Christian Texts and History • Re: Jesus is not the Christ: A Reading of Mark

IF you're trying to save the priority of Mark,
WHY would you not interpret Mark,
THE PRIOR GOSPEL,
as being "anti-messianic in an innocent way"?
(i.e., having no such intention but being read that way later, against its true sense)

Under the Markan priority, proto-Mark, i.e. the first gospel, would be without the Passion story. It would be anti-messianic as by you described in the op.

Mark has a passion story.

Trocmé denies it. According to him, Mark 1-13 has Jesus denying he is the Christ, while the Passion story is all devoted to prove that Jesus is the Christ (therefore it is a late addition).

Obviously, the evidence that persuades Trocmé to believe this, is used by me to prove that Mark is reacting against *Ev.

That doesn't make sense. If *Ev was "innocently anti-messianic," then by the same logic a prior Mark could also be, and by the same logic Trocme's conclusion is unsupported because it fails to perceive the "innocently anti-messianic" nature of *Ev/Mark. Your conclusion is also unsupported, since it fails to perceive the obvious implication that if *Ev could be prior and "innocently antimessianic," so could Mark.

In short, your understanding of a prior *Ev can also be applied to a prior Mark, which makes your protestations otherwise here a case of special pleading.

Statistics: Posted by Peter Kirby — Wed Feb 14, 2024 9:47 am

---