesus ?
lsayre
Posts: 769
Joined: Sun Jan 04, 2015 3:39 pm

Re: Mark's relation to Gnosticism...

Post by lsayre »

Mark seems to be at least somewhat ambiguous as to precisely whom it was that got placed upon the cross. Even as final redacted.
davidmartin
Posts: 1589
Joined: Fri Jul 12, 2019 2:51 pm

Re: Mark's relation to Gnosticism...

Post by davidmartin »

Mark is not clearly written in refutation of gnostic ideas, however it can be seen as refuting certain 'Judaising' ideas. When it undermines Peter what it's telling you is at the time of composition there was a 'Peter sect' that held Peter up as it's model apostle and promoted following the law. Mark here is distancing itself from that sect and presenting itself in opposition to it. These would be the same guys that opposed Paul in Galatians
This, is of course the same as when John's gospel confounds Thomas (Thomas Christians are downplayed) and at various points in many gospels including extra canonical ones the same thing is done

The chief threat for Mark is not gnostics or whoever their forebears were. I think that was a later development and it makes sense, otherwise Mark might have looked a little different

The Jesus of Mark appears to struggle at times to do his miracles. Making a second attempt at restoring a mans vision, being unable to do them in one town. It almost presents him as a magician when it keeps certain words in Aramaic. This makes him look pretty human. He has secret teachings he only tells his disciples which are the explanations of his parables. I don't think Mark knew who Jesus would be yet. But a popular account one might imagine followers of Paul would be keen on when they sat around wondering who this guy actually was. Mark gives it to them and helps them avoid the Peter sect's missionary activities
User avatar
billd89
Posts: 1347
Joined: Thu Jun 25, 2020 6:27 pm
Location: New England, USA

Challenging Thoughts

Post by billd89 »

rgprice wrote: Wed Oct 13, 2021 7:57 amOf course "Gnosticism" is a somewhat loaded term, and covers a wide range of different views, but in this case I generally mean non-orthodox worshipers of Jesus who believed that the God of the Jews was evil or an oppressor of some kind and that there was a higher God of love and goodness, who was the Father of Jesus.
What if 'Gnosticism' lacks an explictly Anti-Yahweh polemic but posits complex Powers and Motives: a separate Demiurge who is NOT in diabolical revolt? Where we see multiple Powers (NOT ONLY 'Two Powers') evident in Philo by 25 AD - there have been threads here, already - there were definitely heterodox Jewish cults and derivatives in the Diaspora.
Matthew and Luke are reactionary to Gnosticism -- produced in response to Gnostic teachings. ... The Gospel of John is actually Gnostic, or at least certain layers of it are. The canonical version of John is an orthodox revision of a prior Gnostic work that was itself a compilation of multiple Gnostic interpretations of the Markan story.
Wild stuff! I'm not disagreeing, but the implications are vast. I reject the Late-Dating/Marcion nonsense popular here, but what you're saying 'proves' (i.e. must mean) that Gnosticism existed in the First C. BC. Why? Because it took decades for ideas to develop and circulate - generations, in most literary circumstances of Antiquity we can find. We already see variations of what I call 'Step Programs' for (Neo-Pythagorean) Gnosis in different sources of the 1st C. AD; it must be older!
But what was Mark? I've long though that Mark was the first narrative about Jesus being a person on earth. Mark was the first narrative to claim that Jesus was crucified under Pilate. Mark doesn't shows obvious signs that it was written in reaction to Marcionism or other forms of Gnosticism, at least not that I see.

But, was Mark written in reaction to Gnosticism or was Mark written as an advancement of Gnostic ideas? Is Mark completely unaware of Gnosticism?
Irenaeus writes that Cerinthus was educated in 'the Gnosis of the Egyptians'. Yet nothing suggests (to me) that Cerinthus* was Anti-Yahweh either. I recall reading that Cerinthus (c.80 AD) was quite fixated on the life-data of Jesus; he may not have been fully-supportive of the Jesus-Christos mythos developing, either. The latest I would date 'Mark' is c.65 AD, if Cerinthus is responding to that local Gospel in c.85-90 AD. Abandon the delusional mindset of instantaneous internet access; books then took decades/generations to gain in popularity during Antiquity.

*Against Heresies (Book III, Chapter 11) [c.200 AD], probably referencing material from before 140 AD, is apparently about the 'Nicolaites' (in Ionia/Mysia) "that the Creator was one, but the Father of the Lord another; and that the Son of the Creator was, forsooth, one, but the Christ from above another, who also continued impassible, descending upon Jesus, the Son of the Creator, and flew back again into His Pleroma." I presume 'Nicolaites' is an imprecise term for Chrestiani, a small variant sect under a certain Nicholas at some early point, c.70 AD. If there's was an "Egyptian Gnosis" that means it's an ideology 'everyone knows' came from Alexandria.

The Valentinian system (c.135 AD) was much more complex and younger; it is useful to look at the 'generations' of Gnosticism to try understand something of the evolution going on. I suppose Cerinthus is First Gen, here; re: the Xian variation thereof. (Judeo-) 'Gnosticism' may well be +100 years older, a 3-4 generations long process originating in Egypt >>> Alexandria >>> the Coastal Diaspora.
Mark clearly makes extensive use of the Jewish scriptures, but does so in a peculiar way. In most case Mark uses the scriptures in a covert way, building upon them without overtly citing them. The disciples don't understand who Jesus is or what his teachings mean. Peter is identified as Satan. None of the disciples are present at the Crucifixion.

Is the use of the Jewish scriptures a connection to Judaism or meant as a refutation of it? The events of the narrative come from the scriptures, but was this meant to show that the Jews didn't understand their own scriptures? That was certainly a later charge.

So does Mark use the Jewish scriptures to refute the Gnostic claim that Jesus wasn't foretold by the Jewish scriptures?

Does Mark use the Jewish scriptures to support the Gnostic claim that the Jews didn't understand their own scriptures?

Does Mark use the Jewish scriptures in a way that had nothing to do with Gnosticism one way or another?
I'm curious how others answer those last questions. Gnosticism is treated like a red-headed stepchild here, whereas I think a great many Xian origin queries would be answered looking there: at the OLDER movement. If the Gospels were appearing in heterodox Judaic communities (already deeply ambivalent to the assumed 'orthodox Judaism' which everyone imagines dominant everywhere) then OT Jewishness might be downplayed. If Anti-Jewishness was a factor, over and again w/ Gentiles.

Early Xian converts wanted instant Gnosis/salvation; even Paul worked within that framework/understanding. A common language already existed, c.50 AD. The Biography of Jesus stuff was a late interest, I think, two or three generations behind the familiar Christos Myth which earlier (Alexandrian) 'Gnostics' had preached in what became a relic synagogue network.

The Jesus ppl really moved in, took over.
User avatar
MrMacSon
Posts: 8798
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 3:45 pm

Re: Mark's relation to Gnosticism...

Post by MrMacSon »

rgprice wrote: Wed Oct 13, 2021 7:57 am Both appropriate Marcion's Gospel
In what way or apects do you think they do that?

Are you aware of Klinghardt on this, eg. -

rgprice wrote: Wed Oct 13, 2021 7:57 am
But what was Mark? I've long though that Mark was the first narrative about Jesus being a person on earth. Mark was the first narrative to claim that Jesus was crucified under Pilate. Mark doesn't shows obvious signs that it was written in reaction to Marcionism or other forms of Gnosticism, at least not that I see.

But, was Mark written in reaction to Gnosticism[b] or was Mark written as an advancement of Gnostic ideas? Is Mark completely unaware of Gnosticism?

Mark clearly makes extensive use of the Jewish scriptures, but does so in a peculiar way. In most case Mark uses the scriptures in a covert way, building upon them without overtly citing them. The disciples don't understand who Jesus is or what his teachings mean. Peter is identified as Satan. None of the disciples are present at the Crucifixion.

Is the use of the Jewish scriptures a connection to Judaism or meant as a refutation of it? The events of the narrative come from the scriptures, but was this meant to show that the Jews didn't understand their own scriptures? That was certainly a later charge.

So does Mark use the Jewish scriptures to refute the Gnostic claim that Jesus wasn't foretold by the Jewish scriptures?

Does Mark use the Jewish scriptures to support the Gnostic claim that the Jews didn't understand their own scriptures?

Does Mark use the Jewish scriptures in a way that had nothing to do with Gnosticism one way or another?

.
  • Do you mean was Mark influenced by texts other than the Pauline ones?
  • Could it have been based in part on the Marcionite Gospel?
  • Could Paul have been based on the Pauline epistles, a LXX/Septuagint version of Jewish scriptures, and the Marcionite Gospel?
  • "Is the use of the Jewish scriptures a connection to Judaism or meant as a refutation of it?" - or both?
User avatar
neilgodfrey
Posts: 6161
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 4:08 pm

Re: Mark's relation to Gnosticism...

Post by neilgodfrey »

rgprice wrote: Wed Oct 13, 2021 7:57 am Mark clearly makes extensive use of the Jewish scriptures, but does so in a peculiar way. In most case Mark uses the scriptures in a covert way, building upon them without overtly citing them.
Indeed. He makes the most subtle yet intricate use of Scriptures. So subtle that from what I have seen it appears that few have been willing to accept what Hanhart identified in his Open Tomb that even the "tomb carved out of a rock" in which Jesus was placed is a "midrashic" play on Isaiah 22:16's image of the Temple. Up to 160 scriptural quotations and allusions have been identified in chapters 11-16 alone.

In that context, can we avoid the conclusion that this gospel was written for at least some readers who were well-versed in the Jewish Scriptures and who took an interest in identifying them and discussing how they were interpreted to create the narrative. I cannot see gnosticism having any meaningful place here. But then if this gospel was a special focus of Basilides then in what way did he use or interpret it?
rgprice wrote: Wed Oct 13, 2021 7:57 am
The disciples don't understand who Jesus is or what his teachings mean. Peter is identified as Satan. None of the disciples are present at the Crucifixion.
But Peter is given hope at the end when the women are told to report to him. Yes, the women fail their mission, but none of the characters is historical here. They are all symbolic actors in a symbolic narrative. So little of it makes any sense if we try to read it "realistically".

There are in fact many women said to be at the crucifixion scene, but again I have come to strongly suspect that that "standing far off" phrase is a flag to read these women as latter-day Miriams who are there to see to the resurrection and exaltation of Jesus -- "Miriam stood afar off", also, to "see what would happen" to the future saviour who appeared to be put out to die. Another subtle drawing upon the Scriptures.
rgprice wrote: Wed Oct 13, 2021 7:57 amIs the use of the Jewish scriptures a connection to Judaism or meant as a refutation of it? The events of the narrative come from the scriptures, but was this meant to show that the Jews didn't understand their own scriptures? That was certainly a later charge.
If we read this gospel in the same way we read the story of Israel in the Pentateuch, then in the Histories, yes, the people who do not understand Jesus do not understand or obey their own Scriptures -- just like "old Israel" has always remained ignorant or stubborn, until the next prophet or new Israel is brought through another exodus-like experience.

If this was written as a debunking of the Mosaic cult now that the sacrifices and Temple were gone and a "new Israel" and "new Temple" were to replace them in Joshua/Jesus ... it may make sense from that perspective.
rgprice wrote: Wed Oct 13, 2021 7:57 am So does Mark use the Jewish scriptures to refute the Gnostic claim that Jesus wasn't foretold by the Jewish scriptures?

Does Mark use the Jewish scriptures to support the Gnostic claim that the Jews didn't understand their own scriptures?

Does Mark use the Jewish scriptures in a way that had nothing to do with Gnosticism one way or another?
I choose #3.
Giuseppe
Posts: 13732
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: Mark's relation to Gnosticism...

Post by Giuseppe »

If gnosticism (meant here as anti-demiurgism) is not seen in Mark, then I wonder why the question is raised. My strong suspicion is that the question is raised because what we have in mind, as expected secret message reserved for only insiders (and remember that Celsus said that "their cult is secret"), is always an implicit attack against the creator or, which is equivalent, an implicit apology of him.

In Mark there are clues of a separationist christology. Separationism is expected as first timide answer to mitigate a previous docetism. Isn't it a coincidence that Mark was the first gospel written against Marcion, according to Klinghardt et alia?
davidmartin
Posts: 1589
Joined: Fri Jul 12, 2019 2:51 pm

Re: Mark's relation to Gnosticism...

Post by davidmartin »

Indeed. He makes the most subtle yet intricate use of Scriptures. So subtle that from what I have seen it appears that few have been willing to accept what Hanhart identified in his Open Tomb that even the "tomb carved out of a rock" in which Jesus was placed is a "midrashic" play on Isaiah 22:16's image of the Temple. Up to 160 scriptural quotations and allusions have been identified in chapters 11-16 alone.
This doesn't make a lot of sense
Isn't it the case Mark was written in a fairly 'crude' literary style that was improved and reworked in Matthew and Luke. It also tries to be popular having a fast paced action and presents Jesus heroically but also kind of in a story telling fashion. Hardly a learned work is what i mean
Yet at the same time there is all this intricate references to Jewish scripture that would have taken much work to figure out and construct?
Something just doesn't sit right with this with me
It's tempting to think that Hanhart is overdoing it. Apart from the obvious connections to Jewish scripture many other similarities are bound to crop up that are co-incidental. Almost any story probably has something you could relate to Jewish scripture if you tried. So maybe his conclusion is overdone and really what it was, was a relatively straightforward and simple use of scripture not subtle and intricate at all?
This has a bearing on who we might presume the author was, Jewish or gentile and how familiar they were with scripture, and it would help to be sure on this point. If Hanhart is right then that would be very interesting but it goes against quite a lot of what i've read up till now
Post Reply