I realize Andrew. I only meant I agreed with you that Marcion dropped the Baptism.andrewcriddle wrote: ↑Sat Nov 24, 2018 2:13 amjust to clarify. My argument assumes that Mark is prior to both Marcion's gospel and canonical Luke and argues that if so then Marcion's gospel is a modification of (something like) Luke. I agree that this particular argument does not work against the IMO implausible claim that Marcion's gospel is prior to both Mark and Luke.Giuseppe wrote: ↑Sat Nov 24, 2018 1:44 amI am sorry to admit it, but the answer is easy: Vinzent thinks that Marcion remembers John the Baptist and introduces him, since “oral tradition” about a historical Jesus commanded him to do so.
Here is a good example where the hypothesis of a historical Jesus forces a good scholar to do errors.
but note the other side of the coin: if John the Baptist was introduced by Marcion velim nolim since it was a historical fact that Jesus had relations with John, then the historicist (I refer to Andrew, for example) can't use as argument against the Marcionite priority the fact that John enters in Marcion without being introduced before.
Andrew Criddle
But I find it completely implausible that Marcion's Gospel was after Luke, as Luke is merely an expansion of the Marcionite version, including elements from other Gospels and sources to the form we have today. He also introduced all those Lukan favorite words famously absent from Marcion, whether they held any significant theological meaning or none whatsoever. As for the Gospel of Mark, I place that outside my sequence, all I know for certain is it was before Luke. Whether it was prior to any others, such as the first version of John, Matthew or Marcion's I cannot ascertain, he simply did not include any sectarian stories the other Gospels did. (This is also why his theology is so elusive)
Back to the point, we have differing models for the Gospel order. But for similar reasons agree on this point. The Baptism story, and more specifically that John is the forerunner the prophet predicted in Malachi, is presumed by the refuting of John in the passages of Marcion/Luke.
All the Marcionite author had to do was remove the 12 verses, Mark 1:2,4-14 (verse 1:1 being versification of a prototype Gospel's title, verse 1:3 and "prophet Isaiah" in 1:2 entered Mark from another process outside the scope of this discussion) and the move the fisherman story to allow his Christ to appear in Capernaum first. So it was no huge task. Whether this came from Mark (Andrew's view) or a common prototype Gospel (my view) does not materially change the argument.