The development process of John the Baptist’s character in the gospels clearly indicates their order. *Ev.=>Mk.=>M=>J=>L.
In Ant., both heroes do not know each other, they are independent entities. John conducts his campaign promoting purification with water, proclaims the need for a virtuous life, is popular and therefore dies on Herod’s orders. He has nothing to do with the messianic movement, does not refer to messianic expectations.
We get to know Jesus thanks to TF as a positive embodiment of messianic expectations.
The author of *Ev (7:19-28) draws John into the circle of messianic expectations. He is pissed off by the appearance of the alleged Messiah, he sends people to ask. We do not know whether he sees Jesus as the messiah because he simply does not speak on the subject. Jesus compliments John. The whole episode is a subtle move to add the testimony of John, a well-known and popular figure, to the anonymous testimonies about Jesus known from TF. Well done.
Then Mark makes John a conscious Messenger preceding the Messiah and changes the purpose of baptism. Baptism no longer serves purification, but remission of sin and conversion. John straightens the paths of the one who is to come. John baptizes Jesus, but there is no indication that they know each other. The gentlemen do not speak to each other.
In Matthew the narrative develops further – before the Baptism there is an exchange of views. John is certain that Jesus is the Messiah. John recognizes the priority of Jesus over himself.
In the Gospel of John, the Baptist clearly defines himself as the Messenger preceding Jesus as the Lamb of God, the Messiah, the Son of God. I didn’t know him before… indicates that the canonical Luke was not known to John.
Luke completes full adoption of John for the needs of Christians, connecting the families with an acquaintance at the level of John’s and Jesus’ parents.
What makes the original *7,18-28 sound strange. What is it about? The families knew each other, but the gentlemen forgot about it? Why is 7:18-28(35) still in the Gospel?
The gradual adoption of John’s character with an invented narrative indicates the order of the gospels *Ev, Mk, M, J, L.
Luke, instead of throwing out *7:18-28, expanded it to 7:18-35. This indicates Luke as an author of *Ev.
The story of John in Ant. was more inspiring, more interesting, and therefore it was a competition to TF, which is not interesting in itself. Unless you are waiting for the Messiah. The supporters of messianism had no second choice. Hence the take over of John by the admirers of the Messiah.
Now it is a time for
Ah, yes.
The most probable scenario is that it was an object of writing.
The least probable scenario is that it was an object of artwork. Reason: the Jews were the least skilled at all forms of art and architecture that existed in the Roman Empire, and all of Antiquity.
Stories usually begin with a picture, or at least use pictures.
*7,17-23: John the Baptist Taking Offense and His Request
7,17 And this news about him spread throughout Judea, even to John the Baptist. 18 When he heard of his deeds, he took offense. And he summons two of his disciples, 19 {saying, “Go, say to him,} ‘Are you the one who comes, or shall we wait for another?’” 20 But when the men came to him, they said, “John the Baptist has sent us to you, saying, ‘Are you the one who comes, or shall we to wait for another?’” 22 And he answered, saying to them, “Go and tell John what your eyes have seen and your ears have heard: the blind see again, the lame walk, the lepers are cleansed and the deaf hear, the dead are raised, the poor are proclaimed good tidings. 23 And blessed are you, if you take no offense at me!”
*7,24-28: The Instruction about John 7,24 When John’s messengers had gone, he began to speak to the crowds about John: “What did you go out into the wilderness to behold? Perhaps a reed shaken by the wind? 25 Or what then did you go out to see? Perhaps a man covered in soft robes? See, those who live in festive clothing and in luxury are in the palaces! 26 What then did you go out to see? – Perhaps a prophet? Yes, I say to you, and even more than a prophet! For among those born of women there is no greater prophet than John the Baptist. 27 He is the one about whom it is written: ‘See, I am sending my messenger before your face who will prepare the way for you.’ 28 But the least in the kingdom is greater than he.”
*16,16 “The law and the prophets {were prophesied} until John. Since then the kingdom of God is being proclaimed.
This is all about John in *Ev. John doesn’t say anything about Jesus as the messiah. He doesn’t know him, didn’t talk to him or baptize him. He sends the disciples to find out who he is. Jesus compliments John and refers to his work. End of story.
In Mark, Jesus is baptized by John as one of many people he doesn’t know – zero interaction.
In Matthew, Jesus and John have a chat, then John baptizes Jesus. Then in chapter 11 John sends the disciples with a question, as if he had completely forgotten that he had already talked to Jesus and that he had baptized him earlier. Someone clearly got lost in the narrative.
Then Luke adds the narrative from before John’s birth and later, adds the baptism of Jesus while John is in prison. And again in chapter 7, which he expanded, it turns out that John again sends the disciples as if he had not heard from his parents about their friend Mary and the fruit of her womb Jesus.
This also doesn’t make much sense.
The direction of the narrative development is clearly visible. Not very logical in Matthew and in Luke.
Ant=>*Ev.=>Mk=>Mt=>J=>L
Robert, as usual you overestimate me. I am a simple man with simple taste. I have no idea what you are writing about. I am not setting any dates, I am just asking a simple question. How did the Gospel narrative about John the Baptist develop based on the texts of the NT gospel and the reconstruction of *Ev. I am doing what my teacher once told me to do in primary school during Polish lessons. Read 5 stories, make summaries of them and arrange them in increasing order in terms of the amount of information about the main character.
I remembered now because I recently talked to my oldest grandson about his school, about homework.
The reconstruction of John’s narrative as it is in *Ev is based on the testimonies of Epiphanius and Tertullian. Well attested. It is the same in Klinghardt as in Bedhun.
The other Gospel narratives about John are known from the NT.
*7,17-23: John the Baptist Taking Offense and His Request
Attested; certainly present in *Ev; presumably revised by the Lukan redaction. 7,17 καὶ ἐξῆλθεν ὁ λόγος οὗτος ἐν ὅλῃ τῇ Ἰουδαίᾳ περὶ αὐτοῦ a [καὶ πάσῃ τῇ περιχώρῳ]a b [ἐν οἷς καὶ] b c μέχρι Ἰωάννου τοῦ βαπτιστοῦc 18 ὃς ۦ¿ἀκούσας τὰ ἔργα αὐτοῦ ἐσκανδαλίσθῃ?ۧ καὶ προσκαλεσάμενος δύο τινὰς τῶν μαθητῶν αὐτοῦ 19 d {λέγει· πορευθέντες εἴπατε αὐτῷ,}d Σὺ εἶ e †ὃς ἔρχῃ†e ἢ f ἕτερον προσδοκῶμεν; 20 παραγενόμενοι δὲ πρὸς αὐτὸν οἱ ἄνδρες εἶπαν, Ἰωάννης ὁ βαπτιστὴς ἀπέστειλεν ἡμᾶς πρὸς σὲ λέγων, Σὺ εἶ e †ὃς ἔρχῃ†e ἢ f ἕτερον προσδοκῶμεν; [21 ἐν ἐκείνῃ τῇ ὥρᾳ ἐθεράπευσεν πολλοὺς ἀπὸ νόσων καὶ μαστίγων καὶ πνευμάτων πονηρῶν, καὶ τυϕλοῖς πολλοῖς ἐχαρίσατο βλέπειν.] 22 καὶ ἀποκριθεὶς εἶπεν αὐτοῖς, Πορευθέντες g εἴπατε Ἰωάννῃ ἃ h εἶδον ὑμῶν οἱ ὀϕθαλμοὶ καὶ ἃ ἤκουσαν ὑμῶν τὰ ὤταh · τυϕλοὶ ἀναβλέπουσιν, χωλοὶ περιπατοῦσιν, λεπροὶ καθαρίζονται καὶ κωϕοὶ ἀκούουσιν, νεκροὶ ἐγείρονται, πτωχοὶ εὐαγγελίζονται· 23 καὶ i †μακάριος ۦ¿εἶ?ۧἐάν μὴ σκανδαλισθῇς ἐν ἐμοί†i . A. *7,17f: Tert. 4,18,4: Sed scandalizatur Ioannes auditis virtutibus Christi, ut alterius. At ego rationem scandali priusexpediam, quo facilius haeretici scandalum explodam. Ipso iam domino virtutum sermone et spiritu patris operante in terris et praedicante, necesse erat portionem spiritus sancti quae ex forma prophetici moduli in Ioanne egerat praeparaturam viarum dominicarum, abscedere iam ab Ioanne, redactam scilicet in dominum ut in massalem suam summam. Ƈ *7,19f: Tert. 4,18,6: Hoc igitur metu et Ioannes, Tu es, inquit, qui venis, an alium expectamus? simpliciter inquirens an ipse venisset quem expectabat. Tu es qui venis, id est qui venturus es, an alium expectamus? id est an alius est quem expectamus, si non tu esquem venturum expectamus? Sperabat enim, sicut omnes opinabantur, ex similitudine documentorum potuisse et prophetam interim missum esse, a quo alius esset, id est maior, ipse scilicet dominus, qui venturus expectabatur. ¦ Tert. 4,18,7: … eleganter ad superiorem sensum scandalizati Ioannis commemorans prophetiam, ut confirmans praecursorem Ioannem iam advenisse extingueret scrupulum interrogationis illius: Tu es qui venis, an alium expectamus? ¦ Adam. 1,26 (819c): σὺ εἶ ὁ ἐρχόμενος ἢ ἕτερον προσδοκῶμεν; Ƈ *7,23: Epiph. Schol. 8: παρηλλαγμένον τό Μακάριος ὃς οὐ μὴ σκανδαλισθῇ ἐν ἐμοί· εἶχε γὰρ ὡς πρὸς Ιωάννην. ¦ Ephraem, Adv. Marc. I (MITCHELL xxxix): Blessed is he, if he is not offended in me. B. a (7,17) και παση τη περιχωρω: om e ¦ add a aur b c d f ff 2 l q r1 : et in (om b c l vg) omni (omnem: aur f q r1 vg) confini (confinem: l; finitima: a; circa: aur vg; om d f r1 ) regione (confinem regionem: aur f q r1 vg) M (*Ev non test.)Ɣb (7,17) εν οις και: D d e ¦ om a aur f ff 2 l r1 M ¦ illius de eo: b; de eo: c; de illo: q (*Ev non test.)Ɣc (7,17) μεχρι ιωαννου του βαπτιστου: D d (e) ¦ και απηγγειλαν ιωαννη οι μαθηται αυτου περι παντων τουτων/et nuntiaverunt (renuntiaverunt: a c) Iohanni discipuli eius: a aur b c d f ff 2 l q r1 M ¦ adnuntiaverunt ad Iohannen baptistam: e (*Ev non test.)Ɣe (7,19.20) Inconsistent attestation: (1) ος ερχη/qui venis (bis): Tert e (7,20: q); qui venturus es: a aur b c d f l r1 ¦ (2) ο ερχομενος/qui venturus est: Adam ff 2 MƔf (7,19.20) ετερον (bis): Adam ʠ B L R W X Ξ Ψ 33 579 892 1241 (V. 19: 1424 2542) ¦ αλλον: A D Θ f 13 (V. 19: f 1 ) MƔg (7,22) ειπατε: D W 579 892 d sys.p.j Tatarab.pers Ambst (Quaest. 55,1; CSEL 50, 449) ¦ απαγγειλατε: it M (*Ev non test.)Ɣh (7,22) ειδον υμων οι οϕθαλμοι και α ηκουσαν υμων τα ωτα: D d (e) ¦ ειδετε και ηκουσατε: a aur b c f ff 2 g1 gat l q r1 M (*Ev non test.)Ɣi (7,23) Inconsistent attestation: (1) μακαριος (ει) εαν μη σκανδαλισθης εν εμοι: Epiph ¦ (2) μακαριος (εστιν) εαν μη σκανδαλισθη εν εμοι: Ephraem ¦ μακαριος (εστιν: om c CyrAlex [Arcad; PG 76, 1277]; εσται/erit: add a d e) ος εαν ου σκανδαλισθη εν εμοι M.
I found James H. Hill’s 1891 reconstruction of “Gospel of the Lord.” The narrative about Johnny B. is consistent with Klinghardt’s reconstruction and BeDuhn’s reconstruction, except for the first part of 7:18 “When he heard of his deeds, he took offense,” which is missing.
** you do not have permission to see this link **
I also looked at Bart’s 2004 lectures on Luke (Shaffer Lectures) and it is clear that Bart was not aware that Marcion’s gospel was so truncated. He said that it lacked chapters 1 and 2. Meanwhile, it also lacks chapter 3 and 1/3 of chapter 4.
Marcion’s reconstructions range from 4,000 words to 14,000 words. From 25 to 65% of Luke’s gospel. Klinghardt offers the longest version of *Ev.
Most biblical scholars believe that Marcion had a choice of significantly longer works and omitted them in the name of personal doctrinaire and fidelity to his own theology. This proves that Marcionism based on hostile propaganda is an infectious disease transmitted by consensus among biblical scholars, disturbing the correct perception of the environment.
In anticipation of Robert’s devastating arguments that will crush my unconventional hypothesis, I will allow myself to develop it in the meantime.
The conclusions from the hypothesis are simple:
– the gospels were written after 94CE
– there was no Q source – the material was developed by the evangelists themselves as successive iterations of their own achievements that they shared with each other
– there was no Marcionism, only propaganda from a weaker sales network against better competitors. As usual..
Dear Robert, you know that I deal with the lightest part of the evidential process. The sweet part itself. I only draw the right conclusions. I arranged the 5 Gospel narratives and the one from Ant. about John the Baptist in order of increasing content.
The rest was done by experts, professional biblical scholars:
1. Bart noticed that Luke wrote *Ev(L -“limited edition”) but did not arrange it in order with the others. I supplemented this based on the Gospel texts
2. Steve Mason noticed that Luke used Josephus’ Ant.
3. All reconstructions of *Ev from the 19th, 20th, and 21st centuries are consistent with the shape of the narrative about John the Baptist.
I don’t know what else I can provide you with.
Do you have any specific reservations or doubts? I will be happy to answer.
BTW. I myself am very surprised why biblical scholars omit these matters.
1. How do you know that *Ev preceded something like Q’s (pace Ehrman) or any other non-Marcionite Urevangelium or proto-Luke account of John the Baptist? Evidence?
I claim there was no Q. Much of the content that was supposed to be in Q is missing from *Ev. The narrative of John and his interaction with Jesus in *Ev. is closest to the Ant. Josephus. Here are two guys acting independently. One finds out about the other, sends people to check on him. The other praises the first. John does not comment on Jesus, does not praise him. Jesus calls John a turning point. Luke in the canonical version not only includes missing previously Q material but also adds stories of the interactions of John’s parents and Jesus.
2. Your view of Josephus inventing Jesus of Nazareth and your theory on the letters of Paul have massive disagreements with the views of Steve Mason. What is your evidence for your views versus those of Mason?
I claim that the writings of Josephus are the primary and at the same time the only source of the story about the figure of Jesus. The world learned about Jesus from the writings of Josephus, 60 years after the alleged events. The story aroused the enthusiasm of the listeners and was developed at their request by a group of creative creators. Whether the story is true or not – we do not know and will never know because we have no one to ask.
Two Paulinists David Trobisch and Nina Livesey confirmed that we have no way to check the authenticity and dating of the letters because we only have the letters without any possibility of external verification. There is nothing else. This is an alternative without a solution. Since forever. Unfortunately, my correspondence with Mason is private. No one believes in my conclusions. No one can refute them.
3. How do you decide which reconstruction of *EV to use? They differ greatly, e.g., in length, from as short as 4,338 words (Harnack) to as long as 14,442 words (Hahn).
The narrative about John is the same everywhere. For all reconstructions.
Biblical scholars do not omit these matters; they just deal with them very differently than you, in a centuries long communal and critical discussion of all of the evidence.
Nope. No one, except me, has done an analysis of the John narratives in the gospels with *Ev. I bet Domintian’s aurei that this is the case.
BDEhrman
FreedomBen
evgendob
Robert
1 Guest(s)