If Marcion is primary, then what of John the Baptist?

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
Post Reply
User avatar
Jagd
Posts: 74
Joined: Thu Nov 04, 2021 4:59 pm

If Marcion is primary, then what of John the Baptist?

Post by Jagd »

If the Gospel of the Lord used by Marcion is at least an indication of what the earlier Gospel narratives were like, then its omission of the John the Baptist (and baptism in general) appears significant.

Was the Baptist meant to be a piece of historicizing Jesus, added later by synoptic writers (and then sorta slapped into John within the weird "witness" narrative that, in my estimation, comes from the synoptic authors trying to make John harmonize while keeping it uniquely authentic in some way)?

Was the baptism event in the story meant to give reason for why Christians were already baptizing one another? Was the Baptist himself a metaphor for the Old Testament/preceding (or, forerunning) Judaism?
Giuseppe
Posts: 13732
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: If Marcion is primary, then what of John the Baptist?

Post by Giuseppe »

My present opinion is that "John the Baptist" is a Gospel invention to cover, behind the image of a mere precursor (=="YHWH gives grace"), an embarrassing, rival portrait of Jesus held among some sects, possibly one dating back to a hypothetical historical Jesus.

(Which means that the Baptist Passage in Josephus is an interpolation, too).

Hence, when Marcion attacked "John the Baptist", he was really attacking (without knowing it?) the portrait of Jesus more hateful for him: the portrait of a Messianic rabble-rouser gaining followers, gathering armies in the wilderness.

Insofar dr Carrier thinks that "John the Baptist" existed, then accordingly Carrier concedes that he is a historicist.
User avatar
Jagd
Posts: 74
Joined: Thu Nov 04, 2021 4:59 pm

Re: If Marcion is primary, then what of John the Baptist?

Post by Jagd »

Giuseppe wrote: Sat Dec 04, 2021 12:47 pm My present opinion is that "John the Baptist" is a Gospel invention to cover, behind the image of a mere precursor (=="YHWH gives grace"), an embarrassing, rival portrait of Jesus held among some sects, possibly one dating back to a hypothetical historical Jesus.

(Which means that the Baptist Passage in Josephus is an interpolation, too).

Hence, when Marcion attacked "John the Baptist", he was really attacking (without knowing it?) the portrait of Jesus more hateful for him: the portrait of a Messianic rabble-rouser gaining followers, gathering armies in the wilderness.

Insofar dr Carrier thinks that "John the Baptist" existed, then accordingly Carrier concedes that he is a historicist.
I'd say that if there was any historical Jesus then he was in the milieu of these Samaritan wonder-working god-men (I would even say the roots of Mandaeism point to its John the Baptist as also an invented divine/salvific figure, but maybe that stems from the Baptist and the Christ becoming exalted around the same time?). Even the way Yeshu is portrayed in the Toledot Yeshu makes him look like one of these Samaritan/northern magic men who came down to Jerusalem to cause trouble.

Perhaps the proto-Mandaean Baptist sect emerged shortly after the advent of proto-Christianity (Khrestianity?), and so they incorporated this Baptist figure (real or not) into their narrative? This would account for why he isn't in Marcion but is in the synoptics (and, I think, interpolated into John; the Fourth Gospel also has plenty of hints that it originally featured a Samaritan hero). Perhaps it was a way to add "local flavor" to the story.
Giuseppe
Posts: 13732
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: If Marcion is primary, then what of John the Baptist?

Post by Giuseppe »

To be clear: John the Baptist never existed. He is only another name to cover an embarrassing tradition dating back to the historical Jesus.

Just as the first evangelist covered the disturbing traces of Jesus by collecting them under the invented very useful label of "John the Baptist"...

...so later a Christian forger interpolated the Baptist Passage in Josephus to exorcize the risk that some readers could identify the Samaritan false prophet slain by Pilate (mentioned only just earlier by Josephus) with the historical Jesus.
User avatar
Jagd
Posts: 74
Joined: Thu Nov 04, 2021 4:59 pm

Re: If Marcion is primary, then what of John the Baptist?

Post by Jagd »

Giuseppe wrote: Sat Dec 04, 2021 1:08 pm To be clear: John the Baptist never existed. He is only another name to cover an embarrassing tradition dating back to the historical Jesus.
Gotcha. Would you say that the Mandaean traditions are largely derivative of the earliest (proto-)Christian traditions? By your model, it sounds like they took that John the Baptist figure invented by the Christians and ran with it.
Giuseppe wrote: Sat Dec 04, 2021 1:08 pm the Samaritan false prophet slain by Pilate
So would this be (at least partially) a part of the historical Jesus, in your understanding?
Giuseppe
Posts: 13732
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: If Marcion is primary, then what of John the Baptist?

Post by Giuseppe »

Jagd wrote: Sat Dec 04, 2021 1:27 pm Gotcha. Would you say that the Mandaean traditions are largely derivative of the earliest (proto-)Christian traditions? By your model, it sounds like they took that John the Baptist figure invented by the Christians and ran with it.
yes, I think that the Mandeans attest only the existence of an old Gospel tradition that placed John the Baptist in opposition to Jesus.
Jagd wrote: Sat Dec 04, 2021 1:27 pm So would this be (at least partially) a part of the historical Jesus, in your understanding?
indeed, it is a strange coincidence that the killer of the suffering "Messiah Jesus son of Joseph" (or, for that matter, buried by Joseph the Patriarch) was named "Pilate" just as the historical killer of the Samaritans, the same Samaritans who, according to Josephus, called themselves with pride "the sons of Joseph the Patriarch" ? I don't think. I think that it is slightly more probable than the coincidence above the possibility that Pilate was introduced in the Gospels because the Samaritan false prophet slain by Pilate claimed for himself the title of "Messiah Son of Joseph".
User avatar
Jagd
Posts: 74
Joined: Thu Nov 04, 2021 4:59 pm

Re: If Marcion is primary, then what of John the Baptist?

Post by Jagd »

Giuseppe wrote: Sat Dec 04, 2021 1:37 pm I think that the Mandeans attest only the existence of an old Gospel tradition that placed John the Baptist in opposition to Jesus.
Gotcha, do you think Mandaeaism has any relevance to early Christianity? I wonder if its syncretism with Mesopotamian, Egyptian, and so-called "gnostic" mythos may have been similar to the syncretism of proto-Christianity.
Giuseppe wrote: Sat Dec 04, 2021 1:37 pm indeed, it is a strange coincidence that the killer of the suffering "Messiah Jesus son of Joseph" (or, for that matter, buried by Joseph the Patriarch) was named "Pilate" just as the historical killer of the Samaritans, the same Samaritans who, according to Josephus, called themselves with pride "the sons of Joseph the Patriarch" ? I don't think. I think that it is slightly more probable than the coincidence above the possibility that Pilate was introduced in the Gospels because the Samaritan false prophet slain by Pilate claimed for himself the title of "Messiah Son of Joseph".
Whoa! I never made that "son of Joseph" connection before, but it certainly makes sense! Perhaps good to note that "Joseph" isn't even mentioned in the Gospel of Mark, so maybe the whole historicization of him as Jesus's human father (only in the nativities?) was a way of trying to repurpose that "Son of Joseph" Samaritan title?
User avatar
mlinssen
Posts: 3431
Joined: Tue Aug 06, 2019 11:01 am
Location: The Netherlands
Contact:

Re: If Marcion is primary, then what of John the Baptist?

Post by mlinssen »

Jagd wrote: Sat Dec 04, 2021 12:16 pm If the Gospel of the Lord used by Marcion is at least an indication of what the earlier Gospel narratives were like, then its omission of the John the Baptist (and baptism in general) appears significant.

Was the Baptist meant to be a piece of historicizing Jesus, added later by synoptic writers (and then sorta slapped into John within the weird "witness" narrative that, in my estimation, comes from the synoptic authors trying to make John harmonize while keeping it uniquely authentic in some way)?

Was the baptism event in the story meant to give reason for why Christians were already baptizing one another? Was the Baptist himself a metaphor for the Old Testament/preceding (or, forerunning) Judaism?
viewtopic.php?p=115718#p115718

It's just a name, meant to vilify the Judeans, the Tanakh, their history - and it beautifully condenses all of that, the entire Book of Chronicles, into one single logion - and Chronicles' first word is Adam, and its last Judean actor is Zedekiah
schillingklaus
Posts: 645
Joined: Sat Dec 11, 2021 11:17 pm

Re: If Marcion is primary, then what of John the Baptist?

Post by schillingklaus »

Johnny B is not entirely absent in Marcion's as his disciples appear ex nihilo and confront Jesus at some point.

So even if earlier than any received synoptic, Marcion's reacts to at least some pre-canonical gospel of the synoptic persuasion.
Post Reply