split from: Jesus is not the Christ: A Reading of Mark

[Giuseppe]

Thank you to make me even more persuaded that *Ev precedes Mark.

I could show you some burnt toast and you would be even more persuaded that *Ev precedes Mark.

indeed there is not difference for me between Mark (interpreted as an open enigma) and a burnt toast, hence your conclusion continues to be true for me if I modify it slightly so:

I could show you how much Mark is subtle and you would be even more persuaded that *Ev precedes Mark.

[Peter Kirby]

Thank you to make me even more persuaded that *Ev precedes Mark.

I could show you some burnt toast and you would be even more persuaded that *Ev precedes Mark.

indeed there is not difference for me between Mark (interpreted as an open enigma) and a burnt toast, hence your conclusion continues to be true for me if I modify it slightly so:

I could show you how much Mark is subtle and you would be even more persuaded that *Ev precedes Mark.

Stop, lol.

I will reply to what you wrote that isn't nonsense.

[Peter Kirby]

Both of these arguments fall under the heading of subtle readings of the text.

that Mark 1-13 (minus the incipit and the stupid Parable of the Vineyard) denies the messianic status is not a subtle reading. It is simply the obvious reading. It doesn't require a great subtlety.

I don't even understand what you're saying here (honestly), so yeah, what you're saying is subtle enough.

I now see what you were saying here. The only reason that I had difficulty understanding it was that I found it hard to process; because it read as a much stronger endorsement of the OP's idea (within the confines of the parts of Mark you outline) than I could have imagined from you or anyone, the plain sense eluded me. That is my fault.

[Giuseppe]

Both of these arguments fall under the heading of subtle readings of the text.

that Mark 1-13 (minus the incipit and the stupid Parable of the Vineyard) denies the messianic status is not a subtle reading. It is simply the obvious reading. It doesn't require a great subtlety.

I don't even understand what you're saying here (honestly), so yeah, what you're saying is subtle enough.

I now see what you were saying here. The only reason that I had difficulty understanding it was that I found it hard to process; because it read as a much stronger endorsement of the OP's idea (within the confines of the parts of Mark you outline) than I could have imagined from you or anyone, the plain sense eluded me. That is my fault.

A little group of scholars, in primis Étienne Trocmé, insisted on the internal contradiction between the "Jesus is not Christ" propaganda in the first half of Mark and the opposed propaganda "Jesus is the Christ" in the Passion story. To the point that they refuse the definition of Mark as "a Passion story preceded by a long introduction", since the two parts don't come from the same hand.

My criticism to this thesis is the fact that even in the Passion story we have at least two thiny episodes where the message is: "Jesus is not the Christ":

• The answer to Pilate: tu dices. Interpreted by Marcion as: tu dices, ego non.

• The rending of the veil, meaning the anger of the demiurge (YHWH).

Which makes the *Ev priority a more parsimonious solution.

[Peter Kirby]

Both of these arguments fall under the heading of subtle readings of the text.

that Mark 1-13 (minus the incipit and the stupid Parable of the Vineyard) denies the messianic status is not a subtle reading. It is simply the obvious reading. It doesn't require a great subtlety.

I don't even understand what you're saying here (honestly), so yeah, what you're saying is subtle enough.

I now see what you were saying here. The only reason that I had difficulty understanding it was that I found it hard to process; because it read as a much stronger endorsement of the OP's idea (within the confines of the parts of Mark you outline) than I could have imagined from you or anyone, the plain sense eluded me. That is my fault.

A little group of scholars, in primis Étienne Trocmé, insisted on the internal contradiction between the "Jesus is not Christ" propaganda in the first half of Mark and the opposed propaganda "Jesus is the Christ" in the Passion story. To the point that they refuse the definition of Mark as "a Passion story preceded by a long introduction", since the two parts don't come from the same hand.

My criticism to this thesis is the fact that even in the Passion story we have at least two thiny episodes where the message is: "Jesus is not the Christ":

• The answer to Pilate: tu dices. Interpreted by Marcion as: tu dices, ego non.

• The rending of the veil, meaning the anger of the demiurge (YHWH).

Which makes the *Ev priority a more parsimonious solution.

Are you saying that you think Mark has holdovers of the anti-messianic bits of *Ev, clashing with his own narrative?

[Giuseppe]

Both of these arguments fall under the heading of subtle readings of the text.

that Mark 1-13 (minus the incipit and the stupid Parable of the Vineyard) denies the messianic status is not a subtle reading. It is simply the obvious reading. It doesn't require a great subtlety.

I don't even understand what you're saying here (honestly), so yeah, what you're saying is subtle enough.

I now see what you were saying here. The only reason that I had difficulty understanding it was that I found it hard to process; because it read as a much stronger endorsement of the OP's idea (within the confines of the parts of Mark you outline) than I could have imagined from you or anyone, the plain sense eluded me. That is my fault.

A little group of scholars, in primis Étienne Trocmé, insisted on the internal contradiction between the "Jesus is not Christ" propaganda in the first half of Mark and the opposed propaganda "Jesus is the Christ" in the Passion story. To the point that they refuse the definition of Mark as "a Passion story preceded by a long introduction", since the two parts don't come from the same hand.

My criticism to this thesis is the fact that even in the Passion story we have at least two thiny episodes where the message is: "Jesus is not the Christ":

• The answer to Pilate: tu dices. Interpreted by Marcion as: tu dices, ego non.

• The rending of the veil, meaning the anger of the demiurge (YHWH).

Which makes the *Ev priority a more parsimonious solution.

Are you saying that you think Mark has holdovers of the anti-messianic bits of *Ev, clashing with his own narrative?

that is precisely the point made in the last book by Markus Vinzent, Christ's Torah.

Share my enthusiasm for the book here.

(Mlinssen advised me to content myself with the ebook, something of which I repent now, since the physical book deserved to be taken, rather).

[Peter Kirby]

that Mark 1-13 (minus the incipit and the stupid Parable of the Vineyard) denies the messianic status is not a subtle reading. It is simply the obvious reading. It doesn't require a great subtlety.

I don't even understand what you're saying here (honestly), so yeah, what you're saying is subtle enough.

I now see what you were saying here. The only reason that I had difficulty understanding it was that I found it hard to process; because it read as a much stronger endorsement of the OP's idea (within the confines of the parts of Mark you outline) than I could have imagined from you or anyone, the plain sense eluded me. That is my fault.

A little group of scholars, in primis Étienne Trocmé, insisted on the internal contradiction between the "Jesus is not Christ" propaganda in the first half of Mark and the opposed propaganda "Jesus is the Christ" in the Passion story. To the point that they refuse the definition of Mark as "a Passion story preceded by a long introduction", since the two parts don't come from the same hand.

My criticism to this thesis is the fact that even in the Passion story we have at least two thiny episodes where the message is: "Jesus is not the Christ":

• The answer to Pilate: tu dices. Interpreted by Marcion as: tu dices, ego non.

• The rending of the veil, meaning the anger of the demiurge (YHWH).

Which makes the *Ev priority a more parsimonious solution.

Are you saying that you think Mark has holdovers of the anti-messianic bits of *Ev, clashing with his own narrative?

that is precisely the point made in the last book by Markus Vinzent, Christ's Torah.

Why would *Ev be written in a way that is anti-messianic?

[Giuseppe]

I now see what you were saying here. The only reason that I had difficulty understanding it was that I found it hard to process; because it read as a much stronger endorsement of the OP's idea (within the confines of the parts of Mark you outline) than I could have imagined from you or anyone, the plain sense eluded me. That is my fault.

A little group of scholars, in primis Étienne Trocmé, insisted on the internal contradiction between the "Jesus is not Christ" propaganda in the first half of Mark and the opposed propaganda "Jesus is the Christ" in the Passion story. To the point that they refuse the definition of Mark as "a Passion story preceded by a long introduction", since the two parts don't come from the same hand.

My criticism to this thesis is the fact that even in the Passion story we have at least two thiny episodes where the message is: "Jesus is not the Christ":

• The answer to Pilate: tu dices. Interpreted by Marcion as: tu dices, ego non.

• The rending of the veil, meaning the anger of the demiurge (YHWH).

Which makes the *Ev priority a more parsimonious solution.

Are you saying that you think Mark has holdovers of the anti-messianic bits of *Ev, clashing with his own narrative?

that is precisely the point made in the last book by Markus Vinzent, Christ's Torah.

Why would *Ev be written in a way that is anti-messianic?

Two answers:

1) because the principal hero in it is an unknown figure ("unknown" means that he is not even the messIah of YHWH).

The first sentence of the Marcionite gospel book gives the fifteenth year of Tiberius as the date and has an unknown character walk down to “Capharnaum, a city in Galilee,” where people call him “Jesus of Nazareth.”

(E. Trobisch, On the Origin of Christian Scripture, p. 106, my bold)

2) because, even if the original author meant it in a messianic sense (the Klinghardt's position), the point continues to be true, that *Ev in the hands of Marcion was brandished as attesting the non-messianic status of Jesus, obliging even Mark to take the "right" measures against it. The principal measures are listed by me here.

[Peter Kirby]

Are you saying that you think Mark has holdovers of the anti-messianic bits of *Ev, clashing with his own narrative?

that is precisely the point made in the last book by Markus Vinzent, Christ's Torah.

Why would *Ev be written in a way that is anti-messianic?

Two answers:

1) because the principal hero in it is an unknown figure ("unknown" means that he is not even the messIah of YHWH).

The first sentence of the Marcionite gospel book gives the fifteenth year of Tiberius as the date and has an unknown character walk down to “Capharnaum, a city in Galilee,” where people call him “Jesus of Nazareth.”

(E. Trobisch, On the Origin of Christian Scripture, p. 106, my bold)

2) because, even if the original author meant it in a messianic sense (the Klinghardt's position), the point continues to be true, that *Ev in the hands of Marcion was brandished as attesting the non-messianic status of Jesus, obliging even Mark to take the "right" measures against it. The principal measures are listed by me here.

I think you're arguing that *Ev was anti-messianic? That wasn't my question. Let's assume that *Ev is anti-messianic.

Why does *Ev adopt the position of being anti-messianic? And why is that pursued as a theme in the text?

[Giuseppe]

Are you saying that you think Mark has holdovers of the anti-messianic bits of *Ev, clashing with his own narrative?

that is precisely the point made in the last book by Markus Vinzent, Christ's Torah.

Why would *Ev be written in a way that is anti-messianic?

Two answers:

1) because the principal hero in it is an unknown figure ("unknown" means that he is not even the messIah of YHWH).

The first sentence of the Marcionite gospel book gives the fifteenth year of Tiberius as the date and has an unknown character walk down to “Capharnaum, a city in Galilee,” where people call him “Jesus of Nazareth.”

(E. Trobisch, On the Origin of Christian Scripture, p. 106, my bold)

2) because, even if the original author meant it in a messianic sense (the Klinghardt's position), the point continues to be true, that *Ev in the hands of Marcion was brandished as attesting the non-messianic status of Jesus, obliging even Mark to take the "right" measures against it. The principal measures are listed by me here.

I think you're arguing that *Ev was anti-messianic? That wasn't my question. Let's assume that *Ev is anti-messianic.

Why does *Ev adopt the position of being anti-messianic? And why is that pursued as a theme in the text?

*Ev doesn't adopt the position of being anti-messianic. *Ev in the hands of Marcion is used as a gospel adopting the position of being anti-messianic. What was sufficient and necessary for a such use of *Ev by Marcion was what Wrede has called the "Messianic Secret in Mark" and what Trobisch has described as what makes Jesus an "unknown figure" in *Ev.

I.e. Wrede and Trobisch are talking about the same thing, without knowing it. The fact that Jesus denies that he is the Christ, beyond of what is meant for the original author of *Ev, represented for Marcion the essence of anti-messianism in a Gospel. It could be a mere interpretation limited to Marcion and Marcionites, if it wasn't that Mark is embarrassed by a such interpretation, and this embarrassment is seen in the way Mark breaks the Messianic Secret with the Parable of the Vineyard. Because it is not a coincidence that just immediately after Jesus didn't answer to Pharisees about his own identity, Mark makes him answer de facto by introducing the Parable of the Vineyard (absent in *Ev).