Discrediting Your Source. GJohn as Denial of GMark

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
Kunigunde Kreuzerin
Posts: 2110
Joined: Sat Nov 16, 2013 2:19 pm
Location: Leipzig, Germany
Contact:

Re: Discrediting Your Source. GJohn as Denial of GMark

Post by Kunigunde Kreuzerin »

Stuart wrote: Mon May 21, 2018 1:38 pmJoe,

Could not everything you say about John against Mark also apply to Matthew?

I say this because there are additional specific points of refutation in John against with Matthew not present in Mark (e.g., protoevangelium). John would not need Mark if he was refuting Matthew.
...
From my vantage, John needs only to know two of the Synoptic Gospels to explain his content, the Marcionite (which he half agrees with, but disagrees with much also) and Matthew (which he opposes cover to cover). Mark is unnecessary to explain John's content.
Your view seems to be based on the idea that theological refutation or theological agreement are the essential kinds of relationship between John and the synoptic Gospels. I tend to think that inspiration to storytelling also played a major role. I agree that they all were theologians, but were they not also storytellers?

My impression is that from the texts we can see that Mark (and not Matthew) inspired John. The anointing of Bethany may be one of John's stories that is in some points closely related to Mark and Matthew. But John's text agrees with Mark against Matthew (and also against Luke/Marcion) on the following occasions

- that it was an ointment of pure nard
- that the ointment could have been sold for (more than) three hundred denarii
- that Jesus said to the opponents/opponent: "Leave her alone"

I think that's the usual situation. John told often different stories, but with some borrowed words, phrases, themes and/or ideas from Mark.

(btw Secret Mark is one of the few points where Joe and I disagree)
Stuart
Posts: 878
Joined: Mon Apr 14, 2014 12:24 am
Location: Sunnyvale, CA

Re: Discrediting Your Source. GJohn as Denial of GMark

Post by Stuart »

Kunigunde Kreuzerin wrote: Tue May 22, 2018 11:50 pm
Stuart wrote: Mon May 21, 2018 1:38 pmJoe,

Could not everything you say about John against Mark also apply to Matthew?

I say this because there are additional specific points of refutation in John against with Matthew not present in Mark (e.g., protoevangelium). John would not need Mark if he was refuting Matthew.
...
From my vantage, John needs only to know two of the Synoptic Gospels to explain his content, the Marcionite (which he half agrees with, but disagrees with much also) and Matthew (which he opposes cover to cover). Mark is unnecessary to explain John's content.
Your view seems to be based on the idea that theological refutation or theological agreement are the essential kinds of relationship between John and the synoptic Gospels. I tend to think that inspiration to storytelling also played a major role. I agree that they all were theologians, but were they not also storytellers?

My impression is that from the texts we can see that Mark (and not Matthew) inspired John. The anointing of Bethany may be one of John's stories that is in some points closely related to Mark and Matthew. But John's text agrees with Mark against Matthew (and also against Luke/Marcion) on the following occasions

- that it was an ointment of pure nard
- that the ointment could have been sold for (more than) three hundred denarii
- that Jesus said to the opponents/opponent: "Leave her alone"

I think that's the usual situation. John told often different stories, but with some borrowed words, phrases, themes and/or ideas from Mark.

(btw Secret Mark is one of the few points where Joe and I disagree)
You are only half correct in my view here.

I believe the reason we have multiple Gospels, and multiple explanatory letters also, is because there was intense sectarian competition at the time the texts were written. Were Christianity a unified system the New Testament might well have looked more like the Quran, with little retelling of the same stories, and little conflict in the theology presented. I also believe the Gospel would have been singular and it would have developed slowly in an accretion process more like say the book of Isaiah.

But we have many, and the theologies differ greatly in all four. There is clear evidence each is trying to correct other known presentations, and other competing theologies. In this respect the opposition can be used to determine an order, albeit complex, of composition. So to this point you are correct.

As for story presentation, I actually agree to a large extent in your view. Part of the corrective is also a positive message of each sect's writer, wanting to show inspiration and to present things important and new. In the Gospel of John the wedding at Cana can perhaps be seen as taking the Synoptic wine-skin and bride groom sayings (Luke 5:34-38/Mark 2:19-22/Matthew 9:15-17) -which sequentially align in the same spot- and turning it into a story, where the wedding becomes the setting for the wine tale. He does something similar with a retelling of the Lazarus and the Rich man story (Marcion then Luke) with his resurrection of Lazarus, again tying the story which was before a saying to a tale involving the characters alive in his gospel. He brings immediacy to what was saying.

Now there is in all the sayings and stories very specific and deliberate sectarian theological emphasis. There are also shifts in roles of characters. The Martha and Mary switch in John can only relate to Matthew's telling for example (one of the many cases of John countering a sectarian position of Matthew with an opposing one of his own). Now I find many more examples in John that theologically oppose Matthew than oppose Mark, and they are very specific refutations.

Now my view differs from yours on the composition of Mark in that I do not think it was wholly his own creation. In fact I think NONE of the Gospels are an original creation (John comes closest because he set his sources down when writing, but had them at hand), they all had sources. But I agree with you Mark and the others composed their own stories weaving in the source as opposed to rote copying. Now I do not believe John had Mark before him when composing, but I think he did have a version of either the source (more likely) or of Matthew (possible, but more complicated explanation) that agreed more with Mark.

First and foremost the Gospels were sectarian. One sect had a successful Gospel for evangelism. This forced the competing sects to use a Gospel as well. If a sect found the existing Gospel(s) reasonably close to their theology that they could use them, then they did not need to create a new one. But if the view presented was fundamentally hostile or incompatible to their own they had to compose a version more acceptable to them and which they could use. The result was a rapid growth in Christianity, as sects were desperately competing for new converts among the peoples of the Roman Empire. (In my view this is when Christianity shifted from being a cloister movement of small monkish communities to a wide ranging church dominated by ordinary believers, very much more numerous than before and this resulted in a dramatic changing the nature of the church itself.) From this concept I derive the following order:

1. prototype(s) used for something other than Evangelism, which was found useful enough to survive and accumulate sayings and short stories
- the Didache hints at such a sayings form
2. Marcionite Gospel was the first successful one for evangelism, used by them and likely some Gnostic type sects as well
3. Matthew's sect theology was completely incompatible with Marcionite and found his Gospel problematic so wrote a different one
4. John's sect theology was completely incompatible with Matthew's and differed also from the Marcionite, so they wrote a Gospel
5. Luke was composed to replace the Marcionite version, harmonize with the others, lifted elements from Mark (e.g., Wicked Tenants) and Matthew

Mark's composition was different than Luke's in response to the Marcionite and Matthew Gospels.If Luke's method was to include every sectarian source he could get his hands on, Mark decided to start again without the sectarian additions. He rewrote the source prototypes without adding any sectarian stories or expansions. But he did fill in background information, like names and places, and make corrections of his own. His theology is more difficult to tease out, and he did not play the theological correction game. Where he fits in the timeline is very difficult to say, except definitely before Luke.

Now this is more overview of order and theology, but not of story telling. My entire focus in the response here is that there are many additional correctives in John that address points in Matthew which are not present in Mark. And those which are present in Mark and mentioned by Joe, are also in Matthew, and in some cases the specificity of John's response and "corrective" (as in my sect's view is right, so let me set the record straight) more closely aligns with the content of Matthew than Mark when both mention the same points.

None of this says a thing about the composition style of mark or his story telling or that of John or Matthew. That to me, is an entirely different aspect of the Gospels, and not one I was addressing here. That does not mean I dismiss it or do not value it. It is an area where I think you are vastly superior in your understanding and I defer. What I know better are the sects which competed and their theological outlines still present in the text.

Again everything above is my view, and a sideshow to the question I pose which is does not Matthew better explain the theological counterpoints of John better and more specifically than Mark?
“’That was excellently observed’, say I, when I read a passage in an author, where his opinion agrees with mine. When we differ, there I pronounce him to be mistaken.” - Jonathan Swift
User avatar
JoeWallack
Posts: 1595
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 8:22 pm
Contact:

Do You Want To Know A Secret?

Post by JoeWallack »

Stuart wrote: Mon May 21, 2018 1:38 pm Joe,

Could not everything you say about John against Mark also apply to Matthew?
JW:
First of all Stuart you ask a lot of questions for someone from New Jersey. Secondly, the post you are referring to mainly deals with a story in Secret Mark and not Secret Matthew. As noted in my post GMatthew has no Bethany story here so there is nothing there that GJohn could be reacting to. While my suggestion that Secret Mark is evidence of original GMark is speculative, I confess that I have not proven it, made it probable or likely, there is some evidence. I have demonstrated literary evidence that GJohn's related story has parallels to Secret Mark's story and looks like a reaction. So it's possible that GJohn is a reaction to an earlier version of the story and right now the only earlier version with any support is GMark/Secret Mark.


Joseph

The New Porphyry
Stuart
Posts: 878
Joined: Mon Apr 14, 2014 12:24 am
Location: Sunnyvale, CA

Re: Do You Want To Know A Secret?

Post by Stuart »

JoeWallack wrote: Wed May 23, 2018 7:44 am First of all Stuart you ask a lot of questions for someone from New Jersey.
Wow that is an old joke. But wrong, I'm a Californian. Although born and raised initially in Ohio.

I once worked with a guy from New Jersey ... what a piece of work he was. :thumbdown: That formed my impression of New Jersey. Well that and a drive up the interstate once from UDel (we were doing the old college tour trip for my son, an east coast swing), which was the ugliest stretch of highway I have ever seen. :arrow: They also have a funny accent there. :cheeky:

Anyway thanks for admitting Secret Mark is speculative. I probably would not have commented at all on Secret Mark had you said that straight up in the intro post.
“’That was excellently observed’, say I, when I read a passage in an author, where his opinion agrees with mine. When we differ, there I pronounce him to be mistaken.” - Jonathan Swift
User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 8994
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: Do You Want To Know A Secret?

Post by Ben C. Smith »

Stuart wrote: Wed May 23, 2018 9:35 amThat formed my impression of New Jersey. Well that and a drive up the interstate once from UDel (we were doing the old college tour trip for my son, an east coast swing), which was the ugliest stretch of highway I have ever seen.
The view from Interstate 95 both in New Jersey and in Delaware is just the worst.
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ
User avatar
JoeWallack
Posts: 1595
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 8:22 pm
Contact:

Lukee! Ya Got Sum Splanin Ta Do!

Post by JoeWallack »

Stuart wrote: Mon May 21, 2018 1:38 pm Joe,

Could not everything you say about John against Mark also apply to Matthew?

I say this because there are additional specific points of refutation in John against with Matthew not present in Mark (e.g., protoevangelium). John would not need Mark if he was refuting Matthew.

I think you put entirely too much weight on Secret Mark (which I am convinced is a fraud) here. And anyway it does not explain why John is so focused on refuting elements in Matthew not found in Mark (Secret or not).

From my vantage, John needs only to know two of the Synoptic Gospels to explain his content, the Marcionite (which he half agrees with, but disagrees with much also) and Matthew (which he opposes cover to cover). Mark is unnecessary to explain John's content.
JW:
In total Christianity shows a progression from a faith (revelation) based claim to a witness (supposed historical) based claim. Since GMark is the first Gospel in absolute terms and GJohn is the last orthodox Gospel, the expectation going into the analysis is already that GJohn will have the biggest thematic reaction to GMark. Looking at specifics, typically authors will give the clearest indication of their desired theme at the end:

Gospel Theme of Historical Witness to Live Jesus Promoting Dead Jesus Verse Commentary
GMark No promotion of dead Jesus by historical witness 16
7 But go, tell his disciples and Peter, He goeth before you into Galilee: there shall ye see him, as he said unto you.
8 And they went out, and fled from the tomb; for trembling and astonishment had come upon them: and they said nothing to any one; for they were afraid.
1. "Mark" (author) ends the Gospel with a statement that the only identified witnesses to the empty tomb did not say anything about the empty tomb to anyone.
2. Mark well that these "witnesses" to not saying anything are identified by name (understand dear Reader?).
3. "Mark", per his style, used the double negative here for emphasis. The translation should be, "They said nothing to anyone!"
4. Following the Greek Tragedy genre, "Mark" provides the reason for not witnessing, they were afraid.
5. Note the subsequent main edit to GMark, the LE which converts the no promotion to yes promotion by supposed historical witness.
GJohn Promotion of dead Jesus by historical witness 21
24 This is the disciple that beareth witness of these things, and wrote these things: and we know that his witness is true.
25 And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself would not contain the books that should be written.
1. "John" (author) ends the Gospel with a statement that a witness within the Gospel said and wrote everything in the Gospel.
2. The witness claim in total is than more developed than the Synoptics as it refers to the Gospel itself. In addition to the implication that the named witnesses in the Gospel promoted dead Jesus an apology is added that a witness in the Gospel lived long enough to witness to the authors of the Gospel. The concept of a chain of supposed historical witness is created. (Not that it is at all needed but good literary evidence that GJohn is later than the Synoptics).
3. I'll be further making the case that "The Beloved Disciple" is GJohn's reaction to The Young Man of GMark/Secret Mark. A young man that Jesus specifically loved during the night really needed to be converted into an orthodox spin of a generally beloved disciple. Hence the specific name is still unknown and unimportant, it's the meaning of "love" that is.
4. Probably at the time GJohn was written, c. 150, there was no LE, hence more orthodox need to react to 16:8.


Joseph

The New Porphyry
Charles Wilson
Posts: 2100
Joined: Thu Apr 03, 2014 8:13 am

Re: Discrediting Your Source. GJohn as Denial of GMark

Post by Charles Wilson »

For those who can take a few hours to read stuff just because, plz re-read viewtopic.php?f=3&t=2207&hilit=grafted+empty+tomb . There may be a good reason to compare Mark and John here. I was not going to Post on this since the following is Empty Tomb material. It appears to have been broken up and the parts were assigned to the Gospels, for some reason in the order we find them.

However, there is an interesting bit of intrigue here. Turton has the Empty Tomb as not decidable as to Chiasms without the addition of a "Markan Verse", something like, "It was the last day of the feast of the unleavened bread and many people were going out, returning to their houses since the festival was over. (Gospel of Peter)" http://www.michaelturton.com/Mark/GMark16.html

So, an implication might be that the Writer of Mark was given his portion of the Empty Tomb Story and wrote the ending with his Chiastic Structure. The "Last Page", after Verse 8 is truncated. Redactions occur AFTER this last page has been lost. Some redactions do not recognize the Chiastic Structure (Herodias, Mark 6). I have Mark being composed after around 110 (Domitian - dba "The Holy Spirit", death and funeral of Verginius Rufus with Guest Appearances of Tacitus and Pliny the Younger, etc.) John appears to be authored around 125-ish. Raskin has John being composed from a Cut and Paste file with John using material that Mark chose not to use.

With all of this in mind, look at the differences in the Empty Tomb, from Mark to John.

Mark 16: 5 - 6 (RSV):

[1] And when the sabbath was past, Mary Mag'dalene, and Mary the mother of James, and Salo'me, bought spices, so that they might go and anoint him.
[2] And very early on the first day of the week they went to the tomb when the sun had risen.
[3] And they were saying to one another, "Who will roll away the stone for us from the door of the tomb?"
[4] And looking up, they saw that the stone was rolled back; -- it was very large.
[5] And entering the tomb, they saw a young man sitting on the right side, dressed in a white robe; and they were amazed.
[6] And he said to them, "Do not be amazed; you seek Jesus of Nazareth, who was crucified. He has risen, he is not here; see the place where they laid him.

John 20: 1 - 7 (RSV):

[1] Now on the first day of the week Mary Mag'dalene came to the tomb early, while it was still dark, and saw that the stone had been taken away from the tomb.
[2] So she ran, and went to Simon Peter and the other disciple, the one whom Jesus loved, and said to them, "They have taken the Lord out of the tomb, and we do not know where they have laid him."
[3] Peter then came out with the other disciple, and they went toward the tomb.
[4] They both ran, but the other disciple outran Peter and reached the tomb first;
[5] and stooping to look in, he saw the linen cloths lying there, but he did not go in.
[6] Then Simon Peter came, following him, and went into the tomb; he saw the linen cloths lying,
[7] and the napkin, which had been on his head, not lying with the linen cloths but rolled up in a place by itself.


Mark's version finds Mary M wondering who will roll the stone away. John has Mary M finding the stone moved. Remember, it is possible to construct a Consistent Story from these pieces. The rising sun is an objective marker as to the proceedings.

Look, however at another difference:

Mark: "...see the place where they laid him..."

John: "...he saw the linen cloths lying, and the napkin, which had been on his head, not lying with the linen cloths but rolled up in a place by itself..."

Is John refuting Mark here or merely correcting him by adding detail left out by Mark? I believe that John is correcting Mark. I further believe that John is telling us an important detail that changes the trajectory of the story:

"...and the napkin, which had been on his head..."

The word here is "soudarion" and it is a Latin word. Why insert that word here?

[Note: I believe that this is a rewrite of "Galba-Otho" (Gabbatha) with Vitellius implied. Galba was beheaded and had his head returned later (Suetonius, 12 Caesars, "Galba").]

Be that as it may, whatever the Religious Wars going on in the Roman Court over this, John is correcting - "adding to" - Mark. We haven't even gotten to the Big One: The Day of Preparation/Passover Problem. THAT'S the big one.

CW
Stuart
Posts: 878
Joined: Mon Apr 14, 2014 12:24 am
Location: Sunnyvale, CA

Re: Lukee! Ya Got Sum Splanin Ta Do!

Post by Stuart »

JoeWallack wrote: Mon May 28, 2018 9:00 am
Stuart wrote: Mon May 21, 2018 1:38 pm Joe,

Could not everything you say about John against Mark also apply to Matthew?

I say this because there are additional specific points of refutation in John against with Matthew not present in Mark (e.g., protoevangelium). John would not need Mark if he was refuting Matthew.

I think you put entirely too much weight on Secret Mark (which I am convinced is a fraud) here. And anyway it does not explain why John is so focused on refuting elements in Matthew not found in Mark (Secret or not).

From my vantage, John needs only to know two of the Synoptic Gospels to explain his content, the Marcionite (which he half agrees with, but disagrees with much also) and Matthew (which he opposes cover to cover). Mark is unnecessary to explain John's content.
JW:
In total Christianity shows a progression from a faith (revelation) based claim to a witness (supposed historical) based claim. Since GMark is the first Gospel in absolute terms and GJohn is the last orthodox Gospel, the expectation going into the analysis is already that GJohn will have the biggest thematic reaction to GMark. Looking at specifics, typically authors will give the clearest indication of their desired theme at the end:

...
We are at a divergent path with the statement I underlined. You are making an order assumption, which I have jettisoned. Instead I am saying let's go back to the original evidence, and applying it to Matthew just as you have to Mark, and seeing if the same instances could also apply to John responding to Matthew.

Your argument is conclusion based. John worked from Mark, therefore John shows the biggest thematic difference. I am saying this is an assumption, and a wrong assumption. Let's say for the sake of argument John is the last Gospel. That means it is after both Matthew and Mark, and thus could be written in response to either; both are possibilities.

What I am saying is there are elements of John which respond to both Matthew and Mark, where they agree, and which you have given a few examples. But I am saying further John responds to Matthew where there is no Mark parallel, such as the infancy Gospel (e.g., the Bethlehem comments), and even where they are in common, he responds more clearly to Matthew (e.g., Matthew having Jesus state that John is Elijah, John having John himself deny that claim; a claim not made in Mark). I wrote a very long summary five years ago listing all the responses in John to Matthew, and could list several of them which are not in Mark.

But that is not the point of my comments. What I am asking you to do is consider the exact same evidence and see for yourself if they apply also to Matthew. As your own model suggests John was written after Matthew as well as after Mark. If everything John wrote, that you say is in response to Mark could also apply to Matthew, then it stands to reason he could have responded to Matthew. You theory only holds up if you can show that
1) there are specific cases that John must be responding to Mark and not Matthew
2) the cases which appear to be responding to Matthew in fact are not,
or alternately,
2b) those cases responding to Matthew are from a later redactonal layer of John (which you'll you'll have to support)


commentary independent of above post
For the record, in my view the Gospels as we have them are not unities, except perhaps Mark (the redactional layer being rather thin for this Gospel), but were written and went through at least one major revision each: John definitely has two main layers, many argue five; Luke has probably two main layers -Marcionite then Catholic-; Matthew has some late 2nd century responses to Jewish charges. Further they all started from some source documents. Their interactions were multiple, and the time from their original forms to (almost) final versions covered barely more than 50 years, a testament to the fierce sectarian competition sparked by evangelism. They each in effect created each other, and influenced each other. Without that fierce competition for converts we would not have had so many "witnesses", rather a single Gospel slowly accreting material that a unified movement agreed was useful teachings.
Last edited by Stuart on Fri Feb 12, 2021 2:06 am, edited 2 times in total.
User avatar
JoeWallack
Posts: 1595
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 8:22 pm
Contact:

I Ams What I Ams

Post by JoeWallack »

JW:
Gospel Verse Point of Verse
"Mark" 13
5 And Jesus began to say unto them, Take heed that no man lead you astray.
6 Many shall come in my name, saying, I am [he] [Ἐγώ εἰμι,]; and shall lead many astray.
Jesus gives the identification of false Christs/sons of God. Saying "I am (the Christ/son of God)".
"Mark" 14
61 But he held his peace, and answered nothing. Again the high priest asked him, and saith unto him, Art thou the Christ, the Son of the Blessed?
62 And Jesus said, I am [ Ἐγώ εἰμι,]: and ye shall see the Son of man sitting at the right hand of Power, and coming with the clouds of heaven.
Jesus states under oath to The High Priest that he is a false Christ/son of God based on Jesus' own definition.
"John" 8
57 The Jews therefore said unto him, Thou art not yet fifty years old, and hast thou seen Abraham?
58 Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was born, I am[ἐγὼ εἰμί]
The magical phrase from GMark "I am" is converted from being evidence that Jesus is not The Christ/son of God to evidence that he is. Note that in both Gospels Jesus is the witness and "John's" related story is all about Jesus' witness in a legal context "
"16 Yea and if I judge, my judgment is true; for I am not alone, but I and the Father that sent me.
17 Yea and in your law it is written, that the witness of two men is true."
Sure sounds like "John" is reacting and "correcting" "Mark".


Joseph

Skeptical Textual Criticism
Stuart
Posts: 878
Joined: Mon Apr 14, 2014 12:24 am
Location: Sunnyvale, CA

Re: Discrediting Your Source. GJohn as Denial of GMark

Post by Stuart »

Sorry Joe,

This falls under the category of nice try, but epic fail. :facepalm:

The reason is simple, you fail to examine parallels, and again you fail to consider Matthew as the direct source. And do not in anyway eliminate it as a source. This allows me to throw an avalanche of evidence against it. Here is just a quick summation of why these verses blow up in your face.

Mark 13:5-6 is in fact paralleled by Matthew and Marcion (Luke in Marcionite form)
Matthew 24:
[4] And Jesus answered them, "Take heed that no one leads you astray.
[5] For many will come in my name, saying, `I am the Christ,' (Ἐγώ εἰμι ὁ χριστός) and they will lead many astray.

Luke 21:8 (Marcionite form, per Tertullian ):
for many will come in my name, saying, `I am Christ!'
πολλοὶ ἐλεύσονται ἐπὶ τῷ ὀνόματί μου λέγοντες, Ἐγώ εἰμι ὁ χριστός.
Venient ... illi dicentes, Ego sum Christus (AM 4.39.2)

The exact same argument is made in Matthew which would have been known to John. And in Matthew (and Marcion) it specifically refers to claiming to be the Christ. This renders Mark 14:62 somewhat moot.

But if we look at the denial parallels we see John is follows Matthew and Marcion
Matthew 26
[63] But Jesus was silent. And the high priest said to him, "I adjure you by the living God, tell us if you are the Christ, the Son of God."
[64] Jesus said to him, "You have said so (Σὺ εἶπας).
But I tell you, hereafter you will see the Son of man seated at the right hand of Power, and coming on the clouds of heaven."

Luke 23
[3] And Pilate asked him, "Are you the King of the Jews?" And he answered him, "You have said so." (Σὺ λέγεις)
The Marcionite (AM 4.42.1) however matches Matthew:
Pilato quoque interroganti, Tu es Christus? proinde (respondisse), Tu dicis
Pilate asked him, "Are you the Christ?" And he replied, "You say that I am" (Σὺ λέγεις)

Now let's look at John's version of the trial question from Pilate
John 18
[33] Pilate entered the praetorium again and called Jesus, and said to him, "Are you the King of the Jews?"
...
[37] Pilate said to him, "So you are a king?" Jesus answered, "You say that I am a king. ..." (Σὺ λέγεις ὅτι βασιλεύς εἰμι)

In my model, Luke has taken the King of the Jews from John, while Matthew and Marcion had the same source asking if he were Christ. Mark has changed it to the active affirmative instead of the passive "you say I am", perhaps drawing from Marcion (version of Luke 21:8) and Matthew 24:5. But in any event Mark makes an advancement of theology of Jesus' response at the trial to a more open "I am (the Christ)". But John does not know this affirmative response to the question of Jesus declaring himself Christ, he only knows the non responding Jesus who simply says "you say so."

This is of course the the direct response to the trial. You have displaced the response it to an unlikely place, the questions in chapter 8 about Abraham's relationship to Jesus and the Jews. This would be unusual. And John 8 seems to me to be a development of the Gnostic theology where Christ is pre-existing (a theme throughout John, e.g., 1:1-14, 17:24, showing how far removed John's sect is from the Marcionite theology) and about Abraham's two children as presented in the Marcionite version of Galatians (reverses Ishmael and Isaac).

You also refer back to verse 8:17 'In your law it is written that the testimony of two men is true;' as the source of the invoking of the father as a 2nd witness in 8:54 (as if Jesus doesn't do this throughout John). But you miss the most important aspect of that verse, Jesus statement that the Law (books of Moses) is the Jew's but NOT his. He state's the code, but it is done so in mockery of the Law of Moses (John 1:17), not in response to Mark's claim before the Chief Priest.

Now getting back to your statement about special Markan language. But frankly it's not. Ἐγώ εἰμι in one form or another occurs over 90 times in the NT, but only 4 of these occur in Mark, all with parallels. Even Mark 14:62 appears to most closely echo Luke 22:70
Luke 22
[70] And they all said, "Are you the Son of God, then?" (Σὺ οὖν εἶ ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ θεοῦ;)
And he said to them, "You say that I am." (Ὑμεῖς λέγετε ὅτι ἐγώ εἰμι.)

This verse is attested to identical in Marcion in AM 4.41.5 Ergo tu filius dei es? ... confirmative respondit; et adeo sic fuit pronuntiatio eius

As for Jesus using the "magic words" ἐγώ εἰμι, well that occurs all over the place, and contextually for identity in verses:
4:26, 6:35, 6:41, 6:48, 6:51, 8:12, 8:18, 8:23, 8:24, 8:28, 8:58 (your verse Joe), 10:7, 10:9, 10:11, 10:14, 11:25, 14:6, 15:1, 15:5, 17:14, 17:16, 18:5, 18:6, 18:8. Jesus also uses it to signify his movement, his coming and going in several verses. In John's Gospel we also see John the Baptist use the phrase in denial in verse 1:20 and repeated by the narrator in 3:28.

The phrase is ubiquitous in John, but relatively rare (just four verses) in Mark. The idea that Mark's magic words inspired John is highly questionable given that. In fact we see better evidence that Matthew and the Marcionite gospels could be in view.
Last edited by Stuart on Fri Feb 12, 2021 2:10 am, edited 1 time in total.
Post Reply