a biography of John the Baptist as solution of an apparent dilemma

[Stuart]

Second case of Stuart:

2. Luke 7:24-28 (attested in Marcion, and I believe was Marcionite origin) derives directly from the John the Baptist story. He affirms he is the last prophet, the same one Mark sees, quoting the same Malachi 3:1 Elijah returned text. He denigrates the simple clothing of John and severe diet of John we find in Mark 1:6 (Matthew 3:4), by saying in essence "no, this guy dressed in fine clothes and dines in royal courts". This is derived again from the missing Baptism story.

I agree that "this is derived again from the missing Baptism story". Only, that Baptism story was found in a Gospel about John as hero, where the name of Jesus was totally absent. John was considered the True Prophet by his disciples (a point that in the Fourth Gospel is denied with a betraying interested emphasis).

En passant, I thank you for having shown me the presence of an anti-John parody in the episode as reported by Marcion.

What gospel is that where John is the hero and Jesus is missing?

You are inventing a source to solve your problem. This is the same objection I have with Q and so-called naive Jesus communities of Q; they are scholarly inventions.

[Giuseppe]

What gospel is that where John is the hero and Jesus is missing?

In this thread (see my first posts) I am collecting the evidence for the existence of this 'biography' of John without Jesus.

Under your scenario, you are obliged to explain why,

if John was introduced ab initio only in Christian sources (i.e. texts where Jesus is the hero-god),

why was John considered as the Christ, as the True Prophet, by his disciples ?

I would quote easily the passages in Acts where only a 'baptism of John' is known (the case of Apollos) and the passage in the Fourth Gospel where John denies that he is the Christ and he denies that he is the True Prophet. I are dispensed from the efforts of quoting the precise references because I think that Stuart knows perfectly what I am talking about.

[Stuart]

What gospel is that where John is the hero and Jesus is missing?

In this thread (see my first posts) I am collecting the evidence for the existence of this 'biography' of John without Jesus.

Under your scenario, you are obliged to explain why,

if John was introduced ab initio only in Christian sources (i.e. texts where Jesus is the hero-god),

why was John considered as the Christ, as the True Prophet, by his disciples ?

I would quote easily the passages in Acts where only a 'baptism of John' is known (the case of Apollos) and the passage in the Fourth Gospel where John denies that he is the Christ and he denies that he is the True Prophet. I are dispensed from the efforts of quoting the precise references because I think that Stuart knows perfectly what I am talking about.

You have not shown any gospel about John ever existed. You have asserted it. But it breaks down under details of the sources you claim. It requires your peculiar understanding of passages.

Granted, there is strong evidence of an apostle named John who baptized, and he is associated with Asia Minor as a rival to Paul. Robert Price wrote a few books which reference this battle for Asia (basically Eastern Turkey today). Ephesus seems to be the epicenter.

But Price draws conclusions I cannot agree with, such as "brand X" baptism per 1 Corinthians 1:12, and 3:4. But I think 1:12 was written after 3:4 or that it was expanded from the Marcionite text, as DA 1.8 quotes 1:12-13 without ἐγὼ δὲ Χριστοῦ (and 'I am of Christ'), as a misunderstanding by the redactor, a blunder. 3:4 only refers to Paul and Apollos. The language refers to each as sect leaders or (arch)bishops (== Apostles), which we see in 3:22-23. Price rather than see it as a blunder by a redactor, sees it as a rabbit hole he can go down and like Alice in Wonderland, discovering a whole new world.

There are many possibilities, and I think the simplest is John was a rival with Paul for patron saint of Asia Minor, and specifically Ephesus. It has also been suggested that Apollos (Ἀπολλῶς) is a thinly disguised Apelles (Ἀπελλῆς), and Paul in the Marcionite collection is an alter ego for Marcion (aka, "Mark"?). If that is the case then Marcion is the builder of the foundation, and Apelles the one building onto it, or that Marcion is the one that plants and Apelles the one who waters (his successor or a splinter group leader?). This is of course all symbolic.

But these solutions do not require inventing a new Gospel with John replacing Jesus. In my view Price is building upon a redactors blunder in much the same way botches the reading of Mark 6:15 in his interpretation of the Elijah identification. It's inventive, it's logical, but the very foundation stone doesn't fit making the house fall down.

[Giuseppe]

There are many possibilities, and I think the simplest is John was a rival with Paul for patron saint of Asia Minor, and specifically Ephesus.

That is the same conclusion of R. Sthal!

Imagine if this apostle John was just the Prophet who proclaimed:

“To the angel of the church in Ephesus write:
These are the words of him who holds the seven stars in his right hand and walks among the seven golden lampstands. 2 I know your deeds, your hard work and your perseverance. I know that you cannot tolerate wicked people, that you have tested those who claim to be apostles but are not, and have found them false. 3 You have persevered and have endured hardships for my name, and have not grown weary.
4 Yet I hold this against you: You have forsaken the love you had at first. 5 Consider how far you have fallen! Repent and do the things you did at first. If you do not repent, I will come to you and remove your lampstand from its place. 6 But you have this in your favor: You hate the practices of the Nicolaitans, which I also hate.
7 Whoever has ears, let them hear what the Spirit says to the churches. To the one who is victorious, I will give the right to eat from the tree of life, which is in the paradise of God.

(Revelation 2:1-7)

[Giuseppe]

Stuart,

Forgive my curiosity, but in your model:



Do you assume for L1 or M1 (labels for the Earliest Gospel) the presence of the baptism of Jesus by John in the incipit (just as in our Mark)?

I ask this because, under the hypothesis that Capernaum is derived from Josephus (the name of a source appeared surprisingly in the middle of a desert), I may see an implicit rivalry between the water of Capernaum and the water of the Jordan.

Which may help to realize who came first.

[Stuart]

The answer is yes, the baptism was in L1 and M1.

[Giuseppe]

The answer is yes, the baptism was in L1 and M1.

Thanks. I should decide what to do about this possible opposition:

Marcion	Mark 1:9
In the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar, Jesus came down to Capernaum, a city in Galilee.	In those days Jesus came from Nazareth of Galilee and was baptized by John in the Jordan.
Christ descends without support of someone. His provenance is enigmatic just as the origin of the fountain mentioned by Josephus: for besides the good temperature of the air, it is also watered from a most fertile fountain. The people of the country call it Capharnaum. https://www.gutenberg.org/files/2850/2850-h/2850-h.htm	Christ descends but only thanks the John 's Baptism given to the man Jesus

[Giuseppe]

The difference between the waters of Capharnaum and the waters of Jourdan is that about the former's origin, Josephus is doubtul, while about the latter, Mark makes it sure the identity of the Baptizer (=who gives the waters): the Last of the Prophets.

[Stuart]

This is my model, not necessarily yours. (Do your own thing)

For the prototype gospel it is very complex. It did not just come together in a single sitting, rather it accumulated stories and materials over several years. I actually have the original taking three forms, then combining back into two forms. (I guess this could be my Logia, and no Q)

I also do not have the prototypes in the form used by the gospel writers until well into the 2nd century. So it does not rule out Josephus as a potential source for names and things. The compound building up of the prototype means there is more than one theology present. And no question it influenced the direction Christianity took. I even have at least one Marcionite version of a Pauline Epistle written after Matthew was in circulation, Galatians. But that is way off subject.