Robert said
Jarek said
Accepting the crucified messiah did not have to be a problem for them, because they developed their own meanning
The concepts of Jesus’ incarnation, passion and resurrection were developed separately. Paul’s teachings on the resurrection were forgotten for several decades and were reborn thanks to Marcion. Until his time, resurrection was passe.There is a good book from Marcus Vinzent “Christ Resurrection…”
There are still hints of the problem in Mark’s gospel (eg, Peter’s protest against Jesus’ suffering, the need to explain that Elijah had returned and they killed him).
In what way do you think Paul’s idea of the resurrection was lost to Mark?
Jarek seems wholly unaware of the growing scholarly position that the Gospel of Mark in particular was probably very closely aware of Pauline writings, and the fact he thinks Markus Vinzent [sic] is the scholar to go to, despite the fact he has been severely critiqued in peer reviewed journals on his Marcion theories, is pretty telling that he is not really aware of the leading scholarship on Mark. Personally, I don’t think there is a singularly good reason to think Vinzent’s work convincing, especially when it comes to anything to do with Marcion.
“…that the Gospel of Mark in particular was probably very closely aware of Pauline writings..”
This is the version that Vinzent presents in his second book, Marcion and the Dating of Synoptic Gospels. All the Gospels were written at the time of Marcion, when the letters were known not for their individual propagation, but after the first editors and gathering in the Pauline Corpus.
This shifts the date of the gospel to the first half of the second century because Corpus was created after 100 CE.
Marcus Vinzent (Christ’s Resurrection in Early Christianity and the Making of the New Testament (Farnham: Ashgate, 2011) convincingly, in my opinion, proved that the Pauline Letters and the idea of the resurrection promoted by him were in fact forgotten after the death of Paul himself – at the end of the 1st century and the beginning of the 2nd century practically no one referred to it.The doctrines were proved either by the argument from Scripture (LXX exegesis) or by mythological examples such as the phoenix as evidence of the resurrection. First method is the “Epistle of Barnabas” (its argumentation is entirely based on the LXX), the second, the so-called Epistle of Clement. Alternatively, you could refer to your own revelation, as did the montanists or the author of Hermas’s “Shepherd” (we are not sure if the author was Hermas.) Virtually no one reached out to the “teachings of Jesus” and Paul’s arguments, and Marcion seems to have done it for the first time.
Why is Jesus Christ? First, they tried to convert Hellenistic followers of Judaism and used the known term “messiah”. The title of the messiah was obvious since everything was commanded on the basis of the LXX exegesis. And there were more problems than successes because on the other side there were many people who knew the LXX much better and knew better who the messiah was supposed to be. Christians have been treated like all sectarians through the ages.
Marcion converted away from Hellenistic synagogues on the right assumption that it was better to convert pagans who did not know the LXX tradition than to convince those who had grown up in it. He needed new writings so that his students would be authorities for the audience.
Jarek said
“…that the Gospel of Mark in particular was probably very closely aware of Pauline writings..”This is the version that Vinzent presents in his second book, Marcion and the Dating of Synoptic Gospels. All the Gospels were written at the time of Marcion, when the letters were known not for their individual propagation, but after the first editors and gathering in the Pauline Corpus.
This shifts the date of the gospel to the first half of the second century because Corpus was created after 100 CE.
Which is ludicrous because his hypothesis that the Gospels were written after Marcion has absolutely no basis, and he basically just makes up evidence as he pleases (and misreads a lot of stuff).
Jarek said
Marcus Vinzent (Christ’s Resurrection in Early Christianity and the Making of the New Testament (Farnham: Ashgate, 2011) convincingly, in my opinion, proved that the Pauline Letters and the idea of the resurrection promoted by him were in fact forgotten after the death of Paul himself – at the end of the 1st century and the beginning of the 2nd century practically no one referred to it.The doctrines were proved either by the argument from Scripture (LXX exegesis) or by mythological examples such as the phoenix as evidence of the resurrection. First method is the “Epistle of Barnabas” (its argumentation is entirely based on the LXX), the second, the so-called Epistle of Clement. Alternatively, you could refer to your own revelation, as did the montanists or the author of Hermas’s “Shepherd” (we are not sure if the author was Hermas.) Virtually no one reached out to the “teachings of Jesus” and Paul’s arguments, and Marcion seems to have done it for the first time.
Firstly, spell Markus Vinzent’s name correctly. Secondly, Vinzent is only convincing to people who aren’t very well read in the scholarship.
Omar6741 said
That’s a good point! Now we can sharpen the statement of the conundrum:
How do we explain the fact that, on the one hand
(a) Jesus was believed to be the Messiah during his lifetime (we can infer this from the titulus, unlikely to have been made up by Christians),
whereas, on the other,
(b) Jesus rather harshly rejected being called the Messiah in response to Peter’s confession (a denial found in the earliest gospel that has come down to us, and also unlikely to have been made up by Christians) ?
Omar
(a) he rejected the title, according to the earliest account in Mark
(b) he never claims the title for himself in the earliest sources, such as Mark and Q
and
(c) nothing in his career remotely resembles the actions of a victorious king of David’s line?
What are the main hypotheses to explain this incongruous designation of Jesus as “the Messiah”?
Thank you!
Steve Campbell, author of Historical Accuracy
Jesus of Galilee was called a messiah because he attempted to be a messiah but he lost the Battle of Galilee before the military of the Roman Empire moved south towards Judea from Galilee.
The Biblical Jesus was certainly a messiah if “the enemy” was the god of the Hebrew Bible/Old Testament. In the Hebrew Bible/Old Testament, people with imperfections were rejected by the God of that literature. Just by being a healer, Jesus saved people from being God’s rejects. The lame walk … therefore you may be presented to God.
Omar, you cannot ask the question without realizing there were two Jesuses, those Jesuses in the historical record and those in the gospels.
The Biblical Jesus rejected the Devil’s temptations. That Jesus did not want to supplant the Roman Empire. He did not want a better empire and the client kingdoms of that world.
However, either you are going to be a prophet of an Apocalypse or you are not. If you are: you want the Tribulation and the subsequent kingdom of God and Righteousness. Either you want the Son of Man delivering the glorious king of God and Righteousness or you do not. Either you are the Son of God and the Son of Man or you are not. Either there is God the Father, God the Son, God the Holy Spirit, and a Son of Man ruling the people of the earth or you are an apocalyptic prophet who REALLY does not have a viable Apocalypse; hence, a false prophet–leading people astray deserving of punishment from the Jewish people within the Roman Empire and deserving of punishment from the Roman Empire itself..
Robert said:
“In what way do you think Paul’s idea of the resurrection was lost to Mark?”
In what way do you think Paul’s idea of the resurrection was known to Mark?
The public propagation of Paul’s letters took place after AD 100. Bart supports this proposal by Gunther Zuntz.
Previously, someone redacted them, which resulted in amalgams such as 2 Cor. – composed of pieces of 5 various original letters.
And then someone else put the edited letters into a collection called the Pauline Corpus.
Did Mark have access to the original letters or to the collection?
If he had access to the collection, we have a problem dating the gospel to AD 70.
If he had access to the original letters, we have a problem with the consensus of the Pauline Corpus story.
Jarek said
Robert said:“In what way do you think Paul’s idea of the resurrection was lost to Mark?”
In what way do you think Paul’s idea of the resurrection was known to Mark?
The public propagation of Paul’s letters took place after AD 100. Bart supports this proposal by Gunther Zuntz.
Previously, someone redacted them, which resulted in amalgams such as 2 Cor. – composed of pieces of 5 various original letters.
And then someone else put the edited letters into a collection called the Pauline Corpus.
Did Mark have access to the original letters or to the collection?
If he had access to the collection, we have a problem dating the gospel to AD 70.
If he had access to the original letters, we have a problem with the consensus of the Pauline Corpus story.
How do we have a problem with the “consensus of the Pauline corpus story” if Mark had access to Paul’s letters originally? I don’t for a minute (a) think he had access to all of them, he most likely also had pseudepigraphical ones which Marcion does not, imo, and (b) even if he did, there is no “consensus” on the formulation of the Pauline corpus. We know for a fact that there was no solidified corpus even in the late 2nd century, long after Marcion.
I’d add, no. Even if he had access to the collection, that does not necessarily mean we cannot date Mark to year 70. It means that the collection may have happened earlier than expected, i.e. before Marcion. Which is far more evidenced, imo, than Vinzent’s wild speculations and conjectures.
Let’s start with the fact that your question (especially use of phrase :Paul’s resurrection) was probably misunderstood by me and by Chris, who responded first, with the statement that I am not aware of the fact: “the growing scholarly position that the Gospel of Mark in particular was probably very closely aware of Pauline writings” .
Well, I told him that “closely aware” is a problem for the current consensus and is realistically possible and probable only if we change the dating of the Gospel of Mark.
That’s all.
For Paul, Jesus’ resurrection confirms the revelation he received. For Mark, this is a physical act – Jesus got up and went to Galilee and waits for his disciples there. These are two different traditions.
Robert
The question of the degree to which Mark can be understood as influenced by Pauline practice and theology is a long-standing one.
Steefen
Sometimes bibles have an introduction to a gospel, or any book of the bible.
In what bibles does the introduction to the gospel of Mark say, the author/authors of Mark were influenced by Paul?
Steefen said
RobertThe question of the degree to which Mark can be understood as influenced by Pauline practice and theology is a long-standing one.
Steefen
Sometimes bibles have an introduction to a gospel, or any book of the bible.
In what bibles does the introduction to the gospel of Mark say, the author/authors of Mark were influenced by Paul?
Where in any Bible introduction to the Gospel does it say that Mark was written or influenced by Flavians? I can play the “hey here is a stupid point” game too.
Jarek said
Let’s start with the fact that your question (especially use of phrase :Paul’s resurrection) was probably misunderstood by me and by Chris, who responded first, with the statement that I am not aware of the fact: “the growing scholarly position that the Gospel of Mark in particular was probably very closely aware of Pauline writings” .Well, I told him that “closely aware” is a problem for the current consensus and is realistically possible and probable only if we change the dating of the Gospel of Mark.
That’s all.
For Paul, Jesus’ resurrection confirms the revelation he received. For Mark, this is a physical act – Jesus got up and went to Galilee and waits for his disciples there. These are two different traditions.
“only if we change the dating of the Gospel of Mark”
Incorrect. Paul wrote in the 50’s and died in the early to mid 60’s most likely. So… Mark easily could have written in the 70’s and still had access to Paul’s letters. And for Paul, the resurrection is physical, unless you are in the non-consensus that 1 Thess. 2:14-16 (Jesus was killed by Jewish authorities), 1 Cor. 2 (Jesus is killed by the archons, who are humans in Romans, and are Roman authorities there too), Rom. 1:3 (Jesus is descended of David humanly), Gal. 4:4 (human mother), Gal. 1:18-19 (human brother), etc.
They are not different traditions. You just are bad at reading Paul.
Robert said
Steefen said
Robert
The question of the degree to which Mark can be understood as influenced by Pauline practice and theology is a long-standing one.
Steefen
Sometimes bibles have an introduction to a gospel, or any book of the bible.
In what bibles does the introduction to the gospel of Mark say, the author/authors of Mark were influenced by Paul?
No idea, but I suspect most short introductions to biblical books generally do not delve into the scholarship to this level as this is a more specialized question of little interest to general readers. For summaries of this and other scholarly discussions, I recommend good critical commentaries, for example, those of Joel Marcus and Adela Yarbro Collins. There you will also find references to the more in-depth scholarly discussions of such questions. In the past, the extreme Pauline position was championed by Gustav Volkmar. More recently, this is being defended by Paul Dykstra in his book ** you do not have permission to see this link **. Most Markan scholars generally endorse a more moderate position.
Explain how “Mark” acquired Paul’s letters.
Samuel Beckett wrote in another context, ‘The danger is in the neatness of identifications.’ In the field of NT studies with its dearth of primary texts the temptation to play ‘connect the dots’ seems almost impossible to resist. What we can say and what scholars have long noted is their soteriologies are similar but their Christologies are divergent. You pays your money and you makes your choice.
BDEhrman
FreedomBen
evgendob
Robert
1 Guest(s)