Klinghardt and the Question about Fasting

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
Secret Alias
Posts: 18362
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Klinghardt and the Question about Fasting

Post by Secret Alias »

The Jew of Celsus cites the (anti-Marcionite) argument that Jesus and John had the same god (because they were both Jewish). Given that Celsus wrote c. 178 CE his Jewish source must date to 150 - 60 CE. We don't have a Mark, Matthew, Luke or John from that period. The fourfold gospel starts with Irenaeus. That's a pretty good reason for supposing that the Marcionite gospel pre-dates the orthodox canon. The Jew of Celsus writing from 150 - 60 CE knows of a Marcionite gospel which was already in existence in 150 - 60 CE.
Giuseppe
Posts: 13732
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: Klinghardt and the Question about Fasting

Post by Giuseppe »

Klinghardt refers specifically to Epiphanius for the passage in exam, where "he" is more specific than "anyone":
Giuseppe wrote: Thu May 25, 2023 12:58 am Now I quote the full Argument from Earliest Rivalry with John the Baptist directly from Klinghardt's only words. It is found in page 368:

2. Similarly, the John-the-Baptist tradition. *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 offense 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; Matt 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' judgement, 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 was preserved in the successive tradition.

This means, *Ev knows John and knows that he was a baptizer. [The information is found also in Jos., Ant. XVIII 116-119] 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 thorugh 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 thorugh 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.

(The Oldest Gospel and the Formation of the Canonical Gospels, p. 368, my bold, original cursive)
But the real smoking gun is the Matthean addition of the anti-marcionite verse:

From the days of John the Baptist until now the kingdom of heaven suffereth violence, and the violent take it by force.

...where the news that scandalize John the Baptist are not more the news about Jesus, but about the "violents", i.e. the radical gentilizers à la Marcion. This passage betrayes the fact that Matthew assumed a background of the story where the news about someone cause scandal to the ears of the Baptizer.
Post Reply