How much of John the Baptist is post-Marcion

[Giuseppe]

It is against Marcion that Hegesippus had invented the legend of James the carnal brother of Jesus, docet prof Vinzent.

Now, Rivka Nir thinks that the same Hegesippus was the true author of the Baptist Passage that was later interpolated in Josephus.

Hence, also the Baptist Passage in "Josephus" is post-Marcionite.

Could John the Baptist be absent in the first draft of Mcn? The strongest reason to answer "no" is that even in Matthew and in Mark there are traces of rivarly between Jesus and John: you don't invent allies who are also only partially your rivals.

So the earliest occurrence of John the Baptist is in Mcn.

[Giuseppe]

Why did Mark and Matthew need to have a John the Baptist before Jesus? The answer is obvious: against Marcion.

In Mcn there is the concrete possibility that John the Baptist appeared as "John", without the surname "the Baptist". In the Fourth Gospel, John is never called "the Baptist" even if it is said that John baptized all the time.

Surely a "John" who baptized appears to be a more Christian figure than a "John the Baptist" who baptized. The appellative "the Baptist" reveals kwowledge of the Baptist Passage (of Hegesippus).

[Giuseppe]

The Herod's words ("Jesus is John killed by me") are designed to support the Hegesippian Baptist Passage, having Herod as the killer of John by his own admission.

Was someone denying that Herod killed John the Baptist? Was someone denying that Hegesippus was really Josephus?

[Charles Wilson]

Why did Mark and Matthew need to have a John the Baptist before Jesus? The answer is obvious: against Marcion.

Giuseppe --

I am trying very hard to see how you get to manipulate Marcion but you keep making statements such as above and it begs the question you ask.

Jewish Encyclopedia, "Bilgah":

"According to a Talmudic tradition preserved in "Halakot Gedolot" (ed. Hildesheimer, p. 631), Bilgah was assigned to the group which officiated on the second and sixth days of the Feast of Tabernacles. The priests, when entering upon their duties, received their share in the northern part of the Tabernacle, because this was near the seat of their activity. The section assigned to each division of the priesthood was furnished with an iron ring fastened to the floor, for the purpose of securing the animal designed for slaughter, and there were accordingly twenty-four openings in the wall where the knives used for slaughtering were kept. Bilgah alone received his share in the south, his ring being nailed down, and his wall-closet tightly sealed, as a punishment for the apostasy of a woman of that house by the name of Miriam, who, during the Greek dominion under Antiochus Epiphanes, had denied her faith and married a hipparch (Tos., Suk. iv. 28; Suk. 56b; Yer. Suk., end; "Rev. Et. Juives," xxxix. 54). It is further related that when the Greeks forced their way into the Temple, this woman beat her sandals upon the altar, crying: "Wolf, wolf [Λύκος, λύκος], thou hast swallowed the substance of Israel, but hast deserted us in the day of our need!"

"According to another opinion, the priests of Bilgah delayed too long in entering upon the performance of their functions; so that those of the division Jeshebeab were compelled to act in their place, and consequently received the prerogatives of Bilgah (Tos., l.c.; Yer. Suk., end); to which the Jerusalem Talmud adds that in this instance the division Bilgah was neither abolished nor amalgamated with the other twenty-three divisions, because this would have interfered with the ancient institution..."

Bilgah directly preceeds Immer in the Mishmarot Priesthood Order of 1 Chronicles 24. Thus:

Mark 1:7 (RSV):

[7] And he preached, saying, "After me comes he who is mightier than I, the thong of whose sandals I am not worthy to stoop down and untie.

John 1: 15, 27, 30 (RSV):

[15] (John bore witness to him, and cried, "This was he of whom I said, `He who comes after me ranks before me, for he was before me.'")

[27] even he who comes after me, the thong of whose sandal I am not worthy to untie."

[30] This is he of whom I said, `After me comes a man who ranks before me, for he was before me.'

All of this points to the following:

[29] The next day he saw Jesus coming toward him, and said, "Behold, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world!

This is Semitic (Pettinato) and if you can construct Marcion such that Marcion develops the story from these Semitic Origins then let me know how. There is a Story Thread that would get this accomplished but from the fact John preceeds a constructed "Jesus", it does not follow that such a path is against Marcion.

CW

[schillingklaus]

John's task is preaching, nor baptizing as right-wing extremists like Ehrman want to make people believe. John derives from the herald (keryx) of the Father promoting the baptise in the giant pool of intellect. Judaizers had to transform him into a person lannounced by scripture, like Eliah 2.0 return from Utopia. Even as such, his task was to promote the faith into the coming Christ, not to baptize many people in the Lord's name and then also baptize Jesus for a completely different purpose. Even Luke's is reluctant to call John a Baptizer. This proves once more that Luke's is not derived from Mark's, regardless of the apologistic propaganda spread by Markan priorists.