On the Parable of Sower and John the Baptist

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
Post Reply
Giuseppe
Posts: 13732
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

On the Parable of Sower and John the Baptist

Post by Giuseppe »

In a previous post, I have already argued the concrete possibility that John the Baptist is the sown eaten by birds in the Parable of the Sower, while Peter is the sown put on the stones, and the two Pillars James and John are the sown put on the thorns (and obviously Paul is the sown put in the good ground).

About these sowns, I see that something is said in addition about the precise difference between John the Baptist and the other three ''sowns''.

The sown that allegorizes John the Baptist is never transformed in a plant.

While the ''sown'' Peter, the ''sowns'' James and John and the ''sown'' Paul are destined to grow so that they become a plant. But only the ''sown'' Paul bears ''fruit''.

My view is that the action of becoming a ''plant'' means ''to have seen Jesus''.

Therefore John the Baptist dies without really see and listen Jesus.

There is another point of interest about the ''sown'' Peter:
Other seed fell on rocky ground, where it did not have much soil, and it sprang up quickly, since it had no depth of soil. And when the sun rose, it was scorched; and since it had no root, it withered away.
(Mark 4:5-6)

The ''sun that rose'' is generally symbol of resurrection (cfr the song of roaster during the Peter's denial) but also of death, given Mark 15:33 :
When it was noon, darkness came over the whole land until three in the afternoon.
The ''plant'' Peter dies when ''the sun rose'': when the Messiah is crucified, a fact not accepted by Peter (cfr Mark 8:32-33).

The ''sown'' James and John sons of Zebedee are allowed to become ''plants'' (they will share the Eucharist) but they cannot have ''fruit'', i.e., disciples among the gentiles (only the ''sown'' Paul can).


Therefore ''Mark'' is describing the origins of the movement, by the Parable of Sower. The parable explains why John the Baptist is seen as essential to that origin, even if it is admitted that John didn't see the angel Jesus. John could become a Christian apostle - could see the angel Jesus the first time in a hallucination - but he was killed (''eaten by birds'') BEFORE that he could do so. Therefore the fate of John - and of all the ancient prophets - was to prophetize the Christ without having never the privilege of seeing him.

Different is the fate of Peter and Pillars: they are more worthy of condemnation, because they saw the angel Jesus - via hallucinations - but they didn't follow Paul in Galilee of gentiles.

It is interesting that with Mcn, Luke and Matthew we listen another different final about John the Baptist: in later Gospels, John is given really the possibility of listening about the news and prodigia about Jesus, but he becomes blind and delusional (just as the 12 in Mark: the hand of Marcion, here) - in Mcn=proto-Luke - or he becomes a converted Christian in extremis (in the proto-catholic Matthew).

Therefore only Marcion and ''Matthew'' (author) had real interest to make John conscious of the the prodigia made by Jesus, in order to describe his reaction to these prodigia:
1) negative reaction, in Mcn.
2) positive reaction, in Matthew.

Mark precedes both Marcion and ''Matthew'' because his goal is only to coopt the prestige of John the Baptist in order to explain why the prophets - even the contemporary prophets of the Messiah, if someone was there - didn't know the Messiah Jesus.
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.
Giuseppe
Posts: 13732
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

John the Baptist is evidence AGAINST the historical Jesus

Post by Giuseppe »

I think now that the mention of John the Baptist in Mark (as allegorized in the same Parable of the Sower) is evidence AGAINST the historical Jesus.

The proof is the following:

John the Baptist is known from Josephus to be:

1) ''a good man'',
2) one that attracts a lot of crowds
3) a innocent martyr of the Power

THE PROBLEM FOR ''MARK'' (the inventor):

How could a popular hero like the Baptist - one with the same features of the Jesus under construction (''good, famous and innocent martyr''), even made famous in all the world by Josephus - be basically tremendously ignorant of the (claimed) ''historical'' Jesus in all his entire (historical) life?

If all the people (Jews and Romans) were shaken from hearing how much good, famous and innocent martyr was this John, how would be much more unexpected, for them, to know that Jesus had never known, and worse yet, that Jesus was not ever known by, John himself ???

ANSWER:

For the inventor (''Mark''), it was better a Jesus who submitted himself humbly to baptism by John - his little ''price'' to pay [1] - rather than a Jesus who ignored John in all his life, and worse yet, was ignored himself (!!!) in turn by the historical John the Baptist.

Therefore, in virtue of the Criterion of Embarrassment, the mention of the baptism by John the Baptist in Mark is evidence against a historical Jesus.


The implicit corollary in Mark is that, if John had more time to know more fully Jesus - read: if he was not ''eaten'' by evil ''birds'' when thrown, as a ''sown'', on the ''way'' in a kind of counter-eucharist - then he would have recognized Jesus as messiah, differently from the idiot disciples of Jesus.

But later evangelists were not satisfied: they did need a John long-lived enough to react to the news about the miracles performed by Jesus, or negatively (as in Marcion) or positively (as in ''Matthew'').



[1] By the same logic of ''Mark'', a heretic French king said the following words:

Image
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.
Giuseppe
Posts: 13732
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: On the Parable of Sower and John the Baptist

Post by Giuseppe »

It follows that the death of John by Herod was the providential literary device, for Mark, to explain why John had no time to learn more about Jesus, except that one single occasion at the baptism in Jordan (a very little occasion, but necessary to make John conscious AT LEAST of the existence of Jesus).

A awareness (of a historical Jesus) that apparently was missing in the historical John.

Because Jesus probably never existed.
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.
Giuseppe
Posts: 13732
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: On the Parable of Sower and John the Baptist

Post by Giuseppe »

If the birds didn't eat the seed thrown on the way, then that seed could bear a lot of fruit as the last seed.

Read: if the great popular hero John the Baptist had REALLY known Jesus - and not killed so soon and not only in the fiction of "Mark" - then he could become a great apostle of the Christ just as PAUL.

In short, John the Baptist was a "failed Paul" and to that extent he was made a precursor of Paul.
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.
Post Reply