What if *Ev was both pro and against John the Baptist?

[Giuseppe]

there would be a third option:

what if both Klinghardt and Kunigunde are correct ?

Klinghardt, claiming that John the Baptist is a hostile figure in *Ev.

Kunigunde, claiming that John the Baptist is an ally of Jesus in *Ev 20:1-4.

The trend would be towards a gradual pacification between two opposed views.
I.e., *Ev, even if it was the earliest of the known gospels (per Klinghardt) was however the mere reflection of a such trend in action, towards harmonization between two opposed factions.

The collateral problem of any harmonization is the contradiction implicit in a such text: now John the Baptist is an enemy, now he is an ally.

Hence, the "political" act represented by the so-called Gospel tradition, is the conscious or unconscious trend towards progressive harmonization/pacification. From this POV, they were catholics even without being officially catholics.

[Giuseppe]

What determined the success of a gospels was his capacity of giving the welcome to the more different views.

*Ev partially was able in such sense, because *Ev 20:1-4, if Kunigunde is correct, was the first timide attempt to accept a positive view of the Baptist.

Stromholm had already signaled how the fact that the only the demons were able to recognize Jesus's divinity was partially offensive against the gentilizers and in particular the marcionites, i.e. the Christians who accepted only a not-human Jesus.
From the other hand, the same episode was used to attack the ebionite view of Jesus as mere man.

[Giuseppe]

So the miracle happened that a gospel used by Marcionites could even have few anti-marcionite points and even (!) pro-Judaizing points,

...just as a gospel used by Judaizers could be very well the edited version of a Marcionite gospel, so leaving marcionite points with extreme easiness.

The strategy was the same: to persuade the opposed factions to join the own, by giving them some crumbs in return.

[Giuseppe]

If one accepts the E* priority, there are no doubts that the trend towards euhemerization (=the Gospel tradition) was started by Gentilizers (including marcionites).

[Kunigunde Kreuzerin]

there would be a third option:

what if both Klinghardt and Kunigunde are correct ?

Klinghardt, claiming that John the Baptist is a hostile figure in *Ev.

Kunigunde, claiming that John the Baptist is an ally of Jesus in *Ev 20:1-4.

Hi Giuseppe, I don't think John is an "ally" of Jesus. imho John has two functions in GMark. He represents

- the role of the suffering prophets of Israel (not Elijah the miracle worker, but Elijah at Horeb, and in this sense the forerunner of Jesus)
- the best that Paul said of the law (for example Romans 7)

That is why in GMark is this triad of John, Herod and the Pharisees (representing the worst of the law).

I believe that the story about Herod's birthday (and the beheading of John) is an illustration of how the law is giving birth to sin (For John had been saying to Herod, “It is not lawful for you to have your brother’s wife.”)

[Giuseppe]

Hi Giuseppe, I don't think John is an "ally" of Jesus.

I mean: a view of John as precursor of Jesus and adoring the same god of Jesus. Precisely the two points denied about John in *Ev according to prof Vinzent.

[lsayre]

The harmonization of those of John with those of Jesus seems to ring forth with an air of "The enemy of my enemy is my friend". Thus both for and against.