Whatever source Marcion has in mind, his mention of John speaks for his assumption that the Baptist was a historical figure, so that he could use him to mark the boundary between the time of Jewish prophetism and the novelty that was brought by Jesus. From the way he portrays him, Marcion saw him as a prophet and teacher of righteousness,[2] and he must have seen the danger that Jesus's message could either be identified with or at least equated with that of John. As we can see from Marcion's search for and presentation of Paul's letters, which is confirmed in his handling of the Gospel material of the oral tradition, Marcion seems to have been a thorough historian and did not aim at writing historical fiction. This is all the more true since a prophetic figure unknown to his audience and readership could hardly have served Marcion's argument. It is therefore astonishing that Marcion hardly receives any attention in the relevant research on John.[3]
(my bold)
Three items have to be pointed out newly in the quote above:
- his mention of John speaks for his assumption that the Baptist was a historical figure
Sure, but it cannot be the Baptist Passage in Josephus to persuade us about that point (per Rivka Nir's argument against the authenticity of the entire passage)
- he must have seen the danger that Jesus's message could either be identified with or at least equated with that of John.
This point by Vinzent is surprisingly reminiscient to Turmel's point about John the Baptist having been invented in order to distinguish a disturbing violent Jesus from a more sanitized Gospel Jesus.
- This is all the more true since a prophetic figure unknown to his audience and readership could hardly have served Marcion's argument.
There is a contradiction here between John being historical and Marcion being disturbed by a possible confusion between Jesus and John. What then if John was an invention to exorcise the only idea that the real Jesus was someone similar to John?