Mark is anti-marcionite because it is 'esoteric' and 'secret'

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
Post Reply
Giuseppe
Posts: 13732
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Mark is anti-marcionite because it is 'esoteric' and 'secret'

Post by Giuseppe »

It is relatively easy to realize why Matthew is anti-marcionite. Or that our John is a previous Gnostic proto-John later catholicized.

It is more difficult to realize why Mark is anti-marcionite, also.

The feature of Mark is his secrecy, his enigmaticity.

Therefore, if Mark is so enigmatic, allegorical, esoteric and secret, then the his opposition to Marcion's Gospel (assuming that Mcn is the Earliest Gospel) can be explained only by the his being a gospel enigmatic, allegorical, esoteric and secret.

The contrary of esoterism is a public revelation of a new message.

Surely the marcionite Jesus does not make mystery at all of his deity, the deity of an Alien God, or of the his new message (that is the itself ot the his identity).

An example may explain why precisely just the secrecy and the esoterism are tools against Marcion in Mark:

when a Christian apologist (at least in my eyes) - Morton Smith - found (or invented) the so-called Secret Gospel of Mark, the natural reaction of the stupid hoi polloi was the following:

1) ''this Secret Mark is a Esoteric Gospel'',

2) ''therefore'', it has to be more old than Mark itself.


In other terms, secrecy would be ''evidence'' of greater antiquity and authenticity, in the eyes of the stupid hoi polloi.


Yesterday as today.

Another example:

Paul claimed that he received a special secret revelation by Jesus himself.

This claim, in the eyes of the stupid hoi polloi, means that Paul used the secrecy of the his revealed Gospel as a tool against the public Gospel of the previous Pillars, implying so that the latter didn't see and didn't know something that Paul knew and saw (the true ''celestial Jesus'').

In other terms, the secrecy of Paul's Gospel would be ''evidence'' of a greater role for Paul than the role for the Pillars.


Another example:

the Gnostics called themselves ''Gnostics'' because they knew the ''secret things'' of the reality. Obviously as a counter-cultural tool against the previous traditions and common knowledge.


CONCLUSION
therefore, when Mark added Mark 4:11-12 in the his version of the Gospel -- as I have explained here -- he is doing so to claim greater authenticity and antiquity than the Gospel written by Marcion.

The logic would be: My Gospel is esoteric ''therefore'' it is more old than your Gospel.

It is surely a fallacy. Secrecy, symbolism and allegorism is really another mere tool of theological propaganda.


As corollary:

FACT 1: the author of the Earliest Gospel was a very known personage.

FACT 2: the Earliest Gospel was a Public Gospel from the first day of the his publication.

FACT 3: Paul-Louis Couchoud was basically right:

The god of the Jews said, Aure audietis et non audietis (Is. vi. 9). Jesus, on the other hand, wishes all ears to be opened (T. iv. 19). All should listen, since there is no longer anything hidden; everything is made clear.
(Creation of Christ, p. 399)
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.
Giuseppe
Posts: 13732
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: Mark is anti-marcionite because it is 'esoteric' and 'secret'

Post by Giuseppe »

Giuseppe wrote: Tue Nov 21, 2017 1:50 am

FACT 2: the Earliest Gospel was a Public Gospel from the first day of the his publication.
...meaning: it was a Gospel for only outsiders.

Jesus was euhemerized at the light of the sun.
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.
Giuseppe
Posts: 13732
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: Mark is anti-marcionite because it is 'esoteric' and 'secret'

Post by Giuseppe »

So Rylands:

At some time or other some Gnostics had come to be of the opinion that the former secrecy and esotericism should be given up and propaganda carried on more openly ; which would probably involve dispensing with the period of probation and initiation for converts. Others disapproved of this policy; and the echoes of the controversy which thereupon arose can still be heard in the Gospel. In the following verses we hear the voice of the innovators : “ Is a candle brought to be put under a bushel or under a bed ? and not to be set on a candlestick? For there is nothing hid, which shall not be manifested ; neither was anything kept secret, but that it should come abroad. If any man have ears to hear, let him hear.” The last clause is, of course, a declaration that something important is concealed in the foregoing words, but it implies also that there were readers who could understand what was meant. Again : “ For nought is covered that shall not be revealed, and hidden that shall not be known. What I tell you in the darkness, speak ye in the light; and what ye hear in the ear, proclaim upon the housetops.” There is no sense in these words taken literally. On the traditional view of Jesus, if the teaching was to be proclaimed openly why should Jesus not have done it himself? These verses have been a great puzzle to commentators, and no satisfactory explanation of them, other than that given above, has ever been given. Traditionalists shuffle over these difficulties, and will not face them squarely. I do not charge critics with deliberate dishonesty in this matter. No doubt they have a kind of subconscious premonition that the facing of such difficulties would necessitate a radical change of view which they are not willing to make. In the following verse we may, perhaps, hear the voice of those who objected to the new policy : “ But from the days of John the Baptist until now the kingdom of heaven suffereth violence, and men of violence take it by force.” Professor W. B. Smith considers that the Gnostic propaganda took the form of a crusade against polytheism and idolatry, and that there was danger from the pagan authorities if this were too openly carried out; hence the symbolic form in which it was couched. There is, indeed, reason to believe that the Gnostic propaganda was directed against polytheism. The Gnostics could maintain that they were monotheists ; their Jesus was the Son of God, but not God himself or equal with him, although he embodied the wisdom and the power of God. Nevertheless, I think that the symbolism and esotericism were natural to the Gnostics, and not adopted as a measure of precaution. The official defenders of the ancient cults were, and proclaimed themselves, monotheists in philosophy.
(Evolution of Christianity, p. 185-187, my bold)

So Marcion may represent a later product insofar his Jesus was one who ''wishes all ears to be opened (T. iv. 19). All should listen, since there is no longer anything hidden; everything is made clear'' (Couchoud).

But in the same time ''Mark'' seems a corrector of Marcion insofar his esotericism serves only to fulfill Isaiah vi. 9.

Who was earlier then, Mark or Marcion?

If Mark is earlier, then he was already aware that some Gnostics were eager to proclaim the Gospel to the outsiders, and he reacted accordingly by writing a public but enigmatic Gospel. And Marcion corrected it to make it a complete public Gospel for only outsiders, just as clear and explicit is the contrast between old and new.

That seems to be the preferred interpretation of Rylands.


In Hegelian terms:

1) the earliest Gospel was only for insiders.

2)
but Marcion wanted it be clear for the outsiders, also.

3) the proto-catholics used Mark's esotericism against Marcion's public propaganda: hence they adopted Mark and Mark survived until now.

The point to clear here is that the esotericism of Mark, even if it was used against Marcion by the proto-catholics, was not really against Marcion, but had to precede more directly the Marcionite dualism.
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.
Giuseppe
Posts: 13732
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: Mark is anti-marcionite because it is 'esoteric' and 'secret'

Post by Giuseppe »

Surely I give up all these speculations, if only I could read

Die Werkstatt des Marcusevangelisten

of Hermann Raschke, arguing the thesis that the Gospel used by Marcion was just proto-Mark.
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.
Post Reply