Was Jesus “John the Baptist”?
by Neil Godfrey 
Filed under: John the Baptist
Tags: Rene Salm, Robert M. Price 
For those of us who like to be stimulated with different views on Christian origins René Salm has translated and made available a 1956 essay by Georges Ory, Was Jesus “John the Baptist”?
This hypothesis reminds me of Robert M. Price’s suggestion that the two figures are doubles, or that Jesus was indeed something of a mythical hypostasis of John. (Unfortunately I forget the source for this discussion now — I welcome a reminder from anyone reading this.) Others — Roger Parvus and Hermann Detering, if I recall correctly, have had thought provoking views of the role of John the Baptist and Simon Magus.
I’ve had a less “psychological-anthropological” explanation for John the Baptist than Bob Price’s views, and have to admit I have never given enough sustained attention in the past to some of the views of Parvus and Detering. I know I have only covered one dimension of the evidence available — the midrashic literary. I wonder if the motif of a representative of the old, usually metaphorically rough in appearance, as the deliverer of one who ushers in the new creation and new world, is a deeply rooted cultural archetype found from the Epic of Gilgamesh right through to modern fiction and fables.
I may not always come away from reading radical new views being immediately convinced, but rarely do I ever come away without having been stimulated with new questions and avenues to explore.
So who was George Ory? 
René Salm has done  a bit of digging and has published his findings on his site. The key section of interest for me is (and I have reformatted the last paragraph for here):
In 1949, together with Prosper Alfaric, Georges Ory co-founded the Cercle Ernest Renan in Paris, a “ Center for the history of religions, for biblical criticism and free research [libres recherches] into the origins of Christianity.” The Cercle (CER) has been at the cutting edge of French Jesus-mythicism for over half a century and continues to publish quarterly Cahiers and to offer monthly lectures in Paris. Ory was also prominent in the Union Rationaliste, and was the principal religion contributor for its Dictionnaire Rationaliste (1964), writing over fifty entries including those entitled “Jésus Christ,” “Gnosticisme,” “Paul-Louis Couchoud,” and “Charles Guignebert.” The dictionnaire is an indispensable resource for liberal French trends in religion.
Some notes can be culled regarding Ory’s thought. 
He identified John the Baptist as the original Christian messiah. 
He further identified this figure with the Samaritan heresiarch Dositheus. . . . 
Ory refused to identify the Essenes with the Dead Sea Sect . . . . 
He supposed that Marcion had a disciple, Lucanus, who was ultimately responsible for the third gospel and who succeeded Marcion at the latter’s death. Lucanus led the Marcionite community in Rome and considered Christ a heavenly being. “Jesus” was a composite.
So here is a second copy of the link — Was Jesus John the Baptist? — in case you ever lose the first one.
Christine
2016-04-14 21:15:42 UTC - 21:15 | Permalink
As the Roman Catholic influence and its tributary Christian religions die, the truth of who this person was will come out. Researchers will write more and more books about the possibility, then the probability, then their acceptance in about seven years, that this teacher, diviner and healer of the first century was John the Baptist.
Reply 
  maryhelena
2012-02-21 03:38:59 UTC - 03:38 | Permalink
Neil, have a look at the Infancy Gospel of James. I put up a thread on FRDB a while back….
http://www.freeratio.org/showthread.php?t=298696
John the Baptist: “destined to be king over Israel’?
“23. And Herod searched for John, and sent officers to Zacharias, saying: Where hast thou hid thy son? And he, answering, said to them: I am the servant of God in holy things, and I sit constantly in the temple of the Lord: I do not know where my son is. And the officers went away, and reported all these things to Herod. And Herod was enraged, and said: His son is destined to be king over Israel. And he sent to him again, saying: Tell the truth; where is thy son? for thou knowest that thy life is in my hand. And Zacharias said: I am God’s martyr, if thou sheddest my blood; for the Lord will receive my spirit, because thou sheddest innocent blood at the vestibule of the temple of the Lord. And Zacharias was murdered about daybreak.”
Reply 
Robert Wahler
2012-02-21 16:41:23 UTC - 16:41 | Permalink
“King over Israel” is esoteric. “Israel” is the body of believers. John and Jesus (if there was a Jesus) were Masters, or saviors. James the Just was definitely a savior, and Judas Thomas, and Simeon Cleophas (“Peter”), too. All brothers, all martyrs:
http://www.amazon.com/Saviors-Beyond-Qumran-Hammadi-Testament/dp/1441545689/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1329602738&sr=1-1
Reply 
maryhelena
2012-02-21 17:42:44 UTC - 17:42 | Permalink
I’m afraid we are on a different journey here. My aim is early christian history and ‘saviors’ are not in my sights at all!
Robert Wahler
2012-02-22 08:55:07 UTC - 08:55 | Permalink
To rey and maryhelena,
You have no idea how duped you are by the writers of the New Testament and those who picked it up and formed the Roman Church and subsequent orthodox Christianity out of it. Jesus himself condemned Paul at least five times prophetically for this in Matthew and Revelation. Look up “Jesus Words Only” online by Douglas Del Tondo. He is A CHRISTIAN. His book is online in full. He has links about Paul and the following: Matthew 5:19 as “Least in the kingdom” (‘Paulos’ and ‘Paulus’ mean ”least” in Greek and Latin). Matthew 7:15 as the “Ravening wolf” of Genesis 49:27 devouring the flock and then splitting it, Matthew 25:5-15 in the original Hebrew
https://www.createspace.com/3760866
as false prophet and author of the AntiChrist church doctrine, and again in Revelation 2:2-14 as false prophet to two future churches, saying he was “apostle (Ephesians 1:1) and teaching it is OK to eat things sacrificed to idols (1 Cor. 6 and 15).
I used to be Christian, and have studied this full-time for five years now. The Dead Sea Scrolls Pesherim call Paul “the SPOUTER OF LYING” and several other unkind things. The people of Qumran were the first true “Christians”, so they should know. Read Robert Eisenman: “James the Brother of Jesus”. He covers it in exhaustive detail. They (led by James, Jesus’ brother) were the first Christians, run out of Jerusalem to Qumran by Paul. Paul physically attacked James in the 40’s at the Temple, and eventually led the mob that killed James in 62 CE, after High Priest Ananus (the “Wicked Priest”) had him condemned in a kangaroo Sanhedrin court. This was all after his supposed “conversion” — with three conflicting versions of said event in Acts. Paul was a bad man. He is the one people follow in church today, not Jesus. Turn on any Sunday preacher. They will be discoursing from PAUL, not Jesus. It should be called “Paulianity”.
The main accomplishment of the NT was to suppress the other saviors of the time, all of Jesus’ three brothers, and cousin John the Baptist. All of them are minimized in various ways to eliminate any opposition to the church elders and their aggrandizement of a DEAD Master, Jesus Christ, into the mystery-religion hero the Greek audiences wanted. Just read the words of Jesus if you think I am making this up: “For it is the will of my Father that every one who SEES the Son and believes in him will be given eternal like, and I will raise him up at the last day [their death].” -John 6:40. “We must do the works of him who sent US [C. Sinaiticus] while it is day; night come, when NO ONE can work. AS LONG AS I AM IN THE WORLD I am the Light of the world.” -John 9:4-5. “I am the Way…” “for those who “HAVE SEEN” Jesus. -John 14:6-7. And John 17:11, where he prays to the Father to protect his “given” souls who were ALL (“they” is all of them) “IN THE WORLD” as he spoke his Prayer.This is all that survives the redaction of orthodoxy for teachings of Jesus Christ reflecting the truth of other Masters besides Jesus.
The blood salvation Paul taught was NEVER TAUGHT by Jesus. Mark 10:45 is a giving of his “soul” or “Life” (“Psuchen”, the Greek word here, means “breath” or “Soul”) to his disciples, not his sacrificial death. The translations are all wrong about “betrayal” in Matt. 26 and Mark 14. It is “to deliver” not “betray”. Judas is not the one delivering, but Jesus, OF HIMSELF, as Holy Spirit. The “betrayal” of Judas is myth. Judas Iscariot is myth. It is Judas THOMAS, the “doubting” brother, who is thereby otherwise minimized. The Gospel of Judas, just found, shows the mistake all have made where Jesus tells Judas “you will exceed them all, for you will sacrifice the man that bears me” — which is mystic revelation of Jesus as Master *within JUDAS*, not Jesus betrayed.
John the Baptist is such an embarrassment to Luke that Luke has him IN PRISON when Jesus is baptized by him in the other gospels. Peter denies Jesus three times (an esotericism about failure in meditation) and is thereby minimized. Again in John 21, not original to John (sign-off verses are at the end of chapter 20), Peter is shown to be a dufus. “Peter” is Simeon bar Cleophas, Jesus’ second brother. James was the first, Judas the third. ALL were Masters, all died martyrs. “Stephen” of Acts 7 is myth. It is JAMES stoned to death, as historians record. The clothes at “Saul’s” feet indicate PAUL as complicit in his murder. The speech given there is lifted from Joshua 23 Even a mistake is duplicated (24:32). The words at Acts 7:60 “Father forgive them” were James’ and became Jesus’ in the gospels. Acts 1:23, “Joseph Barsabbas Justus” is actually “James” (son of Joseph, son of “Abbas” the Father, and James the JUST) who actually replaces JESUS here as leader of the Jerusalem Assembly, not fictional “Matthias” replacing equally fictional “Judas Iscariot” (“sicarii” is applied to Judas Thomas) in a made-up story of betrayal, just shown to be false.
So, you see, all is not as it seems. The Bible, at least the NT, is POLEMIC, not a record. Mystic “gnosis” saves, not blood. Eisenman shows the origins of “saved by the blood” as a counter to blood-purity observances at Qumran by PAUL in his letters and in Acts by his buddy, Luke. Read “The New Testament Code”. Works versus faith is all thoroughly covered there, too. Paul got his information from a faulty Septuagint translation of Genesis 15:6 about Abraham’s faith. James talks about that in James 2. Many clues tell you it was Paul he had in mind (“scoffer”, “lies”, “tongue” “windbag”, “lawless one”). The gnostic gospels and the scrolls expose Paul all over the place.
MrHorse
2016-10-27 06:53:25 UTC - 06:53 | Permalink
That’s a comment that, since you made it (Feb 2012), has surprisingly been well supported by subsequent publications.
Later that year (in December) , Robert M Price published The Amazing Colossal Apostle in which he proposed that Paul was a composite of several historical figures, including Marcion of Pontos, Stephen the Martyr, Simon the Sorcerer, and the iconoclastic evangelist who was named Paul. Price thinks the Pauline letters are infused with the hand of Marcion and Polycarp of Smyrna, as many scholars would acknowledge, and are an amalgam of biographical details derived from the other Christian martyrs’ lives.
In 2014 Markus Vinzent published ‘Marcion and the Dating of the Synoptic Gospels’ (Leuven: Peeters), and in 2015 Matthias Klinghardt published Das älteste Evangelium und die Entstehung der kanonischen Evangelien (German; Francke a Verlag, publisher. Translation: ‘The oldest Gospel, & the Emergence of the Canonical Gospels’): they both argue that the synoptic gospels were developed after the Marcionite texts. Previously, in 2006, Joseph B Tyson had published Marcion and Luke-Acts: a defining struggle(University of South Carolina Press) in which he argued Luke and Acts were developed the Marcionite tradition (Klinghardt had proposed in a 2008 paper that Luke & Matthew had followed Marcion and the gospel of Mark).
Jean-Raymond Audet
2016-05-04 20:31:35 UTC - 20:31 | Permalink
No I believe that John the Baptist was the one that was born in the stable in the town of Judea in 6 BC and Jesus was born during the Octavian Census in the Galilee around 4 AD. Most of the so-called stories of a young Jesus from the Gospels of Matthew and Luke are of John the Baptist and not of Jesus. John the Baptist was an Essenes that in appealing to the Masses of Sinners to be Regenerated by Baptism, he Inaugurated a New Movement that led to the Rise of Christianity and Jesus was one of is devout Follower and Disciple when he Accomplish the Nazarene Rite and his Spiritual Master was John. When John the Baptist was Decapitated in the Fortress of Macharus in 36 AD at the age of 42 than Jesus started his 6 Month destiny towards to be the Sacrificial Lamb on the Cross for John during the Jewish Passover of 37 AD at the Age of 33. Also, Jesus Survived the Crucifixion and Revived on the Third Day but Died 40 days later on the Day of Ascension! Saul of Tarsus never saw the Real Jesus but the Spirit on the Way to Damascus and Yes today Christians believe in mostly the Visionary God Understanding of Missionary PAUL? JR AUDET of SUDBURY
Christine Veazey
2016-10-27 05:41:27 UTC - 05:41 | Permalink
I totally believe Jesus was John the Baptist. I would go so far as to say that John was the one crucified, not Jesus. How this will ever be proved (if true) I don’t know. Is it really important? Well for other things when you’ve believed a lie all your life and then the truth is known, it feels better than staying in the lie.
Christian Idstein
2017-06-09 16:44:16 UTC - 16:44 | Permalink
I’ve long thought of that theory. John baptised himself in front of his followers & ascended to become Jesus & become the one who would fulfill the prophecies of the Old Testament. This is why Jesus was denounced by Peter I feel. The stories of John & Jesus are intertwined. My hypothesis has Herod reluctantly ordering the death of John at the “Last Supper” , when Herods guards go to fetch John, he is identified by Judas & taken away & beheaded. 3 days later John appears again, risen from the dead. Judas had pointed out an imposter & was hung. The unrest that followed had become enough of an issue to attract the Romans attentions. The people really believe John has risen from the dead. The Romans eventually get hold of John & crucify him, mocking him & killing him. 

Hypothesis regarding John the Baptist
(Was Jesus “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.
09022018
In the aforementioned, the symbolism is apparent:
The Eastern Side: origins – Heaven, separated from the mundane by the body of water.
Lived by the stream: was in contact with both the heavens and the earth as an intermediary
Made the rain fall: Sirius brings the rains
Parted the river: was capable of travelling between heaven and earth
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 prevailed over fire: Zechariah (John’s father) was the fire priest in the holy temple
Chariot of fire: was capable of travelling between heaven and earth
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.
Family dynamics:
Jezebel of Tyre (Ahab’s wife) and Herodias (Herod’s wife)
Elijah fought with Ahab – perhaps because he married a foreigner?
Jezebel vowed to have Elijah killed – Salome has John murdered.
Perhaps John stayed in the wilderness to hide from hands hired to kill him by his father’s mistress?
Herod is written of as the one whom John flees to Egypt from as an infant. 
Perhaps Herod and Ahab are elder brothers of Elijah and John? 
Perhaps Jezebel and Herodias saw them as threats to the throne? 
Jezebel and Herodias would have wanted their own offspring to ascend, not their husbands’ siblings. 
Note how close Elijah and Elizabeth are phonetically… and John being the only born son of Elizabeth, who was said to be barren.
If Zekeriah equates to Osiris, and Horus to John, Elizabeth would be Isis and Salome Nephthys?
Elijah prepared a successor in the person of Elisha, whom he anointed even as John baptized Jesus who would succeed him.
Elijah prepared a successor in the person of Elisha:
Elijah and Elisha are phonetically identical: two aspects of one person… the former aspect wanes as the latter aspect waxes.
Again, John’s mother’s name is Elisabeth: Elisha Beth (Beth means House). 
Elisabeth was the House (Womb) of Elisha. 
John was the offspring of Elisabeth - the House (Womb) of Elisha. 
This can be seen in the fact that John was born in the House (Beth) of Elisha (Elisa).
Further, the name Elisabeth is based upon three words added to one root: El (Lord) and Beth (House) encompassing Isa (Isis).
Elisabeth signifies the Lord Isis of the House.
Elijah represents Jahweh: Elisha represents Isis.
It is stated that during Elizabeth’s pregnancy, Zechariah “could not speak”: he was shut away, much like Osiris being “shut away” in the Acacia tree which was sent to Byblos. In this manner, the son would become regarded as the widow’s son.
In turn, Jahweh represents slavery and conquest, whereas Isis represents nurturing and compassion.
In contrast, Jesus was born at Bethlehem in the House (Beth) of Ham (Bread: la hem).
There was no town called Bethlehem at the time of Jesus’ birth.
Bread is synonymous with Manna, and may signify the “bread” that was eaten during the exodus. 
Ham is also a son of Noah, hierarch of the Canaanites.
Egypt is often referred to as the land of Ham in the Old Testament.
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.
Elijah (John, not Jesus) was to multiply the loaves of bread for the widow of Sarepta and resuscitate her child… unless John was also Jesus, or their roles were somehow reversed, this doesn’t fit.
See folder A1 for more references
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.
See folder A2 for references
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
In a book written to make Jesus seem the greatest of all, what better psychological manipulation that to put words in John’s father’s mouth referring to Jesus in a favorable light.
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.
Matthew and Mark minimized John’s significance perhaps to keep from alarming the powers-that-be? Or was it due to ethnic differences?
Did Zechariah remarry to (or fornicate with) someone who was hostile towards John? 
Was Zechariah likewise Joseph? Zechariah can be equated to Osiris – perhaps Joseph to Seth?
Isn’t it traditional that the firstborn son becomes ruler, the second-born becomes high priest? Does this still apply when considering different mothers?
Mary was no virgin – she was an Egyptian concubine (of Ham).
Jesus was born in Bethlehem – the house of Ham – in Egypt. Mary got pregnant and went back to Egypt to give birth.
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 Baptism was the only meeting to ever take place between John and Jesus.
They met at the river, the river signifying the place between heaven and earth.
John descends at the same time that Jesus ascends. Dual aspects of one entity.
Shortly thereafter, John is “locked away” and “beheaded”, basically in favor of Jesus.
Was Mary Salome (Nephthys), and Joseph Herod (Seth)?

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 Holy Spirit was transmuted to Jesus through John. John was conceived of the Holy Spirit.
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.
John knew Jesus was a fraud. Perhaps that is why Salome had Herod murder John. Was Salome aka Mary aka the glory seeker?
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.
–––––––––––––––
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 
The “death” was allegorical: It was the distinction between the former aspect and the latter – a chronological resurrection from one station into another.
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
Hypothesis regarding John the Baptist
(Was Jesus “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 italics):
/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
The creator god’s habitual dwelling is water.
Water symbolizing the Milky Way? Is this creator the celestial serpent?
Asmodeus? By this sign you shall conquer him/it?
The Word fleshed: eternal spirit bound in temporal flesh (slavery in Egypt (the House of Ptah))?
The House of Ptah (Egypt) being synonymous with the House of Bread/Ham (Behtlehem), as Egypt is synonymous with Ham?
Egypt being the land of Ham, Ham being Canaan, the children of Cain are likewise the first-born, or spirit fleshed.
Cain being the animalistic (first-born) nature, born of Ptah, Abel being literally “Against Baal”, the murdered Son Zagreus, also assimilated with Osiris, and Seth being the third born (back into spirit?), whom murdered Osiris.
The young Horus / Moses / John / Jesus was hidden in the marshes of the celestial Nile / in Egypt, safely away from the celestial serpent / Herut / Herod who intended to destroy him.
Slaughter of the first born sons of Egypt… significance is on the first born, a typography of the spirit becoming manifest into a mortal corpse… Purim / Passover.
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!”
The river is an extension of the celestial Nile (the Milky Way), typifying the ethereal world through which spirit manifests on earth. Flesh rises from below, whereas spirit descends from above.
The young god typifies a season, which brings forth the rains, followed by a time of dryness. His presence swelled the river by bringing forth rains, and then led to dryness beyond the previous state before his presence.
The receding waters are also similar to the parting of the Nile in the Exodus tradition.
Seker was likewise referred to as the drier.
The concept of a destination beyond the present condition denotes that the ultimate fate of MH is not the earthen presence, but of a different location beyond the realm of mortal manifestation.
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 administers the baptism of life in the name of Mana.
Mana as in the Manna that “fell to earth” during the exodus?
Mana as in bread, referencing the House of Bread where Jesus was born, and the tribe of Ham the Canaanite, whom populated Egypt?
The name Mana “rules the future which must come”
Mana refers to Spirit.
John requests that Mana place his hand on him, make him into a healer, and to pronounce upon him the name of the first life.
Mana replies that his baptism signifies the mortal death of all, and that in doing so, John would separate from his body.
Mana appears to be a death god, and may assimilate with the Egyptian God Seker: perhaps the Mana referenced here is in reference to John’s father Zechariah.
John was a water baptizer, whereas his father was a fire priest… water born of fire (flesh born of spirit).
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.
Here, John becomes God fleshed, taking the form of MH.
Here again there is reference to fire and water comingling without negating one another.
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

The Nile could be viewed as chaos, and the parting of the waters as order from chaos. Water itself can be viewed as chaotic. As such, to control water is likewise to create order from chaos.
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
In the MH tradition, it was MH who stopped the water (rains): in the above, it was John at Jesus’ bequest. In Egyptian tradition, it would have been Isis (Sirius) who controlled the rains and thus the waters. Water is considered feminine in essence. As such, was Jesus telling John to tell Elizabeth to stop the rains?
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.
John was given the sacrament of immortality, whereas Jesus was commuted absolved of original sin. 
Jesus simply takes John’s place.
The hand of the Lord.
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
This would seem to indicate that Jesus’ baptism was his being initiated into something which he was previously outside of or without… a grafting of a branch onto the root which was previously exclusively apart from him and his likenesses. Since this act has no place in Judaism, it is obvious that Jesus signified the first of his race to be indoctrinated into the mysteries of the baptism, and as history proves, the result is catastrophic. It was his intent to take it and covey it onto those who it was never intended to be bestowed upon.
The Baptism is synonymous with a marriage of sorts… such as the marriage at Gethsemane where Jesus was said to have turned water into wine… the common into the rare.
This signifies the moment in time when all men became like gods, and yet all men became slaves to governance. It was a ruse in order to enslave mankind.
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.
Luke’s text dates Jesus as being 30 when he is baptized. Jesus spent 30 years learning in Egypt.
The latter scenes depicting Jesus as younger than 30 are obviously errant. Therefore Jesus was obviously not synonymous with the divine child.
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
This completely contradicts the chronology of the New Testament, which has him being hidden in Egypt, being taught for 30 years in Egypt, then being baptized before being betrayed and murdered on the cross.
He declares that he has no father according to the flesh… no man has true a father according to the flesh: each man is ultimately responsible for his own fate, and as such, devoid of material conditions, the father can not save or condemn the son.
Obviously the bible writers took the perceived ultimate outcome and rewrote the earlier chapters in order to make them coincide with the latter, as if to superimpose a sense of predetermination on the future acts (which in reality were not future acts, but had already manifested by the time they wrote the tradition).
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).
The evidence is clear that John denied the temporal material world: perhaps Jesus denied the eternal spiritual world in favor of attempting to claim sovereign over the earth? Oh how you have fallen,…
Jesus came to earth to give the word (Name?) of God to John?
–––––––––––––––
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.” This is quite possible: the water baptism signified spirit fleshed. It is the original sacrifice of spirit into the profane realm of matter. Why did Jesus have to wait 30 years in order to be baptized from spirit into matter? Because it was time for John to move on? John conferred his essence onto Jesus, but Jesus refused to do likewise for John. Thus, the term double cross? 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
Mineral to Animal: Water, the primordial abyss
Animal to Lower Human: Earth, the primordial mount
Lower Human to Upper Human: Air, the carrier of spirit
Upper Human to Spirit: Fire, the transfiguration
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 
This is similar to the cornucopia tradition and piñatas
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.
Parters of waters
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 
Does the second death factor into this?
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
Thus, prior to his graduation into enlightenment (the culmination of his 30 years in Egypt), Jesus was merely mortal man. 
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
Gnosis: Genesis
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

Hypothesis regarding John the Baptist
(Was Jesus “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 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. The Mother of Charis [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) Bread = Mana = Ham = Egypt
The light of Life (Jn 8:12) Luz = Lucian = Lucifer
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) Possesses the Son? The Son being synonymous with Life
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.
The above would imply the element of Air, which would reign in the Age of Aquarius (the water bearer: John), not Pisces (the fish: Jesus).
Thus, Eph 2:2 speaks of the aeon of this world being the archon of the authority of the air, designating the water bearer – Aquarius: John the Baptist. 
Air thus baptizes with water (Aquarius baptizes with Pisces): perhaps Earth baptizes with fire? Or fire baptizes with Earth (Aires)?
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.
John was the messiah, to whom no one else was to immediately follow. Jesus was a false messiah – an antichrist.
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?
What better setup than that: for the devil to affirm the wholeness and sanctity of that which he is about to destroy.
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.
This indicates that prior to the death of John the Baptist, Herod had not heard anything of significance about a Christ named Jesus. For if John and Jesus were equally exalted as two distinct personas, then Herod would have viewed Jesus separate yet on the same level as John, not as the singular entity manifest in a second coming of John.
This was the fulfillment of Herod’s intent to slaughter the messianic son: it was, after all, Herod whom ordered the death of the first born sons at the time of John’s birth: an edict that resulted in Elizabeth fleeing to Egypt with John, and most likely in the death of Zechariah.
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.
Why? What was so dangerous about the facts of the matter? Was it based on the ethnic make-up of John versus Jesus? The parents of John versus the parents of Jesus? 
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?”
Touch me can’t you see that I am not afraid? Not afraid of the hand of death
What was that promise that you made? Everlasting life
Why won’t you tell me what she said? The word or wisdom
I’m gonna love you til the heavens stop the rain – the end of the rain – an age
I’m gonna love you til the stars fall from the sky for you and I – Stars falling from heaven
Stronger than dirt – Spirit is stronger than flesh
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.
In contrast, Herod only assimilated Jesus with John after John has expired.
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.”
The first was John the Egyptian, the second was Jesus the Semite?
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.
Water and Fire: John the Water Baptizer and Zechariah the Fire Priest. The one who was to come after John was Zechariah remainfest as his son John (John was to inherit his father’s station as fire priest). John speaking of the one who follows him and who baptizes with fire, is John speaking of his own future self.
        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.