Wrede was both right and wrong because of Marcion

[Giuseppe]

https://muse.jhu.edu/article/760360

As the title suggests, the study revolves around the Davidssohnfrage of Mark 12:35–37: how can David’s son, the messiah, also be his Lord (cf. Ps 110:1)? Botner takes issue with William Wrede’s influential essay “Jesus als Davidssohn” (Vorträge und Studien [Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1907] 147–77) and studies influenced by it, which dissociate Mark’s portrait of the Christ from Davidic messianism.

So, Wrede realized that the Messianic Secret is designed to deny that Jesus is the davidic Messiah

...contra factum, as Botner proves, that in Mark Jesus is the davidic Messiah.

Both Wrede and Botner are right, and not only one of them:

• the Messianic Secret dates back to a gospel who denied that Jesus was the davidic Messiah...

• ...and Mark was a reaction against this gospel.

The reader can imagine what was this earlier gospel.

[Stuart]

The Gospel of John, which is not Marcionite, clearly has a layer which denies Jesus Davidic descent and denies he is the Davidic messiah

John 7:41-42, dispute about Jesus:

Others said, "This is the Christ." But some said, "Is the Christ to come from Galilee? Has not the scripture said that the Christ is descended from David, and comes from Bethlehem, the village where David was?"

This is a factional dispute among Christians, whether the messiah is of Judah (David or a "son of David") or Israel (Joseph or a "son of Joseph" or "Joseph's son").

The Marcionites are but one of many sects that opposed Davidic origin in favor of Josephine origin. In fact the Macrionites broke even with Josephine sects holding that Jesus had no earthly lineage.

John is the gospel that retained most of the Josephine elements, Matthew the gospel that emphasized the Davidic elements the most. The Christianity we have is a compromise, where Joseph has been transformed from Jacob/Israel's son and father of Ephraim and Manasseh (i.e., Samaria; Ephraim is where Shechem, the rival temple of Jerusalem sat) whose seed Jesus was descendant from, to the immediate "step-father" whose sperm did not impregnate Mary. Note Matthew retained Joseph as son of Jacob, but this is a "random" Jacob, the son of Matthan (= Matthew?); Luke breaks the lineage further, by changing Joseph's father from Jacob to Heli (Eli) another son of Matthan. The seed of David designation is a bit of a mess, as Jesus is supposedly conceived without human seed, but from God (Jewish critics had a field day with that).

The point is a much wider dispute existed before doctrine was settled on lineage and authority. The Marcionites represent a later stage development of the Josephine side, as it breaks entirely from the exegetical foundation for the messiah. That the Marcionites seem to have bundled the first New Testament, and were among the first to popularize the gospel as an instrument of evangelism, tells us that the New Testament writings are not from the earliest Christianity, but rather from the era of evangelism, the rapid expansion of Christianity from small dedicated communities to the general public at large.

Note, the house divided parable may have to do with the internal division within Christianity over the origin/authority point, and how is causes schisms. It can be seen as part of a push for the unified theology that tried to accommodate as many factions as possible by absorbing elements of each sides teaching, tilting of course to the orthodoxy that controlled most of the hierarchy.

[rgprice]

I would say that even Mark denies he is the Davidic messiah. Why do they think Mark affirms that he is?

[Giuseppe]

Josephine origin.

Are you sure that there were really Christians who believed that Jesus was the Messiah Son of Joseph? Note that the question is not marginal at all, since the best explanation for the introduction of Pilate in the story is that Pilate was historically known (even in Rome) as the famous slayer of the Samaritans, who called themselves "sons of Joseph", therefore he was considered the best candidate for the role of the material killer of Jesus considered (right or wrong) "Son of Joseph".

I think that the Josephine origin is denied in this passage:

They said, “Is this not Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know?

(John 6:42)

...so the scribes and pharisees choose Pilate as judge who will condemn Jesus because they would like to prove implicitly that Jesus is merely the failed Messiah Son of Joseph, only one of the victims of Pilate.

The negative role of Joseph of Arimathea (Joseph working as false father who buries Jesus) has a similar function: in the intention of his enemies (and Joseph of Arimathea is one of them in the original story), Jesus is merely a failed Samaritan Son of Joseph, by definition deserving crucifixion by Pilate and a burial by a "Joseph".

This literary irony works perfectly in all the gospels where Jesus is not really of Josephine origin: in Marcion and in Mark.

Thoughts? (Thanks)

[Giuseppe]

I would say that even Mark denies he is the Davidic messiah. Why do they think Mark affirms that he is?

in the link I have referred in the first post of this thread, the review lists some items supporting identity with the davidic messiah (for example, the davidic Psalm 22 being used to build the Passion story).

[Stuart]

Joseph's father is Jacob/Israel and mother is Rachel. Joseph has two sons. The second son in Benjamin, the tribe claimed by Paul (not Judah/Jewish, but Samaritan/Israel).

Remember, the gospel of John has been altered by a Catholic layer.

But yes, there was an early schism, prior even to evangelism over the exegesis of the scriptures (in Greek) concerning origins.It's easy to explain the division if you place the Marcionites farther down the development path than at the point of the first schism.

Giuseppe, I know this is hard for you to accept or even contemplate, because you hold fast to Marcionite priority and perhaps even founding of Christianity. But in my view they were one of several sects present at the very beginning of the eruption of the new religion upon the general public. The Marcionites popularized the NT and Paul, but the diversity contained within, including anti-Marcionite elements, makes clear they were not the founding sect.

[Secret Alias]

Marcion was first because Paul was seminal. End of story. σπερματικός to use the Greek. He literally created Christianity. He did not "observe" Christianity. He did not change Christianity. He ejaculated the seed of the pre-existent god Man into the womb of the world and thereby created what was later called (perhaps by others) "Christianity."

[Giuseppe]

But in my view they were one of several sects present at the very beginning of the eruption of the new religion upon the general public. The Marcionites popularized the NT and Paul, but the diversity contained within, including anti-Marcionite elements, makes clear they were not the founding sect.

I am going to give up to both Marcionite priority and Markan priority.

So you think that, before Marcion entered on the stage, there were Christians who claimed Jesus was son of Joseph and other Christians who claimed that Jesus was son of David.

We have evidence of davidic Jesus parties in Mark. But can you show evidence of josephine Jesus parties? In which gospel, precisely?

The expression 'son of Joseph' is used polemically, in questions as 'Isn't he the son of Joseph?', ''Do we not rightly say that You are a Samaritan, and You have a demon?'. The original readers knew that Jesus was not really Son of Joseph. The Josephine origin is an anti-Christian accusation by Jews.

Do you think really that there were Christians who adored not a davidic Jesus, but a Samaritan Jesus? Since a Jesus Son of Joseph is ipso facto a Samaritan Jesus.

My mythicist 'problem' with the presence of Christians who adored a Samaritan Jesus is that we have historical evidence of the Samaritan false prophet slain by Pilate: if there were Christians who adored a Samaritan Jesus then the historical Jesus existed and was mentioned even by Josephus.

So my question: are you sure that the accusation of Samaritan/Josephine origin was not used as an insult by Jews, but reflected polemically rival Christian beliefs ?

[Stuart]

Marcion was first because Paul was seminal. End of story. σπερματικός to use the Greek. He literally created Christianity. He did not "observe" Christianity. He did not change Christianity. He ejaculated the seed of the pre-existent god Man into the womb of the world and thereby created what was later called (perhaps by others) "Christianity."

You are assuming that first layers of Paul = Marcion (Mark). Or that Marcion/Mark is the writer of Paul.

But that is not the case. The Marcionite version of Paul is already very diverse in theology and writing styles. There are many inputs and many theologies present in the works. I think it's more reasonable to look at Paul --at least written Paul-- as a legendary founder, much like Peter and John, just that more material stuck to his name because the Marcionites were the first to really popularize using the writings and gospel as evangelical tools.

I think you are focused on the single point of origin, single founder concept, rather than a movement that developed within a community. Diversity in the very earliest writings strongly suggest the latter, not the former. The heavy emphasis on local politics also suggests an existent community from the get go.

That's the basic outline of why I would reject your assertion.

[schillingklaus]

Both Mk and Mc are late derivatives of lost source gospels, as denied by apologists like Goodacre.