About another Gospel incipit without John the Baptist

[Giuseppe]

“The beginning of the gospel of Jesus the Christ, the son of the living God, according as it is said by the Holy Spirit, send an angel before his face, who shall prepare his way.”

(Gospel of the Twelwe Holy Apostles, syriac version)

Compare that incipit with Mark 1:1-3:

1 The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God;

2 As it is written in the prophets, Behold, I send my messenger before thy face, which shall prepare thy way before thee.

3 The voice of one crying in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of the Lord, make his paths straight.

4 John did baptize in the wilderness

Do you note the difference? In the first incipit the "angel" is Jesus. In the Mark's incipit the "angel" (angelos) is euhemerized as a human "messenger".

But then we remember about Exodus 23:20 et seq.:

“See, I am sending an angel ahead of you to guard you along the way and to bring you to the place I have prepared. 21 Pay attention to him and listen to what he says. Do not rebel against him; he will not forgive your rebellion, since my Name is in him. 22 If you listen carefully to what he says and do all that I say, I will be an enemy to your enemies and will oppose those who oppose you. 23 My angel will go ahead of you and bring you into the land of the Amorites, Hittites, Perizzites, Canaanites, Hivites and Jebusites, and I will wipe them out.

We realize that the "angel" in question is not only a divine messanger as opposed to a human prophet à la John-Baptist, but he is just the angel Joshua (!!!) who conquered Canaan going ahead of the Israel's armies.

The rapid inference is that John the Baptist was inserted to eclipse the figure of the previous "angel" who had to come. I can only think that the modification was made because the previous "angel" was too much mythical as figure, even for these writers!

[Giuseppe]

A question: can someone give a reference to the entire Syriac version of the "Gospel of 12 holy apostles"?

Is it true that John the Baptist is never mentioned in that version?

[Ben C. Smith]

Do you mean this text translated by J. Rendel Harris?

[Ben C. Smith]

Is it true that John the Baptist is never mentioned in that version?

Harris writes on page 12: "In the Syriac Gospel John the Baptist does not appear at all, and although the opening sentences might lead one to expect a reference to the Baptist, no such reference is made."

[Giuseppe]

Do you mean this text translated by J. Rendel Harris?

yes, thanks.

[Giuseppe]

What surprises me about the existence of a gospel without John the Baptist even when it is quoted in the incipit a biblical verse usually referred to John, is that it alone confutes the argument raised by Joe and Ben (and even by Stuart) about the presence of John in Mcn as a confutation of marcionite priority in comparison with Mark:

My guess is Marcion had the original GLuke and Bible scholarship guesses that Marcion's gospel did not start with John baptizing:

The Gospel of the Lord

I agree that Marcion's gospel probably lacked the baptism. I agree that Marcion (or somebody he was indebted to) probably had a proto-Luke of some kind.

The problem though is that the rest of this Gospel generally maintains the Markan references to John and is therefore incomplete by itself without the beginning introduction of John.

As Tertullian puts it: "Suddenly, John!"

It's easy to believe that Marcion's Gospel exorcised Jesus' baptism (instead of just the Spirit descending from Heaven the wholey enCHIlada (Jesus) descends). But why then have to rely on the Reader's knowledge of other Gospels to fill in the blanks regarding John's origin? Doesn't sound like something an early Gospel author would do.

If the presence of John the Baptist was so invasive to the point of being even in the marcionite gospel, then why was John absent in the Gospel of the 12 Holy Apostles ? It is not a simple absence. John is absent just when the the his presence had to be required by the verse in the incipit.

[Giuseppe]

In addition to he fact described above, another strong clue of antiquity of this Gospel of 12 apostles is the fact that not Pilate, not even Herod!, is mentioned among the killers of Jesus, but only «the Jews»:

But after this, the Jews made a plot against him, the chiefpriests and the elders and the scribes of the people, with one of his disciples, him that is called Scariota, and he took money for his price, and delivered him up to them, and they delivered him to the judges and they judged him and crucified him and he died and was buried, and the third day he rose, according as it is written, and as he said to his disciples, when he was with them, before he was betrayed.

[neilgodfrey]

In addition to he fact described above, another strong clue of antiquity of this Gospel of 12 apostles is the fact that not Pilate, not even Herod!, is mentioned among the killers of Jesus, but only «the Jews»:

But after this, the Jews made a plot against him, the chiefpriests and the elders and the scribes of the people, with one of his disciples, him that is called Scariota, and he took money for his price, and delivered him up to them, and they delivered him to the judges and they judged him and crucified him and he died and was buried, and the third day he rose, according as it is written, and as he said to his disciples, when he was with them, before he was betrayed.

Is it not perhaps equally plausible to argue the reverse: that the texts with stronger anti-Jewish narratives are later, coinciding with the growth of anti-semitism among many Christian cults from the late second century on?

[Ben C. Smith]

What surprises me about the existence of a gospel without John the Baptist even when it is quoted in the incipit a biblical verse usually referred to John, is that it alone confutes the argument raised by Joe and Ben (and even by Stuart) about the presence of John in Mcn as a confutation of marcionite priority in comparison with Mark:

My guess is Marcion had the original GLuke and Bible scholarship guesses that Marcion's gospel did not start with John baptizing:

The Gospel of the Lord

I agree that Marcion's gospel probably lacked the baptism. I agree that Marcion (or somebody he was indebted to) probably had a proto-Luke of some kind.

The problem though is that the rest of this Gospel generally maintains the Markan references to John and is therefore incomplete by itself without the beginning introduction of John.

As Tertullian puts it: "Suddenly, John!"

It's easy to believe that Marcion's Gospel exorcised Jesus' baptism (instead of just the Spirit descending from Heaven the wholey enCHIlada (Jesus) descends). But why then have to rely on the Reader's knowledge of other Gospels to fill in the blanks regarding John's origin? Doesn't sound like something an early Gospel author would do.

If the presence of John the Baptist was so invasive to the point of being even in the marcionite gospel, then why was John absent in the Gospel of the 12 Holy Apostles ? It is not a simple absence. John is absent just when the the his presence had to be required by the verse in the incipit.

You misunderstand the argument, then.

[Giuseppe]

You misunderstand the argument, then.

Your argument is:
1) in Mcn John is introduced bluntly with a description of him
2) in Mark John is introduced in the incipit.
3) therefore: Mcn derives from Mark.

My point is that, if you accept the validity of that your argument (as I do), then accordingly you should accept that the Gospel of 12 holy apostles precedes Mark, insofar there John is never mentioned hence there is logically no need at all of a his description.