As I wrote, John having the power and authority to baptize Jesus, where Jesus later turns out to be the superior, simply imitates Elijah bequeathing a double portion of his own miracle-working spirit to Elisha, who henceforth functions as his successor and superior.  There is no reason to think there is any history here, because the writer could have just invented the pericope for theological reasons.

By a very larger stretch of the imagination.  The problem is That Elisha is not “a superior” seeking something that can only be given by a superior. In the baptism story Jesus, the purported Messiah, seeks a baptism for the forgiveness of sin. This implies that John is superior to the Messiah. Similarity doesn’t prove imitation and could have is not evidence. The idea that the writer invented a story making his Lord look bad for theological reasons strains credibility to the breaking point. 

The Elija/Elisha story is about handing down a mantle of authority.  The baptism story does something else entirely