Why in Mark the event Resurrection is never described (answer: against Marcion)

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: Why in Mark the event Resurrection is never described (answer: against Marcion)

Post by Giuseppe »

mlinssen wrote: Sat May 21, 2022 4:54 am They're all texts and nothing but texts
ok, but my point is that, if even Paul is a text (as you seem to clearly assume), then it was a text originated in Marcionite circles, not in the catholic camp. I don't find so much irrational the idea that Paul was an invention, as rather the idea that Paul was a Catholic invention.
User avatar
John T
Posts: 1567
Joined: Thu May 15, 2014 8:57 am

Re: Why in Mark the event Resurrection is never described (answer: against Marcion)

Post by John T »

Giuseppe wrote: Sat May 21, 2022 3:57 am
I should conclude that this argument pro Marcionite priority is very strong.

To think otherwise, i.e. that Mark (author) ended bluntly in 16:8 for a reason different from anti-marcionite polemic, would require a not-so-easy-explanation about why Mark, despite of the his so much vaunted paulinism, abandoned the great apostle here.

Obviously, marcionite priority implies mythicism. Historical people don't descend from heaven already adults.
Speak plainly and in simple terms to this idiot.
I'm trying, sincerely, I'm trying, to boil down just what you are suggesting. Are you suggesting, that Marcion invented the resurrection story 100 years after the death of Jesus? That the corpus (tenets) of Christianity did not believe in the resurrection until Marcion?

This is not a trick question, just trying to set the props up correctly on the stage based on historical dates that you believe are correct.

Thank you in advance.
Giuseppe
Posts: 13732
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: Why in Mark the event Resurrection is never described (answer: against Marcion)

Post by Giuseppe »

I am assuming the traditional dating of Paul. He was the only apostle who was fixed with the idea of resurrection, while the other apostles talked only about death + ascension.

After about 100 years, Marcion discovered Paul, and only by then we see the increasing interest for resurrection in Christian writings. Without Marcion's use of Paul for progandistic reasons, Paul would have been forever unknown and so the focus on resurrection would be lost to us.

Now, Mark is notoriously a pauline. But where he diverges surprisingly from Paul is that the emphasis is not given, in Mark, on the event resurrection.

My point is that Mark was deliberately silent on the resurrection event because he was disturbed by the propagandistic use by Marcion of the Paul's emphasis on the resurrection.

Accordingly, Marcion's Evangelion precedes Mark.

And since Marcion's Evangelion started with the descent of Jesus already adult from heaven, then there is no way to persuade me that a such Jesus was historical in some his (even minimal) part.
User avatar
John T
Posts: 1567
Joined: Thu May 15, 2014 8:57 am

Re: Why in Mark the event Resurrection is never described (answer: against Marcion)

Post by John T »

Giuseppe wrote: Sat May 21, 2022 11:24 am

Accordingly, Marcion's Evangelion precedes Mark.
Do I have this right? Marcion could not have taken his razor to the gospel of Mark because it hadn't been written yet? That the author of Mark did not put pen to scroll until after Marcion?

John T the idiot.
Giuseppe
Posts: 13732
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: Why in Mark the event Resurrection is never described (answer: against Marcion)

Post by Giuseppe »

John T wrote: Sat May 21, 2022 11:37 amThat the author of Mark did not put pen to scroll until after Marcion?
precisely.
User avatar
John T
Posts: 1567
Joined: Thu May 15, 2014 8:57 am

Re: Why in Mark the event Resurrection is never described (answer: against Marcion)

Post by John T »

Giuseppe wrote: Sat May 21, 2022 11:41 am
John T wrote: Sat May 21, 2022 11:37 amThat the author of Mark did not put pen to scroll until after Marcion?
precisely.
With that in mind, perhaps we can fix the date of the penmanship of gMark more precisely.

I believe that gMark was a compendium based on oral tradition/eye witness accounts that was put in book/scroll form around 55-65 C.E. And (for the sake of argument) should not to be conflated the with the companion of Paul as found in Acts 13:13. But instead, according to (kata), someone named Mark.

You believe the 1st publicly and widely available edition of gMark appeared in circulation when?

Sincerely,

John T the idiot.
ABuddhist
Posts: 1016
Joined: Wed Jul 21, 2021 4:36 am

Re: Why in Mark the event Resurrection is never described (answer: against Marcion)

Post by ABuddhist »

John T wrote: Sat May 21, 2022 12:56 pm
Giuseppe wrote: Sat May 21, 2022 11:41 am
John T wrote: Sat May 21, 2022 11:37 amThat the author of Mark did not put pen to scroll until after Marcion?
precisely.
I believe that gMark was a compendium based on oral tradition/eye witness accounts that was put in book/scroll form around 55-65 C.E.
With all due respect, the date which you quote is rather early compared to mainstream biblical scholarship, which places it between 65-70 CE, and I am aware of peer-reviewed scholarship placing it, with good reason, as having been written no earlier than 71 CE: https://www.reddit.com/r/AcademicBiblic ... he_temple/

As for the idea that it was based upon eyewitness's accounts, I ask

1. Why were no such claims made within GMark about such sources, in your opinion?

2. Do you think that the eyewitnesses claimed to have seen miracles?

3. Do you think that the miracles happened or were misremembered events or faked events, such as were associated with Satya Sai Baba?
User avatar
mlinssen
Posts: 3431
Joined: Tue Aug 06, 2019 11:01 am
Location: The Netherlands
Contact:

Re: Why in Mark the event Resurrection is never described (answer: against Marcion)

Post by mlinssen »

Giuseppe wrote: Sat May 21, 2022 6:49 am
mlinssen wrote: Sat May 21, 2022 4:54 am They're all texts and nothing but texts
ok, but my point is that, if even Paul is a text (as you seem to clearly assume), then it was a text originated in Marcionite circles, not in the catholic camp. I don't find so much irrational the idea that Paul was an invention, as rather the idea that Paul was a Catholic invention.
Just read Romans: Paul is selling Chrestianity to a Judean audience, period. He is apologising for every little nastiness in Thomas: the rejection of circumcision, of Judaic habits such as fasting and praying, and he is trying to convince his Judaic audience that Chrestianity, the religion of the Gentiles, is the Judaic God's wrath for the disobedience of the Judaics

Was the text meant for the Judaics, or was it meant to convince Chrestians that their religion had a Judaic basis? The latter, undoubtedly

Solid Roman rhetoric
Charles Wilson
Posts: 2098
Joined: Thu Apr 03, 2014 8:13 am

Re: Why in Mark the event Resurrection is never described (answer: against Marcion)

Post by Charles Wilson »

I'm surprised that there was not more commentary on these points and as the days add up, I'm afraid some implications will be lost.
Giuseppe wrote: Sat May 21, 2022 6:49 am
mlinssen wrote: Sat May 21, 2022 4:54 am They're all texts and nothing but texts
ok, but my point is that, if even Paul is a text (as you seem to clearly assume), then it was a text originated in Marcionite circles, not in the catholic camp. I don't find so much irrational the idea that Paul was an invention, as rather the idea that Paul was a Catholic invention.
'N what was the "Catholic Invention"? Both "Paul" and "Catholic" appear as a History rather suddenly. I have Paul as being created out of the debris of "Mucianus" (The "Vision on the road to Damascus" being taken from Titus convincing Mucianus to throw in with Daddy Vespasian.)
'N how convenient! A supposedly Itinerant Preacher (who teaches in the Temple daily!) has "HIs Movement" stolen - and moved to ROME!
WOW!!!
[Later NOTE addition: Atwill is in agreement with Mlinssen, word for word. Or, "It's all just literature", as he told me several times. This leads to the question as to why there are NT Texts at all but that is for another day...]
Just read Romans: Paul is selling Chrestianity to a Judean audience, period. He is apologising for every little nastiness in Thomas: the rejection of circumcision, of Judaic habits such as fasting and praying, and he is trying to convince his Judaic audience that Chrestianity, the religion of the Gentiles, is the Judaic God's wrath for the disobedience of the Judaics
Atwill writes of "Devotio", the Roman Military Tactic of a "possessed" Roman soldier giving his life in sacrifice to convince the "other gods" to come over to the Roman side in combat. The "...Judaic God's wrath for the disobedience of the Judaics" may be seen in this light. The Roman defeat of the Judaics is inevitable. The Power is to be transferred to the Romans. A few of the Judaics will survive but the Gift of being a member of God's Children has been transferred to the Romans.
Was the text meant for the Judaics, or was it meant to convince Chrestians that their religion had a Judaic basis? The latter, undoubtedly
Undoubtedly True but more complicated. The NT texts are for Roman Audiences ("...Which is Hebrew for...") as companion pieces to the Empire's Sensiibilities and imaginations.

"Christians" and "Judaics" are derivative, after Roman reworking and hiding of Events and True Identities.
Solid Roman rhetoric
Shout it to the heavens.

CW
davidmartin
Posts: 1589
Joined: Fri Jul 12, 2019 2:51 pm

Re: Why in Mark the event Resurrection is never described (answer: against Marcion)

Post by davidmartin »

Yes but in particular the apostle is selling his gospel to the Romans (to Jews and/or gentile Jewish proselytes)
But it doesn't seem that it took much root in Rome itself, not if the Shepherd of Hermas is the remnants of the Roman specific church there, it's scarcely very Pauline at all

I checked Ignatius's shorter epistles. The one to the Romans essentially doesn't mention Paul except what I take to be a later insert and scarcely or not at all quotes him. The one to the Ephesians does mention him as their founder and quotes him but interestingly Ignatius's 'gospel' isn't quite identical to the apostle's - his themes and metaphors are of a slightly different direction. Mention is also made of certain 'commandments' of Jesus as does the Shephard and the Odes allude to this also - this is also not Pauline.
I think we should be cautious in assuming Paul was the only game in town when it comes to composition of the gospels not everything revolved around Paul and his own gospel that's just the impression we get from Paul himself in his letters - highly debatable!
Post Reply