Chili

Oh, and let me add that the enmity was gone between Herod and Pilate in Luke 23:12 but only in Luke and not in Matthew or Mark simply because the 'temple tramp' was still there while she should have been 'left in the dark.'

sharon45

He wasn't.

Chili

He's only important in heaven where he is the water to be converted into wine and that is why he pointed at the transformer to do accomplish this. It was John's first miracle at the Cana event that so is for real. No John = no Cana that in Luke was the inspired Lineage event and nothing but sour grapes in Matthew and Mark.

sharon45

And heaven isn't important either.

Chili

I see, and religion is a social club. Fair enough.

Duvduv

Within the context of the first chapter of GMark we see the metaphor of the Baptist fitting the role of Elijah in announcing the coming of the Messiah. But is merely alluding to it because despite paraphrasing of Isaiah and Malachi (according to Wikipedia some manuscripts refer to "the prophets" instead of Isaiah as the source), nowhere in GMark is it unambiguously stated that Jesus was the messiah with Elijah as his forerunner.

So it got me wondering whether all references in the other gospels (which follow the lead from GMark), were only added much later AFTER the Baptist in GMark itself was added in order to at least conform to the idea of Jesus as the explicit Jewish messiah who is preceded by Elijah.

Even the reference to Elijah in Malachi 4 is not explicit that he is the precursor to the Messiah. GMark without the Baptist does not really say anything more about Jesus than that he was a Jewish holy man who himself spoke about the Son of Man ambiguously.

aa5874

The author of gMark did manage to Place ELIJAH in the presence of his Jesus up in a mountain AFTER HE had TRANSFIGURED.

Mark 9

Duvduv

Right, but I was thinking that the original GMark didn't have anything about the Baptist at all until after it got added to Matthew and Luke although the GMark account is pretty skimpy even with an implication of adoption.

Furthermore, IF the Baptist story was NOT in an original tale of Jesus the Holy Man, then it wasn't the anchor for the story in the early 1st century. So the anchor could have only been related to "under Pilate" (Mark 15) to reflect the allegory for the concept of "under the rulers of this age" in 1 Corinthians 2.

Duvduv

Looking at the three stories of the Baptist's involvement with Jesus we find some interesting differences. The voice from heaven apparently makes use of Psalm 2 and Isaiah 42 together.

GMark - Jesus simply passes through from Nazareth and gets baptized. The Baptist is in the wilderness with his special garments and food and declares his lesser role before the one whose sandals he is not worthy to stoop and untie, but baptizes with water while the greater one will baptize with the holy spirit. But then once the one greater than he arrives there is no interaction between them at all. Jesus emerges from the water and saw heaven being torn open and the spirit descending like a dove. The heavenly voice says "with you I am well pleased."

GMatt - The Baptist, with the same clothes and food has a more extensive conversation with the crowd and claims that he is not worthy to carry the sandals as opposed to untying them. Unlike GMark the Baptist states explicitly that he baptizes for repentance but the other will baptize with the Holy Spirit AND FIRE, etc. No Nazareth is mentioned, only Galilee. However, instead of just happening to be baptized by John, Jesus came to him with that intention. And here we DO see an interaction between them. Here Jesus does not see heaven opening, only the descending dove. The heavenly voice says "with him I am well pleased (instead of with HIM which seems to reflect more directly Isaiah 42).

GLuke - Unlike the other two stories, no mention of the Baptist's clothes and food is made, and here the crowd wonders whether John might be the messiah and it appears as if John is answering their unstated question by stating he is not worthy to UNTIE (like GMark) the shoes of the next one who will baptize with the holy spirit and fire but not the entire statement that appears in GMatt. Then there is the part about Herod locking John in prison but does not explain how he was released to baptize (which must be why it doesn't say explicitly that John did the baptizing).

There is no mention of Jesus' place of origin, and the baptism of Jesus sounds like he was just baptized as one of the crowd, with no special intention involved. Jesus does not see the heaven opening or the dove descending. However the voice from heaven is the same as in GMark rather than GMatt. As in GMark there is no interaction with the Baptist.

It appears that both GMark and GLuke follow GMark, and GLuke prefers the narrative (with some embellishments) of GMark over GMatt but changes some elements based on other unknown sources of the story, i.e. the mention of Herod, what happened when Jesus emerges from the water, and the notion that Jesus was just one of the crowd (which itself has an echo in the story in GJohn where there is no baptism of Jesus but where Jesus is just one of the crowd).

GMatt makes some slight changes and puts more flesh on the bones, also based on elements from other stories.

aa5874

Your argument is logically flawed.

You Speculated about a scenario that is NOT found in gMark. You assume your OWN story without John the Baptist and then come to a conclusion that CONVENIENTLY satifies your Belief.

Again, John the Baptist is in the earliest known gMark so you got to deal with that fact.

The character called John the Baptist appears to be corroborated in ONLY one non-apologetic source which may imply that John the Baptist was used to historicise Jesus.