John the Baptist is what does the difference in deciding on priority between Mark and *Ev

[davidmartin]

John Presbyter is absolutely fixing the Synoptics by having John B only testify to Jesus - he is purely a witness and not an enabler, Jesus is fully independent and self-serving in John P.
There's no tension in the Synoptics between John and Jesus AFAIK, but in *Ev there certainly is.
And it's fun that indeed Luke adds the birth narrative yet lets the checking up on Jesus by John's disciples remain intact - with puzzling results

In John P John B just moved entirely to the background - and so much so that the question arises what the value of his testimony is other than his own that he's been told by Gawd about Jesus - and if John P were to precede the other NT gospels I doubt whether John B did any heavy lifting.
So I can only surmise that John P comes last and *really* fixes Mark by having John B do no baptism of Jesus at all, and just sit there and point at Jesus, frequently, saying "he da man!"

You could be right. John Presbyter has got to be a candidate for the redactor of the primitive John gospel, I think he wrote 1/2/3 John but not that the redactor wrote the whole gospel. Its the easiest NT book to play 'spot the redactor'?

True what you say about JTB being a witness not enabler. It's never clear he actually baptises Jesus but he says a lot more than the synoptics. I think his role is he is the leader, maybe founder of the sect which the J man is a member of, thus the gospel emerged from that sect decades later still giving John a starring role, maybe its name. It's them that had all the prologue theology which is scarce in the synoptics, and other bits of theology that's only found in John. This John the Baptist is not the same one as the synoptics. I think that's what the gospel of John is hinting at

Call me a heretic but it might be a bit battered I recon it's closer than the synoptics or Paul to the source of this thing. If Mark's narrative style is telling a story from an outsiders perspective from various sources and Paul was never a follower, that leaves the gospel of John as the only potential connected NT text to the origins. The lack of Thomas-like sayings has to be explained though

[schillingklaus]

Magne's treatment of Johnny B is appropriate. Marcion only appears late on the screen, when the Judaization of the original story was already completed. At that point, it was easier to dejudaize the gospel story by opposing Jesus to John, the renewed Eliah known from Scripture.

There is just no continuity from pre-Christian gnosis to Marcionic doctrine.

[neilgodfrey]

There is just no continuity from pre-Christian gnosis to Marcionic doctrine.

What do you mean by "pre-Christian gnosis", exactly?

[Giuseppe]

There is just no continuity from pre-Christian gnosis to Marcionic doctrine.

What do you mean by "pre-Christian gnosis", exactly?

he means probably, following Jean Magne, the pre-christian anti-demiurgists, Marcion being a reaction to a judaization that had already worked successfully in the principal centres of the Empire. The Pontus, according to Magne, being too much remote, had been not enough re-judaized, and Marcion's partial rehabilitation of the demiurge (from an evil to a merely just deity) was already a form of compromise with the new actors on the scene (the Judaizers).

[Giuseppe]

Kunigunde and Stuart are wrong when they claim that John is introduced to readers in Mark, differently from Mcn. Really, there is no difference at all, between Mcn and Mark, as to introductive informations about John the Baptist:

Here is the sense: John the Baptist appeared, preaching in the desert. John is mentioned without any sort of preparation, as if he is already known to the reader. There are no indicators of time, an absence that is highly significant, for in this narrative we encounter the bedrock of the ancient tradition, which by its very nature was handed down by people (initiates, who knew the events and the characters) who had no interest at all in any kind of biographical detail. Only after an authorial point of view had been adopted would this become an issue, and at that point the details were filled in. Among the canonical gospels only Luke provides information about the era, the year, and the family background of John the Baptist (Luke 3:1–2).

Schmidt, Karl Ludwig. The Framework of the Story of Jesus: Literary-Critical Investigations of the Earliest Jesus Tradition (pp.36-37). Cascade Books. Edizione del Kindle.

[mlinssen]

Kunigunde and Stuart are wrong when they claim that John is introduced to readers in Mark, differently from Mcn. Really, there is no difference at all, between Mcn and Mark, as to introductive informations about John the Baptist:

Here is the sense: John the Baptist appeared, preaching in the desert. John is mentioned without any sort of preparation, as if he is already known to the reader. There are no indicators of time, an absence that is highly significant, for in this narrative we encounter the bedrock of the ancient tradition, which by its very nature was handed down by people (initiates, who knew the events and the characters) who had no interest at all in any kind of biographical detail. Only after an authorial point of view had been adopted would this become an issue, and at that point the details were filled in. Among the canonical gospels only Luke provides information about the era, the year, and the family background of John the Baptist (Luke 3:1–2).

Schmidt, Karl Ludwig. The Framework of the Story of Jesus: Literary-Critical Investigations of the Earliest Jesus Tradition (pp.36-37). Cascade Books. Edizione del Kindle.

A quick first from Roth, FWIW

1:1–2:52 [6.4.1; 8.1]—Not Present 3:1 [5.1; 6.4.1; 7.4.1; 8.2]—ἐν τῷ {ἔτει πεντεκαιδεκάτῳ} τῆς ἡγεμονίας Τιβερίου Καίσαρος ἐπι τῶν χρόνων Ποντίου Πιλάτου . . .
3:2–20—Unattested [though indirectly attested as not present]5 3:21–4:13 [4.4.2; 6.4.1]—Not Present 4:14–15—Unattested 4:31 [5.3; 7.4.1; 8.4]— . . . κατῆλθεν [ἐφάνη may have appeared in the Antitheses] εἰς Καφαρναοὺμ πόλιν τῆς Γαλιλαίας, . . . ἦν διδάσκων . . . ἐν τῇ συναγωγῇ.
4:32 [4.4.1]— . . . ἐξεπλήσσοντο δὲ πάντες ἐπὶ τῇ διδαχῆ αὐτοῦ, ὅτι ἐν ἐξουσίᾳ ἦν ὁ λόγος αὐτου.
4:33—Unattested 4:34 [4.4.2]— . . . τί ἡμῖν καὶ σοί Ἰησοῦ [Ναζαρηνέ may not have been present];
ἦλθες ἀπολέσαι ἡμᾶς; οἶδα [σε likely present] τίς εἶ, ὁ ἅγιος τοῦ θεοῦ.
4:35 [5.4]— . . . ἐπετίμησεν αὐτῷ ὁ Ἰησοῦς . . .
4:16 [5.2; 8.3]— . . . Ναζαρέθ . . .
4:17–22—Unattested [and possibly not present] 4:23 [5.2; 8.3]— . . . (ἰατρέ, θεράπευσον σεαυτόν) . . .
4:24–26—Unattested [4:27 is found below before 17:14] 4:28—Unattested 4:29 [5.2; 8.3]— . . . ἐξέβαλον αὐτόν . . . ἤγαγον αὐτὸν ἕως ὀφρύος τοῦ ὄρους . . .

No introduction indeed

[mlinssen]

Call me a heretic but it might be a bit battered I recon it's closer than the synoptics or Paul to the source of this thing. If Mark's narrative style is telling a story from an outsiders perspective from various sources and Paul was never a follower, that leaves the gospel of John as the only potential connected NT text to the origins. The lack of Thomas-like sayings has to be explained though

Yes, John is a riddle. He breathes all of Thomas when we look at the father orientation yet he's very fixated in the carrying over to Peter, something which I believe was added later.
Irenaeus has him first, then Luke, then Matthew, then Mark: that's got to account for something, and I place him in the Thomas camp. Here's what I found:

8:12 Again, therefore, Jesus spoke to them, saying, "I am the light of the world. He who follows me will not walk in the darkness, but will have the light of life."

(77a) Jesus said, "It is I who am the light which is above them all.
(77b) It is I who am the all.
(77c) From me did the all come forth, and unto me did the all extend.
(77d) Split a piece of wood, and I am there.
(77e) Lift up the stone, and you will find me there"

8:25 They said therefore to him, "Who are you?" Jesus said to them, "Just what I have been saying to you from the beginning. 26 I have many things to speak and to judge concerning you.
However he who sent me is true; and the things which I heard from him, these I say to the world." 27 They didn't understand that he spoke to them about the Father.

(43a) His disciples said to him, "Who are you, that you should say these things to us?" (43b) [Jesus said to them] "You do not realize who I am from what I say to you, but you have become like the Jews, for they (either) love the tree and hate its fruit (or) love the fruit and hate the tree."

10:37 Now on the last and greatest day of the feast, Jesus stood and cried out, "If anyone is thirsty, let him come to me and drink! 38 He who believes in me, as the Scripture has said, from within him will flow rivers of living water

(108a) Jesus said, "He who will drink from my mouth will become like me.
(108b) I myself shall become he, and the things that are hidden will be revealed to him."

11:23 Jesus said to her, "Your brother will rise again." 24 Martha said to him, "I know that he will rise again in the resurrection at the last day." 25 Jesus said to her, "I am the resurrection and the life. He who believes in me will still live, even if he dies. 26 Whoever lives and believes in me will never die. Do you believe this?

(111a) Jesus said, "The heavens and the earth will be rolled up in your presence.
(111b) And the one who lives from the living one will not see death." (111c) Does not Jesus say, "Whoever finds himself is superior to the world"?

That's almost it, all extremely flimsy and I counted three of them, and even left out what John had in common with the Synoptics.
Five mentions of Caiaphas in John, against zero, one and two in respectively Mark, Luke and Matthew. Caiaphas as an oracle of God - that is quite more than a surprise. Was Caiaphas a sponsor of this text? Caiaphas and Jesus face each other and nothing happens. Jesus is sent to Caiaphas, and immediately the spotlights turn to Peter who denies Jesus a second and third time, the rooster crows and immediately the spotlights turn to Jesus being led away from Caiaphas. What?! That is impossible: the high priest has been in this scene since Mark, using false witnesses to try and get him to confess, and then tearing Jesus' clothes and striking and insulting him (all in order to fulfil prophecies, most from Isaiah chapter 53) - only Luke has a different scene without false witnesses, but with everything else in it. In Matthew the high priest received a name, and it was Caiaphas - that name remains in John but any and all action vanishes in thin air: simply because Annas is his proxy; Caiaphas gets completely off the hook

I'm just avoiding John LOL, it's a beautiful text but yet another can of worms

[Charles Wilson]

Mlinnsen --

Couldn't PM you for some reason but...

"(77d) Split a piece of wood, and I am there.
(77e) Lift up the stone, and you will find me there' "

There's a good book I don't currently have that explores "Asherah, Consort of El" and the development from Asherah goddess to Asherah Pole to small stick/totem just before the Israelites were carted off for 70 years.

So I read the above and I wonder if there might be a Semitic/Sumerian Thread going through that one that might have echoes of El - Asherah.

Y/N/M?

[mlinssen]

Mlinnsen --

Couldn't PM you for some reason but...

"(77d) Split a piece of wood, and I am there.
(77e) Lift up the stone, and you will find me there' "

There's a good book I don't currently have that explores "Asherah, Consort of El" and the development from Asherah goddess to Asherah Pole to small stick/totem just before the Israelites were carted off for 70 years.

So I read the above and I wonder if there might be a Semitic/Sumerian Thread going through that one that might have echoes of El - Asherah.

Y/N/M?

I've turned off PM's Charles, I needed to drop some channels

I have two remarks about the above: it's a downward movement followed by an upward movement; and IS is everywhere, as he is a concept, a meaning, a symbol, awareness perhaps - and invisible, hidden in the wood and under the stone.
Yet also we view everything through our own lens, we are the centre of our own universe - and we find ourselves everywhere in that way. Replace "I" by "the I" in the whole logion and it makes prefect sense - "the me me me" is everywhere

[davidmartin]

Yes, John is a riddle. He breathes all of Thomas when we look at the father orientation yet he's very fixated in the carrying over to Peter, something which I believe was added later.

there is more connection than I thought, interesting information
I can think of numerous reasons why John might not quote the sayings i'd throw on the table
1 They really were 'secret' originally so John wished to exclude them (even if they were already in Mark) but alludes to them by 'the words of life'
2 They were somewhat disputed, controversial (Papias, mentions strange sayings). To avoid association with rivals that used them, they're omitted

peter intrudes a lot. i liked the scholar that said the beloved disciple was Mary and pointed to where the text got purposely muddled to make her male.

going back to John the baptist I was playing around with the idea that the only person who actually 'anoints' Jesus is her and not the baptist at all!
that's a strange reversal but it factually is true from what the text says. the first miracle at the wedding Jesus doesn't want to do it 'my time has not come' yes, because he hasn't been baptised yet? Then suddenly he can do it
The problem is the chronology is wrong, the anointing by Mary would have to be moved to the wedding and the reason for it completely different. But it's still kind of appealing.