Mark used *Ev

[robert j]

@ Giuseppe

Just because I see a house of cards built on a foundation of sand —- well, so what.

If you’re happy with it, fine and dandy my friend.

[Giuseppe]

Just because I see a house of cards built on a foundation of sand —- well, so what.

If you’re happy with it, fine and dandy my friend.

Even If 9:36 is absent in Marcion, my point still stands:



That difference has to be explained.
Did Marcion reduce the silence to the davidic identity?
Or did Mark expand the silence to cover also the mirabilia of Jesus, included the Transfiguration episode?

[Kunigunde Kreuzerin]

It is easy to confute Kunigunde's point about the absence of dating in Paul: in the original epistles, the crucifixion is undated because it is a mythical crucifixion in outer space. Paul couldn't date it even if he had wanted. Idem for Revelation: the immolation of the Lamb is not a historical event, nor it is a crucifixion.

I wrote nothing about the dating of the crucifixion. It seems that it's easy for you to confute because you no longer take note of what others wrote.

Without offence, but who has written this:

- Paul has not dated his letters, nor did he write about historical events that can be dated.

...are just you.

OK, that was misleading for mythicists

I meant political events in Paul's life and environment or that of his assemblies, not from the "life" of Jesus. (For mythicists: Paul = your fictional hero of the letters)

[Kunigunde Kreuzerin]

I think that you should deal with my thesis, that request of secrecy is usually the conservative answer against the bold propaganda for outsiders done by innovators. Before the propaganda, then the secrecy.

Example:

“Do not give dogs what is sacred; do not throw your pearls to pigs

(Matthew 7:6)

By the time Matthew invented this logion, Marcion had already given dogs what is sacred. Marcion had already thrown pearls to pigs.

So, if Matthew 7:6 invoked secrecy against Marcion, why could't Mark himself — the same inventor of the Messianic Secret — have invoked secrecy against Marcion even before Matthew ?

I fear that Kunigunde doesn't even like to answer to this intriguing question.

There seems to be an ongoing debate among Matthaean scholars on how to interpret 7:6. The majority does not see the dogs and pigs as Gentiles, but as unrepentant sinners, or scoffers and enemies of the gospel, unworthy ones.

Furthermore, it does not seem clear whether the Eucharist is meant, or the in-depth instruction in the gospel, or acceptance into the congregation.

Fortunately, prof Vinzent or prof Klinghardt will answer to it, before or after...

Yes, Markus and Matthias will certainly confirm everything

[Giuseppe]

It seems that prof Vinzent had already realized before myself this Mark's expansion of the secrecy until to cover also the Jesus's mirabilia:

Mark even emphasises the hidden and mysterious character of Jesus – therefore, he even pushes Marcion’s message more into this direction

(my bold)

If Vinzent is right, the trend was from a secrecy limited to only the presumed Davidic identity (a identity denied by Marcion) to a secrecy concerning also the mirabilia of Jesus.

An explanation of the kind "secrecy is original because the esoterism is intrinsic to an original mystery cult" doesn't sound so persuasive. The paulinist Mark, even with all his paulinism, would have been condemned by the Paul who wrote 2 Corinthians 11:4:

4 For if someone comes to you and preaches a Jesus other than the Jesus we preached, or if you receive a different spirit from the Spirit you received, or a different gospel from the one you accepted, you put up with it easily enough.

[schillingklaus]

The original Christian eucharist is the in-depth instruction in the secrets of Scripture as foretelling the hypostatsis of the messiah. That's why the disciples at Emmaus recognized the Lord only upon the eucharist and comprehended that they had completely misunderstood Scripture due to having been misguided by the pharisees and elders of Judea. This is an imitation of the gnostic reading of Adam and Eve in paradise, whose eyes are opened upon consuming the fruit recommended by the serpent (== Jesus).

The "different gospel" opposed by Paul is the Jewish Christian one as preached by the pillars. It has nothing to do with esoterism. 2 Cor 11:5-12 are post-marcionist interpolations.

[davidmartin]

The "different gospel" opposed by Paul is the Jewish Christian one as preached by the pillars. It has nothing to do with esoterism. 2 Cor 11:5-12 are post-marcionist interpolations.

That is not certain. Paul's gospel is based on the atonement, in essence any 'gospel' that is not Paul's specific gospel is opposed by Paul - that could include Jewish Christian interpretations or ones that in any way differed from his understanding whatever they were. Paul's opponents were simply anyone who disagreed with him

[John T]

One of the most interesting thoughts is Mark is a 'snapshot' of an early/proto version of Luke (ie the *Ev)
Mark, then, would not be first at all but a summarising second
In that reading the Luke we have is so developed on from this barely anything original would remain?
This can be used to get rid of the Q hypothesis. I've kind of given up with figuring this out but I left it thinking this is the most likely explanation

Then again the simplest explanation is usually the best explanation.

The story of Jesus was first told in verbal form, from eye witnesses. Likely, the first written accounts were reports from scribes/pharisees to the Sanhedrin and Herod. The sayings of Jesus.

As the story of Jesus later spread around the Mediterranean, it had to be translated to the people of different languages. Mark was a translator for Peter and wrote in Latin. The gospel as written by Mark was not meant to be a complete bibliography of Jesus but a Kerygma or proclamation. Later, as others wanted to know more about the history of Jesus the other gospels were written to fill in the missing gaps.

Mimesis criticism (MacDonald) seeks to see things that are not there via redactional plausibility.

The Marcan priority still stands as the best explanation.

[davidmartin]

The story of Jesus was first told in verbal form, from eye witnesses. Likely, the first written accounts were reports from scribes/pharisees to the Sanhedrin and Herod. The sayings of Jesus.

As the story of Jesus later spread around the Mediterranean, it had to be translated to the people of different languages. Mark was a translator for Peter and wrote in Latin. The gospel as written by Mark was not meant to be a complete bibliography of Jesus but a Kerygma or proclamation. Later, as others wanted to know more about the history of Jesus the other gospels were written to fill in the missing gaps.

The written accounts were from scribes/pharisees? why not from the actual followers of Jesus instead of His opponents?
The historicist position must rely on actual followers existing or it isn't worth anything and they and they alone had to have provided the best and most original sources. Either he had a following or he didn't. If he did his following produced the sources
I'm imagining a popular movement here that had plenty of resources to pull on to create written accounts, why would the testimony of the scribes be wanted, they didn't want or need Jesus

[John T]

The story of Jesus was first told in verbal form, from eye witnesses. Likely, the first written accounts were reports from scribes/pharisees to the Sanhedrin and Herod. The sayings of Jesus.

As the story of Jesus later spread around the Mediterranean, it had to be translated to the people of different languages. Mark was a translator for Peter and wrote in Latin. The gospel as written by Mark was not meant to be a complete bibliography of Jesus but a Kerygma or proclamation. Later, as others wanted to know more about the history of Jesus the other gospels were written to fill in the missing gaps.

The written accounts were from scribes/pharisees? why not from the actual followers of Jesus instead of His opponents?...why would the testimony of the scribes be wanted, they didn't want or need Jesus..

Do you know of any accounts regarding which disciples that could read and write? Consider that during the time of Jesus very few people could read and/or write, especially among the common poor. It is questionable if Jesus could actually read and/or write. Still, Jesus had admirers even in the council, e.g. Joseph of Arimathea. Joseph expectantly waited for the kingdom of God.

Mark 15:43