Marcion and John the Baptist

[Secret Alias]

Other Marcionite readings from Epiphanius:

'Blessed is he who shall not be offended in me,'41 is altered. For he had it as though it refers to John.

Scholion 8. 'Blessed is he who shall not be offended in me,' is altered. For he had it as though with reference to John.

(a) Whether this refers to John or to the Saviour himself, he still says 'blessed' of those who do not stumble, whether at him or at John, so that they will not make things up which they do not learn from him.
(b) But there is a more important consideration here, the real reason why the Saviour spoke. Lest it be thought that John, whom he had ranked as the greatest of those born of woman, was greater even than the Saviour himself—since he too was born of woman—he says as a safeguard, 'And blessed is whoso shall not be offended in me.'
(c) Hence he says, 'He that is less in the kingdom is greater than he.' Chronologically, counting from his birth in the flesh, he was six months 'less' than John; but as John's God he was plainly 'greater' in the kingdom.
(d) For the Only-begotten did not come to say anything in secret, or to tell any lie about his own message. He says, 'I have not spoken in secret, but openly.'156 For he is truth, as he says, 'I am the way and the truth.'157 The way, then, contains no error; nor does the truth lie by concealing itself.

Scholion 9. 'He it is of whom it is written, Behold, I send my messenger before thy face.'

(a) Elenchus 9. If God's only-begotten Son recognizes John and foreknows him, and because he foreknows him tells those who are willing to know the truth that this is the one of whom it is written, 'I send my messenger before thy face'—
(b) then the one who said in writing, 'I send my messenger before thy face,' God the eternal who has spoken in the prophets and Law, was not foreign to his own Son, Jesus Christ.
(c) For he sends his messenger before his face—before the face of a Son honoured by a Father. He was not sending his messenger to serve a foreigner of whom, as you say, Marcion, he was even the opposite.

[outhouse]

The idea clearly is that John must have been already dead in the Marcionite gospel narrative too. .

Yes the early first century man is dead for the mid second century man, because all his sources say Antipas killed him.

For the context that the heretics preserve is that they see Jesus and think he is the risen John

Its what you get when one man takes over another mans movement.

BY all rights Jesus was Johns head apostle, who furthered Johns movement after Johns beheading.

[Adam]

The four gospels do indeed give the impression that Jesus was the successor to John the Baptist, but limiting ourselves to Marcion's gospel leaves the connection weak. Indeed, we know that separate followers of John have lasted almost to the present as Mandaeans and such.
It would necessary to rely upon the Gospel of John (1:19-41) to give the other John (the Baptist) a cornerstone role to the ministry of Jesus.

[Secret Alias]

... and this John lived to see the destruction of the temple of Jerusalem.

[Secret Alias]

Another question - if Jesus wasn't the resurrected John who was? It's sort of like Chekhov's gun to introduce dramatic tension that never gets resolved. I wonder if this sets up Paul or someone. As it is all we have is a 'mistake' on the part of everyone - the followers of John, Herod. Does anyone really believe the evangelist was intending to show that people were wrong about John being imminently resurrected. Curious.

[Secret Alias]

Origen on the Resurrection of John from the Commentary on Matthew:

"At that season Herod the tetrarch heard the report concerning Jesus and said unto his own servants, This is John the Baptist." [5299] In Mark [5300] it is the same, and also in Luke. [5301] The Jews had different opinions, some false, such as the Sadducees held about the resurrection of the dead, that they do not rise, and in regard to angels that they do not exist, but that those things which were written about them were only to be interpreted figuratively, but had no reality in point of fact; and some true opinions, such as were taught by the Pharisees about the resurrection of the dead that they rise. We must therefore here inquire, whether the opinion regarding the soul, mistakenly held by Herod and some from among the people, was somewhat like this -- that John, who a little before had been slain by him, had risen from the dead after he had been beheaded, and was the same person under a different name, and being now called Jesus was possessed of the same powers which formerly wrought in John. For what credibility is there in the idea that One, who was so widely known to the whole people, and whose name was noised abroad in the whole of Judæa, whom they declared to be the son of the carpenter and Mary, and to have such and such for brothers and sisters, was thought to be not different from [5302] John whose father was Zacharias, and whose mother was Elisabeth, who were themselves not undistinguished among the people? But it is probable that the fact of his being the Son of Zacharias was not unknown to the people, who thought with regard to John that he was truly a prophet, and were so numerous that the Pharisees, in order to avoid the appearance of saying that which was displeasing to the people, were afraid to answer the question, "Was his baptism from heaven or from men?" [5303] And perhaps, also, to some of them had come the knowledge of the incident of the vision which was seen in the temple, when Gabriel appeared to Zacharias. What credibility, forsooth, has the erroneous opinion, whether of Herod or of some of the people, that John and Jesus were not two persons, but that it was one and the same person John who rose from the dead after that he had been beheaded and was called Jesus? Some one might say, however, that Herod and some of those of the people held the false dogma of the transmigration of souls into bodies, in consequence of which they thought that the former John had appeared again by a fresh birth, and had come from the dead into life as Jesus. But the time between the birth of John and the birth of Jesus, which was not more than six months, does not permit this false opinion to be considered credible. And perhaps rather some such idea as this was in the mind of Herod, that the powers which wrought in John had passed over to Jesus, in consequence of which He was thought by the people to be John the Baptist. And one might use the following line of argument. Just as because of the spirit and the power of Elijah, and not because of his soul, it is said about John, "This is Elijah which is to come," [5304] the spirit in Elijah and the power in him having gone over to John -- so Herod thought that the powers in John wrought in his case works of baptism and teaching, -- for John did not one miracle, [5305] but in Jesus miraculous portents. It may be said that something of this kind was the thought of those who said that Elijah had appeared in Jesus, or that one of the old prophets had risen. [5306] But the opinion of those who said that Jesus was "a prophet even as one of the prophets," [5307] has no bearing on the question. False, then, is the saying concerning Jesus, whether that recorded to have been the view of Herod, or that spoken by others. Only, the saying, "That John went before in the spirit and power of Elijah," [5308] which corresponds to the thoughts which they were now cherishing concerning John and Jesus, seems to me more credible. But since we learned, in the first place, that when the Saviour after the temptation heard that John was given up, He retreated into Galilee, and in the second place, that when John was in prison and heard the things about Jesus he sent two of his disciples and said to Him, "Art thou He that cometh, or look we for another?" [5309] and in the third place, generally that Herod said about Jesus, "It is John the Baptist, he is risen from the dead," [5310] but we have not previously learned from any quarter the manner in which the Baptist was killed, therefore Matthew has now recorded it, and Mark almost like unto him; but Luke passed over in silence the greater part of the narrative as it is found in them."

Of course if the death was much before the coming of Jesus - or ambiguous as to the length of time as in the Marcionite gospel - the narrative makes more sense.

[Secret Alias]

I guess the point of this recent digression is to emphasize that if we assume the gospel of Marcion predated the synoptics then the identification of 'John' with Josephus's 'John the Baptist' isn't a slam dunk.

[Stuart]

I have known him for many years from previous forums we both frequented.

While your correct, there is a deeper meaning to his style of study. Which is to throw everything at the wall and see what sticks and what does not stick. No stone left unturned, or thinking out of the box to find what is inside the box.

But sometimes, it is just to far removed from context to ask fellow members of this forum to play in his imagination.


The above may be tied to his desperation to build a background that helps sell his personal hypothesis that never gained traction. We wont let it go.

I think your right on target about his failed hypothesis and desperation. Trying to make a living on this is pretty much impossible if you don't get a tenured Professorship. That need to hit lightening in a bottle, like a few folks with wild theories have done now and again, to pay the bills for awhile puts a lot of stress on a guy.

Yes, I get the throw stuff at the wall aspect. But he doesn't know how to do that effectively. People can only digest a few short posts. He can't throw 10, 20, 30 long posts out there and expect any response. Who has time for that? And worse he defends like rabid dog in a junkyard. Who wants to bring that on themselves? Oh well, he has shown some progress in socializing, his posts are not full of expletives anymore. So there is hope he'll figure it out.

For me I don't care, I'm not in it for money or profession or reputation, its just a hobby. My focus for the text is always the competing factions and how they shaped the literature to help in clashes with rival sects. Pretty much all the text can be explained in that context especially during the mid and late 2nd century and into the 3rd century. The key is understanding the theology, motives, and usage. So I am reluctant to get into the dubious speculations about archetypes for elements in a story (JK Rowling readily admits Gilderoy Lockhart has a real person as his archetype, but it's got little if anything to do with the Chamber of Secrets story). Not my thing, not going to waste brain cells on it.

[Adam]

C'mon, guys, it's "you're" not "your" in your second and first lines respectively above. By now we should all know not to imitate outhouse's spelling (and grammar).
This is just "too" (4th line above) much.

[Giuseppe]

if Jesus wasn't the resurrected John who was?

what do you think about the suggestion of prof Vinzent on Jesus = the Messiah son of Joseph according to the Jews of Nazaret?

Along these lines, is it possible to see John the Baptist as someone thought (after his death) to be the Messiah ben Joseph, hence Jesus being seen (wrongly, in Mcn) as the future Messiah ben David?

In other terms, I think that prof Vinzent is open to the idea that sometimes the Jews thought that the death of Jesus could make coming soon the true Messiah ben David (Jesus being the suffering Messiah ben Joseph precursor of Messiah ben David) and sometimes the Jews thought that Jesus himself was the triumphal Messiah ben David (John the Baptist being the failed Messiah ben Joseph).

It's curious that John is the 'Immerger'. Joseph the Patriarch did enter Israel in Egypt (symbol of water/sin). Then he is the anti-Moses, since Moses did exit Israel out of Egypt (out of water/sin). Therefore Jesus is the ''new Moses'', in this case: Joshua.





Dr. Carrier makes an interesting point in OHJ, p.73-74:

There is no plausible way later Jews would invent interpretations of their scripture that supported and vindicated Christians. [The talmudist Jews] would not invent a Christ with a father named Joseph who dies and is resurrected (as the Talmud does indeed describe). They would not proclaim Isaiah 53 to be about this messiah and admit that Isaiah had there predicted this messiah would die and be resurrected. That was the very biblical passage Christians were using to prove their case. Moreover, the presentation of this ideology in the Talmud makes no mention of Christianity and gives no evidence of being any kind of polemic or response to it. So we have evidence here of a Jewish belief that possibly predates Christian evangelizing, even if that evidence survives only in later sources.
The alternative is to assume a rather unbelievable coincidence: that Christians and Jews, completely independently of each other, just happened at some point to see Isaiah 53 as messianic and from that same passage preach an ideology of a messiah with a father named Joseph (literally or symbolically), who endures great suffering, dies and is resurrected (all in accord with the savior depicted in Isaiah 53, as by then understood). Such an amazing coincidence is simply improbable. But a causal connection is not: if this was a pre-Christian ideology that influenced (and thus caused) both the Christian and the Jewish ideologies, then we have only one element to explain (the rise of this idea once, being adapted in different ways) instead of having to believe the same idea arose twice, purely coincidentally.