Biblical Criticism & History Forum - earlywritings.com

I was meditating on the Vinzent's argument to prove that Mark was derived from Marcion (Mark would contain episodes dear to Marcion that the latter's Gospel did not have).

About the Episode of the Independent Exorcist (personally I like a lot it!), I was wondering why Marcion would have removed it, assuming the traditional model (Mark ---> Mcn).

38 “Teacher,” said John, “we saw someone driving out demons in your name and we told him to stop, because he was not one of us.”
39 “Do not stop him,” Jesus said. “For no one who does a miracle in my name can in the next moment say anything bad about me, 40 for whoever is not against us is for us. 41 Truly I tell you, anyone who gives you a cup of water in my name because you belong to the Messiah will certainly not lose their reward.

(Mark 9:38-41)

What I see is that the episode is implicitly anti-pauline, and not philo-pauline as generally considered.

The answer of Jesus to John seems to predict that only at the present time the Independent Exorcist is doing good things in the name of Jesus: really, in a next moment he will say something bad about Jesus.

In Mark 13:6 Jesus predicts the arrival of Christ-emulators who are very similar in behavior to the Independent Exorcist:

Many will come in my name, claiming, ‘I am he,’ and will deceive many.

Therefore Jesus says ''dont' stop him'' meaning only at the present time. In the future the Independent Exorcist will cease to be a positive figure, to become rather an impostor, or worse, a ''Jesuophobe'' (a despiser of the body of Jesus, i.e. a docetic Christian).

The function of ''stopping'' the Independent Exorcist is very surprisingly similar to the enigmatic figure of the kathecon, who stops the Anti-Christ.

2 Thessalonians 2:6-7

6 And now you know what is holding him back, so that he may be revealed at the proper time. 7 For the secret power of lawlessness is already at work; but the one who now holds it back will continue to do so till he is taken out of the way.

So the Jesus of Mark is predicting that the Independent Exorcist will become a day his enemy, and an enemy of the his disciples (so also of John son of Zebedee).

Now, the problem is that
1) if the Independent Exorcist is Paul or a pauline figure, and
2) if Marcion is known to brandish Paul as the only True Apostle

...then the reason for Marcion to remove the episode of the Independent Exorcist from the his Gospel coincides with the same reason why Mark would have to insert it in the his Gospel: to attack the Independence of Marcion's Paul from the Catholic Church.

So it is more probable that Mark inserted the episode of the Independent Exorcist in reaction to Marcion's Paul than not the contrary (that Marcion removed the episode of the Independent Exorcist because he realized his anti-pauline and anti-gnostic nature).

Is the general theme of Mark (and presumably also in any gospel of Marcion's, if one ever existed) one wherein Jesus is attempting to proclaim that he is the son of a previously unknown god, and not the Messiah (Christ) of the demiurge?

Giuseppe

What I see is that the episode is implicitly anti-pauline, and not philo-pauline as generally considered.

I don't think it has anything to do with Paul, who never explicitly discusses exorcism in what reaches us.

I like the incident, too. Mark's theory of magic does not imply that Jesus had unique powerz. God is intervening in history again, and will help whoever believes that he will.

As to Marcion's motive for removing it, assuming Mark was available to him and that he did remove it, the incident has Jesus approving of Jesus-branded religious activity outside the supervision of such official apparatus as existed at the time. Marcion's church retained a command and control structure similar to that o the proto-orthodox institution which opposed it.

That is, both sides agree that a hierarchical structure is desirable. Also of some relevance to this text, position within the hierarchy isn't based on magical achievement.

Jesus says let people work magic outside of the institution's supervision? He's retired, we do things differently now. If Jesus has a problem with that, then he can come back and fix it. So say both sides in the struggle. It's a miracle that the line was allowed to remain intact in canonical Mark.

lsayre wrote: ↑Fri Oct 06, 2017 12:59 am Is the general theme of Mark (and presumably also in any gospel of Marcion's, if one ever existed) one wherein Jesus is attempting to proclaim that he is the son of a previously unknown god, and not the Messiah (Christ) of the demiurge?

My ''hidden agenda'' would be that, but I am aware that Vinzent is right in saying that Mark is devoted to the god of the Jews, therefore in my view to say that proto-Mark is the Earliest Gospel would be equivalent to recognize that Jesus was euhemerized just after the 70 on the gentile irony of a people so "pious" who crucifies his own god, attracting a "meritorious" divine Revenge (as explained so well by Secret Alias).

Therefore my preferred argument of discussion in this moment (and it will be so for a lot of time ) is to examine precisely the relation between proto-Mark and Mcn: who comes before and why?

Obviously (as the reader can note from my previous posts) my desire would be that Mcn comes before. But I want to be persuaded by true arguments.

Paul the Uncertain wrote: ↑Fri Oct 06, 2017 1:07 am
As to Marcion's motive for removing it, assuming Mark was available to him and that he did remove it, the incident has Jesus approving of Jesus-branded religious activity outside the supervision of such official apparatus as existed at the time. Marcion's church retained a command and control structure similar to that o the proto-orthodox institution which opposed it.

I agree that Marcion was ''proto-catholic'' insofar also ''Marcion's church retained a command and control structure similar to that o the proto-orthodox institution which opposed it'', since Marcion was the first to start that ambitious process.
But for the same reason I am inclined to suspect that Marcion may be the first to fabricate a Gospel Jesus to cement his young organized-Church - and justify the public separation from Judaism. I assume that Marcion addressed his Gospel to Christians who were already Gnostics (=haters of the Creator God) and rather anarchist, ie without any centralized guidance before Marcion ( apart the reverence for Paul, who united all them even before Marcion). In this I follow simply what is already been said by Gordon Rylands, Georges Ory and Robert Price.

That is, both sides agree that a hierarchical structure is desirable. Also of some relevance to this text, position within the hierarchy isn't based on magical achievement.

Jesus says let people work magic outside of the institution's supervision? He's retired, we do things differently now. If Jesus has a problem with that, then he can come back and fix it. So say both sides in the struggle. It's a miracle that the line was allowed to remain intact in canonical Mark.

The point (obviously, in my view) is that also for the episode in Mark a hierarchical structure is desirable in the eyes of Jesus:

for whoever is not against us is for us. 41 Truly I tell you, anyone who gives you a cup of water in my name because you belong to the Messiah will certainly not lose their reward.

The ''you'' here are the Pillars (in the person of Jon son of Zebedee), the centralized figure par-excellence.

Giuseppe

I agree that Marcion seems to be an "early adopter" of the technique of a "do it yourself" scripture. Plus, maybe he was early to recognize just how much Paul's influence increased by having put things in writing (it is entirely possible that Paul himself hadn't realized that, or hadn't expected that there'd be anybody to influence long-term).

I also agree that a proto-Gnostic constituency probably already existed, which Marcion offered to serve with a better organized institution than (say) the Simonians seem to have managed. MacDonald's didn't invent hamburgers, either, but innovated in how to organize the delivery of them to consumers, using available technology.

I am less confident that John son of Zebedee, if he was a historical figure, was an "organization man." In any case, we seem to agree that the "you" are plural. The context is a discussion Jesus convened for him to correct the twelve's flirtation with hierachy (who among them is the greatest, 9:34ff). The altogether outsider exorcist who nevertheless advances the cause is unhierarchy personified.

Paul the Uncertain wrote: ↑Fri Oct 06, 2017 2:11 am .

I am less confident that John son of Zebedee, if he was a historical figure, was an "organization man."

What matters is that in Mark the three Pillars represent an already existing hierarchy in search of more authority among the gentile Christians. And Mark was going to concede them this desired authority, under the condition of more compromise (by them) with the needs of pauline Christians (who were adorers of Yhwh).

In any case, we seem to agree that the "you" are plural. The context is a discussion Jesus convened for him to correct the twelve's flirtation with hierachy (who among them is the greatest, 9:34ff). The altogether outsider exorcist who nevertheless advances the cause is unhierarchy personified.

While I agree that the Independent Exorcist represents only himself (anti-hierarchy) I am not so sure like you that the conclusion of the episode is a correction of the Pillars's inclination to exclusivism. Rather the contrary. Jesus legitimizes the "independent" outsiders insofar they work "for" the Pillars and towards their same goal. The scene is all the contrary of a recognition of independence of other Christians.
It is like the question of the tribute to Caesar. If Caesar is submitted to God, then even the tribute to Caesar becomes a tribute to God (hence not an anachronistic separation between State and Church). At the same way, here Jesus is saying: until the Independent Exorcist works "for you Pillars", don't stop him, but just he doesn't so more (but becomes an impostor as per Mark 13:6), kill him without hesitation.

What do you mean by " the Independent Exorcist" ?

iskander wrote: ↑Fri Oct 06, 2017 4:57 am What do you mean by " the Independent Exorcist" ?

This episode.

Giuseppe wrote: ↑Fri Oct 06, 2017 5:18 am

iskander wrote: ↑Fri Oct 06, 2017 4:57 am What do you mean by " the Independent Exorcist" ?

This episode.

What is "the Independent Exorcist" for you ?