Bruno Bauer realized that the rivalry between Jesus and John the Baptist is inconsistent with the Markan priority

[Giuseppe]

Reading again the Schweitzer's review on Bruno Bauer in Quest, I have found a critical passage:

When the need arose to fix definitely the beginning of the manifestation of Jesus as the Saviour— to determine the point of time at which the Lord issued forth from obscurity — it was natural to connect this with the work of the Baptist; and Jesus comes to his baptism. While this is sufficient for the earliest Evangelist, Matthew and Luke feel it to be necessary, in view of the important consequences involved in the connexion of Jesus with the Baptist, to bring them into relation once more by means of the question addressed by the Baptist to Jesus, although this addition is quite inconsistent with the assumptions of the earliest Evangelist. If he had conceived the story of the baptism with the idea of introducing the Baptist again on a later occasion, and this time, moreover, as a doubter, he would have written it a different form. This is a just observation of Bauer’s: the story of the baptism with the miracle which took place at it and the Baptist's question, understood as implying a doubt of the Messiahship of Jesus, mutually exclude one another.

(my bold)

• 1) Bruno Bauer wanted that the Baptizer had been used by Mark for chronological reason therefore in Mark Jesus is baptized by John the Baptist.

• 2) but in *Ev we have in John the Baptist an explicit enemy of Jesus.

• 3) (2) is in contradiction with (1).

[rgprice]

There should be no question that "Mark" comes before "*Ev", assuming that what is being called *Ev is actually anything like Marcion's Gospel.

In the Gospel of Mark, role of John is neither to be an adversary nor to mark time. Clearly in Mark John the Baptist represents Elijah. Was the writer of Mark able to transform *Ev's John into Elijah so easily? John does represent a "change of guard" in Mark just as he does in *Ev:

16 The Law and the Prophets (lasted) until John; from then the realm of God is being proclaimed, and everyone is pressing into it. 17 But it is easier for the celestial sphere and the earth to pass away than for a single stroke of my words to fall.

14 Now after John had been taken "into custody", Jesus came into Galilee, preaching the gospel of God, 15 and saying, “The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand; repent and believe in the good news.”

Again, I think that in the original narrative John had been taken up to heaven here, not "into custody", and there was nothing else in Mark about John being killed by Herod. John only existed in the beginning of the story and then he disappears entirely. Because this represents the change from the time of the, "Law and the Prophets" to the time of Jesus. But even if we assume "in custody" its still the same.

So in Mark the role of John is very brief. He plays the role of Elijah in initiating the "coming of the Lord" (not the Messiah) and marks the end of the Law and Prophets. He was not intended as an adversary nor was there any intended rivalry.

I think the rivalry business really has more to do with the Gospel of John. In the Gospel of John, John the Baptist is a key witness to the divinity of Jesus, he is not a rival of Jesus. I think the rivalry is a later development, perhaps to refute the claim in John that the Word had "become flesh".

[Giuseppe]

I think the rivalry business really has more to do with the Gospel of John.

More precisely, with *Ev 7:18:

When John heard about the Jesus's miracles, he took offence.

Tiny traces of the same rivarly in Mark are:

• Mark 1:7
  
  "After me comes the one more powerful than I"
  
  you don't raise a comparison as to power unless someone was already comparing (and contrasting one against the other) the two figures.

• Mark 2:18
  
  Now John’s disciples and the Pharisees were fasting. They came and asked Jesus, “How is it that John’s disciples and the disciples of the Pharisees are fasting, but yours are not?”
  
  you don't connect the John's disciples with the hated Pharisees, unless you place the John's disciples among your enemies.

• the fact, right or wrong, that “It is noteworthy that scant words of praise for the Baptist are to be found in Mark.”

[Giuseppe]

Bruno Bauer on the reason why John the Baptist existed really:

John could only receive the epithet of the Baptist later, when his person lived on in historical memory only for the sake of this one act, that he had marked a period in history through his baptism *) and was absorbed into the ideal pathos of this one activity **).

(my bold)

[Giuseppe]

The precise point in Bruno Bauer that has received the strong approval by Albert Schweitzer:

In a writing where John has already greeted Jesus as the Messiah before his baptism, a report that presents the Baptist – initially, we must say: at all – as doubting could not arise, could not find a place for the first time. That John, as he appears at the baptism of Jesus, could not doubt.

[Giuseppe]

Bruno Bauer comments the following verse found in *Ev 7:25:

But what are ye come out to see? A man clothed in soft raiment?

...so:

Luke brings in this contrast the note of Mark about the clothing of the Baptist, which he had omitted.

This would seem a strong clue supporting the Markan priority over *Ev.

In general, for Bruno Bauer, the praise of John the Baptist by Jesus in *Ev 7 would be merely:

It is nothing but a free elaboration of the remark about the Baptist which Jesus is said to have made after the transfiguration.

...Only that in both Luke and *Ev Jesus never talked about the Baptist after the Transfiguration.

So that discourse is found in Mark:

11 And they asked him, “Why do the teachers of the law say that Elijah must come first?”

12 Jesus replied, “To be sure, Elijah does come first, and restores all things. Why then is it written that the Son of Man must suffer much and be rejected? 13 But I tell you, Elijah has come, and they have done to him everything they wished, just as it is written about him.”

It is unfortunate that Bruno Bauer has not compared Mark with *Ev, rather than comparing Mark with canonical Luke.

Even so, I like a lot how Bruno Bauer places Matthew after Luke.

[Joseph D. L.]

A few years ago I did a write up on Gospel of Peter. It is probably the best thing I ever contributed to this forum. Anyway, one feature I noted was the increasing importance of John the Baptist by way of Elijah references. Basically the more important John the Baptist was the more the likelyhood he would be elevated to the status of Elijah. From this I reasoned that this was an evolutionary feature that would be absent from an original Gospel (be it *Ev, Gospel of Peter, or what have you). I ended the post by saying that this meant John and Jesus were at first the same entity and later traditions were attempting to reconcile them back. I think I made an error with that. What this shows at least on the surface is John and Jesus come from two different traditions altogether, and the Jesus party co-opting John by turning him into an Elijah figure. It still shows that these are later beliefs--if you want to say interpolations then that's fine--and that Mark and Matthew are the last Gospels to come about.

[Giuseppe]

Mark and Matthew are the last Gospels to come about.

Matthew surely yes, it is a late gospel coming after *Ev (and Bruno Bauer agrees). But I am still thinking about the comparison between *Ev and Mark. (Not that one of them was the first gospel: only, a good approximation of it, once removed Pilate).