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

J

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?