Hermann Raschke's case for the Marcionite invention of John the Baptist in proto-Mark

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
User avatar
Giuseppe
Posts: 8528
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: Hermann Raschke's case for the Marcionite invention of John the Baptist in proto-Mark

Post by Giuseppe » Fri Sep 25, 2020 6:12 am

Raschke notes the great difference between the marcionite Mark and the Judaizing Matthew:
  • "Mark" (aka Marcion) makes it explicit the relation of cause-effect between John and Jesus: the first ('the Essene Greek") precedes causally the second (Jesus Chrestos) in his anti-judaism.
  • "Matthew" (Judaizer) makes it not only implicit any relation, but even a totally casual relation, without more cause-effect. Jesus meets John by pure chance and the reader interprets the chance as divine providence, obviously.
Last edited by Giuseppe on Fri Sep 25, 2020 6:25 am, edited 3 times in total.
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.

User avatar
Giuseppe
Posts: 8528
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: Hermann Raschke's case for the Marcionite invention of John the Baptist in proto-Mark

Post by Giuseppe » Fri Sep 25, 2020 6:22 am

Note also the reason of why Mark uses "John came to baptize" and not "John the Baptist came" (as in Matthew).


Hauptsächlich auf Grund dieses Wortes erwartete man einen anderen Elias als den Herold des Messias ben David. Dieses Dogmas nun diente dem judaisierenden Matthäus, die unangenehme griechische Gestalt des Johannes jüdisch und alttestamentlich zu frisieren; es war ja ein höchst glückliches Zusammenstimmen. Während aber Markus sagte: «Der Anfang des Evangeliums von Jesus Christus war den in der Wüste taufende Johannes» und damit das Kausalverhältnis des Johannesund Jesuswerkes stark und klar ausspricht, unterschlägt Matthäus dies Abhängigkeitsverhältnis und stellt uns Johannes nur hin als den im Ablauf der Dinge nur zufällig auftretenden Täufer, der nun einmal zu nichts anderem da ist, als Vorläufer des Messias zu sein. Und während Markus Wert darauf legt, daß der in der Wüste taufende und die Bußtaufe Verkündender den Anfang des Jesuswerkes bedeutet, daß also die Taufhandlung selbst und die Bußtaufe als Grundlage der Verkündigung selbst schon beginnendes Jesuswerk ist, ohne welche dieses gar nicht möglich und also Johannes schon eigentlich Funktionär des Christuswerkes selbst ist, sieht Matthäus in Johannes eben nur den βαπτιστής, «den Täufer», der ebensogut auch ein Prophet schlechthin hätte sein können, ohne deswegen in den Augen des Matthäus weniger zum Herold Jesu geeignet zu sein; kurz, die Taufe ist für Matthäus nicht unentbehrlicher Benstandteil des beginnenden Christuswerkes. Dagegen sagt Markus, nicht der βαπτιστής «der Täufer», sondern der βαπτίζων «der Taufende» als solcher, eben als Taufender ist selbst der Anfänger, die Taufe und die sich daran anschließende Taufbewegung ist der Ursprung des Evangeliums.

(Die Werkstatt des Markusevangelium, p. 130)
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.

User avatar
Giuseppe
Posts: 8528
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: Hermann Raschke's case for the Marcionite invention of John the Baptist in proto-Mark

Post by Giuseppe » Fri Sep 25, 2020 8:42 am

Note the difference between my view and Greg Doudna:
  • Doudna:

    John Hyrcanus II -----> Josephus -----> Mark ---> Matthew -----> Luke

    John of Ephesus ---------> Proto-John ----->Book of Revelation -----> Gospel of John---> epistles of John--->Papias
  • Giuseppe and Raschke:

    Ioanes of Ephesus (Ionia) --->proto-Mark ---->Mark --->Matthew --->Luke--->Christian interpolation in Josephus
    |
    |
    |----------------> proto-John -----> Gospel of John ----->Book of Revelation -----> epistles of John---->Papias

Occam favors me, here.
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.

User avatar
Giuseppe
Posts: 8528
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: Hermann Raschke's case for the Marcionite invention of John the Baptist in proto-Mark

Post by Giuseppe » Fri Sep 25, 2020 9:10 am


Wer ist aber der Vorbote des Messias ? - der andere Elias, in dessen Werk also Johannes eingetreten ist - nach matthäischer Lesung freilich. Schließlich, nach soviel versteckten Hindeutungen und Vorbereitungen, kommt dann Matth. 11:14f. klar mit der Sprache heraus: «und wenn ihr es annehmen wollt - man braucht es also nicht -, er ist Elias, der da kommen soll. Wer Ohren hat, der öre!» - hier wird nämlich etwas Besonderes gesagt, das sich nicht von selbst versteht. Δεχομαι hat hier die Bedeutung: eine Prophezeiung annehmen, sie gelten lassen, anerkennen, glauben «Wenn ihr es gelten lassen wollt...», also ist sich der Evangelist seiner Sache durchaus nicht sicher, er ist sich bewußt, daß man ihm widersprechen kann, wohl gar, daß man ihm in seiner Ansicht widersprochen hat, etwa aus der Richtung des vierten oder zweiten Evangeliums. «Wer Ohren hat, der höre!» Man muß also scharf aufmerken, um dahinter zu kommen, was er will; es handelt sich um ein Geheimnis. Es ist dieser Johannesfigur durchaus nicht auf den ersten Blick anzusehen, daß in ihr Elias steckt, er ist dies nur unter Umständen. Nein, es ist ganz deutlich, der Evangelist hat bei seinem unter Umständen. Nein, es ist ganz deutlich, der Evangelist hat bei seinem Elias-Johannes ein schlechtes Gewissen; er weiß recht wohl, daß dieser Johannes alles andere als ein jüdischer Prophet ist und daß es kaum seiner krampfhaften Deutekunst gelingt, das glauben zu machen.
Noch deutlicher wird Matth. 17:10ff.: auf dem Verklärungsberg wurde den Jüngern das Geheimnis offenbar: er ist der Messias; davon sin die drei nun überzeugt; aber sie sind Juden genug, um jüdische Bedenken zu haben. Sie verstecken sich hinter die Gelehrten, die es ja wissen müssen: «warum sagen nun aber die Gelehrten, Elias muß erst kommen?», nämlich vor dir als dem Messias; das stimmt also doch nicht, da du nun doch, der Messias, da bist und von einem Elias nicht zu sehen ist.

Doch, sagt Jesus, sie haben ganz recht, wenn sie sagen, Elias kommt und wird alles ins Rechte bringen; aber ich sage euch auch: Elias ist schon gekommen, aber sie haben ihn nicht als solchen erkannt, sondern sind mit ihm nach Willkür verfahren und so wird auch der Menschensohn unter ihnen leiden. Da verstanden oder vielmehr errieten die Jünger, daß Jesus zu ihnen von Johannes dem Täufer sprach oder auf ihn anspielte, denn direkt hat er ihn nicht gennant, obgleich man den Grund dieses Versteckspielens nicht ganz versteht. Denn war Joahnnes der Täufer der zweite Elias und Vorläufer, was war daran zu verbergen? Da aber Matthäus hier verbirgt und mystifiziert, so nur darum, weil Johannes genau betrachtet alles andere war als ein Vorläufer, der das Judenvolk für den Tag der Ankunft des Davidsohnes vorbereitete und innerlich und äußerlich zurüstete. Wenn Jesus sagt, die Gelehrten haben ganz recht, wenn sie sagen: Elias kommt und wird alles ins Rechte bringen; aber ich sage euch auch, daß Elias schon gekommen ist - dann fragt man unwillkürlich, wosind seine Erfolge, die ihn als Elias und Messisavorläufer ausweisen? Die eigentlichen Juden hatten ganz recht, diesen «Elias» nicht als den ihrigen anzuerkennen; denn was sie nach ihrer Messias - und Eliaslehre erwarten mußten, sah erheblich anders aus. Johannes war auch im Ernste kein Elias, er war eher ein Neuerer, Zerstörer und Gegner der Judenorthodoxie mit ihren festen Formalien und seine Taufe war geradezu eine Aufhebung alles dessen, was man unter Judesein verstehen konnte.

(ibid., p. 132)

I should thank seriously Stuart for this view:
Stuart wrote:
Thu Apr 16, 2020 12:08 am
There are many possibilities, and I think the simplest is John was a rival with Paul for patron saint of Asia Minor, and specifically Ephesus.
He and Doudna have really opened my eyes in this analysis.
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.

User avatar
Giuseppe
Posts: 8528
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: Hermann Raschke's case for the Marcionite invention of John the Baptist in proto-Mark

Post by Giuseppe » Fri Sep 25, 2020 10:39 pm

Only so Luke 1:17 can be explained as a further correction of the "Greek Baptizer" (aka "John the Baptist", because: Ιωανης == Ιωνα == Ιωνάς, Ίων, Ιωνία, all meaning "Greece") in proto-Mark:


Luke 1:17
And he will go on before the Lord, in the spirit and power of Elijah, to turn the hearts of the parents to their children and the disobedient to the wisdom of the righteous—to make ready a people prepared for the Lord.”

The "children" are the gentiles. But they are also the Jewish-Christians in the eyes of the not-Christian Jews.

Raschke quotes Talmudic passages where the Christians are condemned as "children" because they are heretics from Judaism.

But then the "disobedient" who have to be converted to "the wisdom of the righteous" are equivalent to the same "children" who have to turn to their "parents". The "disobedient" are the rebels against the Torah, the Gentilizers of Mark ("Marcion") who hate YHWH.
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.

User avatar
Giuseppe
Posts: 8528
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: Hermann Raschke's case for the Marcionite invention of John the Baptist in proto-Mark

Post by Giuseppe » Sat Sep 26, 2020 5:30 am

Tangential to the true identity of John the Baptist in proto-Mark, is the true identity of Jesus in proto-Mark.

61 But Jesus remained silent and gave no answer.

Again the high priest asked him, “Are you the Messiah, the Son of the Blessed One?”

62 “I am,” said Jesus. “And you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Mighty One and coming on the clouds of heaven.”

(Mark 14:61-62)

it is false and completely wrong the interpretation given by some Christian apologist, that "Mark" (author) would have used expressions as 'the Mighty One' or "the Blessed One", to not speak the name of YHWH (nomen sacrum), the tetragramma.

The reason is that Matthew, in the similar passage, shows no sign of this presumed embarrassment about the tetragramma:

The high priest said to him, “I charge you under oath by the living God: Tell us if you are the Messiah, the Son of God.”

64 “You have said so,” Jesus replied. “But I say to all of you: From now on you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Mighty One and coming on the clouds of heaven.”

(Matthew 26:63-64)

So in Mark, Jesus is conceding that he is the Son of the "blessed one" in the sense of the high priest, i.e. "Son of YHWH", but he expands the answer to make it clear that he can be meant as son of the evil demiurge only as "Son of Man", his mere human appearance in the present and in the future.

But the demons, the supreme god (not YHWH) in two occasions (baptism and Transfiguration) and the centurion hailed Jesus continually "Son of God", to mean the Good God distinct from YHWH. The difference is that they knew.

hence, there are two Jesuses in proto-Mark:

Jesus the Son of Manhis mere hologram, appearance, derived from the world of the creator
Jesus the Son of Godpure spirit derived from the Good God

Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.

User avatar
Giuseppe
Posts: 8528
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: Hermann Raschke's case for the Marcionite invention of John the Baptist in proto-Mark

Post by Giuseppe » Sat Sep 26, 2020 5:49 am


(10) Aus dieser Situation ist die Frage der Jünger klar: «Was soll dies Auferstehen von den Toten bedeuten?» Sie wissen natürlich, was Auferstehung im vulgären Sinne ist, aber was soll sie bedeuten im Angesichte der Tatsache, daß Jesus Gottes Sohn ist, wie sie soeben von Gott selbst vernommen haben, und was soll nun noch die Aufestehung des Menschensohnes bedeuten? Sie haben die Dualität zwischen Menschen -und Gottessohn noch nicht durchschaut; sie identifizieren naiv das, was sie vor Augen haben, mit dem was dahinter verborgen ist; sie sehen nun nach der Verklärung in Jesus unmittelbar den Gottessohn und können nicht verstehen, wieso der Gottessohn sterben und auferstehen kann, der doch über alle diese Beziehungen weit erhaben ist. Dann aber, wenn Menschensohn auferstanden sein wird, wenn sie die ihnen unverständliche Tragödie an ihm sich haben vollziehen sehen , dann sollen sie sich erinnern, daß er also ein Doppelwesen ist. Dann wird ihnen klar werden, was sie jetzt noch nicht verstehen: daß man Gottessohn sein und doch sterben und auferstehen kann, nämlich als Menschensohn, als die erscheinende und darstellende Hülle des Gottessohnes. Die Dualität seines Wesens, die Unterscheidung von Menschensohnhülle und Gottessohnkern ist hier offenbart, wenn auch, wie es für Markus selbstverständlich ist, bei den stumpfsinnigen Jüngern nicht verstanden. Dieser hier vorgetragene Dualismus im Wesen Jesu ist zwar blanker und barer Doketismus, aber wir wissen ja auch aus Irenäus, daß das zweite Evangelium das der Doketen war.

(ibid., p. 228-229)

My translation and my bold:

(10) From this situation the disciples' question is clear: "What does this resurrection from the dead mean?" They know, of course, what resurrection is in the vulgar sense, but what does it mean in the face of the fact that Jesus is God's Son, as they have just heard from God himself, and what should the resurrection of the Son of man mean? They have not yet seen through the duality between man and Son of God; they naively identify what they see with what is hidden behind it; After the transfiguration, they now see the Son of God in Jesus immediately and cannot understand why the Son of God can die and rise again, who is far above all these relationships. But then, when the Son of Man is risen, when they have seen the tragedy, which they do not understand, take place in him, then they should remember that he is therefore a double being. Then it will become clear to them what they do not yet understand: that one can be the Son of God and yet die and be resurrected, namely as the Son of Man, as the appearing and representing cover of the Son of God. The duality of his being, the distinction between the shell of the Son of Man and the core of the Son of God, is revealed here, even if, as is self-evident for Mark, it is not understood by the dull disciples. This dualism in the essence of Jesus presented here is pure docetism, but we also know from Irenaeus that the second gospel was that of the docetes.

Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.

User avatar
Giuseppe
Posts: 8528
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: Hermann Raschke's case for the Marcionite invention of John the Baptist in proto-Mark

Post by Giuseppe » Sat Sep 26, 2020 6:16 am


What is Resurrection from the Dead? the disciples ask now, of course, because they cannot imagine that he could die at all, because they are not convinced of the suffering of the Christ, as he has just appeared to them, now that he has revealed himself to them as Son of God, even less.

(11) contradicts verse 10; because when the disciples think about what the resurrection from the dead means and still reserve this question on their hearts, but then ask a question in the following, then this can only be the question about the resurrection. Instead, they ask about something quite remote, namely the Pharisaic doctrine of the Messiah. Matthew clearly felt this contradiction and therefore left out the verse 10 in his treatment of Mark's original version because it would have deprived himself of the opportunity to raise the problems of interest from the mouths of the disciples. About the fact that (11) to (13) are completely interpolated and can only be understood with a sideline in Matthew, cf. above p. 102f. and generally pp. 101-104.

That the "as is written" (12) and (13) should not be a reference to the OT, is also evident from the fact that the citation formula is missing at this point in Matthew, and Matthew would be the next to use it. if it was an OT quote.

(ibid. p. 229, my translation and my bold)
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.

User avatar
Giuseppe
Posts: 8528
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: Hermann Raschke's case for the Marcionite invention of John the Baptist in proto-Mark

Post by Giuseppe » Sat Sep 26, 2020 8:35 pm

Robert Gundry is the Christian apologist I have referred above, even if probably Raschke meant a his precursor who did the same kind of argument.

His view is reported here:
Ben C. Smith wrote:
Mon May 16, 2016 5:12 pm
In Mark 14.61b-64 the Jewish authorities accuse Jesus of blasphemy:

61b Again the high priest was questioning Him, and saying to Him, “Are You the Christ, the Son of the Blessed One?” 62 And Jesus said, “I am; and you shall see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of Power, and coming with the clouds of heaven.” 63 Tearing his clothes, the high priest says, “What further need do we have of witnesses? 64 You have heard the blasphemy; how does it seem to you?” And they all condemned Him to be deserving of death.

So what was this blasphemy? Of what exactly did it consist? By far the best answer I have read to this question comes from Robert Gundry in Mark: A Commentary on His Apology for the Cross.
Matthew's total absence of embarrassment in identifying more precisely YHWH as "god" confutes totally his thesis. If Matthew had not modified Mark so, then the readers of Mark would be left in the doubt about why Jesus concedes his being son of the god (=YHWH) adored by the high priest, but only as Son of Man, not as Son of God (=the Alien God).
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.

User avatar
Giuseppe
Posts: 8528
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: Hermann Raschke's case for the Marcionite invention of John the Baptist in proto-Mark

Post by Giuseppe » Sun Sep 27, 2020 7:25 am

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.

(my bold)
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…

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.

viewtopic.php?f=3&t=5959#p105315

...and there are no doubts that the Cathars were the true evolution of the Marcionites.

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.
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.

Post Reply