Hermann Raschke's case for the Marcionite invention of John the Baptist in proto-Mark

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
User avatar
Giuseppe
Posts: 8308
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Hermann Raschke's case for the Marcionite invention of John the Baptist in proto-Mark

Post by Giuseppe » Thu Sep 24, 2020 9:34 pm

Since I am unable to trascribe Hebrews terms, I limit myself to the only Greek words:

  • ὁ βαπτίζων == ὁ Εσσαῖος
  • Σίμων ὁ υἱὸς Ἰωάνου (John 1:42) == Σίμων Βαριωνᾶ (Matthew 16:17) ---> Ιωανης == Ιωνα
  • Ιωανης == a Hebrew word meaning: "The Greek".
the hebrew word for "the dove" == a hebrew term meaning : "Greek, from Greece".

The "Greek Essene" converts the Jews by a Greek spirit (==Gentile Spirituality).

...Continue...
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.

User avatar
Giuseppe
Posts: 8308
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: Hermann Raschke's case for the Marcionite invention of John the Baptist in proto-Mark

Post by Giuseppe » Thu Sep 24, 2020 11:56 pm

The Baptist Passage is an interpolation, according to Raschke, for the following reasons:
  • βαπτιστής βάπτισις, βάπτισμα occur only in the interpolated passage and nowhere in the entire ancient literature.
  • Josephus couldn't ignore the relations between John the Baptist and the Essenes, in virtue of their shared practice
  • It is not clear why Herod has to fear John the Baptist
  • It is not clear why Herod kills John just in Machaerus, given the fact that that fortress, even if herodian, is on the border of a war zone.
  • The passage is a parenthesis
  • the fact that the interpolator doesn't mention the women killers of John is because he knew that about the women of Herod the gospels diverged too much with Josephus.
  • John 3:24: This was before John was put in prison. is an obvious interpolation, which proves that the link women/death of John was not so famous, since the Fourth Gospel originally ignored that link.
  • The Gospels know only three parties: scribes, pharisees and the followers of John.
    Josephus knows only three philosophies + the Fourth Philosophy (=Zealots): scribes, pharisees and essenes. Therefore: essenes == followers of John. This is confirmed also by Herod seeing Jesus as John redivivus: the essenes are precursors of the Christians. Hence, the narrative need, for Herod having killed John (otherwise, how could he claim that the Christianity was the Reformed Essenism?)
  • The ethymology of Essaios is Baptizer. Proved by GRÄTZ also.
There is too much divine coincidence, here, that a presumed Josephian character who shares with Essenism his activity of baptism without being connected with Essenism by Josephus, means "Baptizer" (meaning: Essaios).
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.

User avatar
Giuseppe
Posts: 8308
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: Hermann Raschke's case for the Marcionite invention of John the Baptist in proto-Mark

Post by Giuseppe » Fri Sep 25, 2020 1:04 am

Mark 9:11-13 is an interpolation in Mark based on Matthew:


11 And they asked him, “Why do the teachers of the law say that Elijah must come first?”

12 Jesus replied, “To be sure, Elijah does come first, and restores all things. Why then is it written that the Son of Man must suffer much and be rejected? 13 But I tell you, Elijah has come, and they have done to him everything they wished, just as it is written about him.”

(the equivalent passage is absent in Luke)

Note that there is not the expression:

...and the discipled understand that he was talking about John the Baptist

...since the readers knew already that collateral effect having known it from the Matthew's original version for that interpolation:

Matthew 17:12-23
12 But I tell you, Elijah has already come, and they did not recognize him, but have done to him everything they wished. In the same way the Son of Man is going to suffer at their hands.” 13 Then the disciples understood that he was talking to them about John the Baptist


Hence: in proto-Mark John the Baptist is not Elijah.
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.

Kunigunde Kreuzerin
Posts: 1389
Joined: Sat Nov 16, 2013 2:19 pm
Location: Leipzig, Germany
Contact:

Re: Hermann Raschke's case for the Marcionite invention of John the Baptist in proto-Mark

Post by Kunigunde Kreuzerin » Fri Sep 25, 2020 1:08 am

Giuseppe wrote:
Thu Sep 24, 2020 11:56 pm
The Baptist Passage is an interpolation, according to Raschke, for the following reasons:
  • βαπτιστής βάπτισις, βάπτισμα occur only in the interpolated passage and nowhere in the entire ancient literature.

I always found Judith 12:7 very interesting. There the verb βαπτιζω is used. Obviously, it does not just mean a physical cleansing, but a ritual cleansing.

12:6-9 And she sent to Holofernes, saying, “Let my lord now command that your handmaid may go forth to prayer.” Then Holofernes commanded his guard not to prevent her; thus she resided in the camp for three days, and went out in the night into the valley of Bethulia and washed (ἐβαπτίζετο) herself in a spring of water by the camp. And when she came out, she beseeched the Lord God of Israel to direct her way in order to accomplish the raising up of the children of her people. So she came in clean (καθαρὰ) and remained in the tent until she ate her meat in the evening.


User avatar
Giuseppe
Posts: 8308
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: Hermann Raschke's case for the Marcionite invention of John the Baptist in proto-Mark

Post by Giuseppe » Fri Sep 25, 2020 2:10 am

Note that Greg Doudna may be both right and wrong about John the Baptist in the Fourth Gospel being not the John the Baptist of the synoptical tradition but a John from Ephesus:
Giuseppe wrote:
Mon Sep 07, 2020 9:25 pm
Doudna explains what he means by "John of Ephesus":

Acts has a reference to “disciples of John” in Ephesus, also to an Apollos from Alexandria in Ephesus who is a Jesus-Christian who knows “the baptism of John”, but (a) Luke-Acts is second-century CE and Acts is widely understood to be filled with anachronisms and tendentious story-telling; but even more to the point, (b) is the John of the “baptism of John” of Ephesus, implied to be an adversary of Paul according to both Acts and Rev 2-3, the Josephus JB, or is it the Johannine John figure of Asia Minor associated with the Johannine writings of the New Testament known to Papias? I say the latter.

In this light there is no evidence the JB figure in Antiquities had anything to do with anything Christian at the time it was written.

Now, Ephesus is a city of Ionia (= Ἰωνίς)

Image

But Iωανης == Ιωνα. Hence the original John the Baptist of proto-Mark coincides exactly with
the Johannine John figure of Asia Minor associated with the Johannine writings of the New Testament known to Papias

Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.

User avatar
Giuseppe
Posts: 8308
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: Hermann Raschke's case for the Marcionite invention of John the Baptist in proto-Mark

Post by Giuseppe » Fri Sep 25, 2020 2:24 am

The Ionia was infested by Gnostic heretics and haters of YHWH.
Image

Revelation 2:2 adresses the Judaizers of Ephesus:

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.

In both proto-Mark and proto-John, "Ioanes the Baptist" was the symbolic epitome of all those heretics in action in Ionia.
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.

StephenGoranson
Posts: 290
Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2015 2:10 am

Re: Hermann Raschke's case for the Marcionite invention of John the Baptist in proto-Mark

Post by StephenGoranson » Fri Sep 25, 2020 3:47 am

Giuseppe wrote: “....Josephus knows only three philosophies + the Fourth Philosophy (=Zealots): scribes, pharisees and essenes. Therefore: essenes == followers of John.”
Josephus knows of Sadducees.
Essenes existed before John the Baptist.

StephenGoranson
Posts: 290
Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2015 2:10 am

Re: Hermann Raschke's case for the Marcionite invention of John the Baptist in proto-Mark

Post by StephenGoranson » Fri Sep 25, 2020 4:16 am

Giuseppe wrote: “The ethymology of Essaios is Baptizer. Proved by GRÄTZ also.”

Graetz did make an etymological proposal, meaning “bathers” (rather than baptizers), but if I recall correctly, he proposed that it came from Aramaic in a *hypotherical* and *unattested* form. This is not poof. Who did that tenuous suggestion persuade?
There are 50 or 60-some different proposals about this. For example, J. J. Modi claimed it came from Persian Avestan. Does his proposal also amount to proof?
(Minor point, an aside: etymology is to be distinguished from a different, modern, term, etymythology, sometimes used for folk etymologies.)

User avatar
Secret Alias
Posts: 12684
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Hermann Raschke's case for the Marcionite invention of John the Baptist in proto-Mark

Post by Secret Alias » Fri Sep 25, 2020 5:42 am

Fire, healers, the list goes on and on
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote

User avatar
Giuseppe
Posts: 8308
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: Hermann Raschke's case for the Marcionite invention of John the Baptist in proto-Mark

Post by Giuseppe » Fri Sep 25, 2020 5:56 am

Unfortunately I am unable to write the Hebrew symbols.

But your apologies are easily confuted:
  • 1. Also the Gospels mention sadducees, even if only implicitly as high priests. Hence the "followers of John" are allegory of the essenes. The mere apology that essenes existed before John the Baptist is easily confuted: John the Baptist never existed, since the Baptist Passage and the person are literary Christian inventions, in virtue of the same reason: essaios = Baptizer. Too much divine coincidence, here.
  • 2. The "tenuous suggestion" (essaios == Baptizer) persuades since even a blind realizes easily that the activity of Baptizer for the John of Josephus remembers too much closely the Essenes, beyond and despite of any possible difference between essenes and John the Baptist.
    • Now, this may be a mere remote coincidence.
    • Also the fact that 'baptizer' happens to be a possible root of essaios may be a mere remote coincidence.
    But the parallel combination of two independent coincidences ceases, by construction, to be a mere remote coincidence in its turn. Basically, this is the argument from the coincidence-too-much-impossible-to-be-a-real-coincidence.
In addition, the Hebrew term for Greece, can mean in the same time:
  • Greece or Ἴων (the mythological father of Ionians)
  • the "dove".
This says us that the Christ descended on Jesus in the baptism, under form of a Greek spirit. This is pure anti-judaism in action. The baptism of John served to cease to be Jews and to become Christian Gentilizers. Like Marcion.
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.

Post Reply