Does Marcion's Gospel mention John the Baptist?

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
Stuart
Posts: 878
Joined: Mon Apr 14, 2014 12:24 am
Location: Sunnyvale, CA

Re: Does Marcion's Gospel mention John the Baptist?

Post by Stuart »

MrMacSon wrote: Fri Nov 23, 2018 1:18 am
Stuart wrote: Thu Nov 22, 2018 1:30 pm
... Vinzent does not, in my view, fully take into account the last prophet theology nor the association of John with Malachi "prophecy" as Elijah to come first ...
.
Vinzent has a little to say about that in an essay titled 'The Ascension of Isaiah as a Response to Marcion of Sinope' in The Ascension of Isaiah (Studies on Early Christian apocrypha), edited by J.N. Bemmer, I Czachesz, T Nicklas, M Pesthy and L.R. Lanzillotta, 2016, Peeters, Leuven; pp. 75-118.

He says

"Contrary to Marcion's criticism of propheticism that ended with John the Baptist, in the Ascension of Isaiah we are, indeed, faced with a revelation that takes its authority from one of the major prophets, Isaiah. He is the prophet (of course together with Jerimiah and Malachi) of the messianic birth stories in Luke and Matthew. And Isa. 40:3 (in a combined quote with Mal 3:1) is the first literary quote from a Prophet in both Luke and Mark (Luke 1:76; Mark 1:2-3), and also resonates in Matt. 11:10 par. Luke 7:27; Matt 3:3; par, Luke 3:4; John 1:23 and 3:28." [p. 80]
.
Vinzent then goes on to refer to 2 Kings a few times.
What I meant was, Vinzent, who is definitely aware of this theology, does not account for it in his opinion that Marcion introduced John the Baptist to the Gospel story line. The prophet theology comes from outside the Marcionite circle. So why would Marcion introduce it to his Gospel if it were not already widely known (among his competing evangelists and their supporting "monastic" base camps)? This he does not explain.

I offered what is a simpler explanation, and consistent with what Marcion's opponents did, that John the Baptists' inclusion was a response and downgrading of his standing. Why do that if it's a new character you are introducing? Why does he have no background? His background is clearly to be found outside the Marcionite Gospel. We see it in the Synoptic Gospels, so it must have come from their underlying source, a source which also underlay the Marcionite.

The question I pose is not, "does Vinzent know about this theological point", which clearly he does, but rather why doesn't he account for it in his theory that Marcion introduced John?
“’That was excellently observed’, say I, when I read a passage in an author, where his opinion agrees with mine. When we differ, there I pronounce him to be mistaken.” - Jonathan Swift
Stuart
Posts: 878
Joined: Mon Apr 14, 2014 12:24 am
Location: Sunnyvale, CA

Re: Does Marcion's Gospel mention John the Baptist?

Post by Stuart »

Ben C. Smith wrote: Fri Nov 23, 2018 9:18 am To me it has long appeared more natural to interpret both the "man dressed in soft clothing" and the "reed shaking in the wind" as Herod Antipas. John is a rugged prophet in the saying, not a wimpy palace dweller like the Herods. And Herod Antipas' earliest coinage symbol appears to have been a reed: viewtopic.php?f=3&t=4026.
I don't think it fits John either. But Herod was not standing in the desert/wilderness, John is/ Also Herod is nowhere in sight for this passage. The fine clothing associated with John strikes me as countering his simple mendicants clothing of Mark 1:6 (and parallels). I see this as flipping everything about John, from his being poor and simple to knowing Christ. We are easily caught up remembering the Baptism story and John's apparent poverty. We have to set that view aside when considering this passage without the Baptism story.
“’That was excellently observed’, say I, when I read a passage in an author, where his opinion agrees with mine. When we differ, there I pronounce him to be mistaken.” - Jonathan Swift
perseusomega9
Posts: 1030
Joined: Tue Feb 04, 2014 7:19 am

Re: Does Marcion's Gospel mention John the Baptist?

Post by perseusomega9 »

Giuseppe wrote: Fri Nov 23, 2018 11:25 am
perseusomega9 wrote: Fri Nov 23, 2018 10:59 am I'm sure you can come up with anything to support your conclusion.
and which is the YOUR conclusion? I am not reading nothing about your views until now. I don't know even if you are a mythicist, a historicist or a Jesus agnostic. I know only that you seem to be disturbed by the my posts. But at least I am not judaizing old de-judaizers.
Exactly
The metric to judge if one is a good exegete: the way he/she deals with Barabbas.

Who disagrees with me on this precise point is by definition an idiot.
-Giuseppe
User avatar
arnoldo
Posts: 969
Joined: Sat Oct 12, 2013 6:10 pm
Location: Latin America

Re: Does Marcion's Gospel mention John the Baptist?

Post by arnoldo »

Ben C. Smith wrote: Fri Nov 23, 2018 9:18 am To me it has long appeared more natural to interpret both the "man dressed in soft clothing" and the "reed shaking in the wind" as Herod Antipas. John is a rugged prophet in the saying, not a wimpy palace dweller like the Herods. And Herod Antipas' earliest coinage symbol appears to have been a reed: viewtopic.php?f=3&t=4026.
Interesting, the "palace dweller dressed in soft clothing" does contrast sharply with John's wilderness lifestyle dressed in camel's hair. Josephus also describes a character named Bannus who dressed kinda shabby like John.
User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 8994
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: Does Marcion's Gospel mention John the Baptist?

Post by Ben C. Smith »

Stuart wrote: Fri Nov 23, 2018 12:29 pm
Ben C. Smith wrote: Fri Nov 23, 2018 9:18 am To me it has long appeared more natural to interpret both the "man dressed in soft clothing" and the "reed shaking in the wind" as Herod Antipas. John is a rugged prophet in the saying, not a wimpy palace dweller like the Herods. And Herod Antipas' earliest coinage symbol appears to have been a reed: viewtopic.php?f=3&t=4026.
I don't think it fits John either. But Herod was not standing in the desert/wilderness, John is. Also Herod is nowhere in sight for this passage.
No, the text tells us explicitly where the likes of Herod would be standing... or more probably reclining:

Matthew 11.7: 7 And as these were going away, Jesus began to speak to the multitudes about John, "What did you go out into the wilderness to look at? A reed shaken by the wind? 8 But what did you go out to see? A man dressed in soft clothing? Behold, those who wear soft clothing are in kings' palaces. 9 But why did you go out? To see a prophet? Yes, I say to you, and one who is more than a prophet."

Luke 7.24: 24 When the messengers of John had left, He began to speak to the crowds about John, "What did you go out into the wilderness to see? A reed shaken by the wind? 25 But what did you go out to see? A man dressed in soft clothing? Those who are splendidly clothed and live in luxury are found in royal palaces! 26 But what did you go out to see? A prophet? Yes, I say to you, and one who is more than a prophet."

ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ
User avatar
MrMacSon
Posts: 8798
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 3:45 pm

Re: Does Marcion's Gospel mention John the Baptist?

Post by MrMacSon »

Stuart wrote: Fri Nov 23, 2018 11:57 am What I meant was, Vinzent, who is definitely aware of this theology, does not account for it in his opinion that Marcion introduced John the Baptist to the Gospel story line. The prophet theology comes from outside the Marcionite circle. So why would Marcion introduce it to his Gospel if it were not already widely known (among his competing evangelists and their supporting "monastic" base camps)? This he1 does not explain.

I offered what is a simpler explanation, and consistent with what Marcion's opponents did, that John the Baptists' inclusion was a response and downgrading of his standing2. Why do that if it's a new character you are introducing?3 Why does he have no background? His background is clearly to be found outside the Marcionite Gospel. We see it in the Synoptic Gospels, so it must have come from their underlying source, a source which also underlay the Marcionite.

The question I pose is not, "does Vinzent know about this theological point", which clearly he does, but rather why doesn't he account for it in his theory that Marcion introduced John?3
1 by he, I presume you mean Vinzent.

2 Sure (though you do not specify in that post what you or others (or both) think the 'response' was to).

3 Vinzent has, in that blog-post (and probably elsewhere), reproduced Matthias Klinghardt's "reconstruction of Marcion's Gospeltext". As he says at the start -
Markus Vinzent, 2014 wrote:
The reconstruction of Marcion's Gospeltext follows closely that of the forthcoming major monograph by Matthias Klinghardt, Das aelteste Evangelium. It is all the more important for me to work with his textual reconstruction ...

http://markusvinzent.blogspot.com/2014/ ... n.html?m=1
So, the main question I would have in return is -

Why do you think Vinzent has an ".'opinion' that 'Marcion introduced John the Baptist' to the Gospel story line" ??

Now Vinzent is not always a clear communicator, especially on his blog, including that blog-post, as well in his books eg. he often uses commas inappropriately and annoyingly (and he has made a silly error in enumerating a reproduction of a version of Marcion's Gospel which has irked others, to the point their attack-dog (an otherwise excellent scholar himself) beats him up for it, continually).

In that blog post, Vinzent wrote [edited by me for layout eg. paragraphed] -
After the healing of the near-dead slave of the centurion, Jesus, his disciples and the crowd enter Nain and this time they are faced with a corps of a dead man, ‘the only son of his mother’, ‘a widow’. Even more powerful than before, Jesus raises the son and gives him back to his mother. As a reaction – the crowd is seized by fear, yet also glorify God, stating that ‘a great Prophet has come forth’ and that ‘God has come to help his people’, the strongest acknowledgement of Jesus being a Μέγας προϕήτης in this Gospel by the crowd and the disciples. Yet, in Mcn, this statement serves to contrast Jesus, the mega-prophet, with John, the Baptist – and here, we find the second correction of Luke who diverts the line of the story away from this confrontation. Without highlighting all the details of difference between Mcn and Luke (for example, the change from ‘Jesus’ to ‘Lord’ in Luke), the first major alteration is that Luke removed the bridge between the previous pericope with the raising of the boy of Nain and the new one of the encounter with John’s pupils, where Mcn introduces John the Baptist as the one who ‘having heard his [Jesus’] works, was scandalized’. Having cut out this strong characterization of John, Luke, however, lost the framing of the entire story, as Jesus’ blessing at the end of the debate with John’s pupils in his address to John’s and his own disciples, comes back to the opening: ‘Blessed is anyone who is not scandalized by me’.

Having said this, and once John’s messengers had left, Jesus details this rebuke of John even further, by admonishing the crowd who may have searched for a prophet, and he does not deny that John the Baptist was a prophet, even the greatest ‘born of women’, but he adds that ‘the one who is least in the kingdom of God is greater than he is’. Again, without elaborating here on it – it is important to know that throughout the second century, Marcion was known to have contrasted Jesus with John the Baptist and, as his Gospel stated (Luke 16:16 par.), as is still known in Justin and Irenaeus, that the Law and the Prophets ended with John the Baptist: ‘The law and the prophets existed until John; since then, the kingdom of God has been proclaimed. Therefore, heaven and earth will pass away easier than one tiny stroke of a letter of the Lord’. As Justin rightly understood and Irenaeus reports, the law that ‘originated with Moses’, was ‘terminated with John by necessity’ (Iren., Adv. haer. IV 4).

The new edict of the Lord, however, was more robust than heaven and earth could ever be. And yet, again, in this instance, Luke turns Marcion upside down, in replacing ‘the Lord’ and making Jesus say that heaven and earth will pass away easier than one tiny stroke of a letter of the Law’. It, therefore, comes with no surprise that Luke adds the verses 7:29-35 to the pericope that we discussed before, in order to endorse and vindicate wisdom, the Baptist, by criticizing the criticism of John, putting him on par with the criticisms voiced against Jesus and blaming the Pharisees:
‘Now all the people who heard this, even the tax collectors, acknowledged God’s justice, because they had been baptized with John’s baptism. 7:30 However, the Pharisees and the experts in religious law rejected God’s purpose for themselves, because they had not been baptized by John... 7:33 For John the Baptist has come eating no bread and drinking no wine, and you say, ‘He has a demon!’ 7:34 The Son of Man has come eating and drinking, and you say, „Look at him, a glutton and a drunk, a friend of tax collectors and sinners!“’
http://markusvinzent.blogspot.com/2014/ ... n.html?m=1

I would edit the above text thus -


Jesus raises the son and gives him back to his mother. As a reaction – the crowd is seized by fear, yet also glorify God, stating that ‘a great Prophet has come forth’ and that ‘God has come to help his people’, the strongest acknowledgement of Jesus being a Μέγας προϕήτης in this Gospel by the crowd and the disciples.

Yet, in Mcn, this statement serves to contrast Jesus, the mega-prophet, with John the Baptist – and here we find the second correction of Luke who diverts the line of the story away from this confrontation. Without highlighting all the details of difference between Mcn and Luke (for example, the change from ‘Jesus’ ['him' in Mcn, 7.19] to ‘Lord’ in Luke), the first major alteration is that Luke removed the bridge between the previous pericope with the raising of the boy of Nain and the new one of the encounter with John’s pupils, where Mcn introduces John the Baptist as the one who, ‘having heard his [Jesus’] works was scandalized’.

Having cut out this strong characterization of John, Luke, however, lost the framing of the entire story, as Jesus’ blessing, at the end of the debate with John’s pupils in his address to John’s and his own disciples, comes back to the opening: ‘Blessed is anyone who is not scandalized by me’ [though Lk 7:23 has '."..Blessed is anyone who takes no offense at me”.'].

Having said this, and once John’s messengers had left, [Marcion wrote about] Jesus' details this rebuke of John even further, by admonishing the crowd who may have searched for a prophet, and he [Marcion wrote that Jesus] does not deny that John the Baptist was a prophet, even the greatest ‘born of women’, but he [Marcion] add[ed] that ‘the one who is least in the kingdom of God is greater than he [John] is’.

Again, without elaborating here on it – it is important to know that throughout the second century, Marcion was known to have contrasted Jesus with John the Baptist and, as his Gospel stated (Luke 16:16 par.), [and] as is still [was] known in [by] Justin and Irenaeus, that the Law and the Prophets ended with John the Baptist:

‘The law and the prophets existed until John; since then, the kingdom of God has been proclaimed. Therefore, heaven and earth will pass away easier than one tiny stroke of a letter of the Lord’.

As Justin rightly understood, and Irenaeus reports, the law that ‘originated with Moses’ was ‘terminated with John by necessity’ (Iren., Adv. haer. IV 4).

The new edict of the Lord, however, was more robust than heaven and earth could ever be. And yet, again, in this instance, Luke turns Marcion upside down, in replacing ‘the Lord’ and making Jesus say that heaven and earth will pass away easier than one tiny stroke of a letter of the Law’. It, therefore, comes with no surprise that Luke adds the verses 7:29-35 to the pericope that we discussed before, in order to endorse and vindicate wisdom, the Baptist, by criticizing the criticism of John, putting him on par with the criticisms voiced against Jesus and blaming the Pharisees:

‘Now all the people who heard this, even the tax collectors, acknowledged God’s justice, because they had been baptized with John’s baptism. 7:30 However, the Pharisees and the experts in religious law rejected God’s purpose for themselves, because they had not been baptized by John... 7:33 For John the Baptist has come eating no bread and drinking no wine, and you say, ‘He has a demon!’ 7:34 The Son of Man has come eating and drinking, and you say, „Look at him, a glutton and a drunk, a friend of tax collectors and sinners!“’


In sum: First, the entire sequence not only displays entirely a theology for which Marcion is known (and sometimes blamed) already in the second century, the text is also more coherent, [and] stringent, and a fascinating insight into a clear narrative where Jesus is the one who acts against expectations, remains misunderstood by Israel, the crowd: John’s and Jesus’ own disciples. Second, if one had reconstructed the last pericope on the basis of Marcion’s theology, one would have added the contrasting statements that in Luke set the sinner against the Pharisee, sharpening Jesus’ reaction against Simon Peter. However, as Matthias Klinghardt shows from the manuscript evidence, only the parts of the verses which are attested for Marcion’s Gospel (Luke 7:44b.45b) display the usual variants in a series of Bible manuscripts, especially the Latin tradition (aur b f l q rl a d e ff2), while the others do not.

Stuart
Posts: 878
Joined: Mon Apr 14, 2014 12:24 am
Location: Sunnyvale, CA

Re: Does Marcion's Gospel mention John the Baptist?

Post by Stuart »

MrMacSon wrote: Fri Nov 23, 2018 3:41 pm
1 by he, I presume you mean Vinzent.

2 Sure (though you do not specify in that post what you or others (or both) think the 'response' was to).

3 Vinzent has, in that blog-post (and probably elsewhere), reproduced Matthias Klinghardt's "reconstruction of Marcion's Gospeltext". As he says at the start -
Let's answer the first two in this response

1. correct 'he' = Vinzent
2. I do specify what it is in response to, and said so in my posts. I'll state it again

The response is to the Baptism story from the prototype Gospel(s) used by Matthew, Mark and also Marcion/Luke.

The story was thus well known within the pre-evangelical Christian (monastic) Community. The theology behind it was the 2nd coming of Elijah before the messiah, and John was that person fulfilling Malachi (and Isaiah, etc.).

The story, and post commentary by Jesus, found in Luke 7:18-28, was meant to replace the Baptism. It shows knowledge of the role of John and of the Malachi Prophet association. And it rejects John as the predecessor of Jesus.

I ask the question, why introduce a character with no background prior only to refute a theology not part of your Gospel elsewhere? If you are refuting it where did it come from? (remember it's not in Marcion's Gospel, and Vinzent like me is a Marcionite Priority adherent -- so non-Marcionite priority solutions should not apply; Vinzent does advocate a prior Gospel which was unpublished ... it's convoluted compared to most, but I would simply say let's assume it's a prototype known by all the Gospel writers, something Vinzent also says)

*******************************************
... I will look at #3 separately now

I have no issue with what Vinzent says here, agree pretty much 99%, including the lost verse in Luke of John being offended. But we get back to the question of why would he introduce John in the first place? Where did he come from? And what is the story refuting?

All those questions point back to a removed Baptism scene.
“’That was excellently observed’, say I, when I read a passage in an author, where his opinion agrees with mine. When we differ, there I pronounce him to be mistaken.” - Jonathan Swift
Giuseppe
Posts: 13732
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: Does Marcion's Gospel mention John the Baptist?

Post by Giuseppe »

Stuart wrote: Fri Nov 23, 2018 4:17 pm

I ask the question, why introduce a character with no background prior only to refute a theology not part of your Gospel elsewhere? If you are refuting it where did it come from?
I am sorry to admit it, but the answer is easy: Vinzent thinks that Marcion remembers John the Baptist and introduces him, since “oral tradition” about a historical Jesus commanded him to do so.

Here is a good example where the hypothesis of a historical Jesus forces a good scholar to do errors.

but note the other side of the coin: if John the Baptist was introduced by Marcion velim nolim since it was a historical fact that Jesus had relations with John, then the historicist (I refer to Andrew, for example) can't use as argument against the Marcionite priority the fact that John enters in Marcion without being introduced before.
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.
andrewcriddle
Posts: 2817
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 12:36 am

Re: Does Marcion's Gospel mention John the Baptist?

Post by andrewcriddle »

Giuseppe wrote: Sat Nov 24, 2018 1:44 am
Stuart wrote: Fri Nov 23, 2018 4:17 pm

I ask the question, why introduce a character with no background prior only to refute a theology not part of your Gospel elsewhere? If you are refuting it where did it come from?
I am sorry to admit it, but the answer is easy: Vinzent thinks that Marcion remembers John the Baptist and introduces him, since “oral tradition” about a historical Jesus commanded him to do so.

Here is a good example where the hypothesis of a historical Jesus forces a good scholar to do errors.

but note the other side of the coin: if John the Baptist was introduced by Marcion velim nolim since it was a historical fact that Jesus had relations with John, then the historicist (I refer to Andrew, for example) can't use as argument against the Marcionite priority the fact that John enters in Marcion without being introduced before.
just to clarify. My argument assumes that Mark is prior to both Marcion's gospel and canonical Luke and argues that if so then Marcion's gospel is a modification of (something like) Luke. I agree that this particular argument does not work against the IMO implausible claim that Marcion's gospel is prior to both Mark and Luke.

Andrew Criddle
Giuseppe
Posts: 13732
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: Does Marcion's Gospel mention John the Baptist?

Post by Giuseppe »

Stuart wrote: Fri Nov 23, 2018 4:17 pm I ask the question, why introduce a character with no background prior only to refute a theology not part of your Gospel elsewhere?
Now that I am thinking about it, the answer may come from the passage in Marcion/Luke where Jesus answers to pharisees:

“The baptism of John, was it from heaven, or of men?”


Note that John himself didn't know in Mark that Jesus was 'baptized' from heaven: i.e., he didn't see the Spirit descend on Jesus, and he didn't listen the voice from heaven saying 'You are my son, etc.''.

So for Marcion, John the Baptist, against the his same intentions, was really preparing the way, only, not for the Messiah of the Creator, but for the Spirit from the alien God. This is why Jesus addresses the same disciples of John (and not John himself directly): they were made (by John and against the desire of John) a good recipient to welcome the coming Spirit of Jesus (Son of the alien god), not to follow the Creator.

So the sense would be:

“The baptism of John, was it from heaven [of the Good God], or of men?”

Against the objection that this interpretation is too much implausible, please ask yourself: why didn't the markan John recognize the spiritual baptism of Jesus, but only the physical baptism of a mere sinner?

It is relatively more clear, from this POV, that John himself, in Mark, didn't know the true origin of the his baptism: from the alien god, not from the demiurge adored by him.


I mean: the markan John is found in the same embarrassment of the pharisees who didn't know the right answer to the Jesus's question: John knew that his baptism was coming from him, a man, but he believed that the his baptism was also coming from heaven. Only, of the wrong god.

Because otherwise he would have recognized the Spirit descending on Jesus at his baptism.
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.
Post Reply