Vinnie

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

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".

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

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

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

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 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

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

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.



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.



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

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.



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?



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?



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



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.



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.



But will he come down my chimney at Christmas?

Regards,
Rick

Vinnie

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

More on this subject later though.

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.

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

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.


[quote]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.

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

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 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.

Probably not but if I get drunk enough, I might

Vinnie

Amaleq13

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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:

Note the text in bold

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:

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.