stephan huller

I am being careful not to start another massive dispute with you but it isn't as simple as this:

There must always have been a John associated with Christian baptism. The Catholic gospels say it is someone named John the Baptist who came before Jesus and defined baptism as something which purified one from sins.

The Marcosians make clear that in addition to this baptism there was another associated with the disciple John (Irenaeus AH i.21.1,2) connected with Mark chapter 10.

Hardly an irrelevant difference when Tertullian says that the Marcionites who maintained a rival form of baptism only introduced the name 'John' in the equivalent of the end of Luke chapter 5.

John the Baptist is a distraction from the baptism of perfection preserved among the followers of Mark. Hence the need to invent a fictitious character. He defines Christianity AWAY from the gnostic beliefs of Clement, the Marcosians and all those who employed a rival, secret gospel of Mark to explain their variant heretical sacraments.

spin

From the evidence we have, there was a Johannine baptism before christianity

In fact, the gospel John talks about a second type of baptism (Mt 3:11, Lk 3:16 -- Jn 1:26 doesn't quite make it).

Mk 10:38 reads overtly as metaphor. The cup and the baptism are markers of the course that Jesus must take. The Marcosian interpretation as presented by Irenaeus apparently reifies Mk 10:38.

I don't assume a secret Mark and there is nothing in the early manuscript record to suggest the possibility.

John the Baptist is a distraction from salvation oriented christianity, but christianity insists that he was there as a precursor. That insistence suggests that there was more to John than meets the eye. That christianity admits to a purely baptist non-christian religion in circulation suggests a reality to the baptist sect. Sweeping him under the carpet won't help.


spin

stephan huller

If you don't accept the contents of the Mar Saba letter than almost everything pertaining to another baptism ritual is hypothetical. Then you are pretty much correct in emphasizing John the Baptist's inseparable connection with Christian baptism. Elaine Pagels in her recent article (relatively recent - the name escapes me right now) notes that the report in Irenaeus is some kind of gnostic sacrament (although she idiotically connects the sacrament to the followers of Heracleon - preferring Epiphanius to Irenaeus!).

I think that what Irenaeus describes is a baptism ritual. There are statements both explicit and implicit that make this absolutely clear. This ritual has nothing whatsoever to do with John the Baptist and has some connection with John the disciple which you say:

The language is rather ambiguous in Irenaeus but certainly connected with what Irenaeus sees as a rejection of Catholic baptism.

Thus there are as many schemes of apolutrosis as there are teachers of these mystical opinions. And when we come to refute them, we shall show in its fitting-place, that this class of men have been instigated by Satan to a denial of that baptism which is regeneration to God, and thus to a renunciation of the whole [Christian] faith.[AH i.21.1]

and again there are two baptisms according to the Marcosians:

and they allege that the former is animal, but the latter spiritual. And the baptism of John was proclaimed with a view to repentance, but the redemption by Christ was brought in for the sake of perfection. And to this He refers when He says, "And I have another baptism to be baptized with, and I hasten eagerly towards it." Moreover, they affirm that the Lord added this redemption to the sons of Zebedee, when their mother asked that they might sit, the one on His right hand, and the other on His left, in His kingdom, saying, "Can ye be baptized with the baptism which I shall be baptized with?"[ibid i.21.2]

I take 'when' to be a marker of time in the gospel narrative - i.e. that it occurred at this place in Mark's narrative (i.e. chapter 10:38) where their mother asks about the enthronement of her sons.

And that the followers of Mark identified the apolutrosis as water immersion is clear from all that follows notice that Irenaeus says that some don't use water to baptize confirming that he was originally talking about water baptism:

But there are some of them who assert that it is superfluous to bring persons to the water, but mixing oil and water together, they place this mixture on the heads of those who are to be initiated, with the use of some such expressions as we have already mentioned. And this they maintain to be the apolutrosis.

I think the Marcosian position is Clement of Alexandria's position. He accepts John the Baptist's baptism but as an inferior form of baptism. Whatever it was that was accomplished in Alexandria under Marks' authority was held to be superior.

I think the Marcionite gospel is a gospel of Mark (Philosophumena vii.18) which as Tertullian notes has no reference to John the Baptist's baptism introducing John in the equivalent to Luke 5:27 - 39. It is here that the name 'John' appears for the first time in the narrative as Tertullian exclaims:

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.[AM iv.11]

Most people I have ever read who have commented on Against Marcion have noted that the Marcionite gospel did not have the John the Baptist baptism of Jesus. In my mind they must have had something like LGM 1 or the narrative which supported the Marcosian apolutrosis baptism ritual in chapter 10 of Mark. The Marcionites, as I have noted are connected with Mark either by backformation of their name in Aramaic or owing to 'Marcion' being a diminutive of Marcus.

Christian baptism is not dependent on the acceptance of John the Baptist as a historical person. I have also noted that the Marcionites apparently took an interest in John for his virginity. I think this might also be connected with the Marcosian connecting apolutrosis baptism with John for reasons that would take us too far astray.

There are also certain Syriac traditions which imply that the eating of the host was connected to John physically 'hiding' a piece of bread from the Last Supper. I think it is possible to insinuate that the sacrament of baptism might have been connected with John the disciple rather than John the Baptist by some traditions.

spin

I think I'll stick with the second baptism notion being an elaboration on the gospel tradition:

I baptize you with water,
but one who is more powerful than I is coming...
He will baptize you in the holy spirit and fire. (Lk 3:16)

The average pundit will analyze this to mean Jesus who brings a second baptism. But this has taken me well away from the discussion I first entered into.


spin

stephan huller

There are some interesting variants of this tradition you cite. Ephrem's Diatessaron in particular. But let's start with Irenaeus's citation of the material from Mark chapter 10 in relation to the apolutrosis. First:

And I have another baptism to be baptized with, and I hasten eagerly towards it.

and then:

they affirm that the Lord added this redemption to the sons of Zebedee, when their mother asked that they might sit, the one on His right hand, and the other on His left, in His kingdom, saying, "Can ye be baptized with the baptism which I shall be baptized with? [Irenaeus AH i.21]

Irenaeus doesn't say which text he is citing. If it is Matthew it is a rare text. The only other early MS of Matthew to have the extra line is the Codex Ephraemi (fifth century). Yet the Anonymous Treatise on Baptism has the same to quotes directed against the same Marcosian heresy (both reference the heretical sects relation to Anaxilaus - see below) but here the textual reading is explicitly 'Markan':

But "I have another baptism to be baptized with." [Luke 12:50] Also according to Mark He said, with the same purpose, to the sons of Zebedee: "Are you able to drink of the cup which I drink of, or to be baptized with the baptism wherewith I am baptized?" [Mark 10:38] Because He knew that those men had to be baptized not only with water, but also in their own blood; so that, as well baptized in this baptism only, they might attain the sound faith and the simple love of the laver, and, baptized in both ways, they might in like manner to the same extent attain the baptism of salvation and glory. For what was said by the Lord, I have another baptism to be baptized with, signifies in this place not a second baptism, as if there were two baptisms, but demonstrates that there is moreover a baptism of another kind given to us, concurring to the same salvation. And it was fitting that both these kinds should first of all be initiated and sanctified by our Lord Himself, so that either one of the two or both kinds might afford to us this one twofold saving and glorifying baptism [Anonym. Treat. 14]

and then notice what follows later in the treatise - a clear echo of Irenaeus's reference to the beliefs of the Marcosians:

lest perchance some heretic should dare, of his subtlety, to assail those of our brethren who are more simple. For because John said that we must be baptized in the Holy Ghost and in fire, from the fact that he went on to say and fire, some desperate men have dared to such an extent to carry their depravity, and therefore very crafty men seek how they can thus corrupt and violate, and even neutralize the baptism of holiness. Who derive the origin of their notion from Simon Magus, practising it with manifold perversity through various errors; to whom Simon Peter, in the Acts of the Apostles, said, Your money perish with you, because you have thought that the grace of God could be possessed by money; you have neither part nor lot in this work; for your heart is not right with God. [Acts 8:20-21] And such men as these do all these things in the desire to deceive those who are more simple or more inquisitive. And some of them try to argue that they only administer a sound and perfect, not as we, a mutilated and curtailed baptism, which they are in such wise said to designate, that immediately they have descended into the water, fire at once appears upon the water. Which if it can be effected by any trick, as several tricks of this kind are affirmed to be— of Anaxilaus— whether it is anything natural, by means of which this may happen, or whether they think that they behold this, or whether the work and magical poison of some malignant being can force fire from the water; still they declare such a deceit and artifice to be a perfect baptism, which if faithful men have been forced to receive, there will assuredly be no doubt but that they have lost that which they had. [Anonymous Treatise 16]

It is easy to demonstrate that this treatise comes from the same original report as that which Irenaeus draws from - i.e. regarding the heretic Marcus. Yet the context is lost on scholars who immediately want to connect the report to the Ebionite tradition that when Jesus came to the Jordan that fire was on the waters.

This was not the original source but a parallel development from the original source which is the Samaritan idea - developed in the writings of Mark - that when the Israelites were crossing the sea fire was present in the water.

This is why Irenaeus connects the heretical baptism of Mark with Anaxilaus because as Pliny reports:

Anaxilaus used to employ this substance [sulfur] by way of pastime : putting sulphur in a cup of wine, with some hot coals beneath, he would hand it round to the guests, the light given by it, while burning, throwing a ghastly paleness like that of death upon the face of each. [Pliny Natural Science 35]

The common thread is the idea of a fascination with the concept of 'fire' being present in a liquid. Irenaeus' source was likening the Alexandrian interest in associating 'fire being in the water' during baptism. As noted this is developed in a number of Alexandrian texts including Origen's Commentary on John cited above.

In the Pistis Sophia we not only see a variant reading - no reference to 'another' baptism which implies that there was no preceding 'John the Baptist baptism' (as with the Marcionite gospel). The context is important too. After Jesus explains the fire is present in the waters of baptism to his disciples, Mary gives the proper interpretation for a number of baptism references in the gospel:

Then Mary started forward and said: "Yea, my Lord, in truth I enquire closely into all the words which thou sayest. Concerning the word then of the forgiveness of sins thou hast spoken unto us in similitude aforetime, saying: 'I am come to cast fire on the earth,' and again: 'What will I that it burn?' And again thou hast distinguished it clearly, saying: 'I have a baptism, to baptize in it; and how shall I endure until it is accomplished? Think ye I am come to cast peace on the earth? Nay, but I am come to cast division. For from now on five will be in one house; three will be divided against two, and two against three.' This, my Lord, is the word which thou hast spoken clearly.

"The word indeed which thou hast spoken: 'I am come to cast fire on the earth, and what will I that it burn?'--that is, my Lord: Thou hast brought the mysteries of the baptisms into the world, and thy pleasure is that they should consume all the sins of the soul and purify them. And thereafter again thou hast distinguished it clearly, saying: 'I have a baptism, to baptize in it; and how shall I endure until it is accomplished?'--that is: Thou wilt not remain in the world until the baptisms are accomplished and purify the perfect souls.

"And moreover the word which thou hast spoken unto us aforetime: 'Think ye I am come to cast peace on the earth? Nay, but I am come to cast division. For from now on five will be in one house; three will be divided against two, and two against three,'--that is: Thou hast brought the mystery of the baptisms into the world, and it hath effected a division in the bodies of the world, because it hath separated the counterfeiting spirit and the body and the destiny into one portion; the soul and the power on the other hand it hath separated into another portion;--that is: Three will be against two, and two against three."

And when Mary had said this, the Saviour said: "Well said, thou spiritual and light-pure Mary. This is the solution of the word." [Pistis Sophia Book III, Chapter 116]

If the reader goes back to the Anonymous Treatise on Baptism (where the orthodox authorities ATTACK the Alexandrian understanding several of these passages are specifically referenced.

Some other notes on textual variants that might have been present in the Marcosian gospel:

The Arabic Diatessaron placed "And I have a baptism to be baptized with, and greatly am I straitened till it be accomplished" long before the equivalent Mark x.35. If we think in terms of the fifty sections of the Arabic Diatessaron we read:

And I have a baptism to be baptized with, and greatly am I straitened till it be accomplished. See that ye despise not one of these little ones that believe in me. Verily I say unto you, Their angels at all times see the face of my Father which is in heaven. The Son of man came to save the thing which was lost.

in section 27 and then in Ephrem's gospel there is no "Can ye be baptized with the baptism which I shall be baptized with" in the equivalent to Mark chapter 10 which read in his note in his Commentary on his Diatessaron:

[the] two sons, came forward, and said unto him, Teacher, we would that all that we ask thou wouldest do unto us. He said unto them, What would ye that I should do unto you? They said unto him, Grant us that we may sit, the one on thy right, and the other So on thy left, in thy kingdom and thy glory. And Jesus said unto them, Ye know not what ye ask. Are ye able to drink the cup that I am to drink? And they said unto him, We are able. Jesus said unto them, The cup that I drink ye shall drink but that ye should sit on my right and on my left is not mine to give; but it is for him for whom my Father hath prepared it. [section 30]

So we should see that instead of:

And Jesus said unto them, Ye know not what ye ask. Are ye able to drink the cup that I am to drink? and with the baptism that I am to be baptized with, will ye be baptized? And they said unto him, We are able. Jesus said unto them, The cup that I drink ye shall drink; and with the baptism wherewith I am baptized ye shall be baptized: but that ye should sit on my right and on my left is not mine to give; but it is for him for whom my Father hath prepared it.

Ephrem's Diatessaron just read:

And Jesus said unto them, Ye know not what ye ask. Are ye able to drink the cup that I am to drink? And they said unto him, We are able. Jesus said unto them, The cup that I drink ye shall drink but that ye should sit on my right and on my left is not mine to give; but it is for him for whom my Father hath prepared it.

I have also discovered that Ephrem's Commentary not only supports the Marcosian ideas regarding 'redemption' in this passage but their (and the greater Alexandrian communities idea that Jesus wanted 'the chalice' to be passed on to the Church through his prepared representative (John Mark) as he notes in his Commentary again:

our Lord said to them "Are you able to drink of the chalice that I am about to drink?" to show that [such places] are to be bought at a price. "Like me." [p. 239]

A little later he does reference a series of sayings which explain Jesus' saying about 'letting the chalice pass from me' he DOES connect Mark x.38 with baptism but it is with Luke 12.50 as he goes back through the gospel demonstrating all the sayings which prove that Jesus wanted others to partake of the chalice:

If he had not wanted to drink it, he certainly did not refuse to drink. If he had not wished to drink it, but rather had wanted to reject it, he would not have compared his body to the temple in this saying, Destroy this temple and on the third day I will rebuild it, [nor would he have said] to the sons of Zebedee, Can you drink the chalice which I am going to drink? [Nor would he have said], There is a baptism for me [with which] I must be baptized, and, As Moses lifted up the serpent in the desert, so will the Son of Man be in the bosom of the earth ...

Origen has a similar idea in his Commentary on the Gospel of John. The Gospel of John makes no reference to the John the Baptist baptism of Jesus. So as Origen goes line by line through the Gospel of John and he comes to the words of the Baptist, "I baptize with water, but He that comes after me is stronger than I; He shall baptize you with the Holy Spirit" he decides to whisper to his audience that there is something they don't know about baptism.

Indeed immediately after his citation John 1:33 Origen explains "baptize you with the Holy Spirit" as a reference to "His last baptism, as some hold, that He (also) references in the words, 'I have a baptism to be baptized with, and how am I straitened till it be accomplished?'" (Luke 12:50)

So Origen is implying that THERE IS A TRADITION which connects Luke 12:50 with 'another baptism' which Jesus would introduce to the world.

Epiphanius says that the so-called Marcionites also took the same passage to mean a baptism given by Jesus:

He [Marcion] says that after the Lord's baptism by John he told the disciples, 'I have a baptism to be baptized with and why do I wish to if I have already accomplished it?' And again, 'I have a cup to drink and why do I wish to if I have already fulfilled it?' And because of this he decreed the giving of more baptisms [Epiphanius Panarion Section Marcionites III.3.9]

And if we go back to Ephrem's Commentary on the Diatessaron he alludes to a similar situation when he implies that Marcion kept the reference to Jesus being thirty but erased the baptism reference at the beginning of Luke:

Jesus was about thirty years, when he came to be baptized. This [was] confusion for Marcion. For, if he had not assumed a body why should he have approached baptism. A divine nature does not need to be baptized. [But] does not the fact that he was thirty years also disclose his humanity [Ephrem Comm. Diat. IV.1a]

I clearly see this as a confirmation that Ephrem accused Marcion of deleting the 'baptism by John the Baptist' passage but retaining the Jesus was thirty reference.

Immediately following these lines Ephrem writes:

just as he [Jesus] clothed himself with a body and appeared as in need, so too he drew near to baptism to testify to the truth especially that through his baptism he might mark an ending for that [baptism of John], for he had baptized once again those who had been baptized by John. He showed that [the baptism of John] had served up until a time only, since true baptism [or the 'baptism of truth'] which purifies from the evil of the Law, was revealed through him. [ibid 1c]

This seems to imply again that Jesus was introducing his own form of baptism which is expanded a little further again in what follows:

Through baptism [the Lord] assumed the justice of the Old [Testament] in order to receive the perfection of the anointing and to give it fully and in its entirety to his disciples. For he put an end to John's baptism and the Law at the same time. He was baptized in justice, because he was sinless, but he baptized in grace because [all others] were sinners. Through his justice he dispensed the Law and through his baptism he abolished baptism. [ibid 2]

There always seems to be some awareness in these ancient tradition that Jesus did dispense 'another baptism' to a disciple or disciples but that tradition inevitably gets reconciled IN ALL TRADITIONS BUT THE MARCIONITES with the Catholic claims about John the Baptist. This even though it is readily apparent that whatever John's baptism was it was rendered useless by the coming of Jesus!

maryhelena

An early tradition of John the Baptist recorded in Slavonic Josephus.

John the Baptist as a "fleshless spirit" who was able to interpret dreams and predict the future.

my bolding

Simon the Essene, pre 6 ce, takes John the Baptist to task. A John the Baptist dealing with mystery and foretelling "untold calamity'...

my bolding

(interesting point here regarding the marriage of Herodias and Philip. In this version Herodias only marries Herod Antipas after the death of Philip. Which was - big question. Early Josephan manuscripts have that death in the 22nd year of Tiberius - 36 ce - which means that Herodias was not married to Antipas during the gospel of Luke time frame. (that is if one is going with the general idea that the crucifixion was around 30/33 ce. ) No wonder Josephus has to do some re-writes in Antiquities regarding Herodias - not to mention the later christian translators of Josephus who decided to have Philip die in the 20th year of Tiberius.....Obviously, the account in Slavonic Josephus was written prior to Antiquities - or at the very least by someone who had never heard of Antiquities....)