Giuseppe wrote: ↑Sat Apr 30, 2022 9:50 pm
mlinssen wrote: ↑Sat Apr 30, 2022 12:30 pm
Just throwing these in here, what exactly are you looking for?
thanks, I wanted to know precisely, according to Vinzent, why Jesus in *Ev 20:1-4 connects the question about his authority with the question about John's authority.
What you have quoted is what I already knew, i.e. that everywhere in *Ev there is antithesis, conflict and contrast between Jesus and John (what Kunigunde is obstinate to not see). But Kunigunde insists that
at least in *Ev 20:1-4
Jesus loves John, hence it would be a vestigia derived from Mark by *Ev (so confuting *Ev priority). Hence possibly I would be interested, when Vinzent writes:
For while the parallel passage in *Ev 20:1-8 discussed above dealt with the subject of Jesus' teaching authority,
...about how the prof discusses *Ev 20:1-4 "above".
In Markion's version, therefore, an antithetical moment to the Baptist can be clearly discerned. For according to Lk 3:1-9 and Mt 3:1-10 (cf. also Mk 1:2-6) John preached the baptism of repentance. Purification does not come from above, but is mediated by the ascetic John with threats, call to repentance and baptism of repentance. Unlike the *Ev, which knows no baptism of Jesus by John, according to the later canonical Gospels (Lk 3:21-22; Mt 3:13-17; Mk 1:9-11;
Jn 1:29-34) Jesus must undergo this baptism of John, thereby accepting that they were also exposing Jesus to the call to repentance and the baptism of repentance and that he would follow in the footsteps of the Baptist. The request for the descent of the Holy Spirit and purification is replaced in Matthew100 by the more general request that God's will be done in heaven as on earth. Thus in Lk (as in Mt) the antithesis to John is missing, while the other two witnesses do not show any criticism of John through the generalisation.
(5) Somewhat later in *Ev (20:1-8) there is yet another mention of John the Baptist (which is encountered almost identically also in Lk 20:1-8,19):
"1And it came to pass, as he was teaching the people in the temple on one of those days, the Pharisees arose 2and said to him, 'Explain to us by what authority you are doing this, and who it is that has given you this authority!' 3He answered and said to them, "I also will ask you a question, which you shall answer me.
4Was John's baptism from heaven or from men?' 5But they reasoned and said to one another, 'If we say, "From heaven," he will say, "Then why did you not believe him?"' 6But if we say, "From men," all the people will stone us because they are convinced that John is a prophet."' 7 And they answered that they did not know the whence.
8 And Jesus said to them, 'Then neither do I tell you by what authority I do these things.' 19 And they tried to lay hands on him, but they were afraid." *Ev has Jesus' answer formulated in the form of a question back to the Pharisees, who had already appeared as his opponents at the entry into Jerusalem (*Ev 19:39)-in whose place Luke mentions (like Mk 11:27, while Mt 21:23 mentions only ho priests and the elders of the people) the chief priests and the scribes with the elders101-as to whether they believed that John's baptism was from heaven or from men. Thus this dialogue is set in a different framework than in Lk. For *Ev, as Tertullian has correctly understood,102 is about the question whether John also baptises out of the same heavenly authority out of which Jesus preaches. Although the *Ev offers no account of John's baptism, the Gospel presupposes general knowledge of it, such as might have been gleaned from Josephus or known as oral tradition to the audience. However, as we have seen before, the *Ev prepares the ground for those postscripts that could take up this open narrative thread and spin it further.103 Jesus' question had put the Pharisees in a dilemma because both answer options had to seem disadvantageous to them, firstly because of the possible self-contradiction, secondly because of the external pressure. But the expected answer that they would consider John's baptism to be one "of men" is also revealing, because it is contrasted with the view of the people who consider John to be a prophet, i.e. assume that he acted out of heavenly authority. As for Jesus' own authority, the narrator, along with his protagonist, is shrouded in silence.
I had seen the reference yesterday but couldn't find more than what there is. Vinzent is picking from both sides here with claiming that *Ev had no baptism but that Marcion knew it from oral tradition (LOL)
Regarding Kunigunde's point: the lack of introduction as a pointer to anything is so incredibly dumb, and she makes the same error next:
"Marcion had no problem with his Jesus being buried and having flesh and bones. His Jesus would also have endured a water baptism."
If you believe the Falsifying Fathers all the way, you'll be caught in circular lies. Did Jesus have to repent for his sins then? Why don't they address that?
Does she notice that, unlike John, Mark and Matthew, Luke doesn't flog Jesus? But instead he's "chastised"?
"GMarcion contains no indication that according to Marcion such a vast chasm exists between John and Jesus. On the contrary, Marcion 20:4 ff is well attested." is a
non sequitur - besides that, why do the FF criticise Marcion for something that Luke shares verbatim?