John the Baptist is what does the difference in deciding on priority between Mark and *Ev

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
User avatar
Giuseppe
Posts: 10745
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: John the Baptist is what does the difference in deciding on priority between Mark and *Ev

Post by Giuseppe »

Surely when one reads prof Vinzent about Marcion's Jesus:

To Marcion whose Gospel did not provide the birth and youth stories of Jesus, as mentioned, but in which Jesus as an adult came down from above, from God, Jesus is and remains from the start through to his resurrection an angelic divine figure. Jesus only appears in human form, but in truth he is the transcendent God himself. This was the reason, as Tertullian explains to us, why Marcion called this text “gospel”, “eu-angelion”, namely the good message of an angel. It is the same reason, why early Christian authors after Marcion were rather reluctant in picking up this title.

(p. 53, my bold)
...one can't avoid the conclusion that a such Jesus is entirely mythical.

...so I can only exclaim: power of the baptism of Jesus by John, the only episode in the whole gospel that introduced his presumed humanity!!! :cheers: :cheers: :cheers: :cheers:
User avatar
mlinssen
Posts: 1932
Joined: Tue Aug 06, 2019 11:01 am
Location: The Netherlands
Contact:

Re: John the Baptist is what does the difference in deciding on priority between Mark and *Ev

Post by mlinssen »

Giuseppe wrote: Sat May 07, 2022 8:13 am Surely when one reads prof Vinzent about Marcion's Jesus:

To Marcion whose Gospel did not provide the birth and youth stories of Jesus, as mentioned, but in which Jesus as an adult came down from above, from God, Jesus is and remains from the start through to his resurrection an angelic divine figure. Jesus only appears in human form, but in truth he is the transcendent God himself. This was the reason, as Tertullian explains to us, why Marcion called this text “gospel”, “eu-angelion”, namely the good message of an angel. It is the same reason, why early Christian authors after Marcion were rather reluctant in picking up this title.

(p. 53, my bold)
...one can't avoid the conclusion that a such Jesus is entirely mythical.

...so I can only exclaim: power of the baptism of Jesus by John, the only episode in the whole gospel that introduced his presumed humanity!!! :cheers: :cheers: :cheers: :cheers:
Yes, perhaps. Yet I think that Marcion just did not stress anything. Jesus came down to Capernaum, period. Jesus revealed himself to them in flesh, period. Jesus speaks an awful lot of the father and nothing or very little of God, period

It is not the fact that Marcion emphasises any of this - it is the entire lack of him not attesting to the opposite that drives the FF to repeatedly stress that Marcion did X and not Y

You may need to read that sentence a few times, yes.
Exactly and precisely because the FF had Jesus walk the earth is why they claim that Marcion had him come down from heaven.
Exactly and precisely because the FF needed Jesus to be human is why they claim that Marcion had him described as spirit or ghost.
Exactly and precisely because the FF needed to link Jesus to Judaism and this YHWH is why they claim that Marcion wrote a separate piece to ramble on about an evil God and all that

Marcion didn't have any of that, but they needed him to have it so they could refute him: it is the things that the FF opposed to Marcion which necessitate them to invent that Marcion said all this and that - but it's just lies as usual.
An angelic divine figure? Not likely - just not explicitly a human of flesh and blood

In related news:
Page 58-60, Marcion has the exact same order (wine first and garment next) as Thomas does. What Luke alone adds in 5:39 is in Thomas. Vinzent now knows this, and I suspect his next to be about Thomas and *Ev - and this likely will be in it

I have read so many papers and books from Vinzent that I forgot what I saw where - but this is a fine read, even though slightly outdated
davidmartin
Posts: 1029
Joined: Fri Jul 12, 2019 2:51 pm

Re: John the Baptist is what does the difference in deciding on priority between Mark and *Ev

Post by davidmartin »

So, the FF employed the strategy of making opponents say what they found easiest to refute. In researching Simon I find his theology wasn't especially gnostic (so much so when SImonian writings are found scholars have trouble even identifying them as Simonian!), yet he is made the forefather of all the people Irenaeus is refuting. The FF also employ the tactic of finding an extremist to distort even more, then present their views as typical and tar all with the same brush. Just how much can we be sure of?

The baptism of Jesus is a curious feature of Marcion's ev. It really makes no sense for Jesus to be baptised at all in a docetic Christology - unless he is trying to appear to be a man but really isn't
In orthadox Christology it doesn't make much sense either but does have a sort of explanation in the catch-all of 'fully God / fully man'

But it would surely make complete sense in an adoptionist Christology with a human Jesus figuring out John would help him on his journey
If Marcion is dependent on Paul 'm not sure he'd favour an adoptionist Christology, but then again if the baptism was moved from John to the cross itself (the 'second baptism' mentioned in the gospels to mean the crucifixion) or hinted at that...
but maybe we are simply seeing an older adoptionist Christology layer in the baptism episode?
User avatar
Giuseppe
Posts: 10745
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: John the Baptist is what does the difference in deciding on priority between Mark and *Ev

Post by Giuseppe »

mlinssen wrote: Sat May 07, 2022 1:17 pm Exactly and precisely because the FF needed to link Jesus to Judaism and this YHWH is why they claim that Marcion wrote a separate piece to ramble on about an evil God and all that
here I can't absolutely follow you, frankly. The Barabbas episode is a sure witness, in my view, of an earlier anti-marcionite offensive that didn't appeal to any form of harmonization or compromise, at contrary of what happened later with the canonical gospels. The marcionite Son of Father who claimed "All who have come before me [i.e. Moses and the Prophets] are thieves and robbers" (John 10:8) is sarcastically reduced himself to a robber and a criminal called "Bar-Abbas".

A such caustic defamation was possible only if it was justified by something of very scandalous about marcionism and Thomas: the simple idea that the law and the prophets prove the essential evilness of YHWH. That feature of marcionism was decisive for what came after.

And obviously Thomas adored the Son of Father before his reduction to Barabbas. I remember vaguely a saying about a pun on s-abba-th and the Father.
User avatar
mlinssen
Posts: 1932
Joined: Tue Aug 06, 2019 11:01 am
Location: The Netherlands
Contact:

Re: John the Baptist is what does the difference in deciding on priority between Mark and *Ev

Post by mlinssen »

davidmartin wrote: Sat May 07, 2022 3:11 pm So, the FF employed the strategy of making opponents say what they found easiest to refute. In researching Simon I find his theology wasn't especially gnostic (so much so when SImonian writings are found scholars have trouble even identifying them as Simonian!), yet he is made the forefather of all the people Irenaeus is refuting. The FF also employ the tactic of finding an extremist to distort even more, then present their views as typical and tar all with the same brush. Just how much can we be sure of?

The baptism of Jesus is a curious feature of Marcion's ev. It really makes no sense for Jesus to be baptised at all in a docetic Christology - unless he is trying to appear to be a man but really isn't
In orthadox Christology it doesn't make much sense either but does have a sort of explanation in the catch-all of 'fully God / fully man'

But it would surely make complete sense in an adoptionist Christology with a human Jesus figuring out John would help him on his journey
If Marcion is dependent on Paul 'm not sure he'd favour an adoptionist Christology, but then again if the baptism was moved from John to the cross itself (the 'second baptism' mentioned in the gospels to mean the crucifixion) or hinted at that...
but maybe we are simply seeing an older adoptionist Christology layer in the baptism episode?
Nope, that's where they failed. The FF fail to make their case for Marcion deleting from Luke what he disliked - even Harnack came to that conclusion.
And they don't make up what they dislike, the anti-Judaism in *Ev has to be countered

And no, they don't find an extremist but they created a character in order to personify a religion. And then they put words in his mouth just like Mark ff puts words in the mouth of Jesus - there's nothing unusual about that in the context of the NT where every single author feels entirely free to let his characters speak and do as he pleased

No, Jesus isn't baptised in *Ev - that's a Christian creation in order to fill the gap between Jesus and John, and to forge an unbreakable bond between the two according to the strategy devised

Paul was the first attempt to refute *Ev and that can be easily seen as it only mitigates it - it takes his Chrestianity with his rejection of food laws and circumcision and presents it to a Judaic audience, explaining why that would be the fulfilment of YHWH's law
User avatar
mlinssen
Posts: 1932
Joined: Tue Aug 06, 2019 11:01 am
Location: The Netherlands
Contact:

Re: John the Baptist is what does the difference in deciding on priority between Mark and *Ev

Post by mlinssen »

Giuseppe wrote: Sat May 07, 2022 9:18 pm
mlinssen wrote: Sat May 07, 2022 1:17 pm Exactly and precisely because the FF needed to link Jesus to Judaism and this YHWH is why they claim that Marcion wrote a separate piece to ramble on about an evil God and all that
here I can't absolutely follow you, frankly. The Barabbas episode is a sure witness, in my view, of an earlier anti-marcionite offensive that didn't appeal to any form of harmonization or compromise, at contrary of what happened later with the canonical gospels. The marcionite Son of Father who claimed "All who have come before me [i.e. Moses and the Prophets] are thieves and robbers" (John 10:8) is sarcastically reduced himself to a robber and a criminal called "Bar-Abbas".

A such caustic defamation was possible only if it was justified by something of very scandalous about marcionism and Thomas: the simple idea that the law and the prophets prove the essential evilness of YHWH. That feature of marcionism was decisive for what came after.

And obviously Thomas adored the Son of Father before his reduction to Barabbas. I remember vaguely a saying about a pun on s-abba-th and the Father.
Just because someone named Barabbas is chosen over Jesus?
How do you get from there to *Ev's Jesus being "sarcastically reduced himself to a robber and a criminal called "Bar-Abbas". "?
User avatar
Giuseppe
Posts: 10745
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: John the Baptist is what does the difference in deciding on priority between Mark and *Ev

Post by Giuseppe »

mlinssen wrote: Sat May 07, 2022 9:29 pm Just because someone named Barabbas is chosen over Jesus?
How do you get from there to *Ev's Jesus being "sarcastically reduced himself to a robber and a criminal called "Bar-Abbas". "?
none evangelist would have invented the criminal figure of Barabbas, "son of father", unless he had been obliged to do so because he wanted to distance his own Jesus called Christ (i.e. the Jesus son of YHWH) from the rival Jesus, the Jesus Son of Father adored by anti-demiurgists, never "called Christ".

Remember that Barabbas is introduced before Pilate in opposition to Jesus "called king of the Jews" (in Mark) and "called Christ" (in Matthew). So the great sin of Barabbas is to be Son of the wrong Father. By releasing him, the message was: "do you see? Marcion insists that his Jesus was crucified, when really he, in addition to be a criminal, was even released by Pilate; our Jesus was really crucified, not his Jesus".
User avatar
mlinssen
Posts: 1932
Joined: Tue Aug 06, 2019 11:01 am
Location: The Netherlands
Contact:

Re: John the Baptist is what does the difference in deciding on priority between Mark and *Ev

Post by mlinssen »

Giuseppe wrote: Sat May 07, 2022 9:38 pm
mlinssen wrote: Sat May 07, 2022 9:29 pm Just because someone named Barabbas is chosen over Jesus?
How do you get from there to *Ev's Jesus being "sarcastically reduced himself to a robber and a criminal called "Bar-Abbas". "?
none evangelist would have invented the criminal figure of Barabbas, "son of father", unless he had been obliged to do so because he wanted to distance his own Jesus called Christ (i.e. the Jesus son of YHWH) from the rival Jesus, the Jesus Son of Father adored by anti-demiurgists, never "called Christ".

Remember that Barabbas is introduced before Pilate in opposition to Jesus "called king of the Jews" (in Mark) and "called Christ" (in Matthew). So the great sin of Barabbas is to be Son of the wrong Father. By releasing him, the message was: "do you see? Marcion insists that his Jesus was crucified, when really he, in addition to be a criminal, was even released by Pilate; our Jesus was really crucified, not his Jesus".
Bezae, needs some cleaning up because of textual line numbers and paragraph indications

https://cudl.lib.cam.ac.uk/view/MS-NN-00002-00041/667

κατα δε την εορτην
απεαυεν αυτοις
3ενα δεσμειον ον αν ητουντο
7σγην δε ο λεγομενος βαραββας
μετα των στασιαστων δεδεμενος
6οιτινες εν τη στασει · πεποιηκεισαν φονον
8και αναβας ολος ο οχλος · ηρξατο αιτεισθαι αυτο(ν)
καθως αει εποιει αυτοις
99ο δε πειλατος αποκρειθεις λεγει αυτοις
θελετε απολυσω · τον βασιλεα των ϊουδαιων
10σδηδι γαρ οτι δια φθονον
12παρεδωκαν αυτον οι αρχιερεις
11¶ οι δε αρχιερεις
επεισαν τω οχλω ϊνα μαλλον
15βαραββαν απολυση αυτοις
12σεο δε πειλατος αποκριθεις ειπεν αυτοις
τι ουν θελεται ποιησω ⸆ βασιλει των ϊουδαιω(ν)
1813σϛοι δε εκραξαν παλιν λεγοντες
στρν αυτον
14ο δε πειλατος ελεγεν αυτοις
21τι γαρ κακον εποιησεν
οι δε περισσως εκραζον στν αυτον
15ο δε πειλατος απελυσεν αυτοις τον βαραββαν
24τον δε ιην φλαγελλωσας παρεδωκεν
ινα στη · 16σζοι δε στρατιωται
απηγαγον αυτον εσω εις την αυλην
27ο εστιν πραιτωριον
και καλουσιν ολην την σπειραν
17και ενδυδισκουσιν αυτον πορφυραν
30και επιτιθεασιν αυτω
ακανθινον στεφανον
18και ηρξαντο ασπαζεσθαι αυτον
33χαιραι βασιλευ των ϊουδαιων

Berean Interlinear equivalent:

Mark 15:6 Κατὰ (At) δὲ (then) ἑορτὴν (the feast), ἀπέλυεν (he used to release) αὐτοῖς (to them) ἕνα (one) δέσμιον (prisoner), ὃν (whom) παρῃτοῦντο (they requested).
7 ἦν (There was) δὲ (then) ὁ (the one) λεγόμενος (called) Βαραββᾶς (Barabbas), μετὰ (with) τῶν (the) στασιαστῶν (rebels) δεδεμένος (having been bound), οἵτινες (who) ἐν (in) τῇ (the) στάσει (insurrection) φόνον (murder) πεποιήκεισαν (had committed).
8 καὶ (And) ἀναβὰς (having cried out), ὁ (the) ὄχλος (crowd) ἤρξατο (began) αἰτεῖσθαι (to beg him to do) καθὼς (as usually) ἐποίει (he did) αὐτοῖς (for them).
9 Ὁ (-) δὲ (But) Πιλᾶτος (Pilate) ἀπεκρίθη (answered) αὐτοῖς (them), λέγων (saying), “Θέλετε (Wish you that) ἀπολύσω (I should release) ὑμῖν (to you) τὸν (the) Βασιλέα (King) τῶν (of the) Ἰουδαίων (Jews)?”
10 ἐγίνωσκεν (He was aware) γὰρ (for) ὅτι (that) διὰ (because of) φθόνον (envy) παραδεδώκεισαν (had delivered up) αὐτὸν (Him) οἱ (the) ἀρχιερεῖς (chief priests).
11 Οἱ (-) δὲ (But) ἀρχιερεῖς (the chief priests) ἀνέσεισαν (stirred up) τὸν (the) ὄχλον (crowd) ἵνα (so that) μᾶλλον (instead) τὸν (-) Βαραββᾶν (Barabbas) ἀπολύσῃ (he might release) αὐτοῖς (to them).
12 Ὁ (-) δὲ (And) Πιλᾶτος (Pilate) πάλιν (again) ἀποκριθεὶς (answering), ἔλεγεν (was saying) αὐτοῖς (to them), “Τί (What) οὖν (then) ‹θέλετε› (do you wish that) ποιήσω (I should do) ὃν (to Him) λέγετε (you call) τὸν (the) Βασιλέα (King) τῶν (of the) Ἰουδαίων (Jews)?”
13 Οἱ (-) δὲ (And) πάλιν (again) ἔκραξαν (they cried out), “Σταύρωσον (Crucify) αὐτόν (Him)!”
14 Ὁ (-) δὲ (And) Πιλᾶτος (Pilate) ἔλεγεν (was saying) αὐτοῖς (to them), “Τί (What) γὰρ (indeed) ἐποίησεν (did He commit) κακόν (evil)?” Οἱ (-) δὲ (But) περισσῶς (much more) ἔκραξαν (they shouted), “Σταύρωσον (Crucify) αὐτόν (Him)!”
15 Ὁ (-) δὲ (And) Πιλᾶτος (Pilate), βουλόμενος (desiring) τῷ (to the) ὄχλῳ (crowd) τὸ (that which was) ἱκανὸν (satisfactory) ποιῆσαι (to do), ἀπέλυσεν (released) αὐτοῖς (to them) τὸν (-) Βαραββᾶν (Barabbas), καὶ (and) παρέδωκεν (he delivered) τὸν (-) Ἰησοῦν (Jesus), φραγελλώσας (having flogged him), ἵνα (that) σταυρωθῇ (He might be crucified).
16 Οἱ (-) δὲ (And) στρατιῶται (the soldiers) ἀπήγαγον (led away) αὐτὸν (him) ἔσω (into) τῆς (the) αὐλῆς (palace), ὅ (that) ἐστιν (is) Πραιτώριον (the Praetorium), καὶ (and) συνκαλοῦσιν (they call together) ὅλην (all) τὴν (the) σπεῖραν (cohort).
17 καὶ (And) ἐνδιδύσκουσιν (they put on) αὐτὸν (Him) πορφύραν (purple), καὶ (and) περιτιθέασιν (placed on) αὐτῷ (Him), πλέξαντες (having twisted together) ἀκάνθινον (of thorns) στέφανον (a crown),
18 καὶ (and) ἤρξαντο (they began) ἀσπάζεσθαι (to salute) αὐτόν (Him), “Χαῖρε (Hail), Βασιλεῦ (King) τῶν (of the) Ἰουδαίων (Jews)!”

I'd suggest to get the proper text first before drawing any conclusions - there are significant changes in between Bezae and what has been made that into now
User avatar
Giuseppe
Posts: 10745
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: John the Baptist is what does the difference in deciding on priority between Mark and *Ev

Post by Giuseppe »

It is my firm opinion that Barabbas couldn't be in the original marcionite text, under all the possible paradigms and synoptic solutions, pace Klinghardt.
About Barabbas I am very dogmatic in my conclusions, Martijn.
Already Joseph Turmel has proved that Barabbas is an interpolation in the Fourth Gospel.

So well five mythicists and two historicists agree with me about Barabbas being an insult to the marcionite Jesus Son of Father:
Paul-Louis Couchoud
Robert Stahl
Georges Ory
Jean Magne
Patrick Boistier
André Wautier
Joseph Turmel
User avatar
mlinssen
Posts: 1932
Joined: Tue Aug 06, 2019 11:01 am
Location: The Netherlands
Contact:

Re: John the Baptist is what does the difference in deciding on priority between Mark and *Ev

Post by mlinssen »

Giuseppe wrote: Sun May 08, 2022 2:03 am It is my firm opinion that Barabbas couldn't be in the original marcionite text, under all the possible paradigms and synoptic solutions, pace Klinghardt.
About Barabbas I am very dogmatic in my conclusions, Martijn.
Already Joseph Turmel has proved that Barabbas is an interpolation in the Fourth Gospel.

So well five mythicists and two historicists agree with me about Barabbas being an insult to the marcionite Jesus Son of Father:
Paul-Louis Couchoud
Robert Stahl
Georges Ory
Jean Magne
Patrick Boistier
André Wautier
Joseph Turmel
You're likely right, I'll finish the above later
Post Reply