Biblical Criticism & History Forum - earlywritings.com

Stephan Huller wrote:Of course it is relevant. Beyond the question of whether the Marcionites were first (that has I think been tentatively settled affirmatively with recent scholarship) the question of how Mark could have written a holy book about a law breaker without providing any inkling about his background is particularly unusual. How can a man break the Law 40 - 50 years before the end of Judaism? What is the logic here? What is the meaning? What is the message?

The narrative was written after the fall of the temple.

It would be appropriate to elaborate on why & how you conclude the Marcionites were the first.

Stephan Huller wrote:Mark knew Jesus was a god. He was the same god who gave the Law, that is he could transgress the statutes. No one else had this authority. Again Mark's failure to provide any background for Jesus disqualifies the text as a biography. So what is it then? What is the literary genre of the gospel?

Mark thought Jesus was god; the Mark-writers were elaborating on an idea ...

It's the suddenness of the introduction. It lacks context to explain who he is and why he has authority

It may not have been sudden; the impression it was sudden may as well simply reflect the writers' focus

I don't need childhood reminiscences. It's the suddenness of the introduction. It lacks context to explain who he is and why he has authority (which would be expected)

He has authority because the spirit entered him at his baptism... why do you feel Mark needs to explain more?

This to me is as irrelevant as suggesting a supposed "suddenness" of the appearance of Paul in Acts as evidence for a mythical Paul.

Where is Jesus's authority explained?

Theological authority was rife.

^It is explained by the spirit entering him at his baptism, God declaring him his son, and then him passing Satan's temptations in the wilderness 1:9-14. There are three "background reasons" that Mark gives to explain why he has authority. Why do you need more?

I was referring to wider authority -authority attributed to actual real ruler-authorities. eg. Herod, Vespasian, etc

^Yeah, sorry, my last comment was to Stephan

But the adoptionist interpretation (the baptism scene wasn't in the Marcionite original) is just another mythical variant. The Holy Spirit coming down in the form of the dove is no more historical than the Marcionite gospel having Jesus the angel come directly from heaven to Capernaum. The bottom line is that Jesus's authority is supernatural and mythical and it is difficult to connect all the dots within a historical context. It would go something like this ...

Jesus a madman, flagrantly broke the law knowing that the temple would be destroyed half a century later. In anticipation of this event he performed magic tricks gathering a small following. After 70 CE the gospel was finally written. But long before that Paul had already transformed this crazy law breaking magician into a god.

But why is all this convoluted development necessary? why is it likely that the Jewish world was won over by this crazy law breaking sorcerer in the first place? what about a 70 CE text makes this the necessary first step to the process.

Since the gospel is built around the question of Jesus's authority it is hard to argue against the idea that it wasn't always the central "mechanism" at the heart of the literary narrative. He was crucified because the Jews didn't recognize his authority, didn't recognize him as God. He doesn't need to be human. The only indispensable part of the narrative was the Marcionite part ie that he was in some way god or an angel. There were some who said he was an angel who dropped from the sky, others a dove that descended on to a man, others that God's spirit impregnated a virgin. You can make up any formulation. The only one which strictly can't work and is a non-starter is the purely historical human one. This is absolutely incompatible with the literary structure of the gospel and the gospel is our only real source for Jesus.

The human part of Jesus is similar to the question of whether he was clean shaven or bearded, blond or brunette. It is an interesting but ultimately unnecessary distraction from the reason why Mark is telling us his story

Stephan Huller wrote: But why is all this convoluted development necessary? why is it likely that the Jewish world was won over by this crazy law breaking sorcerer in the first place? what about a 70 CE text makes this the necessary first step to the process.

who said the Jewish world was won over by this?

It [Christianity] became universal with Constantine, whose Council of Nicea spent a considerable time discussing the merits of Christianity versus Arianism, with the help of Eusebius; who probably did much of the final collation & redaction of the christian narrative.

add: the convoluted development wasn't "necessary" - it just was; over 2-3 centuries, by ppl likely 'elevated' in stature by their roles in its development.