I use the term 'shorten' but I am not sure that Mark was shorter than *Ev.
The list of the things in *Ev removed by Mark is the following:
I may explain why Mark removed the reference to 15° year of Tiberius. It had some connections with the 15° of the month of Tybi, hence too much Basilidian [=hence: anti-demiurgist] speculations not easily tolerated by Mark.
I may explain why Mark removed the Beatitudes: too much deliberate contrast with a dark background of an age (and a world) subjected to the tyrannical Law of the god of the Jews.
I may explain why Mark removed the sinful woman forgiven by Jesus. Klinghardt gives the reason: the Simon there was Simon Peter, not Simon the Leper.
I may explain why Mark removed the meal with the Pharisees. For two reasons: there was the risk that the contrast with the fast of John the Baptist could be emphasized too much (contra Mark's theological reasons to mitigate this contrast, since Mark had allowed that the contrast "meal vs fast" was limited to the disciples respectively of Jesus and John). And especially because the entire episode culminated in this really anti-demiurgist sentence by Jesus (*Ev 11:52):
We all know who in the book of Genesis "had taken away the key to knowledge": the evil demiurge.
I may explain why Mark removed the trial before Herod: in Marcion, the Jews are guilty not because they transgress against the commandments of the scriptures but just because they fulfill them.
*E 23:6:
A Pilate who says: "Jesus has to be judged by Herod" is essentially a Pilate who says: you Jews have to fulfill your laws. Therefore the Jews follow the Law just as they make Jesus judged also by Herod. By removing the trial before Herod, the Law is not fulfilled, which is why in Mark the Jews are guilty.
As to the apparitions post-mortem (found in Marcion), I realize that their absence in Mark (if really Mark ends in 16:8) can be considered the strongest argument to assume Markan priority over *Ev. Yet I think that Volkmar is correct in his commentary about the important verse *Ev 24:39:
(G. VOLCKMAR, Das Evangelium Marcions, Leipzig 1852, 172, my bold)
Hence both Tertullian and GakuseiDon are completely wrong in wanting inferring anti-docetism from that passage. Rather, all the contrary, as the Volkmar's comment proves.
Therefore Mark removed the passage because he feared the docetist implications of those apparitions of a spiritual body.
The list of the things in *Ev removed by Mark is the following:
- the reference to 15° year of Tiberius
- the Beatitudes
- the sinful woman who was forgiven in the home of Simon Peter [alias: the Leper)
- Jesus eating with Pharisees and conflict with them
- trial before Herod
- apparitions post-mortem
I may explain why Mark removed the reference to 15° year of Tiberius. It had some connections with the 15° of the month of Tybi, hence too much Basilidian [=hence: anti-demiurgist] speculations not easily tolerated by Mark.
I may explain why Mark removed the Beatitudes: too much deliberate contrast with a dark background of an age (and a world) subjected to the tyrannical Law of the god of the Jews.
I may explain why Mark removed the sinful woman forgiven by Jesus. Klinghardt gives the reason: the Simon there was Simon Peter, not Simon the Leper.
I may explain why Mark removed the meal with the Pharisees. For two reasons: there was the risk that the contrast with the fast of John the Baptist could be emphasized too much (contra Mark's theological reasons to mitigate this contrast, since Mark had allowed that the contrast "meal vs fast" was limited to the disciples respectively of Jesus and John). And especially because the entire episode culminated in this really anti-demiurgist sentence by Jesus (*Ev 11:52):
“Woe to you experts in the law, because you have taken away the key to knowledge. You yourselves have not entered, and you have hindered those who were entering.”
We all know who in the book of Genesis "had taken away the key to knowledge": the evil demiurge.
I may explain why Mark removed the trial before Herod: in Marcion, the Jews are guilty not because they transgress against the commandments of the scriptures but just because they fulfill them.
*E 23:6:
When he learned that Jesus was under Herod’s jurisdiction, he sent him to Herod
A Pilate who says: "Jesus has to be judged by Herod" is essentially a Pilate who says: you Jews have to fulfill your laws. Therefore the Jews follow the Law just as they make Jesus judged also by Herod. By removing the trial before Herod, the Law is not fulfilled, which is why in Mark the Jews are guilty.
As to the apparitions post-mortem (found in Marcion), I realize that their absence in Mark (if really Mark ends in 16:8) can be considered the strongest argument to assume Markan priority over *Ev. Yet I think that Volkmar is correct in his commentary about the important verse *Ev 24:39:
Look at my hands and my feet, for a ghost has no bones as you see I have.”
“in doing so, they [the disciples] should persuade themselves by their senses that he does not belong to the material world. While Marcion’s Christ did have visible hands and feet as well, they consisted not of flesh and bones, but only of spiritual matter, which is manifest immediately at the touch”
(G. VOLCKMAR, Das Evangelium Marcions, Leipzig 1852, 172, my bold)
Hence both Tertullian and GakuseiDon are completely wrong in wanting inferring anti-docetism from that passage. Rather, all the contrary, as the Volkmar's comment proves.
Therefore Mark removed the passage because he feared the docetist implications of those apparitions of a spiritual body.
Statistics: Posted by Giuseppe — Thu May 01, 2025 6:29 am
