Umm... Michael? You know that there is NO Q2 right? Unless you are prepared to defend the stratification of Q theory, please do not use it in your appeals to authority.

You do not understand or accept the Criterion of Embarrassment. That is your right. But your increasingly lame efforts to grasp at every straw to argue against it is really getting to be tiresome.

You have not addressed why Matthew, Luke and John added their own apologetic layers to the story of the baptism, you have not addressed the fact that ancient and modern Jews reject the baptism as being appropriate for the Messiah, and you have failed to offer more than conjecture and speculation in support of your own ideas.

I would say there isn't much left to say to you is there? You just don't get it, nor do you believe it, and that is cool.

Nomad

Jesus Baptism is NOT an "embarrassment" - Mark 1 opens up with Jesus baptism by John - why?
Read mark 11:
By what authority do you do these things Jesus? Jesus replies by harking back to his baptism by John - by what authority did John baptize him?
Mark open up his Gospel, not with an embarrassment, but with a clear exhibition of Christ's credentials and support for his ministry as from God - ordination/this is my son....The clear credentials is the ordination into His ministry that Jesus underwent by being anointed by a Levite/the last OT Prophet into his priestly/Messianic office (of the order of Melchizedek...read Hebrews for that one) and the approbation/affirmation by the Father.

The baptism, understood as ordination rite (this is my son in whom I am well pleased) easily clears up what's going on in Mark 11:
John, a Levite, anointed Christ into his ministry by the authority of God (who clearly spoke), that's the answer the Pharisees were afraid to give.
It would've been most embarrassing to Jesus if He was not baptized/ordained by a Levite.
BTW - Jesus was also circumcised too - isn't that embarrassing? No - He was of the covenant people (their Messiah no less) and as such needed the covenant sign applied to Him - more embarrassing it would've been if He was not circumcised....

Nuff said....please get a new event: this one, understood as I have outlined, and it is a possible and fruitful interpretation, presents no embarrassment - for anyone anytime at all. Nay rather it is a necessary exhibition of Christ's credentials - and a public announcement of his authority and ministry (in accordance with the Law for such things).

I find the idea that the baptism by John
to be 'embarrassing' is itself embarrassing and a case of special pleading for a criterion that ought be banished....

I'd also add that Jesus reply to the Pharisees just at Mark 11 is predictable:
One of Jesus' main motivations was to NOT testify concerning himself: such testimony was invalid - see John's Gospel. Much better was testimony by others (John the baptist, Father, etc..). Jesus baptism, seen as ordination rite (this is my son,etc..) easily answers to this deep motivation.

Another deep motivation: as a priest, or mediator, one must identify with those one represents, and again, Jesus baptism by John, seen as ordination rite, secures by public exhibition, this identification betweeen He as mediator/priest and His people for whom he would minister... etc.... It also secured (His identification/approbation with/from the Divine (this is my son...) etc....

Still no embarrassment.

Jmcanany,

It looks like we completely forgot about Mark 11:27-33. What a devastating point, though. There have been all sorts of very strong points made against Nomad in this thread, but this one all by itself wins the day, I think. Mark apparently thought that John's baptism of Jesus was from God. As Mark says, "everyone held that John was really a prophet," and therefore the chief priests were trapped by Jesus' question. Jesus' baptism couldn't even be questioned by the chief priests because John's authority was from the same God as Jesus's. Hence for Mark there was absolutely nothing embarrassing about Jesus' baptism by John (God).

This isn't a matter of Mark's mitigation of any embarrassment, because he simply admits the whole fact: everyone believed John was a prophet in his own right. But of course Jewish prophets and Jesus all got their authority from the same source, God. For Mark being baptized by John was the same as being baptized by God. Jesus' authority had both a human and a divine source: John and God who worked through John. Jesus, after all, even according to the elaborate theology centuries after Mark was considered a human being as well as divine. Jesus received honours from both Earth and heaven. Otherwise, his triumphal entry should have been embarrassing, since as God Jesus shouldn't have received mere earthly recognition as a king. Clearly for Mark Jesus was not God incarnate but a human prophet and Jewish leader. Mark has no virgin birth story and no elaborate Johannine Logos theology. There is no evidence that Mark believed Jesus was born sinless and therefore couldn't have used a baptism by John (God). Where in Judaism does it say the Messiah has to be born sinless? All the Jewish heroes from the Hebrew Scriptures sinned and many of them were great sinners. And what's embarrassing about being initiated symbolically by John who in turn genuinely worked for God, according to Mark?

Welcome back jm.

You have apparently forgotten my question.

You specifically brought up the point that the baptism of Jesus was the fulfillment of the requirements for Jesus taking on the priesthood (as would be required of the Messiah) as given in Numbers 8. Since this passage clearly lists a number of other rituals that were not performed by John (or another priest) for Jesus, I would like to ask you if you have dropped this argument.

As for Philip eagerly (and with great irony) accepting Mark's apologetic explaining the necessity of the baptism by a prophet (even though the Jews of the day did not accept it as such), well, I am very glad that he accepts it as being reasonable. On the other hand, on what basis do he treat this saying as being historical? Further, since Jews obviously do not consider John the Baptist to be a true prophet, what makes you think that Mark is being truthful in his statement here? Are you suddenly finding the Gospels to be more honest in their presentation than you have in the past? Sceptical scholars see it as Christian apologetics at its finest. Are you accepting that apologetic now because it serves your argument Philip?

Mark 11:28-33 "By what authority are you doing these things?" they asked. "And who gave you authority to do this?" Jesus replied, "I will ask you one question. Answer me, and I will tell you by what authority I am doing these things. John's baptism--was it from heaven, or from men? Tell me!" They discussed it among themselves and said, "If we say, `From heaven,' he will ask, `Then why didn't you believe him?' But if we say, `From men'...." (They feared the people, for everyone held that John really was a prophet.) So they answered Jesus, "We don't know." Jesus said, "Neither will I tell you by what authority I am doing these things."

Peace,

Nomad

P.S. Have you heard from Doherty yet on what he meant in our other discussion about the Pauline school?

NOMAD: As for Philip eagerly (and with great irony) accepting Mark's apologetic explaining the necessity of the baptism by a prophet

EARL: Misrepresentation. Mark 11:27-33 doesn't show that Jesus necessarily had to be baptized. What Mark 11:27-33 shows is that Mark wasn't remotely embarrassed about saying Jesus was baptized, because he believed (1) Jesus was not born sinless, (2) John was a prophet from God, (3) Jesus acquired some earthly authority through his baptism by John plus John's inferiority statement.



NOMAD: (even though the Jews of the day did not accept it as such),

EARL: The Jews rejected Christianity for dozens of reasons, the most important of which were Paul's wholesale repudiation of Jewish law, Christian idolatry and Christian polytheism. Jesus' baptism would not have added to these elementary obstacles to Jewish allegiance.



NOMAD: well, I am very glad that he accepts it as being reasonable. On the other hand, on what basis do he treat this saying as being historical?

EARL: Big honking misrepresentation. I never said Mark 11:27-33 is necessarily historical. The passage in question merely points to Mark's BELIEF that Jesus' baptism was not embarrassing, not that Jesus' baptism happened or that it happened for any particular reason. We're talking about the embarrassment criterion which has everything to do with Mark's BELIEFS. If Mark would have believed that Jesus would definitely not have needed a baptism then that would add some weight to the claim that Jesus' baptism was historical. Mark 11:27-38 points not so much to the baptism's historicity as to Mark's justification for adding the baptism story to his narrative.



NOMAD: Further, since Jews obviously do not consider John the Baptist to be a true prophet, what makes you think that Mark is being truthful in his statement here?

EARL: I don't care if Mark was lying through his teeth. What his statement shows is that Mark would not have believed the baptism was embarrassing; Mark would have believed at least that there was good reason for justifying the baptism based on John's popularity. I don't care if Mark's statement regarding John's authority was absolutely false. False or not the statement gives Mark's reason for a lack of embarrassment regarding the baptism story. Hence the embarrassment criterion doesn't add to the evidence for Jesus' existence via Mark's baptism story. Mark wasn't embarrassed by the baptism because he thought John had divine authority, Jesus wasn't sinless at his birth, and Jesus would have benefited from John's assistance. Your case is dead in the water.



NOMAD: Are you suddenly finding the Gospels to be more honest in their presentation than you have in the past?

EARL: Again, the historicity of Mark 11:27-33 is not the issue. This passage simply reflects Mark's belief about the baptism and his evident lack of embarrassment by it.



NOMAD: Sceptical scholars see it as Christian apologetics at its finest. Are you accepting that apologetic now because it serves your argument Philip?

EARL: I'm not "accepting the apologetic" in terms of its historicity. I'm accepting Mark 11:27-33 as a statement of Mark's lack of embarrassment regarding the baptism story. Period.



NOMAD: P.S. Have you heard from Doherty yet on what he meant in our other discussion about the Pauline school?

EARL: I've never been in direct contact with Doherty by personal email. My analysis of Doherty's "building on" comment stands regardless of what Doherty meant by it.

Umm... then why was Jesus baptized in your view? (According to Mark)

Where did Mark say this?

Mark and Christians think so, of course, but Jews do not. Therefore the embarrassment remains, since Jesus did not receive a valid annointing, nor did the baptism have any value in Jewish eyes. Stop thinking like a modern Philip.

Again, this was Mark's apologetic, to explain the baptism, I am just wondering why you buy into it.

I think you need to talk to more observant Jews Philip. The Jews will tell you that Jesus did not fulfill the Messianic prophesies, and the baptism certainly did not change this "fact" in their view.

Try it this way Philip...

If Mark is making this passage up, then he is doing so for a reason, and that is to cover up the embarrassment of the baptism, to make it more pallatable to Christians (and 21st Century desperate mythicists ).

And this is where you have tripped up from the start Philip. The episode is embarrassing to the target audience (regardless of how Mark, or even Matthew and Luke, feels about it), which is the first Christians, namely Jews. They needed to make Jesus look like the Messiah, and this was especially true for Matthew. Yet this event (and others) stand there, in their witnessing, even though it fulfills no prophesy, nor expectation for the Messiah.

You really do not see the apologetic do you? You are so stuck in your mode needing to psychoanalyze Mark that you do not bother to mere read the text, and place it within 1st Century Messianic expectations. The Jews knew what they were looking for so far as the Messiah was concerned. Jesus did not meet those expectations, so they rejected him. The evangelists did the best they could with a bad situation (if you listen to ANY sceptical authority on this matter), and as I said, the irony is that the only people that have accepted that apologetic are Christians and mythicists.

You missed the point Philip. If the Jews did not see John as a prophet, then this episode may very well not have occured at all, in which case Mark is making it up to try and cover up the embarrassment of why the baptism happened at all.

It is pretty elementary really. I am at a loss as to why you don't see it.

An author can feel any way he wants about his material Philip, but if the audience isn't buying it, then we have to ask ourselves why. Your continued failure to understand the criterion of embarrassment is quite sad, but I am afraid I cannot help you beyond continuing to tell you the obvious.

Of course it is central to the discussion Philip. If Mark made this up, he did it to cover up the embarrassment of the baptism, and to try and make a folk hero like John inferior to Jesus, the person Mark obviously wanted his readers to see as THE Messiah.

Yeah, I know what you are doing Philip. Unfortunately, you need to study history more, and understand how sceptical scholarship works. I assure you, I am reporting the criterion exclussively from their perspective, and how they use this tool. I am surprised at how willing you are top eject their arguments and to embrace 1st Century Christian apologetics.

That said, welcome aboard. We may make a Christian of you yet.

I know how impressed you are with your own speculations Philip. Let's just say that I would rather hear it from the horses mouth before I believe it. In this case, that means from the real Earl.

Thanks,

Nomad

[This message has been edited by Nomad (edited May 30, 2001).]

Again, the question isn't what Philip believes, nor what first century Jews generally believed. (Doh! Christianity wasn't Jewish orthodoxy.) It's what Mark believed. Second or third time Nomad has thrown out this red herring.

Nomad,

Why do you assume that Mark was writing to Jews?

Do you know where and when his gospel was written?

If so, you seem to know more than most people.

fG

One of the theories is (or was) that Mark was written at Rome while Paul was in prison with Mark attending to him. This has sometime been used to explain the abrupt ending of the original (i.e. something catastrophic like the execution of Paul and maybe Mark).