JW:
This Thread starts with the answer to the question of whether GJohn" is evidence of Multiple Attestation or GJohn is denial of GMark. GJohn is denial of GMark. The question of this thread is
how and to what
extent GJohn is denial of GMark.
Case in point is Jesus' supposed baptism by John the Baptist. Historwrecktomes, proponents of HJ who remove all reproducing impossibilities and improbabilities and posture that what is left is fact, claim that Jesus' supposed baptism by John the Baptist is a historical fact largely because "John" (author) is an independent confirmation here to the Synoptics.
In general "John" uses "Mark's" (author) Passion as a base for his Passion and "John's" Teaching & Healing Ministry is a reaction to "Mark's". "Mark", reflecting the original Christianity (Paul), has a primary theme that
Faith produces miracles. "John", a product of the "orthodox" Christianity of the second century, has a primary theme that
miracles produce faith. We can see this in the John the Baptist stories. In GMark Jesus is revealed to be god's son while in GJohn, John is a supposed historical witness to it.
Theological Methodology (TM) only tries to proof-text supposed positive evidence for historicity. Here it claims that "John" supports John baptizing Jesus. But GJohn never states that John baptized Jesus. TM tries to use an implication of such baptism due to the overall similarities. The stories are very similar because GMark is the base so there is no independence anyway. Because GJohn is dependent on GMark, "John's" omission of John baptizing Jesus is deliberate and intended to deny that John baptized Jesus. Clearly "John" intended his Gospel as a replacement for GMark and not a supplement. Reading GJohn by itself, there's no reason to think that John baptized Jesus.
Using Historical Methodology and also looking for evidence against historicity, you also have to evaluate the differences in baptism stories between GMark and GJohn:
Information | GMark Chapter 1 | GJohn Chapter 1 | Movement from Revelation to Historical Witness |
Misquote of Jewish Bible | Yes | Yes | Both need the misquote to claim prophecy fulfillment |
Claim of Fulfilled prophecy? | Yes | Yes | - |
Is John Elijah? | Yes | No | A claim of John being Elijah dilutes the strength of John as a historical witness |
Location | wilderness | Bethany | A specific location strengthens the claim of historical witness |
Baptizing in the Jordan? | Yes | Yes | - |
John baptizes Jesus? | Yes | No | In GMark the baptism creates who Jesus is (Revelation). GJohn exorcises the baptism because who Jesus is does not change (History) |
John recognizes Jesus? | No | Yes | No character recognition = Revelation. Character recognition = Historical witness |
Jesus' identification as god's son witnessed by John? | No | Yes | In GMark god's spirit creates god's son = Revelation. In GJohn god's spirit identifies who god's son is = Historical witness |
Again, note that "John" is not just contradicting "Mark", but it is a conscious reaction of contradiction. "Mark" says location "Jordan". "John" says "beyond Jordan". These differences provide a context to support the position that "John" intended to show that John did not baptize Jesus.
Regarding trying to take "John" as confirmation that John baptized Jesus, I advise proponents of TM not to go there. You have "John" saying that the setting, other than the baptizing, was in Bethany beyond the Jordan. So this is no longer in Judea, yet all of Judea was coming to the baptizing and no one from Perea was. Comically Origen confesses that in his time he had no idea where this Bethany was:
http://www-user.uni-bremen.de/~wie/TCG/TC-John.pdf
TVU 13
Minority reading:
NA28
John 1:28
tau/ta evn Bhqani,a|evge,neto pe,ran tou/ VIorda,nou( o[pouh=n o` VIwa,nnhj bapti,zwnÅ
...
Origen (Jo Comm. book 6), who was under the probably mistaken notion that the
only Bethany was that near Jerusalem (he couldn't find a Bethany near the Jordan in his travels), opted for
Bhqabara/which he apparently found in some copies (Bhqani,a|is found in "nearly all the
manuscripts"). He explained it (wrongly) allegorically as oi=koj kataskeuh/j
("house of the preparation"), but it actually means "house of passing over". It has been suggested that Origen
actually created this reading, but this is not clear. Note that Origen once writes the curious
ta. Bhqabara/.
Again, that GJohn is a reaction (denial) to GMark does not need to be demonstrated in this Thread. But if one felt such a need:
- 1) Demonstrate good parallels in structure and insignificant wording
2) Demonstrate high % of change in key information
3) Demonstrate theological reason for changes (see above)
Joseph
"He who denies that "John's" Jesus is denying "Mark's" Jesus is the liar" - JW
ErrancyWiki