Were the followers of John the Baptist only gnostics?
Posted: Sun Dec 10, 2017 11:49 am
Assuming John's existence, I doubt that there was a sect of the his followers after the his death, in perfect continuity with the his historical existence.
I think that the so-called Mandean tradition was only a late gnostic tradition, meaning that John became a Gnostic symbol just as James or Mary Magdalene or Paul or Simon Mags or Thomas. The Gnostic modus operandi is the same: take a Gospel character and make him the origin of the your "tradition".
But with John we are said that he was buried by the his followers in Mark. This assumes the existence of a Baptist sect already before the Gospel of Mark. But this is in conflict with the probable fact that John had followers only AFTER the our Gospels.
Therefore the episode of the burial of John wasn't in proto-Mark.
This doesn't resolve the problem: John is also in the incipit of Mark. He is made precursor of Jesus - we are said - for rivarly between the community of Mark and the Baptist community. But again this is a wrong opinion: Baptist followers could be there only after the first Gospel, as result of the identification of the Christ with John (once it was introduced the idea that the Christ had to be a historical being). Hence also Mark 13 is a later addition.
In conclusion, this means that John the Baptist was introduced in the incipit of Mark by Mark himself NOT in order to co-opt Baptist followers who didn't exist yet when
Mark was written.
But for another reason.
The reason, I think, is that John had to be the witness of the man Jesus just as the man Jesus had to be the witness of the spiritual Christ descending on himself. In this way the existence of the man Jesus has the necessary witness of the his historical existence and in the same time he is distinct from the spiritual Christ, of which he is the only witness and recipient.
I think that the so-called Mandean tradition was only a late gnostic tradition, meaning that John became a Gnostic symbol just as James or Mary Magdalene or Paul or Simon Mags or Thomas. The Gnostic modus operandi is the same: take a Gospel character and make him the origin of the your "tradition".
But with John we are said that he was buried by the his followers in Mark. This assumes the existence of a Baptist sect already before the Gospel of Mark. But this is in conflict with the probable fact that John had followers only AFTER the our Gospels.
Therefore the episode of the burial of John wasn't in proto-Mark.
This doesn't resolve the problem: John is also in the incipit of Mark. He is made precursor of Jesus - we are said - for rivarly between the community of Mark and the Baptist community. But again this is a wrong opinion: Baptist followers could be there only after the first Gospel, as result of the identification of the Christ with John (once it was introduced the idea that the Christ had to be a historical being). Hence also Mark 13 is a later addition.
In conclusion, this means that John the Baptist was introduced in the incipit of Mark by Mark himself NOT in order to co-opt Baptist followers who didn't exist yet when
Mark was written.
But for another reason.
The reason, I think, is that John had to be the witness of the man Jesus just as the man Jesus had to be the witness of the spiritual Christ descending on himself. In this way the existence of the man Jesus has the necessary witness of the his historical existence and in the same time he is distinct from the spiritual Christ, of which he is the only witness and recipient.