Freethought & Rationalism Archive

stephan huller · 03-25-2011, 12:55 PM

Quote:

the heretic may blush at frustrating, to his own frustration, the mission of John [the Baptist]. For if there had been no ministry of John at all — " the voice" as Isaiah calls him, "of one crying in the wilderness," and the preparer of the ways of the Lord by denunciation and recommendation of repentance; if, too, he had not baptized (Christ) Himself along with others, nobody could have challenged the disciples of Christ, as they ate and drank, to a comparison with the disciples of John, who were constantly fasting and praying [Tertullian Against Marcion 4:11]

All authorities on Marcion point to this section of text in Tertullian to prove that the Marcion gospel had no reference to the baptism of John. I have always thought it goes far beyond this. 'John the Baptist' is a late second century invention to divide the original significance of John Mark in Alexandrian Christianity. You can see it in Acts. John Mark was the original glue that held together the Pauline and Petrine churches only to be supplanted by 'Luke' as the author of the supposed text. I think the corruption developed in stages. But originally there was only Jesus and his disciple that loved and was beloved. All of late second century Christianity can be seen to be a development of controversies related to this 'love' between John Mark and Jesus.

stephan huller · 03-25-2011, 09:19 PM

More intimations someone (Celsus? the Jews?) questioned the existence of John the Baptist:

Quote:

I would like to say to Celsus, who represents the Jew as accepting somehow John as a Baptist, who baptized Jesus, that the existence of John the Baptist, baptizing for the remission of sins, is related by one who lived no great length of time after John and Jesus. For in the 18th book of his Antiquities of the Jews, Josephus bears witness to John as having been a Baptist, and as promising purification to those who underwent the rite. Now this writer, although not believing in Jesus as the Christ, in seeking after the cause of the fall of Jerusalem and the destruction of the temple, whereas he ought to have said that the conspiracy against Jesus was the cause of these calamities befalling the people, since they put to death Christ, who was a prophet, says nevertheless--being, although against his will, not far from the truth--that these disasters happened to the Jews as a punishment for the death of James the Just, who was a brother of Jesus (called Christ),--the Jews having put him to death, although he was a man most distinguished for his justice. [Against Celsus 1.47]

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.