John and Jesus in the wilderness: vox dei versus vox satanae?

[Giuseppe]

Because in our extant Mark, that opposition does not seem possible.

Can I ask you simply... ...why?

Because Mark seems to set up John and Jesus as another Elijah and Elisha.

Frankly, I would have hoped in a better argued answer by you since my problem with the allusion to Elijiah and Elisha is that the first ones to doubt about the reality of that comparison were just... ...the same disciples.

As they were coming down the mountain, Jesus gave them orders not to tell anyone what they had seen until the Son of Man had risen from the dead. They kept the matter to themselves, discussing what “rising from the dead” meant.
And they asked him, “Why do the teachers of the law say that Elijah must come first?”
Jesus replied, “To be sure, Elijah does come first, and restores all things. Why then is it written that the Son of Man must suffer much and be rejected? But I tell you, Elijah has come, and they have done to him everything they wished, just as it is written about him.”

(Mark 9:9-13)

What Jesus is saying with that corrective ''but'' is that, even if the disciples are doubting about the allegory John/Elijah and Jesus/Elisha, even if Jesus is so enigmatic, well: John was really emulating Elijah. In the his real intentions as also in the eyes of the hoi polloi. But the antithesis remains: even if John is Elijah, the identity of Jesus remains mysterious, since he cannot be Elisha, or, for that matter, the Christ predicted by John.

[Ben C. Smith]

Because in our extant Mark, that opposition does not seem possible.

Can I ask you simply... ...why?

Because Mark seems to set up John and Jesus as another Elijah and Elisha.

Frankly, I would have hoped in a better argued answer by you since my problem with the allusion to Elijiah and Elisha is that the first ones to doubt about the reality of that comparison were just... ...the same disciples.

It is far more than that. Jesus performs miracles reminiscent of Elisha, for example.

What Jesus is saying with that corrective ''but'' is that, even if the disciples are doubting about the allegory John/Elijah and Jesus/Elisha, even if Jesus is so enigmatic, well: John was really emulating Elijah. In the his real intentions as also in the eyes of the hoi polloi. But the antithesis remains: even if John is Elijah, the identity of Jesus remains mysterious, since he cannot be Elisha, or, for that matter, the Christ predicted by John.

I completely disagree, simple as that. The "but" is there to contrast the expectation of Elijah's return in verse 12 with the reality of his return in verse 13. "Elijah is supposed to come, yes, BUT he has actually already come." Lots of work has been done on the Elijah-Elisha parallels in the gospel of Mark, and it will take more than some fleeting suppositions to uproot the results for me.

[Giuseppe]

Isn't strange for you that the disciples are appealing just to the enemies of Jesus to advance the possibility of a comparison along the lines Elijah/Elisha:

And they asked him, “Why do the teachers of the law say that Elijah must come first?”

And note that, in the link given by you, Brodie appeals to proto-Luke, considered by some scholars as just Mcn ! Not decisively a smoking gun for not seeing an antithesis where you (et others) see a fulfilled comparison between Jesus and Elisha.

[Ben C. Smith]

Isn't strange for you that the disciples are appealing just to the enemies of Jesus to advance the possibility of a comparison along the lines Elijah/Elisha:

And they asked him, “Why do the teachers of the law say that Elijah must come first?”

No, it is not strange for me. The teachers of the law are hung upon their own words: they realize correctly that Elijah has to come first (how could they not, given the prophecy in Malachi??), but they completely miss the fulfillment of those words. I have elsewhere pointed to this same kind of effect concerning Jesus' enemies in Mark; for example, in plotting to crucify Jesus, they wind up fulfilling both Jesus' own plan and OT prophecy. The scribe in Mark 12.28-34 is not completely wrong about everything; to the contrary, he answers intelligently. Mark is much more subtle than to have the bad guys being comically bad all the time, twirling their pencil mustaches and tying damsels to railroad tracks.

And note that, in the link given by you, Brodie appeals to proto-Luke, considered by some scholars as just Mcn ! Not decisively a smoking gun for not seeing an antithesis where you (et others) see a fulfilled comparison between Jesus and Elisha.

None of this is a smoking gun. If you are looking for smoking guns, may I suggest a shooting range somewhere in Texas? But, to be clear, I myself do not think that proto-Luke and Marcion are the same thing; it has long been my suspicion that both Marcion and the proto-orthodox took what they had (some kind of proto-Luke) and worked with it, Marcion probably making fewer wholesale changes than the proto-orthodox. So I would not expect proto-Luke to be Marcionite in thrust or theme.

[Giuseppe]

The scribe in Mark 12.28-34 is not completely wrong about everything; to the contrary, he answers intelligently. Mark is much more subtle than to have the bad guys being comically bad all the time, twirling their pencil mustaches and tying damsels to railroad tracks.

It seems in my view that the meaning of marcionite antithesis escapes you: it doesn't require a rigid dualism along the lines ''bad guys''/''good guys''.

In my interpretation of the question of the disciples,

they would like to believe that John is Elijah and Jesus is Elisha (or someone predicted really by John).

But the ''enigma Jesus'' extends itself to the enigma about John: if Jesus is not the predicted Christ, then John is not the predicted Elijah. Hence the question of the disciples: Is John really Elija (implicit: as you are really the guy predicted by John) ??

Jesus is perentory: John was really Elijah. Period.

But the ''enigma Jesus'' remains: he is not the same being predicted by John, pace the same identity John=Elijah.

And note that, in the link given by you, Brodie appeals to proto-Luke, considered by some scholars as just Mcn ! Not decisively a smoking gun for not seeing an antithesis where you (et others) see a fulfilled comparison between Jesus and Elisha.

None of this is a smoking gun. If you are looking for smoking guns, may I suggest a shooting range somewhere in Texas? But, to be clear, I myself do not think that proto-Luke and Marcion are the same thing; it has long been my suspicion that both Marcion and the proto-orthodox took what they had (some kind of proto-Luke) and worked with it, Marcion probably making fewer wholesale changes than the proto-orthodox. So I would not expect proto-Luke to be Marcionite in thrust or theme.

In this thread, my goal is to prove (at least to myself) that Mark is a Gnostic Gospel along, possibly, marcionite lines. Or, if you prefer, that proto-Mark=Mcn.

About the possibile identity proto-Luke=Mcn, I am waiting the next books of prof Markus Vinzent or Klinghardt. It would be not fair to give not the word to these academics, before of facing ourselves that distinct question.

[Ben C. Smith]

It seems in my view that the meaning of marcionite antithesis escapes you: it doesn't require a rigid dualism along the lines ''bad guys''/''good guys''.

My comment was not responding to your "antithesis" comment at all. It was responding to your suggestion that the bit about Elijah coming being placed on enemies' lips meant that it must be wrong.

In my interpretation of the question of the disciples,

they would like to believe that John is Elijah and Jesus is Elisha (or someone predicted really by John).

I do not think they are this far ahead of the curve. I do not think they have any notion (yet) of Jesus and John playing out an Elijah/Elisha cycle. Mark 8.28 demonstrates this. (Also, I do not think that Mark is consistent about identifying Jesus only with Elisha; sometimes he looks more like Elijah than like Elisha; rather, the relationship is that the pair of them, John and Jesus, together play out a kind of Elijah/Elisha cycle.)

[Giuseppe]

It seems in my view that the meaning of marcionite antithesis escapes you: it doesn't require a rigid dualism along the lines ''bad guys''/''good guys''.

My comment was not responding to your "antithesis" comment at all. It was responding to your suggestion that the bit about Elijah coming being placed on enemies' lips meant that it must be wrong.

According to Jesus himself (and according to my interpretation of the episode), his enemies are not wrong. The thesis is really that John is Elijah. But the anti-thesis is that, even so, Jesus is not the Christ predicted by John.

Hence I would insist: the meaning of antithesis escapes you, in my view.

In other terms, what you say:

the relationship is that the pair of them, John and Jesus, together play out a kind of Elijah/Elisha cycle.

is false according to proto-Mark. John and Jesus weren't playing together, but they had different goals, like the different Gods behind them.

[Ben C. Smith]

It seems in my view that the meaning of marcionite antithesis escapes you: it doesn't require a rigid dualism along the lines ''bad guys''/''good guys''.

My comment was not responding to your "antithesis" comment at all. It was responding to your suggestion that the bit about Elijah coming being placed on enemies' lips meant that it must be wrong.

According to Jesus himself (and according to my interpretation of the episode), his enemies are not wrong. The thesis is really that John is Elijah. But the anti-thesis is that, even so, Jesus is not the Christ predicted by John.

Hence I would insist: the meaning of antithesis escapes you, in my view.

In other terms, what you say:

the relationship is that the pair of them, John and Jesus, together play out a kind of Elijah/Elisha cycle.

is false according to proto-Mark. John and Jesus weren't playing together, but they had different goals, like the different Gods behind them.

You may be right about your position escaping me. This is one of those times, Giuseppe, when your ideas seem so far "out there" that I cannot even see them from where I am standing.

[Giuseppe]

You may be right about your position escaping me. This is one of those times, Giuseppe, when your ideas seem so far "out there" that I cannot even see them from where I am standing.

Cool!

To my knowledge, prof Vinzent came very close to this conception of ''antithesis'' when he wrote:

The particular passage in Luke 7 is a case in point. Here, Marcion (in the opening, Luke, however, harmonises the text even more with 1Kings, see the deviation of D in Nestle-Aland) constructs an anti-thetical story to that of the Prophet Elijah. In 1Kings the woman is frightened of the Prophet and accuses him to have come to punish her for her bad deeds and therefore to kill her son, and the prophet passes these accusatikons on to the God of Israel (1Kings 17:18-20). In contrast, there is no word about bad deeds in Marcion's story (Luke 17:11-7 par.). This Jesus has mercy and asks the mother 'do not cry'. Jesus does not wrestle with God, does neither accuse him of being a murderer, nor does he need to ask God to bring the son back to life. Jesus simply acts and rescues the son and gives him back to his mother. Even the reaction of the people is put as an antithesis. While in 1Kings the mother confesses Elija to be a man of God, in Marcion's story there is no word about the mother, instead, it is said that 'all' (which includes the son's mother) were taken by fear. Or in other words: the people do not understand such non-demanding mercy, a God of love. When Tertullian points out the last statement of this pericope that the people praised God that he has taken care of his people and send a 'great Prophet' - he rightly asked, who God here is. Tertullian understood that in Marcion's story it was the transcendant God, not the Creator, who was meant to have acted in this story and that he has shown through Jesus that he cares about his people. But when Tertullian adds that this message does not differ from that of the prophets (and he had already Elijah in mind), he misses out that Marcion had constructed this pericope in stark contrast to that of Elijah. While in Elijah people praise a God and his prophet who have to be feared, in Marcion the people fear the ones whom they praise.

(my bold)
http://markusvinzent.blogspot.it/2014/1 ... 711-7.html

[Giuseppe]

• 
  

  John the Baptist	Jesus
  He is proclaimed by the scriptures.	He is proclaimed by a voice from heaven
  He is sent in the Wilderness by the Creator God	He is sent in the Wilderness by the Spirit of Christ
  He is served by sinners	He is served by angels
  He is reduced to a beast	He is with the beasts
  He is a “a voice of one calling in the wilderness”	He is silent, tempted by Satan
  He proclaims one who comes ''after him''.	Jesus doesn't appear really ''after him'', but with him
  He is imprisoned, and is put to silence.	Jesus is not more silent: he proclaims the 'Kingdom of God''

  
  

Surely the man Jesus is very humble in comparison to the man John. But can we say the same thing about the spiritual Christ who possessed the man Jesus? If my list of antitheses is really ''there'' (I am inclined to answer with a sound 'yes'), then ''Mark'' (author) is saying that a Jesus possessed by Christ is so powerful, in comparison to John, that he is able to receive angels, and not mere sinners, in the wilderness. He can command the beasts without being himself a beast. He is a real archangel.

Is this an attack against John?

No, not at all. Jesus (or the Christ) could be still the man (or the spirit) prophetized by John, despite of the ignorance of the latter.

But surely that list of antithesis is THE apology in Mark, for the baptism (and apparent humiliation) of the man Jesus by the man John.

Clearly Matthew didn't realize that apology (afterall, only Giuseppe realized it, after 2000 years ), therefore he invented a more explicit apology for the episode. And so Luke.

Therefore this confirms that John's function is only to witness the baptism of Jesus, even if he didn't realize his importance.

It is not even necessary to assume the existence of a Baptist sect rival to Christians.

This opens further the possibility that a previous Gospel, more old than Mark, didn't have John and accordingly didn't have no baptism episode.

No John implies no baptism, and no baptism implies absence of a date for the descending of Jesus on the earth.