In what sense Mark (Judaizer) was a disciple of Simon Peter (docet Papias): an example

[Giuseppe]

Giuseppe, I am doubtful of Jesus or anyone else on the cross saying 'why have you forsaken me'
It seems way too convenient as a psalm quote with many uses later on
Although it lends a totally docetic feel I agree, which may have been an early Christian belief in some circles

attention, please. The cry on the cross is separationist (or alternatively adoptionist) but not at all docetic. The final of our Mark is separationist as strictly connected with the baptism episode: the cry taken for invocation to Elijah serves to do the point that Elijah is already arrived in the form of John the Baptist just as the Jewish Christ in the form of the man Jesus. But by removing both the baptism and the Passion from Mark, we have a docetic Gospel. The original Passion story of proto-Mark had to resemble to something like our GPeter: Jesus is silent (= he doesn't suffer) and the killers are the Jews.

[Giuseppe]

The justification for docetism is found here:

Because the Sovereign Lord helps me,
I will not be disgraced.
Therefore have I set my face like flint,
and I know I will not be put to shame.

(Isaiah 50:7)

But this verse is made explicit only in gPeter. Even so, if Jesus is made to break the silence by a cry, the intention is to make him not more docetic but separationist or (aut) adoptionist. The implicit corollary is that who cries suffers. I.e. denial of docetism.

But then:

• The docetism precedes the separationism.

• The docetism was seen as prevalently a feature of a christology basically anti-YHWH.

[davidmartin]

OK, well I may be too casual in my terminology!
Maybe Mark wanted to appear docetic to counter some other belief.. such as maybe a focus on the man actually being incapable of separation from the Christ or similar. What I mean is the 'man' is somewhat devalued in docetic doctrine

[Giuseppe]

Afterall, if Jesus was really the "king of the Jews" as the titulus reads, he would have had to suffer. The Jewish Messiah is a mortal, for both Jews and Judeo-Christians.

Hence the docetism can mean:

• 1) that Jesus is NOT the Jewish Christ but the Son of a god distinct from the creator;

• 2) that Jesus is the Jewish Christ, but he only appeared as a man without being really a man, so to confute the early accusations addressed against the Judeo-Christians by the early deniers of the historicity of Jesus.

[Giuseppe]

OK, well I may be too casual in my terminology!
Maybe Mark wanted to appear docetic to counter some other belief.. such as maybe a focus on the man actually being incapable of separation from the Christ or similar. What I mean is the 'man' is somewhat devalued in docetic doctrine

other traces of docetism in proto-Mark:

Am I leading a rebellion,” said Jesus, “that you have come out with swords and clubs to capture me? 49 Every day I was with you, teaching in the temple courts, and you did not arrest me. But the Scriptures must be fulfilled.” 50 Then everyone deserted him and fled.

(Mark 14:48-50)

They couldn't arrest Jesus because the his body was only appearance of a body.

Then some began to spit at him; they blindfolded him, struck him with their fists, and said, “Prophesy!” And the guards took him and beat him.

(Mark 14:65)

The words “Prophesy!” was not a ironical reference to the betrayal by Peter (pace our Joe Wallack), but a way to show criptycally the real ignorance of Jesus about who really was strucking him. Since the his body was a mere appearance, he couldn't feel the dolor given by the fists therefore he couldn't infer the direction of these fists (if from right or from left etc), and being blindfolded he couldn't see who was strucking him.

Hence the beaters want that Jesus has to be a Jewish prophet. But Jesus was NOT a Jewish prophet. But an alien ghost.

And obviously, among all the crowd around Jesus, only a young girl was able to touch really him. By mere faith.

And Judas. By kissing him.

[davidmartin]

who was Judas do you think? or, who could he be, what are the options?

[Giuseppe]

who was Judas do you think? or, who could he be, what are the options?

Two options (ignoring the possible midrashical source about a betrayal by kiss or the general anti-Judaism behind the episode):

• 1) a pauline invented the betrayal by a Judas to make room for a new 12° apostle: Paul. The election of Matthias in Acts in the place of Judas serves to prevent the paulines.

• 2) the Judaizers invented Judas because in a previous Gospel it was the demiurge who "entered" in the sinedrites (and not Satan who "entered" in Judas) to move them against Jesus. It is originally the demiurge who didn't want to arrest Jesus during the his feast.
  
  Sone clue of this is in the curious claim by Jesus:
  
  
  And Jesus answered and said unto them, Are ye come out, as against a thief, with swords and with staves to take me?
  
  (Mark 14:48)
  
  The "thief" Barabbas is a Judaizing parody of the marcionite Son of Father (who is different from the other Jesus only in virtue of the latter being "called Christ"). So Jesus would be denying implicitly that he is Barabbas and in the same time he would be saying that any other Jesus arrested by the Jews in that particular manner is a mere thief: a warning against the heretics.

[perseusomega9]

See for example the cry of Jesus in GPeter: "my power, my power, why have you abandoned me?"

Simon Magus was called the "Great Power" by the his followers.

The use of "power" instead of god probably just points to jewish roots of avoiding saying god directly.

[perseusomega9]

Which is further supported by the use of King of Israel instead of King of the Jews on the titulus in GPeted

[Ben C. Smith]

In Mark it is the mockers who use the phrase "king of Israel" (Mark 15.32). I wonder whether that means anything.