davidmartin wrote: ↑Fri Apr 16, 2021 9:15 am the idea that Jesus's group was part of John's and the two figures were considered to be equal except one followed the other
GET OVER IT ONCE FOR ALL: any idea in such sense (about a
connection between Jesus and John along the lines of 'one followed the other'
et similia) was first injected
deliberately in the corpus of the Gospel tradition
only by an editor ("Mark") and
only for a purely theological reason:
against Marcion.
If you re-propose that idea in whatever novelistic form you prefer, then you are repeating merely the Mark's game without having his same theological interest in return.
*Ev mentions John the Baptist several times, but his biographical and theological knowledge is comparatively small. *Ev knows John's name, he knows that he was a 'baptizer' (*7,17), that he had disciples (*11,1), and that he was beheaded by 'King' Herod (*9,7-9). Furthermore, *Ev knows John the Baptist as a prophetic proclaimer of the law and the prophets (*16,16), and he knows about John the Baptist's query (*7,17-23) as well as Jesus' subsequent judgement of him (*7,24-28). However, *Ev displays a noticeable distance between John the Baptist and Jesus (*7,18.23). In *Ev, the baptizer took offence at Jesus (*7,18; formulation is uncertain), which is why Jesus blesses him only under the condition that he 'takes no offence at me' (*7,23, according to Epiphanius). That distance is hardly conceivable for the later stages of the tradition from *Mark to Luke. Jesus and John meet previously in connection with their baptism accounts (Mark 1,2-11; Matth 3,1-17; John 1,19-34; Luke 3,1-22) where they present John's positive witness of Jesus, which John even integrated into the prologue (John 1,6-8.15). The origin of this positive witness lies in Jesus' judgment, authenticating that John the Baptist is 'more than a prophet' (*7,26) while simultaneously distinguishing him from 'the least in the kingdom of God' (*7,24-28). This ambivalent witness preserved in the successive tradition.
This means, *Ev knows John and knows that he was a baptizer. [8] All further information about him is missing in *Ev and inserted in later stages of the tradition history. From the brief comment about the execution by Herod, pre-canonical *Mark extricated his detention (Mark 6,17 || Matt 4,12 || Luke 3,19f) as well as the account of his execution urged by Herodias (Mark 6,18-29). Belonging to the successive tradition since *Mark is above all: Jesus' baptism by John; John's repentance sermon; his proclamation of the one who is 'more powerful' coming after him to baptize with fire and the spirit; the identification of John with Elijah; and the existence of John's disciples in the apostolic time. In that successive attribution, the ambivalence of Jesus' judgment of John the Baptist is still preserved. Mark adopted the proclamation of the 'more powerful' into the account of the baptism activity (Mark 1,7f || Matt 3,11). Matthew, furthermore, integrated Jesus' superiority into the baptism account through John the Baptist's refusal to baptize Jesus (Matt 3,14f). John pointedly expressed the differentiated judgment of the activity through characterizing John as a witness who 'testifies to the light', but who himself 'was not the light' (John 1,7f). Luke, finally, gives this differentiated characterization the broadest expanse thorugh harmonizing the birth accounts (Luke 1f) and through the meeting of Elizabeth and Mary (Luke 1,36-45). The baptism account of John's disciples in Ephesus (Acts 19,2-7) exemplifies that the superiority of Jesus over John, or of the Christians over John's disciples, is rooted in the baptism's various effects.
(
ibid., p. 268, my bold)
note
8 reads:
This information is found also in Jos., Ant XVIII 116-119.