Why I give up to search for a historical John the Baptist

[Giuseppe]

The problem with who identifies John as a historical person is the following:

• (1) if John is a historical person, then the more probable reason of his presence in the Gospels is to use him as a temporal indicator to fix better Jesus in the History.

• The problem with (1) is that a historical John, even assuming the Baptist passage in Josephus as genuine, is not fixed in a precise time in History in a not-equivocal way, hence making vain the John's utility for (1).

Hence, John is part and parcel of the Gospel world. He can't exit from that world. He is forever imprisoned in it. Hence he has to be treated as any other character in the Gospel, as Joseph of Arimathea, or Zebedee.

[Giuseppe]

Until now, I have found the following scholars about the invention of John the Baptist:

• Jean Magne's reasons: John was the noûs personified

• Greg Doudna's reasons: John was Hyrcanus II

• Maurice Mergui's reasons: John was John Maccabee

• Arthur Drews's reasons: John was the Fish Oannes

• Georges Ory's reasons: John was Theudas the Samaritan Prophet

• Martijn Linssen's reasons: John was Johanan son of Josiah

All these theses have their points of force and weakness.

I don't see an argument against the historicity of John the Baptist based on the ethymology of his name (remember that John means "YHWH gives grace"). Since none has made that argument before now, then I will make it.

The core of my argument is based on Mark 1:7-8:

And this was his message: “After me comes the one more powerful than I, the straps of whose sandals I am not worthy to stoop down and untie. I baptize you with water, but he will baptize you with the Holy Spirit.”

John was really giving the grace, by his baptism "with water". There is too much "divine coincidence", here, between the name and the action of "John the Baptist".

If you deny that Ebion existed, insofar he founded the party of the "poor ones", then accordingly you have to deny that John the Baptist existed, insofar he gave the grace by his baptism "with water".

I share the doubts of Nicholas PL Allen:

One of the tempting conclusions to be drawn from this investigation at this early stage is that given the paltry historical evidence, there seems to be even less reason to believe that someone called John the Baptist existed than say Jesus of Nazareth

https://www.google.it/url?sa=t&source=w ... Hi-1MgKVTA

In particular, I quote and subscribe fully the following Allen's wonder about Robert Price's "faith" in a historical John the Baptist:

Now, Meager, (1983: 37 - 38), who is also a Christian scholar, tries to rectify the situation by suggesting that Josephus could have drawn from the general knowledge of a Baptist cult in his own day. For some strange reason, R.M. Price seems to buy into this doubtful suggestion that such a cult actually existed.

(my bold)

I don't think that Simon Magus existed, even if Simonians existed. Hence, the existence of a John cult cannot prove the historical existence of John the Baptist.

[Giuseppe]

Gabriele Boccaccini, a historicist prof, is very close paradoxically (!) to the truth about the real Midrashic origin of John the Baptist, when he writes:

Facing the Judge and the "fire" of judgment only means certain annihilation for the sinners. The solution indicated by John the Baptist is also based on a narrative central in the Enochic tradition--the purifying value that the Enochian tradition attributed to the water. The model was that offered by the Flood, when the earth had already been immersed in order to limit the spread of evil. “Be baptized with water; otherwise, you will be baptized with the fire of judgment by the Son of Man”—this seems to be in essence the original message of John the Baptist, as understood by the Synoptics, an interpretation that does not contradict the interest of the Christian authors to present it as a prophecy of the Christian baptism (by the Holy Spirit). That expressed by John the Baptist was a call based on the prophecy of the Book of Parables (ch. 50). At the end of times God will offer the sinners a last chance. If a sinner sincerely repents and abandons the works of his/her hands, even though such a person has no honor before God, God’s Mercy will prevail on God's Justice, and he/she will be saved in God's Name. As in the Parables (and contrary to what the Synoptics would claim about Jesus), the Messiah has no part in the work of forgiveness and remains the judge and destroyer of evil

(my bold, source)

Now, what is the probability that the person:

• who said: “Be baptized with water; otherwise, you will be baptized with the fire of judgment by the Son of Man”

• was called "YHWH-gives-grace"

...is only a mere coincidence ?

Best Answer: zero.

Hence, my conclusion: John the Baptist never existed.

[mlinssen]

Hi Giuseppe, if I may correct your interpretation of my point on Johannes the Immerser please.
I'm not saying that Johanan, son of Josiah the last good King of Judah, was the person that had come to be known as John the Baptist

What I claim is that Thomas created logion 46 as - partly - a cryptic pun, pointing to the entire Book of Chronicles, from the very first person there, Adam, to the very last, Zedekiah

Mark, who created his own story in order to kill the main character of Thomas, had to employ "John the Baptist", put him to use. And he very scarcely did so by giving him 6 consecutive verses in Mark 1:4-9, with the sole goal of using him as Elijah

Very, very concisely put, that is in my Absolute Thomasine priority that you quoted

John the Baptist never existed, Johannes the Immerser was wordplay. Josephus tries to put that to use as well, when he lets John Hyrcanus flood Samaria https://www.academia.edu/34049422/The_D ... sideration.
Likely, by that time it was an option that John B was a figment of imagination. And he is

[Giuseppe]

[wiki]In the second temple period, it was the fifth most popular male name among Jews in Judaea[/wiki]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_(given_name)

Hence, the probability that it is a mere coincidence that the person who said:

“Be baptized with water; otherwise, you will be baptized with the fire of judgment by the Son of Man”

...was called just "YHWH-gives-grace"

is only 20%.

ADDENDA: Just as the probability that the betrayer was called just "Judas", among 12 disciples, is only 8%.

[Giuseppe]

The gematria of "John" is identical to the gematria of "Messiah": 52.

No connection with idea of resurrection, differently from Jesus/Joshua.

When his disciples heard of it, they came and took his body and laid it in a tomb.

(Mark 6:29)