Why Marcionites ended to accept the baptism of Jesus even if Marcion didn't

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
User avatar
Giuseppe
Posts: 11105
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Why Marcionites ended to accept the baptism of Jesus even if Marcion didn't

Post by Giuseppe »

I remember that somewhere Epiphanius wrote that Marcion had the baptism of Jesus in his gospel. References have to be found in BeDuhn's book (at the moment I have not under the eyes the book).

Probably Epiphanius was reporting the belief of some late Marcionites, since we are sure that Marcion hadn't the baptism.

So, why should a Marcionite accept that Jesus was baptized?
The best answer is that a body magically purified by the baptism is as much pure as the absence of a body.

The only concession by our Marcionite is surely that an impure Jesus existed before the baptism.
User avatar
Giuseppe
Posts: 11105
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: Why Marcionites ended to accept the baptism of Jesus even if Marcion didn't

Post by Giuseppe »

I can't prevent me from thinking that the idea of a baptism of Jesus has an apologetical origin: if just you are going to believe in a human recipient of the spiritual Christ, let it be at least purified, before that it works as recipient.

Never think that the divine can reside in an impure body, even only for few seconds!
User avatar
Giuseppe
Posts: 11105
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: Why Marcionites ended to accept the baptism of Jesus even if Marcion didn't

Post by Giuseppe »

So who introduced the idea of a baptism of Jesus was essentially an apologist who wanted to reassure other Christians that yes, afterall the body of the Jew Jesus was worthy of being possessed by the alien Christ: it was purified debtly by the baptism, before.
User avatar
Giuseppe
Posts: 11105
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: Why Marcionites ended to accept the baptism of Jesus even if Marcion didn't

Post by Giuseppe »

The basic assumption is the intime awareness, by our apologist, that the entity who descended on the earth was too much divinely alien for this world. So divinely alien that even a human recipient had to be purified, before that it could host the entity.

So the our apologist started really with two assumptions, apparently in contradiction one with the other:
  • 1) Jesus was divine, too much divine, to descend really on the earth;
  • 2) but contra (1), the miracle happened that someone believed truely (!) that Jesus descended really on this earth.
The point 1 is the banal mythicist assumption: Jesus starts always as a deity.

The point 2 can only be a recent belief. A belief born after the First Jewish Revolt. The Jews have killed their own Messiah. Accordingly, their Messiah had to be descended on this earth, before that he could be killed by the Jews.

The our apologist resolved the contradiction by having the earthly Jesus entirely purified before that he could host the spiritual Jesus.
User avatar
Giuseppe
Posts: 11105
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: Why Marcionites ended to accept the baptism of Jesus even if Marcion didn't

Post by Giuseppe »

We know that the Christian baptism existed in two variants, and in both them it differed from the Jewish baptism:
  • The Christian baptism existed as absolute purifier (it purifies everything a priori). This is the pauline baptism.
  • The Christian baptism existed as relative purifier (it purifies one only if he/she is already pure in his/her inner self). This is the Jewish-Christian baptism.

While in Mark we have the pauline baptism, we have evidence of a Jewish-Christian baptism in Cerinthus.

Fortunately for my case, we know that Cerinthus pointed out again and again that the carnal Jesus was a pious, righteous Jew before that he received the baptism (and worked as human recipient of the spiritual Christ). So, for Cerinthus, the baptism of Jesus purified only the body of Jesus, the carnal Jesus having been already purified by his moral purity.

So, totally beyond if the original baptism of Jesus was invented by a paulinist or by a Jewish-Christian, the case has been made :cheers: that, in the first gospel where a baptism appeared, Jesus is baptized precisely to make it 100% sure that the human recipient was absolutely apt to host the divine Jesus.
User avatar
mlinssen
Posts: 2258
Joined: Tue Aug 06, 2019 11:01 am
Location: The Netherlands
Contact:

Re: Why Marcionites ended to accept the baptism of Jesus even if Marcion didn't

Post by mlinssen »

Giuseppe wrote: Tue Aug 02, 2022 10:56 pm I remember that somewhere Epiphanius wrote that Marcion had the baptism of Jesus in his gospel. References have to be found in BeDuhn's book (at the moment I have not under the eyes the book).

Probably Epiphanius was reporting the belief of some late Marcionites, since we are sure that Marcion hadn't the baptism.

So, why should a Marcionite accept that Jesus was baptized?
The best answer is that a body magically purified by the baptism is as much pure as the absence of a body.

The only concession by our Marcionite is surely that an impure Jesus existed before the baptism.
Needless to say, it evidently only was the entire goal and purpose of Epiphanius to spread the fake news of that, in order to disinform everyone.
If Epiphanius stresses something that is absent from those prior to him, how much more obvious must it be Giuseppe?!
schillingklaus
Posts: 280
Joined: Sat Dec 11, 2021 11:17 pm

Re: Why Marcionites ended to accept the baptism of Jesus even if Marcion didn't

Post by schillingklaus »

The purification thing is late and corrupt, as it has nothing to do wioth the original meaning of baptism as infusing the intellect (nous). Only by excessive judaization did it get mutilated into purification.
lsayre
Posts: 587
Joined: Sun Jan 04, 2015 3:39 pm

Re: Why Marcionites ended to accept the baptism of Jesus even if Marcion didn't

Post by lsayre »

The practice of baptism and anointing with oil (as for a Messiah) seem to have/share many historical affinities.
User avatar
mlinssen
Posts: 2258
Joined: Tue Aug 06, 2019 11:01 am
Location: The Netherlands
Contact:

Re: Why Marcionites ended to accept the baptism of Jesus even if Marcion didn't

Post by mlinssen »

Giuseppe wrote: Tue Aug 02, 2022 10:56 pm I remember that somewhere Epiphanius wrote that Marcion had the baptism of Jesus in his gospel. References have to be found in BeDuhn's book (at the moment I have not under the eyes the book).

Probably Epiphanius was reporting the belief of some late Marcionites, since we are sure that Marcion hadn't the baptism.

So, why should a Marcionite accept that Jesus was baptized?
The best answer is that a body magically purified by the baptism is as much pure as the absence of a body.

The only concession by our Marcionite is surely that an impure Jesus existed before the baptism.
I can find this:

15.29 Tertullian, Marc. 5.10.1; Adam* 5.23; Eznik, De Deo 427, 432.
Adamantius, Tertullian, and Eznik all agree in omit u ing “since” (epei) at the beginning of the verse, as does P46—although, as Clabeaux (A Lost Edition of the Let u ers of Paul, 170) points out, such connecting words are likely to be dropped when verses are quoted in isolation.
Adamantius omits “and” (kai) in the last clause, as do several Greek manuscripts; Eznik inverts the order of the fj rst and second clauses.
Eznik explicitly says that the Marcionites practiced baptism of the dead; Tertullian himself is critical of the practice, but excuses Paul for using it as a reinforcement of faith.

Yet you likely had in mind this:

83. Yet Marcion apparently referenced Jesus’ baptism by John and did not deny that it happened, only questioned its worth (Epiphanius, Pan. 42.3.10). This testimony raises doubts that he would have been ideologi-cally motivated to remove the baptism story from the gospel he wished to canonize, had it been present there.

The entire goal of the Falsifying Fathers is to spread disinformation, Giuseppe. You can't read anything without knowing what primary purpose it serves

There's also

12.50 Epiphanius, Pan. 42.3.10 (≠Harnack, Tsutsui). Epiphanius cites Marcion—apparently from the Antitheses—quoting two sayings of Jesus, one of which is related to the wording of Luke in this verse:
baptisma echō baptisthēnai, kai ti thelō ei ēdē teteleka auto. This agrees with Luke in the fj rst half of the saying, but diverges in the second half, showing closer parallelism to v. 49. Intriguingly, Epiphanius says Marcion made the point that Jesus said this to his disciples “af u er the Lord’s baptism by John,” presumably in order to prove that John’s baptism was meaningless. This would mean, then, that Marcion knew about and did not deny that Jesus was baptized by John (as stated in Mat u hew and Mark, as well as Luke), even though this episode does not appear in the Evangelion. Therefore, his supposed ideological mo-tive for removing the episode evaporates. Lacking any other obvious place where the second saying of Jesus quoted by Marcion might have been in the Evangelion, I have placed it here due to its close parallel-ism to vv. 49–50: potērion echō piein, kai ti thelō ei ēdē plērōsō auto; cf. Mat u 20.22–23; Mark 10.38–39; John 18.11.

User avatar
Secret Alias
Posts: 14710
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Why Marcionites ended to accept the baptism of Jesus even if Marcion didn't

Post by Secret Alias »

Epiphanius Panarion:
Marcionite baptism is not administered just once; in Marcionite
congregations it is allowable to give up to three baptisms and more to anyone who wishes, as I have heard from many. (7) But he got into this way of
allowing the giving of three baptisms and even more because of the scorn
he suffered from his disciples who had known him, for his transgression
and the seduction of the virgin. (8) Since he was in a state of grievous sin
after seducing the virgin in his own city and fl eeing, the tramp invented a
second baptism for himself. He said that it is permissible for as many as
three baths, that is baptisms, to be given for the remission of sins, so that
if one were to fall away the fi rst time he might repent and, on repentance,
receive a second baptism—and a third likewise, if he transgresses after the
second.
3,9 But to make his ridicule certain he mendaciously cites a text as supposedly persuasive, to show that he was cleansed again after his transgression and thereafter counts as innocent—a text that can be deceptive, but
does not mean what he says it does: (10) after the Lord had been baptized
by John he told his disciples, “I have a baptism to be baptized with, and
why do I wish it if I have already accomplished it?”18 And again, “I have
a cup to drink, and why do I wish to if I am going to fi ll it?”19 And so he
held that several baptisms may be administered.
At the very beginning he excised everything Luke had originally
composed—his “inasmuch as many have taken in hand,” and so forth, and
the material about Elizabeth and the angel’s announcement to Mary the
Virgin; about John and Zacharias and the birth at Bethlehem; the genealogy
and the story of the baptism. (5). All this he cut out and turned his back
on, and made this the beginning of the Gospel, “In the fi fteenth year of
Tiberius Caesar,” and so on.
11,6 He starts from there then and yet, again, does not go on in order.
He falsifi es some things, as I said, he adds others helter-skelter, not going
straight on but disingenuously wandering all over the material
C'est ca.
Post Reply