|
 |
Was John the Baptist, Jesus the
Christ? |
This hypothesis is
by the French
theologian Goerges
Ory and can be found
at the Mythicist
website:
http://www.mythicistpapers.com/2012/10/02/john-was-jesus-pt-1-ory/
One passage that
stands out
is in the
third part and uses
Mark 11:28,
"Those
sacrificing [in the
Jerusalem Temple]
asked Jesus, “By
what authority do
you do these things?
And who gave you
authority to do
these things?”
Jesus
answered neither one
way nor the other.
He said: “I also
will ask you one
thing. If you
answer, I will tell
you by what
authority I do these
things.”
He asked
them: “Was the
baptism of John from
heaven or was it
from men?”
What an
astonishing
question!
It has
nothing to do with
the context, where
there is mention
neither of baptism
nor of John. Could
it really have been
Jesus who asked it?
Would it not,
rather, have been
the “resuscitated”
John? And if it was
Jesus, then why the
allusion to the
baptism of John? A
borrowing from the
Mandean text seems
very probable."
Here is the full
text of Mark
11:28-33:
"By what
authority are you
doing these things?"
they asked. "And who
gave you authority
to do this?"
Jesus
replied, "I will ask
you one question.
Answer me, and I
will tell you by
what authority I am
doing these things.
John's baptism--was
it from heaven, or
of human origin?
Tell me!"
They discussed it
among themselves and
said, "If we say,
'From heaven,' he
will ask, 'Then why
didn't you believe
him?'
But if we say,
'Of human origin' .
. . " (They feared
the people, for
everyone held that
John really was a
prophet.)
So they answered
Jesus, "We don't
know." Jesus said,
"Neither will I tell
you by what
authority I am doing
these things."
|
|
|
Hypothesis
regarding
John the
Baptist
by Georges
Ory
Cahiers du
Cercle
Ernest
Renan, no.
10 (1956)
Translated
by R. Salm
(Note:
Editorial
additions
are in
brackets
and/or are
signed “RS”)
Part One
The
birth
narratives
of John the
Baptist and
Jesus
The
Gospel
according to
Luke is the
only one to
give an
account of
the birth of
John the
Baptist.
Though it
precedes the
account of
Jesus’
birth, this
introduction
to the
gospel1 is
not
primitive.
It certainly
betrays the
effort which
was
attempted—and
which met
with
success—to
make of John
a Jewish
prophet.
In the
time of
Herod the
Great, we
are told,
the angel
Gabriel
appeared to
the priest
Zachariah.
He and his
wife are
very old.
The angel
informs
Zachariah
that he will
have a son
who will be
filled with
the holy
Spirit, that
his son will
be
consecrated
to the Lord,
will walk
before God
with the
power of
Elijah, and
that he will
be called
John.
This
annunciation
is but a
version of
popular
Jewish
traditions
and biblical
legends
which had
previously
served to
illustrate
the birth of
Isaac (Gen
17:15-21),
of Samson
(Judg
13:2-24),
and of
Samuel (1
Sam 1:1-23).
Thus we
are put on
notice that
God made
Zachariah
and
Elizabeth
fertile and
that He
would fill
John with
the Holy
Spirit “even
from birth.”
According to
post-biblical
Judaism God
ordered an
angel, at
the time of
conception,
to
participate
in the birth
of a child
by bringing
it a spirit,
but the
rabbis were
not agreed
on the
moment in
which this
divine
bequest
occurred.
Was it at
the very
moment of
conception
or later,
during
gestation?
According to
Luke’s
account, it
was during
the sixth
month.
For Luke
there was no
miraculous
birth by the
operation of
the Holy
Spirit, but
a birth
quite
according to
the ordinary
laws of
nature. On
the other
hand, the
Holy Spirit
which would
infuse John
would be the
“power of
Elijah.”
Thus, John
would be a
reincarnation
of Elijah.2
No one
need doubt
this, for
the
evangelist
Matthew (who
does not
recount the
birth of
John)
emphatically
identifies
John with
Elijah by
presenting
the former
dressed in
“a garment
of camel’s
hair, and a
leather
girdle
around his
waist” and
by making
Jesus
himself
affirm that
“John is
Elijah” (cf.
2 Kg 1:8; Mt
3:4; 11:14).
The
resemblances,
however,
reach much
farther.
Resemblances
between
Elijah and
John. The
prophets
Elijah and
John were
both much
concerned
with water.
Elijah, like
John, lived
on the
eastern side
of the
Jordan River
(1 Kg 17:5;
Jn 1:28). He
dwelt by the
stream, made
the rain
fall, and
parted the
river in
order to
cross over
onto dry
land (1 Kg
18:1, 41,
45; 2 Kg
2:8).
Elijah, who
thus
prevailed
over the
waters,
strongly
resembles a
baptist.
Elijah
also
prevailed
over the
heavenly
fire,
whether to
light his
sacrifice or
to destroy
his enemies.
He was also
taken up to
heaven in a
chariot of
fire pulled
by fiery
horses (I Kg
18:38; 2 Kg
1:10-12;
2:11).
Perhaps he
was
assimilated
with the sun
(Elisha is
closely
related to
Helios3).
John,
compared to
the ‘rising
sun,’ (Lk
1:78-79),
announced
the baptism
of fire,
that is, the
end of the
world by
conflagration
and—according
to the
Mandean
scriptures,
at any
rate—he was
taken up
into heaven.
Elijah
led an
ascetic
life, was
consecrated
to God, and
did not
enter towns
except to
convey a
very brief
message from
Yahweh,
after which
he would
immediately
leave.
Elijah
fought with
King Ahab
who had
married
Jezebel, a
princess of
Tyre, that
is, a woman
of another
religion.
Jezebel
vowed to
have Elijah
killed. This
scenario
strikingly
prefigures
the
opposition
of John the
Baptist
regarding
Herod, and
the hatred
which
Herodias,
Herod’s new
wife,
directed
against the
prophet.
Elijah
prepared a
successor in
the person
of Elisha,
whom he
anointed
even as John
baptized
Jesus who
would
succeed him.
Lastly,
Elijah
multiplied
the loaves
for the
widow of
Sarepta and
resuscitated
her child (1
Kg 17). But
similar
miracles—which
John should
have carried
out—have, in
our texts,
been
attributed
to Jesus.
The
story of
Jesus
borrowed
from the
Baptist. In
the Gospel
of Luke, the
annunciation
to Mary by
Gabriel
follows that
made to
Elizabeth,
but the
former
passage was
an
interpolation
designed to
give details
regarding
the birth of
Jesus. Since
those
details were
lacking,
they were
borrowed
from the
account
regarding
John the
Baptist.
Before
being
modified,
the content
of Lk
1:26-52 was
approximately
as follows:
In the sixth
month of
Elizabeth’s
pregnancy,
the angel
Gabriel was
sent by God
not to
Nazareth
where Mary
dwelled
(1:26) but
to the house
of
Zachariah.
The angel
saluted
Elizabeth,
who felt the
baby leap in
her womb
(1:41), for
the baby was
filled with
the Holy
Spirit.
Elizabeth
then spoke
the
Magnificat
(1:46-55),
later
attributed
to Mary.
Then,
when her
time was
full (1:57),
Elizabeth
gave birth
to John. The
account of
the birth of
Jesus, based
on that of
John, is an
interpolation.4
Much the
same can be
said
regarding
the second
chapter of
Luke
concerning
the visit of
the
shepherds,
the
presentation
of Jesus in
the Temple,
and the
demonstration
of his great
intelligence
before the
assembled
elders. This
interpolation
begins at Lk
1:80 (“And
the child
grew and
became
strong in
spirit…”)
and ends at
2:52 (“And
Jesus
increased in
wisdom and
stature, and
in favor
with God and
man”).
Zachariah
prophesied
that his son
John would
be the
prophet of
the most
high, that
he would
walk before
God in order
to prepare
His ways,
that he was
the rising
sun. No one
is
comparable
to him. In
sum, John is
the
precursor to
no one but
is the
herald of
God.5
There is
no reason to
suppose that
Jesus
figured in
the
primitive
beginning of
the third
gospel. The
continuation
of the text
recalls the
appearance
of John the
Baptist—the
actual
subject of
Luke’s third
chapter: “In
the
fifteenth
year of the
reign of
Tiberius
Caesar… the
word of God
came to John
the son of
Zechariah in
the
wilderness.”
Matthew
writes
simply: “In
those days
came John
the
Baptist…”,
while Mark
contents
himself with
indicating
that “John
the baptizer
appeared in
the
wilderness…”
Luke
alone offers
the only
datable
event (3:1)
that we can
identify in
these sacred
writings.
That date
has
reference to
John, not to
Jesus. Every
attentive
reader must
deem this
fact
remarkable.
The
baptism of
Jesus by
John
The account
of the
baptism of
Jesus by
John6 was,
from all the
evidence,
completely
changed. The
scene is
important
because it
represents
the only
encounter
ever to take
place
between the
two persons.
In effect,
John dies
after the
baptism in
the Jordan,
and
Jesus—going
“in spirit”
into
Galilee—launches
upon his
work.7
The
paradoxical
nature of
the baptism
of Jesus by
John has
long been
noted.
Surprise
increases
with the
realization
that Jesus,
who brings
the baptism
of the
spirit,8
asks to
receive
baptism from
John who has
just
announced
that it is
Jesus who
should
conduct the
baptism (Mt
3:14).
By
receiving
the Holy
Spirit,
Jesus shows
that he did
not yet
possess it.
He is
therefore
different
from the
Jesus who
should, like
John, have
been imbued
with the
Holy Spirit
from the
womb of his
mother (Mt
:20; Lk
1:35).
Presumably,
Jesus was
born like
other men
and was not
yet
distinguished
by God. Such
distinction
did not
occur until
the dove
descended
upon him
during
baptism. The
Jesus of the
baptism was
not
conceived by
the Holy
Spirit. He
was not born
of a virgin.
He was a man
in whom God
revealed
Himself
during the
course of a
rite
performed by
John.
[Therefore,
the Jesus of
the baptism
is a
different
figure from
the Jesus of
the birth
stories.
This
difference
shows the
independent
traditions
behind the
baptism and
the birth
accounts. It
is the
baptism—with
its
adoptionist
Christology9—which
is earlier.
The birth
stories,
with their
from-the-womb
Christology,
are
later.—RS]
The
account of
the baptism
likewise
contradicts
the Pauline
conception
of the
preexistence
of Christ
(Eph 1:4).10
Matthew,11
quite
discommoded
by this
baptismal
scene, has
John say to
Jesus
(3:14): “I
need to be
baptized by
you, and do
you come to
me?” This
allows Jesus
to respond,
“Let it be
so now.”
Matthew has
modified the
text so that
one should
not believe
that Jesus
had need of
the baptism
of
repentance
and of the
remission of
his
[nonexistent]
sins.
Luke
reduces the
scene to a
simple
allusion and
has the
heavenly
voice say:
“You are my
beloved son.
With you am
I well
pleased” (Lk
3:22b, cited
from Ps
2:7). This
adult
adoption is
incompatible
with a
supernatural
birth (Mt
1:18; Lk
1:35).
Though
divine, the
adult
adoption was
instigated
by the
baptism of
John.12
The
Church
protested
for a long
time, but it
decided at
the Council
of
Constantinople
in 553 “that
he is
anathema who
believes
that Christ
was a simple
man when he
was baptized
in the name
of the
Father and
of the Son
and of the
holy Spirit,
and that—by
such
baptism—he
received the
grace of the
holy Spirit
and the
capacity to
be God’s
Son.”
In this
way the
views
expressed by
Mark and
Matthew were
later
condemned,
though
primitive
Christianity
was almost
certainly
adoptionist.
Next →
Notes:
1.
Luke’s
introductory
material
regarding
John
constitutes
Chapter 1 of
the Gospel.
2. Lk
1:17.
According to
Jewish
belief,
Elijah was
to appear at
the
beginning of
the
messianic
age.
3. In this
Ory may be
doubted.
Helios was
portrayed as
a charioteer
drawn by a
team of four
fiery
steeds,
traversing
the sky by
day from
East to
West. Fiery
steeds also
figure in
the
assumption
of Elijah.
None of this
applies to
Elisha who
resuscitates
a child who
died of
sunstroke (2
Kg 4:8ff),
and who
strikes a
Syrian
raiding
party with
temporary
blindness (2
Kg
6:18-20).—RS.
4. The
following
material was
interpolated:
Lk 1:26
(from “a
city of
Galilee”) to
1:40 (“the
house of
Zachariah”).
The name
“Mary”
replaced
that of the
angel in v.
41, and that
of Elizabeth
in v. 46. Lk
1:56 was
added later.
5. In
the
newly-translated
Acts of
Mark,
compare the
role
traditionally
held by John
the Baptist
to Mark’s
role as the
herald of
truth.—RS
6. Mk
1:9-11; Mt
3:13-17; Lk
3:21-22.
7. The
continuity
between the
missions of
John and
Jesus was
fully
intended by
the
evangelists
and lies
behind the
meeting of
those two
personae.
That
continuity
transcends
death—the
death of the
Baptist, not
the death of
Jesus! It
was the
Baptist who
died and
inspired the
movement.
That death
occurred, as
it were, IN
the event of
the baptism.
It was
spiritual,
not
physical. In
reality,
John the
Baptist
‘lives’
(gnostically)
after his
‘baptism’ in
the Jordan
when he
symbolically
‘becomes’
Jesus. The
Jordan (and
its flowing,
or ‘living’
water) must
symbolize
enlightenment.
This
symbolism of
Jordan,
baptism, and
‘living
water’ is
hardly
adventurous,
for it is
precisely
mirrored in
the Mandean
scriptures.—RS
8. Mk
1:8; Mt
3:11;
Lk3:16; Jn
1:33.
9. In
adoptionism,
the Spirit
comes upon
Jesus at his
baptism and
leaves him
before the
crucifixion.
See Mk 1:16
and 14:52
(where the
naked youth
[neaniskos]
symbolizes
the Holy
Spirit and
flees the
garden of
Gethsemane).
Such a
Christology
was espoused
by the early
‘heretic’
Cerinthus.—RS
10. This
observation
by Ory is
not entirely
correct.
Jesus is
distinct
from “the
Christ.” In
the
adoptionist
scenario,
the human
Jesus
receives the
preexistent
Holy Spirit
(Christ as
symbolized
by a dove)
at baptism.
Indeed, the
reception of
the Holy
Spirit
appears to
have been
the original
meaning of
“baptism.”
We also see
here an
early
equivalence:
the Holy
Spirit
(existing
from the
beginning of
the world) =
the Christ
(also
existing
from the
beginning of
the
world).—RS
11. We
speak of
“Matthew”
for
simplicity.
In reality
we are
designating
a redactor
who edited
the gospel
attributed
to Matthew.
12. All
this suggest
that John
was
originally
the true
representative
of God.—RS
–> PART
TWO ©
2017 -
Mythicist
Papers
Proudly
powered by
WordPress
Weaver II
Pro by WP
Weaver
John was
Jesus (Ory)
Pt. 2
baptism,
Christian
origins,
Gnosticism,
John the
Baptist,
Mandaism,
Ory, Paul
Apollos,
GThomas,
Jordan,
Marcion, The
Way, Theudas
Hypothesis
regarding
John the
Baptist
by Georges
Ory
Cahiers du
Cercle
Ernest
Renan, no.
10 (1956)
Translated
by R. Salm
(Note:
Editorial
additions
are in
brackets
and/or are
signed “RS”)
Part Two
Apollos
and the
baptism of
John
The accounts
of the
famous
baptism are
contradictory
and
incoherent.
Moreover,
that found
in the
Fourth
Gospel is an
interpolation
from 1:29
(“Here is
the lamb of
God…”) to
1:36 (“here
is the lamb
of God”),
the lamb
having
replaced God
or the Son
of God.
According to
Acts 18:24ff
a certain
Jew named
Apollos
arrived in
Ephesus, a
man well
versed in
the
scriptures.
He had been
instructed
into the Way
of the Lord
and taught
with
precision
concerning
Jesus,
though he
knew only
the baptism
of John.13
It is
surprising
that one
could know
“the things
concerning
Jesus”
without
knowing the
baptism of
the Spirit,
but that did
not prevent
the later
redactor of
this passage
from
relating
that Apollos
successfully
preached the
kingdom of
God. Such,
at least,
was the
primitive
texts of
Acts in this
passage,
which we can
reconstruct
as follows:
/24/ Now
there came
to Ephesus a
Jew named
Apollos, a
native of
Alexandria.
He was an
eloquent
man, well
versed in
the
scriptures.
/25/ He had
been
instructed
in the Way
of the Lord;
and he spoke
with burning
enthusiasm
and taught
accurately
the things
concerning
Jesus,
though he
knew only
the baptism
of John.
/26/ He
began to
speak boldly
in the
synagogue
/19.8/ and
argued
persuasively
about the
kingdom of
God. /9/
When some
stubbornly
refused to
believe and
spoke evil
of the Way
before the
congregation,
he left
them, taking
the
disciples
with him,
and argued
daily in the
lecture hall
of Tyrannus.
/30/ This
continued
for two
years, so
that all the
residents of
Asia, both
Jews and
Greeks,
heard the
word of the
Lord.
An
editor
interpolated
a passage
into the
text
beginning at
18:26 (“He
began to
speak
boldly…”)
and
continued
until 19:8
(“spoke out
boldly and
persuasively”),
so that we
obtain the
passage as
it presently
appears (the
interpolated
portion is
in bold):
/24/ Now
there came
to Ephesus a
Jew named
Apollos, a
native of
Alexandria.
he was an
eloquent
man, well
versed in
the
scriptures.
/25/ He had
been
instructed
in the Way
of the Lord;
and he spoke
with burning
enthusiasm
and taught
accurately
the things
concerning
Jesus,
though he
knew only
the baptism
of John.
/26/ He
began to
speak boldly
in the
synagogue,
but when
Priscilla
and Aquila
heard him,
they took
him aside
and
explained
the Way of
God to him
more
accurately.
/27/ And
when he
wished to
cross over
to Achaia,
the
believers
encouraged
him and
wrote to the
disciples to
welcome him.
On his
arrival he
greatly
helped those
who through
grace had
become
believers,
/28/ for he
powerfully
refuted the
Jews in
public,
showing by
the
scriptures
that Jesus
was the
Christ.
This
interpolation
depicts
Priscilla
and Aquila
perfecting
the
knowledge of
Apollos by
explaining
to him in
detail the
Way of God
according to
Jewish-Christian
doctrine.
However,
this
depiction is
incompatible
with the
rupture
between the
Jewish-Christians
and Apollos
recorded in
the
primitive
text (19:9).
The
manipulation
of the text
does not end
there. A
second
redactor
wished to
give a
further
example of
true
Christian
baptism. He
inserted a
second
passage
(19:1-7)
into the
first
interpolation,
a passage
which
completes
the
religious
instruction
of
certain13+
disciples
who, despite
their title
of
disciples,
had never
heard of the
Holy Spirit
(v. 2) and
therefore
had not been
baptized in
its name.
They knew
only the
baptism of
John. “When
Paul laid
his hands on
them, the
Holy Spirit
came upon
them” (v.
6). But we
are dealing
here with a
pious
forgery, for
Paul
elsewhere
affirms that
he baptized
no one and
contented
himself with
preaching
the gospel
(1 Cor
1:14-17).
The
complementarity
of the text
(Acts 18:26
and 19:8,
both with
forms of
parrêsiazomai,
“speak
boldly”)
frames an
interpolation
with
repetition.
The result
is that
Apollos’
original
instruction
in the
school of
Tyrannus in
Ephesus is
ultimately
attributed
to Paul.
Baptism
in the name
of Jesus
appeared
relatively
late.
Nowhere do
the synoptic
gospels
reveal that
Jesus
baptized.
While the
Fourth
Gospel
declares
that Jesus
was
baptized, it
insists that
his
disciples
alone
baptized (Jn
4:2).
The
baptism of
the Spirit
appeared
long after
the baptism
of John,
very
probably in
the second
century,
after the
appearance
of baptism
in the name
of
Jesus—something
necessarily
unknown to
John, who
came before
Jesus.14
Thus, it
became
necessary to
supplement
the gospels,
which
ignored
them, with
baptisms in
the Spirit
and in the
name of
Jesus. These
two baptisms
later fused
to become
the baptism
in the name
of the Holy
Trinity.15
Given these
facts, it is
not
surprising
that the
primitive
baptism of
John was
completely
lost to
view, was
forgotten,
and was a
rite finally
considered
entirely
foreign to
Christianity.
The
Mandean
baptism of
John
Are we able,
at this
point, to
understand
the
significance
of John’s
primitive
baptism? Let
us
momentarily
refer back
to our study
regarding
the “Divine
child,”16 to
the creator
god whose
habitual
dwelling is
water. That
god says to
the hermit:
“I am your
ancestor,
the
primordial
being who
confers
life,
primordial
man…” Does
not this
myth occur
elsewhere
only in
India?17
Mandean
literature
has
preserved
the trace of
an account
which
proceeds
from the
same
inspiration
and which
also
approaches
the
Christian
notion of
baptism.
According to
the Ginza
(190-96),
the divine
Manda
d’Hayye
(“Knowledge
of Life,” or
“Living
Gnosis”)
appears at
the River
Jordan in
the guise of
a child of
three years
and a day
[that is,
1,096 days].
John is
present. He
has been
active in
his ministry
already for
forty-two
years. The
child greets
him and
insists upon
being
baptized.
After
hesitating
for a long
time, John
makes up his
mind. He
carries out
the rite of
opening the
waters,
descending
into the
river,
extending
his arms,
and
receiving
Manda
d’Hayye.
At the
presence of
the young
god, the
waters of
the river
come
together
with such
force that
John can
scarcely
stand. But
when the
child looks
at the
Jordan the
waves stop,
withdraw,
and John
realizes
with
astonishment
that the
riverbed is
dry under
his feet.
With John,
Manda
d’Hayye
wishes to
follow the
Jordan to
its ultimate
source, the
world sea.
On the banks
of the river
the fish
open their
mouths and
the birds
their beaks.
They all
sing:
“Blessed are
you, Manda
d’Hayye!
Blessed is
the place
whence you
came, and
the place
whither you
shall go!”
Confronted
with this
miracle,
John
realizes
that
standing
before him
is He in
whose name
John
administers
the baptism
of life, He
whose name
is now
revealed,
“the name
ruling the
future which
must come,”
the name
Mana
(Spirit).
John then
asks God to
baptize him:
“Now, place
your hand of
truth upon
me, and your
great
authority of
healing.
Pronounce
upon me the
name of the
first life.”
But Manda
d’Hayye
informs John
that the
baptism He
gives
signals the
death of all
that is
terrestrial:
“If I place
my hand upon
you, you
will
separate
from your
body.”
John
accepts
death in
order to
understand
“the great
fruit of
light, the
water in
which the
living fire
of life
burns.” The
divine child
bequeaths
his raiment
of flesh and
blood to
John, in
order to
gird him
with a robe
of splendor
and to dress
him with a
turban of
light. From
the two
banks of the
world-ocean
of light
John views
his
terrestrial
carcass over
which the
fish and
birds
congregate,
and he
intones the
long prayer
which he
addresses to
God. Manda
d’Hayye
clothes John
with sable.
The various
stages of
John’s
ascent to
heaven are
then
described.
According to
this
account,
Manda
d’Hayye (the
Savior) is
contrary to
the
Christian
conception
of the
messiah.
Certain
scholars
have
recognized
that he was
an avatar of
the ancient
Babylonian
god Marduk
who
delivered
the world
from
chaos—which
agrees with
the presence
of
Assyro-Babylonian
elements in
the most
ancient
Mandean
texts.18
Many
authors have
studied
Mandeism
without
distinguishing
between what
was anterior
to
Christianity
and what was
added
subsequent
to the
primitive
texts. For
them,
priority
belongs to
the
Christian
texts. This
affirmation
needs to be
revised, for
many
indications
suggest, on
the
contrary,
that the
Catholics
borrowed and
modified
(not to
mention
destroyed)
Mandean
texts and
traditions.
Unwilling to
enter into
discussion,
traditionalist
scholars
will object
that there
is no
mention in
the Gospels
of the
Jordan
waters
receding.
They will
point out
that
Christian
baptism was
not a
prelude to
death.
Finally,
they will
state that
Jesus did
not appear
in the form
of a
child.19 It
is a
mistake,
they will
conclude, to
attach too
much
importance
to the
preceding
arguments.
In
fact—though
the element
has
disappeared
in the
Gospels
whereby the
waters of
the Jordan
recede to
expose dry
ground20—it
frequently
returns in
Christian
baptismal
iconography.
We find it
also in the
two epiphany
hymns of
Ephrem
Syrus. We
learn in the
Itinerary of
the Piacenza
pilgrim
(Antony of
Piacenza)
that a
wooden cross
marked the
spot in the
Jordan where
the water
receded
before
Jesus.
Similarly,
the
Chronicle of
Alexandria
(VII CE)
reports that
at the
moment of
baptism, the
waters of
the Jordan
receded:
“The Savior
ordered John
to say to
the river,
‘Stop, the
Savior has
come among
us!’ ” And,
indeed, the
river
immediately
stopped.21
Thus,
from the
first
representations
of the
baptism
until at
least the
seventh
century, the
Church
certainly
knew a
mythical
detail of
the baptism
that does
not appear
(or no
longer
appears) in
the Gospels.
The
baptism
which the
Mandean John
received, we
can aver,
shortly
preceded the
prophet’s
disappearance.
It was the
sacrament of
immortality
at the
threshold of
death.22
On the
other hand,
the baptism
of John,
precursor of
Jesus,
procured
only
repentance
for the
remission of
sins. We
recall that
after the
canonical
account of
the baptism
between John
and Jesus,
John
disappears.
His role is
finished. It
is Jesus who
takes his
place.23
This
coincidence
is
troubling.
We
recall that
at Luke
1:66, at the
end of the
account of
John’s
birth, all
said: “What
then will
this child
be? For the
hand of the
Lord was
upon him.”
The
expression
is Mandean.
Nor
should we
forget that
the idea of
death was
primitively
associated
with
baptism.
[See note
22—RS] We
read at
Romans
6:3-4: “Do
you not know
that all of
us who have
been
baptized
into Christ
Jesus were
baptized
into his
death?
Therefore we
have been
buried with
him by
baptism into
death, so
that, just
as Christ
was raised
from the
dead by the
glory of the
Father, so
we too might
walk in
newness of
life.”24
Here we have
the death of
Christ at
the time of
baptism, an
idea which
can in no
wise be
explained by
the
crucifixion.25
The
actual
account of
the baptism
of the adult
Jesus, and
Luke’s text
(3:23)—which
tell us that
Jesus was
thirty years
old at the
time of his
baptism—do
not accord
with certain
frescoes
from the end
of II CE,
nor with
certain
ivories and
with some
sarcophagi
decorated
with the
baptismal
scene. In
these latter
cases, the
baptized
Jesus is
represented
as a youth.
Moreover,
John the
Baptist is
often shown
placing his
hand on the
head of the
young Jesus.
Now, this
gesture
(which
became the
“Imposition
of hands” in
Christianity)
was among
the Mandeans
part of the
ceremony of
baptism
itself. Here
the
Christian
Jesus
rejoins
Manda
d’Hayye, the
divine
child, the
primordial
being.
The
resemblance
between
Jesus and
the Mandean
god is much
more
astonishing
in the
Gospel of
Thomas,
where the
child Jesus
affirms that
he knows
more than
men because
he existed
“before the
ages.”26 In
the Gospel
of
Pseudo-Matthew,
he declares
that he has
no father
according to
the flesh
and that he
existed
“before the
Law.”27
In many
places in
the New
Testament,
Jesus is
treated as
the eternal
savior, as
God who has
existed
forever. He
himself
represents
the
primordial
being, the
Son of God.
What form
did this
God-son take
in the
imagination
of his
followers?
We
recall
(above)
Luke’s
indication
regarding
the date
when John
the Baptist
received the
work of God.
Let us
consider the
declaration
of Marcion:
“In the
fifteenth
year of
Tiberias,
Jesus
Christ, the
Saving
Spirit,
deigned to
come down
from
heaven.” It
is clear
that this
Jesus is not
a man but an
aeon who
accepts to
leave the
divine
Pleroma.
Luke tells
us why: to
give the
word of God
to John. The
Gospel of
John (1:6)
confirms
this: John
is sent by
God to
witness to
the Kingdom
of Light.
The
baptismal
scene occurs
between the
god Jesus
and the man
John.
Primitively,
it was
comparable
to the
baptism of
John by
Manda
d’Hayye. The
baptism was
gnostic.28
Jesus,
however,
being taken
for a man
and John
having been
elevated to
the Kingdom
of Light—it
was Jesus
who became
the hero of
the tale.29
The
Gospel of
John itself
calls
attention to
the
difference
which exists
between that
which is of
the earth
and that
which is of
heaven
(2:31).
Next →
Notes:
13. This
was the
baptism of
water, not
of the
Spirit.—RS.
13+. Ory
writes
“twelve”
disciples
but, as far
as I know,
the number
of disciples
is nowhere
enumerated
in the
manuscripts
of this
passage,
where we
encounter
tinas
mathêtas or
simply tois
mathêtais.—RS.
14.
Thus, Ory
posits the
following
sequence:
(1) the
water
baptism of
John; (2)
the baptism
in the name
of Jesus;
(3) the
baptism by
the Holy
Spirit.
However, one
may ask:
What meaning
does a
baptism
without the
spirit have?
It is hardly
possible to
suppose that
the prophet
John the
Baptist
baptized
without any
claim to the
“spirit.”
Far more
probable is
that only
the emergent
Church
impugned
John’s
baptism as
being
without the
“Holy
Spirit.”
Furthermore,
“Jesus”
originally
was the Holy
Spirit
(Ieshua in
Semitic =
that which
“saves”).
John’s
spiritual
baptism must
have been
the
equivalent
of baptism
by “Jesus” (
= the Holy
Spirit). The
Paulines
sought to
separate the
Baptist from
the spirit
(“Jesus”) in
their
attempt to
find a human
vessel for
the kerygma.
This vessel
“Jesus”
required an
entirely
marvelous
and
miraculous
biography,
for the
kerygma was
itself
marvelous
and
miraculous.
John’s
actual,
mundane,
prophetic,
and vital
activity was
denigrated
by the
Pauline
evangelists,
resulting in
a reduction
of John’s
spiritual
(read:
gnostic)
baptism to
one merely
of “water”
(Mk 1:8 and
parallels).
The Paulines
transferred
the genuine
baptism by
the spirit
to their
artificial
God-man:
Jesus of
Nazareth.—RS
15.
Matthew
alone
(28:19, in a
passage
added later
to his
gospel)
attributes
the
institution
of baptism
to Jesus,
but not to
the living
Jesus—the
evangelist
ascribes it
to the risen
Jesus—a new
miracle that
has
convinced
many
historians.
16.
Bulletin
Ernest
Renan, no.
37 (June
1956),
entitled “Un
rite magique
de Simon le
Samaritain.”
17. In
Vedic
mythology,
Prajapati
dismembers
himself and
thus brings
about the
cosmos.—RS
18. Ory
is correct
in seeing
ancient
Mesopotamian
elements in
Mandeism,
but those
elements
echo not
Marduk (a
solar god)
but more
likely his
sometime
adversary
Sin/Enki,
the moon god
of water, of
the
underworld,
and of
gnosis even
in Bronze
Age
times.—RS
19. But
now see GTh
and the Nag
Hammadi
scriptures.—RS
20. This
legendary
element
might
indicate
that Moses
and Joshua,
as well as
Theudas
(Josephus
Ant. XX.5.1)
were
baptizers.
21. We
cannot admit
as
evidence—for
or
against—certain
Psalms
(notably
114:3) whose
origin and
date is
unknown.
22.
Again, the
terms must
be
interpreted
spiritually.
The Mandean
baptism
marked the
vital,
transitional,
moment in
the
gnostic’s
life. It was
the very
acquisition
of gnosis, a
boon which
bequeathed
death to the
old spirit
but life to
the new. Cf.
Jn 3:3.—RS
23. The
baptism ( =
gnostic
enlightenment)
marked the
transition
from “John”
to “Jesus.”
These names
were a first
effort to
differentiate
the
pre-enlightenment
(pre-baptist)
saintly
human “John”
from the
post-enlightenment
avatar who
has found
gnosis,
“Jesus.” The
finding of
gnosis,
thus, is
passage from
ignorance to
understanding
and is the
original
meaning of
“baptism.”
Before his
enlightenment,
the human
was “John.”
Afterwards,
he was
identified
with the
gnosis he
carried.
i.e., “that
which saves”
= Jeshua.
—RS
24. This
Pauline
passage
makes
graphically
evident how
the gnostic
origin of
baptism was
forgotten.
‘The new
life in
gnosis’ gave
way to ‘the
new life in
Jesus.’
Gnosis and
Jesus were
originally
identical.
However,
when they
were
separated,
“Jesus” took
on a life,
character—and
eventually
biography—of
his own, and
faith in
that
invented
Jesus
replaced
gnosis.—RS
25.
Nevertheless,
in Paul’s
mind and in
the
subsequent
Church, the
baptism was
transferred
to the
crucifixion.
A personal,
spiritual,
and gnostic
victory was
transformed
by Paul into
a cosmic,
fleshly (at
the moment
of death),
and
vicarious
victory for
all of
us.—RS
26.
Perhaps Ory
has Th 19 in
mind here.
Parallels
are Jn 8:58
and GPh
64:10.—RS
27. The
theology
implied is
significant.
If ‘Jesus’
has no
father
according to
the flesh,
then he is
(1) pure
spirit (=
docetism);
and (2) the
flesh must
be
‘abandoned’
(transcended,
sacrificed,
made ‘dead’)
before the
mantle of
‘Jesus’ can
be put on,
like a
‘robe’ (also
an ancient
gnostic
symbol).
Many of
these
gnostic
symbols were
taken over
by Paul and
the
incipient
Church after
their rich
gnostic
meanings
were
removed.—RS
28.
I.e.,
“Jesus” =
the Holy
Spirit, and
the baptism
of “John”
was his
enlightenment
with the
Holy Spirit,
his becoming
filled with
“the Jesus,”
that is,
saving
gnosis.—RS
29. A
carnalized
Jesus is
indeed the
hero of the
tale for
Christians
who forgot
about
gnosis,
while John
remained the
hero of the
tale for
Mandeans who
preserved
the gnostic
roots and
who,
furthermore,
repudiated
the “lie” of
a carnalized
Jesus. In
Mandeism
there is no
incarnation.—RS
© 2017 -
Mythicist
Papers
Proudly
powered by
WordPress
Weaver II
Pro by WP
Weaver
Hypothesis regarding
John the Baptist
by Georges Ory
Cahiers du Cercle Ernest Renan, no. 10 (1956) Translated by R. Salm (Note: Editorial additions are in brackets and/or are signed “RS”)
John was Jesus by Georges Ory
Part Three
The Word, the light of life
The prologue of the Gospel of John mixes two distinct notions: the Word and Light. Pursuant to the demonstration of Delafosse,30 one cannot convincingly claim that the prologue was not retouched to the advantage of the Word. Originally, the Light alone was causative, but an interpolator wished to subordinate it to the Word. At the same time, he made the latter the creator of the world and the divine element desirous of incarnating in the flesh. The Word is of Catholic origin, while the original text was Gnostic. The Word was introduced into the prologue in order to combat the spiritual Christ, the pre-Christian Christ of Light, as well as to affirm the existence of a Christ of flesh.31
It has long been noted that the Word frequently assumed the place and attributes of Wisdom, and—if the latter is not named in the Fourth Gospel—it may be because she is subsumed in the traits belonging to the Word in the prologue. In effect, the texts teach us that Wisdom was created from the beginning, that she was with God, that she is a reflection of the divine Light, that she is the Light, that she resides in souls, and that she brings grace. [9] Such great affinities exist between the thought of the evangelist and Wisdom conceptions that one is shocked at the complete absence of Wisdom from the Gospel of John, where she appears to be replaced by truth and, probably also, by the Word.
This Word, placed in the forefront of the gospel, does not reappear. On the other hand, the Light—whose importance is downplayed in the prologue—prepares us not only for what we encounter in the Fourth Gospel but also in other Christian writings.
We also note that, even before the mention of the Light, another element appears in the Fourth Gospel: the Life which is “the Light of men.” This Life receives no further mention in the prologue, but it is found later in the work, as well as in the other gospels, in the epistles, and in the Psalms:
The bread of Life (Jn 6:42) The light of Life (Jn 8:12) I am the Life (Jn 11:25–14:6) The word of Life (1 Jn 1:1) Who possesses the Son possesses Life (1 Jn 5:12) The way which leads to Life (Mt 7:14)
Life sometimes appears unreal or transitional, and it must be abandoned in favor of another Life, true and profound: “the present life and the Life to come” (1 Tim 4:8), “the Life that really is Life” (1 Tim 6:19). Elsewhere the Life possesses a heavenly nature: it is the Life of the Son, the Life of Jesus, the Life of God, the Life of Christ.32
The characteristic New Testament expression which qualifies life is αιωνος, often translated “immortal” and “eternal.” These words, however, give the term a quantitative rather than qualitative meaning. At issue is not the duration of life but its nature and origin. The translation “eternal” may be admissible if the understanding of Boethius is intended, that is, “possessing all the fullness of the unlimited life… in which nothing of the future is lacking… from which nothing of the past has been taken…”
The use of the term αιων in the New Testament is significant. It is the name given to the powers which rule over the various regions or periods of the universe. In Eph 2:2 “the aeon of this world” is also “the archon of the authority of the air.” In 1 Tim 1:17 God is “the king of the aeons.” According to Col. 1:26, the mystery given to the saints was previously hidden to the aeons. In 2 Pet 3:18 the “day of eternity” [hêmeran aiônos] is none other than “the day of the coming of God”33 from which it follows that the aeon here is Jesus (as in Heb 1:2; 1 Cor 10:11; Gal 1:4-5). In Acts 3:21 and Lk 1:70 the prophets receive their inspiration from the aeon.34 The witness of Philo can be added to that of the synoptics.
Christianity was formed in a gnostic milieu where the doctrine of personified aeons was indisputable. Clement, Origen, Ignatius, Clement of Alexandria, Irenaeus, and Hippolytus all refer to the doctrine. Generally speaking, the word aeon suggests a superhuman being who may be good or bad, superior or inferior.
[10] Hellenistic thought penetrated the Jewish religion before New Testament times. We find the “eternal aeon” in Enoch 10:10, the “judgement of the aeon of aeons” in 10:12, and the “king of the aeons” in 27:3.35
Whence came this Life, accompanied by the Light, that we find solemnly at the beginning of the Gospel of John? Why, appearing here in the place of honor, does it not appear likewise in the introductions to the other gospels?
The answer is: because John [the Baptist] came as a witness to the Life and to the Light. This John must have originally been the Mandean John who believed in “the great Life in whose name the sublime Light magnified.” This Life—together with its brothers Justice and Truth—was a “son of the Light.”36 This great Life was a Mandean divinity.
John was the Christ
We have seen that the Magnificat (attributed to Mary at the birth of her son) was originally sung by Elisabeth who thus celebrated the birth of John.
This song already underlines the importance attached to the appearance of John on earth. Other elements confirm that importance: the Angel Gabriel was specially sent by God to announce to Zachariah that he and his wife Elisabeth would have offspring, despite their great age; a son would be granted them by God; he would be great before the Lord, full of the Spirit even from the womb; he would convert people to the Lord and would walk before Him with the virtue of Elijah.
“Walk before the Lord God” is a Hebrew expression which signifies “walking in front of God” in conformity with his Law. Its original meaning was not that John would be the precursor to another prophet. John announces the judgment of God, in front of whom he walks. The angel Gabriel made two visitations which guaranteed, in presence and words, the divine virtues placed in John. Gabriel came to make known that this child would be a messiah, a Christ. Because the angel said nothing about Jesus, a soliloquy regarding the birth of Jesus was added to the primitive text.
It is not necessary to belabor this point. In the texts themselves (Mt 11:9, 11; Lk 7:27-28) Jesus remarks that “John is more than a prophet,” that “among men there has never appeared one greater than John the Baptist,” that Elijah has returned in John the Baptist (Mt 17:11-13; 11:14; Mk 9:13). If he is not the Christ, who then is this man who is greatest, who is more than a prophet, and who is Elijah resurrected?
And if Jesus affirms this exalted status for John—at the risk of diminishing himself in the eyes of his disciples and of the crowd—is it not because this Jesus is not a human being at all but a god?
[11] In John’s time, “a feeling of expectancy had grown among the people, who were beginning to wonder whether John might be the Christ” (Lk 3:15). This supposition and even belief lasted a long time, for two texts of the third and fourth centuries CE reproduce this tradition in remarkable ways: —The Recognitions of Clement (I.60) make allusion to a disciple of John who claimed that his master and not Jesus was the Christ.
— Ephrem wrote (Evang. Concord. Expos.) that the disciples of John glorified their master saying that John was greater than Christ himself.
The Gospel of Mark (6:15) acknowledges the confounding of John with Jesus when it says of Jesus: “He is Elijah… he is a prophet,” qualities quintessentially those of the Baptist.37 This situation was vexing to the disciples of Jesus, for he asks them:
‘Who do people say the Son of Man is?’ And they said, ‘Some say John the Baptist, some Elijah, and others Jeremiah or one of the prophets.’ ‘But you,’ he said, ‘who do you say I am?’ Then Simon Peter spoke up and said, ‘You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.’ (Mt 16:14; Mk 8:27)
This proves that an effort was made, before the gospels were finalized, to differentiate between two personas equally celebrated: John was the Son of Man, Jesus was the Christ, Son of God.
When Herod heard the rumors about Jesus, he cried out: “This is John the Baptist himself! He has risen from the dead, and that is why miraculous powers are at work in him” (Mt 14:2; Mk 6:14; Lk 9:7-9).38 Thus the Tetrarch thought that this Jesus was a reincarnation of John the Baptist—or perhaps John resuscitated—and that this was the reason the powers of heaven were at work in him.
In his Apology (31:7-8) of about 159 CE, Justin Martyr noted the names of all the prophets who had announced the Christ. However, he did not mention John, perhaps because he knew that John was the Christ.
John deprived of his standing as the Christ
The Gospel of John presents an obvious contradiction in the passage which brings us the alleged witness of John (1:19-26). The text which we read is not primitive. It has been edited.
Priests and Levites, coming from Jerusalem, ask John: “Who are you?” John replies candidly. “He acknowledged plainly, he did not deny it” the gospel states. This wording anticipates an affirmative answer from John: “Yes, I am…” But, he is made to reply to the contrary: “I am not the Christ… I am not Elijah…” “Are you the prophet?” He answered: “No.” In this way we are led far from the presumed confession. Curiously, the information that John “did not deny it” is immediately followed by a triple denial.
John’s response is so jarring to what was expected that an editor added to the text: “Why then are you baptizing if you are neither the Christ, nor Elijah, nor the prophet?” (1:25) But, here too, John’s response is unsatisfactory and sidesteps the question: “I baptize with water. Among you stands one whom you do not know.” The “one whom you do not know” can only be the “unknown god”—unknown to the Jews of Jerusalem. It is in his name that John baptizes.
The objection which is brought to John—which demands an explanation that is not given—proves that, from the moment he began baptizing, John was taken to be the Christ, Elijah, the prophet. The original text must have been approximately as follows:
“Are you the Christ?” “Yes,” John answered. “Are you Elijah?” “Yes.” “Are you the prophet?” “Yes.”
In answer to precise questions, John acknowledges what he is. He does not deny but answers affirmatively, and does so without equivocation. The gospel text itself furnishes this evidence. John’s replies were modified according to the wish to make him the precursor of Jesus, and to make the latter the sole Christ, the sole prophet, and the sole reincarnation of Elijah.
Proof of the foregoing is easy to furnish. We have already seen that John was more than a prophet. In addition, the Gospel of Luke (1:17) makes the prediction—by an angel to Zachariah (the future father of the Baptist)—that his son will “walk before [God] in the spirit and power of Elijah,” that he will be the reincarnation of Elijah. These prophecies were not made for Jesus.
By retaining only the prediction of the angel and the affirmation of Jesus, we can see that the witness of John analyzed above has been completely misrepresented by a religious school which wished to diminish the role played by John in the origins of Christianity.
Another but more indirect proof lies in the Mandean Book of John. Upon seeing John, the seven planetary divinities question him as follows: “By the virtue of whom are you here, and for the praise of whom do you teach?” He does not hesitate in responding: “I am here by the power of my Father and for the praise of Him who is my creator…”
This passage was either not understood or deformed by the Marcan evangelist (11:28). Those sacrificing [in the Jerusalem Temple] asked Jesus, “By what authority do you do these things? And who gave you authority to do these things?” Jesus answered neither one way nor the other. He said: “I also will ask you one thing. If you answer, I will tell you by what authority I do these things.” He asked them: “Was the baptism of John from heaven or was it from men?”
What an astonishing question! It has nothing to do with the context, where there is mention neither of baptism nor of John. Could it really have been Jesus who asked it? Would it not, rather, have been the “resuscitated” John? And if it was Jesus, then why the allusion to the baptism of John? A borrowing from the Mandean text seems very probable.
[13] Naturally, the sacrificers keep quiet and Jesus does not divulge the authority by which he works. The editors have removed those irritating elements.
The disciples of John go over to Jesus
According to the gospels, John baptized multitudes while preaching an apocalyptic message. Apart from some short passages in the Gospel of Luke (3:7-14), the gospels do not seem to have preserved anything of John’s teaching, unless of course it is included in the teaching of Jesus.
Nor do we find any miracles of John in the gospels. Yet, they were so famous that Herod had heard of them.
At the same time, John’s disciples are portrayed as going over to Jesus the first time that Jesus presents himself (Jn 1:35 ff). There is no discussion with John. All occurs as if it were the most natural development in the world:
One day, two of John’s disciples were with him. Jesus approached, and the two left John and followed Jesus. One was Andrew. He then brought his brother Simon (Peter) who became the third disciple of Jesus. The next day Jesus chose as fourth disciple Philip, who was from Bethsaida, the town of Andrew and Peter.
Philip, in turn, went to find Nathaniel who became the fifth disciple of Jesus. According to the appendix of the Fourth Gospel, this Philip was one of the seven disciples with John and Simon before subsequently becoming one of the twelve apostles.39
This progression is quite curious. Is one to believe that, in the presence of their master, John’s disciples simply abandoned him? And if Jesus were a god appearing in front of them, and if they followed this god, they would only need to follow John who prepared this path for them and preceded them on it.
All becomes clear when we realize that, after the death of John, the god Jesus became humanized and inherited elements of John’s human biography. John was never abandoned. He simply became Jesus.
The substitution of Jesus for John was accomplished after many vicissitudes. It is the work of the Christian Church which eventually marginalized other sects and largely silenced competing views.
Traces of those divergent elements are still detectible in our texts. When one reads such heterodox views it is necessary to determine the thought of the redactor—even when the reported event probably never took place.
[15] The Gospel of John (3:25-26) recognizes that there was a “dispute” between the disciples of John and those of Jesus. The dispute involved the meaning of baptism.40
The polemic between Christians of Jesus and followers of John took place only after the progress of [Paulinism] was assured. The goal at first was to reduce the role of John, to inflate Jesus, and to debase gnosticism by materializing it. In the end, the Roman Church triumphant unified its doctrines and made John a precursor. This was, in fact, true historically—John did precede “Jesus.” The Church settled upon the device whereby John is acknowledged by Jesus as being “more than a prophet” and “the greatest among those born of women.”
In this way those “liars who claim that Jesus is not the Christ” were vanquished (1 Jn 2:22). These heretics were the same as those who denied that Jesus Christ came according to the flesh (4:2).41
John and Jesus: Two forms of the same person
It seems that the Mandean John, transformed into John the Baptist in various Jewish milieux, was subsequently interpreted by gnostics before becoming Christianized. Certain passages in the scriptures cannot be understood except in relation to gnostic doctrines.
According to Justin, Jesus is alone at his baptism when the voice of the Lord calls out: “You are my beloved Son, today I have begotten you.” Similarly, Jesus is alone in the Pistis Sophia and declares: “My father sent the Holy Spirit to me in the form of a dove.” For his part, Celsus (according to Origen) had only one person present at the baptism, where the dove carries out the role of the young Mandean god, Manda d’Hayye [“Knowledge of Life”].
According to Matthew, John does not want to baptize Jesus who says: “Let it be so.” John acquiesces, which permits one to believe that John did nothing at all and that Jesus was in fact alone.
In the Gospel of Luke, the situation is more clear: John does not baptize Jesus. Even if he wanted to, he could not because he was in prison. Jesus was certainly baptized, but it was by the dove which descended from the sky.
We can legitimately conclude that there was but one person present at the baptism. That was John-Jesus—the one (Jesus) incarnated in the other (John). The baptism consisted of the descent of one into the other.
According to Irenaeus, Cerinthus claimed that an aeon named Christos was united with a man named Jesus at baptism, and that this aeon departed before of the crucifixion.42
The divine entity Jesus had the body of the man John.
Notes:
30. Le IVe Evangile. Paris: Rieder, 1925, pp. 58 and 72.
31. This, of course, is a consequence of the Pauline kerygma.—RS.
32. An opposition exists in scripture between the “true Life” and this actual (natural) life (Mt 7:14; 18:8-9; Mk 9:43, 45; Lk 10:28; Rom. 1:17; 8:13; 1 Thess 5:10; Heb. 12:9; 1 Pet 3:7, 10; 2 Pet 1:3, etc.). This “natural” life is not merely less perfect than the true Life (cf. OT), but it is “the perversion of the divine gift.” See IDB (1962) III:127a.—RS.
33. Cf 2 Pet 3:12, 4, 10.
34. Usually ap’ aiwonos in these passages is translated figuratively: “from eternity,” i.e., “from the beginning.”—RS.
35. These passages from Enochian literature are alternatively translated “eternal life” , “eternal judgment,” and “eternal king” respectively.—RS.
36. One recalls the prominence of “the sons of light” in the Dead Sea scriptures.
37. Most importantly, the people also suppose that Jesus was “John the Baptist risen from the dead, and that is why miraculous powers are at work in him.” Greater confirmation of the confusion between the two and of John’s pre-eminence is hardly possible. Certainly, the notion that John was the Christ was widespread at the time the evangelists were writing. However, the evangelists were intent upon combating this notion and were now presenting a different paradigm with their invented hero, “Jesus of Nazareth.”—RS.
38. The miracles of John have disappeared from the gospels, excepting the ones that appear under the name of Jesus.
39. See G. Ory, Simon, CER no. 9, pp. 11-12 regarding Philip.
40. This early and enduring dispute surely took place. It was between the established followers of John (Mandeans? Jewish-Christians?) and the Hellenist Pauline followers of a new and invented god-man, “Jesus.” The John-followers believed in a baptism of repentance—essentially, a self-motivated path consisting of two elements: (1) purification (symbolized by “fire”), and (2) gnosis (symbolized by “water”). The Pauline Christians repudiated these self-motivated elements and substituted the doctrine of belief, that is, salvation by an external agent (Jesus Christ/the Church).—RS.
41. Docetists. And, of course, we now can appreciate that Jesus Christ did not come according to the flesh. The ancient docetist was correct, and he prefigures the modern mythicist. The correct account of Christian origins can now be summarized: (1) a prophet “John the Baptist” teaches a doctrine of inner repentance based on gnosis and pure behavior (“water” and “fire”); (2) some late arrivals deny John’s doctrine and substitute the doctrine of belief (in “Jesus”) in the place of repentance. In this way the Christian faith was born. It is none other than the gross perversion of a gnostic religion.
Because Christianity was based on belief, it needed a perfect object for that belief. That perfect object was gradually invented and with great care—“Jesus,” the god-man who through his atoning death saves all believers from their own sins.—RS.
42. Cf. Mk 14:51-52, where a naked young man (neaniskos) flees from the Garden of Gethsemane.—RS.
The corollary of
the proposition that
John the Baptist was
Jesus the Christ is
to ask one's self
was Johnny
Lovewisdom John the
Baptist reborn in
our lifetime?
|
|
|
|
 |
|