Baptism by JtB and the historicity of Jesus: was Did Q Have a baptismal Account?

[Vinnie]

Sparked by this:
http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?threadid=66872

Since Carr's thread in on the Brian//Earl HJ debate I figured I'd give this its own topic:

Hot off the press:

http://www.after-hourz.net/ri/baptismq.html

Vinnie

[Steven Carr]

Originally posted by Vinnie

http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?threadid=66872

Since Carr's thread in on the Brian//Earl HJ debate I figured I'd give this its own topic:

Hot off the press:

http://www.after-hourz.net/ri/baptismq.html



Meier says 'Yes with all due hesitance.'

Anyway, in the debate Doherty said it did not, and Brian sneered that Doherty believed it did, showing that Brian was not really listening to Doherty's actual words.

Meier says 'While the criterion of embarrassment is the major argument for the historicity of the baptism of Jesus,.....'

Could somebody show me the embarrassment in the earliest version of the story (ie Mark), or in Q if you believe Q was the earliest version?

[Vinnie]

As I wrote on my own article on embarrassment and Jesus' baptism:

Is it true that Mark does not have any problems with Jesus' baptism by John the Baptist? The author of GMark seems quite content to tell of the baptism itself without much defensive commentary but what Mark states before and after the baptism of Jesus by John seems to certainly be enough to overshadow the account. JBap is started off as being a precursor to Jesus or the one who prepares the way. Right before Mark moves on to the baptism he has JBap state: "After me will come one more powerful than I, the thongs of whose sandals I am not worthy to stoop down and untie. I baptize you with water, but he will baptize you with the Holy Spirit." The same general theme (the thongs of whose sandals I am not fit to untie) is followed by Luke in his infancy narrative whose parallels seem to have one purpose in mind: prioritizing Jesus over JBap. Mark even says that the quote above was JBap's message as he was baptizing "the whole Judean countryside and all the people of Jerusalem". Fredriksen (Jesus of Nazareth p. 189) states that "Such pronouncements flatly fail a claim to authenticity based on the criterion of dissimilarity, for they present John enunciating precisely the later Christian community's own beliefs about him, and about Jesus' superiority to him."Mark sets it up that JBap went around preaching the coming of Jesus or rather, more accurately, the coming Messiah. Mark's point is clear: Elijah reincarnated is here preparing the way for Jesus.

Then Mark moves on to the actual baptism: "At that time Jesus came from Nazareth in Galilee and was baptized by John in the Jordan."

This seems simple enough but that's not the end of it though as Mark proceeds to tell us that when Jesus was coming up out of the water the heavens tore apart and the spirit descended on Jesus and let's not forget about the voice that came from heaven declaring Jesus to be God's Son, the Beloved with whom God is much pleased by. As John Dominic Crossan noted in Jesus A Revolutionary Biography (p. 44), "Mark 1:9 tells about the baptism without any defensive commentary, but immediately overshadows it with the heavenly voice in 1:10-11.

In those days Jesus came from Nazareth of Galilee and was baptized by John in the Jordan. And just as he was coming up out of the water, he saw the heavens torn apart and the Spirit descending like a dove on him. And a voice came from heaven, "You are my Son, the beloved; with you I am well pleased."

That would seem quite adequately to exalt revelation over baptism and Jesus over John."

The author of Mark seems fine NOT with "the baptism" but with "the baptism and the epiphany" in the context of John being the precursor and returned Elijah preparing the way for Jesus. The author of the account immediately overshadows the baptism with the epiphany and precedes it with (or has it in the context of) JBap's prophetic announcements of Jesus. I don't think it can be established that the author of Mark would not or did not find the idea of an "apparently sinful" Jesus being baptized by JBAP embarrassing or slightly embarrassing or as raising theological issues. Mark's account is already "apologized" to a fair degree. It gets apologized even further by those who copy off of Mark.

We actually have every reason to believe Jesus was baptized by John and none to suppose he wasn't. Mythicists start special pleading and stretching to the max on this issue.

Vinnie

[Doctor X]

Interesting.

Jn seems to pay even more attention to the "problem." He has J the B subordinate himself to Junior to such an extent--even chastizing his followers--that I have often wondered if Jn's "group" or "intended audience" had conflict with remenants of a J the B group. Of course, his Junior is in control of everything and perhaps he wished to remove any doubt that Junior was subordinate at any point to anyone. Perhaps Jn was involved in a little over-kill.

In Mk, "the spirit" leads Junior away for a bit of sight-seeing and yoga in the desert . . . both Lk and Mt, in their own way, soften this. They also stress the subordination of J the B.

Which . . . if we extend the "what ifs" . . . could suggest Junior was once a follower of J the B and that at least the tradition of subordination existed.

From a "mythicist" standpoint, this could also just be the Junior myth capturing the J the B myth!

Nothing like certainty. . . .

--J.D.

[Vinnie]

The real question is, since this might not be a first stratum reference, what reason would the early church have created this pericope for? And if they did, why would latert authors retain this?

In order for a gospeler to retain material which goes against its own theological grain--well that must be some widely or commonly accepted material!

And discontinuity does not present problems for the baptism. Meier addressed this on 105.

But there is no certainty anywhere in HJ studies.

From a "mythicist" standpoint, this could also just be the Junior myth capturing the J the B myth!

I wouldn't doubt that Christ mythicism forces people into further absurdities like JBap mysticism.

Vinnie

[Doctor X]

Well it is akin to Islam making Junior "just another prophet" subordinate to Mohammed . . . if a J the B "group" or "tradition" existed, a Junior follower simply replies with an "oh yeah? Well OUR GUY was better than YOUR GUY. In fact, the only reason YOUR GUY existed was for OUR GUY!!"

I "liked" to think the "Jn group" had conflict with the remnants of the J the B followers, but, then what happened to them? As far as I am aware, no records exist of such a group independent of the texts and--I think--an insertion into Josephus.

--J.D.

[Celsus]

Originally posted by Doctor X
Well it is akin to Islam making Junior "just another prophet" subordinate to Mohammed . . . if a J the B "group" or "tradition" existed, a Junior follower simply replies with an "oh yeah? Well OUR GUY was better than YOUR GUY. In fact, the only reason YOUR GUY existed was for OUR GUY!!"
You may like to check out the Mandean sect (also known as Manicheans) who IIRC inhabit southern Iraq. They remain JBap followers to this day. Ebionites are an extinct but interesting lot caught in the crossfire of DSS controversies who are probably the most Jewish of the early Jesus sects.

Joel

[Vinnie]

So the real live flesh and blood earth baptism account was created solely by the early church to prioritize their heavenly-mthical-cosmic-Christ over John? Was John a cosmic myth baptizer too? Was the Jordan symbolic for the Jet Stream? The heavenly river? :D LOL

One can rationally argue that the account is not historical on the grounds you but lets be aware of the fact that the argument itself seems to presume the early church who created this account believed in a flesh and blood Jesus which means mythicists CAN'T CAN'T CAN'T use this argument ;)

At any rate, why would the early church go out of its way to create a story that was problematic for itself? Surely a different story between John and Jesus could have been created that did not subject John to Jesus' baptism or have a sinless Jesus being baptised by John for the remission of sin.

As far as I am aware, no records exist of such a group independent of the texts and--I think--an insertion into Josephus.

All these instances of special pleeding and bad arguments of interpolation (e.g. James the brother of Jesus in Paul and FlavJo) by stretching skeptics get very tired after while. On what groungs are we now saying the baptist material was a forgery in Josephus?

Because it confirms the existence of what Q and the Gospels sufficiently demonstrate themselves and thereby lends support to the historicity of Jesus? Is that the methodology employed? Whatever supports Jesus in Josephus is an interpolation?

As far as I am aware, no records exist of such a group independent of the texts and

Maybe because John didn't rise from the dead his group scattered after he died??? :D

Or maybe they just dwindled down. This is no reason to doubt that John the baptist baptized in the first third of the first century C.E. Or that he baptized Jesus for that matter.

Vinnie

[Vinnie]

been created that did not subject John to Jesus' baptism

Woops. Reverse that ;)

[Vinnie]

Did I scare everyone away?

I have demonstrated that whether historical or not, given the historicity of John the baptist (which should be affirmed--Q, Mark, Josephus, and maybe even John for a 4th), the earth church must have believed in a historical Jesus to give him a flesh and flood baptism by a flesh and blood baptizer.

Come on, maybe you can twist the Gospel of the Hebrews (probably had baptism account) if you see it as first stratum (it very well may be) into supporting a mythological baptism which was later runed into a literal-mythological one (GMark) ;)

Vinnie

[Toto]

Originally posted by Vinnie
Did I scare everyone away?

I have demonstrated that whether historical or not, given the historicity of John the baptist (which should be affirmed--Q, Mark, Josephus, and maybe even John for a 4th), the earth church must have believed in a historical Jesus to give him a flesh and flood baptism by a flesh and blood baptizer.

How does this follow?

John is assumed to be historical because he is described in Josephus. Frank Zindler argued that this passage was another Christian interpolation, but Peter Kirby argued persuasively against that near the end of this thread (http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=62584).

However, the description of John in the NT is fairly mythologized, and it does not follow that the historicity of John proves the historicity of Jesus. The early church could have concocted the baptism scene for a number of reasons - to provide a dramatization of a fictional or fictionalized Jesus receiving the Holy Spirit, to connect to an ongoing movement and to go one up on them (your guy said he wasn't worthy to touch the feet of our guy, nyah nyah), or for some motive that is lost to us now.

[Vinnie]

Toto, Q and Mark also are evidence for John the baptist. We do not really "need" Josephus but he add the final nail into the coffin for would be skeptics.

My argument follows because if the early church believed in a historical Jesus then the historicity of Jesus is a closed case. There is no reason whatsoever to dispute the existence of a historical Jesus if it is shown that the early church accepte a historical Jesus. Doherty's case rests precisely on the opposite claim. Without it his case his absolutely worthless. Edited again to add--Yes I realize he places several pieces togther but in reality, without this early silence, there is no argument. I find it to be a crucial part of his thesis.

To deny that is equivalent to denying all valid history in my book. We have primary-eyewitness source data connecting Paul with the "followers of Jesus"--appearently the same ethereal cosmic being who was bapotized in the Jordan river by John the Baptist.

I can understand why the church would attribute a baptism to a Jewish maned named Jesus who grew up in Galilee. My question is simple, why would the church have attributed a flesh and blood baptism to their "casper the friendly Jesus"? Naturally thi leads me to think tat there must have been an early belief in an actual historical Jesus. Further, one might argue that for the later authors to retain this troubling tradition, it must have been secure or widespread data.

So whether Jesus was baptized or not, it leads to the conclusion of an HJ. it undercuts both mythicism and agnosticism in regards to the existence of an HJ. You can still be agnostic as to the events of Jesus' life, however.

Vinnie

did a pinch of editing just after submission...nothing major changed.

[Vinnie]

I said:Q and Mark also are evidence for John the baptist. And as mentioned otherwise, GJohn might be another one depending on your take on its baptist traditions, and also GHebrews depending if you make judgment on the dating and literary dependence or independence of this very partial text.

The first three are more solid of course.

Vinnie

[Toto]

Q is a hypothetical document, not evidence of anything historical. The idea that there are layers that can be dated to a particular time period is literary speculation, not historical proof.

gMark is a piece of fiction / allegory / midrash. The author of Mark shows no particular sense of embarrassment over the Baptism. The Baptism only becomes embarrassing to later orthodoxy, when Jesus had to be too pure and holy and sinless from birth to need a baptism for the remission of sins. Mark has no virgin birth and clearly takes an adoptionist view, that the baptism was the equivalent of an anointing, and that thereafter Jesus became the son of God.

[Vinnie]

Q is a hypothetical document, not evidence of anything historical. The idea that there are layers that can be dated to a particular time period is literary speculation, not historical proof.

First, I find that there are layers to Q to be irrelevant to this discussion right not.

Second, Q may be hypothetical but if you accept the 2ST then you believe that Matthew and Luke used Q and that it had John the baptist material in it.

Do you or do you not subscribe to the Q theory? If you do i am nto going to allow you to have your cake and eat it too like this.

gMark is a piece of fiction / allegory / midrash.

COMPLETELY UNSUBSTANTIALED ALLEGATION. Please explain why there is such a paucity of Gentile relate material in Mark if it is entirely fiction. I've articulate this argument a number of times here and no one has touched it.

The author of Mark shows no particular sense of embarrassment over the Baptism.

The baptism is lumped in between John being the precursor to Jesus--the one preparing the way for him--and the epiphany which declares Jesus to be God's son.

Unless you believe--against the evidence--that this was true of John then I do not see how there is not a degree of theological damage control in Mark's account. Matthew and Luke have even more but the problem is you think there is NONE in Mark but you have no evidence.

The Baptism only becomes embarrassing to later orthodoxy, when Jesus had to be too pure and holy and sinless from birth to need a baptism for the remission of sins.

Well would you have a problem here if the alleged sinlessness of Jesus is documented in the 1st stratum and even the second? If I provide a reference or references will you concede this point?

jesus was viewed as sinless pretty early. This view did not originate later.
Mark has no virgin birth and clearly takes an adoptionist view, that the baptism was the equivalent of an anointing, and that thereafter Jesus became the son of God.

And the proof that Mark did not spin a troubling account into this into is what exactly?

Vinnie

[Vinnie]

As I said above: "The author of Mark seems fine NOT with "the baptism" but with "the baptism and the epiphany" in the context of John being the precursor and returned Elijah preparing the way for Jesus. The author of the account immediately overshadows the baptism with the epiphany and precedes it with (or has it in the context of) JBap's prophetic announcements of Jesus. I don't think it can be established that the author of Mark would not or did not find the idea of an "apparently sinful" Jesus being baptized by JBAP embarrassing or slightly embarrassing or as raising theological issues. Mark's account is already "apologized" to a fair degree. It gets apologized even further by those who copy off of Mark.

[Toto]

Originally posted by Vinnie
First, I find that there are layers to Q to be irrelevant to this discussion right not.

Second, Q may be hypothetical but if you accept the 2ST then you believe that Matthew and Luke used Q and that it had John the baptist material in it.

Do you or do you not subscribe to the Q theory? If you do i am nto going to allow you to have your cake and eat it too like this.

I am agnostic on Q, but leaning against it.

In this case, it is possible that Luke used both Matthew and Mark as sources, or that there was another source different from a collection of sayings, which is what Q is presumed to be, which Matthew and Luke both used.

COMPLETELY UNSUBSTANTIALED ALLEGATION. Please explain why there is such a paucity of Gentile relate material in Mark if it is entirely fiction. I've articulate this argument a number of times here and no one has touched it.

I don't understand this. What does a paucity of gentile-related material have to do with fictionality?

The baptism is lumped in between John being the precursor to Jesus--the one preparing the way for him--and the epiphany which declares Jesus to be God's son.

Unless you believe--against the evidence--that this was true of John then I do not see how there is not a degree of theological damage control in Mark's account. Matthew and Luke have even more but the problem is you think there is NONE in Mark but you have no evidence.

If you are determined to find damage control, you will find it.

Well would you have a problem here if the alleged sinlessness of Jesus is documented in the 1st stratum and even the second? If I provide a reference or references will you concede this point?

jesus was viewed as sinless pretty early. This view did not originate later.

Well, provide your reference and we will talk about it (or type about it.)

And the proof that Mark did not spin a troubling account into this into is what exactly?

Vinnie

Why should the burden of proof be on the fictional nature of Mark?

Consider the legend of Washington chopping down the cherry tree. It could be damage control. He did a naughty thing, but then it is turned into a virtue because he could not tell a lie. But we know that is a fictional account written by Parson Weems.

[Steven Carr]

Originally posted by Vinnie

Is it true that Mark does not have any problems with Jesus' baptism by John the Baptist? The author of GMark seems quite content to tell of the baptism itself without much defensive commentary but what Mark states before and after the baptism of Jesus by John seems to certainly be enough to overshadow the account. JBap is started off as being a precursor to Jesus or the one who prepares the way. Right before Mark moves on to the baptism he has JBap state: "After me will come one more powerful than I, the thongs of whose sandals I am not worthy to stoop down and untie. I baptize you with water, but he will baptize you with the Holy Spirit."


Is this an embarrasment at the baptism?

Surely no more than having somebody nominate a Preidential candiate, and having him say that the candidate will be the best President ever.

I fail to see how having John give a glowing reference to Jesus is a sign of embarrasment that John baptised Jesus.

Not embarrasment, but pride surely, that this was the annoucement to the world of Jesus, the Son of God. I wonder if Mark was an adoptionist.


VINNIE
"The author of Mark seems fine NOT with "the baptism" but with "the baptism and the epiphany" in the context of John being the precursor and returned Elijah preparing the way for Jesus. The author of the account immediately overshadows the baptism with the epiphany and precedes it with (or has it in the context of) JBap's prophetic announcements of Jesus.

CARR
This is still not embarrasment at the baptism, but pride. I still honestly can't see any more embarrasment than any 'embarrasment' that a Presidential candidate has to have somebody nominate him at the convention - ie none.

Mark had to choose some story for an epiphany, so why not a baptism? Remember there is nothing in Mark to hint that Jesus knew of any divine status before being told by God of his status, so why not have him as a normal person chosen by God to be the saviour?


I agree with your point that the authors of the baptism of Jesus by John bits, thought of Jesus as flesh and bones.

I don't want to misrepresent you. Do you still feel there is no baptism in Q?

[Vorkosigan]

Mark had to choose some story for an epiphany, so why not a baptism? Remember there is nothing in Mark to hint that Jesus knew of any divine status before being told by God of his status, so why not have him as a normal person chosen by God to be the saviour?

Such a story would also provide a rationalizion for why Christians baptize that would be wholly "christian" in origin, and explain why they had the same practices as some of their non-Christian neighbors.

I see JBap as simply another example of the gospels borrowing historical figures for their own purposes.

[Vinnie]

Why should the burden of proof be on the fictional nature of Mark?

The burden of proof is on both of us. For me to explain why it was embarrasing since I am making the positive claim that it was and for you to show the opposite since you said Mark did not find it embarrasing.

""""Toto: The author of Mark shows no particular sense of embarrassment over the Baptism. The Baptism only becomes embarrassing to later orthodoxy, when Jesus had to be too pure and holy and sinless from birth to need a baptism for the remission of sins. """"

In an account where there is a high level of polemic and overshadowing where there is clearly large amounts of uneasiness in the Christian record on, and you want me to assume without argumentation your viewpoint that Mark was fine with it? Surely you need to defend your positive statement just as much as I need to defend mine?!

Consider the legend of Washington chopping down the cherry tree. It could be damage control. He did a naughty thing, but then it is turned into a virtue because he could not tell a lie. But we know that is a fictional account written by Parson Weems.

These comparisons are ridiculous and only serve to show how far you have to stretch. Jesus being subjected JBap--who bapptized for the remission of sin (will defend if need be even though it shouldn't!!!)-- goes against the theological grain of the Gospel of Mark and the early church who believe 1) Jesus had the power//authority to forgive sins and 2) was sinless.

The logic behind this is simple. Why would the church create problems for itself? Why attribute (make-up) things about Jesus and preach them when you disagree with them//find them disagreeable? George Washington has absolutely NOTHING to do with that question. You have to come up with a motif for Mark to do such a thing if you think he created it.

So here we go:

Sinlessness of Jesus.

2 Cor 5:21 21God made him who had no sin to be sin for us, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.

This is first stratum material. It occurs in the early church.

It is also widespread.

Heb 4:14 For we do not have a high priest who is unable to sympathize with our weaknesses, but we have one who has been tempted in every way, just as we are--yet was without sin.

John 8:46 Can any of you prove me guilty of sin? If I am telling the truth, why don't you believe me?

1 Pet 1:19 but with the precious blood of Christ, a lamb without blemish or defect.

1 Pet 2:22 "He committed no sin, and no deceit was found in his mouth."

Now we will list the verses that view Jesus as the forgiver of sins:

1 Cor 15:3 For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance[1] : that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures,

First stratum reference and Paul is claiming to have passed this information in the past. And its information that he received prior to this! Of course you will discredit this verse as an interpolation *yawn* so I'll move on :cool:

Rom 3:23-26 23for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, 24and are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus. 25God presented him as a sacrifice of atonement, through faith in his blood. He did this to demonstrate his justice, because in his forbearance he had left the sins committed beforehand unpunished-- 26he did it to demonstrate his justice at the present time, so as to be just and the one who justifies those who have faith in Jesus.

Yes this is another Pauline reference. How does it help? It was written to a different group of people right? meaning many people believed it ;) See allso Rom 4:25; and 5:8-21

Col 1:14 14in whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins.

Thats another community.Since I'm tired of reprinting (copying and pasting) the numerous verses:

Eph 1:7, 1 Tim 1:15, Matt 1:12; 26:28, Luke 7:36-49; 24:46-47; Acts 5:31; Heb 1:3; ; John 1:29; 1 John 1:7-2:21 Pet 2:24-25; 3:18;

Well, I guess almost everyone believed this except --according to Toto--Mark. But Mark himself has something extremely similar following chapter one which has the baptismal story!!!!

Mark 2:1-12 "1A few days later, when Jesus again entered Capernaum, the people heard that he had come home. 2So many gathered that there was no room left, not even outside the door, and he preached the word to them. 3Some men came, bringing to him a paralytic, carried by four of them. 4Since they could not get him to Jesus because of the crowd, they made an opening in the roof above Jesus and, after digging through it, lowered the mat the paralyzed man was lying on. 5When Jesus saw their faith, he said to the paralytic, "Son, your sins are forgiven." 6Now some teachers of the law were sitting there, thinking to themselves, 7"Why does this fellow talk like that? He's blaspheming! Who can forgive sins but God alone?" 8Immediately Jesus knew in his spirit that this was what they were thinking in their hearts, and he said to them, "Why are you thinking these things? 9Which is easier: to say to the paralytic, 'Your sins are forgiven,' or to say, 'Get up, take your mat and walk'? 10But that you may know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins . . . ." He said to the paralytic, 11"I tell you, get up, take your mat and go home." 12He got up, took his mat and walked out in full view of them all. This amazed everyone and they praised God, saying, "We have never seen anything like this!"

Yes Jesus--if he said your sins are forgiven--may haven meant "by God" when he first said it (e.g. E.P. Sanders) but that is irrelevant since Mark is under discussion. Jesus forgives sins according to Mark. He has been granted that authority. According to a whole host of references he is the source of forgiveness of sins and according to sosome (1st stratum included) Jesus is sinless.

Well, this seems to naturally go hand in hand with Jesus being the source of forgiceness of sins if you ask me. but I could be wrong of course!

Given all these verses, its a shame that you said this:

The Baptism only becomes embarrassing to later orthodoxy, when Jesus had to be too pure and holy and sinless from birth to need a baptism for the remission of sins.

Do we even read the primary literature we are discussing. Look out, Carr might make a thread saying Jesus mythicism or agnosticism evidence is made up :D

So you are arguing that Mark went out of his way to contradict himself and create a problem for orthodoxy when all this stuff on Jesus being sinless and the source of forgiveness was so well known and he even accepted Jesus as a source of forgiveness of sin???

Wow!

I would argue that Jesus was baptized by JBap and his followers (including the early church) found it embarrassing--Mark included given that he accepted Jesus as a source of forgiveness and has the account jumbled the story in with John being subordinated into Jesus' precursor and the account ending with the voice from have.

Where else could Mark put this baptism but at the beginning od Jesus' ministry? Adoptionism is hardly a threat to the embarrassment criterion here. They can be seen as working in tandem here:

Sure Mark was an adoptionist. Thats how he mitigated the problems posed by this embarrassing fact of history.

At any rate, Mark did not make this up.There are two possibilities:

Either someone before him did----before information about Jesus being sinless and the source of forgiveness spread as well. Otherwise we wouldn't expect the church to even have "reatained" a false story like this or have dealt with it in the manner that they did.

Or the more likely theory which explains the evidence the best, Jesus was baptized by John and it was widely known. It had to be dealt with.

Either way the historicity of Jesus is pretty much a lock.

As John Meier wrote, "Whether the original point of the theophany was to balance a baptism of repeentance for the remission of sins with a heavenly proclamation of Jesus as the So of God or to counter the claim of a rival Baptist community (which saw the baptism as proof of John's superiority to jesus) with God's affirmation of Jesus' superiority, the theophany obviously mitigates the theological difficulty that a bare, unadorned account of Jesus' baptism by John would create."

You only have one real stance to move into from here: John the baptist did not baptize for the remission of sin. But that will only present temporary shelter.

Vinnie

[Vinnie]

Is this an embarrasment at the baptism?

Surely no more than having somebody nominate a Preidential candiate, and having him say that the candidate will be the best President ever.

I fail to see how having John give a glowing reference to Jesus is a sign of embarrasment that John baptised Jesus.

Not embarrasment, but pride surely, that this was the annoucement to the world of Jesus, the Son of God. I wonder if Mark was an adoptionist.?

See my last response to Toto. It lays these objections to rest.

Mark had to choose some story for an epiphany, so why not a baptism? Remember there is nothing in Mark to hint that Jesus knew of any divine status before being told by God of his status, so why not have him as a normal person chosen by God to be the saviour?

Why not a baptism???? See above response to Toto. Either mark was ridiculously uncreative or he would have come up with a story that doesn't go against the grain of his own gospel. Of course, since mythicists and to a degree--HJ Agnostics--have to argue that Mark made up a whole bunch of details, surely they can't argue he that unimaginative? Talk about sawinbg off the branch you are sitting on. Ther more likely position is Mark spun embarrassing material into--as you put it-- "a glowing reference to Jesus".

I agree with your point that the authors of the baptism of Jesus by John bits, thought of Jesus as flesh and bones.

Yet you think of the author ofthis tradition as Mark though?

I don't want to misrepresent you. Do you still feel there is no baptism in Q?

If I change the position on this issue articulated in the paper I presented above ion the thread-openeing post I'll be sure to let those viewing this thread know about it.

Vinnie

[Vinnie]

Originally posted by Vorkosigan
Such a story would also provide a rationalizion for why Christians baptize that would be wholly "christian" in origin, and explain why they had the same practices as some of their non-Christian neighbors.

I see JBap as simply another example of the gospels borrowing historical figures for their own purposes.

Ah...based on past experiences this has the potential to turn out quite comical:

For all the mythicists and HJ agnostic!

Vinnie brings up arguments using material which goes against the grain of the views of a large number of Christians behind the works in question.

He is of course being absurd and ridiculous. Boromir tried to take the ring from Frodo--how embarrassing. Washington embarrassingly cut down the cherry true and it landed on his bum -- or whatever. I aint paying attention to these Jesus // Robin Hood story parallels anymore. They are caricatures and nothing more.

But now Vork gets to use material which goes too much with the grain of the views shared by the large number of Christians behind the works in question.

So 1) Why is it valid when Vork uses arguments which says material goes too much with the grain to be usable but invalid when Vinnie uses merely the flipside of this--a very common criterion in HJ research which utilizes material which goes against the theological grain?

This is exactly what I meant about the paucity of gentile related material. It COMPLETELY goes against the grain of the Gospel of Mark. You cannot make blanket statements like this : "gMark is a piece of fiction / allegory / midrash." given such details.

This was of course an aside. I'll get to Vork's argument in a follow up post. Gimme a few minutos amigos!

Vinnie

[Vinnie]

Such a story would also provide a rationalizion for why Christians baptize that would be wholly "christian" in origin, and explain why they had the same practices as some of their non-Christian neighbors.

I see JBap as simply another example of the gospels borrowing historical figures for their own purposes.

This is actually good. I am glad you brought this up since it actually argues in favor of the historicity of the baptism.

John Meier has already laid these issues to reast in VII of his series. Page 105:

""As for the criterion of discontinuity, I do not think that it necessarily casts doubt on the historicity of Jesus' baptism. The surprising thing about all of the NT statements concerning Christian baptism is that no NT author ever directly and explicitly links Christian baptism with Jesus' baptism, and the latter is never explicitly presented as the cause, archetype, or model of the former. This is in marked contrast to the treatment of Christian baptism in the Church Fathers. In the NT, Christian baptism is regularly connected with or seen as a share in Christ's death and resurrection (e.g., Rom 6:3-11). Starting with Ignatius of Antioch, John's baptism o fJesus begins to be seen as the model, even the source of efficacy, of Christian baptism: "...he [Jesus] was baptied in order that he might cleanse the water [of baptism] by his passion" (*Ephesians* 18:2). This idea quickly becomes a common and widespread theme in the Fathers (e.g., Tertullian, Clement of Alexandria, Methodius, Ephraem, Gregory of Nazianzus, Maximus of Turin, Peter Chrysologus, and Proclus). By comparison, the absence of any such explicit link in the NT is remarkable. The idea that Christian baptism generated the account of Jesus' baptism as a prototype, that this link then totally disappeared in all NT documents, and that it then immediately reappeared in Ignatius and spread throughout the patristic period presents us with a splendid pattern of life-death-and-resurrection - but also with a very contorted tradition history. The simpler tradition history, namely, that Jesus' baptism by John historically preceded Christian baptism and only in due time came to be seen as the latter's prototype, is the much more natural reading of the data."

As Meier goes on to say one may add this (discontinuity) as an aargument for the historicity of Jesus' baptism. You have a very problematic and convoluted tradition history.

To summarize the arguments I again cite Meier:

""After all, the story of the baptism presents the church's Lord being put in a position of inferiority to John by accepting from him a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins. The narrative runs counter to the desire of all Four Gospels to make the historically independent John merely the forerunner, proclaimer, prophet, or witness of Jesus. More to the point, the idea of Jesus, whom early Christianityconsidered sinless and the source of forgiveness of sins for humanity, should be associated with sinners by undergoing a "baptism of repentance for
the forgiveness of sins" is hardly a fiction created by the church, unless the church enjoyed multiplying difficulties for itself. Significantly, in this case we are not simply projecting the embarrassment *we* may feel back onto the early church, which in theory might have different sensitivities on the subject. As a matter of plain fact, the Gospels do evince embarrassment at the story of Jesus' baptism and try to "control the damage" as best they can."

So the only possible stance for agnostics and mythicists that I can see are:

1) John was mythological. This is refuted by Q, Josephus, Mark, and possibly John and GHebrews. A last-resort nonsense position worthy of Carr calling made up lies like he said about Montgomery.

2) John did not baptize for the remission of sin. Josephus even fudged the data here so you may even have some short lived starting ground on which to formulate an argument. According to Josesphus in Jewish Antiquities, 18.116-119, John's baptism "was not a magic rite effecting the forgiveness of sins but the physical symbol of a spiritual reality already established before, without, and apart from it."(Crossan The Historical Jesus p. 231) and Mark has John "preaching a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins." Go for it if you are game.

But this won't work. As I said, Josephus fudged the data here (see Meier-marginal Vol II. p.21, Crossan, Historical Jesus, p. 231) and this is well known. Also, its irrelevant whether the historical John actually baptized for the remission of sin or not for the historicity of Jesus--but not for the historicity of the baptism.

Because Mark clearly has John baptizing for the remission of sins. He explicitly states this in verse 1:4. Thus it goes against the grain and therefore, he did not create the baptism account. He also had to retain this troubling account as well which leads to the conclusion that it was firmly embedded tradition. The earlier church who believed in a cosmic--mythical Christ had jesus baptized in the Jordan :rolleyes:

Maybe someone before Mark who knew or thought John did not baptize for the remission of sins did though and made this up? Well this still shows a flesh and blood historical Jesus for the reasons stated above--the early church has him being baptized by JBap.

First off, why would anyone do this? Second, we have no reason to suspect Mark fudged this data since it goes against the grain to have Jesus baptized by John and every reason to think Josephus does since his fudging goes with the grain in his text! Third, we are forced to conclude someone in the early church--just years after John and Jesus were killed fudged the reason john baptized and that it became firmly embedded in Mark's locale.

This view is so convoluted//problematic that it poses no real threat to the historicity of the baptism.

In conclusion:

Yes Virginia, there was a historical Jesus and he was baptized by John the baptist.

Vinnie

[Vinnie]

Since we aren't discussing Q but the historicity of Jesus/baptism can a member of the staff change the title of this thread to

"Baptism by JBap and the historicity of Jesus".

Maybe it'll draw in more eager mythicists and HJ agnostics ;)

Vinnie

[Rick Sumner]

John did not baptize for the remission of sin. Josephus even fudged the data here so you may even have some short lived starting ground on which to formulate an argument. According to Josesphus in Jewish Antiquities, 18.116-119, John's baptism "was not a magic rite effecting the forgiveness of sins but the physical symbol of a spiritual reality already established before, without, and apart from it."(Crossan The Historical Jesus p. 231) and Mark has John "preaching a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins." Go for it if you are game.

I'm game, if solely for lack of precedent. No Jew seems to have equated water with remission of sins, only for purification. Indeed, John's baptism has some similarity with the bathing at Qumran (though Qumranites did not, as Sid Green would have it, practice baptism). They didn't bathe for remission of sins. Nor, for that matter, is there anything indicating that Bannus did. Those would appear, at least to me, to be the closest parallels.

Also, its irrelevant whether the historical John actually baptized for the remission of sin or not for the historicity of Jesus--but not for the historicity of the baptism.

It's irrelevant to the baptism as well. The case can be just as easily, and just as effectively, if we presume his baptism was for ritual purity, or that it was something of an initiation rite. I'd venture it was a little of both.

Because Mark clearly has John baptizing for the remission of sins. He explicitly states this in verse 1:4. Thus it goes against the grain and therefore, he did not create the baptism account.

So Mark received faulty information. All dissimilarity can establish is that it was received, rather than redacted, by Mark.

He also had to retain this troubling account as well which leads to the conclusion that it was firmly embedded tradition. The earlier church who believed in a cosmic--mythical Christ had jesus baptized in the Jordan.

Is the embarassment that Jesus was baptized for the remission of sins? Matthew doesn't seem to think, he thinks the embarassment is the apparent inferiority--that being baptized makes Jesus less than John, not that being baptized makes Jesus a sinner. I'd venture the embarassment stems from what I suggested above--the baptism was something of an initiation rite, undertaken by followers of John.

Maybe someone before Mark who knew or thought John did not baptize for the remission of sins did though and made this up? Well this still shows a flesh and blood historical Jesus for the reasons stated above--the early church has him being baptized by JBap.

Hold on. You've just said it was relevant to the hypothesis that the baptism is historical that it was for the remission of sins. Now you seem to be saying that it isn't. Which is it?

First off, why would anyone do this?

Need we presume they did so intentionally? Being impure and being sinful is sometimes a confusing distinction--still is. Couldn't someone have just gotten mixed up?

Second, we have no reason to suspect Mark fudged this data since it goes against the grain to have Jesus baptized by John and every reason to think Josephus does since his fudging goes with the grain in his text!

I agree. Mark probably didn't fabricate the notion that John baptized for the remission of sins. That doesn't make it true.

Third, we are forced to conclude someone in the early church--just years after John and Jesus were killed fudged the reason john baptized and that it became firmly embedded in Mark's locale.

It seems to me a false dichotomy is being created. Either John really baptized for the remission of sins, or someone lied. There are alternatives, I just suggested one.

This view is so convoluted//problematic that it poses no real threat to the historicity of the baptism.

I agree, it poses no threat to the historicity of the baptism, but for a different reason--the embarassment upon which that historicity is based stems from a different cause: Jesus acting as John's disciple.

Yes Virginia, there was a historical Jesus and he was baptized by John the baptist.

But will he come down my chimney at Christmas?

Regards,
Rick

[Vinnie]

I'm game, if solely for lack of precedent. No Jew seems to have equated water with remission of sins, only for purification. Indeed, John's baptism has some similarity with the bathing at Qumran (though Qumranites did not, as Sid Green would have it, practice baptism). They didn't bathe for remission of sins. Nor, for that matter, is there anything indicating that Bannus did. Those would appear, at least to me, to be the closest parallels.

Speaking of precedent, I've never heard of a Bannus the Baptist? :D

More on this subject later though.

It's irrelevant to the baptism as well. The case can be just as easily, and just as effectively, if we presume his baptism was for ritual purity, or that it was something of an initiation rite. I'd venture it was a little of both.

I would agree that it could have been an initiation rite. It need not even have inititally started off as one. It could have developed into one or it could have been there since the beginning. Who knows? I don't.

I would agree with this though. The baptism that subjects Jesus to John is amplified by the fact that Jesus was viewed as sinless and very widely as a source of forgiveness by the church. The best statement we have comes from Mark and why Mark did not create this was discussed above. The tradition is pretty solid if you ask me. Invoking "they made a mistake" is not good history unless it is warranted.

Because Mark clearly has John baptizing for the remission of sins. He explicitly states this in verse 1:4. Thus it goes against the grain and therefore, he did not create the baptism account.

So Mark received faulty information. All dissimilarity can establish is that it was received, rather than redacted, by Mark.

Are you repeating what I said for a reason? But thei nformation does not look faulty from here.

Is the embarassment that Jesus was baptized for the remission of sins? Matthew doesn't seem to think, he thinks the embarassment is the apparent inferiority--that being baptized makes Jesus less than John, not that being baptized makes Jesus a sinner. I'd venture the embarassment stems from what I suggested above--the baptism was something of an initiation rite, undertaken by followers of John.

First, I woukd think it would be a combination of both. Jesus is not only subjected to John but "a sinful Jesus" since john baptized for the remission of sin. Thats why all the apologetics making sure Jesus is prioritized over JBap in the Christian record. This was very problematic and I don't think you can ignore the large number of early Christians who thought Jesus was sinless/and or a source of rogvieness. Its found in Mark just after the baptismal account.


Hold on. You've just said it was relevant to the hypothesis that the baptism is historical that it was for the remission of sins. Now you seem to be saying that it isn't. Which is it?[/qwuote]

I was just speculating to the extreme since thats what happens here. But I went on to critique this.

[quote]Need we presume they did so intentionally? Being impure and being sinful is sometimes a confusing distinction--still is. Couldn't someone have just gotten mixed up?

This is too simplistic to me. I need more information. One person mixing something up affecting the record and holding sway during such an early time after JBaps death when people would still be alive and well from when he lived? Was that little known about JBap by Mark or anyone at the time (when there was probably contention between these two groups as the record shows)?

This seems to go against the grain of historical methodology in general. If person x did y we expect it to be widely know in the early church. Not misunderstood by one person then retained. Should we have expected good information to be retained about the nature of John's baptism in such an early period?

I guess you could say that Mark's material might go back to th 60s, a few decades after the facts. But it seems less probable that this was fudged than it was transmitted accurately. One person mixing it up could be easily corrected by the general record left by the baptist. "Making a mistake" is different than "intentionally changing".

Moving on I would say that we have a statement in the text of Mark that we have every right to trust since it does not look like any Christian would make it up. Surely history would not be benefited if we are allowed to invoke "maybe they mixed up the facts" whenever convenient to us? There is no control here. Hoiw could any history be done?

We need to distinguish between what is "possible" and what is "probable". Thats history--and well, I'll be the first to tell you that it aint easy ;)

I agree. Mark probably didn't fabricate the notion that John baptized for the remission of sins. That doesn't make it true.

The fact that it precedes Mark does not mean it goes back to the actual event. Thats simple enough nd well known. But when a datum is hostile and would not be created by the early church either someone lied// made a mistake or they were accurate.

I do not see any reason to believe why people only a few decades after John's death did not know why he baptized. Of course its possible they didn't know but probability forces me to chosoe the other road.

I agree, it poses no threat to the historicity of the baptism, but for a different reason--the embarassment upon which that historicity is based stems from a different cause: Jesus acting as John's disciple.

I will not dispute that. I even believe Jesus started off a follower of JBap. None of this negates the church's belief that Jesus was sinless and the source of forgiveness though and the fact that Mark states John baptized for the remission of sin.

But will he come down my chimney at Christmas?

Probably not but if I get drunk enough, I might :D

Vinnie

[Amaleq13]

Originally posted by Vinnie
None of this negates the church's belief that Jesus was sinless and the source of forgiveness though and the fact that Mark states John baptized for the remission of sin.


Can it be established that the author of Mark considered Jesus to be sinless prior to his baptism?

When I read Mark, I don’t note any suggestion of embarrassment about the baptismal scene nor do I get any sense of unresolved theological issues. I do get that sense when I read Mt and Lk but that is primarily because we can compare their treatments with Mark’s original effort. If we only had one of the four Gospels, I’m not sure any embarrassment would ever be detected.

It seems to me that the premise requires evidence that Christians prior to Mark believed that the living Jesus was always sinless. We don’t find anything helpful in that regard from Q. Jesus and JBap are only marginally connected in the reconstructed text. John is portrayed as predicting the coming Messiah and sending disciples to ask Jesus if he might be the Messiah but that’s about it. For all we know, the author(s) of Q originsally believed Jesus was merely a wise and divinely inspired prophet with the same potential for sin as anyone else. Or they might have believed that Jesus attained a sinless state once the Temptations were denied. (Actually, one could argue that the entire Temptation scene requires that Jesus have had the potential to sin. Otherwise, there would be no real temptation involved.) Looking to other pre-Mark sources, Paul has nothing to say about Jesus being baptized nor does he ever mention the Baptist at all. What little he says about the pre-crucifixion Jesus doesn’t suggest to me that we can assume Paul attributed a sinless nature to him. In fact, it has been my impression that Paul and those from whom he presumably obtained this prayer considered Jesus to be Christ only AFTER he had been resurrected:

“ …but emptied Himself, taking the form of a bond-servant, and being made in the likeness of men. Being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross. For this reason also, God highly exalted Him, and bestowed on Him the name which is above every name, so that at the name of Jesus EVERY KNEE WILL BOW, of those who are in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and that every tongue will confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.” (Phil 2:7-11)

Did Paul believe that Jesus also took on a sinful nature while “emptying” and “humbling” himself “taking the form of a bond-servant”? We don’t really know because Paul spends hardly any more words than this in referring to Jesus’ pre-crucifixion existence but it doesn’t seem to be an unreasonable possibility.

As I understand Doherty, the author of Mark should be considered our earliest evidence of an attempt to bring the two differing conceptions of Jesus in Q and Paul into a single narrative. From the Q people, he obtains a theological and temporal connection between Jesus and JBap. From Paul’s theology, he obtains baptism as an important rite of initiation where the Christian begins a new life. As a man trying to create a narrative description of Jesus’ ministry, these two pieces of information seem to beg for an actual baptism scene featuring both individuals. That seems to me to be an entirely reasonable and sufficient explanation for the existence of the story regardless of whether we assume Jesus to have been historical. The early presence of a baptism scene that became more theologically embarrassing over time does not appear to be significant as an objection to the mythicist position.

[Vinnie]

Hi Amaleq 13. Welcome to the BC&H forum :)

Thanks for jumping in and commenting on what I wrote :)

Can it be established that the author of Mark considered Jesus to be sinless prior to his baptism?

Absolutely. If Mark was "inventing" Jesus' baptism by John then yes he must have believed this. How does this position not undercut itself? Either Mark blatantly contradicted himself or this position does.

If Mark thought Jesus was sinless and WAS really baptized by JBap then he could have thought him sinless after the fact. But if Mark really believed this it should be by default true that he did not create the account of Jesus being baptized by John. He inherited it from his sources. How then can you argue that Mark was then bringing a Q and Paul Jesus together?

Did Mark not know he was writing fiction when he was inventing the baptismal story or not? Ancients had different standards but they knew the difference between true and false!

But now if Mark was not inventing Jesus' baptism by John then it predates his Gospel and he received it elsewhere. The adoptionist point is moot. Here are the verses I cited on Jesus being sinless:

Obviously a mythicist might dispute the interpretation of these passages but:

2 Cor 5:21 21God made him who had no sin to be sin for us, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.

This is first stratum material. It occurs in the early church. Now note it says that "him who had no sin". This implies an existence without sin. This refers to the period before the death of Jesus.

Heb 4:14 For we do not have a high priest who is unable to sympathize with our weaknesses, but we have one who has been tempted in every way, just as we are--yet was without sin.

Jesus was tempted in every way and was without sin. There is no "only sins count after baptism" or "age of accountability clause here.

1 Pet 1:19 but with the precious blood of Christ, a lamb without blemish or defect.

1 Pet 2:22 "He committed no sin, and no deceit was found in his mouth."

Further, John has Jesus saying, "Can any of you prove me guilty of sin? If I am telling the truth, why don't you believe me?"

I realize this reference post-dates Mark but the large number of references serve to show that this basic idea was widespread. But realistically there is no way to prove that early Christians saw Jesus as sinless prior to his baptism or not.

But at the same time if these early Christians who viewed Jesus as sinless and the source of forgiveness actually believed in the baptism by John the baptist, so much for Doherty and his silence. Further if all these earyl Christians believed Jesus was baptized we have no reason to disagree with them!

See the problem? It seems skeptics are forced to take an impossible position here that undercuts itself no matter which way you turn.

When I read Mark, I don’t note any suggestion of embarrassment about the baptismal scene nor do I get any sense of unresolved theological issues. I do get that sense when I read Mt and Lk but that is primarily because we can compare their treatments with Mark’s original effort. If we only had one of the four Gospels, I’m not sure any embarrassment would ever be detected.

I used the same method. I compared Mark's thought with that of other and earlier Christians and saw how it cohered with the grain of the story. It went against it. But I will grant that unless one takes an adoptionist point that Jesus was sinless after the baptism then all my above exegesis which implies embarrassment in Mark is correct. But if one takes this POV mythicism abd baptismal skepticism is derailed at any rate. There is no indication that early Christians made any distinction here at any rate anyways. They might have though and we just wouldn't know about it.

No matter how I look at the account Jesus is still being "subjected" to John. It was the goal of virtually all the evangelists and Christians to exalt the status of Jesus over everyone. Any subjecting of Jesus to anyone by default goes against the theological grain of the evangelists.

I will grant that an adoptionist point resolves this but you can't claim Mark made it up. You are forced to claim the early church invented the baptismal account. This opens up its own can of worms and we are still left with historicity.

It seems to me that the premise requires evidence that Christians prior to Mark believed that the living Jesus was always sinless. We don’t find anything helpful in that regard from Q. Jesus and JBap are only marginally connected in the reconstructed text. John is portrayed as predicting the coming Messiah and sending disciples to ask Jesus if he might be the Messiah but that’s about it. For all we know, the author(s) of Q originsally believed Jesus was merely a wise and divinely inspired prophet with the same potential for sin as anyone else.

For all we know, yes. For all we know is the key term. For all we don't know they didn't. Q "could" have contained a baptsimal narrative but it is my judgment that it probably didn't. I am not dogmatic on this. If I rejected the layering of Q--which I am increasingly becoming more skeptical of---agnosticism is the only prudenct course of action to take on the issue from my POV.

At any rate, Q is silent about a lot of early church issues isn't it? And we can't ver be too certain about what Q did not contain with a few sections. We can only form general conclusions here.

At any rate, I would advise against moving from less clear to clear data. I would encourage the exact opposite.

Or they might have believed that Jesus attained a sinless state once the Temptations were denied. (Actually, one could argue that the entire Temptation scene requires that Jesus have had the potential to sin. Otherwise, there would be no real temptation involved.) Looking to other pre-Mark sources, Paul has nothing to say about Jesus being baptized nor does he ever mention the Baptist at all. What little he says about the pre-crucifixion Jesus doesn’t suggest to me that we can assume Paul attributed a sinless nature to him. In fact, it has been my impression that Paul and those from whom he presumably obtained this prayer considered Jesus to be Christ only AFTER he had been resurrected:

Did Paul believe that Jesus also took on a sinful nature while “emptying” and “humbling” himself “taking the form of a bond-servant”? We don’t really know because Paul spends hardly any more words than this in referring to Jesus’ pre-crucifixion existence but it doesn’t seem to be an unreasonable possibility.


Why does having the potential to sin have anything to do with the discussion. This is a redundancy. You can't be praised for "not sinning" if you don't have the potential to sin to begin with.

I commented on Paul above with the verse from 2 Cor and presented several others.

The only position you can take my perspective is adoptionism at some point during the course of Jesus' earthly life to deny the historicity of the baptismal narrative itself.

But this all begs the question to begin with:

If the Christians believed Jesus was only the Christ after death or after baptism or after temptation then why is there so much embarrassment regarding John and Jesus in the Christian record? Why so much apologetics? Why so much prioritizing. Are you aware of one purpose of the Lucan infancy narrative? The whole framework prioritizes Jesus over Jbap.

From Paul’s theology, he obtains baptism as an important rite of initiation where the Christian begins a new life. As a man trying to create a narrative description of Jesus’ ministry, these two pieces of information seem to beg for an actual baptism scene featuring both individuals.

How does Doherty explain the huge silence??? I feel funny typing that :D

There is also no indication in Mark that connects Christian baptism with Jesus' baptism. This is rampant speculation and it does not find itself supported by other works which also DO NOT LINK the events. As I quoted Meier above:

"The surprising thing about all of the NT statements concerning Christian baptism is that no NT author ever directly and explicitly links Christian baptism with Jesus' baptism, and the latter is never explicitly presented as the cause, archetype, or model of the former.

[cutting some out since I already posted this]

The idea that Christian baptism generated the account of Jesus' baptism as a prototype, that this link then totally disappeared in all NT documents, and that it then immediately reappeared in Ignatius and spread throughout the patristic period presents us with a splendid pattern of life-death-and-resurrection - but also with a very contorted tradition history. The simpler tradition history, namely, that Jesus' baptism by John historically preceded Christian baptism and only in due time came to be seen as the latter's prototype, is the much more natural reading of the data." .

Note the text in bold :)

The early presence of a baptism scene that became more theologically embarrassing over time does not appear to be significant as an objection to the mythicist position.

And we should think the baptism only became embarrassing later (I presume you mean after Mark) because? ;)

Vinnie

[Vinnie]

Now since the Mark putting Q and Christian baptism together connection can't be substantiated we have a question here.

I referenced to it above:

At any rate, why would the early church go out of its way to create a story that was problematic for itself? Surely a different story between John and Jesus could have been created that did not subject John to Jesus' baptism or have a sinless Jesus being baptised by John for the remission of sin.

How do we explain the Jesus//John connection? They arel inked together: forerunner --> prophet. We have to explain this. As E.P. Sanders and Margaret Davies wrote,

"We should assume that Jesus really did approve of John's work and really did begin as his follower. had the church been freely inventing here, it probably would have reduced the appeareance of Jesus' discipleship under John and portrayed Jesus as being more independent. Free invention might have led it to depictJohn as testifying to Jesus' importance without any indication that Jesus began his public career by being baptized by John." SSG p 313

We also have other pericopes where Jesus praises John don't we? This canno be attributed to "free invention" by the church. It looks like invention and alteration modified by a historical core. A synthesis of all baptist//Jesus related material leads only to one conclusion.

Vinnie

[Doctor X]

Something to consider . . . the concept of sin in the context of the time of composition.

The "missing the mark"--yet another example of Greekism in the texts--conveys a "mistake" made at a point in time. Did one carry the mistake, or did one expect "punishment" or "consequence" in the immediate time.

In modern concepts . . . you "sin" . . . and seventy odd years later some geezer with a book asks you why you dropped that frog down Margaret Mary's blouse. I am not certain that applies to the classical world. One thing you did carry with you was impurity--something you could not avoid in life. Both Jewish and Greek religion required repurification. Thus, was baptism a major purification? Scholars point to the "apocalyptic" tone of Mk and there is a tradition of "they expected the end"--indeed, as skeptics love to point out to believers, Junior is quoted as implying "the end is near."

For Mk, I do not think he cared at all about Junior prior to the "advent" of his "ministry"--he did not feel the need to have a "birth" or explanation beyond him showing up, getting Baptised, and having the heavens announce him. "Did he sin as a child" is a question he did not feel the need to address.

--J.D.

[Amaleq13]

Vinnie,


Thanks for the welcome. Glad to be here. I couldn’t figure out how to maintain the built-in quote separations while addressing individual portions of your post. Any tips via email would be welcome.

“Can it be established that the author of Mark considered Jesus to be sinless prior to his baptism?”


Vinnie: If Mark was "inventing" Jesus' baptism by John then yes he must have believed this.

I don’t follow your reasoning. You seem to be saying that, if Mark invented the baptism scene, he must have considered Jesus to be sinless prior to that scene? How does that necessarily follow? Please explain. Whether we assume a mythicist or historical perspective, it seems to me that the way Mark writes the story suggests that he accepted that Jesus was not sinless prior the baptism.

First, Mark tells us that John performed baptisms for the remission of sins. Then, he tells us that Jesus travelled all the way from Galilee to be baptized by this same man. The obvious conclusion is that Jesus intended to participate just like anybody else and Mark tells us nothing to prevent us from making this obvious connection.

Vinnie: If Mark thought Jesus was sinless and WAS really baptized by JBap then he could have thought him sinless after the fact.

You meant “Mark thought Jesus was not sinless” before the baptism, right?

It seems to me you are you suggesting that the only way Mark could have believed Jesus was sinless after the baptism is if he believed it was historically true. If that is what you are claiming, I would need to see your argument. I see nothing inherently unreasonable about suggesting this same scene could be written within a mythical context.

Vinnie: Did Mark not know he was writing fiction when he was inventing the baptismal story or not?

In my opinion? None of the Gospel authors considered their efforts to be lies but I don’t think any of them considered them to be historical records, either. I have no problem accepting that the Gospel authors devoutly believed that reinterpreting Scripture, writing under the assumption of prophecy fulfillment, and allowing the Spirit to guide their individual efforts were legitimate methods capable of producing theological truths.

Vinnie: But now if Mark was not inventing Jesus' baptism by John then it predates his Gospel and he received it elsewhere. The adoptionist point is moot. Here are the verses I cited on Jesus being sinless:

I’m going to treat these verses as rebuttal to my earlier comment above since they would probably be what you would offer anyway:

“...we have no evidence that this was something Christians before Mark even thought about”

Vinnie: 2 Cor 5:21 21God made him who had no sin to be sin for us, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.

Paul, like the author of GJohn, appears to have believed that Christ existed in heaven with God before being incarnated. Is there any reason I should not understand “him who had no sin” to be a reference to this pre-existent Christ?

Vinnie: Heb 4:14 For we do not have a high priest who is unable to sympathize with our weaknesses, but we have one who has been tempted in every way, just as we are--yet was without sin.

The temptations took place after the baptism so this doesn’t inform us about his state prior to the event.

Vinnie: 1 Pet 1:19 but with the precious blood of Christ, a lamb without blemish or defect.

This seems to be a reference to the blood shed during the crucifixion which would also have been after the baptism.

Vinnie: 1 Pet 2:22 "He committed no sin, and no deceit was found in his mouth."

This could possibly be considered to include the pre-baptism Jesus but it really isn’t specific enough to carry the entire weight of your claim, in my opinion.

Vinnie: Further, John has Jesus saying, "Can any of you prove me guilty of sin? If I am telling the truth, why don't you believe me?" I realize this reference post-dates Mark but the large number of references serve to show that this basic idea was widespread.

The basic idea was widespread EVENTUALLY but you haven’t presented anything nearly sufficient to carry the claim that it was held by Mark, IMHO.

Vinnie: But at the same time if these early Christians who viewed Jesus as sinless and the source of forgiveness actually believed in the baptism by John the baptist, so much for Doherty and his silence.

You haven’t really established the existence of early (i.e. pre-Mark) Christians holding such a belief and Mark’s author makes no effort to “correct” the obvious implication.

Vinnie: I compared Mark's thought with that of other and earlier Christians and saw how it cohered with the grain of the story. It went against it.

What earlier Christians?

Vinnie: But I will grant that unless one takes an adoptionist point that Jesus was sinless after the baptism then all my above exegesis which implies embarrassment in Mark is correct.

Why should we assume that Mark did not hold an adoptionist view? His failure to prevent the reader from making the obvious connection between JBap’s activities and Jesus’ desire to participate seems to suggest that he did hold such a view or, at least, would have if someone had asked him about it.

Vinnie: But if one takes this POV mythicism abd baptismal skepticism is derailed at any rate.

I don’t see how this follows.

Vinnie: No matter how I look at the account Jesus is still being "subjected" to John. It was the goal of virtually all the evangelists and Christians to exalt the status of Jesus over everyone. Any subjecting of Jesus to anyone by default goes against the theological grain of the evangelists.

I think you are again imposing later Christian beliefs upon Mark without sufficient justification. Keep in mind that this same author had no problem describing Jesus making two attempts before completely healing a man (Mk 8:22-25). I have no problem believing that the authors of Mt and Lk held beliefs contrary to such a less-than-perfect portrait because both deliberately chose not to include this portion of Mark. A comparison between the three Synoptics suggests Mark had the most human conception of Jesus and that seems to be consistent with an adoptionist position.

Vinnie: I will grant that an adoptionist point resolves this but you can't claim Mark made it up. You are forced to claim the early church invented the baptismal account. This opens up its own can of worms and we are still left with historicity.

I don’t follow you. Why couldn’t the story be mythical?

Vinnie: At any rate, Q is silent about a lot of early church issues isn't it?

Yes, it is almost as though the community it describes doesn’t even know Paul/Pillars/their beliefs about a resurrected Christ even exist.<g>

Vinnie: If the Christians believed Jesus was only the Christ after death or after baptism or after temptation then why is there so much embarrassment regarding John and Jesus in the Christian record?

Where is there embarrassment expressed when such beliefs are also claimed? Paul is certainly not embarrased. There is no embarrassment in Q. And, as I mentioned before, I see no evidence that Mark was concerned about any theologically problematic implications of the story. You only find embarrassment later when beliefs have changed.

I wrote:
“From Paul’s theology, he obtains baptism as an important rite of initiation where the Christian begins a new life. As a man trying to create a narrative description of Jesus’ ministry, these two pieces of information seem to beg for an actual baptism scene featuring both individuals.”

Vinnie: How does Doherty explain the huge silence???

Silence about what? And these are my thoughts, not Doherty's.

Vinnie: There is also no indication in Mark that connects Christian baptism with Jesus' baptism.

I never said he did but it seems ridiculous to suggest that his fellow Christians wouldn’t immediately make the connection, themselves, after reading the story. If Mark is a member of the same Christianity as Paul, we can assume that he and his entire audience had been baptized. It would certainly not be necessary for Mark to break out of his narrative to directly address his audience and remind them that they were baptized just like Jesus!

In addition to Paul, I’m also not connecting Christian baptism with Jesus’ baptism. I think Christian baptism is connected to the Jewish baptism John performed.

Vinnie: As I quoted Meier above:

"The surprising thing about all of the NT statements concerning Christian baptism is that no NT author ever directly and explicitly links Christian baptism with Jesus' baptism, and the latter is never explicitly presented as the cause, archetype, or model of the former.

The absence of any such references is only surprising within an historical context. I thought you were arguing against a mythicist position. <g> Within the mythical context, Christians were getting baptized before the story of Jesus’ baptism existed. Jewish baptism inspired Christian baptism which helped to inspire the story of the baptism of Jesus.

I wrote:
“The early presence of a baptism scene that became more theologically embarrassing over time does not appear to be significant as an objection to the mythicist position.”

<And we should think the baptism only became embarrassing later (I presume you mean after Mark) because?>

Because Christian theology had developed/changed such that the original story became problematic.

[Amaleq13]

Originally posted by Doctor X
For Mk, I do not think he cared at all about Junior prior to the "advent" of his "ministry"--he did not feel the need to have a "birth" or explanation beyond him showing up, getting Baptised, and having the heavens announce him. "Did he sin as a child" is a question he did not feel the need to address.



I agree and I think this was true of Paul as well to an even greater extent. I’m not sure he cared when or even if Jesus existed on earth. His faith began and ended with a belief in the existence of the Risen Savior Christ. The technical details of the incarnation were irrelevant and unnecessary given the strength of this belief as his starting point.

[Vinnie]

Amaleq13, given the direction of your last post--which I COMPLETELY disagree with, I think we need to put this thread on stand-still for a pinch and work out some details regarding the Gospel of Mark.

http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=67421

Toto, you asked about my comment on the paucity of Gentile related material before. There is the article!

Oh yeah, quoting is pretty easy here:

[ quote ]Vinnie is a swell guy[ /quote ]

Now you have to remove the spaces between the brackets and the word "quote" for the code to work. When you do:

Vinnie is a swell guy

On that note I cordially invite you all to the other thread :)

Vinnie

[Amaleq13]

Originally posted by Vinnie
How do we explain the Jesus//John connection? They arel inked together: forerunner --> prophet. We have to explain this.


Hey, I'm even bolding it all up and stuff!!


Within a mythical context, the Jesus/John connection is only a mystery if you reject Q, the Q community, and the idea that Mark was at least familiar with the movement.

According to Q, JBap was predicting the imminent arrival of the Day of the Lord and the Coming One who would apparently be kicking butt and taking names OT-style!<g>

The Q community seems to have believed that Jesus was this promised Coming One and portray John as sending disciples to ask Jesus if this is true. Jesus essentially confirms this and then is depicted as explicitly informing his audience that John is, indeed, the messenger of Malachi 3. He follows this up with an interesting comment:

"...Among those that are born of women there is no greater prophet than John the Baptist: but he that is least in the kingdom of God is greater than he." (Lk 8:28, KJV).

Even without a baptism scene, there seems to have been a need to make it clear that John was important but nowhere near as important as the Kingdom of God (and, by extension, Jesus) that was the focus of the Q community.

Must this concern about getting the power structure straight reflect a potentially embarrassing historical setting? Not necessarily. If the Q community believed their Jesus to be the Coming One, they would have been forced by local awareness of John's preaching (or, perhaps, their former direct association with JBap's group) to include him in their written story. Even if Jesus and John never met, this group would have been forced to create such a connection. If I recall correctly, it may be relevant that the writings of the descendants of the JBap group do not speak favorably about Jesus.


PS regarding putting the thread on hold:

I'm not sure what "direction" you think I'm going but I'm in no big hurry. Are we supposed be clearing up whatever needs clearing in the other thread or here?

[Rick Sumner]

Originally posted by Vinnie
Speaking of precedent, I've never heard of a Bannus the Baptist? :D

Probably because he wasn't a baptist. Josephus spent some time with him (Life.9-12), he emphasized purity through ritual bathing. There's no indication that he equated it with the remission of sins.

I would agree with this though. The baptism that subjects Jesus to John is amplified by the fact that Jesus was viewed as sinless and very widely as a source of forgiveness by the church.

Where do you see indication that Jesus being sinless was a problem for the later evangelists? We both agree that the baptism was a problem, the question is why. Matthew's rendering of the event, I think, makes the embarassment rather explicit--John, who baptized Jesus and never became a follower, comes off superior to Jesus. None of them, that I can see, seem to think that being sinless poses a problem.

The best statement we have comes from Mark and why Mark did not create this was discussed above. The tradition is pretty solid if you ask me. Invoking "they made a mistake" is not good history unless it is warranted.

There is grounds to doubt it, it's incredibly anomalous. Too anomalous. It's entirely without precedent. Not in the sense of "goes against the grain," a la embarassment, but in the sense of wholly without precedent and unnecessary to our understanding of John. It doesnt' fit his context, and context, as E P Sanders will tell you, is *everything.*

First, I woukd think it would be a combination of both. Jesus is not only subjected to John but "a sinful Jesus" since john baptized for the remission of sin. Thats why all the apologetics making sure Jesus is prioritized over JBap in the Christian record. This was very problematic and I don't think you can ignore the large number of early Christians who thought Jesus was sinless/and or a source of rogvieness. Its found in Mark just after the baptismal account.

I'm aware that they thought Jesus was sinless. Why isn't this sinlessness a source of embarassment?

Besides which, this ignores the key issue--baptism for the remission of sins is wholly without precedent. It doesn't fit John's context. Nobody else shared his sentiments. Nobody else even indicates that they might. The Qumranites explicitly do not.

This is too simplistic to me. I need more information. One person mixing something up affecting the record and holding sway during such an early time after JBaps death when people would still be alive and well from when he lived? Was that little known about JBap by Mark or anyone at the time (when there was probably contention between these two groups as the record shows)?

Ignoring, for the moment, just how many people were "alive and well" in a post-war Israel, one must wonder whether the argument has any merit anyway. Who, outside of Israel, would be familiar with the baptist? Did his reknown extend that far? You either need to establish that it did, or establish that Mark was written in Israel. If not, stories have a way of getting mixed up when they're brought to a bunch of people who don't know better.

This seems to go against the grain of historical methodology in general. If person x did y we expect it to be widely know in the early church. Not misunderstood by one person then retained. Should we have expected good information to be retained about the nature of John's baptism in such an early period?

Not at all. Equating baptism with the remission of sins could easily be considered a redactive tendency of Christianity at large. I think I've suggested grounds for it to be considered such--the complete absence of contemporary parallel, coupled with the plausibility of the suggested scenario, leave the ball in your court. You can't keep repeating "the gospellers said so" and think that suffices.

I guess you could say that Mark's material might go back to th 60s, a few decades after the facts. But it seems less probable that this was fudged than it was transmitted accurately. One person mixing it up could be easily corrected by the general record left by the baptist. "Making a mistake" is different than "intentionally changing".

Would that general record have been spread to Mark's community?

Moving on I would say that we have a statement in the text of Mark that we have every right to trust since it does not look like any Christian would make it up. Surely history would not be benefited if we are allowed to invoke "maybe they mixed up the facts" whenever convenient to us? There is no control here. Hoiw could any history be done?

Surely history is not benefitted if we accept prima facie that which we have grounds to doubt.

Here's the argument in a nutshell:

1) No other Jew on record equated water with the remission of sins, despite the presence of an entire sect, and additionally of Bannus, emphasizing water.

2) Jews did equate other things with the remission of sins, and water with purity.

3) Therefore any Jew who did equate water with the remission of sins would fly flagrant in the face of what we know of first century Judaism, water, and understanding of sin.

John is flying flagrant in the face of what we know. That, in itself, is grounds to question.

Regards,
Rick

[Amaleq13]

Originally posted by Rick Sumner
Here's the argument in a nutshell:

1) No other Jew on record equated water with the remission of sins, despite the presence of an entire sect, and additionally of Bannus, emphasizing water.

2) Jews did equate other things with the remission of sins, and water with purity.

3) Therefore any Jew who did equate water with the remission of sins would fly flagrant in the face of what we know of first century Judaism, water, and understanding of sin.


Should we also add that there exists evidence of Jewish belief that the Messiah would not even know himself until he was annointed by the forerunner (i.e. Elijah/Elias reborn)?

We find a reference to such a Jewish belief in Trypho's argument against Justin Martyr:

"But Christ -- if He has indeed been born, and exists anywhere -- is unknown, and does not even know Himself, and has no power until Elias come to anoint Him, and make Him manifest to all..." Dialogue, ch.8

If this was a Jewish belief when Mark wrote, it stands as a powerful motivator to depict a baptism of Jesus by an apparent Elias.

[Rick Sumner]

Originally posted by Amaleq13
If this was a Jewish belief when Mark wrote, it stands as a powerful motivator to depict a baptism of Jesus by an apparent Elias.

No it doesn't. A baptism in which John makes no identification (which he doesn't, in Mark--Jesus is never named the "one who is coming."), doesn't serve that purpose in the slightest. Were that the goal, why isn't Mark clear--why doesn't John identify him? Why does Jesus know who he is without John telling him? Why is there no proclamation?

It would make more sense to simply have the apparent Elijah proclaim him the Messiah. He doesn't--in fact, in Matthew and Luke (or Q, depending on who you ask) he needs to send people to find out.

Regards,
Rick

[Amaleq13]

My comment was primarily intended to address the question posed to the mythicist position: Why would Mark create a baptism of Jesus by John?

I suggested that the existence of a Jewish belief (described in Martyr's Dialogue) that the Messiah would not be known, even to himself, until he was annointed by a reborn Elias seems to establish a motivation to create exactly such a scene.

Originally posted by Rick Sumner in reply to the above
No it doesn't. A baptism in which John makes no identification (which he doesn't, in Mark--Jesus is never named the "one who is coming."), doesn't serve that purpose in the slightest.

The only stated requirement of Elias is that he annoint the man who would then recognize himself as the Messiah. The belief stated in Martyr doesn't require us to assume that Elias recognizes the Messiah nor does it require us to assume that Elias makes any pronouncements. Clearly, Mark didn't think so as he portrays God and the descending Spirit handling that task. We can't even be sure the Spirit and Voice were perceptible to John. Subsequent rewrites of Mark's story suggest, by John's later questions, make it more clear that they were apparently not. If Mark held the belief expressed by Trypho, he did not assume the Elias character would do anything beyond annointing.

Were that the goal, why isn't Mark clear--why doesn't John identify him?

John annoints him, God identifies him. The Messiah now recognizes himself and, thus, the "goal" is accomplished. All that is left is for the Messiah to make himself known to others and, given Mark's "messianic secret" theme, there didn't appear to be any hurry on that.

Why does Jesus know who he is without John telling him?

We have no reason to assume Jesus believed himself to be the Messiah before the baptism. Afterwards, I think the experience of having the Spirit descend upon him would have been sufficient but hearing God's identification and declaration of approval probably would settled any possible doubts in his mind.<bg>

It would make more sense to simply have the apparent Elijah proclaim him the Messiah.

That might make more sense to you but it isn't required by the abovestated belief. You seem to be assuming this belief meant that Elias would be the one to identify the Messiah but that is neither stated nor necessarily implied by the text.

I read the belief to mean: At least some Jews believed the Messiah would not be recognized, even by himself, until after he has been annointed by Elias (a.k.a. reborn forerunner).