John the Baptist has usurped the role of the Marcion's Jesus

[MrMacSon]

Thank you, Giuseppe ^and ^^

[MrMacSon]

.

Fragments from 'a Commentary on the Gospel of John' by Heracleon

... preserved in Origen's Commentary on John:

Fragment 11, on John 2:12 (“After this he went down to Capernaum, with his mother and his brothers and his disciples; and there they stayed for a few days”). The words, "After this he went down to Capernaum," indicate the beginning of a new dispensation, for "he went down" is not said idly. Capernaum, means these farthest-out parts of the world, the material realm into which he descended. And since the place was alien to him, he is not reported either to have done anything or said anything in it.

http://gnosis.org/library/fragh.htm
.

[MrMacSon]

regarding, -

Marcion	Mark
Jesus descends in Hades	John appeared in wilderness
Jesus reveals himself to Elijah and the other prophets	John reveals himself to the Jews
All the souls of the sinners (from the Serpent to Cain etc) accept the alien god of which Jesus is the son	All the sinners accept the baptism by John in the name of YHWH
Elijah is witness of the fact that Jesus comes from an alien god	John the Baptist is not witness of the fact that the Christ descends on Jesus (thanks Joe Wallack to signal it)
Elijah remains in Hades	Jesus remains in [the] wilderness until John is arrested
Jesus descends in[to(?)] Galilee	Jesus starts his preaching in Galilee
John is never named.1 Elijah is already in Hades	John, if he existed, is identified and used as the Elijah redivivus on the earth in recent times

Assume that John is already named in Marcion behind any occurrence of Elijah in the table above.1 [T]hen the disciples of Jesus follow him because they believe wrongly that Jesus is John redivivus (being already themselves the disciples of John in the past) and follow blindly him. Peter even confesses that Jesus, in addition to be John/Elijah, is the Jewish Christ. Hence Jesus rejects him.

1 Why assume John is already named in Marcion when you state in your table he is not named?

(I'm not questioning your commentary; just trying to tease out how this all works. The table is interesting).

[Giuseppe]

Why assume John is already named in Marcion when you state in your table he is not named?

I think that, since John is connected someway with the idea of Elijah redivivus in Mark (only "in the spirit of Elijah" in Luke), and being both Prophets, they are de facto interchangeable when they are found in the Hades by the marcionite Christ. The distinction would occur only if it is assumed that John is still living on the earth when Jesus descends in Hades. It seems that Marcion's gospel does mention John in later chapters but, obviously, never in the role of Elijah. The implication is that the readers of Marcion know already who is John when they meet any mention of the his name in Marcion. But in Marcion nothing is said about John being alive when he is mentioned. At most, only the "disciples of John" are mentioned.

Hence, the options are two:

1) John existed and was a real known baptizer (but not a purifier of sinners, docet Josephus) killed by Herod, Marcion mentioned him as one of the prophets found in Sheol by the alien Christ (and who rejected the latter), and Mark casts particularly this John (already used by Marcion) in the role of who baptizes sinners (pace Josephus) against Marcion, or...

2) John didn't exist, Marcion never mentioned him in all the his gospel, and John was invented by Mark against Marcion.

Now, the options 1 is more probable than 2 since there would be evidence (in Tertullian) that Marcion mentioned John in later chapters (and not only in the incipit, where the my theory would expect the his mention). Vice versa, the option 2 would be more probabile than 1 insofar Occam would prohibit the presence of two kind of "sinners" before two givers of "grace".

In the doubt, I should consider both the options as equally probable.

Hence the my relative "problem" would be: why did Marcion introduce John? Was not Elijah already sufficient to do the point that the Prophets in Sheol rejected the alien Jesus?

Evidently, for Marcion, there was in John an importance that goes beyond the his role as mere prophet of the demiurge.

[Giuseppe]

An intriguing (really intriguing) possibility I have omitted to mention is that, when the alien Christ descended in Hades, he was rejected by the Prophets etc, but he captured there the soul of John against the will of John. In this way, when, later, Jesus descended on the earth, There he appeared really externally as the risen John. Herod himself believed him John redivivus.

The crucified was therefore John, and the spiritual Christ abandoned him on the cross just before.

Hence the importance of John in Marcion would be in the fact that he, John, was the historical man who had to serve as mere human recipient of the spiritual Christ. In this sense John was a special Witness of the marcionite Jesus: he was even possessed by him!!!

Mark inherited the separationism from Marcion, but since Mark adored the creator, he transposed the original marcionite separationism from "John versus Jesus Christ" to "Jesus versus Christ". To judaize it.

[Giuseppe]

I am more and more persuaded that Mark was highly scandalized by the John's ability, in Marcion, to recognize the alien nature of Christ as alien (=anti-Demiurgical).

If Jesus brings in the Sheol the supernatural knowledge of a higher god, John and all the Prophets have, in virtue of that visit in Sheol, the capacity to know and reject this knowledge.

[Giuseppe]

Another surprising "coincidence":

Marcion	Mark
in the Hades, all the prophets and Elijah were tempted by the love shown by the Good God of Jesus but they resisted.	Jesus resists in the wilderness to the temptations by Satan.

[Giuseppe]

The apology of Mark:

John didn't see the Christ in Jesus, hence how can you Marcion claim that he was scandalized by the Christ, having recognized him as alien?

The problem is in that "he": was John really in Marcion's Gospel? Or was only Elijah in the his place (Hades)?

[Giuseppe]

"John" (author) realized the apology of Mark and he built an anti-apology when he wrote (John 1:32-34):

Then John gave this testimony: “I saw the Spirit come down from heaven as a dove and remain on him. And I myself did not know him, but the one who sent me to baptize with water told me, ‘The man on whom you see the Spirit come down and remain is the one who will baptize with the Holy Spirit.’ I have seen and I testify that this is God’s Chosen One.”

It is like a confession by the Mark's John-Baptist in the fourth Gospel:

even if Mark did the his best to eclipse the embarrassing fact that I saw and realized that the Christ was alien, I confess the truth, now: I am not Elijah, hence I am not the his precursor even if I seem to be a such.

[Giuseppe]

If a John the Baptist existed independently from all this discussion, it is curious that someone realized at least the anti-marcionite interest to make John the giver of the grace to the sinners on the earth in replacement of the alien Christ who freed the sinners from the Sheol:

Rivka Nir draws attention to the odd way the explanation of John’s baptism is introduced in Josephus. The first point that is made is what the baptism is NOT. The explanation begins:

‘…if baptism [βάπτισιν] was to be acceptable to God’, they must not employ it ‘to gain pardon for whatever sins they committed’.

This manner of introduction suggests that its author was engaged in a polemic. If so, against whom?

The author is refuting the idea that baptism itself is for the remission of sins. It is for the consecration of the body. The soul had already been purified prior to baptism. Baptism was NOT “for repentance” or for the forgiveness of sins.

https://vridar.org/2013/08/24/so-john-t ... gery-case/