Marcion and John the Baptist

[MrMacSon]

and Titus 3:5 NASB

4 But when the goodness and loving kindness of God our Savior appeared, 5 he saved us, not because of works done by us in righteousness, but according to his own mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewal of the Holy Spirit, 6 whom he poured out on us richly through Jesus Christ our Savior, 7 so that being justified by his grace we might become heirs according to the hope of eternal life.

and
Colossians 2:12-15 (ESV)

9 For in him the whole fullness of deity dwells bodily, 10 and you have been filled in him, who is the head of all rule and authority. 11 In him also you were circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of the flesh, by the circumcision of Christ, 12 having been buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through faith in the powerful working of God, who raised him from the dead. 13 And you, who were dead in your trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, God made alive together with him, having forgiven us all our trespasses, 14 by canceling the record of debt that stood against us with its legal demands. This he set aside, nailing it to the cross. 15 He disarmed the [demonic] rulers and authorities and put them to open shame, by triumphing over them in him [or: in it ie. the cross].

[Secret Alias]

The passage from Titus I don't think is applicable.

[Kunigunde Kreuzerin]

It is generally held that Marcion omitted not only the baptism of Jesus but the earlier passage about John the Baptist Luke 3:2-2
...
Roth says Even though there is no direct attestation of the omission of these verses, there is an indirect indication that 3:2-22 [sic should be 3:2-20] was missing as an implication of Tertullian’s comments in Marc. 4.11.4.
Most reconstructions of Marcion's Gospel simply omit these verses.
Tertullian's comments are

[4] Whence, too, does John come upon the scene? Christ, suddenly; and just as suddenly, John! After this fashion occur all things in Marcion's system. They have their own special and plenary course in the Creator's dispensation. Of John, however, what else I have to say will be found in another passage. To the several points which now come before us an answer must be given. This, then, I will take care to do ----demonstrate that, reciprocally, John is suitable to Christ, and Christ to Joan, the latter, of course, as a prophet of the Creator, just as the former is the Creator's Christ; and so the heretic may blush at frustrating, to his own frustration, the mission of John the Baptist. [5] For if there had been no ministry of John at all----"the voice," as Isaiah calls him, "of one crying in the wilderness," and the preparer of the ways of the Lord by denunciation and recommendation of repentance; if, too, he had not baptized (Christ) Himself along with others, nobody could have challenged the disciples of Christ, as they ate and drank, to a comparison with the disciples of John, who were constantly fasting and praying; because, if there existed any diversity between Christ and John, and their followers respectively, no exact comparison would be possible, nor would there be a single point where it could be challenged. [6] For nobody would feel surprise, and nobody would be perplexed, although there should arise rival predictions of a diverse deity, which should also mutually differ about modes of conduct, having a prior difference about the authorities upon which they were based. Therefore Christ belonged to John, and John to Christ; while both belonged to the Creator, and both were of the law and the prophets, preachers and masters. Else Christ would have rejected the discipline of John, as of the rival god, and would also have defended the disciples, as very properly pursuing a different walk, because consecrated to the service of another and contrary deity. But as it is, while modestly giving a reason why "the children of the bridegroom are unable to fast during the time the bridegroom is with them," but promising that "they should afterwards fast, when the bridegroom was taken away from them," He neither defended the disciples, (but rather excused them, as if they had not been blamed without some reason), nor rejected the discipline of John, but rather allowed it, referring it to the time of John, although destining it for His own time. Otherwise His purpose would have been to reject it, and to defend its opponents, if He had not Himself already belonged to it as then in force.

IF it is correct that Marcion omitted 3:2-20 then Tertullian's argument seems a good one and strongly implies that Marcion's Gospel has omitted an explanation of who John the Baptist was which was present in an earlier form of the tradition. In principle this does not require the priority of canonical Luke over Marcion's Gospel. Marcion's Gospel could derive directly from (say) Mark but omit the ministry of John which is subsequently added in canonical Luke on the basis of Matthew.
...
How good an argument is the above ?

I think the argument coud be a bit expanded.

Luke 20.1-18, by what authority, the parable of the tenants.

1 Καὶ ἐγένετο ἐν μιᾷ τῶν ἡμερῶν διδάσκοντος αὐτοῦ τὸν λαὸν ἐν τῷ ἱερῷ [Marcion locates this phrase at 20.19, according to Epiphanius] καὶ εὐαγγελιζομένου ἐπέστησαν οἱ ἀρχιερεῖς [Marcion: οἱ Φαρισαῖοι] καὶ οἱ γραμματεῖς σὺν τοῖς πρεσβυτέροις, 2 καὶ εἶπαν λέγοντες πρὸς αὐτόν Εἰπὸν ἡμῖν ἐν ποίᾳ ἐξουσίᾳ ταῦτα ποιεῖς, ἢ τίς ἐστιν ὁ δούς σοι τὴν ἐξουσίαν ταύτην; 3 ἀποκριθεὶς δὲ εἶπεν πρὸς αὐτούς Ἐρωτήσω ὑμᾶς κἀγὼ λόγον, καὶ εἴπατέ μοι 4 Τὸ βάπτισμα Ἰωάννου ἐξ οὐρανοῦ ἦν ἢ ἐξ ἀνθρώπων; 5 οἱ δὲ συνελογίσαντο πρὸς ἑαυτοὺς λέγοντες ὅτι Ἐὰν εἴπωμεν Ἐξ οὐρανοῦ, ἐρεῖ Διὰ τί οὐκ ἐπιστεύσατε αὐτῷ; 6 ἐὰν δὲ εἴπωμεν Ἐξ ἀνθρώπων, ὁ λαὸς ἅπας καταλιθάσει ἡμᾶς· πεπεισμένος γάρ ἐστιν Ἰωάνην προφήτην εἶναι. 7 καὶ ἀπεκρίθησαν μὴ εἰδέναι πόθεν. 8 καὶ ὁ Ἰησοῦς εἶπεν αὐτοῖς Οὐδὲ ἐγὼ λέγω ὑμῖν ἐν ποίᾳ ἐξουσίᾳ ταῦτα ποιῶ.

1 On one of those days, as he was teaching the people in the temple [Marcion locates this phrase at 20.19, according to Epiphanius] and preaching the Good News, the priests [Marcion: the Pharisees] and scribes came to him with the elders. 2 They asked him, “Tell us: by what authority do you do these things? Or who is giving you this authority?” 3 He answered them, “I also will ask you one question. Tell me: 4 the baptism of John, was it from heaven, or from men?” 5 They reasoned with themselves, saying, “If we say, ‘From heaven,’ he will say, ‘Why didn’t you believe him?’ 6 But if we say, ‘From men,’ all the people will stone us, for they are persuaded that John was a prophet.” 7 They answered that they didn’t know where it was from. 8 Jesus said to them, “Neither will I tell you by what authority I do these things.”

Tertullian, Against Marcion 4.38.1-2: [1] Sciebat Christus baptisma Ioannis unde esset. Et cur quasi nesciens interrogabat? Sciebat non responsuros sibi pharisaeos. Et cur frustra interrogabat? An ut ex ore ipsorum iudicaret illos, vel ex corde? Refer ergo et haec ad excusationem creatoris et ad comparationem Christi, et considera iam quid secuturum esset si quid pharisaei ad interrogationem renuntiassent. Puta illos renuntiasse humanum Ioannis baptisma, statim lapidibus elisi fuissent. Existeret aliqui Marcion adversus Marcionem, qui diceret, O deum optimum, o deum diversum a creatoris exemplis! sciens praeceps ituros homines ipse illos in praerupium imposuit. [2] Sic enim et de creatore in arboris lege tractatur. Sed de caelis fuit baptisma Ioannis. Et quare, inquit Christus, non credidistis ei? Ergo qui credi voluerat Ioanni, increpaturus quod non credidissent, eius erat cuius sacramentum Ioannes administrabat. Certe nolentibus renuntiare quid saperent, cum et ipse vicem opponit, Et ego non dico vobis in qua virtute haec facio, malum malo reddidit. / [1] Christ knew "the baptism of John, whence it was." 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. Some Marcion, in rivalry to Marcion, would have stood up 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 on the very precipice. [2] For thus do men treat of the Creator respecting His law of the tree. But John's baptism was "from heaven." "Why, therefore," asks Christ, "did ye not believe him? " He therefore who had wished men to believe John, purposing to censure them because they had not believed him, belonged to Him whose sacrament John was administering. But, at any rate, 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," He returned evil for evil!

It seems that Marcion would have needed a third alternative. The decision between heaven and men does not make sense for Marcion and the question about the baptism would be a bit out of context if it is correct that Marcion omitted John's mission (therefore I doubt it a bit).

[Secret Alias]

Welcome to the difficulties reconstructing Marcion's gospel

[outhouse]

The latter narrative is that it was an issue. That may be a re-telling of history, as is so much of the evolution of the Christian story.

No you have no evidence at all beyond YOUR imagination it is "later"


It has historicity as a mid 50's hot topic in the evolution of the movement away from cultural Judaism.

This is so strong it is a certainty.

[Secret Alias]

It's certain to you because your brain hasn't fully developed. I suggest you change your diet. Maybe you don't get enough protein. Then again maybe it has something to do with being schooled in America. When I was a Canadian I used to think only the Republicans in this country were stupid and inflexible. Now I see in my Facebook feed that Bernie Sanders supporters are just as idiotic. Being proudly inflexible, being guided by an inherited idée fixe is a uniquely American obsession in the developed world. It is a sign that even atheists here haven't fully developed away from their evangelical roots. Canadians rarely vote for one political party. They can vote Conservative in one election and then Liberal or NDP in the next. They take each election as a new decision and evaluate the data fresh each time. People here are so fucking stupid. Ambitious, yes. Hard working, yes, yes. But they completely lack the ability to contemplate ideas stripped of inherited presuppositions.

[outhouse]

This new movement, factually separated from cultural Judaism, to Hellenistic Proselytes in the Diaspora who had been perverting Judaism for centuries.

With the fall of the temple, the factual split from Judaism was accelerated.

There was a lot of diversity LONG before orthodoxy, and Marcion is a PRIME example of a popular version of the new movement BEFORE orthodoxy.


Marcion had NOTHING to do with the formation of this new movement, outside being the first person WE KNOW about that collected traditions, and was ONLY a part of a heretical gnostic movement that died.


Anything other then that is nor acceptable or credible.

[outhouse]

Outhouse

The gospel of Marcion seems to only mention "John." A John whose disciples fasted on the Sabbath, expected John to return by resurrection (as the Samaritans expect of Moses), a community whose doctrines were well known to Herod and a John with whom the gospel writer imagined the Law and prophets ended. There is no mention of a baptism of remission of sins, Jesus being baptized by John, John being beheaded etc. There's a lot of room for various interpretations.

As we are speaking of Marcionite one more detail might be significant. Paul speaks of baptism and death in the same breath. The Marcionite baptism is principally about death. It is not clear how or why but when person A underwent baptism it had an effect on dead person B. Again the details are not clear but our existing baptismal practices don't seem to have a Pauline roots

I agree.


It shows different gnostic belief a 120 ish years after Johns death, and how the theology evolved with time.

[Secret Alias]

How can you keep recycling this crap. Who puts the term 'perverting' in a discussion of religious traditions? It assumes you know what the true tradition was. You are still an evangelical at heart even if you lost your faith along the way.

[Secret Alias]

Kundi

I can't tell you how to work out these logical inconsistencies. I can only put forward how I attempt to make sense of them. My solution, after years of looking at Adversus Marcionem is as follows:

1. acknowledge that there are layers to the existing text. What I mean is that - along with Andrew Criddle - you have to recognize that the deepest layer of the text has nothing to do with Luke. It was written by Justin or someone in his circle about a 'super gospel' (= harmony) and (perhaps) the similarities and differences with the Marcionite text (but this also might have been added later). It has nothing to do with Luke only insofar as a later editor (probably Irenaeus) assimilated and reordered the original 'super gospel' commentary.
2. pay careful attention to what is actually said in the text. I have come to the conclusion that in many places we see signs that Luke's modeling was influenced by the original Adversus Marcionem text rather than the other way around. Take what is said right in the first sentence:

Christ knew "the baptism of John, whence it was." 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.

Let's take it line by line. But before we do let's note one thing that comes from a related discussion in Irenaeus:

Moreover, by His not replying to those who said to Him, "By what power doest Thou this?" but by a question on His own side, put them to utter confusion; by His thus not replying, according to their interpretation, He showed the unutterable nature of the Father. [Adv Haer 20:1.1]

Clearly the end game of the discussion is the heretical contention that the Jews didn't know know the ultimate god only an angel. This is important because it provides us with some context for what appears in the other text. In other words:

a) Jesus did not reply to the question directly (= because of a secret power in heaven)
b) his response put them to confusion

Now back to Adversus Marcionem. It begins with an assertion:

Christ knew "the baptism of John, whence it was."

A citation of the gospel. Good start to accepting that the ur-text referenced and knew the gospel. Next:

Then why did He ask them, as if He knew not?

So the next statement compares the fact that both Jesus and the Pharisees ask questions as a means of diffusing the claim of the Marcionites that the Jews were ignorant of the Father. In other words, it wasn't as if the gospel writer was trying to show that the Jews only knew an angelic power not the ultimate god.

I think the line that follows show that the original text was written before Matthew or Luke. We read:

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?

I think the original text that appeared in the account of both the Marcionites and the super gospel of Justin more closely resembled what appears in Mark now:

27 They arrived again in Jerusalem, and while Jesus was walking in the temple courts, the chief priests, the teachers of the law and the elders came to him. 28 “By what authority are you doing these things?” they asked. “And who gave you authority to do this?”

29 Jesus replied, “I will ask you one question. Answer me, and I will tell you by what authority I am doing these things. 30 John’s baptism—was it from heaven, or of human origin? Tell me!”

31 They discussed it among themselves and said, “If we say, ‘From heaven,’ he will ask, ‘Then why didn’t you believe him?’ 32 But if we say, ‘Of human origin’ …” (They feared the people, for everyone held that John really was a prophet.)

33 So they answered Jesus, “We don’t know.”

Jesus said, “Neither will I tell you by what authority I am doing these things.”

The only difference is that I think all the deliberation narrated as going on in the heads of the Pharisees wasn't there. Moreover if you read Tertullian the implication is clearly that the Pharisees didn't answer at all. I think the Pharisees being silent about the baptism of John is important.

Moreover if you read Tertullian's De Baptismo chapter 10 you will see an important distinction from our inherited assumptions. Here the idea is spelled out that it wasn't just that the Pharisees 'believed' that the baptism of John was 'of men' (i.e. an opinion of the Jews) but rather a 'fact' agreed upon by the author of the gospel (presumably) and the Pharisees. In other words, 'Tertullian' (or whomever wrote the original treatise) puts forward the idea that it is obvious that John's baptism was not from heaven. This a mutually agreed upon 'fact.' To this end, we must reconsider what the silence of the Pharisees really means. Were they silent because they knew that it only established the proselytes as 'Jews' according to men (a Pauline theme i.e. juxtaposing the 'inner Jews' from 'outer' ones)? I think this is the original meaning.

In other words, it is only with the addition of the 'inner dialogue' narrative which was added to the ur-gospel that we get distracted from contradiction which Origen brings up in Commentary on John 10. The entire relationship between the Pharisees and the baptism of John in the gospel is hopelessly contradictory. At one instant they too undergo the baptism (Matthew). But if this is true, why does Jesus say in another part of Matthew that they think John 'has a devil.'

IMHO the whole mess becomes more understandable if we imagine the 'baptism of John' went back to the massive conversion of all the neighboring tribes of Judea (we may even extend this to the activities of John Hyrcanus's sons). In other words, the underlying contradiction that the Pharisees embodied was that they really did not accept John (as he ultimately went over to the Sadducees) but took over his converts and made them Jews. We must think that this 'baptism' swelled the ranks of the Jews at the beginning of the Common Era but ultimately led to the disastrous conflict with Rome (as Josephus's account lays blame on these same proselytes and the influence of the Helena Queen of Adiabene and Monobazus).