Stephen was pointing out the obvious contradictions between different texts.....That is to say the obvious differences in interpretation of the same folklore... Emphasising that the bible is simply a collection of hearsay tales, rather than a conclusive whole.
Yes, I can see what he is attempting to do. Yet have you noticed he is refusing to tell us specifically in John when Jesus baptism took place. And the other thing which you omit to mention is that despite claiming there is different interpretations in the folklore - there is simply no evidence for such different interpretations in the folklore. In fact - Stephen's position here is at odds with all the current folklore - except those who are in the skeptics camp.
And another thing you fail to produce - even after I asked you to produce it as well - is where in John is Jesus' baptism presented as taking place.
It is not mentioned in v. 1-18, although v. 15 of chapter 1 refers to John's reference to him. How soon was these words of John said prior to the wedding or any of the alleged days? the silence from Stephen is telling.
v. 19 - 28 describes a conversation between John and the religious leaders who had been sent from Jerusalem. John declares he is not the messiah - but adds that is the voice of one crying in the wilderness. Now we know from all of the gospels that this message of John the Baptist was something he did for months before Jesus came along and then for months after Jesus was baptized. How many months was John baptizing for? Many scholars indicate it was probably anywhere from 6 - 9 months.
V. 29-34 tells us that the next day after this conversation between the religious leaders and John took place that John saw Jesus coming towards him. It is not and cannot be referring to the next day after Jesus was baptized because he had not mentioned the baptism prior to that time. And there is nothing in the context which demands or even asks us to consider this possibility. Now in the verses 19-28 John does not baptize him then and there - because he testifies that he had already baptised him prior to this time. The question is how much prior to this time?
My view based on the obvious omission of a baptism taking place here of Jesus and the fact that v. 15 provides ample evidence that the baptism was prior to this conversation and the testimony of the other gospels that Jesus baptism had taken place at least - 40 days prior to this time. Perhaps what John is testifying to here in v. 29 is Jesus actually returning from the Desert. The fact is - he went in - he had come out again. But "next day" here is clearly referring to the day after the conversation between the religious leaders and John.
In v. 32 - 34 John clearly testifies that he saw the Spirit descending and remaining on Jesus. But what is also evident from the text is that this is in the past tense. Past tense indicates it was before this time, not at that time.
V. 35 - the next day here is used in an interesting way. The "again" which is attached to it - may refer to events taking place on the same day as in v. 32 -34 if the next day is referring to the conversation between the religious leaders and John or it may be referring to the next day after 32-34 if the author of this book is attempting to be chronological in his story.
I don't see how either explanation is a problem. Either take place well after Jesus' baptism - which must have been at least 40 days prior to this time. We don't know how early in the day - events took place in v. 32-34. V. 39 indicates that the two disciples stayed with Jesus until or from the 10th Hour.
v. 43 the next day - after the conversation or after meeting the disciples - v. 40 indicates one of the two disciples was Andrew - Peter's brother. v. 41 tells us that Andrew went to find Simon. What is not said here is when and where this finding Peter took place. If we were reading post-Gutenburg books we might assume chronologically. This is how books are written today. Pre - Gutenburg - before the printing press - books were written quite differently - and not chronologically as we understand them today in the West. Books were written to be read and re read - and linked from one page and sentence to another - even on their scrolls. My point is we cannot automatically presume or assume that the meeting between Andrew and his brother about the Messiah took place on the same "next day", or in the same location - or that Jesus met Peter prior to going back to Galilee. The language of the text does not mean that this is impossible - but nor does it make it certain - unless we just want to disregard completely all the philosophies attached to the differences between the post and pre - Gutenburg ways of understanding literature.
But let us say it does mean that Andrew went and got Peter prior to Jesus going to Galilee - it changes nothing. It only infers that Peter and Andrew like thousands of people in Israel were making a pilgrimage to see John Baptizing in the Jordan river. Would this have been an impossible situation? Clearly they were looking for the Messiah - so when John the Baptist popped up at the Jordan River - and given the comments we have already ready about from the religious leaders who had been specially instructed and appointed to talk to John the Baptist - there is strong reason to believe that this is plausible.
v.43 - it tells us that Jesus - the next day decided to go to Galilee. Does that mean that Jesus went on the next day or that he decided he was going to go - and started planning when he would leave, what he would take, how long he was going for, how long it would take to get there, what would be his agenda etc. It might mean that he went on that day - or that as the text ACTUALLY says - he decided he would go.
It goes on and says - that he found Philip. Was this in Galilee that he found Philip or was it at the place he was staying when he decided to leave to go to Galilee. Did he need Philip to help carry stuff or to direct him? Nothing in the vs 43-51 make us must believe that Jesus was in Galilee already or was on his way there. Yes, Philip was from Bethaida -the hometown of Peter and Andrew. Nathananiel says a couple of verses later that Jesus was from Nazerath. No one says that they traveled to Nazarath. Jesus is from Nazarath and Philip was from Bethaida. Now for me - nothing rests of consequence upon whether Jesus found Philip in Bethaida or in the place he was preparing to go to Galilee. The context is not trying to give us an up to day account of Jesus' whereabouts - it is talking about the people who were to become Jesus disciples. That is the point of these passages.
Chapter 2 begins with on the third day there was a wedding at Cana in Galilee.
Now what is this third day talking about? Is it the third day of creation? No. Is it the third day since Jesus baptism? No. Is it the third day since the conversation between the religious leaders and John? No. Was it the third day of the Wedding? Weddings typically went for 7 days in Israel. This is possible - and plausible - because the wine has started to run out. Or is it the third day of the week? Again quite plausible and is used in many places in the NT and OT.
Personally I don't know if it was talking about the wedding or the weekday - I think more likely the third day of the wedding - because it helps us to realise that this wedding is a signficant wedding - and had been going for some time. Chapter 2: 2 also indicated that JEsus had been invited along with his disciples to this wedding. Now I don't know about you - but wedding invitations typically get sent out a long time before the event. And if these passages of John were meant to be chronological - then Jesus only picked up the disciples in the past couple of days. To suggest that he would get an invitation along with his disciples in such a short time is nonsense. My view would be that the wedding was many months after Jesus Baptism - many months - after he had started calling his disciples and there is nothing in this text which indicates otherwise.
