Today on live channel of Mythvision this question was discussed, if you want to recap, here is the link:
Markus Vinzent's Blog: Join me for research - networking - communication
Markus Vinzent's Blog: Join me for research - networking - communication
Today on live channel of Mythvision this question was discussed, if you want to recap, here is the link:
Hi prof Vinzent,
ReplyDeletecongratulations for your book! I have appreciated especially the point where you show that Mark, by introducing the Parable of the Vineyards, has dissipated the halo of ambiguity about the identity of the true father of Jesus (the previous episode of the pharisees questioning the autority of Jesus). I have found another point where Mark exorcises this ambiguity:
The episode of Bartimaeus is found in both Mark and *Ev. It may be strumentalized in a marcionite way along the following lines: Bartimaeus gives up to hail Jesus as davidic only after, not before, he gains the sight (just as Adam and Eve realize the salvific function of the Serpent only after their act of disobedience). Realizing the danger of the marcionite interpretation, Mark adds the episode of the blind of Bethsaida that is exactly simmetrical to the Bartimaeus episode: Marcion has only the rapid healing of the blind called Bartimaeus while Mark has added the delayed healing of the blind of Bethsaida. The delay is explained by the vision of “men as tree walking”, i.e. blind people want a king-messiah for themselves (the allusion is to Judges 9:8-15). The inference is that Bartimaeus is healed rapidly just because he recognized Jesus as already the davidic Messiah and didn’t wish one yet to come. In this way the initial recognition of Jesus as davidic messiah by Bartimaeus is not seen more in (Marcionite) antithesis to his secondary recognition of Jesus as son of god (the unknown Father).
Marcion is crucial and no one understands him. In fact, there is nothing surprising in this, because probably none of the biblical scholars has been the leader of a large enterprise with a dispersed structure, which must be organized at the beginning, begin to achieve the assumed goals and survive until the revenues are higher than the costs. And then fight the competition, help some, bribe others. Squeeze as much as possible out of your own people by promoting asceticism, singleness and giving up procreation. And at the same time coach them, giving them the prospect of promotion. The prose of the life of an effective leader regardless of the era. Marcion is actually a simple case, but we need to apply criteria outside biblical studies to him. That's the problem.
ReplyDeleteIt's the same with content. A ghostwriter is not an author. With redactor he is just a co-executor of the order defined by the product manager, who is responsible for delivering the product. The product manager defines initial expectations, defines corrections, and decides on the composition of the product.
Mark, Luke, and Matthew did not write any of the gospels themselves. Their material was mixed, revised and supplemented by those for whom they wrote. None of the canonical gospels was first because they are amalgams. During your lecture at King's College, you asked a key question - where were the evangelists. The answer is simple - they sat together in one scriptorium.
Your are not alone Markus, although I doubt that I'm considered "a great colleague" - *Ev is the first gospel to include sayings, and it was composed by "Marcion". His source? Original John, and the so-called gospel of Thomas with which the text shares 57 parallels, all of which made it into Luke.
ReplyDeleteWhat he didn't do was to write, or even redact, the Pauline Epistles: those are the only original Christian writings, evidently composed later, even after the Christian gospels themselves
The Gospels are exclusively about Jesus, the Epistles predominantly about Christ: there is no way that a single author or even redactor would switch subjects like that. I asked Jason BeDuhn about that peculiarity, and his sole response was that Marcion didn't write or redact *Ev and the Apostolikon, but merely collect them - which doesn't answer the question in any way.
Table 18 in my book (available for a buck on this Ascension Day) shows my evolution of texts and that's basically Thomas, John, *Ev, Christian Gospels, Pauline Epistles, Catholic Epistles and Christian LXX.
In the evolution and turning around from *Ev to Christianity, Mark is pivotal with adding the baptism of Jesus by John, all the details surrounding the Messianic Secret, as well as the resurrection: Mark floods the stage with countless witnesses to untold events, while making sure that none of those witnesses testify.
Evidently, Mark had to provide plausible deniability to everyone who knew *Ev and obviously had never heard of the baptism of Jesus by John, that he allegedly was a son of god and a Davidian Messiah etc, and even managed to survive the impaling.
Just read Mark 15:1 through to 16:8 with an empty mind, and notice that he stresses the death of Jesus FIVE TIMES!!!. Observe how insignificant the entire resurrection is, and how all of the focus is on the terrified women, handing them a very credible excuse for not telling anyone. And then compare Mark 16:8 to Luke 24:9, and you'll realise that Mark meant these females as deriving from *Ev and the entire Chrestian tradition: the *Ev audience hadn't heard of the resurrection because the Chrestian females never told anyone
https://www.amazon.com/dp/B0CKFD5J98
Back to the Apostolikon.
I can't include a picture here, but one picture tells it all, if one were to consider the generally assumed chronological order of NT books:
https://ibb.co/G5ypZ81