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.Giuseppe wrote: ↑Wed Jan 22, 2020 10:59 amSure. 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).
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 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.
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).
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.