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

[Giuseppe]

The real reason Jesus considered John as the Last of the Prophets was that he wrote the original Book of Revelation. Only the Christian respect for this Jewish Book was the reason John was co-opted/deformed in the Christian tradition.

I note the same ambiguity, among the Christians, about John and about the Book of Revelation. Hence, the two items were originally connected.

[Giuseppe]

Herod persecutor is obviously a midrash on Pharaon, etc.

But the implicit assumption is that Herod was enemy of the true king of Jews. Herod is an usurper. Hence who invented the story of Herod persecutor is assuming that Jesus, for the reader, is the true "king of Jews". He is the Jewish Christ.

His polemical target are the deniers of the Jewishness of Jesus.

ADDENDA:

If it was not for the intention to point out that Jesus is the "king of Jews" against rival Christian deniers, Herod could be not even named as persecutor etc.

[Giuseppe]

RG Price is correct about the author of John not being John but he explains the false paternity by simply a mistake due to mere total ignorance by later editors.

Really, if proto-John was written against the book of Revelation, then you can explain:

1) why the Jesus of proto-John exhorts to universal love: he neutralizes so the Jesus Hater of Revelation.

2) why the Beloved Disciple was named "John": to connect him with the author of the Book of Revelation. In this way the rivalry between the two books could be eclipsed.

3) why the Jesus of proto-John dislikes his mother in Cana: she is a parody of the celestial Mother in Revelation

4) why John the Baptist preaches the coming of a Destroyer, but in his place a Pacifist Jesus arrives. "John the Baptist" was the original author of Revelation.

[Ben C. Smith]

The original author, by saying that:

Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit.

(Luke 1:41)
...was introducing the fact that, as effect of the spiritual possession, Elizabeth will sing the Magnificat, and not the interpolated Mary.

I am not sure you have mentioned it yet, but just in case: there is a textual variant at Luke 1.46 which credits Elizabeth with singing the Magnificat and not Mary. This variant, found mainly/only in Old Latin manuscripts, is supported by two of the Latin manuscripts of Irenaeus, Against Heresies 4.7.1: http://textexcavation.com/documents/images/ah4p013.jpg (although earlier, in 3.10.2, I think all manuscripts agree in crediting Mary). More information here: https://books.google.com/books?id=yZF1B ... 22&f=false.