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.
Post Reply
User avatar
Giuseppe
Posts: 10740
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

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

Post by Giuseppe »

Not other factors. Only John the Baptist matters, if you want to decide definitely the question of priority between Mark and *Ev.

Since it is clear that the strongest argument for *Ev priority is the anti-marcionite function of the baptism, in conjunction with John the Baptist taking offence for Jesus's news (and never seeing him face off). If such argument works so well to secure *Ev priority on both Luke and Matthew, then why not on Mark also?

Therefore the *Ev's priority has to be faced on its same terrain: John the Baptist.

Now, Kunigunde has advanced a good counter-argument, by mentioning *Ev 20:1-4.

However, it appears that prof Vinzent has no problems in fitting *Ev 20:1-4 in marcionite theology:

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.

...

As for Jesus' own authority, the narrator, along with his protagonist, is shrouded in silence.

Yet, I think that I should expect with patience the next English books of prof Vinzent, to decide definitely on the problem.

I have started this thread to say that a different argument to decide the question of priority is not equally satisfying.
User avatar
mlinssen
Posts: 1931
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 »

Yes, Mark is the first tentative copy of *Ev, and Luke a much more full one

John the Baptist likely fulfils a role in *Ev but apparently not an antithetical one or it would have been exploited - but then again JB is so extremely thin in Mark with only 6 verses where he acts, and it is obvious why Matthew expands that significantly in Luke and Matthew - and why and how John's (pathetic) "sermons" for so nicely, and again take all the negativity and redirect that to the Pharisees

There's plenty of Pharisee bashing in Thomas and *Ev but the Romans take all the other anti-Judaism that can't be dropped and reject that to the Pharisees as well; for instance the rejection of fasting, praying and giving alms

So, was there much JB in *Ev? I doubt it - much would have had to be undone and countered if so. What we see in Luke is how *Ev just gets changed - significantly of course - but there's not much extra to it.
Then again, all of Mark is reluctant, hesitant, tentative; he really is the pioneer and it shows

Wouldn't it be great if *Ev were to surface?! Until then, we'll just have to continue on this path

Kunigunde doesn't convince, the "introduction requirements" are lame and stale. And anyone redacting anything by solely or even mostly leaving out stuff is unthinkable - and the FF themselves admit that they can't make their own case
User avatar
Giuseppe
Posts: 10740
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: Tue May 03, 2022 2:26 am
Kunigunde doesn't convince, the "introduction requirements" are lame and stale.
I had in mind the other Kunigunde's argument: the presumed Jesus's appeal to John's authority to confute the pharisees in *Ev 20:1-4.

It has some force, as argument, under the traditional explanation (that Jesus is really appealing to John's authority to justify his own authority), however, that is not the way Tertullian interpreted it. So Tertullian:

Christ knew "the baptism of John, whence it was."(20) Then why did He ask them, as if He knew not? He knew that the Pharisees would not give Him an answer; then why did He ask in vain? Was it that He might judge them out of their own mouth, or their own heart? Suppose you refer these points to an excuse of the Creator, or to His comparison with Christ; then consider what would have happened if the Pharisees had replied to His question. Suppose their answer to have been, that John's baptism was "of men," they would have been immediately stoned to death.(21) Some Marcion, in rivalry to Marcion, would have stood up(22) and said: O most excellent God; how different are his ways from the Creator's! Knowing that men would rush down headlong over it, He placed them actually(1) on the very precipice. For thus do men treat of the Creator respecting His law of the tree.(2) But John's baptism was "from heaven." "Why, therefore," asks Christ, "did ye not believe him?"(3) He therefore who had wished men to believe John, purposing to censure(4) them because they had not believed him, belonged to Him whose sacrament John was administering. But, at any rate,(5) when He actually met their refusal to say what they thought, with such reprisals as, "Neither tell I you by what authority I do these things,"(6) He returned evil for evil!

It appears to me that Tertullian insists on Jesus's knowledge in advance of the answer of the pharisees. So, as the Tertullian's argument goes, given the Jesus's knowledge in advance, it would be evident that Jesus wants a submission to John's baptism and authority. Accordingly, a submission to creator, the same god adored by John.

However Tertullian appears to betray that the emphasis of Marcion was rather on the fact that, whatever possible answer the Pharisees would have given, the creator would have punished them:
  • if the Pharisees had answered: "the baptism of John comes from men", then the creator would have istigated the people against the Pharisees.
  • if the Pharisees had answered: "the baptism of John comes from heaven", then the creator would have punished himself the pharisees, since they would have admitted their moral sin.
So, in both the cases, the silence of the pharisees is a confession of their fear of the creator.


Jesus doesn't answer, because who fears too much the creator is not worthy of the knowledge of the Unknown Father.

That Jesus's reaction is the same reaction he had when he descended in Hades and found there also a group of people fearing too much the demiurge:
In addition to his blasphemy against God Himself, he advanced this also, truly speaking as with the mouth of the devil, and saying all things in direct opposition to the truth,--that Cain, and those like him, and the Sodomites, and the Egyptians, and others like them, and, in fine, all the nations who walked in all sorts of abomination, were saved by the Lord, on His descending into Hades, and on their running unto Him, and that they welcomed Him into their kingdom. But the serpent(3) which was in Marcion declared that Abel, and Enoch, and Noah, and those other righteous men who sprang(4) from the patriarch Abraham, with all the prophets, and those who were pleasing to God, did not partake in salvation. For since these men, he says, knew that their God was constantly tempting them, so now they suspected that He was tempting them, and did not run to Jesus, or believe His announcement: and for this reason he declared that their souls remained in Hades.

User avatar
mlinssen
Posts: 1931
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: Tue May 03, 2022 7:36 am
mlinssen wrote: Tue May 03, 2022 2:26 am
Kunigunde doesn't convince, the "introduction requirements" are lame and stale.
I had in mind the other Kunigunde's argument: the presumed Jesus's appeal to John's authority to confute the pharisees in *Ev 20:1-4.

It has some force, as argument, under the traditional explanation (that Jesus is really appealing to John's authority to justify his own authority), however, that is not the way Tertullian interpreted it. So Tertullian:

Christ knew "the baptism of John, whence it was."(20) Then why did He ask them, as if He knew not? He knew that the Pharisees would not give Him an answer; then why did He ask in vain? Was it that He might judge them out of their own mouth, or their own heart? Suppose you refer these points to an excuse of the Creator, or to His comparison with Christ; then consider what would have happened if the Pharisees had replied to His question. Suppose their answer to have been, that John's baptism was "of men," they would have been immediately stoned to death.(21) Some Marcion, in rivalry to Marcion, would have stood up(22) and said: O most excellent God; how different are his ways from the Creator's! Knowing that men would rush down headlong over it, He placed them actually(1) on the very precipice. For thus do men treat of the Creator respecting His law of the tree.(2) But John's baptism was "from heaven." "Why, therefore," asks Christ, "did ye not believe him?"(3) He therefore who had wished men to believe John, purposing to censure(4) them because they had not believed him, belonged to Him whose sacrament John was administering. But, at any rate,(5) when He actually met their refusal to say what they thought, with such reprisals as, "Neither tell I you by what authority I do these things,"(6) He returned evil for evil!

It appears to me that Tertullian insists on Jesus's knowledge in advance of the answer of the pharisees. So, as the Tertullian's argument goes, given the Jesus's knowledge in advance, it would be evident that Jesus wants a submission to John's baptism and authority. Accordingly, a submission to creator, the same god adored by John.

However Tertullian appears to betray that the emphasis of Marcion was rather on the fact that, whatever possible answer the Pharisees would have given, the creator would have punished them:
  • if the Pharisees had answered: "the baptism of John comes from men", then the creator would have istigated the people against the Pharisees.
  • if the Pharisees had answered: "the baptism of John comes from heaven", then the creator would have punished himself the pharisees, since they would have admitted their moral sin.
So, in both the cases, the silence of the pharisees is a confession of their fear of the creator.


Jesus doesn't answer, because who fears too much the creator is not worthy of the knowledge of the Unknown Father.

That Jesus's reaction is the same reaction he had when he descended in Hades and found there also a group of people fearing too much the demiurge:
In addition to his blasphemy against God Himself, he advanced this also, truly speaking as with the mouth of the devil, and saying all things in direct opposition to the truth,--that Cain, and those like him, and the Sodomites, and the Egyptians, and others like them, and, in fine, all the nations who walked in all sorts of abomination, were saved by the Lord, on His descending into Hades, and on their running unto Him, and that they welcomed Him into their kingdom. But the serpent(3) which was in Marcion declared that Abel, and Enoch, and Noah, and those other righteous men who sprang(4) from the patriarch Abraham, with all the prophets, and those who were pleasing to God, did not partake in salvation. For since these men, he says, knew that their God was constantly tempting them, so now they suspected that He was tempting them, and did not run to Jesus, or believe His announcement: and for this reason he declared that their souls remained in Hades.

I must admit that I can't make any sense of Tertullian here. Why is he saying all this when it's verbatim in Luke?
User avatar
Giuseppe
Posts: 10740
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: Tue May 03, 2022 9:50 am Why is he saying all this when it's verbatim in Luke?
Tertullian's utility is only to attest that Marcion used the episode as another occasion to denigrate the creator, even if we don't know how Marcion used the episode.

Evidently if the Judaizers had left *Ev 20:1-4 in their versions, the reason is why that episode could be interpreted according to judaizing lens (and to that extent it could be saved from censorship), as Jesus appealing to John's authority and so taking side with John against the common enemy (=pharisees).

In order to do that successfully, Tertullian (and Kunigunde) has to see the pharisees as evil people.

If the pharisees are seen only as mere fearful adorers of YHWH, then the Jesus's refusal to give them an answer about the origin of his authority is merely a refusal to give knowledge of the Unknown Father to people who have too much fear of the cruel demiurge.

Hence, if you want to judaize the episode, then you have to increase the anti-Judaism in it, not less. I mean: the judaizers were obliged to become more anti-Judaics than Marcion himself.
User avatar
mlinssen
Posts: 1931
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: Tue May 03, 2022 10:08 am
mlinssen wrote: Tue May 03, 2022 9:50 am Why is he saying all this when it's verbatim in Luke?
Tertullian's utility is only to attest that Marcion used the episode as another occasion to denigrate the creator, even if we don't know how Marcion used the episode.

Evidently if the Judaizers had left *Ev 20:1-4 in their versions, the reason is why that episode could be interpreted according to judaizing lens (and to that extent it could be saved from censorship), as Jesus appealing to John's authority and so taking side with John against the common enemy (=pharisees).

In order to do that successfully, Tertullian (and Kunigunde) has to see the pharisees as evil people.

If the pharisees are seen only as mere fearful adorers of YHWH, then the Jesus's refusal to give them an answer about the origin of his authority is merely a refusal to give knowledge of the Unknown Father to people who have too much fear of the cruel demiurge.

Hence, if you want to judaize the episode, then you have to increase the anti-Judaism in it, not less. I mean: the judaizers were obliged to become more anti-Judaics than Marcion himself.
Yes, that's the whole irony of it all. In the end Thomas created Christianity and the Church - who pretty much destroyed most of Judaism

There are so many levels of dramatic irony to this entire story, Giuseppe...
User avatar
Giuseppe
Posts: 10740
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 »

Assuming that the 100% evident fact is that Luke introduced the baptism in *Ev, then:



I read from this very hard author the following words:

If aMarcion edited Luke, why would he remove the baptism, a passage in all three synoptic gospels?
...
The first alternative is easy to explain by suggesting that it was the connection to the Old Testament that aMarcion wanted to exclude,


It escapes me the reason of the extreme easiness by which many authors jump to that conclusion. They seem to ignore that the origin of the incipit of *Ev has to be explained too: the descent "from above" in Capernaum.

where did Marcion get that from, once he would have removed the baptism found in Mark?

It is clear that none Christian, not even "Mark", would have given up to signal the divine origin of Jesus "from above" , unless he hadn't been obliged to do so because he was embarrassed by something relative to that too much divine origin.

The same embarrassment for a such divine origin is found by me by reading Nicolotti's commentary of the Marcionite incipit:

According to Tert and Elenchos, the "descent" (κατῆλθεν) of 4.31 should not be read according to common sense - the road between Nazareth and Capernaum, which lies near a lake, is slightly downhill - but indicates a descent, apparition or manifestation "from heaven" (ἀπὀ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ) or "from above" (ἄνωθεν), almost as if it were a sudden appearance from nowhere. In fact Tert and Origen use the verb "to appear" (appearo), Adam "to manifest" (φαίνω).

(Nicolotti, Gianotto, 2019, p. 205, my translation)

Why does Nicolotti write "almost as if it were a sudden appearance from nowhere" rather than "as if it were a sudden appearance from nowhere"?
It is evident that he is disturbed by a tout-court judgement of the episode as naturally marcionite.

To think that the problem can be resolved by merely pointing to *Ev's debt to a previous narrative talking about divine descent from "above" (I think here to a previous text as Ascension of Isaiah), means to ignore the fact that Mark had no reason, no true reason at all, to remove a such divine descent "from above", without a precise reason to do so.

Especially more so if also "Mark" had found a divine descent "from above" in a previous narrative à la Ascension of Isaiah.


Hence, there are only 3 possibilities:
  • 1) "Mark" had found the descent "from above" in a previous narrative, different from *Ev, and he omitted it;
  • 2) "Mark" had found the descent "from above" in *Ev, and he omitted it;
  • 3) "Mark" didn't find never a descent "from above" in a previous narrative.

CONCLUSIONS:
  • The scenario (1) finds no justification at all for a such absolutely unjustified editorial choice by "Mark", accordingly a such scenario is improbable.
  • The scenario (2) is fully justified if "Mark" realized the anti-demiurgist corollary of a such descent "from above".
  • The scenario (3) is hardly credible, given that very probably the Ascension of Isaiah preceded the gospel of Mark, accordingly a such scenario is improbable.
User avatar
mlinssen
Posts: 1931
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: Fri May 06, 2022 6:04 am Assuming that the 100% evident fact is that Luke introduced the baptism in *Ev, then:



I read from this very hard author the following words:

If aMarcion edited Luke, why would he remove the baptism, a passage in all three synoptic gospels?
...
The first alternative is easy to explain by suggesting that it was the connection to the Old Testament that aMarcion wanted to exclude,


It escapes me the reason of the extreme easiness by which many authors jump to that conclusion. They seem to ignore that the origin of the incipit of *Ev has to be explained too: the descent "from above" in Capernaum.

where did Marcion get that from, once he would have removed the baptism found in Mark?

It is clear that none Christian, not even "Mark", would have given up to signal the divine origin of Jesus "from above" , unless he hadn't been obliged to do so because he was embarrassed by something relative to that too much divine origin.

The same embarrassment for a such divine origin is found by me by reading Nicolotti's commentary of the Marcionite incipit:

According to Tert and Elenchos, the "descent" (κατῆλθεν) of 4.31 should not be read according to common sense - the road between Nazareth and Capernaum, which lies near a lake, is slightly downhill - but indicates a descent, apparition or manifestation "from heaven" (ἀπὀ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ) or "from above" (ἄνωθεν), almost as if it were a sudden appearance from nowhere. In fact Tert and Origen use the verb "to appear" (appearo), Adam "to manifest" (φαίνω).

(Nicolotti, Gianotto, 2019, p. 205, my translation)

Why does Nicolotti write "almost as if it were a sudden appearance from nowhere" rather than "as if it were a sudden appearance from nowhere"?
It is evident that he is disturbed by a tout-court judgement of the episode as naturally marcionite.

To think that the problem can be resolved by merely pointing to *Ev's debt to a previous narrative talking about divine descent from "above" (I think here to a previous text as Ascension of Isaiah), means to ignore the fact that Mark had no reason, no true reason at all, to remove a such divine descent "from above", without a precise reason to do so.

Especially more so if also "Mark" had found a divine descent "from above" in a previous narrative à la Ascension of Isaiah.


Hence, there are only 3 possibilities:
  • 1) "Mark" had found the descent "from above" in a previous narrative, different from *Ev, and he omitted it;
  • 2) "Mark" had found the descent "from above" in *Ev, and he omitted it;
  • 3) "Mark" didn't find never a descent "from above" in a previous narrative.

CONCLUSIONS:
  • The scenario (1) finds no justification at all for a such absolutely unjustified editorial choice by "Mark", accordingly a such scenario is improbable.
  • The scenario (2) is fully justified if "Mark" realized the anti-demiurgist corollary of a such descent "from above".
  • The scenario (3) is hardly credible, given that very probably the Ascension of Isaiah preceded the gospel of Mark, accordingly a such scenario is improbable.
David Inglis has a wealth of material on marcion, including numbers and stats, and still is reluctant to draw conclusions. He's in https://www.academia.edu/s/062d10b3fd at the moment, check https://www.academia.edu/s/062d10b3fd#comment_1125599
User avatar
Giuseppe
Posts: 10740
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: Fri May 06, 2022 6:34 am David Inglis has a wealth of material on marcion, including numbers and stats, and still is reluctant to draw conclusions. He's in https://www.academia.edu/s/062d10b3fd at the moment, check https://www.academia.edu/s/062d10b3fd#comment_1125599
He appears to be a partisan of Mark's priority, so he thinks that a baptism of Jesus by John precedes Marcion, which is impossible for me to accept.
User avatar
mlinssen
Posts: 1931
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: Fri May 06, 2022 6:54 am
mlinssen wrote: Fri May 06, 2022 6:34 am David Inglis has a wealth of material on marcion, including numbers and stats, and still is reluctant to draw conclusions. He's in https://www.academia.edu/s/062d10b3fd at the moment, check https://www.academia.edu/s/062d10b3fd#comment_1125599
He appears to be a partisan of Mark's priority, so he thinks that a baptism of Jesus by John precedes Marcion, which is impossible for me to accept.

Consequently, when all the textual evidence is taken into account, it is almost impossible to avoid the conclusion that Marcion did not craft his gospel to suit his theology, but, as some scholars have suggested, he crafted his theology around an existing document, one that did not include much of the additional non-Markan text found in canonical Luke, and perhaps, as suggested by Klinghardt, provides all the explanatory power of (and so could take the place of) ‘Q’ in the synoptic problem. However, where that document came from, how it was created, and how Marcion got access to it, is another matter entirely. Nevertheless, the evidence suggests that it did happen.

You're right. It is very hard to read this conclusion after all his analysis LOL. And also

Of course, we should perhaps not be surprised if Tertullian and Epiphanius could not conceive of the idea that any of the gospels had gone through some kind of developmental process, and that some at least had existed in more than version, as this is still the view of the majority of Christians. However, even if Tertullian and Epiphanius could not admit to this possibility, it is very odd that they fail to see the much greater similarity between Marcion and Mark than between Marcion and Luke, and that from a synoptic point of view the text of Marcion fits neatly before both Matthew and Luke (see Marcion's Gospel and the Synoptic Problem for details), and instead they only compare it to Luke.

It would seem that he takes the FF seriously...
Post Reply