John the Baptist Sources Parallel Bible

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
Charles Wilson
Posts: 2100
Joined: Thu Apr 03, 2014 8:13 am

Re: John the Baptist Sources Parallel Bible

Post by Charles Wilson »

Michael BG wrote:My literal translation keeping the Greek word order:

Mt 11:11

[11] Truly (Amen), I say to you, none have arisen among those born of women greater than John the Baptist; yet the least in the kingdom of heaven greater than he is.

The DLNT translation:

“11 Truly I say to you, a greater one than John the Baptist has not arisen among ones born of women. But the least one in the kingdom of the heavens is greater than he.”
The Moffatt Translation points to something of interest:

[11] I tell you truly, no one has arisen among the sons of women who is greater than John the Baptist, and yet the least in the Realm of heaven is greater than he is.

The use of "Realm of heaven" is a characteristic of Moffatt's translation in the Book of Matthew.
To what could this point?

I believe that it points to a Transvalued Phrase. The "Realm of Heaven" would be a real, physical place for the Priests. The Realm of Heaven does not allow people of lesser righteousness, such as the Scribes and Pharisees, to enter.
John is a Priest. He did not make it into the Realm of Heaven during the Conflagration at Passover, 4 BCE. Peter, a child, did. The least in the Realm of Heaven is greater than John since those who survived were alive. John is dead.

CW
Michael BG
Posts: 665
Joined: Thu Aug 13, 2015 8:02 am

Re: John the Baptist Sources Parallel Bible

Post by Michael BG »

Charles Wilson wrote: The Moffatt Translation points to something of interest:

[11] I tell you truly, no one has arisen among the sons of women who is greater than John the Baptist, and yet the least in the Realm of heaven is greater than he is.

The use of "Realm of heaven" is a characteristic of Moffatt's translation in the Book of Matthew.
To what could this point?

I believe that it points to a Transvalued Phrase. The "Realm of Heaven" would be a real, physical place for the Priests. The Realm of Heaven does not allow people of lesser righteousness, such as the Scribes and Pharisees, to enter.
John is a Priest. He did not make it into the Realm of Heaven during the Conflagration at Passover, 4 BCE. Peter, a child, did. The least in the Realm of Heaven is greater than John since those who survived were alive. John is dead.

CW
Only Matthew uses the phrase “kingdom of heaven” and it is generally recognised that he has changed it from the original “kingdom of God”. It is generally recognised that Matthew suffered from fatigue in Mt 12:28 (Q Lk 11:20), 19:24 (Mk 10:25) 21:31 (M) and 21:43 (M?).

Adam, if your intention is to consider the historicity of the verses you have posted you should also consider Q Lk 7:18-23, Mt 11:2-6

I think the Q version was likely:

[19] And John, calling to him two of his disciples, sent them to the Lord, saying, "Are you he who is to come, or shall we look for another?"
[20] And when the men had come to him, they said, "John the Baptist has sent us to you, saying, `Are you he who is to come, or shall we look for another?'"
[22] And he answered them, "Go and tell John what you hear and see: the blind receive their sight, the lame walk, lepers are cleansed, and the deaf hear, the dead are raised up, the poor have good news preached to them.
[23] And blessed is he who takes no offense at me."

I agree with John Kloppenborg when he writes, “It is more likely, however, that the entire pronouncement story is a post-Easter creation, arising in the effort to attract Baptist disciples into the Christian fold. … There is no indication that John expected a miracle-worker. Nor does 7:22 trade in traditional Jewish expectations about the messiah. The events listed in 7:22 are a pastiche of Isaiah’s description of the coming time of peace (Isa 61:1-2 LXX; 24 42:6-7; 35:5; 29:18-19). … and the mention of the cleansing of lepers, which does not occur in Isaiah, suggests that 7:22 is a post Easter interpretation of Jesus’ deeds as evidence of the presence of the kingdom.”

I go further than Kloppenborg and see the question asked by John’s disciples as one that the Q community wants them to ask in their current time post-Easter. However if John had already said that Jesus was the “Coming One” there would be no need for this question to be asked by John’s disciples.

As the Q community still seems to come into contact with disciples of John the Baptist and they are using this pericope post-Easter then the historicity of any pericope where John sees Jesus as his Coming One must be questioned.

Also it is possible that Luke has some tradition from the early days of Christianity where those in Ephesus only knew the baptism of John (Acts 18:24-19:3). It also raises questions about what Apollos taught in Corinth.
Charles Wilson
Posts: 2100
Joined: Thu Apr 03, 2014 8:13 am

Re: John the Baptist Sources Parallel Bible

Post by Charles Wilson »

Michael BG wrote:Only Matthew uses the phrase “kingdom of heaven” and it is generally recognised that he has changed it from the original “kingdom of God”. It is generally recognised that Matthew suffered from fatigue in Mt 12:28 (Q Lk 11:20), 19:24 (Mk 10:25) 21:31 (M) and 21:43 (M?).
MBG --

I understand completely. I am quite fond of Moffatt's use of "Realm of Heaven" and I ask for your patience here. Predictably, I take the view that the "Generally accepted view of Skollers" is 180 degrees from the original intention. Consider:

Luke 19: 39 - 40 (RSV):

[39] And some of the Pharisees in the multitude said to him, "Teacher, rebuke your disciples."
[40] He answered, "I tell you, if these were silent, the very stones would cry out."

Pretend for a moment that this is not Glorious Metaphysics concerning "Jesus' Coming Reign". Humor me. Assume that this is from a real event, say, from the floor of the Temple just before Archelaus unleashes the soldiers:

Josephus, Wars..., 2, 1, 3:

"At this Archclaus [sic] was aftrighted, and privately sent a tribune, with his cohort of soldiers, upon them, before the disease should spread over the whole multitude, and gave orders that they should constrain those that began the tumult, by force, to be quiet. At these the whole multitude were irritated, and threw stones at many of the soldiers, and killed them; but the tribune fled away wounded, and had much ado to escape so..."

Next, consider these 2 verses. I believe that they are related to the above:

Matthew 5: 20 (Moffatt):
For I tell you, unless your goodness excels that of the scribes and the Pharisees, you will never get into the Realm of heaven.

Matthew 23: 13 (Moffatt):

[13] Woe to you impious scribes and Pharisees! you shut the Realm of heaven in men's faces; you neither enter yourselves. nor will you let those enter who are on the point of entering.

Please take a moment to at least consider this view. The last two verses make sense in a very Non-Metaphysical manner. The "Realm of Heaven" is a real, physical place. The references in Matthew are NOT the Transvalued "Kingdom of God" verbiage! It would be unlikely that "K o G' would be a Jewish name for a place where Scribes and Pharisees could not go. That the Scribes and Pharisees are accused of preventing people above their station (i.e. Priests) from entering the Realm of Heaven shows that SOMETHING HAPPENED. The evidence given here is certainly not exhaustive. "Enter through the Narrow Door" and "You Must Turn as a Child" are descriptions of an event that is written about as having happened. Whether Really Real or "Fictionally Real" I cannot say.

I do know, however, that if you are prepared to look at a physical explanation instead of assuming, as I say from time to time, a "Somewhere Over the Rainbow" POV, you will be rewarded with an entirely different appreciation of the Gospels.

Thank you,

CW
Michael BG
Posts: 665
Joined: Thu Aug 13, 2015 8:02 am

Re: John the Baptist Sources Parallel Bible

Post by Michael BG »

Charles Wilson wrote: I do know, however, that if you are prepared to look at a physical explanation instead of assuming, as I say from time to time, a "Somewhere Over the Rainbow" POV, you will be rewarded with an entirely different appreciation of the Gospels.

Thank you,

CW
If I looked at the texts in the same way as you I would end up with “an entirely different appreciation of the Gospels.”
Charles Wilson wrote:
Michael BG wrote:Only Matthew uses the phrase “kingdom of heaven” and it is generally recognised that he has changed it from the original “kingdom of God”. It is generally recognised that Matthew suffered from fatigue in Mt 12:28 (Q Lk 11:20), 19:24 (Mk 10:25) 21:31 (M) and 21:43 (M?).
MBG --

I understand completely.

Good.
Charles Wilson wrote:Consider:

Luke 19: 39 - 40 (RSV):

[39] And some of the Pharisees in the multitude said to him, "Teacher, rebuke your disciples."
[40] He answered, "I tell you, if these were silent, the very stones would cry out."

Pretend for a moment that this is not Glorious Metaphysics concerning "Jesus' Coming Reign". Humor me. Assume that this is from a real event, say, from the floor of the Temple just before Archelaus unleashes the soldiers:

Josephus, Wars..., 2, 1, 3:

"At this Archclaus [sic] was aftrighted, and privately sent a tribune, with his cohort of soldiers, upon them, before the disease should spread over the whole multitude, and gave orders that they should constrain those that began the tumult, by force, to be quiet. At these the whole multitude were irritated, and threw stones at many of the soldiers, and killed them; but the tribune fled away wounded, and had much ado to escape so..."
There is no evidence that this refers to a real event after the death of Herod the Great. There is evidence I think that Lk 19:43 refers to the siege of Jerusalem in 70 CE. There is no context for verse 39. It is possible that Luke has a tradition (an L tradition) where Jesus criticises the Jerusalem leadership by saying “the stones would cry out (against you)" like he does in the Q tradition of Lk 13:34-35, Mt 23:37-39 and Lk 11:49-51, Mt 23:32-36. To this saying against the Jerusalem leadership Luke has added his description of the siege of Jerusalem and their deaths and their children deaths and the destruction of possibly the Temple (ref. Mk 13:1-2).
Charles Wilson wrote: Next, consider

Matthew 23: 13 (Moffatt):

[13] Woe to you impious scribes and Pharisees! you shut the Realm of heaven in men's faces; you neither enter yourselves. nor will you let those enter who are on the point of entering.
Lk 11:52
[52] Woe to you lawyers! for you have taken away the key of knowledge; you did not enter yourselves, and you hindered those who were entering."

It is possible that this is a Q saying about how the Jerusalem leadership is hindering those who would return to being right with God and so enter the kingdom of God.
Charles Wilson wrote: Matthew 5: 20 (Moffatt):
For I tell you, unless your goodness excels that of the scribes and the Pharisees, you will never get into the Realm of heaven.
Matthew might have found this in his M tradition, but I am not sure. It is possible that he created this verse as a comment on his Q verse Mt 5:18 Lk 16:17.
Charles Wilson wrote:Please take a moment to at least consider this view. The last two verses make sense in a very Non-Metaphysical manner. The "Realm of Heaven" is a real, physical place. The references in Matthew are NOT the Transvalued "Kingdom of God" verbiage! It would be unlikely that "K o G' would be a Jewish name for a place where Scribes and Pharisees could not go. That the Scribes and Pharisees are accused of preventing people above their station (i.e. Priests) from entering the Realm of Heaven shows that SOMETHING HAPPENED. The evidence given here is certainly not exhaustive. "Enter through the Narrow Door" and "You Must Turn as a Child" are descriptions of an event that is written about as having happened. Whether Really Real or "Fictionally Real" I cannot say.
It is just as easy to provide a completely different view to yours.
Charles Wilson
Posts: 2100
Joined: Thu Apr 03, 2014 8:13 am

Re: John the Baptist Sources Parallel Bible

Post by Charles Wilson »

At last! Some Push-Back!

The point is not that others could come up with a World-View that would encompass the Gospels and assorted relics of the past 2000 years. That has manifestly been done. The question is: "Is it possible to take the data of the Stories, analyze the language across kingdoms and empires and find a consistent encompassing framework that will explain what we have without resorting to metaphysics?"

I find the answer is not only "Yes" but that the resulting explanation(s) cover more possibilities than have been found with the Data + the Shroud of Metaphysics convering the data. I KNOW that there are other views. "Did the Romans steal Jewish History and rewrite that stolen history into the story of a savior/god that glorifed Rome?" This Thesis is relatively new. What is not seen is that the Stories are relatively straightforward and recoverable as is, without having to Transvalue them!

You can trace the Roman's manipulation of the Base Stories rewritten around the deification of Titus. I believe that you can also find a very compelling Story of the Mishmarot Priesthood, complete with dates and Calendars that were used to determine which Group should rotate into Jerusalem. FWIW, no one has Posted an answer to this claim, one way or the other. It is one thing to say that Luke 19: 39 - 40 gives no context (BTW, I agree, as far as it goes...). It is a central claim to the Thesis of Mishmarot in the NT and there is no comment. None.

So, there is a Claim that the Romans did it and the Texts are Deconstructable. They stole Jewish History, especially a Story about a boy who comes to Jerusalem, saves a Priest and watches him get crucified 12 years later. We know him by the name of Peter and he lived in Jabnit, near Meiron. You don't have to believe it. Just don't say all of it is coincidental. The very stones of Jabnit would cry out.

Than you, MBG.

CW
Michael BG
Posts: 665
Joined: Thu Aug 13, 2015 8:02 am

Re: John the Baptist Sources Parallel Bible

Post by Michael BG »

Charles Wilson wrote:At last! Some Push-Back!

The point is not that others could come up with a World-View that would encompass the Gospels and assorted relics of the past 2000 years. That has manifestly been done. The question is: "Is it possible to take the data of the Stories, analyze the language across kingdoms and empires and find a consistent encompassing framework that will explain what we have without resorting to metaphysics?"

I find the answer is not only "Yes" but that the resulting explanation(s) cover more possibilities than have been found with the Data + the Shroud of Metaphysics convering the data. I KNOW that there are other views. "Did the Romans steal Jewish History and rewrite that stolen history into the story of a savior/god that glorifed Rome?" This Thesis is relatively new. What is not seen is that the Stories are relatively straightforward and recoverable as is, without having to Transvalue them!

You can trace the Roman's manipulation of the Base Stories rewritten around the deification of Titus. I believe that you can also find a very compelling Story of the Mishmarot Priesthood, complete with dates and Calendars that were used to determine which Group should rotate into Jerusalem. FWIW, no one has Posted an answer to this claim, one way or the other. It is one thing to say that Luke 19: 39 - 40 gives no context (BTW, I agree, as far as it goes...). It is a central claim to the Thesis of Mishmarot in the NT and there is no comment. None.

So, there is a Claim that the Romans did it and the Texts are Deconstructable. They stole Jewish History, especially a Story about a boy who comes to Jerusalem, saves a Priest and watches him get crucified 12 years later. We know him by the name of Peter and he lived in Jabnit, near Meiron. You don't have to believe it. Just don't say all of it is coincidental. The very stones of Jabnit would cry out.

Than you, MBG.

CW
When discussing the gospels many things are possible, but for me the search is for the most likely not just what could be.

A new theory can find resistance, but it has to overcome the resistance to be accepted. With your theory the bar is how do you a provide convincing case that the Romans took a story and recast it for their own ends, and how do you provide a convincing case that within the gospels that there is a story about a boy named Peter who came to Jerusalem, saved a priest and watched him being crucified 12 years later.

However when discussing Lk 19:39-40 some may find your interpretation more convincing than mine, but I think mine fits better into what we have in the gospels than yours, and mine is easier to subscribe to. (I think being a mythicist is easier to subscribe to than your theory. However I am not sure if it might be is easier to subscribe to your theory than to the theory than the Marcionite gospel was the first gospel.)
Adam wrote: This almost finishes " Horizontal Line Synopsis" lay-out. for the "John the Baptist" discrete portion. Look it over, form your own ideas, fire them at me, sooner the better as I will soon be adding section headings and commentary that established my Proto-Gospel interpretation of the sources. Or wait for me to explain what it means.
Consider Mark 1:9-11
[9] And it came to pass in those days Jesus came from Nazareth of Galilee and was baptized by John in the Jordan.
[10] And when he came up out of the water, immediately he saw the heavens opened and the Spirit descending upon him like a dove;
[11] and a voice came from heaven, "Thou art my beloved Son; with thee I am well pleased."
The first thing to be noted is that it is Jesus who sees the heavens open and the Spirit descend on him and hears the voice from heaven.

It is generally accepted that Jesus’ baptism by John is historical and not a creation of the early Christians. However I agree with Michael Turton when he concludes that “Nazareth” has been added here to the text of Mark, because it is the only place Mark states Jesus is from Nazareth and Matthew does not have it, only having

“Ἰησοῦς ἀπὸ τῆς Γαλιλαίας”
… Jesus from the Galilee … (Mt 3:13)

It seems that John in the tradition that reached Mark here is not called the o βαπτιζων (the one who immerses [the Baptist]). I think that this title was applied by Mark to John and from Mark, it was used by Matthew, Luke and John.

I have already questioned the historicity of the Jordan. It might have been in the tradition received by Mark, or added by Mark, but it does not appear in the Q tradition

Some scholars argue that within early Christianity there were different traditions for when Jesus was adopted by God as his son and therefore the Messiah. Many see Rom 1:4 as Jesus’ adoption as his resurrection. In Mark there appears to be two different adoption stories one at transfiguration (Mk 9:2-8) and one here at his baptism.

Mk 9:7

καὶ ἐγένετο νεφέλη ἐπισκιάζουσα αὐτοῖς,
καὶ ἐγένετο φωνὴ ἐκ τῆς νεφέλης,
Οὗτός ἐστιν ὁ υἱός μου ὁ ἀγαπητός,
ἀκούετε αὐτοῦ.

And it-came-to-pass cloud overshadowing them
And it-came-to-pass voice out of-the cloud
This is the son of-me the beloved
be-hearing him.

Note: ἐγένετο = came-into-new-state of-being (http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/mor ... o&la=greek)

This is very similar to Mk 1:11

καὶ φωνὴ ἐγένετο ἐκ τῶν οὐρανῶν,
Σὺ εἶ ὁ υἱός μου ὁ ἀγαπητός,
ἐν σοὶ εὐδόκησα.

And voice it-came-to-pass out of-the heavens
You are the son of-me the beloved
In you I-delight (I-think-well-of)

It has been suggested that this verse is formed from three different Old Testament texts.

Isaiah 42:1

[1] Behold my servant, whom I uphold,
my chosen, in whom my soul delights;
I have put my Spirit upon him,
he will bring forth justice to the nations.

There is some doubt about what the Septaugint has, but some would argue for:

Ιακωβ ὁ παῖς μου,
ἀντιλήμψομαι αὐτοῦ·
Ισραηλ ὁ ἐκλεκτός μου,
προσεδέξατο αὐτὸν ἡ ψυχή μου·
ἔδωκα τὸ πνεῦμά μου
ἐπ᾽ αὐτόν,
κρίσιν τοῖς ἔθνεσιν ἐξοίσει.

Jacob the son of-me
I-lay-hold of-him
Israel the chosen-one of-me
Favourably-received him the soul of-me
I-gave the Spirit of-me
On him
Judging the nations (Gentiles) bring-forth

However Matthew seems to quote Isaiah in Mt 12:18 and his version if different and maybe closer to the Hebrew and an older Septaugint version. (I think J Ziegler did lots of work on these issues. So it is quite possible that Matthew has given us a better rendering of an older Septaugint than we have preserved elsewhere. I have not studied the wording of many quotes from the Septaugint, but of the few I have studied there is often a very close match between the Greek in the Septaugint and the Greek in the New Testament.)

Mt 12:18

Ἰδοὺ ὁ παῖς μου
ὃν ᾑρέτισα,
ὁ ἀγαπητός μου
εἰς ὃν εὐδόκησεν
ἡ ψυχή μου:
θήσω τὸ πνεῦμά μου
ἐπ' αὐτόν,
καὶ κρίσιν τοῖς ἔθνεσιν ἀπαγγελεῖ.

Behold the son-of-me
Whom chosen
The beloved of-me
Onto whom I-delight (I-think-well-of)
The soul of-me
I-put the Spirit of-me
On him
And judging the Nations (Gentiles) announcing (bringing a report).

Ralph Alan Smith in The Baptism of Jesus the Christ writes,
Whatever Matthew may be doing, what is important for our study is the fact he translates the Hebrew for “My chosen” … as “My beloved” … it may be that the words “the beloved” in Mark 1:11 also allude to Isaiah 42:1. … in Mark 1:11 in the words “in whom I am well pleased,” there is undeniably an allusion to Isaiah 42:1.
(https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=KF- ... ew&f=false)

The Septaugint version of Genesis 22:12 is also seen as a possible source

Gen 22:12

καὶ εἶπε· μὴ ἐπιβάλῃς τὴν χεῖρά σου ἐπὶ τὸ παιδάριον μηδὲ ποιήσῃς αὐτῷ μηδέν·
νῦν γὰρ ἔγνων, ὅτι φοβῇ σὺ τὸν Θεὸν
καὶ οὐκ ἐφείσω τοῦ υἱοῦ σου τοῦ ἀγαπητοῦ δι᾿ ἐμέ.

And he said, Not lay the hand your on the little-boy or do to-him anything
Now for I-know that fear you the God
And not spared the son your the beloved on-account of-me

Psalm 2:7

[7] I will tell of the decree of the LORD:
He said to me, "You are my son,
today I have begotten you.

The Septaugint has:

διαγγέλλων τὸ πρόσταγμα Κυρίου.
Κύριος εἶπε πρός με·
υἱός μου εἶ σύ,
ἐγὼ σήμερον γεγέννηκά σε.

Declaring the command of-the-Lord
The-Lord said to me
Son of-me are you
I today begot you.

Scholars suggest that Mark is quoting the Septaugint in Mk 1:11, but there is little actual agreement between the Greek of Mk 1:11 and the Septaugint.

Mark has:
Σὺ εἶ ὁ υἱός μου
(You are the son of-me)
Only two of these words are the same as used in the first part of Is 42:1
Ιακωβ ὁ παῖς μου, (“the” and “of-me”)
Three words agree with Matthew’s version of Is 42:1
Ἰδοὺ ὁ παῖς μου (the son of-me)
While in English the words are the same as in Ps 2:7 only two words are the same in Greek
υἱός μου εἶ σύ, (Son of-me).

Mark has:
ὁ ἀγαπητός,
(The beloved)
While Gen 22.12 in the Septaugint has
τοῦ ἀγαπητοῦ

Mark has:
ἐν σοὶ εὐδόκησα.
(In you I-delight)
Is 42:1 of the Septaugint has
προσεδέξατο αὐτὸν
(Favourably-received him)
The Matthew version has
εἰς ὃν εὐδόκησεν
(Onto whom I-delight)

I think this is evidence that Mark is not directly quoting three parts of the Septaugint. I think this is further evidence that this saying was not created by Mark.

I also think that because the sayings in Mk 1:11 and 9:7 are slightly different they are both unlikely to have been created by Mark.

It has been suggested by Maurice Casey that behind this saying there could be an Aramaic saying, however because of the closeness of the wording of Mk 11:1 and 9:7 I think it is possible that the saying was added to each story independently once early Christians had reflected on who they believed Jesus was after a “resurrected” Jesus had been seen after his death.

It is possible that Ezekiel 1:1 was also an influence on the story

Ezekiel 1:1

Καὶ ἐγένετο ἐν τῷ τριακοστῷ ἔτει ἐν τῷ τετάρτῳ μηνὶ πέμπτῃ τοῦ μηνὸς
καὶ ἐγὼ ἤμην ἐν μέσῳ τῆς αἰχμαλωσίας ἐπὶ τοῦ ποταμοῦ τοῦ Χοβαρ,
καὶ ἠνοίχθησαν οἱ οὐρανοί,
καὶ εἶδον ὁράσεις θεοῦ

And it-came-to-pass in the thirtieth year in the fourth month fifth of-the month
And I was in middle of-the captivity by the river the Chobar
And were-open the heavens
And I-saw visions of God.

This starts with “Καὶ ἐγένετο” as does Mk 9:7 and both words are in Mk 1:11

Mk 1:10

καὶ εὐθὺς ἀναβαίνων ἐκ τοῦ ὕδατος
εἶδεν σχιζομένους τοὺς οὐρανοὺς
καὶ τὸ πνεῦμα ὡς περιστερὰν καταβαῖνον εἰς αὐτόν:

And immediately stepping-up out of-the water
He-saw being-opened the heavens
And the spirit in-the-manner-of dove descending and remaining on him.

The word for dove is the same used in Gen 8:8.

It has been pointed out that Mark has “Spirit” and not “Holy Spirit”, which might mean that Mark has an earlier tradition.

It is possible that behind Mk 1:9-11 there is a pre-Marcan tradition

[9] And it came to pass in those days Jesus from the Galilee and was baptized by John in the Jordan.
[10] And when he came up out of the water, immediately he saw the heavens opened and the Spirit in the manner of a dove descended and remained on him
[11] and a voice came from heaven, "You are my son – the beloved; I think well of you."

However it is possible that the only historical things in it are:
Jesus from the Galilee and was baptized by John
Post Reply