Haenchen on Jesus and John adoring different images of god

[Giuseppe]

Nun hat man freilich andere Auswege aus diesem Dilemma gesucht. Man hat sich z. B. mit der Auskunft begnügt, Jesus sei aus tiefer De-mut zum Täufer gegangen, weil er nicht den Schein erwecken wollte, er sei besser als die anderen. Aber dieser scheinbare Ausweg ist eine Sackgasse. Denn wer so argumentiert, der übersieht den tiefen Un-terschied im Gottesbild beim Täufer und bei Jesus, von dem wir ge-sprochen haben. Hier würde alle Demut nichts daran geändert haben, daß Jesus sich zu einem falschen Gottesbild bekannt hätte.

(Ernst Haenchen, Der Weg Jesu. Eine Erklärung des Markus-Evangeliums und der kanonischen Parallelen, 2. Aufl.)

my translation via Deepl:

Now, of course, other ways out of this dilemma have been sought. For example, one has been content with the information that Jesus went to the Baptist out of deep humility, because he did not want to give the impression that he was better than the others. But this apparent way out is a dead end. For whoever argues in this way overlooks the deep difference in the image of God in the Baptist and in Jesus, of whom we have spoken. Here, all humility would not have changed the fact that Jesus would have professed a false image of God.

It is misfortunate that Haenchen thinks as a historicist. Even so, he is able to detect what Mark would have inherited, in spite of himself, from Marcion: the irreducibility of Jesus to John the Baptist and especially the irreducibility of the god of Jesus to the god of John.

[Giuseppe]

Debt to Robert M. Price when he remembers somewhere that modern Christians are crypto-Marcionites without knowing it. Marcion talked about two gods, while today they talk (hypocritically?) about "two different images of god" when they oppose the god of OT to the god of NT.

[Giuseppe]

Following Bob Price, I may go even more further along his irony, and infer that the historicists are going secretly (without knowing it) to identify their "historical Jesus" with the historical John the Baptist.

[Giuseppe]

Haenchen continues:

Dem gegenüber aber kann man freilich fragen, wie die Gemeinde überhaupt zu der Überzeugung gekommen sein soll, daß auch Jesus von Johannes getauft worden ist, wenn nicht durch die Erinnerung an ein Faktum. Dieser Einwand wäre vielleicht nicht so unüberwindlich, wie er scheint. Die Urgemeinde hat, dem Handeln Jesu zuwider, die Taufe zur Bedingung für den Eintritt in die christliche Gemeinde ge-macht. Sie hat weiter, auf Grund ihrer eigenen Erfahrungen, die Taufe mit dem Geistempfang zur Einheit verbunden. Dann lag die Voraussetzung nahe, daß auch Jesus bei der Taufe den Geist erhielt. Nicht alte historische Tradition, sondern Rückspiegelung der ur-christlichen Erfahrung ins Leben Jesu wäre es dann, was zur Ent-stehung dieser Erzählung geführt hat. Wem diese Erklärung zu spekulativ ist, der muß sich mit jener Wandlung im Gottesglauben Jesu abfinden, die sich aus dem Unterschied zwischen seiner eigenen Pre-digt und der des Johannes ergibt".

translation via Deepl:

On the other hand, one can ask how the community should have come to the conviction that Jesus was baptized by John, if not by the memory of a fact. This objection would perhaps not be as insurmountable as it seems. The early church, contrary to the action of Jesus, made baptism a condition of entrance into the Christian community. They further, based on their own experiences, connected baptism with the reception of the Spirit for unity. Then the assumption was obvious that Jesus also received the Spirit at baptism. Not an old historical tradition, but a reflection of the original Christian experience into the life of Jesus would then be what led to the emergence of this story. If this explanation is too speculative for you, you have to accept the change in Jesus' faith in God, which results from the difference between his own sermon and that of John.

There is a method in all this folly. Historicists are going really "to accept the change in Jesus' faith in God", by reducing de facto Jesus to John. I think that "Mark" (author) would have preserved the difference, which is a typical Catholicizing strategy.

[Giuseppe]

Now, curiously, Haenchen is surprised by Mark 11:28-33, in the light of what he has just said about the different images of god held by Jesus and John.

Aber konnten sie nicht auf Jesu Gegenfrage antworten: "Wenn du dich auf Johannes berufst, warum taufst und fastest du nicht wie Johan-nes?" Markus ist nicht auf den Gedanken gekommen, daß die Hier-archen so antworten konnten. Für ihn war verständlich, daß Jesus selbst nicht taufte, daß er aber für seine Gemeinde die Taufe wollte. Damit stand in seinen Augen Jesus in Übereinstimmung mit Johan-nes. Für uns ist das (s. o. S. 116 ff.) nicht der Fall: Die Taufe des Johan-nes ruhte auf anderen Voraussetzungen als die Verkündigung Jesu.

(p. 395)

translation via Deepl:

But couldn't they answer Jesus' counter-question, "If you refer to John, why don't you baptize and fast like John?" Mark did not think that the pharisees could answer in this way. For him it was understandable that Jesus himself did not baptize, but that he wanted baptism for his church. Thus, in his eyes, Jesus was in agreement with John. For us this is not the case (see above p. 116 ff.): The baptism of John was based on other conditions than the proclamation of Jesus.

So, according to Haenchen, Mark would have betrayed Jesus's original opposition to John, by inventing a Jesus who does appeal to John's example.

Haenchen is enough able to detect that the pharisees are described as "not sincere", since for them god doesn't count in the equation, but only their opportunism.

Are they enemies both of YHWH (and his prophet, John) and the Alien God (and his son Jesus) ?

[Giuseppe]

At this point I give up, dear readers.

Mark 11:28-33 appears to be anti-marcionite in nature. If so, how could it be found in *Ev ?

I can only hope that prof Vinzent, or mlinssen, will show a good argument here to persuade me of the contrary.

...Possibly building on Couchoud.

[Giuseppe]

Possibly the marcionite interpretation may be the following:

if the pharisees don't realize the presence of the Just God behind John, then how can they realize the presence of the Good God behind Jesus?

The Good God shows himself only by pure opposition to the Just God (YHWH): the ignorance about the latter (being behind John) implies even more the ignorance about the former (being behind Jesus).

ADDENDA:
just as the cruelty of YHWH serves to realize the gooddess of the Father,
so the knowledge of John the Baptist serves to realize who is really Jesus Son of Father.