This proves once more the absolute necessity of an assumption of lost pre-synoptic source gospels, following roughly the pattern of Herbert Marsh and Philippe Rolland after freeing oneself from their apologist propaganda (historical reliability of Acts ...) This has already been recognized by Jean Magne in LOGIQUE DES SACREMENTS in order to give the one and only non-absurd explanation for the differences in the evangelical accounts of the mass feedings, and it works wonders in the detection of the evolution of the story of the cena and the passion.
Corpus Hermeticum IV contains the original account of the anonymous and timeless herald (keryx) of the Father who teaches baptism in the pool of intellect, that is, philosophical studies. Illogicallu identifying the Father with YHWH, the Judaizers morphed this anonymous herald into a prophet of YHWH, appropriated by means of midrash, whose task was to preach baptism in the name of the coming messiah according to Scripture. Only as an agent of YHWH could he be named this way and fixed in location and history like that. Come the time ascribed to Marcion, the original context was already obscured beyond recognition. Further, Marcionism required a thitherto unbeknownst Father and unbeknownst agents, not people known from Scriopture or whatever Greek philosophy; therefore, references to the Hermetic herald would have ruled out themselves for Marcionism even if the pre-Judaized meaning had been known.
Marcion could play with John the Baptist the same game he did with Jesus: others have judaized him but I recover his original image.
If Marcion has not made so, it is because John was entirely in the Jewish-Christian camp until to his own DNA, by the time Marcion appeared on the scene.
My point is that the hostility and enmity found in the Gospels between Jesus and John has only an unique root: Marcion.
So there had to be something, in John, that Marcion hated so much: I think that the reason of so much hatred is that, before Marcion wrote, John the Baptist was associated with Elijah and/or with a strong apocalyptic expectation of the Messiah of YHWH. A messianic apocalypticism connected with the forgiving of sins.
But absolutely no a baptism of Jesus by John: it was totally an anti-marcionite invention.
The Parables of Enoch played the same role of the Mark's John the Baptist: the End is Coming only you can still be forgiven in extremis. But the Son of Man will not forgive.
Marcion does a reversal of the cards: the prophet who had to forgive, John the Baptist, is revealed as one who doesn't forgive really (even his disciples will continue to fast: the sign that the forgiveness is always postponed to the future), while the Son of Man, the same figure who never would have forgiven in John's and Enoch's intentions, forgives really.
So my point is that John the Baptist and the Son of Man are people/ideas derived from Enochism and used polemically by Marcion.
The forgivenness iof sins is a late corruption of the story of John the Baptist, as is his activity as a Baptiser.
Especially Lk's gospel proves that John was not called a baptist until much later.
