Your understanding of what the KJV states is a bit different than what these translations say.
Your argument is with THEM, not Me.
John 4:2
New International Version
although in fact it was not Jesus who baptized, but his disciples.
New Living Translation
(though Jesus himself didn’t baptize them—his disciples did).
New American Standard Bible
(although Jesus Himself was not baptizing; rather, His disciples were),
NASB 1995
(although Jesus Himself was not baptizing, but His disciples were),
NASB 1977
(although Jesus Himself was not baptizing, but His disciples were),
Amplified Bible
(although Jesus Himself was not baptizing, but His disciples were),
Christian Standard Bible
(though Jesus himself was not baptizing, but his disciples were),
Holman Christian Standard Bible
(though Jesus Himself was not baptizing, but His disciples were),
Contemporary English Version
But Jesus' disciples were really the ones doing the baptizing, and not Jesus himself.
Good News Translation
Actually, Jesus himself did not baptize anyone; only his disciples did.)
GOD'S WORD® Translation
(Actually, Jesus was not baptizing people. His disciples were.)
International Standard Version
although it was not Jesus who did the baptizing but his disciples—
NET Bible
(although Jesus himself was not baptizing, but his disciples were),
Weymouth New Testament
though Jesus Himself did not baptize them, but His disciples did--
i am not arguing with them. Have any of them shown who baptized them and the purpose for which the rite was instituted, that they later were delegated to conduct the rite, as well as the authority under which the delegation was valid? Hmmm?
It is clear that you are standing with these uninspired, fallible translations, of which some interpret that Jesus water-baptized no humans at all, not even one.
So your position (in the debating sense) is argumentative with the clear sense which my translation puts on the word "but" used by several other translations, including the KJV/AV (which is also not inspired, and though when properly interpreted is very accurate overall).
Did Jesus, now publicly identified as the Messiah sent by God as His erson Incarnated, not have the authority to baptize at least one of them, if not the whole twelve? Does the immediate or wider context of Scripture absolutely deny this, leaving no possibility whatsoever to the human intellect as you seem to insist? No, it does not.
Elsie, the process of swearing in of a recruited student by a delegated veteran of that process has to start somewhere, sometime.
When and where did that happen? Who initiated it and what agreement or transfer of authority was involved and publicly demonstrated that the ritual act figuratively sealed, as would a handshake here in America?