On the "false witnesses" in Mcn and in Mark

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
Post Reply
User avatar
Giuseppe
Posts: 10745
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

On the "false witnesses" in Mcn and in Mark

Post by Giuseppe »

This is an anomaly signaled by Nicolotti Gianotto 2019.

In Mcn, the accusation of being a destroyer of the Law and the Prophets is true, despite of the fact that it is enumerated among other false accusations (= the same accusations that were probably moved by the Judaizers against the Marcion's Jesus, in a time when none gospel had been yet written):

And they began to accuse him, saying,
We found this fellow perverting the nation,
and destroying the law and the prophets,
and forbidding to give tribute to Caesar,
and turning away the women and children,
saying that he himself is Christ a King.

(Mcn 23:1-2)


In Mark, the accusations put on the mouth of the so-called "false witnesses" are assumed to be all false:

The chief priests and the whole Sanhedrin were looking for evidence against Jesus so that they could put him to death, but they did not find any. 56 Many testified falsely against him, but their statements did not agree.

57 Then some stood up and gave this false testimony against him: 58 “We heard him say, ‘I will destroy this temple made with human hands and in three days will build another, not made with hands.’” 59 Yet even then their testimony did not agree.

(Mark 14:55-59)

So, if Mark comes before Mcn, then how could it be escaped to Marcion's attention the fact that the accusers had to report only false accusations and not even one true?

If Mark follows Mcn, then it would become more visible the interest of Mark in denying the antinomian/anti-temple character of Jesus by introducing it as strictu senso a mere "false accusation" about which falsity the readers shouldn't never doubt, not even for a single moment.

I will be honest. It is not a detail as this, even if it appears to be so supportive of Mcn priority over Mark, that has to decide on the general question of who is prior between Mark and Mcn.

I insist that only the question John the Baptist has to be very decisive on the question, in particular, the original meaning of Mcn 20:1-4, which has become my obsession .
Post Reply