Was the birth story in Luke/Matthew originally referred to John the Baptist

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
Post Reply
Nasruddin
Posts: 125
Joined: Thu Nov 02, 2017 4:58 pm

Re: Was the birth story in Luke/Matthew originally referred to John the Baptist

Post by Nasruddin » Wed Jan 22, 2020 3:10 pm

Giuseppe wrote:
Wed Jan 22, 2020 10:59 am
Nasruddin wrote:
Wed Jan 22, 2020 10:31 am
You don't think it possible that Mark could well have had 'problems' of his own?
Sure. It is just that the point. John the Baptist was entirely a "problem" of his own (= of "Mark"), not of Paul. To the point that Paul didn't have that problem, i.e he didn't know John the Baptist (and the anti-Christian threat connected someway with him).
But the Argument from Silence can only stand (and even then not firmly) if John the Baptist was missing from a context where he would be relevant, but isn'rt mentioned. If you can provide a passage from Paul's letters where such a context arises, then you might be able to start a valid case.
If, of all the earliest Christian writings, we had only the epistles of Paul, then we should doubt about the existence of John the Baptist (or the his connection with Jesus) for the simple fact that Paul didn't mention him.

But you are ignoring too much easily the fact that "Mark" (author) is pauline. This fact alone has a lot of implications. It says basically that Paul and "Mark" feared the same threats, shared the same enemies. That that is what has to be expected by default.

The fact that "Mark" feared John, the fact that "Mark" had to neutralize someway an enemy, a problem called John, differently from Paul, is what persuades entirely me that Paul didn't know John the Baptist.

Because, if he had known him, then Paul would have feared suddenly the threat represented by John for the his Gospel (that is the same Gospel of Mark from a theological POV).
Paul's concern was with living people opposing and annoying him at the time of his preaching. Not with a man he had never met, who had been dead for 20 years or more, and might be viewed as irrelevant to Paul's discourses.

You are arguing that because Mark mentions him, Paul should have. But Mark was not writing letters of advise and guidance like Paul was, but a work of sayings and deeds of Jesus. He was bound to include different material, even if the theology was exactly the same.

You still fail to provide a context within his letters where Paul would be expected to talk about John the Baptist, but does not.
Last edited by Nasruddin on Wed Jan 22, 2020 3:41 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Nasruddin
Posts: 125
Joined: Thu Nov 02, 2017 4:58 pm

Re: Was the birth story in Luke/Matthew originally referred to John the Baptist

Post by Nasruddin » Wed Jan 22, 2020 3:40 pm

MrMacSon wrote:
Wed Jan 22, 2020 12:13 pm
MrMacSon wrote:
Tue Jan 21, 2020 1:03 pm
Nasruddin wrote:
Tue Jan 21, 2020 12:26 pm
... Paul would only get his information about any rivalry from those who experienced it (the early disciples of Jesus)
There's no evidence of or for this.
Nasruddin wrote:
Tue Jan 21, 2020 4:07 pm
It could be possible that Paul heard nothing about the rivalry, even if other people knew. Or perhaps he believed that John and Jesus were in harmony. All we can say is there is no direct reference to John the Baptist in his existing letters.
My [main] point was and is that there is no evidence that Paul recounts or reflects on anything from his meeting(s) with Peter and/or James, or other 'Pillars'.
Paul believed his message was more important than anything they could have told him, so he was unlikely to acknowledge their input.

Ephesians 3:2-3 Surely you have heard about the administration of God’s grace that was given to me for you, that is, the mystery made known to me by revelation, as I have already written briefly.

1 Corinthians 11:23 For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered to you.

Galatians 1:11-12 For I certify to you, brothers, that the gospel I preached is not according to man. I did not receive it from any man, nor was I taught it; rather, I received it by revelation from Jesus Christ.

Galatians 2:6 As for those who were held in high esteem—whatever they were makes no difference to me; God does not show favoritism—they added nothing to my message.

Giuseppe
Posts: 7009
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy, or wherever Joseph D.L. is not there

Re: Was the birth story in Luke/Matthew originally referred to John the Baptist

Post by Giuseppe » Wed Jan 22, 2020 10:28 pm

Nasruddin wrote:
Wed Jan 22, 2020 3:10 pm
Paul's concern was with living people opposing and annoying him at the time of his preaching.
the same proposition is true if you replace Paul with Mark as the subject of the phrase. Hence, if John the Baptist is clearly a guy who is opposing and annoying the pauline "Mark" (just as the disciples of the Pillars were opposing and annoying the pauline "Mark") ,then why didn't John the Baptist figure among the same people who were opposing and annoying Paul?

Not with a man he had never met, who had been dead for 20 years or more, and might be viewed as irrelevant to Paul's discourses.
if John the Baptist was so revelant for a disciple ("Mark") of Paul, then even more so he had to be relevant for the master of that disciple, i.e. Paul.
You are arguing that because Mark mentions him, Paul should have. But Mark was not writing letters of advise and guidance like Paul was, but a work of sayings and deeds of Jesus
wrong. Mark was polemizing against the Pillars and against John the Baptist, while Paul was polemizing only against the Pillars. You are totally unable to explain me why the pauline "Mark" has an enemy (and a threat) in more in comparison to Paul: John the Baptist.
You still fail to provide a context within his letters where Paul would be expected to talk about John the Baptist, but does not.
A point where Paul would be expected to talk about John the Baptist is where he polemizes against the Pillars, in Gal 1-2. He would have mentioned John as a prophet of another Messiah, one different from his own.
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.

Nasruddin
Posts: 125
Joined: Thu Nov 02, 2017 4:58 pm

Re: Was the birth story in Luke/Matthew originally referred to John the Baptist

Post by Nasruddin » Thu Jan 23, 2020 3:27 pm

Giuseppe wrote:
Wed Jan 22, 2020 10:28 pm
Nasruddin wrote:
Wed Jan 22, 2020 3:10 pm
living people opposing and annoying him at the time of his preaching.
the same proposition is true if you replace Paul with Mark as the subject of the phrase. Hence, if John the Baptist is clearly a guy who is opposing and annoying the pauline "Mark" (just as the disciples of the Pillars were opposing and annoying the pauline "Mark") ,then why didn't John the Baptist figure among the same people who were opposing and annoying Paul?
What I wrote was;
- Paul's concern was with living people opposing and annoying him at the time of his preaching.

As such, John the Baptist was not relevant. Paul's opposition to the Pillars whom he had met, conversed with, and who were still active and influencial, would not be expected to include references to someone who had been dead 20 years or more.

Giuseppe
Posts: 7009
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy, or wherever Joseph D.L. is not there

Re: Was the birth story in Luke/Matthew originally referred to John the Baptist

Post by Giuseppe » Thu Jan 23, 2020 10:22 pm

Nasruddin wrote:
Thu Jan 23, 2020 3:27 pm
What I wrote was;
- Paul's concern was with living people opposing and annoying him at the time of his preaching.

As such, John the Baptist was not relevant.
you ignore the fact that "Mark" has already neutralized the threat represented by John the Baptist, by his story. So, before Mark (and therefore in the time of Paul's preaching) that same identical threat, if really existing in Paul's time, could only be more great, - not less great -, without still the partial solution advanced by "Mark".

This point is essential to understand the force of the Argument from Silence in Paul against any connection between Jesus and John the Baptist.
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.

Giuseppe
Posts: 7009
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy, or wherever Joseph D.L. is not there

Re: Was the birth story in Luke/Matthew originally referred to John the Baptist

Post by Giuseppe » Sat Jan 25, 2020 11:45 am

Returning again to the OT, it is evident that not only the birth story was trasposed from John to Jesus, but a lot of logia and acts of John were trasposed to Jesus, in primis the miracle of feeding, the question "who do you say who I am?", the expression "he will be called Nazir". The original title of Nazarene was reserved to John the Baptist in the his story that preceded the gospel story and was used in it.

"He will be called Nazarene"

...has all the air of being yes original to the original Jewish story about John the Prophet, but not original to the true identity of "John the Baptist".

In the Mandean tradition, about John (a mythological being) it is said:

"He will be called Prophet in Jerusalem"

The Mandean sense of the phrase is that the Jews (not Christians, but Jews who judaize, i.e. Jews Judaizers) judaized John by making him a Prophet, i.e. they identified him with the author of the original Book of Revelation.

Hence, even if originally referred to John, the title Nazarene is an indication of a judaization in action.
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.

Giuseppe
Posts: 7009
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy, or wherever Joseph D.L. is not there

Re: Was the birth story in Luke/Matthew originally referred to John the Baptist

Post by Giuseppe » Sat Jan 25, 2020 1:11 pm

John the Baptist is the christianization of the Jewish John the Prophet (identified with the original author of Revelation), who is in turn the judaization of a Naassene deity: the Primal Man or Man of Light, adored under many names...

...one of them was:

These are the heads of very numerous discourses which (the Naassene) asserts James the brother of the Lord handed down to Mariamne. In order, then, that these impious (heretics) may no longer belie Mariamne or James, or the Saviour Himself, let us come to the mystic rites (whence these have derived their figment),--to a consideration, if it seems right, of both the Barbarian and Grecian (mysteries),--and let us see how these (heretics), collecting together the secret and ineffable mysteries of all the Gentiles, are uttering falsehoods against Christ, and are making dupes of those who are not acquainted with these orgies of the Gentiles. For since the foundation of the doctrine with them is the man Adam, and they say that concerning him it has been written, "Who shall declare his generation?" learn how, partly deriving from the Gentiles the undiscoverable and diversified generation of the man, they fictitiously apply it to Christ.

"Now earth," say the Greeks, "gave forth a man, (earth) first bearing a goodly gift, wishing to become mother not of plants devoid of sense, nor beasts without reason, but of a gentle and highly favoured creature." "It, however, is difficult," (the Naassene) says, "to ascertain whether Alalcomeneus, first of men, rose upon the Boeotians over Lake Cephisus; or whether it were the Idaean Curetes, a divine race; or the Phrygian Corybantes, whom first the sun beheld springing up after the manner of the growth of trees; or whether Arcadia brought forth Pelasgus, of greater antiquity than the moon; or Eleusis (produced) Diaulus, an inhabitant of Raria; or Lemnus begot Cabirus, fair child of secret orgies; or Pallerie (brought forth) the Phlegraean Alcyoneus, oldest of the giants. But the Libyans affirm that Iarbas, first born, on emerging from arid plains, commenced eating the sweet acorn of Jupiter. But the Nile of the Egyptians," he says, "up to this day fertilizing mud, (and therefore) generating animals, renders up living bodies, which acquire flesh from moist vapour." The Assyrians, however, say that fish-eating Oannes was (the first man, and) produced among themselves. The Chaldeans, however, say that this Adam is the man whom alone earth brought forth...

http://gnosis.org/library/hyp_refut5.htm
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.

Nasruddin
Posts: 125
Joined: Thu Nov 02, 2017 4:58 pm

Re: Was the birth story in Luke/Matthew originally referred to John the Baptist

Post by Nasruddin » Sun Jan 26, 2020 11:04 am

Giuseppe wrote:
Thu Jan 23, 2020 10:22 pm
Nasruddin wrote:
Thu Jan 23, 2020 3:27 pm
What I wrote was;
- Paul's concern was with living people opposing and annoying him at the time of his preaching.

As such, John the Baptist was not relevant.
you ignore the fact that "Mark" has already neutralized the threat represented by John the Baptist, by his story. So, before Mark (and therefore in the time of Paul's preaching) that same identical threat, if really existing in Paul's time, could only be more great, - not less great -, without still the partial solution advanced by "Mark".

This point is essential to understand the force of the Argument from Silence in Paul against any connection between Jesus and John the Baptist.
You seem to insist that the Gospel of Mark should and must be an exact clone of the letters of Paul, and that the letters of Paul (of which there is reason to suppose that some are no longer extant) should and must be our only source for what Mark wrote, therefore anything that Mark wrote that is not included in Paul's letters must and can only be due to fabrications on subjects (or responses to such fabrications) that, no matter how irrelevant those subjects might have been in the context of Paul's letters, Paul did not mention. I believe that the insistence that Paul's existing letters must and should be viewed as the total sum of anything Paul could possibly have to say about his beliefs and the beliefs of others, and that his letters must and should contain everything that Paul might have known about but was not of immediate concern to him, as illogical and limiting, considering how few of Paul's letters there are and the reasons behind writing them.

However, I can see that you have a great need to hold onto this belief, and that it is an important part of the edifice you are building. Just because you refuse to look at the cracks, it does not mean they are not there, but I have no need to persist on this matter. There are plenty of other interesting points, of which I will continue to enjoy and respond to.

Giuseppe
Posts: 7009
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy, or wherever Joseph D.L. is not there

Re: Was the birth story in Luke/Matthew originally referred to John the Baptist

Post by Giuseppe » Sun Jan 26, 2020 11:52 am

Nasruddin wrote:
Sun Jan 26, 2020 11:04 am
You seem to insist that the Gospel of Mark should and must be an exact clone of the letters of Paul
Precisely.
, and that the letters of Paul (of which there is reason to suppose that some are no longer extant) should and must be our only source for what Mark wrote, therefore anything that Mark wrote that is not included in Paul's letters must and can only be due to fabrications on subjects (or responses to such fabrications) that, no matter how irrelevant those subjects might have been in the context of Paul's letters, Paul did not mention.
Partially correct.
The true proposition (about my view) is:

...therefore anything that Mark wrote that is not included in Paul's letters must and can only be due to questions, polemics, theologies that were born after the death of Paul and before the writing of the Gospel of Mark.

The latter point descends from the premise above.

Basically, what is new in Mark compared to Paul is:
  • Barabbas
  • John the Baptist.

The rest is all midrash from Paul.

I believe that the insistence that Paul's existing letters must and should be viewed as the total sum of anything Paul could possibly have to say about his beliefs and the beliefs of others, and that his letters must and should contain everything that Paul might have known about but was not of immediate concern to him, as illogical and limiting, considering how few of Paul's letters there are and the reasons behind writing them.
I disagree totally on this point. I can believe that our Paul is authentic only insofar the number of genuine letters were not 7 (a symbolical number just as the 7 Messages of the incipit of Revelation), but a number x >>7 of letters, all of which very little in size, compared to our 7 epistles. Hence the preserved epistles are a good sample of anything Paul would have written in lost epistles.

I don't buy the idea that in a lost epistle Paul would have talked about the historical Jesus more clearly, or about the mythical Jesus died in outer space more clearly.

All the things Paul had to write about his Jesus, he wrote all them and we know them. Period.
However, I can see that you have a great need to hold onto this belief, and that it is an important part of the edifice you are building. Just because you refuse to look at the cracks, it does not mean they are not there, but I have no need to persist on this matter. There are plenty of other interesting points, of which I will continue to enjoy and respond to.
A really wise decision. I am not a polemical user in the forum, when I am interested to build edifices (as it is the goal in this thread).
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.

User avatar
MrMacSon
Posts: 6081
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 3:45 pm

Re: Was the birth story in Luke/Matthew originally referred to John the Baptist

Post by MrMacSon » Sun Jan 26, 2020 5:40 pm

Giuseppe wrote:
Sun Jan 26, 2020 11:52 am

Basically, what is new in Mark compared to Paul is:
  • Barabbas
  • John the Baptist.
  • and Nazareth and Galilee
    • Mark 1 vv. 9, 14, 16, 24, 39;
    • Mark 3:7;
    • Mark 6:1ff (where he is rejected in his hometown);
    • Mark 9:30;
      Mark 10:47;
    • (in 14:67 & 16:6, Jesus is said to be 'a Nazarene'; & in 14:70 Peter is accused of being a Galilean)
    • 15:41 the Galilean women "who had followed Jesus and cared for his needs";
    • 16:7 Mary Magdalen & Salome are told
      . ." go, tell his disciples and Peter, ‘He is going ahead of you into Galilee. There you will see him, just as he told you’."

Giuseppe wrote:
Sun Jan 26, 2020 11:52 am
The rest is all midrash from Paul.
  • and also using the OT (+/- other texts)

Post Reply