stephan huller

Right but read what the Philosophumena says about that gospel of Mark - Jesus is mythical. The original source (Hippolytus? no I think it is earlier because Irenaeus seems also to be aware of this longer, mystical Mark) says that this text of Mark makes Jesus appear as the 'love' principle of Empedocles. How could this be possible with a historical Jesus. I have actually developed a long article on the Empedoclean argument from the Philosophumena. Jesus can't be historical in this version of the gospel of Mark. Some lady also developed a paper that Prunicos fits in with this Empedoclean appropriation. I will have to dig this out.

stephan huller

He is condemned for blashphemy, in claiming he is messiah

But the blasphemy charge would have have been related to him calling Israel to other gods (= himself). This is plain from the Marcionite material. It has nothing to do with claiming to be the messiah.

aa5874

In gMark, Jesus claims he is the Messiah AND the Son of the Blessed.

Mark 14 Unclean Spirits claimed Jesus was the Son of God in the gMark STORY.

Mark 3:11 KJV People possessed with Evil Spirits recognised Jesus as the Son of God in the gMark STORY.
Mark 5 Joseph of Arithmatea claimed Jesus was the Son of God in the gMark STORY.

Mark 15:39 KJV

Duvduv

Is the Jewish messiah the same as the Son of Man, and are either the same as the Son of God?
And what is the Son of the Blessed?

outhouse

nope

that woud be a jewish crime with a jewish punishment.

outhouse

who cares more useless material written way to late and for a semi pagan audience

stephan huller

Very good point aa, but as I have already demonstrated Clement's gospel witnesses an earlier version of the gospel which did not yet add the 'messiah' argument. Compare the received text:

with Clement's witness of the text. It only said 'Son of God'

The messiah context was added later or originally appeared as a wrong association (see the Marcionite interpretation of the blind man calling Jesus 'son of David' but finally recognizing him as heavenly 'Lord' when Jesus 'opens his eyes')

aa5874

In the gMark STORY, Jesus called himself the Son of man, did NOT want the Jews to be converted, did NOT want any outsiders to know he was Christ.

Jesus did NOT even first tell his own disciples who he was. It was Peter in the gMark story who told the disciples Jesus was Christ but immediately Jesus barred the disciples from telling people he was Christ. See MARK 8.29

Again, Jesus implied he was the Son of God in 13th chapter of the gMark STORY.
Mark 13:32 KJV gMark's Jesus was the Son of God, a Divine creature, a Myth.

Solo

Stephan, which book of Philosophumena talks about the gospel of Mark ?
I have F. Legge's pdf-scanned translation (1921) of vols' 1 and 2 and found nothing referring to Mark in searching on either 'Mark' or 'gospel'.

Thanks.

Best,
Jiri

stephan huller

When, therefore, Marcion or some one of his hounds barks against the Demiurge, and adduces reasons from a comparison of what is good and bad, we ought to say to them, that neither Paul the apostle nor Mark, he of the maimed finger, announced such (tenets). For none of these (doctrines) has been written in the Gospel according to Mark. But (the real author of the system) is Empedocles, son of Meto, a native of Agrigentum. And (Marcion) despoiled this (philosopher), and imagined that up to the present would pass undetected his transference, under the same expressions, of the arrangement of his entire heresy from Sicily into the evangelical narratives. For bear with me, O Marcion: as you have instituted a comparison of what is good and evil, I also to-day will institute a comparison following up your own tenets, as you suppose them to be. You affirm that the Demiurge of the world is evil--why not hide your countenance in shame, (as thus) teaching to the Church the doctrines of Empedocles? You say that there is a good Deity who destroys the works of the Demiurge: then do not you plainly preach to your pupils, as the good Deity, the Friendship (philia) of Empedocles. You forbid marriage, the procreation of children, (and) the abstaining from meats which God has created for participation by the faithful, and those that know the truth. (Thinkest thou, then,) that thou canst escape detection, (while thus) enjoining the purificatory rites of Empedocles? For in point of fact you follow in every respect this (philosopher of paganism), while you instruct your own disciples to refuse meats, in order not to eat any body (that might be) a remnant of a soul which has been punished by the Demiurge. You dissolve marriages that have been cemented by the Deity. And here again you conform to the tenets of Empedocles, in order that for you the work of Friendship may be perpetuated as one (and) indivisible. For, according to Empedocles, matrimony separates unity, and makes (out of it) plurality, as we have proved.

CHAP. XIX.--THE HERESY OF PREPON; FOLLOWS EMPEDOCLES; MARCION REJECTS THE GENERATION OF THE SAVIOUR.

The principal heresy of Marcion, and (the one of his) which is most free from admixture (with other heresies), is that which has its system formed out of the theory concerning the good and bad (God). Now this, it has been manifested by us, belongs to Empedocles. But since at present, in our times, a certain follower of Marcion, (namely) Prepon, an Assyrian, has endeavoured to introduce something more novel, and has given an account of his heresy in a work inscribed to Bardesanes, an Armenian, neither of this will I be silent. In alleging that what is just constitutes a third principle, and that it is placed intermediate between what is good and bad, Prepon of course is not able to avoid (the imputation of inculcating) the opinion of Empedocles. For Empedocles asserts that the world is managed by wicked Discord, and that the other

(world) which (is managed) by Friendship, is cognisable by intellect. And (he asserts) that these are the two different principles of good and evil, and that intermediate between these diverse principles is impartial reason, in accordance with which are united the things that have been separated by Discord, (and which,) in accordance with the influence of Friendship, are accommodated to unity. The impartial reason itself, that which is an auxiliary to Friendship, Empedocles denominates "Musa." And he himself likewise entreats her to assist him, and expresses himself somehow thus:- "For if on fleeting mortals, deathless Muse, Thy care it be that thoughts our mind engross, Calliope, again befriend my present prayer, As I disclose a pure account of happy gods."

Marcion, adopting these sentiments, rejected altogether the generation of our Saviour. He considered it to be absurd that tinder the (category of a) creature fashioned by destructive Discord should have been the Logos that was an auxiliary to Friendship--that is, the Good Deity. (His doctrine,) however, was that, independent of birth, (the Logos) Himself descended from above in the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar, and that, as being intermediate between the good and bad Deity, He proceeded to give instruction in the synagogues. For if He is a Mediator, He has been, he says, liberated from the entire nature of the Evil Deity. Now, as he affirms, the Demiurge is evil, and his works. For this reason, he affirms, Jesus came down unbegotten, in order that He might be liberated from all (admixture of) evil. And He has, he says, been liberated from the nature of the Good One likewise, in order that He may be a Mediator, as Paul states, and as Himself acknowledges: "Why call ye me good? there is one good," These, then, are the opinions of Marcion, by means of which he made many his dupes, employing the conclusions of Empedocles. And he transferred the philosophy invented by that (ancient speculator) into his own system of thought, and (out of Empedocles) constructed his (own) impious heresy. But I consider that this has been sufficiently refuted by us, and that I have not omitted any opinion of those who purloin their opinions from the Greeks, and act despitefully towards the disciples of Christ, as if they had become teachers to them of these (tenets). But since it seems that we have sufficiently explained the doctrines of this (heretic), let us see what Carpocrates says. [Phil 7:18, 19]