Biblical Criticism & History Forum - earlywritings.com

Assuming that "John the Baptist" was not still known as baptizer of Jesus, as it appears from the Marcion's Gospel as reconstructed by Klinghard, and that therefore Mark introduced the baptism of Jesus by John;

assuming that Marcion knew only a John the Baptizer who someway had to be attacked in the Evangelion,

...what are the possible hypotheses about this John without still no relation with Jesus via the baptism ?

I specify the authenticity of the Baptist passage in Josephus only for the authors who concede it.

• Prof Vinzent appears to assume that John was a historical baptizer. He concedes authenticity to the Baptist passage in Josephus.

• Someone (Georges Ory) has proposed that the Baptizer was Theudas or the Samaritan false prophet slain by Pilate. He was the first who received the title of Christ.

• Greg Doudna thinks that, while John the Baptist was the historical John Hyrcanus II (the Baptist passage in Josephus is misplaced but genuine), he was for Mark a useful cover-up to eclipse the (otherwise embarrassing) John of Gischala (a "baptizer" in his own right insofar he collected armies near the Jordan river).

• Jean Magne thinks that the baptism of Jesus by John is a mere transposition of the hermetic rite of the reception of the noûs. John was a figure of paper, so. The hostility by Marcion against John the Baptist was therefore a late phenomenon.

• Eduard Dujardin thought that John the Baptist was an apostle of Christ, i.e. he saw the celestial Jesus in visions, revelations, hallucinations. His legacy was marginalized gradually. The Baptist passage in Josephus is genuine.

• Robert Stahl argued that John the Baptist was a figure of the Mandean mythology, then he was judaized by making him the author of Revelation, then he was christianized by making him "the Baptizer" of Jesus.

• André Wautier thinks that John the Baptist was the distorted memory of John the "son of rabbi" Judas the Galilean, i.e. "Bar-rabbas".

• Mlinssen thinks that John the Baptist was a figure of paper based on some sporadic John found in the OT.

Giuseppe wrote: ↑Tue Feb 22, 2022 6:46 am Assuming that "John the Baptist" was not still known as baptizer of Jesus, as it appears from the Marcion's Gospel as reconstructed by Klinghard, and that therefore Mark introduced the baptism of Jesus by John;

assuming that Marcion knew only a John the Baptizer who someway had to be attacked in the Evangelion,

...what are the possible hypotheses about this John without still no relation with Jesus via the baptism ?

I specify the authenticity of the Baptist passage in Josephus only for the authors who concede it.

• Prof Vinzent appears to assume that John was a historical baptizer. He concedes authenticity to the Baptist passage in Josephus.

• Someone (Georges Ory) has proposed that the Baptizer was Theudas or the Samaritan false prophet slain by Pilate. He was the first who received the title of Christ.

• Greg Doudna thinks that, while John the Baptist was the historical John Hyrcanus II (the Baptist passage in Josephus is misplaced but genuine), he was for Mark a useful cover-up to eclipse the (otherwise embarrassing) John of Gischala (a "baptizer" in his own right insofar he collected armies near the Jordan river).

• Jean Magne thinks that the baptism of Jesus by John is a mere transposition of the hermetic rite of the reception of the noûs. John was a figure of paper, so. The hostility by Marcion against John the Baptist was therefore a late phenomenon.

• Eduard Dujardin thought that John the Baptist was an apostle of Christ, i.e. he saw the celestial Jesus in visions, revelations, hallucinations. His legacy was marginalized gradually. The Baptist passage in Josephus is genuine.

• Robert Stahl argued that John the Baptist was a figure of the Mandean mythology, then he was judaized by making him the author of Revelation, then he was christianized by making him "the Baptizer" of Jesus.

• André Wautier thinks that John the Baptist was the distorted memory of John the "son of rabbi" Judas the Galilean, i.e. "Bar-rabbas".

• Mlinssen thinks that John the Baptist was a figure of paper based on some sporadic John found in the OT.

LOL.
Logion 46 in my Commentary contains the full story, so does Absolute Thomasine Priority, yet a very concise interpretation of Thomas logion 46 is available on this forum as well:

viewtopic.php?p=115718#p115718

Yet have a look at the splendid role of John in Mark first:

viewtopic.php?p=127793#p127793

While I detest compromise, Vinzent and I both are right: Marcion gladly took John the Baptist and turned him into [something I won't disclose because it'll ruin all the fun of reading Christi Thora], and the canonicals turn that upside down by creating the first prophet of Christianity out of him.
My interpretation of Thomas and my entire translation is meaningless to the evolution of Christianity, Giuseppe. All it proves is that Thomas precedes the gospels, and later this year I will verify my theory that he precedes Marcion as well.
The entire story starts with Marcion, not with Thomas - Thomas is just a text that was used, and wildly misunderstood. Which comes to no surprise, as cryptic as it is: contemporary "scholars" have taken him in every possible direction in the past decades, so imagine what could be made out of it some 2,000 years ago

But John is pivotal to Marcion and his religion because he introduces Jesus as the figure of a new religion - yet neither existed, of course

I have this tome by J. Massyngberde Ford, a classic that I've not read. Any thoughts on that? I believe it identifies the Baptist as the Revelator interpreting Zechariah or some such. I hope to read it someday.

mlinssen wrote: ↑Tue Feb 22, 2022 8:17 am But John is pivotal to Marcion and his religion

true. Klinghardt and Vinzent (even if I am expecting the latter's English version of Thora Christi) have both persuaded me that John the Baptist was mentioned by Marcion (and in a polemical way), against a different view proposed by Georges Ory according to which John the Baptist was never mentioned in the original Marcion's Gospel. So the question arises naturaliter: could John be only a thiny figure of paper?

Two options:

• He was a mythological figure of a rival religion: Mandeism;

• He was a historical figure of primary importance, not even worthy of the Baptist passage in Josephus, but someone of the status of a John of Gischala, for example.

Possibly Greg Doudna is on something when he thinks that John of Gischala and/or his priests authored the original layer of the Book of Revelation, during the siege. Accordingly John of Gischala could be the unaware embryon of the legend of "John the Baptist", so Marcion could attack that nebulous legend in order to denigrate the entire Judaism as essentially a rebellious religion.

Obviously Greg thinks that John of Gischala had Jesus b. Sapphat in mind as one of the priests working for him (or as the same hero of Revelation), however his finding that John of Gischala could be behind the John legend is worthy to be pursued further along more (Jesus-)mythicist paradigms.

Giuseppe wrote: ↑Tue Feb 22, 2022 9:16 am

mlinssen wrote: ↑Tue Feb 22, 2022 8:17 am But John is pivotal to Marcion and his religion

true. Klinghardt and Vinzent (even if I am expecting the latter's English version of Thora Christi) have both persuaded me that John the Baptist was mentioned by Marcion (and in a polemical way), against a different view proposed by Georges Ory according to which John the Baptist was never mentioned in the original Marcion's Gospel. So the question arises naturaliter: could John be only a thiny figure of paper?

It appears that you have missed the entire point to my thesis, so let me explain it once more:

• Thomas wrote just a text about self-salvation
• He chose a setting for that text, namely that of a person speaking sayings to disciples: typically one that would fit with someone disclosing his wisdom - and that is the first sarcasm as his entire point is to reject any and all religion, philosophy and teaching, and to find out everything by yourself - by questioning merely your Self
• He invented the characters as well, of course
• One of those is "Johannes the Immerser", who is juxtaposed to Adam: the very last and the very first "Jews" to appear in the Book of Chronicles, and his comment is hence about the entire Jewish race, history, and everything in it
• Johannes the Immerser points to Zedekiah, who immersed the Prophet Jeremiah in mud - or mire, if you fancy fancy words
• Johannes got his eyes "broken" by Nebuchadnezzar who blinded him
• Johannes wasn't there to see how Jehoiachin gets set free at the end and given a seat above all kings

So there we have it: the pointer by Thomas to Johannes the Immerser explained; the Johannes that he invented on paper just to express his fierce hate against the Judeans - because it was due to Zedekiah that the Temple got destroyed, Jerusalem got destroyed, and the entire kingdom of Judah got destroyed: all of the entire Jewish dream ended with Zedekiah, and Thomas is mighty pleased

The content of Thomas (the exact meaning of the words to Thomas) is irrelevant to Christianity.
The context of Thomas (the central theme of "salvation from the self") is irrelevant to Christianity.
Thomas is irrelevant to Chrestianity even: Marcion built a religion on top of his sayings and that is the very start to it all. And Marcion assigns that same Johannes the Immerser a pivotal - and antithetical - role in his own story

The Johannes the Immerser of Thomas is irrelevant to any and all of Chrestianity and Christianity; John B only starts to "live" in Marcion

But it is the story of Thomas that Marcion used, and textual criticism demonstrates that Thomas precedes the NT.
Marcion caused the NT to come into being, as a natural and logical retaliation against his extremely widespread movement that opposed Judaism, Pharisees, and basically everything "Jewish". By having Romans execute his protagonist his movement also threatened Roman law and order, it wasn't just the Judaic system that he threatened to severely disrupt

They surely persecuted Chrestians (and not Christians) and tried to subdue the movement, but in the end the Romans resorted to extinguishing not the fire itself, but its fuel: Judaism got banned from Palestine as well in 135 CE, after the measure proved useful in Rome in 50 CE.
But that still wasn't enough, apparently, and Romans finally took over the movement: they wrote the NT and 2 centuries later they started the rebranding of Chrestianity to Christianity

But Johannes the Immerser? Originally he's just wordplay by Thomas, and just as all of Marcion / *Ev / Chrestianity formed a legacy, a forced heirship, to Christianity - just exactly like that did all of Thomas form a forced heirship to Marcion.
Thomas created John the Baptist, but Marcion made him greater than life

Capice?

What I find strange is: why, if John was only a figure of paper, does Marcion seem to be full of hatred against a mere figure of paper in his Evangelion (because it is a FACT that in the Evangelion, as reconstructed by Klinghardt, John the Baptist is attacked very polemically) ?

Under your hypothesis (John as a mere figure of paper) Marcion would resemble Don Quixote in his struggle against windmills.

Really?

Isn't it more realistic that Marcion attacked a real John legend already existing there out?

Of course John is a mere figure of paper., euhemerizing the Hermetic herald of the baptism in the crater. Being likened to Elijah in pre-synoptic gospel drafts, especially the one cauleld Pauline gospel by Philippe Rolland, this was unacceptable for Marcionism, whose Jesus was not yet known, neither as a Jewish messiah nor as a successor to a pagan preacher. That is why John had to be moved into the role of an obsoleted preacher of Judaism of old.

schillingklaus wrote: ↑Tue Feb 22, 2022 11:18 amBeing likened to Elijah in pre-synoptic gospel drafts, especially the one cauleld Pauline gospel by Philippe Rolland, this was unacceptable for Marcionism,

which is the reason why, if John is a mere figure of paper, then his introduction in a Gospel couldn't be made the first time by an anti-demiurgist as Marcion. The non-existence of John the Baptist is in contradiction with the priority of the Marcion's Evangelion.

Again and again, I am moved to suspect that the euhemerization of the deity Jesus was started by Judaizers.

Giuseppe wrote: ↑Tue Feb 22, 2022 10:45 am What I find strange is: why, if John was only a figure of paper, does Marcion seem to be full of hatred against a mere figure of paper in his Evangelion (because it is a FACT that in the Evangelion, as reconstructed by Klinghardt, John the Baptist is attacked very polemically) ?

Under your hypothesis (John as a mere figure of paper) Marcion would resemble Don Quixote in his struggle against windmills.

Really?

Isn't it more realistic that Marcion attacked a real John legend already existing there out?

Your argument would make sense Giuseppe - if it would hold. Yet your analysis is correct, but your conclusion isn't.
Where do you read that "Marcion is full of hatred towards John the Baptist"? He states that the Law and the prophets were valid until John, and he uses John to "launch" new religion - by using him "against" it

Vinzent: "Eine erste, wichtige Frage ist, warum Markion im Evangelium überhaupt auf Johannes zu sprechen kommt" - why does Marcion even mention JB? (*Ev 7,17-22)

Marcion has John B take offense at the news that there is a Jesus messing around on his turf and Tertullian comments to that "as if he were a different Christ that taught new teachings" - and that is exactly the point.
Jesus isn't baptised in Marcion, of course

In *Ev 5,33–37 has Marcion John's disciple neatly behave while Jesus' disciples don't: they don't give a damn of course, and John B is depicted as the Judaism-obeying prophet, he personifies Judaism for Marcion: a grateful object to vilify just as the Jesus of Thomas vilifies his disciples

When Herod confuses Jesus with John B, it is Jesus who first tells the disciples about his future demise - not some prophecy. (*Ev 9,21-22)

In *Ev 7,24-28 (prophet, desert, reed) Marcion isn't negative towards John B, he merely uses him to predict his own coming. He elevates John as the greatest exactly because his own coming is made greater by that. Yet it is in *Ev 11,1-2 again that he denigrates John B's disciples - and he really uses John B to rejects Judaism yet also to benefit his own cause, and in this last example he opposes his own "Our Father" as a much better offer than the mere praying of John B's disciples. And by doing so, he uses the same tactic that Thomas exercises

I could go on, but this is the gist. It would seem as if Marcion is against John B, but he cunningly uses him to propel his own case