So Prof Vinzent:
The ‘Son of Man’ who can forgive sins, is the hot topic of this story, and, as the counter argument reveals, it remained Marcion’s view that this title worked against its Old Testament figure of Daniel and human insights. It should not be taken allegorically, and, therefore, was not it in harmony with any of the Jewish or non-Pauline writings.
http://markusvinzent.blogspot.com/2011/ ... inary.html
I think that when the prof points out "It should not be taken allegorically"
, he means that "Son of Man" means "a mere human creature", since only via allegory one may think about a celestial superman.
In another point he writes:
the 'son of man' locution is one of the key markers of Marcion's text - you only need to read Tertullian, how he criticises Marcion for it. Yet, he also gives Marcion's answer: the 'son of man' is Daniel's typos which misleads everybody who immediately thinks of the messiah as the warrior prince of the Creator god, instead the Christ of the transcendent God of mercy does not fight, but takes off suffering through his suffering and forgiving. Marcion, if you like, takes the typoi, but undermines them by giving them the new revealed meaning.http://markusvinzent.blogspot.com/2015/ ... 2258763683
To have written these words ("...misleads everybody who immediately thinks of the messiah as the warrior prince of the Creator god..."
), it is evident the influence of Raschke on Vinzent.
About John the Baptist, at any case, I think that prof Vinzent describes well the real reasons of his presence in Mark, pace
Raschke: Why does Mark's Gospel begin with John the Baptist?
With all the good will, I think that there are more
good reasons to see John the Baptist as a mortal enemy
of the Marcion's Jesus in proto-Luke aka Mcn
, than there are (reasons) in proto-Mark to see him as an anti-YHWH precursor of the Marcion's Jesus.
Don't remember that the Cathars hated John the Baptist, as this very old Cathar writing reports:
And Satan, the prince of this world, knew that I come to find and save those who were lost. And he sent his angel Elijah the prophet who baptizes in water, and who is called John the Baptist. Now, Elijah asks to the prince of this world: How can I recognize him? And he said: "On who you will see to descend the Spirit similar to a dove, and to stay on him, he is who baptizes in holy Spirit for the forgiveness of sins; he is who will can lose or save. And I, John [=the Beloved Disciple], I asked again the Lord: Can a man be saved by the baptism of John without be baptized by you ? And the Lord answered: If I have not baptized for the forgiveness of sins, by the baptism of water no man can see the Kingdom of heaven…viewtopic.php?f=3&t=5959#p105315
...and there are no doubts that the Cathars were the true evolution of the Marcionites.
And I asked again the Lord: Why did all receive the baptism of John, but all didn't receive the your baptism? And the Lord answered: Because their works are evil and they didn't come from the Light. The disciples of John get married, but the my disciples don't get married at all, since they are as the angels of God in the heaven.
Hence what I would save about Raschke is exactly his clear influence on Vinzent's (and Couchoud's) view about the marcionite use of the danielic Son of Man to deceive
(Vinzent would say: to mislead
) the Sinedrites and the disciples.