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

[Peter Kirby]

IF you're trying to save the priority of Mark,
WHY would you not interpret Mark,
THE PRIOR GOSPEL,
as being "anti-messianic in an innocent way"?
(i.e., having no such intention but being read that way later, against its true sense)

Under the Markan priority, proto-Mark, i.e. the first gospel, would be without the Passion story. It would be anti-messianic as by you described in the op.

Mark has a passion story.

Trocmé denies it. According to him, Mark 1-13 has Jesus denying he is the Christ, while the Passion story is all devoted to prove that Jesus is the Christ (therefore it is a late addition).

Obviously, the evidence that persuades Trocmé to believe this, is used by me to prove that Mark is reacting against *Ev.

That doesn't make sense. If *Ev was "innocently anti-messianic," then by the same logic a prior Mark could also be, and by the same logic Trocme's conclusion is unsupported because it fails to perceive the "innocently anti-messianic" nature of *Ev/Mark. Your conclusion is also unsupported, since it fails to perceive the obvious implication that if *Ev could be prior and "innocently antimessianic," so could Mark.

In short, your understanding of a prior *Ev can also be applied to a prior Mark, which makes your protestations otherwise here a case of special pleading.

[Giuseppe]

if *Ev could be prior and "innocently antimessianic," so could Mark.

1) 'innocently anti-messianic" for *Ev means that, for example, when Jesus answered 'you say so', there was not tendentiousness meant of the kind: "you say so, I don't".

2) Then Marcion comes and brandishes *Ev, and says that 'you say so' has to be interpreted as meaning: "you say so, I don't'.

3) Then Mark comes and goes against Marcion, by removing 'you say so', and replacing it with the words: 'I am!".

The pattern can be repeated everywhere Mark arrives even to break the same 'markan' Messianic Secret, out of embarrassment because that secrecy is brandished in an anti-messianic way by Marcion in *Ev.

Hence, how of grace can you say that if *Ev is innocent, then also Mark is innocent, when I have just shown to you that who wrote 'I am!' in replacement of 'you say, I don't", couldn't be never innocent from anti-marcionite polemic.

[Peter Kirby]

if *Ev could be prior and "innocently antimessianic," so could Mark.

1) 'innocently anti-messianic" for *Ev means that, for example, when Jesus answered 'you say so', there was not tendentiousness meant of the kind: "you say so, I don't".

2) Then Marcion comes and brandishes *Ev, and says that 'you say so' has to be interpreted as meaning: "you say so, I don't'.

3) Then Mark comes and goes against Marcion, by removing 'you say so', and replacing it with the words: 'I am!".

The pattern can be repeated everywhere Mark arrives even to break the same 'markan' Messianic Secret, out of embarrassment because that secrecy is brandished in an anti-messianic way by Marcion in *Ev.

Hence, how of grace can you say that if *Ev is innocent, then also Mark is innocent, when I have just shown to you that who wrote 'I am!' in replacement of 'you say, I don't", couldn't be never innocent from anti-marcionite polemic.

All of that is based on your assumption of the priority of *Ev, so the matter of special pleading here is that you have shown it to be practically impossible for you to conceive of the priority of Mark and discuss its implications -- that kind of thinking takes place for you and is enunciated by you only when *Ev is being considered as the prior gospel. This happens even when this habit of epistemic error is pointed out repeatedly and clearly.

As a result, you present as incapable of thinking about the topic of the priority of Mark and/or unable to discuss it.

[Giuseppe]

One thing to keep in mind was the Roman incentive to see Jesus as the Messiah. The orthodox view was that Jesus fulfilled messianic prophecy. As such, this voided the Jewish expectation of a future messiah. Since Jesus was the Messiah, this should put an end to Jewish expectations of any coming warrior king to lead them on any more rebellions.

What evidence do we have that gentile (non-Jewish, non-Christian) Romans understood (1) Jewish Messianism and (2) Christian claims that Jesus was the Messiah (or Christos) foretold in the Scriptures or Israel, well enough to make this connection?

While expecting the answer by rgprice, I think that Robert Drews has already answered in his article, where he interprets the suetonian impulsore Chresto, the fragment 2 of Tacitus, and the Testimonium Taciteum as evidence of Roman knowledge of (1) Jewish Messianism and (2) Christian claims that Jesus was the Jewish Messiah.
Obviously the Robert Drews's scenario assumes that Chrestus == Christus and in this sense it is confuted by mlinssen's analysis proving that Chrestos is a different deity from Christ.

[StephenGoranson]

"...mlinssen's analysis proving that Chrestos is a different deity from Christ."
proving?
atheist perspective?

[Giuseppe]

"...mlinssen's analysis proving that Chrestos is a different deity from Christ."
proving?
atheist perspective?

judge from yourself:

• "Barabbas" is the rival Jesus Son of unknown Father, rival to the other Jesus, the Jesus called Christos (or 'king of the Jews').

• Chrestos emphasizes a marcionite attribute of the Jesus Son of Father: his being the Good God.

Hence the discovery of the hot water: that there was a sect called Marcionites.

[Ken Olson]

• Chrestos emphasizes a marcionite attribute of the Jesus Son of Father: his being the Good God.

This claim seems to rely on a very weak foundation. It equates different Greek words based on an assumed common meaning.

Tertullian refers to the Marcionite God as bonum deum, 'the good God', in Adversus Marcionem, but the word bonum most probably represents the Greek word ἀγαθός which commonly has the meaning of good in a moral sense. In his biblical quotations and paraphrases, Tertullian regularly uses bonum to translate ἀγαθός used of persons, though he also uses it to translate καλός used of things (i.e., non-persons).

Are there any places in which the nomen sacrum XS (assuming for the sake of argument it abbreviates Chrestos with an E) is clearly applied to God rather than Jesus in the Evangelium or Apostolikon?

If not, what evidence is there the Chrestos is an attribute of God for Marcion?

Best,

Ken

[Ken Olson]

One thing to keep in mind was the Roman incentive to see Jesus as the Messiah. The orthodox view was that Jesus fulfilled messianic prophecy. As such, this voided the Jewish expectation of a future messiah. Since Jesus was the Messiah, this should put an end to Jewish expectations of any coming warrior king to lead them on any more rebellions.

What evidence do we have that gentile (non-Jewish, non-Christian) Romans understood (1) Jewish Messianism and (2) Christian claims that Jesus was the Messiah (or Christos) foretold in the Scriptures or Israel, well enough to make this connection?

While expecting the answer by rgprice, I think that Robert Drews has already answered in his article, where he interprets the suetonian impulsore Chresto, the fragment 2 of Tacitus, and the Testimonium Taciteum as evidence of Roman knowledge of (1) Jewish Messianism and (2) Christian claims that Jesus was the Jewish Messiah.
Obviously the Robert Drews's scenario assumes that Chrestus == Christus and in this sense it is confuted by mlinssen's analysis proving that Chrestos is a different deity from Christ.

I wan't able to download Drews paper, but I did get the abstract:

The Chrestiani (or Christiani) who, according to Tacitus, were executed by Nero for setting the fire of 64 CE were very likely apocalyptic and nationalist Judaeans rather than the New Covenant people greeted by Paul at Romans 16. For many observant Judaeans hoping for the liberation of Judaea from the Roman Empire, the title Christos (Messiah) was especially a reference to Jesus Nazoraios. Latin-speakers evidently coined the label Christiani for the boldest and loudest of these Judaean believers in the ascended Christos. Fervour for the expected return of Christos from heaven was intense among Judaeans in the 60s, contributing to the revolt of 66–70.

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/epdf/10 ... ccess=true

I'm skeptical of Drews' conclusion (though, as I said, I haven't been able to get hold of the paper), but it seems to me that it is incompatible with what rgprice is claiming. rgprice is claiming that acceptance of Jesus as the Messiah would put an end to rebellions while Drews is claiming that acceptance of Jesus as the Messiah is a major cause of rebellion.

Best,

Ken

[davidmartin]

• "Barabbas" is the rival Jesus Son of unknown Father, rival to the other Jesus, the Jesus called Christos (or 'king of the Jews').

• Chrestos emphasizes a marcionite attribute of the Jesus Son of Father: his being the Good God.

Hence the discovery of the hot water: that there was a sect called Marcionites.

i know this is a little off topic but Barabbas is also possibly Bar Kokhbar, now obviously the dates don't work so instead some other 'similar guy' is released but the contemporary reader would be totally reminded of Kokhba with the gospels dating to when if so... maybe late 1st century?

as for the Good God. ya know, i don't see a lot of emphasis in the epistles on God's goodness, there is some, it's there but it's not all over the place. If Marcion was drawing from a Chrest reading he'd be applying that to God from here cause i don't see it in the apostolikon really ('the son defines the father'. not sure if there's any hint of that idea in the accounts)

[Secret Alias]

But if it's true that they are used of God in the LXX, I think this seriously undermines your claim that God being good is a (particularly) Marcionite attribute.

Classic case of don'tgiveafuckism. Ken has no interest in Marcionism beyond what the Church Fathers say about him. Tertullian says he hated Jews, for Ken Marcion "hated Jews." Tertullian also says that Judaism and Marcionism were aligned against orthodoxy in many respects, especially with regards to Jesus not being the messiah. Irenaeus's description of Marcionism having one power of mercy and another power of judgement (from memory) is aligned with Philo's understanding. The Syrian inscription etc etc. There is a strong likelihood that Marcionism is an extension of Alexandrian Judaism.