John was possessed by the spiritual Christ in the gospel read by Celsus

[Giuseppe]

The Marcion's argument is that John and Antipas are two sides of the same coin, hence the reference to the reed printed in the Antipas's coin works, but only to connect John and Antipas (resp. the weak and the strong, the victim and the killer, the innocent and the sinner) in virtue of their common being creatures of the demiurge. A dicothomy shows itself: accept both them, or reject them both.

[Giuseppe]

Something of similar with the tribute episode: give to Caesar what is his own, and to demiurge what is his own (i.e. Caesar himself).

[Ben C. Smith]

John is not the "reed shaken by the wind" in Matthew 11.7 = Luke 7.24. Nor is he the palace dweller who wears soft clothing. Antipas is.

but is not the reed a symbol of weakness in contrast with the show of power symbolized by a palace of a king?

No, the reed is either divine judgment on Antipas or Antipas' court vascillating court politics (in direct contrast to the moralistic, uncompromising ruggedness of a prophet of God).

There is no demiurge in sight in this particular passage; that is just an idle fantasy.

[Ben C. Smith]

The whole passage is obviously meant to praise John in some way. He is "more than a prophet."

[Giuseppe]

No, the reed is either divine judgment on Antipas or Antipas' court vascillating court politics (in direct contrast to the moralistic, uncompromising ruggedness of a prophet of God).

I don't understand why the reed has to be by need a reference to Antipas as opposed to John. The latter could be the reed insofar the his death was left not punished (John didn't rise).

At any case the sense of the entire passage is: John is great etc but the last Christian is better than him. Hence there is evidence of a will of reduction of the importance assumed previously by John.

There is no demiurge in sight in this particular passage; that is just an idle fantasy.

proto-Luke is marcionite hence the demiurge is implicit as the god of John the Baptist and the cause of the final rejection of John by Jesus.

[Ben C. Smith]

No, the reed is either divine judgment on Antipas or Antipas' court vascillating court politics (in direct contrast to the moralistic, uncompromising ruggedness of a prophet of God).

I don't understand why the reed has to be by need a reference to Antipas as opposed to John. The latter could be the reed insofar the his death was left not punished (John didn't rise).

The only need comes from context. The prophet contrasts (ἀλλὰ, verse 26) with the reed and with the man in soft clothing, and Jesus affirms (ναί, verse 26) that John is the prophet, and even more than a prophet; indeed, no one born of woman is greater (verse 28).

He is not, then, the shaken reed.

At any case the sense of the entire passage is: John is great etc but the last Christian is better than him.

Yes, very much so. It is a form of Christian supercessionism. But this is achieved, not by decreasing John, but by increasing him. That is key. The old was great, but the new is even better.

One does not boast of one's own athletic prowess by emphasizing how poorly one's opponents played in the big match; to the contrary, one admires how well they played, so as to make one's own performance in beating them all the greater.

There is no demiurge in sight in this particular passage; that is just an idle fantasy.

proto-Luke is marcionite hence the demiurge is implicit as the god of John the Baptist and the cause of the final rejection of John by Jesus.

I disagree. The church fathers of the second century had to put up with texts (like Mark and the epistles of Paul) and traditions which were not orthodox (or proto-orthodox), and so too Marcion had to put up with texts which were not Marcionite. You saying that Marcion used a text and therefore that text is Marcionite is the same fallacy as apologists saying that the orthodox fathers used a text and therefore that text is orthodox.

[Giuseppe]

I disagree. The church fathers of the second century had to put up with texts (like Mark and the epistles of Paul) and traditions which were not orthodox (or proto-orthodox), and so too Marcion had to put up with texts which were not Marcionite. You saying that Marcion used a text and therefore that text is Marcionite is the same fallacy as apologists saying that the orthodox fathers used a text and therefore that text is orthodox.

this may be true in a general sense. But in the specific case of Luke 7, prof Vinzent does a real good case for the original reading being marcionite in character.

The fact that the prophet contrasts (ἀλλὰ, verse 26) with the reed and with the man in soft clothing doesn't mean eo ipso the strict identity between the reed and the man in soft clothing in the figure of Antipas: they were two ways of seeing the same episode (the clash between John and Antipas) in reductive ways, with John as the humble reed facing a powerful corrupted king.

[Ben C. Smith]

I disagree. The church fathers of the second century had to put up with texts (like Mark and the epistles of Paul) and traditions which were not orthodox (or proto-orthodox), and so too Marcion had to put up with texts which were not Marcionite. You saying that Marcion used a text and therefore that text is Marcionite is the same fallacy as apologists saying that the orthodox fathers used a text and therefore that text is orthodox.

this may be true in a general sense. But in the specific case of Luke 7, prof Vinzent does a real good case for the original reading being marcionite in character.

It is not clear to me how Vinzent's case helps yours in this particular instance. Also, where does Vinzent get παρʼ οὐδενὶ †τοιαύτην† πίστιν ἐν τῷ Ἰσραὴλ εὗρον as a Marcionite reading in Luke 7.9?

The fact that the prophet contrasts (ἀλλὰ, verse 26) with the reed and with the man in soft clothing doesn't mean eo ipso the strict identity between the reed and the man in soft clothing in the figure of Antipas: they were two ways of seeing the same episode (the clash between John and Antipas) in reductive ways, with John as the humble reed facing a powerful corrupted king.

What is advantage of equating John in this passage either with the man in soft clothing or with the shaken reed? It seems to me that you have to really, really want John to correlate with these figures before actually reading the text, which says "yes" to him being a prophet, and even more than a prophet, not to him being the reed or the soft man. In other words, you have to read your own ideas into the text rather than letting the text speak for itself.

[Giuseppe]

What is advantage of equating John in this passage either with the man in soft clothing or with the shaken reed? It seems to me that you have to really, really want John to correlate with these figures before actually reading the text, which says "yes" to him being a prophet, and even more than a prophet, not to him being the reed or the soft man. In other words, you have to read your own ideas into the text rather than letting the text speak for itself.

The my point is that the author of the passage was putting "order" in a confusion of views about John.

Some said: he was only a shaken reed. Others said: he was only a spineless king. These views were about John (Hyrcanus II?).

Others (for example, the gospel read by Celsus) said the exact contrary: John was posseded by the marcionite (=spiritual) Christ!

The compromise of the author was what you have just well described:
the people in the Wilderness didn't see a negative character (a reed, a spineless king): John was a just prophet of the his god, afterall.

but not for this John has to be adored by the Christians: the marcionite Christians are better than him.

Was this a cryptical way to say: you separationist Christians, continue also to see Christ possessing John, only adore the possessor spiritual Christ and minimize John's importance.

[Ben C. Smith]

What is advantage of equating John in this passage either with the man in soft clothing or with the shaken reed? It seems to me that you have to really, really want John to correlate with these figures before actually reading the text, which says "yes" to him being a prophet, and even more than a prophet, not to him being the reed or the soft man. In other words, you have to read your own ideas into the text rather than letting the text speak for itself.

The my point is that the author of the passage was putting "order" in a confusion of views about John.

Some said: he was only a shaken reed. Others said: he was only a spineless king. These views were about John (Hyrcanus II?).

Rather, the structure is:

1. Did you go out to see a shaken reed? (Implicit no.)
2. Did you go out to see a man in soft raiment? (Implicit no.)
3. Did you go out to see a prophet? (Explicit yes.) In fact, he is more than a prophet.

The whole structure conspires to affirm that the "you" in the passage knew John was a prophet, and not shaken reed (like Antipas) or a man in soft clothing (like one of his courtiers); and Jesus himself knew that John was actually more than a prophet. There is nobody in the passage who thinks #1 or #2 above. (Very much unlike the options listed in Mark 6.14-16; 8.27-30, in which the options are specifically labeled as divergent opinions about Jesus.)

And I think that your pairing of John the Baptist with John Hyrcanus is another of your flights of fancy.