Why the absence of Luke 18:31-33 in *Ev is highly revealing

[Giuseppe]

Just when the Markan priority is going to be proved on the assumption that Marcion removed items from Mark, then those same items can't be the same items interpolated by Luke in Marcion, since we are sure that the latter items are by definition a Catholic expansion of the Evangelion.

Now I believe even more to the intrinsic truth of these words. In Mark there is not even a minimal clue about the Pharisaic opposition to John the Baptist, contra factum that Mark assumes gratuituosly (and bluntly) it in 11:31:

They discussed it among themselves and said, “If we say, 'From heaven,' he will ask, 'Then why didn't you believe him?

It is a literary inconsistency: isn't it? Hence we are sure that Luke 7:30 is designed to fill that lacuna in Mark:

But the Pharisees and the experts in the law rejected God’s purpose for themselves, because they had not been baptized by John.

• The Argument of the Priority of Marcion over Luke on this point assumes the following form:
  • Marcion and Mark assume implicitly the Pharisaic opposition against John the Baptist;
  • Luke 7:30 makes it explicit a such Pharisaic opposition against John the Baptist.
  • Therefore: Luke comes after both Marcion and Mark.

• Accordingly, the Argument of the Priority of Marcion over Mark on this point assumes the following form:
  
  • Marcion assumes implicitly that the Question of the Authority of Jesus has been enigmatically reduced to the Question of the Authority of John the Baptist in Mcn 20:1-8.
  • Mark 1 makes it explicit the reason of a such assumption: John baptized Jesus, therefore the Authority of Jesus comes from the Authority of John.
  • Therefore: Mark comes after Marcion.

Marcion couldn't have removed the baptism from the incipit of Mark, since, just as the interpolation of Luke 30:7 has to explain why the pharisees didn't recognize the divine origin of the baptism of John the Baptist, so the interpolated baptism of Jesus in Mark has to explain why the Question of the Authority of Jesus has been enigmatically reduced to the Question of the Authority of John the Baptist in Mcn 20:1-8.

[Stuart]

it's origins matter. If he's just baptizing regular folks then it's not a point of concern. But if he baptized the Christ, then it is a great issue and it directly reflects upon Jesus.

You seem to do a great point supporting your view.

But Klinghardt admonishes caution. He writes:

A small but important detail about the literary character of *Ev lies in *20,4-6. Jesus' question and the Pharisees' quiet contemplation about answering-alternatibes not only require knowledge about the baptism by John, but also about the Pharisees' refusal to subject themselves to it. Neither of these elements were part of *Ev; they were added by the Lukan redaction: Luke 3,3.7-9 and 7,30 were certainly (or most probably) absent (see there). It is obvious, on the other hand, that within this context Tertullian had read the corresponding references in *20,4-6 at least in substance (baptisma Ioannis, quare non credidistis ei). The phenomenon correlates to the designation of John as ὁ βαπτιστής (*7,17, see there): *Ev presumes that John baptized and that he was known as the baptizer, but he does not anything about it.

(ibid., p. 1061)

Have you a Markan equivalent for Luke 7:30 ?

But the Pharisees and lawyers rejected the counsel of God against themselves, being not baptized of him.

No, you don't have it for Mark. But it is a FACT that Luke 7:30 has been added by Luke against Marcion.


Hence, how do you explain the fact that in Marcion we have:

If we say 'from heaven', he will say 'Why then did you not believe him?'

...without something of similar to the post-marcionite interpolation Luke 7:30 ?

My point is that, according to your logic, just as you claim to have inferred, from the mere presence in Marcion of Luke 20:1-8, the presence in a previous gospel of the baptism of Jesus by John in the incipit, then accordingly you are obliged to assume, in this your presumed lost previous gospel, the presence of something of similar to Luke 7:30, contra factum that Luke 7:30 is clearly a post-marcionite interpolation.

Don't you note a contradiction in your logic, here?

If you recognize that the Pharisaic opposition to John is post-marcionite (Luke 7:30 being blatantly an anti-marcionite interpolation), then you have to recognize accordingly that also the baptism of Jesus by John in the incipit is exquisitely post-marcionite.

There is no contradiction in my logic.

Klinghardt is operating in circular logic here. There is no question that Luke 7:29-30 is post Marcionite, as is chapter 3 of Luke, which it seems to refers to. (In actuality it refers to Matthew 3:7-10 from which Luke borrowed; we know because Luke's version does not refer to the Pharisees and Saducees that Luke 7:30 has in view.)

I would suggest the story of the Pharisees and lawyers (that is οἱ νομικοὶ, Thayer's: "in the NT an interpreter and teacher of the Mosaic law" = Sadducees) is drawn not in opposition to the Marcionite text at all but rather in response to Matthew's hyper nomonism.

This is an example of where placing too much importance on Marcionism as the driver by Klinghardt (and yourself as well), makes you blind to other opponents of the writers. In this case you misread the obvious reference and response to Matthew's (hyper pro-Law) theology and claim because it's written by Luke that it is anti-Marcionite in origin, when in fact it's not directly related, rather placed in this spot for convenience as it deals with similar topic.

[Giuseppe]

is drawn not in opposition to the Marcionite text at all but rather in response to Matthew's hyper nomonism.

This is an example of where placing too much importance on Marcionism as the driver by Klinghardt

I am not doubting that Luke 7:30 is not just anti-marcionite as rather post-marcionite. The point is more subtle: insofar a Lukan intrrpolation is designed to remove literary inconcistency in a previous gospel (beyond if Marcion, Mark or Matthew), then that same Lukan information can't be assumed to precede Marcion.

If you agree with me that the information "the pharisees were not baptized by John" is post-marcionite, then you have to concede that an external knowledge is required by the reader of the marcionite passage:

If we say 'from heaven', he will say 'Why then did you not believe him?'

...in order to explain to himself why they "did not believe him".


Once you recognize the need of a mere external knowledge to explain that detail, then accordingly you don't need more the baptism of Jesus in the incipit of a previous gospel in order to explain why in Marcion the Question of the Authority of Jesus is reduced to the Question of the Authority of John: external knowledge was enough there too.