Since I am now strongly persuaded that John the Baptist was a totally invented figure (per Allen 2015), I am curious about a conjectural reconstruction of proto-Mark as lacking any reference to John.
It seems that Robert Price did this reconstruction in his recent "Proto-Mark: A Conjectural Reconstruction".
http://www.christiannewage.com/V22N3.html
Can someone say me how can I buy this paper?
Thanks.
Price about proto-Mark without John the Baptist
Price about proto-Mark without John the Baptist
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.
-
Charles Wilson
- Posts: 2107
- Joined: Thu Apr 03, 2014 8:13 am
Re: Price about proto-Mark without John the Baptist
http://www.christiannewage.com/Order.html , unless I'm missing something, which is possible.
JtB may be one of the few characters not invented in all of this. He is representative of the Deprecated Mishmarot Group Bilgah as all of the jokes in Mark and John and elsewhere show.
http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/3298-bilgah
And he preached, saying, "After me comes he who is mightier than I, the thong of whose sandals I am not worthy to stoop down and untie.
***
John bore witness to him, and cried, "This was he of whom I said, `He who comes after me ranks before me, for he was before me.'"
JtB may be one of the few characters not invented in all of this. He is representative of the Deprecated Mishmarot Group Bilgah as all of the jokes in Mark and John and elsewhere show.
http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/3298-bilgah
And he preached, saying, "After me comes he who is mightier than I, the thong of whose sandals I am not worthy to stoop down and untie.
***
John bore witness to him, and cried, "This was he of whom I said, `He who comes after me ranks before me, for he was before me.'"
Re: Price about proto-Mark without John the Baptist
And he preached, saying, "After me comes he who is mightier than I, the thong of whose sandals I am not worthy to stoop down and untie.
***
John bore witness to him, and cried, "This was he of whom I said, `He who comes after me ranks before me, for he was before me.'"
There is nothing that would indicate JtB said anything with every person who ever wrote a word about him, was to far removed from his total existence.
I think Josephus is as good as it gets here, and that I'm even somewhat suspect/skeptical
Agreed he has more historicity then JesusJtB may be one of the few characters not invented in all of this.
Re: Price about proto-Mark without John the Baptist
I have not read the book, but I can guess the reasoning behind Price's reconstruction, which I suspect ties to Marcionite priority in some way. If that is the case, then he is mistaken. It is more likely the Marcionite author removed the baptism scene from his source than a post-first edition Mark author added it. Prices version also almost requires Matthew's version be the first, and that is clearly not the case.
Price appears to make some assumptions about Marcionite priority that I think are incorrect. As a proponent of Marcionite priority (1), I believe Price is mistaken in his reading of Mark's opening.
Mark aligns at verse 1:21 with the beginning of the Marcionite Gospel at Luke 4:31. So my focus is on the first 20 verses. only Verses 1:16-20 concerning the calling of the fishermen, which does appear in a different form in Marcion, and in the same place as Luke 5:1-11. Luke/Marcion version is a bit different, "free hand" as it were, but really just placed in a different location. This may be because it was a free floating element, as we see with John 21, but it matters not, the element is in both Mark and Marcion/Luke.
Mark 1:1 can be explained as the title of the prototype Gospel versified by prefixing Ἀρχὰ. This would have been the title on the source document Mark was working on. (2) But since there were Gospels in circulation (Marcionite at a minimum) there became a need for distinguishing them, hence κατὰ Μᾶρκον had to be prefixed as well, although the nature of such titles in the early manuscripts suggest this was a later development, long post authorship.
Verse 1:2a and 1:3 are from the same source (proto-Gospel) and sequence as Matthew 3:3. Mark added the Malachi 3:1 quote causing confusion about Isaiah. This Malachi could have been added later from the margins by some scribe early in the transmission process. In any event it concerns the last prophet to come, as Elijah reborn before the final days of Malachi 4:5. This concept for John is agreed with by Marcion (Luke 16:16, 7:28) and Matthew and his Jewish or proto-Orthodox Christian camp state explicitly in Matthew 11:13-14, 17:10-13. Only John's author disagrees, and explicitly in John 1:21, a direct refutation of Matthew 11:14; but this is a later development. There is no reason to think Mark viewed John differently, hence I think it likely the words were from Mark not a scribe pulling them in from a marginal note.
The wording and description of John in Mark 1:2a, 3-8 maps closely to Matthew 3:3-6, 11, while verses 1:9-11 map to Matthew 3:13, 16-17, and verses 1:12-15 to Matthew 4:1-2, 11-12, 17. These almost certainly have a common source, so many words identical. It is this that leads me to believe Mark would have seen them and used them.
But let's get to the core of why I think the verses were present in Mark, and likely deleted by the Marcionite author from his source. Mark 2:18 and Luke 5:33 John simply appears otherwise from nowhere (subito et Ioannes! exclaims Tertullian in AM 4.11.4). In addition the story of John's death in 6:17-29 (Matthew 14:3-12) would make no sense were John missing, yet it is integral to the narrative.
What I could buy is the Gospel started at verse 1:9, where Marcion's author replaced Καὶ ἐγένετο ἐν ἐκείναις ταῖς ἡμέραις ἦλθεν Ἰησοῦς with Ἐν ἔτει δὲ πεντεκαιδεκάτῳ τῆς ἡγεμονίας Τιβερίου Καίσαρος ... καὶ κατῆλθεν to begin his Gospel. In this view Matthew's source providing context for the baptism, not in Marcion's or Mark's source. But I think in reality the versification of the title in Mark 1:1 is what led Mark to move the prototype opening (Matthew 3:1 Ἐν δὲ ταῖς ἡμέραις ἐκείναις) to verse 1:9 and the start of his narrative of Jesus, not John.
Therefore, it is my opinion that those baker's dozen verses missing from Marcion were in the prototype Gospel the author saw, but chose to drop them, even though he agreed that John was the last prophet of Malachi, because his theology did not accept the Baptism of Jesus by John. The Temptation, a mere two verses, simple had no context without the baptism, so also fell away. There is similarly nothing for Marcion to object to in Mark 1:14-15, as this parallels Luke 16:16. He simply preferred no back story and started with his descent into Capernaum. Price's speculation is both more complicated, and more difficult to support. It's much easier to understand that Marcionite priority merely means for published Gospels, not unpublished proto-Gospel sources underlying all the Synoptic Gospels, nor does it extend to the primacy or originality of any theological camp (a common mistake). It is my hope that scholars will come to understand the more narrow scope of what Marcionite priority actually is and what it implies.
Notes:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(1) Marcionite priority strictly means the first public published versions of the Synoptic Gospel and Paul were in Marcionite form. It does not mean Marcionite Christianity was first. The writings in Marcionite form reveal two theological camps were already formed (and diverse) the day ink met paper for the first time. This makes it impossible to determine with any real certainty which came first - so don't ask me, you will only get a shrug in reply.
Further the Marcionite Gospel being the first publicly available version does not mean it was "original" in the sense of not having sources. Quite the contrary, there was at least one (I believe two primary versions) unpublished proto-Gospel lying around, which is a position espoused, albeit differently, by Vinzent. There are additional implications, such as Qeulle not existing, but they are beyond the scope of this immediate topic.
(2) The supposed title of the Marcionite Gospel was τοῦ εὐαγγελίου ΧΥ "the Gospel of Christ" (or as Harrnack suggested "the Lord" ΚΥ), a longer form would have added ΙΥ "Jesus," much as we see pious name expansion elsewhere.
Price appears to make some assumptions about Marcionite priority that I think are incorrect. As a proponent of Marcionite priority (1), I believe Price is mistaken in his reading of Mark's opening.
Mark aligns at verse 1:21 with the beginning of the Marcionite Gospel at Luke 4:31. So my focus is on the first 20 verses. only Verses 1:16-20 concerning the calling of the fishermen, which does appear in a different form in Marcion, and in the same place as Luke 5:1-11. Luke/Marcion version is a bit different, "free hand" as it were, but really just placed in a different location. This may be because it was a free floating element, as we see with John 21, but it matters not, the element is in both Mark and Marcion/Luke.
Mark 1:1 can be explained as the title of the prototype Gospel versified by prefixing Ἀρχὰ. This would have been the title on the source document Mark was working on. (2) But since there were Gospels in circulation (Marcionite at a minimum) there became a need for distinguishing them, hence κατὰ Μᾶρκον had to be prefixed as well, although the nature of such titles in the early manuscripts suggest this was a later development, long post authorship.
Verse 1:2a and 1:3 are from the same source (proto-Gospel) and sequence as Matthew 3:3. Mark added the Malachi 3:1 quote causing confusion about Isaiah. This Malachi could have been added later from the margins by some scribe early in the transmission process. In any event it concerns the last prophet to come, as Elijah reborn before the final days of Malachi 4:5. This concept for John is agreed with by Marcion (Luke 16:16, 7:28) and Matthew and his Jewish or proto-Orthodox Christian camp state explicitly in Matthew 11:13-14, 17:10-13. Only John's author disagrees, and explicitly in John 1:21, a direct refutation of Matthew 11:14; but this is a later development. There is no reason to think Mark viewed John differently, hence I think it likely the words were from Mark not a scribe pulling them in from a marginal note.
The wording and description of John in Mark 1:2a, 3-8 maps closely to Matthew 3:3-6, 11, while verses 1:9-11 map to Matthew 3:13, 16-17, and verses 1:12-15 to Matthew 4:1-2, 11-12, 17. These almost certainly have a common source, so many words identical. It is this that leads me to believe Mark would have seen them and used them.
But let's get to the core of why I think the verses were present in Mark, and likely deleted by the Marcionite author from his source. Mark 2:18 and Luke 5:33 John simply appears otherwise from nowhere (subito et Ioannes! exclaims Tertullian in AM 4.11.4). In addition the story of John's death in 6:17-29 (Matthew 14:3-12) would make no sense were John missing, yet it is integral to the narrative.
What I could buy is the Gospel started at verse 1:9, where Marcion's author replaced Καὶ ἐγένετο ἐν ἐκείναις ταῖς ἡμέραις ἦλθεν Ἰησοῦς with Ἐν ἔτει δὲ πεντεκαιδεκάτῳ τῆς ἡγεμονίας Τιβερίου Καίσαρος ... καὶ κατῆλθεν to begin his Gospel. In this view Matthew's source providing context for the baptism, not in Marcion's or Mark's source. But I think in reality the versification of the title in Mark 1:1 is what led Mark to move the prototype opening (Matthew 3:1 Ἐν δὲ ταῖς ἡμέραις ἐκείναις) to verse 1:9 and the start of his narrative of Jesus, not John.
Therefore, it is my opinion that those baker's dozen verses missing from Marcion were in the prototype Gospel the author saw, but chose to drop them, even though he agreed that John was the last prophet of Malachi, because his theology did not accept the Baptism of Jesus by John. The Temptation, a mere two verses, simple had no context without the baptism, so also fell away. There is similarly nothing for Marcion to object to in Mark 1:14-15, as this parallels Luke 16:16. He simply preferred no back story and started with his descent into Capernaum. Price's speculation is both more complicated, and more difficult to support. It's much easier to understand that Marcionite priority merely means for published Gospels, not unpublished proto-Gospel sources underlying all the Synoptic Gospels, nor does it extend to the primacy or originality of any theological camp (a common mistake). It is my hope that scholars will come to understand the more narrow scope of what Marcionite priority actually is and what it implies.
Notes:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(1) Marcionite priority strictly means the first public published versions of the Synoptic Gospel and Paul were in Marcionite form. It does not mean Marcionite Christianity was first. The writings in Marcionite form reveal two theological camps were already formed (and diverse) the day ink met paper for the first time. This makes it impossible to determine with any real certainty which came first - so don't ask me, you will only get a shrug in reply.
Further the Marcionite Gospel being the first publicly available version does not mean it was "original" in the sense of not having sources. Quite the contrary, there was at least one (I believe two primary versions) unpublished proto-Gospel lying around, which is a position espoused, albeit differently, by Vinzent. There are additional implications, such as Qeulle not existing, but they are beyond the scope of this immediate topic.
(2) The supposed title of the Marcionite Gospel was τοῦ εὐαγγελίου ΧΥ "the Gospel of Christ" (or as Harrnack suggested "the Lord" ΚΥ), a longer form would have added ΙΥ "Jesus," much as we see pious name expansion elsewhere.
“’That was excellently observed’, say I, when I read a passage in an author, where his opinion agrees with mine. When we differ, there I pronounce him to be mistaken.” - Jonathan Swift