Patrick Boistier on why proto-Mark preceded Mcn

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
User avatar
Giuseppe
Posts: 10907
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: Patrick Boistier on why proto-Mark preceded Mcn

Post by Giuseppe »

My primary reason to divide Mark 1-13 from Mark 14-16 is the following point recognized with great reluctance by Trocmé:


La réserve christologique de Marc 1 à 13 n'a pas son équivalent en Marc 14 à 16. Retouchée ou pas, la réponse de Jésus au grand prêtre (14/62) est dans le Marc canonique une acceptation des titres de Christ et de «Fils du Béni» (39), même si cette acceptation est un peu nuancée par la référence au «Fils de l'Homme» qui suit immédiatement. La confession du centurion (15/39), si bien mise en valeur et si chargée de signification; le beau geste de la femme qui oint la tête de Jésus (14/3 ss.); l'approbation au moins partielle par le Maître du titre de «roi des Juifs» que lui lançait Pilate (15/2): autant de passages où le caractère surnaturel et messianique de la personne de Jésus est fortement souligné dans les chapitres 14 à 15 et où l'on ne perçoit aucune réticence au sujet de l'utilisation des titres christologiques les plus élevés. L'écrivain qui glorifie si volontiers la personne de Jésus est-il le même que celui qui a mutilé la tradition rapportant la confession messianique de Pierre (8/27 ss.) pour substituer à sa conclusion naturelle un cinglant appel à l'heroisme missionnaire (40) et réservé à Dieu seul le droit de parler du Nazaréen comme de Son Fils (41)?
Nous avons quelque peine à l'admettre.

(p.185, my bold)

So, in Mark 1-13 Jesus rejects the title of Messiah (Christ).
Whereas Mark 14-16 is in its DNA entirely designed to prove that Jesus is the Christ beyond any possible doubt.

It seems how if, passing from Mark 1-13 to Mark 24-16, in whiletime something was happened, as to increasing escalation of opposition between rival theologies.

As to the impulse behind Mark 1-13, it is a banal collection of logia of the Lord. In whiletime, someone had had all the time, to speak those logia under spiritual possession.
davidmartin
Posts: 1053
Joined: Fri Jul 12, 2019 2:51 pm

Re: Patrick Boistier on why proto-Mark preceded Mcn

Post by davidmartin »

Interesting, incidentally I think originally Mark ended with Jesus *only* appearing to the women and commanding them to preach, then he appears to no-one else. Just like John seems to imply, (where did the original John end?). Celsus
That's why it got chopped and changed to end on them not preaching/being afraid. Early orthodox didn't like it, too much woman, that so much is left of the women's role shows it was once greater?
Eventually the orthodox accepted contrary to their former dismissal that Jesus appeared first to Mary and put that in the long ending
In the long ending where it says Mary "went and told those who had been with him", in the Syriac it says "went and preached", the word for preaching is used. Since the long ending is such an unbelievably terrible fit contradicting the prior verses maybe something of the original is found in it
Marcion had no use for Mary's preaching? (he might have been a chopper himself) thus it might imply here Mark preceding Marcion?
Post Reply