A (pressing) question for RG Price about Mark

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

A (pressing) question for RG Price about Mark

Post by Giuseppe »

Having read and liked the RG Price's book,
rgprice wrote: Mon Sep 17, 2018 12:09 am This is an interesting, if not old, thread. Hakeem's comments from 2017 were exactly right.

It's not just that GMark is contra Peter, GMark is contra the entire movement, especially Peter, James and John.

What I argue in my new book (Deciphering the Gospels Proves Jesus Never Existed) is that GMark is based on the letters of Paul and is pro-Paul, contra Peter, James, John. The real message of the story is as Hakeem said, it's a story meant to show that the Jews brought the war upon themselves and that the leaders of the early Christian movement, along with the Jews themselves, were failures.

The whole issue is made clear with Mark 10:44. Compare to 1 Cor 9:19.

GMark 10:44: "whoever wishes to be first among you must be slave of all."
1 Cor 9:19: "For though I am free with respect to all, I have made myself a slave to all"

GMark is based on the letters of Paul. The only people that really get any kind of good treatment in the story are gentiles, the audience of Paul's letters.
I would like to raise only a question.

What do you think about the fact that Mark introduces a separationist christology, i.e. one where the divine Christ possessed the man Jesus from the baptism and abandons him on the cross ?

Note that Irenaeus said that the original readers of Mark were separationist Christians.

As one who would want to follow fully the RG Price's argument that Mark was written as fictional political propaganda about the Jews etc, I fear that just the absence of an explanation about the Mark's separationism is the top of iceberg of a wider problem: was Mark separationist in the full context of a Marcionite polemic about the true nature of Jesus ?

Under the hypothesis of a marcionite priority (a context where Mark was written under Marcionite influence) the separationism would make a lot of sense: the Jews see only a man (the man Jesus) but they don't realize the nature, even more so the origin [from a higher god, different from the Jewish god], of the divine Christ who talks via his temporary human recipient.

. But what about the Markan separationism under the hypothesis of RG Price?
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.
rgprice
Posts: 2056
Joined: Sun Sep 16, 2018 11:57 pm

Re: A (pressing) question for RG Price about Mark

Post by rgprice »

Hey, been away for a while. Just saw this.

My current view is that Mark is a pure allegory and that many elements of Christian "theology" developed out of muddled interpretations of the story, but those interpretations weren't necessarily intended by the writer. I think that much of this theology developed in reaction to the Gospels, it wasn't something that existed prior to the Gospels. IN other words, I don't think that docetism existed prior to the Gospels, or separationism, etc.

Those are ideas that developed as ways to make sense of the Gospels under the assumption that the Gospel narratives were "real". Most of the known schools of Christianity arose out of confusion caused by the Gospels and how to reconcile the Gospel narratives with pre-Gospel concepts of Jesus. Separationism was irrelevant prior to the idea that Jesus incarnated on earth, which only arose as a product of the Gospels.

I'm working on the final chapters of my new book. It's been a rough slog requiring tons of research, so its been quite slow going. But yeah, I'm far more certain about the basic thesis I laid out in the first book. My conclusion regarding the books of the NT is essentially that the 7 authentic letters of Paul are indeed authentic and were written between 45-65 CE. The writer of Mark was Paul's traveling companion who curated the collection of Paul's letters and was thus their original owner. The Gospel of Mark is an entirely fictional allegory. The Letter to the Hebrews is an authentic pre-Gospel work that describes Jesus as an unborn deity. Essentially every other writing of the New Testament is a fraud of one sort or another (with the possible exception of the epistles of John).

But to be clear, that's not the focus of my new book. Actually about 80% of the material has nothing to do with the New Testament. It's mostly about Roman prophecy and the Hellenistic development of Judaism. I also review a number of Jewish allegories written from the second century BCE through the second century CE to show that the Gospel of Mark fits very well within the framework of Jewish allegory from that period. I also show that most, if not all, of those allegories were misinterpreted by Roman Christian scholars as literal history. Many have only recently become understood as fictional allegories.

I conclude that the Gospel of Mark was a Jewish fictional allegory that was turned into a Greco-Roman style prophetic narrative by the other Gospel writers, who were either Diaspora Jews or possibly Gentile Jewish sympathizers, a.k.a. god-fearers.
Giuseppe
Posts: 13732
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: A (pressing) question for RG Price about Mark

Post by Giuseppe »

Thank you.

I would profit to raise other questions of great interest (for me):
  • 1) what do you think about John the Baptist ?
  • 2) is not embarrassing the fact that Jesus answers not as we would expect from a pious Jew - when he denies publicly that he has carnal mother and brothers ? Is that moral embarrassment born as collateral effect of the reaction against Marcion's Jesus, who denied that he had mother and brothers when some 'tempted him' to see if he was really a man 'born by woman' ?
Thanks in advance for any answer.
rgprice
Posts: 2056
Joined: Sun Sep 16, 2018 11:57 pm

Re: A (pressing) question for RG Price about Mark

Post by rgprice »

There is some evidence that evangelical Jews in this period encouraged Gentile converts to distance themselves from their families. Its possible that Mark's Jesus is modeling the expected behavior of converts.

I don't think JtB is all that important. I'm not sure if he really existed, nor do I think whether he did or not is very important.
User avatar
mlinssen
Posts: 3431
Joined: Tue Aug 06, 2019 11:01 am
Location: The Netherlands
Contact:

Re: A (pressing) question for RG Price about Mark

Post by mlinssen »

rgprice wrote: Wed Dec 09, 2020 9:37 am There is some evidence that evangelical Jews in this period encouraged Gentile converts to distance themselves from their families. Its possible that Mark's Jesus is modeling the expected behavior of converts.

I don't think JtB is all that important. I'm not sure if he really existed, nor do I think whether he did or not is very important.
Exactly. Given the 6 verses that he gets in Mark 1:4-9, his role was insignificant, and meant to be that way

And of course, it all was just a pointer to Zedekiah and sons who immersed Jeremiah in mud - a little before Nebuchadnezzar "broke" his eyes and exalted Jehoiachin over all other kings... but Zedekiah
Giuseppe
Posts: 13732
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: A (pressing) question for RG Price about Mark

Post by Giuseppe »

rgprice wrote: Wed Dec 09, 2020 9:37 am
I don't think JtB is all that important. I'm not sure if he really existed, nor do I think whether he did or not is very important.
I would like to read a your future post about your complete view on John the Baptist.

Surely Paul didn't know John the Baptist, I agree. But what was the reason for "Mark" (author) introduce him in the incipit of the story?
User avatar
mlinssen
Posts: 3431
Joined: Tue Aug 06, 2019 11:01 am
Location: The Netherlands
Contact:

Re: A (pressing) question for RG Price about Mark

Post by mlinssen »

Giuseppe wrote: Wed Dec 09, 2020 11:14 am
rgprice wrote: Wed Dec 09, 2020 9:37 am
I don't think JtB is all that important. I'm not sure if he really existed, nor do I think whether he did or not is very important.
I would like to read a your future post about your complete view on John the Baptist.

Surely Paul didn't know John the Baptist, I agree. But what was the reason for "Mark" (author) introduce him in the incipit of the story?
I think he just gave you his complete view on JB, Giuseppe. As did I - but I'll give up on presenting it to you LOL. Yet it's how you lead me here and I'll cherish that moment. Thank you!
Giuseppe
Posts: 13732
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: A (pressing) question for RG Price about Mark

Post by Giuseppe »

mlinssen wrote: Wed Dec 09, 2020 11:42 amYet it's how you lead me here and I'll cherish that moment. Thank you!
Very a strange coincidence, :thumbup: isn't it ? This forum is very useful to have the right inspiration.

But not even this forum has been able to change my basilar 2 views.
  • 1) that the Jesus of Paul, Hebrews and Revelation was crucified in outer space
  • 2) that the Earliest Gospel ended with this sequence:

    So they bound Jesus, led him away and handed him over to Pilate.

    “Are you the king of the Jews?” asked Pilate.

    “You have said so,” Jesus replied.

    [Pilate] had Jesus flogged, and handed him over to be crucified.

robert j
Posts: 1007
Joined: Tue Jan 28, 2014 5:01 pm

Re: A (pressing) question for RG Price about Mark

Post by robert j »

rgprice wrote: Tue Dec 08, 2020 11:46 am
My conclusion regarding the books of the NT is essentially that the 7 authentic letters of Paul are indeed authentic and were written between 45-65 CE. The writer of Mark was Paul's traveling companion who curated the collection of Paul's letters and was thus their original owner. The Gospel of Mark is an entirely fictional allegory.
What do you mean here by the author of GMark “curated the collection of Paul's letters”?

I would be interested in as much other detail as you would like to provide on this claim. But allowing of course for instances of scribal initiative and scribal error common in the transmission of NT manuscripts, as well as for a few possible later interpolations --- to narrow the focus I have a very specific question ---

Our received version of 2 Corinthians clearly consists of more than one letter that has been combined into one. Do you think it was the curation work by the author of GMark that combined the multiple letters into the one letter?
User avatar
Irish1975
Posts: 1057
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2017 8:01 am

Re: A (pressing) question for RG Price about Mark

Post by Irish1975 »

Giuseppe wrote: Wed Dec 09, 2020 11:14 am
rgprice wrote: Wed Dec 09, 2020 9:37 am
I don't think JtB is all that important. I'm not sure if he really existed, nor do I think whether he did or not is very important.
I would like to read a your future post about your complete view on John the Baptist.

Surely Paul didn't know John the Baptist, I agree. But what was the reason for "Mark" (author) introduce him in the incipit of the story?
I like Tarazi’s idea that JtB is an allegorical figure of Paul. If gMark does in fact come from the curator of Paul’s letters, this interpretation would make a lot of sense. Paul was almost certainly the inventor of baptism into Christ (or “in the name of Jesus”), but this fact had to be concealed in the Jesus story. So it became JtB who brought the Holy Spirit into history, and Luke would later make up a story to fold the baptism of JtB back into Paul’s baptism (Acts 19:1-6).

The synoptic Jesus calls JtB the last and greatest of the prophets—certainly this fits Paul’s conception of his own calling (Galatians 1). Paul was so great in his own mind that he was the new Moses, the prophet of the new covenant (2 Corinthians).

So JtB, who may very well have existed (Josephus), is in the Bible nothing but an allegory of Paul. The earliest Pauline believers would have known this esoteric association.
Post Reply