Biblical Criticism & History Forum - earlywritings.com

(Off topic but I need a link somewhere)

https://www.jstor.org/stable/44102098?r ... b_contents

Giuseppe wrote: ↑Tue Apr 14, 2020 8:16 am

Ben C. Smith wrote: ↑Tue Apr 14, 2020 7:40 am
Just in case it has not come up yet.

In this thread I am reporting gradually the Stahl's arguments, and in addition, I am arguing also that the existence of a sacred biography about John the Baptist removes the objection raised by Stuart against absolute Marcionite priority:

Stuart wrote: ↑Sun Mar 29, 2020 11:46 pmYou have to go back to claiming the Marcionites wrote the ur-Gospel. But that doesn't work, since John's Baptism of Jesus is found in that, and the Marcionite text removed it.

...since, by that biography, it was common knowledge, in the Christian world, the fact that a baptism was connected with John in pre-Gospel times. No need, for Marcion, of a complete introduction of it in the Earliest Gospel.

But note that the existence of that "biography" of John the Baptist doesn't prove the historical existence of John the Baptist. I agree with Stahl about this particular point.

My argument for a common source used by the author of the Marcionite Gospel and it's restructuring of the common source which makes up verses 1-20 of Mark is much more detailed an argument than presented by Giuseppe here.

The argument is based on both the apparent replacement verses and the betrayed knowledge and dependence of parts of the Marcionite Gospel on their having been a Baptism of Jesus by John in the source he used.

1. Luke 20:1-8 (attested in Marcion) concerns the authority of John's Baptism. If John's baptism was from Heaven it affirm Jesus' authority, while rom men it would deny it's value to Jesus. The chief priests and elders (presbyters), hold John as a prophet, indeed as Elijah (e.g., Matthew 11:14), but they do not want to confirm Jesus' authority as coming from heaven, so they refused to answer.

This passage completely depends upon the baptism to have meaning. It really makes no sense in Marcion.

2. Luke 7:24-28 (attested in Marcion, and I believe was Marcionite origin) derives directly from the John the Baptist story. He affirms he is the last prophet, the same one Mark sees, quoting the same Malachi 3:1 Elijah returned text. He denigrates the simple clothing of John and severe diet of John we find in Mark 1:6 (Matthew 3:4), by saying in essence "no, this guy dressed in fine clothes and dines in royal courts". This is derived again from the missing Baptism story.

3. Luke 7:18-23 (attested in Marcion, and I believe was Marcionite origin -- like Luke 7:24-28 picked up by Matthew) was derived to refute the Baptism story. Luke 7:19 John sends his disciple to ask, "Are you he who is to come, or shall we look for another?" This indicates he has not seen Jesus, let alone baptized him (Marcionites held this position, e.g., DA 1.26). Again the missing Baptism story is in view.

Note, the counter that a John pseudo biographical story was known seems initially to be a good argument, but it doesn't hold up under scrutiny. If the Marcionite gospel was first, then why include this rejection of the Baptism if it was not part of any prior gospel source, if it was not tied to Jesus' authority? Why introduce John at all? The references in Luke 7:24-28 (including Malachi quote) and 20:1-8 to the Baptism, make this a weak argument. Occam's razor suggests this argument is very weak since it does not explain all the evidence -- or requires an ad hoc addition to make it work, which obviously would be problematic.

There are other arguments in favor of the Marcionite author removing the text equivalent to Mark 1:2-15, and moved (and rewrote) the calling of the fishermen 1:16-20 to Luke 5:1-11, after he introduced Jesus in what is Luke 4:31-44, just as Mark does after Jesus is introduced. It is telling that Simon Peter is appears before his introduction and calling in Marcion, suggesting the story was moved, that a source sat before the author. But he made compositional choices, because the Marcionite sect's theology would not allow Jesus to be baptized and given authority by a prophet for the Jewish God and Creator.

The evidence is circumstantial, but well attested for the Marcionite text, and the arguments so obvious even Tetullian used some of them, expressing faux surprise that John could suddenly appear at Luke 7:18ff (AM 4.9.4-5), and also to point out that the baptism of John to Jesus referenced indirectly in Luke 20:1-8 concerned the sacrament authority of that act (AM 4.38.1-2). These underscore that this was the early understanding of those passages. The evidence points to a restructuring of the text, but a failure to remove all the secondary references, or to counter the primary giving away knowledge of an expunged passage.

This is one small part of the reasons I do not think the Marcionite gospel was the first, but I do think it had priority. Matthew (a lot) and Mark (a little and more subtle) betray knowledge of the Marcionite gospel. But like Paul in Marcionite form, even though much more primitive than the Canonical form, betrays itself as using underlying documents with contradicting theologies sometimes at odds with the Marcionite. An adherent to absolute Marcionite priority would expect to find next to zero divergence from Marcionite theology in the texts - but that is not what we find.

Stuart wrote: ↑Wed Apr 15, 2020 3:22 pmMy argument for a common source used by the author of the Marcionite Gospel and it's restructuring of the common source which makes up verses 1-20 of Mark is much more detailed an argument than presented by either Ben or Giuseppe here.

....

Note, Ben's counter that a John pseudo biographical story was known seems initially to be a good argument, but it doesn't hold up under scrutiny. If the Marcionite gospel was first, then why include this rejection of the Baptism if it was not part of any prior gospel source, if it was not tied to Jesus' authority? Why introduce John at all? The references in Luke 7:24-28 (including Malachi quote) and 20:1-8 to the Baptism, make this a weak argument. Occam's razor suggests Ben's argument is very weak since it does not explain all the evidence -- or requires an ad hoc addition to make it work, which obviously would be problematic.

What argument of mine are you referring to? I think you may have confused my comments with Giuseppe's arguments. I do not recognize any of this as argumentation of mine at all.

Ben C. Smith wrote: ↑Wed Apr 15, 2020 3:35 pm
What argument of mine are you referring to? I think you may have confused my comments with Giuseppe's arguments. I do not recognize any of this as argumentation of mine at all.

Reread it. Confused by Giuseppe's alignment of arguments. Changed the post to remove reference to you.

Stuart wrote: ↑Wed Apr 15, 2020 5:14 pmReread it. Confused by Giuseppe's alignment of arguments. Changed the post to remove reference to you.

Okay, thanks.

Stuart wrote: ↑Wed Apr 15, 2020 3:22 pm The argument is based on both the apparent replacement verses and the betrayed knowledge and dependence of parts of the Marcionite Gospel on their having been a Baptism of Jesus by John in the source he used.

I agree. But where we disagree is that for you the source used by Marcion was a Gospel about Jesus as hero, while in my scenario, that source was a Gospel about John as hero, with the total absence of Jesus in it. By 'Gospel' I mean here a mythologizing biography about a hero.

Now I would like to verify if in the your following examples, you can prove that that source had Jesus as first hero and not John. Only in that case I would give up to marcionite priority.

First case:

1. Luke 20:1-8 (attested in Marcion) concerns the authority of John's Baptism. If John's baptism was from Heaven it affirm Jesus' authority, while rom men it would deny it's value to Jesus. The chief priests and elders (presbyters), hold John as a prophet, indeed as Elijah (e.g., Matthew 11:14), but they do not want to confirm Jesus' authority as coming from heaven, so they refused to answer.

This passage completely depends upon the baptism to have meaning. It really makes no sense in Marcion.

I can easily imagine a Gospel about John as hero (and where Jesus was totally absent) where Marcion read about a conflict between John and Pharisees about the baptism. Hence, the next move is easy to be imagined: Marcion did like the presence of an episode of conflict intra-Judaism between John and Pharisees, and used it to polemize again against the Pharisees (allegory of Judaizers in the Evangelion, a point already conceded by Stuart).

Naturally, the baptism of John had meaning in a Gospel about John as the Christ.

Second case of Stuart:

2. Luke 7:24-28 (attested in Marcion, and I believe was Marcionite origin) derives directly from the John the Baptist story. He affirms he is the last prophet, the same one Mark sees, quoting the same Malachi 3:1 Elijah returned text. He denigrates the simple clothing of John and severe diet of John we find in Mark 1:6 (Matthew 3:4), by saying in essence "no, this guy dressed in fine clothes and dines in royal courts". This is derived again from the missing Baptism story.

I agree that "this is derived again from the missing Baptism story". Only, that Baptism story was found in a Gospel about John as hero, where the name of Jesus was totally absent. John was considered the True Prophet by his disciples (a point that in the Fourth Gospel is denied with a betraying interested emphasis).

En passant, I thank you for having shown me the presence of an anti-John parody in the episode as reported by Marcion.

Where Stuart addresses directly my scenario:

Note, the counter that a John pseudo biographical story was known seems initially to be a good argument, but it doesn't hold up under scrutiny. If the Marcionite gospel was first, then why include this rejection of the Baptism if it was not part of any prior gospel source, if it was not tied to Jesus' authority? Why introduce John at all? The references in Luke 7:24-28 (including Malachi quote) and 20:1-8 to the Baptism, make this a weak argument. Occam's razor suggests this argument is very weak since it does not explain all the evidence -- or requires an ad hoc addition to make it work, which obviously would be problematic.

(x) The point is that John seems to have been a necessary term of comparison not only for Judaizers, but for Gentilizers, also.

I can't explain the why of point (x). John remains a mystery. But what I can see is that John was a problem for Judaizers, also. Hence, if the Judaizers had need of John to confute Marcion (by showing John as a link between the OT prophets and Jesus), from the other hand the same Judaizers were clearly embarrassed by the collateral risk related to the introduction of John: to make John greater than Jesus.

So my point is that, just as the Judaizers betrayed embarrassment for the presence of John, despite of the (extremely useful) anti-marcionite function of John in their Gospels, so also Marcion betrayed rivalry against John for other reasons being basically different from John being merely an icon of the judaizers.

John represented a threat per se againt both Marcionites and anti-Marcionites, in a first moment. His threat had to be someway neutralized by any Christian, beyond the sect of provenance of the latter.

Giuseppe wrote: ↑Wed Apr 15, 2020 9:36 pm First case:

1. Luke 20:1-8 (attested in Marcion) concerns the authority of John's Baptism. If John's baptism was from Heaven it affirm Jesus' authority, while rom men it would deny it's value to Jesus. The chief priests and elders (presbyters), hold John as a prophet, indeed as Elijah (e.g., Matthew 11:14), but they do not want to confirm Jesus' authority as coming from heaven, so they refused to answer.

This passage completely depends upon the baptism to have meaning. It really makes no sense in Marcion.

I can easily imagine a Gospel about John as hero (and where Jesus was totally absent) where Marcion read about a conflict between John and Pharisees about the baptism. Hence, the next move is easy to be imagined: Marcion did like the presence of an episode of conflict intra-Judaism between John and Pharisees, and used it to polemize again against the Pharisees (allegory of Judaizers in the Evangelion, a point already conceded by Stuart).

Naturally, the baptism of John had meaning in a Gospel about John as the Christ.

The problem here is you are inventing a new source. And on top of that you are changing the Hero focus of the gospel to John. That is over the top, he is ancillary.

What I am saying is both the Marcionite and Matthew/Mark identify John with the Elijah reborn prophecy of Malachi, the last prophet. Luke 20:1-8 depends upon that interpretation, as does the Baptism scene as sacrament for Jesus' mission. They have a common source.

Now as for the identity of Pharisees with proto-Orthodox priests/deacons, and chief priests with proto-Orthodox bishops, that is a fixture of the gospel of John. This is not a hard and fast identity in the Marcionite gospel which was written at a time when the Marcionites were the "Catholics" installing bishops and deacons, and introducing some common theology. The analogy does not apply in the Marcionite Gospel. (You have my position incorrect.)