Biblical Criticism & History Forum - earlywritings.com

Wait a minute. I've just spent a thread demonstrating that Tertullian doesn't seem to cite Isaiah 6:9 as part of his gospel - at least not necessarily so. But now your point is what exactly? That because Isaiah 6:9 is in the gospel of Mark that the gospel of Mark was not influenced by Isaiah? I am not following you at all, and rarely do I find your points make a lot of sense. How is Isaiah 6:9 in Mark a refutation of Isaiah's influence over the gospel or that - as you initially said - I shouldn't spend time referencing the Jewish scriptures?

Secret Alias wrote: ↑Mon Dec 11, 2017 10:53 am Wait a minute. I've just spent a thread demonstrating that Tertullian doesn't seem to cite Isaiah 6:9 as part of his gospel - at least not necessarily so. But now your point is what exactly? That because Isaiah 6:9 is in the gospel of Mark that the gospel of Mark was not influenced by Isaiah? I am not following you at all, and rarely do I find your points make a lot of sense. How is Isaiah 6:9 in Mark a refutation of Isaiah's influence over the gospel or that - as you initially said - I shouldn't spend time referencing the Jewish scriptures?

My point is that:

1) I agree with you that in the marcionite Gospel Jesus proclaimed openly his news so that any person could hear it.

2) I think, with Couchoud, that Mark 4:11-12 is anti-marcionite insofar it gives a pretext (based on Isaiah 9:6) to silence Jesus by making secret what was designated (in Marcion) to be public (for the point 1). So the repetition of the Parable of Sower for the (so-called) insiders - a repetition that de facto doesn't explain nothing about the parable itself - is accordingly an anti-marcionite insertion.

3) you clearly don't accept (irrationally, in my view) the fact that Mark 4:11-12 was midrashically based on Isaiah 9:6 against Marcion's open proclamation of the Gospel news. Even if you seem to accept the point 1. Because, if you accept that, then the conclusion is inevitable that the god of the Jews was hated by the marcionites.

To your points:

1. I never said specifically that the Marcionite gospel had open preaching of anything only that the synoptics seems to be missing what Jesus said in the synagogue
2. not sure by what measure Mark 4:11 - 12 can be officially 'denied' as being part of the Marcionite gospel. I think there is a case to make that Tertullian doesn't exactly say they are there - even in his gospel. But I assume that Tertullian's source doesn't distinguish much between 'the gospel text he is citing' in a work which in its final draft was written against Marcion and 'the gospel of Marcion'
3. I don't know if we can prove that it wasn't in Marcion's gospel as I do not think that Against Marcion has (or better yet 'had' as the very beginning in Book 1 says that we have been handed a third revision of the original text) Marcion as its principal focus. The point was simply to demonstrate that the gospel was developed from the OT.

And to recapitulate once again - you don't know how to distinguish between 'facts' and 'interpretations.' It is a fact that Mark chapter 4 cites Isaiah chapter 6. But you went beyond the facts when you refuted my point about a gospel developed from Isaiah when interpreted Mark's use of Isaiah in chapter 4 after the conclusions of Couchoud. Couchoud's interpretation or understanding of Mark's use of Isaiah in the chapter is not a 'fact' - it is an interpretation, an explanation of what or how this use signifies or means.

Secret Alias wrote: ↑Mon Dec 11, 2017 11:51 am . Couchoud's interpretation or understanding of Mark's use of Isaiah in the chapter is not a 'fact' - it is an interpretation, an explanation of what or how this use signifies or means.

an interpretation corroborated at least partially by the curious repetition of the Parable of Sower shown wrongly as an explanation (for only insiders) of the itself Parable.

And surely it is a fact the contradiction between a midrash on Isaiah 53 and a midrash on Isaiah 9:6 both found in the same Gospel.

And surely it is a fact the contradiction between a midrash on Isaiah 53 and a midrash on Isaiah 9:6 both found in the same Gospel.

Nein, nein tausand mal nein! Es ist immer noch die gleiche Aufnahme! You can't distinguish between facts and interpretation!

At least I finally decided on how I should prevent myself from swearing or using profanity in the forum. Whenever I get mad I will write something in German. It is a very forceful language. I think I purposefully swear to get across the disgust that naturally reverberates in German.

On this I would agree fully with you

But I hope that you will think more often about the anti-marcionite character of Mc 4:11-12, even at the cost of showing it in the your typical manner (more solito, judaizing the marcionites). I am curious about it, afterall.

But it's not a fact what you are suggesting! It's just an interpretation of the facts. You've wasted 20 posts just trying to get you to understand the basic distinction between facts and interpretations.

Another example:

1. Real Madrid drew PSG in the Champions League draw this morning - FACT
2. Real Madrid will lose to PSG - INTERPRETATION