PhilosopherJay

Hi All,

Here is my Blog on "The Gospels as a Sequel to an Original John the Baptist Text"

Here's the diagram from it



I think it is helpful to think of the John the Baptist text as the original movie and the gospels as a movie sequel derived from it The sequel copies the basic plot of the original and adds a few more special effects. One may think of it as "Frankenstein" (Whale, 1932) and "The Bride of Frankenstein" (Whale, 1934), or "Flash Gordon" (Stephani, 1936) and "Flash Gordon Goes to Mars" (Beebe, 1938), or even "Star Wars" (Lucas, 1977) and "Star Wars II: The Empire Strikes Back" (Lucas, 1980).

We don't have the original John the Baptist text, but the sequel has preserved enough of it to give us a good idea of what it must have been about.

Warmly,

Philosopher Jay

aa5874

Jesus, the SON of MAN appears to be a SEQUEL to the writings of Daniel

Daniel 7.13-14
Mt 4:17 - Mt 24:30 - Mt 26:64 - Daniel appears to be be the original movie.

Da 9:25 - John the Baptist appears to be not very significant in the Jesus stories. It was the so-called prophecies of Hebrew Scripture that would determine the contents of the Hebrew scripture SEQUEL.

stephan huller

For what it is worth I suspect that the original narrative where Jesus predicts that John will sit at his right hand (and thus inferring that John was the Christ) has been deliberately turned inside out by the Catholic editors of the canon into another John being the prophet of Jesus the enthroned Christ. The idea that John sat on the throne is implicit in Ephrem and a number of Coptic texts. I have also been disatisfied with the tradition claim that the Mandaean John is John the Baptist. This came later. It is hard to believe that the Haran Gawaitha knows that its John died c. 30 CE. The impression I get is that he lived to see the destruction of Jerusalem before being 'cut off.'

maryhelena

Hi, Jay

These are the two sentences that stood out for me from your blog post.

(not letting Josephus out of the loop of course......)

Yes, I’d agree with you, the John the Baptist story and the Jesus story are two peas in the same pod - the gospel Jesus story. Where I would separate the two is for the Galilean ministry part of the story ie this story is the first sequel - a taking up of the ‘torch’ by a sympathiser (for want of a better word....) In the grand finale, sequel number 2, elements from both stories are fused together in the passion narrative.

So, going back to actual Jewish history - elements of the crucifixion and beheading of the Hasmonean Antigonus have been used to create two symbolic or figurative gospel figures - JB and the Jesus of the passion narrative. The Jesus in the middle, first sequel, is, I think, based upon Philip the Tetrarch, a non-crucified historical figure - as reflected in the non-crucified figure of the Galilean preacher in early layers of the gospel story.

Josephus depicts Antipas as viewing JB as a possible threat - and thereby has him executed.

Looking back to 37 bc - this description better fits Antigonus that JB.

The gospel storyline re JB, Antipas and Herodias is very interesting. Firstly, as Kokkinos suggests - and the gospels of Mark and Matthew back up, Herodias was married to Philip. The time of Philip’s death is questionable as early editions of Josephus indicate different dates - and Slavonic Josephus only has this supposed marriage to Antipas after the death of Philip.

However, if what is going on here with this storyline/plot is a replaying of the historical tape of 37 bc then a different perspective on this storyline is possible.

JB is playing the role of Antigonus.

Antipas is playing the role of Herod the Great.

Herodias is playing the role of her grandmother, Mariamne I.

Dancing daughter of Herodias is playing the role of Mariamne’s descendants.

JB complaining about the marriage of Antipas and Herodias is a replay of Herod the Great taking the Hasmonean Mariamne as his wife - and like Antigonus, is beheaded for challenging Herod/Antipas power.

The dancing daughter of Herodias who is promised half of the kingdom of Antipas - the Hasmonean/Herodian descendants of Mariamne who are to become heirs to inherit the kingdom of Herod the Great - the fused 50/50 Herodian/Hasmonean bloodline.

The whole NT storyline an interpretation of the Hasmonean/Herodian historical drama???

PhilosopherJay

Hi aa5874,

Thanks for the Daniel quotes. John is certainly based on the earlier Daniel movie, as well as Ezekiel and some other books of prophets.

Warmly,

Philosopher Jay

PhilosopherJay

Hi Stephan,

Excellent points, thanks.

I think the John as Christ ploy was tried just before they decided to introduce the new character of Jesus and make him the Christ.

Warmly,

Philosopher Jay

PhilosopherJay

Hi maryhelena,

Good points.

I think that the basic plot mold and characters comes from the traditional Hebrew Scripture prophets. There are probably the references you cited to contemporary events added into the soup.

It is quite like the second (and widely regarded as the best) James Bond movie, "From Russia With Love," There are all sorts of references to contemporary events and characters from the time that are incorporated into the movie. Those in the know can catch them. For example the Spektor Decoding Machine was based on the now famous Enigma Decoding Machine that the Nazis used in World War II. At the time the movie came out in 1962, it was still a classified secret and the importance of breaking that machine's code in helping the Allies to win the war was entirely unknown to the public. Ian Fleming was involved with the Ultra Network who cracked the Enigma Code in 1939. Colonel Rosa Klebb is based on an actual Russian colonel that Ian Fleming once wrote about in the Sunday Times. The moves in the chess game at the beginning of the movie are from the game played by Boris Spassky and David Bronstein at the USSR Championship in Leningrad in 1960. The character of Kerim Bey was fashioned after Nâzım Kalkavan, a Turkish shipowner and graduate of Oxford University who traveled with Fleming on his trip to Turkey. The character of Tatiana Romanova was based on the Polish World War II Spy Krystyna Skarbek AKA Christine Granville. A new movie based on her life called "Christine: War My Love" is now being developed in Poland.

Despite these references to historical events and characters in the movie, certainly the movie has to be considered fiction and only trivially historical. I think the same goes for the gospel texts.


Warmly,

Philosopher Jay

maryhelena

Undoubtedly, the gospel/movie story is fiction. But that does not mean that the historical events that are used for plot purposes did not have real meaning or relevance to those 'in the know'.

Perhaps a little Irish music history here.....
At one time in Ireland, during the Penal Laws by the British, it was not allowed for the Irish to sing songs that referenced Ireland. So - the Irish wrote songs with double meanings. Songs about love for a maiden named Eileen.

Eileen Alanna Asthore

I'm in love! I'm in love with a slip of a girl
And if I should be merry or sad, I don't know
For my heart is afire and my head is a whirl
Yet I'm suff'rin' for her so I'm glad that 'tis so
For her hair is that black and her eyes are that blue
She's the form of some proud little queen! 'Tis that neat
While her cheeks are like roses new kiss'd by the dew
And the name of the darlin's Eileen! Sure, that's sweet!
Eileen! But my heart you have captured!
|: 'Tis you that I love you I adore!
My soul with your charm is enraptured
Oh lovely Eileen, Alanna, Astore. :|


Eventually of course the Irish upped their game against the hundreds of years of British occupation with rebel songs.....songs that relate to their experiences etc. The Irish with their songs - and the early Jewish or Jewish/Christians with their prophetic 'salvation' interpretations of their history are both doing the same thing: Finding some method whereby their history is preserved in a manner suited to their cultural differences - during a time in which both cultures were under foreign domination.


My point is simply that there is perhaps more to the gospel use of Hasmonean/Herodian history in it's narrative than simply a casual convenience...

sassafras

Since Revelation was written after the Gospels, I think you need to look at the first century Jewish understanding of Messiah before you tackle anything dealing with John the Baptist. The Jewish Messiah was nothing like the Christian Messiah.

I also don't understand the box that says "Jesus as John Predicts the Second Coming of Son of Man."

Jesus and John existed alongside each other, so, one cannot be the other.
John did not predict the Second Coming of the Son of Man.
John was dead before any prophesies of the Second Coming were made.

Juststeve

Perhaps a more parsimonious account would be that John was an apocalyptic preacher of the first century who thought Jesus was the Messiah but was mistaken. That’s an explanation that doesn’t even require a diagram, but what fun is that?

Steve