Biblical Criticism & History Forum - earlywritings.com

Ur-Mark ended with the empty tomb. Give me a break. Irenaeus is the original corrupter.

Strange how no one else (Mattthew 28, Luke 24 nor Acts 1, nor John 21, not to mention Mark 16:9-20) picked up on "sitting on the right hand of God", so popular later in the Creed!
People believe what they want to believe--or disbelieve. There is no such thing as free will.

But the problem with myopic people is that they can only see in one direction. The Marcionites had another variant of this 'enthronement tradition' where Paul seems to have been enthroned beside God. Stop with the one way street and the inevitability of your opinions. There's always more out there. More than you have previously considered.

"Are You the Christ, the Son of the Blessed One?" 62 And Jesus said, "I am ; and you shall see THE SON OF MAN SITTING AT THE RIGHT HAND OF POWER, and COMING WITH THE CLOUDS OF HEAVEN."
Notice how the above quote from Mark 14:61-62 is almost immediately fulfilled by the ending of Mark as quoted by me above from Irenaeus Book 3 Ch. 10: (It's from the Proto-Gospel, found similarly at Luke 22:69.)
"So then, after the Lord Jesus had spoken to them, He was received up into heaven, and sitteth on the right hand of God"
I would say clearly the latter stood in as the ending of Mark at the same time in the original Synoptic Passion Narrative.

Secret Alias wrote:The Marcionites had another variant of this 'enthronement tradition' where Paul seems to have been enthroned beside God..

Could you supply a source for this?

Giuseppe wrote:Note also a crucial difference between the relationship between John and Jesus in Mcn and the relationship between John and Jesus in our canonical Gospels.

In our canonical Gospels, John is in special intimacy with Jesus. He sees Jesus face to face. A private and direct relationship, without intermediaries (in Luke are their mothers, which is the same), from the first moment.

In Mcn, John is telling to Jesus only via intermediaries (his disciples), and Jesus proclaims John as 'more than a prophet' in front of a crowd (not, and never, face to face with John).

Good observations. But I think I want to add one critical point, there are actually three distinct presentations of John in the Gospels:

1. Marcion: John belongs to the creator God/Angel (a), Jesus belongs to the Unknown God ("High God")
John does not see Jesus, he does not Baptize Jesus, he does not recognize Jesus

There are elements in the Marcionite text, specifically Herod and his advisors discussing John in Luke 7:7-9 (AM 4.21.2) and Luke 7:42-27 (AM 4.18.6-8, Pan 42.11.6.9 when he makes the Malachi 3:1, showing the author was well aware of the John as Elijah revived argument of the Orthodox camp. And the text in the section can be seen as mocking the cry in the wilderness scenario, very much fitting the Marcionite presentation. (note this is missing in Mark)

So Jesus is unknown to John, and he is accepted as the final prophet of the Jewish God before his (the Jewish God's) messiah.

2. The Canonical Synoptic Gospels agree about John, but of course they argue the Creator is the High God, so the Christ is the same. Both are from the Creator God. And to show he was predicted, John recognizes him from even before his mission and Baptizes him. This shows foreknowledge and the fulfillment of the prophets (books of the OT Like Isaiah and Malachi).

Matthew and Luke include elements of the Marcionite presentation above where John is said to be the least of anyone in heaven, even though he is the greatest born of women (ie, from the creator God). That looks like naive copying.

3. The Gospel of John presents John as from the same God as Jesus, but elsewhere in the text this God is explicitly not the God the Jews worship. And more importantly, although John does recognize Jesus and Baptize him - only after Jesus tells him he must -, he himself states he is not Elijah come again or any prophet of old come again when asks by representatives of the Jewish God.

So we have three very distinct presentations with incompatible theological takes on John and his relationship to Jesus and to the Creator God. I think they flow 1 -> 2 -> as presentations as far as sequencing goes; each in response to the prior. But it says something else. At the very moment of the first composition, which I think was Marcionite, there was already a full recognition of a competing theology, and an understanding of its content. Matthew is the most direct response, and John shows a response the Matthew presentation.

The problem is all three presentations show a keen awareness of the other position. The one take away I have is from the very first time new testament ink went to papyri a division along theological lines was already present and well defined.

Stuart wrote: So [in Marcion] Jesus is unknown to John, and he is accepted as the final prophet of the Jewish God before his (the Jewish God's) messiah.

"he"? John is "accepted as the 'final prophet' of the Jewish God"?

before the arrival of the 'expected' Jewish messiah?

MrMacSon wrote:

Stuart wrote: So [in Marcion] Jesus is unknown to John, and he is accepted as the final prophet of the Jewish God before his (the Jewish God's) messiah.

"he"? John is "accepted as the 'final prophet' of the Jewish God"?

before the arrival of the 'expected' Jewish messiah?

yes, he recognizes that the orthodox see him as such. Marcion's version includes Luke 7:27

This is he, of whom it is written, Behold, I send my messenger before thy face, which shall prepare thy way before thee

That it is in reference deriding the final prophet is made clear in the preceding verses , Luke 7:24 making a comment about the Isaiah 40:3 passage associated with from Mark 1:3/Matthew 3:3 about John being a voice in the wilderness (ἔρημον)

"What did you go out into the wilderness to see? A reed shaken by the wind?"

He confirms the association with Malachi 4:5 verse 7:26, that John is a prophet and not just any prophet, following with verse 7:27 (above). What's more the author makes it clear it is the Kingly messiah of Jewish prophecy in view with Luke 7:25 talking about the fine clothing worn in a king's court.

This does leave open the possibility that the Marcionite author was aware of the opening from an ür-Gospel of the first 20 verses of Mark. Note, note verse 1:1 in Mark could very likely be the versification of the ür-Gospel title Τοῦ εὐαγγελίου ΧΥ, where the Marcionite simply exchanges ΚΥ for ΧΥ -- the original beginning is found in Mark 1:9/Matthew 3:1 ἐν ἐκείναις ταῖς ἡμέραις. So really only a dozen verses are missing (Mark 1:14-15 probably Mark's own, and the fish story 1:15-20 shows up in Luke 5:1-11). So whether dropped or not (John also has the fish story in a different location) -- and my opinion is there were two or three forms of the ür-Gospel lying around before the Marcionite and Catholic Gospels were written, so the form used might have lacked it -- the Marcionite author was aware of the competing theology.

Matthew's inclusion of the Marcionite presentation in verses 11:7-11 is evidence that this gospel is after the Marcionite. It is surprising he includes the slights to John. Be that as it may, verses 11:13-14 make explicit the identification of John with Malachi 4:5 last prophet. John 1:19-26 seems to clearly reject Matthew 11:13-14 position of John, and declares the Christ unknown to the Jews (verse 1:19 and 1:26). Hence my statement about the order. But it doesn't clear up the ür-Gospel(s) content or theology which precedes all of them.

Why isn't it likely that 'John' in the Marcionite gospel = John Hyrcanus the Jewish king/high priest who forcibly converted most of the neighbors of Judea to Judaism (or at least one form of it)? I remember reading a fragment at Qumran - https://books.google.com/books?id=t05ok ... ts&f=false - that there was a list which ended with John Hyrcanus if I am not mistaken.

"It appears that the author of 4QTest was conducting a debate with John Hyrcanus' followers, arguing that John was neither a true prophet of the type promised to Israel by Moses, nor an ideal ruler of the type Balaam had prophesied, nor did he serve as an ideal High Priest as described in Moses' Blessing. The proof given for all this is the curse that befell John Hyrcanus after his rebuilding Jericho, in which Hyrcanus lost both his sons in unnatural events in the course of one year." http://reference.sabinet.co.za/webx/acc ... 71/547.pdf Seems to be a similar conception to the question but to Jesus by the 'followers of John.' If disciples of John in the other gospel narrative were simply forcibly converted proselytes who picked up a habit of fasting on the Sabbath (which disappeared with the sect) we can finally explain (a) where the idea of a 'John the Baptist' came from (b) why there is no baptism of Jesus in the Marcionite gospel (c) why the gospel of Marcion stands closer to the 1st century Palestinian milieu (owing to its knowledge of this sect).