Marcion versus Mark: who comes first?

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
Giuseppe
Posts: 13732
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: Marcion versus Mark: who comes first?

Post by Giuseppe »

Klinghardt makes it clear the 'distance' between Jesus and John in Mcn:

The meaning of reconstructing *7,17—23 lies chiefly in outlining the contours of the emergence of the John the Baptist tradition. It has been noted for some time that John's request — even more so in Luke than in Matthew — does not fit seamlessly into the respectively obtained literary image of John. In Luke, the pericope neither resolves the proclamation that the 'one who is more powerful' would come after John (Luke 3,16), nor does the extensive syncrisis of the Lukan stories of Jesus' birth match the apparent distance between John and Jesus in the canonical version, especially not the anticipated leaping for joy of the unborn John (Luke 1,41.44). That discrepancy goes back essentially to Matthew and Luke who upheld the tradition of Jesus being baptized by John as it originated from Mark; by including this positive portrait of John before his request, they countered the critical distance of John towards Jesus displayed by *Ev. Therefore, Matthew and Luke erased the reference of John taking offence at Jesus, and Mark (perhaps for that reason) passed over that account entirely.

(ibid., p. 657)
Last edited by Giuseppe on Thu Apr 15, 2021 9:30 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Giuseppe
Posts: 13732
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: Marcion versus Mark: who comes first?

Post by Giuseppe »

It has been already noted that Mark is the only Gospel that didn't show no sign of embarrassment about the baptism of Jesus by John.

Now I know why: "Mark" (editor) invented it first, hence how could the original inventor of an episode feel embarrassment about his own invention?

By inventing a Jesus baptized by John, "Mark" succeed to introduce an useful anti-Marcionite tool, but he provoked further problems for Matthew and Luke (who derived that tool from Mark): the accusation that John was more powerful than Jesus, hence the birth of separationist theology, or even the claim that John was the Christ, not Jesus.

In English the proverb is: ill-gotten goods never prosper.

In Italian, something of similar to: The devil is, but not the covers (or better: the devil makes the pots but not the covers)
Giuseppe
Posts: 13732
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: Marcion versus Mark: who comes first?

Post by Giuseppe »

All fits:
  • the virus: the distance between John and Jesus in Mcn.
  • the (anti-marcionite) vaccine (injected by "Mark"): John baptized Jesus. No embarrassment at all.
  • the negative side effects from that vaccine: the embarrassment about a Jesus mere man baptized by John. In Matthew and in Luke and in GJohn (1:8: "John himself was not the light").
  • the remedy against the negative side effects from that vaccine: separationist theology, the claim that "John is the Christ", “Let it be so now; it is proper for us to do this to fulfill all righteousness.”

E.g. J. DEWEY, The Survival of Mark's Gospel: A Good Story?, JBL 123 (2004), 495-507:495. The deliberations presented in this study make Joana Dewey's solution hardly plausible: accordingly, Mark survived as an oral text because of its special qualities and, fot that reason, was passed on largely independent of a manuscript tradition. While possible, that is hardly probable. The tradition history of the Gospels presented itself as a predominantly literary process, and it is apparent, particularly for Mark, that his carefully crafted redaction requires recipients with well-developed reading competencies.

(p. 379, note 31, original cursive, my bold)
lsayre
Posts: 769
Joined: Sun Jan 04, 2015 3:39 pm

Re: Marcion versus Mark: who comes first?

Post by lsayre »

It appears as if all of the Gospels are reacting to suppress an alternative and competing mode of veneration. I.E., the worship of John. The thrust is that John must be diminished. The ultimate expression of this is John 3:30. The Mandaeans seem to be the last remaining remnant of those who venerate John. Similarly the Mandaeans diminished and demoted Jesus to the status of a deceiver.
Giuseppe
Posts: 13732
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: Marcion versus Mark: who comes first?

Post by Giuseppe »

lsayre wrote: Fri Apr 16, 2021 1:17 am It appears as if all of the Gospels are reacting to suppress an alternative and competing mode of veneration. I.E., the worship of John.
This claim is ABSOLUTELY false for Mark. In Mark there is no trace of embarrassment about the baptism of Jesus by John. The reason is simple: "Mark" (editor) was inventing it the first time.

With Mcn, while there is no knowledge at all of a Jesus baptized by John (docet Klinghardt) and accordingly no embarrassment at all for something that was not there, the fact remains that the "baptism of John" is perceived as a rival cult.

ADDENDA:

Someone (Jean Magne) advanced the hypothesis that the Gospel of Mark was written by someone who wanted to harmonize the John cult and the Jesus cult in order to attack Marcion.

This hypothesis is worth of inquiry, in the light of the Klinghardt's solution of the John-the-Baptist tradition.
davidmartin
Posts: 1589
Joined: Fri Jul 12, 2019 2:51 pm

Re: Marcion versus Mark: who comes first?

Post by davidmartin »

With Mcn, while there is no knowledge at all of a Jesus baptized by John (docet Klinghardt) and accordingly no embarrassment at all for something that was not there, the fact remains that the "baptism of John" is perceived as a rival cult
Or it wants John's followers to be perceived as a rival cult...

...against the idea that Jesus's group was part of John's and the two figures were considered to be equal except one followed the other
Giuseppe
Posts: 13732
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: Marcion versus Mark: who comes first?

Post by Giuseppe »

davidmartin wrote: Fri Apr 16, 2021 9:15 am the idea that Jesus's group was part of John's and the two figures were considered to be equal except one followed the other
GET OVER IT ONCE FOR ALL: any idea in such sense (about a connection between Jesus and John along the lines of 'one followed the other' et similia) was first injected deliberately in the corpus of the Gospel tradition only by an editor ("Mark") and only for a purely theological reason: against Marcion.

If you re-propose that idea in whatever novelistic form you prefer, then you are repeating merely the Mark's game without having his same theological interest in return.

*Ev mentions John the Baptist several times, but his biographical and theological knowledge is comparatively small. *Ev knows John's name, he knows that he was a 'baptizer' (*7,17), that he had disciples (*11,1), and that he was beheaded by 'King' Herod (*9,7-9). Furthermore, *Ev knows John the Baptist as a prophetic proclaimer of the law and the prophets (*16,16), and he knows about John the Baptist's query (*7,17-23) as well as Jesus' subsequent judgement of him (*7,24-28). However, *Ev displays a noticeable distance between John the Baptist and Jesus (*7,18.23). In *Ev, the baptizer took offence at Jesus (*7,18; formulation is uncertain), which is why Jesus blesses him only under the condition that he 'takes no offence at me' (*7,23, according to Epiphanius). That distance is hardly conceivable for the later stages of the tradition from *Mark to Luke. Jesus and John meet previously in connection with their baptism accounts (Mark 1,2-11; Matth 3,1-17; John 1,19-34; Luke 3,1-22) where they present John's positive witness of Jesus, which John even integrated into the prologue (John 1,6-8.15). The origin of this positive witness lies in Jesus' judgment, authenticating that John the Baptist is 'more than a prophet' (*7,26) while simultaneously distinguishing him from 'the least in the kingdom of God' (*7,24-28). This ambivalent witness preserved in the successive tradition.

This means, *Ev knows John and knows that he was a baptizer. [8] All further information about him is missing in *Ev and inserted in later stages of the tradition history. From the brief comment about the execution by Herod, pre-canonical *Mark extricated his detention (Mark 6,17 || Matt 4,12 || Luke 3,19f) as well as the account of his execution urged by Herodias (Mark 6,18-29). Belonging to the successive tradition since *Mark is above all: Jesus' baptism by John; John's repentance sermon; his proclamation of the one who is 'more powerful' coming after him to baptize with fire and the spirit; the identification of John with Elijah; and the existence of John's disciples in the apostolic time. In that successive attribution, the ambivalence of Jesus' judgment of John the Baptist is still preserved. Mark adopted the proclamation of the 'more powerful' into the account of the baptism activity (Mark 1,7f || Matt 3,11). Matthew, furthermore, integrated Jesus' superiority into the baptism account through John the Baptist's refusal to baptize Jesus (Matt 3,14f). John pointedly expressed the differentiated judgment of the activity through characterizing John as a witness who 'testifies to the light', but who himself 'was not the light' (John 1,7f). Luke, finally, gives this differentiated characterization the broadest expanse thorugh harmonizing the birth accounts (Luke 1f) and through the meeting of Elizabeth and Mary (Luke 1,36-45). The baptism account of John's disciples in Ephesus (Acts 19,2-7) exemplifies that the superiority of Jesus over John, or of the Christians over John's disciples, is rooted in the baptism's various effects.

(ibid., p. 268, my bold)

note 8 reads:

This information is found also in Jos., Ant XVIII 116-119.

lsayre
Posts: 769
Joined: Sun Jan 04, 2015 3:39 pm

Re: Marcion versus Mark: who comes first?

Post by lsayre »

Giuseppe wrote: Fri Apr 16, 2021 4:15 am This claim is ABSOLUTELY false for Mark. In Mark there is no trace of embarrassment about the baptism of Jesus by John. The reason is simple: "Mark" (editor) was inventing it the first time.
Of course Mark 1:7-8 destroys your contention. Talk about fabricated diminishment.
Giuseppe
Posts: 13732
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: Marcion versus Mark: who comes first?

Post by Giuseppe »

lsayre wrote: Fri Apr 16, 2021 10:28 am Of course Mark 1:7-8 destroys your contention. Talk about fabricated diminishment.
my contention remains all. There is no embarassment in Mark about John baptizing Jesus: rather the contrary. For a good example of genuine authentic "embarrassment", you have to read only Matthew 3:15. Of course there is not an equivalent in Mark.

The baptism of Jesus by John is a Markan fabrication.
hakeem
Posts: 663
Joined: Sat Jun 17, 2017 8:20 am

Re: Marcion versus Mark: who comes first?

Post by hakeem »

lsayre wrote: Fri Apr 16, 2021 1:17 am It appears as if all of the Gospels are reacting to suppress an alternative and competing mode of veneration. I.E., the worship of John. The thrust is that John must be diminished. The ultimate expression of this is John 3:30. The Mandaeans seem to be the last remaining remnant of those who venerate John. Similarly the Mandaeans diminished and demoted Jesus to the status of a deceiver.
We have an historical account of John the Baptist in Antiquities of the Jews 18.5.2 and in the very same book in the 18th chapter [AJ 18.3.3] there is a forgery and fictional account of a character called Jesus.

In Antiquities of the Jews 18.5.2 John the Baptist was not preaching remission of sins by baptism.

The Gospels are in effect products of deception with regards to John the Baptist and Jesus.

Josephus explained that Jews sacrificed [not baptized] for remission of sins.

Antiquites of the Jews 3.9. 3.
The sacrifices for sins are offered in the same manner as is the thank-offering.

But those who are unable to purchase complete sacrifices, offer two pigeons, or turtle doves; the one of which is made a burnt-offering to God, the other they give as food to the priests. But we shall treat more accurately about the oblation of these creatures in our discourse concerning sacrifices.

But if a person fall into sin by ignorance, he offers an ewe lamb, or a female kid of the goats, of the same age; and the priests sprinkle the blood at the altar, not after the former manner, but at the corners of it. They also bring the kidneys and the rest of the fat, together with the lobe of the liver, to the altar, while the priests bear away the hides and the flesh, and spend it in the holy place, on the same day; (23) for the law does not permit them to leave of it until the morning.

But if any one sin, and is conscious of it himself, but hath nobody that can prove it upon him, he offers a ram, the law enjoining him so to do; the flesh of which the priests eat, as before, in the holy place, on the same day. And if the rulers offer sacrifices for their sins, they bring the same oblations that private men do; only they so far differ, that they are to bring for sacrifices a bull or a kid of the goats, both males.

Post Reply