Is Mark a valentinian Gospel?

[Kunigunde Kreuzerin]

Please understand that all of this is tentative....

I understand very well.

With that distinction in mind, it looks to me as if Mark falls firmly on the side of exaltation, whereas Paul appears to hold to a combination of exaltation and manifestation. Marcion, I think, must belong to the manifestation side of things. All of these early Christians seem to begin with the simple proposition: "Jesus is Lord/Yahweh" and/or "Jesus is the son of God," and then try to imagine or reconstruct what that must have looked like. Matthew and Luke assume he must have been marked as such right from the start, so they give him an appropriate birth. John starts his gospel in prehistory, along the lines of a manifestation tradition, and does not even tell us exactly when "the word became flesh."

I hope that makes some sense. It does not really contradict your observation, but it comes at things from a very different angle, I think.

Agreed. I think this is one aspect.

My impression is that Mark has carefully avoided that one can transfer him in abstract concepts. It seems to me that his intention was that one must and should read his story.

Mark's emphasis may be upon the word „beloved“, whatever this meant.

1:11 And a voice came from heaven, “You are my beloved Son; with you I am well pleased.”
9:7 And a cloud overshadowed them, and a voice came out of the cloud, “This is my beloved Son; listen to him.”
12:6 He had still one other, a beloved son. Finally he sent him to them, saying, ‘They will respect my son.’

[Ben C. Smith]

Mark's emphasis may be upon the word „beloved“, whatever this meant.

1:11 And a voice came from heaven, “You are my beloved Son; with you I am well pleased.”
9:7 And a cloud overshadowed them, and a voice came out of the cloud, “This is my beloved Son; listen to him.”
12:6 He had still one other, a beloved son. Finally he sent him to them, saying, ‘They will respect my son.’

Some possible connections:

Genesis 22.2: And He said, "Take now your son, the beloved one [τὸν ἀγαπητόν], whom you love, Isaac, and go to the land of Moriah; and offer him there as a burnt offering on one of the mountains of which I will tell you."

Judges (Alexandrinus recension) 11.34: καὶ ἦλθεν Ιεφθαε εἰς Μασσηφα εἰς τὸν οἶκον αὐτοῦ καὶ ἰδοὺ ἡ θυγάτηρ αὐτοῦ ἐξεπορεύετο εἰς ἀπάντησιν αὐτοῦ ἐν τυμπάνοις καὶ χοροῖς καὶ αὕτη μονογενὴς αὐτῷ ἀγαπητή καὶ οὐκ ἔστιν αὐτῷ πλὴν αὐτῆς υἱὸς ἢ θυγάτηρ.

Zechariah 12.10: And I will pour upon the house of David, and upon the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the spirit of grace and compassion: and they shall look upon me, because they have mocked me, and they shall make lamentation for him, as for a beloved [ἀγαπητὸν], and they shall grieve intensely, as for a firstborn.

Attached to a child, the word "ἀγαπητός" often seems to arise in contexts involving that child's potential or actual death (refer also to Jeremiah 6.26). What thinkest thou?

Ben.

ETA: Matthew 3.17 and 17.5 retain "beloved" at the baptism and the transfiguration, but Matthew 21.37 omits "beloved" from the description of the son in the parable of the tenants; nevertheless, Matthew 12.18 does add the term to a quotation of Isaiah 42.1, whose Old Greek translation has "elect" instead. Luke 3.22 and 20.13 retain "beloved" at the baptism and in the parable of the tenants, but Luke 9.35 replaces it with "elect" at the transfiguration, hearkening back to the Old Greek of Isaiah 42.1!

[Secret Alias]

Also remember the Syriac variant (perhaps implying two individuals ) my Son and my Beloved

[Giuseppe]

1:11 And a voice came from heaven, “You are my beloved Son; with you I am well pleased.”
9:7 And a cloud overshadowed them, and a voice came out of the cloud, “This is my beloved Son; listen to him.”

It seems that Jesus knows that he is possessed by the spirit (at least, until to the cry on the cross) but he doesn't know the identity of such spirit (or he thinks that it is a generic ''saint'' spirit). He refuses to admit that this spirit is the spirit of Christ (even if he has reverence for that spirit: cfr Mark 3:29) : the Messianic Secret is a secret for the man Jesus, too.

Mark 1:12

The Spirit then compelled Jesus to go into the wilderness,

The Spirit seems to be a distinct entity from Jesus.


Mark 5:30

At once Jesus realized that power had gone out from him. He turned around in the crowd and asked, "Who touched my clothes?"

the power is a distinct being from Jesus.

Mark 9:9

Suddenly, when they looked around, they no longer saw anyone with them except Jesus.

IE, a mere son of man without glory.

[Giuseppe]

In conclusion, I don't think that Mark was written by docetic valentinians, but that it was adopted by Valentinians. Why?
Because in Mark the evidence of separationism is better explained as the "son of man" (allegory of a collective group: Israel) being possessed by the spirit of Christ (the pauline "body of Christ").

When the gnostics became Christians in 2 CE, they used a term that is allegorical of a collectivity ("son of man") in a term for a specific individual (the "man" Jesus from Nazaret). The gnostics and the catholics did desire the salvation of the single individual. But the original "Mark" (author) thought in more collective terms: Jesus is ALL Israel.

[g_n_o_s_i_s]

My understanding is that Valentinus was not a docetic.

[Giuseppe]

My understanding is that Valentinus was not a docetic.

Right. I mean the separationist/adoptionist version of the docetism: the spirit of Christ enters into a mere 'son of man', Jesus of Nazaret. Valentinians were only one of the II CE Christian sects who thought in this way.

[g_n_o_s_i_s]

The western school thought like that. The eastern school and Valentinus himself thought Jesus/Christ received his body from the Demiurge in Mary's womb as he descended from the pleroma.

[Kunigunde Kreuzerin]

Some possible connections:

Genesis 22.2: And He said, "Take now your son, the beloved one [τὸν ἀγαπητόν], whom you love, Isaac, and go to the land of Moriah; and offer him there as a burnt offering on one of the mountains of which I will tell you."

Judges (Alexandrinus recension) 11.34: καὶ ἦλθεν Ιεφθαε εἰς Μασσηφα εἰς τὸν οἶκον αὐτοῦ καὶ ἰδοὺ ἡ θυγάτηρ αὐτοῦ ἐξεπορεύετο εἰς ἀπάντησιν αὐτοῦ ἐν τυμπάνοις καὶ χοροῖς καὶ αὕτη μονογενὴς αὐτῷ ἀγαπητή καὶ οὐκ ἔστιν αὐτῷ πλὴν αὐτῆς υἱὸς ἢ θυγάτηρ.

Zechariah 12.10: And I will pour upon the house of David, and upon the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the spirit of grace and compassion: and they shall look upon me, because they have mocked me, and they shall make lamentation for him, as for a beloved [ἀγαπητὸν], and they shall grieve intensely, as for a firstborn.

Attached to a child, the word "ἀγαπητός" often seems to arise in contexts involving that child's potential or actual death (refer also to Jeremiah 6.26). What thinkest thou?

I agree. „beloved“ seems to be an OT-allusion to the death of a child. imho an additional aspect could probably be that Mark wished to present Jesus as „son of god“ not primarily in an absolute and fixed sense, but rather as „son“ in his „living“ relationship to the father.

[g_n_o_s_i_s]

If the eastern school of Valentinians is the earliest as scholars seems to suggest, aren't you barking up the wrong tree trying to connect the adoptionist view of Mark with Valentinians?