Biblical Criticism & History Forum - earlywritings.com

Posted: **Sat Jun 10, 2023 5:01 am**

Sinouhe wrote: ↑Sat Jun 10, 2023 4:46 am Correct me if I'm wrong but Pilate is not introduced in Mark before Mark 15. And nothing is told about his specific status.

True, but the other Gospels (Matthew and Luke) have recognized the problem and have given a title of hegēmon for Pilate.
They have also filled in John's life.
The Praetorium is named as such in Mark, so even a Chineese would have realized who is Pilate.

Surely only in Mark, John is introduced bluntly, without specifics of any kind.

Posted: **Sat Jun 10, 2023 5:05 am**

Paul the Uncertain wrote: ↑Sat Jun 10, 2023 4:48 am
Giuseppe wrote: ↑Sat Jun 10, 2023 3:32 am I don't question the delay of the principal hero of the story (you are right on that). What I am considering as an anomaly, under the Markan priority, is the blunt entry of John the Baptist, ex abrupto.

Are you, or Sinouhe, or Peter, able to explain it?
Well, if you and I are in agreement that it's OK to delay the entry of Jesus for dramatic effect, then somebody has to have been onstage before him. Why not John the Baptist? He's the Ned Stark of the Gospel of Mark: he does his role, is never seen alive again, but his absence hangs over the action for the rest of the show.

You're almost surprised that he isn't the guy the women meet in the vacant tomb (how did Mark miss that one?).

George R.R. Martin explains in detail who is Ned Stark, Josephus explains that John is a virtuous man, differently from Mark who doesn't explain really who is John. He could be even a publican, Mark would have not denied that he was one. I call all this a blunt entry of a guy in the scene.

Posted: **Sat Jun 10, 2023 5:16 am**

Note that Vinzent has missed this feature of the blunt entry of John. Nowhere he reports about it, talking only of an unexpected delay:

Why does Mark's Gospel begin with John the Baptist?

Posted: **Sat Jun 10, 2023 5:34 am**

Giuseppe wrote: ↑Sat Jun 10, 2023 5:01 am True, but the other Gospels (Matthew and Luke) have recognized the problem and have given a title of hegēmon for Pilate.

A problem for them or their readers. Obviously not for Mark and/or the readers he was targeting.

The Praetorium is named as such in Mark, so even a Chineese would have realized who is Pilate.

Not necessarily.

Surely only in Mark, John is introduced bluntly, without specifics of any kind.

For the reasons I explained above. And he is called a prophet by the people in 11:32.

Posted: **Sat Jun 10, 2023 5:59 am**

Sinouhe wrote: ↑Sat Jun 10, 2023 5:34 am And he is called a prophet by the people in 11:32.

true. So there is no blunt entry of John in Mark. What remains is the Vinzent's argument:

Why would Mark begin to introduce his book that is going to be a narrative on Jesus’ life, deeds and words not with a message of Christ, but with John the Baptist as a messanger with a message about Jesus Christ? Of course, Christian readers who are so used to the Synoptics’ accounts of John the Baptist may no longer feel this strange character of a delayed opening. In contrast, if we ask the question, could Mark have added this passage to counter one of Marcion’s challenges, the answer is readily at hand.

Posted: **Sat Jun 10, 2023 6:08 am**

Giuseppe wrote: ↑Sat Jun 10, 2023 5:59 am
Sinouhe wrote: ↑Sat Jun 10, 2023 5:34 am And he is called a prophet by the people in 11:32.
true. So there is no blunt entry of John in Mark. What remains is the Vinzent's argument:

Why would Mark begin to introduce his book that is going to be a narrative on Jesus’ life, deeds and words not with a message of Christ, but with John the Baptist as a messanger with a message about Jesus Christ? Of course, Christian readers who are so used to the Synoptics’ accounts of John the Baptist may no longer feel this strange character of a delayed opening. In contrast, if we ask the question, could Mark have added this passage to counter one of Marcion’s challenges, the answer is readily at hand.

And the reason is : Marc's agenda

—> Malachie 3:22-23 LXX
—> The Jewish beliefs of the second temple period.

Posted: **Sat Jun 10, 2023 6:14 am**

Sinouhe wrote: ↑Sat Jun 10, 2023 6:08 am
Giuseppe wrote: ↑Sat Jun 10, 2023 5:59 am
Sinouhe wrote: ↑Sat Jun 10, 2023 5:34 am And he is called a prophet by the people in 11:32.
true. So there is no blunt entry of John in Mark. What remains is the Vinzent's argument:

Why would Mark begin to introduce his book that is going to be a narrative on Jesus’ life, deeds and words not with a message of Christ, but with John the Baptist as a messanger with a message about Jesus Christ? Of course, Christian readers who are so used to the Synoptics’ accounts of John the Baptist may no longer feel this strange character of a delayed opening. In contrast, if we ask the question, could Mark have added this passage to counter one of Marcion’s challenges, the answer is readily at hand.

And the reason is : Marc's agenda

—> Malachie 3:22-23 LXX
—> The Jewish beliefs of the second temple period.

But Vinzent has well in view that midrash from Malachi etc:

The sudden arrival of the Lord that Marcion insisted on is nothing new, but already Malache had foreseen it, announced it and predicted his forerunner, who Mark identified with John the Baptist on which he carries on in his first chapter – a long passage that, of course, has no equivalent in Marcion’s Gospel.

I would like to focus here on the anomalies found in Mark. How much of these anomalies can be exorcized thanks the harmonizing reading of a Markan prioritist?

Surely the contrast between the gospel of Jesus and the message about Jesus carried by a messenger is an anomaly that hardly can be exorcized.

Posted: **Sat Jun 10, 2023 6:27 am**

Giuseppe wrote: ↑Sat Jun 10, 2023 6:14 am
Sinouhe wrote: ↑Sat Jun 10, 2023 6:08 am
Giuseppe wrote: ↑Sat Jun 10, 2023 5:59 am
Sinouhe wrote: ↑Sat Jun 10, 2023 5:34 am And he is called a prophet by the people in 11:32.
true. So there is no blunt entry of John in Mark. What remains is the Vinzent's argument:

Why would Mark begin to introduce his book that is going to be a narrative on Jesus’ life, deeds and words not with a message of Christ, but with John the Baptist as a messanger with a message about Jesus Christ? Of course, Christian readers who are so used to the Synoptics’ accounts of John the Baptist may no longer feel this strange character of a delayed opening. In contrast, if we ask the question, could Mark have added this passage to counter one of Marcion’s challenges, the answer is readily at hand.

And the reason is : Marc's agenda

—> Malachie 3:22-23 LXX
—> The Jewish beliefs of the second temple period.

But Vinzent has well in view that midrash from Malachi etc:

The sudden arrival of the Lord that Marcion insisted on is nothing new, but already Malache had foreseen it, announced it and predicted his forerunner, who Mark identified with John the Baptist on which he carries on in his first chapter – a long passage that, of course, has no equivalent in Marcion’s Gospel.

I would like to focus here on the anomalies found in Mark. How much of these anomalies can be exorcized thanks the harmonizing reading of a Markan prioritist?

Surely the contrast between the gospel of Jesus and the message about Jesus carried by a messenger is an anomaly that hardly can be exorcized.

What is John's role in Marcion?

In Mark he is Elijah, the forerunner of the Messiah, a sine qua non condition for the Jews of the Second Temple.

What is John's role in Marcion?

Posted: **Sat Jun 10, 2023 6:36 am**

Sinouhe wrote: ↑Sat Jun 10, 2023 6:27 am

What is John's role in Marcion?

So Klinghardt about the John the Baptist tradition:

2. Similarly, the John-the-Baptist tradition. *Ev mentions John the Baptist several times, but his biographical and theological knowledge is comparatively small. *Ev knows John's name, he knows that he was a 'baptizer' (*7,17), that he had disciples (*11,1), and that he was beheaded by 'King' Herod (*9,7-9). Furthermore, *Ev knows John the Baptist as a prophetic proclaimer of the law and the prophets (*16,16), and he knows about John the Baptist's query (*7,17-23) as well as Jesus' subsequent judgement of him (*7,24-28). However, *Ev displays a noticeable distance between John the Baptist and Jesus (*7,18.23). In*Ev, the baptizer took offence at Jesus (*7,18; formulation is uncertain), which is why Jesus blesses him only under the condition that he 'takes no offense at me' (*7,23, according to Epiphanius). That distance is hardly conceivable for the later stages of the tradition from *Mark to Luke. Jesus and John meet previously in connection with their baptism accounts (Mark 1,2-11; Matt 3,1-17; John 1,19-34; Luke 3,1-22) where they present John's positive witness of Jesus, which John even integrated into the prologue (John 1,6-8-15). The origin of this positive witness lies in Jesus' judgement, authenticating that john the Baptist is 'more than a prophet' (*7,26) while simultaneously distinguishing him from 'the least in the kingdom of God' (*7,24-28). This ambivalent witness was preserved in the successive tradition.

This means, *Ev knows John and knows that he was a baptizer. [The information is found also in Jos., Ant. XVIII 116-119] All further information about him is missing in*Ev and inserted in later stages of the tradition history. From the brief comment about the execution by Herod, pre-canonical *Mark extricated his detention (Mark 6,17 || Matt 4,12 || Luke 3,19f) as well as the account of his execution urged by Herodias (Mark 6,18-29). Belonging to the successive tradition since *Mark is above all: Jesus' baptism by John; John's repentance sermon; his proclamation of the one who is 'more powerful' coming after him to baptize with fire and the spirit; the identification of John with Elijah; and the existence of John's disciples in the apostolic time. In that successive attribution, the ambivalence of Jesus' judgment of John the baptist is still preserved. Mark adopted the proclamation of the 'more powerful' into the account of the baptism activity (Mark 1,7f || Matt 3,11). Matthew, furthermore, integrated Jesus' superiority into the baptism account through John the Baptist's refusal to baptize Jesus (Matt 3,14f). John pointedly expressed the differentiated judgment of the activity thorugh characterizing John as a witness who 'testifies to the light', but who himself 'was not the light' (John 1,7f). Luke, finally, gives this differentiated characterization the broadest expanse thorugh harmonizing the birth accounts (Luke 1f) and thorugh the meeting of Elizabeth and Mary (Luke 1,36-45). The baptism account of John's disciples in Ephesus (Acts 19,2-7) exemplifies that the superiority of Jesus over John, or of the Christians over John's disciples, is rooted in the baptism's various effects.

(The Oldest Gospel and the Formation of the Canonical Gospels, p. 368, my bold, original cursive)

In my view, the entire price of the book is found in this page, but surely I am an idiot in ignoring the rest.

Note how Klinghardt finds a trace of the earliest rivalry survived in Mark 1:7:

And this was his message: “After me comes the one more powerful than I, the straps of whose sandals I am not worthy to stoop down and untie

Posted: **Sat Jun 10, 2023 6:52 am**

@Giuseppe

John is therefore not a key figure in Marcion's Gospel.

He is an essential doctrinal tool for Mark.

But Mark would be later than Marcion?
That's not really logical from my point of view.

Biblical Criticism & History Forum - earlywritings.com

The exact thing you give up forever when you consider Mark as even only close in time to Marcion

Re: The exact thing you give up forever when you consider Mark as even only close in time to Marcion

Re: The exact thing you give up forever when you consider Mark as even only close in time to Marcion

Re: The exact thing you give up forever when you consider Mark as even only close in time to Marcion

Re: The exact thing you give up forever when you consider Mark as even only close in time to Marcion

Re: The exact thing you give up forever when you consider Mark as even only close in time to Marcion

Re: The exact thing you give up forever when you consider Mark as even only close in time to Marcion

Re: The exact thing you give up forever when you consider Mark as even only close in time to Marcion

Re: The exact thing you give up forever when you consider Mark as even only close in time to Marcion

Re: The exact thing you give up forever when you consider Mark as even only close in time to Marcion

Re: The exact thing you give up forever when you consider Mark as even only close in time to Marcion