Adam

Sorry, Duvduv,
I was responding too casually in #138 to your request in #137 for gospel sources that do "not include the Baptist story." Q intensely covers John the Baptist, but my position is that all these passages have such verbal exactness (Matthew = Luke) that they are from the later stage, Q2. With L, it would seem that Luke 3:10-14 on John the Baptist is the first significant passage from L. (Luke 1 and 2 Infancy Narrative stories are not considered Proto-Luke, hence not L.) However, it contains only one Semitism (Edwards, Hebrew Gospel, p. 300), so it may be from earlier than L (a late addition to Q2) or later (redacted in by Luke the Evangelist). I don't think John the Baptist was significant in the thinking of the writer of L, even though not long ago (2011) I was toying with the idea he was a disciple of John the Baptist. Now I'm quite sure he is not, but I have to admit that Luke 3:10-14 is usually considered part of L and Proto-Luke.

Duvduv

Looking at the Baptist story in the gospels another way, all four gospels have several of the same portions of the Baptist story which must be rather significant in terms of a common source for the story and even perhaps at what stage they were introduced. There are only THREE that are significantly common to all four gospels.

1) All four canonical gospels make use of the metaphor from Isaiah 40:3 though GJohn does not include Malachi 3.

2) All four gospels refer to the lowliness of the Baptist who is unworthy of untying the shoes of the one who follows who will baptize with the holy spirit. GMatt and GLuke add baptism by fire and GMark includes the idea of John stooping down to untie the sandals and GMatt refers to CARRYING the sandals rather than untying them.

3) All four gospels refer to the dove landing on Jesus. GMatt and GMark also mention Jesus seeing the heavens open and the dove, whereas in GJohn no one sees the heavens open. In GJohn it is the Baptist who sees the dove, not Jesus. In GLuke Jesus sees neither the heavens open nor the dove (the Holy Spirit).

With regard to the issue of Elijah vis a vis Malachi 3, GMatt 11 and GLuke 7 have Jesus identifying John as Elijah "the one who comes before" though in GMatt it is explicit and GLuke implicit. In GJohn 3 the Baptist himself identifies himself as the one who comes before. In GMark 9 Jesus says that Elijah has come without explicitly indicating that this is the Baptist.

Duvduv

It's worth noting of course that the authors of the epistles had no use or need for the Baptist especially because if the Christ was not the historical Jesus messiah then he didn't need the precursor Elijah figure at all. Apparently neither did other epistles need the Baptist.
And even the Book of Acts ignores the Elijah significance of the Baptist, only mentioning him in passing.
Good heavens, surely the author of Acts should have reminded those followers of the Baptist that they must have forgotten that the Baptist had declared himself of secondary importance. If the author of Acts believed in the historical Jesus then he should have questioned them why they had forgotten what the Baptist had said!

Duvduv

So what I wonder about from all this is:

1) In the context of GJohn, with all its ambiguities, why does the author have to leave out the allusion to Malachi 3?

2) Since all four gospels like the metaphor of the DOVE, where does this metaphor come from? I don't know of any Jewish source where a dove alludes to the divine presence. Why didn't GJohn know about the metaphor of the sandals, and why was it so important for the synoptics?

3) Do the differences in the accounts of the Synoptics mean anything theologically, i.e. stooping, carrying, versus untying; who sees the dove and the opening of the heavens?

Duvduv

Anyone have any thoughts about these issues, or is it only me?!

Adam

Your question in #137 about gospel sources lacking mention of John the Baptist has me intent on sorting the sources to see whether there is more than one early source (Q2) and the late additions to Mark tell us anything about John apart from his role leading to Jesus. This will require a few days study to set them apart from the ubiquitous references to John leading to Jesus. Give me time. It will also help me test whether the same author (I call the Qumraner) wrote both.

Duvduv

Sure, no problem. But I was hoping that others would be interested in addressing the points I raised in the previous posting.

outhouse

its as far back as people in the first century could trace jesus back to.

alot of things in the gospels dont make sense, it shows the authors struggling with what to do while turning a poor peasant jew into a deity.


You can throw jesus childhood out the window, as well as his pre 30 years old life as far as historicity goes.


John is where the historicity starts, thats why he is so important. John's description also fits in perfect as a buddy for a poor peasant hard working jesus as well.

part of where all the mythist screw up is in not realizing if they were going to create a man/god there is no reason to turn a poor peasant into a deity who hung out with a bug and honey eating preacher like John.

Adam

Following up on posts #137, 140, 142, and 146, I agree that the general focus is on John as a precursor to Jesus, and less is said about John other than that. However, I continue to say that this other focus is found primarily in Q2 and the additions to gMark that I say come from the Qumraner, who also wrote Q2. However, Luke 3:10-15, 19-20 is unique to Luke and gives us John without reference to Jesus. GJohn contains many rmentions of John without reference to Jesus. Information about John comes from many sources. He was definitely important in his own right. Jesus's ministry is said to pick up John's in preaching repentence and the Kingdom of God.

Still, it's fair for me to say that my eyewitness thesis is supported by the fact that discrete texts that occur after the death of John don't mention him; neither John Mark's Passion Narrative nor Simon Barsabbas's L (the Special Luke that covers mostly the Perean Ministry). Even Q1 apparently does not mention John the Baptist, which would make sense if it comes as I say from Matthew, who was a tax collector and not associated at all with John and may have been with Jesus only during the final year and after John was dead.

aa5874

If you argue that Paul wrote FIRST then the John the Baptist story doesn't make any sense.

Paul wrote his letters and preached Christ crucified and resurrected without ever making making mention of John the Baptist who performed Baptisms for the REMISSION of Sins.

Part of HJers problem is that they ADMIT the Jesus stories were MANIPULATED with EMBELLISHMENTS [LIES and FICTION] and still want people to believe the stories are historically accurate.

It is an EMBELLISHMENT[ A LIE] that Jesus lived.

It is an EMBELLISHMENT [A LIE] that John the Baptist performed Baptisms for the Remission of Sins.

The NT is a Pack of EMBELLISHMENTS [LIES]

In gMark, John the Baptist made the crucifixion of Jesus USELESS for remission of Sins.

The John the Baptist story suggests that Jesus NEED not exist--Baptism in WATER suffices for SALVATION.

Please Examine Embellished gMark 16.16 Belief and Baptism is needed NOT an actual Jesus.

The Baptism of John was the MOST important act for Salvation in gMark.

HJers have SCREWED up. They believe the same stories are fundamentally historically accurate that they ADMIT are full of Embellishments [LIES].

We know that the Jesus character was an EMBELLISHMENT [a LIE] because of Josephus.

Josephus mentioned John the Baptist but did NOT mention a Jesus of Nazareth.