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

[Giuseppe]

As the argument would go:

• 1) Only Paul emphasized the resurrection of Jesus.

• 2) Marcion was the first to discover again the Paul's emphasis on resurrection.

• 3) The Gospel of Mark, while loudly proclaiming that Jesus will rise from the dead, and asserting once (at the empty tomb) that he has risen from the dead, offers no (original) account of such an event, and focuses much more on the death of Jesus as a martyr.

• 4) Therefore: Mark wanted to be silent on the resurrection because he had realized that it was too much connected with Marcion's use of Paul. And Mark was clearly embarrassed by this link.

Curiously, the point (3) is the only point where the so much vaunted "pauline" Mark sounds not so much pauline.

CONCLUSION:
Marcion is more pauline than Mark.

[John T]

As the argument would go:

• 3) The Gospel of Mark, while loudly proclaiming that Jesus will rise from the dead, and asserting once (at the empty tomb) that he has risen from the dead, offers no (original) account of such an event, and focuses much more on the death of Jesus as a martyr.

CONCLUSION:
Marcion is more pauline than Mark.

What do you mean by original account? In writing? If so, why is it that proof according to the mythicist's that Jesus never happen? If your great-grand father's 5th birthday didn't make it into the newspaper, it didn't happen? His friends and the magic show were all made up, to what end? To prove he didn't exist?

Or are you saying the longer ending of Mark was invented by Maricon?
Help me with my ignorance so that I can help you with yours.

[ABuddhist]

If so, why is it that proof according to the mythicist's that Jesus never happen?

With all due respect, the Original Post is not claiming that GMark's failure to describe the resurrection is proof that Jesus is a myth.

[mlinssen]

If so, why is it that proof according to the mythicist's that Jesus never happen?

With all due respect, the Original Post is not claiming that GMark's failure to describe the resurrection is proof that Jesus is a myth.

Looks like John T is getting a bit over excited

Again

[Giuseppe]

Or are you saying the longer ending of Mark was invented by Maricon?

I am saying that Mark ends in 16:8 because "Mark" (author) was visibly disturbed by the Marcion's emphasis on resurrection, despite of the fact that Paul would have approved (that the resurrection event was emphasized by any true pauline).


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.

[ABuddhist]

Obviously, marcionite priority implies mythicism. Historical people don't descend from heaven already adults.

But they can claim to have done so - or be claimed to have done so by other people.

[Giuseppe]

Obviously, marcionite priority implies mythicism. Historical people don't descend from heaven already adults.

But they can claim to have done so - or be claimed to have done so by other people.

in the first story that talks in clear terms about a Jesus walking on earth? Hardly so.

[mlinssen]

Or are you saying the longer ending of Mark was invented by Maricon?

I am saying that Mark ends in 16:8 because "Mark" (author) was visibly disturbed by the Marcion's emphasis on resurrection, despite of the fact that Paul would have approved (that the resurrection event was emphasized by any true pauline).


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.

LOL! Exactly

[EDITED FOR REASON OF ERROR]

1. But if Marcion didn't have the resurrection, then Mark would demonstrate that Paul came after him - or:
2. Marcion did not have the resurrection, Paul invented it, and then Mark had to come up with a reason why nobody knew.
Which is exactly what he does - or the fuller version of those 2 is:

3. Mark invented the resurrection when his gospel was the first to counter Marcion who didn't have it, and Mark introduced it in order to a) mitigate the Marcionite legacy and b) be able to continue the story after the end of Marcion. And Paul came after Mark - or:
4. Paul invented the resurrection when his letter(s) was the first to counter Marcion who didn't have it, and Paul introduced it in order to a) mitigate the Marcionite legacy and b) be able to continue the story after the end of Marcion. And Mark came after Paul

[Giuseppe]

2. Marcion did have the resurrection, Paul invented it, and then Mark had to come up with a reason why nobody knew.
Which is exactly what he does -

Brilliant! My vote is for this option.

Since I know, Martijn, that you are a priori a Paul mythicist, I would advise you the reading of The falsified Paul by Hermann Detering, available online. It may help you to overcome the false belief of an apparent contradiction between Marcion and Paul, i.e. the false idea that Paul was a catholic invention, one never accepted by Marcion.

[mlinssen]

2. Marcion did have the resurrection, Paul invented it, and then Mark had to come up with a reason why nobody knew.
Which is exactly what he does -

Brilliant! My vote is for this option.

Since I know, Martijn, that you are a priori a Paul mythicist, I would advise you the reading of The falsified Paul by Hermann Detering, available online. It may help you to overcome the false belief of an apparent contradiction between Marcion and Paul, i.e. the false idea that Paul was a catholic invention, one never accepted by Marcion.

I have adjusted my post since it omits the word not here, and it would seem that 3 and 4 are merely more elaborate versions of 1 and 2. So:

2. Marcion did not have the resurrection, Paul invented it, and then Mark had to come up with a reason why nobody knew.
Which is exactly what he does

I'm not even a mythicist Giuseppe - none of any of this ever existed. They're all texts and nothing but texts and it all started with the text of Thomas, who invented all his fictional characters.
All those who came after just invented extra ones.
And Marcion is just a Churchian invention - the text surely existed, but not the person

End of story