Why was Jesus rejected in his hometown?

[Kunigunde Kreuzerin]

Because the Marcionite tradition not only had the original gospel but the original gospel paradigm. They knew that the man who wrote the Pauline letters wrote the 'constitution of Christianity' - the gospel - the very voice of God visiting humanity in a particular year of the first century. These two texts, the gospel and apostle left no room for any other interpretation of this religion other its secretive claims (which were revealed only to those who underwent an arduous initiation period).

So the Marcionite Church was broken. It retreated from the Roman Empire and fled eastward to Armenia, Osroene and other locales. This began at around the same time as the end of the last great Jewish revolt. Perhaps the exodus happened quickly or much slower lasting into the reign of Commodus. We simply don't know. But a new tradition took over.

And what did this 'Catholic' tradition do? It created a counter canon which as its first great act diluted the authority of the apostle. Now there was a 'congress of apostles' - like Patriarchs in the Greek Orthodox Church. The secret doctrine disappeared and all the riddles scattered by Jesus throughout the gospel were left abandoned with no oral tradition to explain them any longer. Instead of the Pauline letters explaining the one gospel we had four gospels whose sole purpose was to obscure the meaning of the text, to provide as many ways possible to confuse and deny any authoritative interpretation of the material. All meaning in Christianity was permanently obscured never to return with individuals like us wrestling with incomprehensible texts and muted traditions.

Stephan, I do not know much about Marcion as a writer, but I know that he did not like many things: allusions, parables, metaphors, complex literary forms

He liked a clear, literal, straightforward meaningfulness. Marcion lacked any genius to write the grand narrative. Week after week, we discuss Mark's riddles. Have we ever discussed anything of Marcion's version? Is there anything great, interesting, exciting, enigmatic?

Tomorrow you will claim that Goethe's works are only revisions of Eckermann's writings.

[Ulan]

Stephan, I do not know much about Marcion as a writer, but I know that he did not like many things: allusions, parables, metaphors, complex literary forms

He liked a clear, literal, straightforward meaningfulness. Marcion lacked any genius to write the grand narrative. Week after week, we discuss Mark's riddles. Have we ever discussed anything of Marcion's version? Is there anything great, interesting, exciting, enigmatic?

To make such a statement, you have to assume that Irenaeus' statments about Marcion are 100% true. Inconsistencies in the texts by Justin and Irenaeus make this doubtful. Ephrem's witness to what Marcion actually wrote also paints a different image. Then there is the tidbit that "Kata Markon" would be written slightly different in the regional dialect of where Markion allegedly came from (Pontus) before he went to Rome: "Kata Markion".

That all doesn't prove anything, but I don't think that believing everything about Marcion that passed to us through the church fathers is a prudent approach. Of course, you can do that, but you have to be aware of the fact that this is exactly what you do.

Of course, when you believe all that characterization, you are right: the Marcion as painted in the writings of the church fathers looks like someone without a sliver of humor.

I don't write this to convince you of anything (my opinion on this isn't clear either), I just try to let you know from which point of view Stephan comes, and in that case, your objection doesn't really account to much.

[Kunigunde Kreuzerin]

To make such a statement, you have to assume that Irenaeus' statments about Marcion are 100% true. Inconsistencies in the texts by Justin and Irenaeus make this doubtful. Ephrem's witness to what Marcion actually wrote also paints a different image. Then there is the tidbit that "Kata Markon" would be written slightly different in the regional dialect of where Markion allegedly came from (Pontus) before he went to Rome: "Kata Markion".

That all doesn't prove anything, but I don't think that believing everything about Marcion that passed to us through the church fathers is a prudent approach. Of course, you can do that, but you have to be aware of the fact that this is exactly what you do.

Of course, when you believe all that characterization, you are right: the Marcion as painted in the writings of the church fathers looks like someone without a sliver of humor.

You're absolutely right. But then everything else is pure speculation.

I don't write this to convince you of anything (my opinion on this isn't clear either), I just try to let you know from which point of view Stephan comes, and in that case, your objection doesn't really account to much.

Yes, I know

[Secret Alias]

And just for the record, it isn't just 'Marcion' standing on his own, there is a consistent historical debate between Marcion and another 'super gospel' tradition (epitomized by Justin and Ephrem) which counters the argument that Marcion 'invented' his supposedly 'unique' assumptions. In this rival super gospel Jesus flies at the very beginning of the gospel. In Jacob of Serugh we see that details from John and the synoptics are blended so that Jesus heals the paralytic by the pool of Siloam in a new narrative. It isn't 'speculation' about Marcion that is at issue here but our confidence that the study of the synoptics actually leads anywhere. This is the issue which is at the heart of my polemic. You can study the differences in the synoptics but these are artificial texts. I am not asking you to join me in 'speculation' but rather acknowledge that your 'serious' study of these documents is doomed to go nowhere because they were fabricated long after the two rival 'super gospels' had dominated the Christian literary landscape. This is assertion is not speculation. It is proved by the reliance on the oldest 'real' Church Father - Justin Martyr - and his being a source to an anti-Marcionite critique based on the rival 'super gospel' which was clearly altered to a 'Luke-based' critique once Luke had finally been invented (c. 170 - 180 CE?), long after Justin Martyr.

[Giuseppe]

He liked a clear, literal, straightforward meaningfulness. Marcion lacked any genius to write the grand narrative. Week after week, we discuss Mark's riddles. Have we ever discussed anything of Marcion's version? Is there anything great, interesting, exciting, enigmatic?

I agree.
With Marcion's Gospel, the problem is this: can we claim that an episode x is allegorical, simbolic of y with the same certainty we claim that in Mark x is allegorical of y ?

This is the problem not only with Marcion, but will all the heretical tradition (when assumed to come back to the Origins of Christianity).

I may imagine prof Robert Price would criticize Secret Alias on this point just as he did criticize Freke & Gandhy when he wrote:

Let me not be misunderstood, though: I do think that Gnostic sects predated Christianity and that Catholic-Orthodox Christianity is a secondary form of the faith, combining elements from Gnosticism, Mystery Religions, and hero-cultism. But I cannot help suspecting that what the authors are doing is closer to Carl Jung and Hans Jonas than what the ancient Gnostics were doing. I think Freke and Gandy are skipping a step: they are demythologizing and psychologizing Gnostic mythology and then attributing the result to the ancients themselves. It is a slippery business, and they may be right. But there is reason to doubt it. Put it this way: as Paul Veyne once asked whether the ancient Greeks believed their myths, I ask whether the Gnostics believed in their myths of the Demiurge, Sophia, the Primal Man, the Aions, the archons, etc. I suspect that they did. What was the supposed esoteric truth of which the Gnostics boasted? Was it a psychologization such as this book expounds? If it was, my guess is that they would simply have interpreted our familiar gospels and epistles in an allegorical way (and of course that was going on, too). Whence all the super-extravagant mythology of multiple redeemers and cosmogonies? I picture the ancient Gnostics as no less superstitious than their Catholic cousins, just addicted to more elaborate theosophical fantasies analogous to those of Madame Blavatsky. Their gnosis, I imagine, was privileged possession of sophistical speculations of which outsiders were impatient and deemed unworthy. I imagine that their knowledge was like that of New Age believers today: just more elaborate and syncretic versions of what most people believed. Yes, Plotinus counted some Gnostics among his students, but I suspect that even this implies these few were looking for a more sophisticated, more genuinely philosophical, mysticism than Gnosticism offered them.

http://www.robertmprice.mindvendor.com/ ... oddess.htm
(my bold)

Just, replace ''Freke & Gandy'' with ''Secret Alias'' and replace ''gnosticism'' with ''marcionitism'' and you will have a strong criticism of the latter (as of the former).

In short, if we have a portrait of Marcionites as of dogmatic believers - who are totally unable of allegorizing à la Mark -, why should we respect them more than the equally dogmatic proto-Catholics ?

Stupid hoi polloi the former, stupid hoi polloi the latter.

[Ben C. Smith]

What I wished to say is that we can trust Matthew that there is an inner logic in Mark’s text although we do not fully understand this logic. The reason for this is that Matthew did not correct Mark in this regard. The text of Matthew makes no more sense than the text of Mark.

I have to admit, I am not sure what to do with the advice: "Trust Matthew." I am not very accustomed to trusting Matthew, at least not blindly.

I think Matthew may have simply been happy to see that Palestinians were rejecting Jesus in his hometown (as they rejected the prophets and so forth) and thus copied the pericope over into his gospel without much thought as to how much sense it made or did not make. If Joe is correct in thinking that getting the rejection into the story was the main thing for Mark, it may well have been the main thing for Matthew, too, even if the supporting details may suffer a bit.

Ben.

[JoeWallack]

I present this as a theory. Suppose "Mark" (author) starts with a theme/conclusion that every natural supposed group in Jesus' supposed setting had a negative reaction to something "Mark" thinks was important about Jesus:

Group Identification	Expectation regarding Jesus (one of their own)	Opposite result	Artistic touch of irony
Disciples	Followers of Jesus	Abandon Jesus	The followers of Jesus run away from him to "save" themselves.
Jewish religious leaders	Identify and promote the Messiah to save the Jews	Identify and convict the Messiah which convicts the Jews	Jewish religious leaders make fun of Jesus not being able to prophesy exactly as his prophecy of Peter's denial is happening right under their long noses
Jesus' family	Unconditional support	Unconditional opposition	They don't want Jesus seen or heard. Who is his real family?
Jesus' hometown	Proud of one of their own	Embarrassed by one of their own	Questioning the work of the carpenter's hands

If you accept that "Mark" starts with a theme here (the why) than the how is secondary.

Thanks for the chart, Joe. You seem to have them stored away in your pocket, ready to flourish at a moment's notice.

All right, so I can agree with the general premise; and I have said before that nobody does abandonment and rejection like Mark.

Here are the main questions that spring to mind when I read this pericope:

1. Why do the townspeople reject Jesus when the pericope specifies no reason?
2. Why are they said not to believe, even though they know Jesus can do miracles?
3. Why does Jesus do a few miracles anyway, despite this disbelief? (In other words, if the point is rejection, why not have Jesus shake the dust off his feet and do no miracles there at all?)

Your observations go a long way toward answering #1: Mark simply needed to work in the rejection theme, and how he got there is of lesser importance than than getting there.

JW:
You have learned much young VerseHopper. Aristotle explained that in Greek Tragedy the narrative should be plausible so that the audience thinks it's possible. Thinking that it's possible helps the audience identify with the narrative. It does not have to be proven, probable or likely. In order to be plausible the author should give a reason:

Mark 6

3 Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, and brother of James, and Joses, and Judas, and Simon? and are not his sisters here with us? And they were offended in him.

As a few have already indicated here, I think "Mark" (author) meets the minimum requirement of a plausible reason here for the negative reaction of the homers. These are people who supposedly knew Jesus for most of his supposed life and their observation was that he was just like them. Now all of a sudden, without any known reason, he is famous and showing off his powers among them. Their reaction (jealousy/resentment) is different than outsiders who never previously knew Jesus. Course we're talking about a guy who suddenly can do the impossible but accepting that for purposes of the narrative logic, I think "Mark's" implied reasons here are plausible.

I think some of your disappointment here may be due to "Mark's" specific choice of the reaction word:

ἐσκανδαλίζοντο

but this isn't just any word, is it. As Hobbs said in the classic Arthur, "Mark" "has a wonderful economy of language". "Mark" uses this word jewdiciously to paint supposed opposition and you are starting to appreciate this style of GMark. I think "Mark" has sacrificed a longer/clearer explanation to your satisfaction of why the people here are offended, instead going with the minimum plausible explanation implied by the setting. His key word than stands out more, cleverly including a range of meaning of "offended" but having a more common meaning in general and especially in GMark of failure in a religious context.

As a side observation, looking at "Mark's" use of the offending word:

Mark 9

43 And if thy hand cause thee to stumble, cut it off: it is good for thee to enter into life maimed, rather than having thy two hands to go into hell, into the unquenchable fire.

σκανδαλίζῃ*

This rather supports my argument regarding 14:28 Mark 14:28, The Argument For Addition that it is an addition as "Mark" uses the offending word twice, before and after 14:28, for the Disciples and Peter. Strange/bizarre/macabre that after "Mark's" Jesus explains via formula in a religious leader context that the cure for manifestation of this key word is to cut off at the source, in between he would describe the not cutting off of Peter and the disciples.


Joseph

The New Porphyry

[Secret Alias]

why should we respect them [Marcionites] more than the equally dogmatic proto-Catholics ?

But this is the problem with you Giuseppe. You make everything about you, who you like, what you like, favoring your own. It's not about whether I or anyone else 'likes' a tradition but the fact that the evidence points to Marcionism being the earliest tradition. If you value antiquity and originality, there is only one place to focus all your energy. If you like yourself and want to validate your taste and preferences you should continue to operate as you do, continue hating the Catholics and getting revenge on them by clouding up an internet discussion forum with broken English posts that no one understands.

[Ben C. Smith]

As a few have already indicated here, I think "Mark" (author) meets the minimum requirement of a plausible reason here for the negative reaction of the homers. These are people who supposedly knew Jesus for most of his supposed life and their observation was that he was just like them. Now all of a sudden, without any known reason, he is famous and showing off his powers among them. Their reaction (jealousy/resentment) is different than outsiders who never previously knew Jesus. Course we're talking about a guy who suddenly can do the impossible but accepting that for purposes of the narrative logic, I think "Mark's" implied reasons here are plausible.

Good points, Joe, and I think that — taking into account what you, Kunigunde, Andrew, and others have said — the specific grounds for for the townspeople being scandalized are sufficiently understood in Mark. (Kunigunde, that must mean I trust you more than I trust Matthew!) Mark does not have to spell it out as clearly as I was wanting him to do, and I concede this point fully.

However, I still definitely think there is something to the issue of belief/faith that I brought up. Belief here does not look like belief elsewhere in Mark, and it still looks to me as if some patchwork has been done on that score.

Ben.

[Secret Alias]

It is always dangerous for people to have carried out a lot of work in an enterprise. It clouds your ability to evaluate other arguments objectively. That's why religions force people to attend the most boring services possible. They know that investing time and energy in something necessarily makes you biased in favor of that enterprise. Even prisoners grow attached to their guards. So too with respect to efforts of those to study the Bible. That you have spent time seeing canonical Mark as the first gospel makes it difficult to see arguments which make it evident that something lays behind Mark. Compliments to Ben for staying objective in this forum in spite of him having carried out a lot of work.