Why was John named ''John''?

[Giuseppe]

According to Secret Alias, ''John the Baptist'' would be John Hyrcanus (because he baptized the Samaritans):

For the rest of his days John
lived in prosperity, and, after excellently directing
the government for thirty-one whole years, died
leaving five sons ; truly a blessed individual and one
who left no ground for complaint against fortune as
regards himself. He was the only man to unite in
his person three of the highest privileges : the
supreme command of the nation, the high priesthood,
and the gift of prophecy. For so closely was he in
touch with the Deity, that he was never ignorant of
the future ; thus he foresaw and predicted that his
two elder sons would not remain at the head of
affairs. The story of their dovvnfiill is worth relating,
and will show how great was the decline from their
father's good fortune.

(Jewish War, I. 68-72)

Josephus writes, in Ant. 299-300, that John Hyrcanus

...was accounted by God worthy of three of the greatest pribileges, the rule of the nation, the office of high-priest, and the gift of prophecy; for the Deity was with him and enabled him to foresee and foretell the future; so, for example, he foretold of his two elder sons that they would not remain masters of the state.

This would make us enter in maryhelena's territory.

The choice of the name ''John'' remains a mystery.

[Giuseppe]

In conclusion, I think that John the Baptist had to be named ''John'' because he is the real opposite of John the Pillar.

To prove this by some degree of confidence I raise the following parallels:

THE FIRST:

‘Bartimaeus’ as ‘the honoured one’, ‘the worthy one’ or even ‘the ransomed one’ (bought at a price), is a blind beggar crying out for the Son of David. Now they came to Jericho. As He went out of Jericho with His disciples and a great multitude, blind Bartimaeus, the son of Timaeus, sat by the road begging. And when he heard that it was Jesus of Nazareth, he began to cry out and say, “Jesus, Son of David, have mercy on me!” Then many warned him to be quiet; but he cried out all the more, “Son of David, have mercy on me!” So Jesus stood still and commanded him to be called. Then they called the blind man, saying to him, “Be of good cheer. Rise, He is calling you.” And throwing aside his garment, he rose and came to Jesus. So Jesus answered and said to him, “What do you want Me to do for you?” The blind man said to Him, “Rabboni, that I may receive my sight.” Then Jesus said to him, “Go your way; your faith has made you well.” And immediately he received his sight and followed Jesus on the road. (Mark 10:46-52)

He is the real opposite of two totally different beggars, the sons of Zebedee, the Pillars James and John: James and John, the sons of Zebedee, came forward to him and said to him, “Teacher, we want you to do for us whatever we ask of you.” And he said to them, “What is it you want me to do for you?” And they said to him, “Grant us to sit, one at your right hand and one at your left, in your glory.” But Jesus said to them, “You do not know what you are asking. Are you able to drink the cup that I drink, or be baptized with the baptism that I am baptized with?” They replied, “We are able.” Then Jesus said to them, “The cup that I drink you will drink; and with the baptism with which I am baptized, you will be baptized; but to sit at my right hand or at my left is not mine to grant, but it is for those for whom it has been prepared.” (Mark 10:36-40)

THE SECOND:

Note the strange case of ''Mark'' describing only ''John'' in conflict with Jesus about the independent exorcist (a pauline figure very similar to John the Baptist).

John the Baptist is preaching already Jesus without knowing his name: John came baptizing in the wilderness . . . And he preached, saying, “There comes One after me who is mightier than I, whose sandal strap I am not worthy to stoop down and loose. I indeed baptized you with water, but He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit.” (from Mark 1)

He is the real opposite of a totally different preacher of Jesus, John the Pillar, who would have denied that right even to one paulinized figure like John the Baptist: Now John answered Him, saying, “Teacher, we saw someone who does not follow us casting out demons in Your name, and we forbade him because he does not follow us.” But Jesus said, “Do not forbid him, for no one who works a miracle in My name can soon afterward speak evil of Me. For he who is not against us is on our side. For whoever gives you a cup of water to drink in My name, because you belong to Christ, assuredly, I say to you, he will by no means lose his reward. (Mark 8:38-41)

THE THIRD:

''Joseph of Arimathea'' is the 'best disciple' in virtue of the ethymology of Arimathea. He is the real opposite of all the idiot disciples of Jesus.

[neilgodfrey]

The choice of the name ''John'' remains a mystery.

Entirely speculative, --- John would make a not half bad pun on Janus, the god looking both ways, past and future.

[DCHindley]

My personal theory is that John the Baptist was "full if it" and this was the reason why he had to take daily baths. The washing away of John's sh*t in the river Jordan served the same purpose as the inundation of the Nile, the fertilization of the valley. Otherwise, the residents of Jericho wouldn't be able to get any dates, marriages would stop, and mankind would die out. Amen.

DCH

[arnoldo]

Surely, the use of moving water by JtB meant he most likely wasn't full of parasites caused by fecal contamination. In contrast the Essenes, which immersed themselves in non moving waters, were full of it.
Toilets, Qumran, and the Essenes

[DCHindley]

Surely, the use of moving water by JtB meant he most likely wasn't full of parasites caused by fecal contamination. In contrast the Essenes, which immersed themselves in non moving waters, were full of it.
Toilets, Qumran, and the Essenes

Actually, Mikvahs were supposed to have at least a little movement of water through them to be ritually cleansing. Joe Zias is no friend of Qumran. He seems to be of the kind that belittles them as idiotic fanatics with about 20-40 followers, so could not have any relation to the majority of Judeans or have influenced Christianity in any way shape of form. James Tabor is the scholar who counseled the FBI about how to deal with those idiotic fanatical Branch Davidians at Waco, TX, and see how that went for the FBI.

DCH

[Kunigunde Kreuzerin]

.
a POV hold by D.M. Murdock and friends

So you mean something with no credibility what so ever, a long the lines of vivid imagination ???

I wanted only to distance myself from that opinion and not discredit Dorothy Murdock. But well, it may be something that needs always careful examination. The case of Oannes and John the Baptist may be a good example. The names are indeed more or less the same and both have something to do with water, but their roles are completely different. The only source for Oannes is Berossus. In the story of Berossus the legendary figure of Oannes is a type of Prometheus who taught the people the arts of civilization.

[arnoldo]

My personal theory is that John the Baptist was "full of it" and this was the reason why he had to take daily baths. The washing away of John's sh*t in the river Jordan served the same purpose as the inundation of the Nile, the fertilization of the valley. Otherwise, the residents of Jericho wouldn't be able to get any dates, marriages would stop, and mankind would die out. Amen.

DCH

Hence the euphemism, "Going to the John" which is an anglicized form of going to the "Jordan" as well as JtB.

[Blood]

My hypothesis is the following:

Josephus says that he himself in his earlier years became a disciple of someone by the name Bannus. According to Josephus, Bannus "dwelt in the wilderness, wearing only such clothing as trees provided, feeding on such things as grew of themselves, and using frequent ablutions of cold water, by day and night, for purity's sake."
This seems a portrait of John the Baptist.

Now, the Bannus episode appears at the incipit of the Vita of Josephus.

Just before the epilogue of the same work, Josephus talked about a crucifixion episode, where Josephus himself seems very similar to ''Joseph of Arimathea''.

The Banus episode appears right after the high priests marveled at the scriptural knowledge of the teen-age Josephus. Also exactly like Jesus.

The points of references between the gospels and the works of Josephus are innumerable. That all the gospels writers used Josephus's works as a source is no longer controversial, except possibly in US Southern Baptist/Evangelical circles.