Freethought & Rationalism Archive

hjalti · 04-25-2012, 12:27 PM

The baptism of Jesus by John is often considered by historicists as one of the most solid facts of the life of Jesus, and the reason they give is the good ol' criterion of embarassment. Richard Carrier discusses this specific example in a new article in Bible and Interpretation: Bayes’ Theorem and the Modern Historian (*.pdf)

Here's a large part of what Carrier says about the baptism of Jesus:

Quote:

John Meier gets it wrong, however, when he attempts to use the “criterion of embarrassment” to argue for the historicity of “the baptism of the supposedly superior and sinless Jesus by his supposed inferior, John the Baptist” (who was proclaiming “a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins”).[28] Meier says this must have been embarrassing to Mark, because it contradicts Christian beliefs (that Jesus was “superior” and “sinless”), and because subsequent evangelists scrambled for damage control. But this is the same double error Meier himself refuted in the case of Jesus’ cry on the cross.

First, we might see subsequent evangelists were embarrassed by the story, but Mark is not. Had he been, he would already have engaged the same damage control they did. In fact, this would have been done by transmitters of the story decades before it even got to Mark (probably even before Jesus had died). All the evidence of embarrassment is thus only post-Mark. Second, Meier simply assumes Mark (and all prior Christians) believed Jesus was “superior” and “sinless” and thus would not countenance anything implying otherwise. But neither is even plausible, much less established for early Christians, or even those of Mark’s time. Paul included Christ’s voluntary submission and humbling as fundamental to the Gospel (Philippians 2:5–11). Christians did not imagine Jesus as then “superior” until he was exalted by God at his resurrection (e.g., Romans 1:4, 1 Corinthians 15:20–28). There is nothing in Mark’s depiction of Jesus submitting to John that conflicts with this view. Only later Christians had a problem with it. So when we take our actual background knowledge into account, contrary to Meier, the evidence (Mark’s story) is not improbable.

Mark instead portrays what Christians originally thought: that Jesus would be exalted as the superior later on. Hence he has John say exactly this (Mark 1:7–8). Likewise, the notion that Jesus was “sinless” from birth is nowhere to be found in Mark or Paul. It is clearly a later development, and thus not a concern of Mark’s. To the contrary, Mark has full reason to invent Jesus’ baptism by John specifically to create his sinless state, so Jesus can be adopted by God, and then live sinlessly unto death. Mark makes a point of saying John’s baptism remits all sins (1:4), that Jesus submits to that baptism, and that God adopts Jesus immediately afterward (1:9–11). This is hardly a coincidence. The role of John and his baptism are explicitly stated by Mark: to prepare the way for the Lord (1:2–3). And that’s just what he does. There is no embarrassment here.

So when Meier insists “it is highly unlikely that the Church went out of its way to create the cause of its own embarrassment,” we can see in fact such a thing is not unlikely at all: once Christians started amplifying the divinity and sinlessness of Jesus, the story Mark had already popularized started to create a problem for them, so they had to redact that story to suit their changing theology. This proves Mark preceded those redactors and lacked their concerns, but it doesn’t prove Mark’s story is true. To the contrary, Mark had a clear motive to invent the story, particularly as he needed to cast someone as the predicted Elijah who would precede the messiah and “reconcile father and son” (see Mark 1:6 in light of 2 Kings 1:8; and Mark 9:11–14 in light of Malachi 4:5–6, LXX) and set up Jesus’ cleansing for adoption. Why not cast in that role his most revered predecessor, John the Baptist? Having John prepare Jesus by cleansing him of sin and establishing his divine parentage, and then endorsing Jesus as his successor, is actually far too convenient for Mark. Other scholars have made these same observations, and provided many other good reasons Mark would have had to invent this story, and there are additional reasons to doubt its authenticity besides.[29] And when all of that is taken into account, the story of Jesus’ baptism by John actually becomes somewhat improbable, and thus far from certainly true.

Because we can be certain it was not true that God publicly acknowledged his adoption of Jesus immediately after the baptism, or that John was sent by God to reconcile father and son, or that John actually declared Jesus not only his successor but one “mightier than I, the thong of whose sandals I am not worthy to stoop down and untie” and who would bestow on everyone a greater baptism than his. These all served Mark’s purposes (or his source’s) and yet all of them require inserting a famous Elijah-resembling baptizer into the framework to make those elements persuasively do their work. Actual history doesn’t work out that conveniently (except but rarely, which means, improbably). But literary creations, by their very nature, always do.

It has already be pointed out numerous times here that there really isn't any evidence of Mark being embarassed by this story (only the later evangelists), but I think that Carrier gives good reasons for why Mark (or someone else) would want to make it up.

So can we all agree to strike this story off the list of things we know about Jesus?

aa5874 · 04-25-2012, 12:43 PM

The HJ argument is just a Compilation of logical fallacies. I know this from Ehrman.

HJers themselves put forward the notion that Jesus was ENTIRELY human.

Therefore if Jesus was Baptized by John then he could NOT be perceived as sinless.

It could NOT have been embarrassing for an Ordinary man to have been Baptized by John. Hundreds of ordinary people were supposedly Baptized by John.

There were NO people called Christians on the day Jesus was baptized in gMark--Jesus was UNKNOWN even to John.

What embarrassment could there have been for Jewish Men, and Jesus [ if he was a man] to be baptized by John???

HJers OWN claim that Jesus was an ordinary man have destroyed the logical fallacy of embarrassment.

Solo · 04-26-2012, 10:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hjalti

The baptism of Jesus by John is often considered by historicists as one of the most solid facts of the life of Jesus, and the reason they give is the good ol' criterion of embarassment. Richard Carrier discusses this specific example in a new article in Bible and Interpretation: Bayes’ Theorem and the Modern Historian (*.pdf)

Here's a large part of what Carrier says about the baptism of Jesus:

Quote:

John Meier gets it wrong, however, when he attempts to use the “criterion of embarrassment” to argue for the historicity of “the baptism of the supposedly superior and sinless Jesus by his supposed inferior, John the Baptist” (who was proclaiming “a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins”).[28] Meier says this must have been embarrassing to Mark, because it contradicts Christian beliefs (that Jesus was “superior” and “sinless”), and because subsequent evangelists scrambled for damage control. But this is the same double error Meier himself refuted in the case of Jesus’ cry on the cross.

First, we might see subsequent evangelists were embarrassed by the story, but Mark is not. Had he been, he would already have engaged the same damage control they did. In fact, this would have been done by transmitters of the story decades before it even got to Mark (probably even before Jesus had died). All the evidence of embarrassment is thus only post-Mark. Second, Meier simply assumes Mark (and all prior Christians) believed Jesus was “superior” and “sinless” and thus would not countenance anything implying otherwise. But neither is even plausible, much less established for early Christians, or even those of Mark’s time. Paul included Christ’s voluntary submission and humbling as fundamental to the Gospel (Philippians 2:5–11). Christians did not imagine Jesus as then “superior” until he was exalted by God at his resurrection (e.g., Romans 1:4, 1 Corinthians 15:20–28). There is nothing in Mark’s depiction of Jesus submitting to John that conflicts with this view. Only later Christians had a problem with it. So when we take our actual background knowledge into account, contrary to Meier, the evidence (Mark’s story) is not improbable.

Mark instead portrays what Christians originally thought: that Jesus would be exalted as the superior later on. Hence he has John say exactly this (Mark 1:7–8). Likewise, the notion that Jesus was “sinless” from birth is nowhere to be found in Mark or Paul. It is clearly a later development, and thus not a concern of Mark’s. To the contrary, Mark has full reason to invent Jesus’ baptism by John specifically to create his sinless state, so Jesus can be adopted by God, and then live sinlessly unto death. Mark makes a point of saying John’s baptism remits all sins (1:4), that Jesus submits to that baptism, and that God adopts Jesus immediately afterward (1:9–11). This is hardly a coincidence. The role of John and his baptism are explicitly stated by Mark: to prepare the way for the Lord (1:2–3). And that’s just what he does. There is no embarrassment here.

So when Meier insists “it is highly unlikely that the Church went out of its way to create the cause of its own embarrassment,” we can see in fact such a thing is not unlikely at all: once Christians started amplifying the divinity and sinlessness of Jesus, the story Mark had already popularized started to create a problem for them, so they had to redact that story to suit their changing theology. This proves Mark preceded those redactors and lacked their concerns, but it doesn’t prove Mark’s story is true. To the contrary, Mark had a clear motive to invent the story, particularly as he needed to cast someone as the predicted Elijah who would precede the messiah and “reconcile father and son” (see Mark 1:6 in light of 2 Kings 1:8; and Mark 9:11–14 in light of Malachi 4:5–6, LXX) and set up Jesus’ cleansing for adoption. Why not cast in that role his most revered predecessor, John the Baptist? Having John prepare Jesus by cleansing him of sin and establishing his divine parentage, and then endorsing Jesus as his successor, is actually far too convenient for Mark. Other scholars have made these same observations, and provided many other good reasons Mark would have had to invent this story, and there are additional reasons to doubt its authenticity besides.[29] And when all of that is taken into account, the story of Jesus’ baptism by John actually becomes somewhat improbable, and thus far from certainly true.

Because we can be certain it was not true that God publicly acknowledged his adoption of Jesus immediately after the baptism, or that John was sent by God to reconcile father and son, or that John actually declared Jesus not only his successor but one “mightier than I, the thong of whose sandals I am not worthy to stoop down and untie” and who would bestow on everyone a greater baptism than his. These all served Mark’s purposes (or his source’s) and yet all of them require inserting a famous Elijah-resembling baptizer into the framework to make those elements persuasively do their work. Actual history doesn’t work out that conveniently (except but rarely, which means, improbably). But literary creations, by their very nature, always do.

It has already be pointed out numerous times here that there really isn't any evidence of Mark being embarassed by this story (only the later evangelists), but I think that Carrier gives good reasons for why Mark (or someone else) would want to make it up.

So can we all agree to strike this story off the list of things we know about Jesus?

I think Carrier is right and you are right. The Christology of the later synoptics was definitely higher than Mark's. Paul and Mark cared nothing about the external view of their mystical headset (compare Rom 1:16, 1 Cor 2:3 and Mk 8:38). Mark portrays Jesus as someone with a quck temper, 1:41, 3:5, 5:30, 10:14 and has his family i.e. those who knew him before the bird dropped the spirit on him, assess him as being out of his mind. The events after baptism are an acts of God. Even the baptism of John is alluded to as coming from heaven (11:30-33) . The criterion of embarrassment does not apply.

Best,
Jiri

stephan huller · 04-26-2012, 10:28 AM

Here is my question (I find almost all of these discussions so worthless now) - where is Celsus getting his information:

Quote:

When you, [Jesus], were bathing beside John, you say that what had the appearance of a bird from the air alighted upon you. What credible witness beheld this appearance? or who heard a voice from heaven declaring you to be the son of God? What proof is there of it, save your own assertion, and the statement of another of those individuals who have been punished along with you? This is your own testimony, unsupported save by one of those who were sharers of your punishment, whom you adduce.

This is really a very interesting take on the whole historical Jesus question. Celsus thinks that Jesus testified to the dove coming down on him and this was passed down (or witnessed) by someone who was crucified along with Jesus (= "one of those who were sharers of your punishment"). I think it might be useful to figure out what Celsus means exactly.

stephan huller · 04-26-2012, 10:34 AM

Here is the original Greek (Against Celsus 1:41):

Ἵνα δὲ μὴ δοκῶμεν ἑκόντες διὰ τὸ ἀπορεῖν ἀπαντή σεως ὑπερβαίνειν αὐτοῦ τὰ κεφάλαια, ἐκρίναμεν ἕκαστον κατὰ δύναμιν λῦσαι τῶν ὑπ' αὐτοῦ προτιθεμένων, φροντί σαντες οὐ τοῦ ἐν τῇ φύσει τῶν
πραγμάτων εἱρμοῦ καὶ ἀκολουθίας ἀλλὰ τῆς τάξεως τῶν ἐν τῇ βίβλῳ αὐτοῦ ἀναγε γραμμένων. Φέρ' οὖν ἴδωμεν, τί ποτε καὶ λέγει διαβάλλων τὸ οἷον σωματικῶς ἑωραμένον ὑπὸ τοῦ σωτῆρος πνεῦμα ἅγιον <ἐν> εἴδει περιστερᾶς· ἔστι δ' ὁ Ἰουδαῖος αὐτῷ ἔτι ταῦτα λέγων, πρὸς ὃν ὁμολογοῦμεν εἶναι κύριον ἡμῶν τὸν Ἰησοῦν· Λουομένῳ, φησί, σοὶ παρὰ τῷ Ἰωάννῃ φάσμα ὄρνιθος ἐξ ἀέρος λέγεις ἐπιπτῆναι. Εἶτα πυνθανόμενος ὁ παρ' αὐτῷ Ἰουδαῖός φησι· Τίς τοῦτο εἶδεν ἀξιόχρεως μάρτυς τὸ φάσμα, ἢ τίς ἤκουσεν ἐξ οὐρανοῦ φωνῆς εἰσποιού σης σε υἱὸν τῷ θεῷ; Πλὴν ὅτι σὺ φῂς καί τινα ἕνα ἐπάγῃ τῶν μετὰ σοῦ κεκολασμένων.

and again Against Celsus 1:49:

Ἐπεὶ δὲ Ἰουδαῖός ἐστιν ὁ παρὰ τῷ Κέλσῳ λέγων τῷ Ἰησοῦ περὶ τῶν κατὰ τὸ πνεῦμα τὸ ἅγιον ἐν εἴδει περιστερᾶς τό· Πλὴν ὅτι σὺ φῂς καί τινα ἕνα ἐπάγῃ τῶν μετὰ σοῦ κεκολασμένων, ἀναγκαῖον αὐτῷ παραστῆσαι ὅτι καὶ τοῦτο οὐκ οἰκείως τῷ ἰουδαϊκῷ προσώπῳ περιέθηκεν. Οὐδὲ γὰρ συνάπτουσι τὸν Ἰωάννην οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι τῷ Ἰησουκαὶ τὴν Ἰωάννου τῇ τοῦ Ἰησοῦ κολάσει. Καὶ ἐν τούτῳ οὖν ἐλέγχεται ὁ πάντ' ἀλαζονευσάμενος εἰδέναι μὴ ἐγνωκώς, τίνα προσάψῃ ῥήματα τῷ ἰουδαϊκῷ πρὸς τὸν Ἰησοῦν προσώπῳ

stephan huller · 04-26-2012, 10:46 AM

Origen raises questions that the individual who was punished with Jesus was John the Baptist:

Quote:

And as it is a Jew who, in the work of Celsus, uses the language to Jesus regarding the appearance of the Holy Spirit in the form of a dove, "This is your own testimony, unsupported save by one of those who were sharers of your punishment, whom you adduce," it is necessary for us to show him that such a statement is not appropriately placed in the mouth of a Jew. For the Jews do not connect John with Jesus, nor the punishment of John with that of Christ. And by this instance, this man who boasts of universal knowledge is convicted of not knowing what words he ought to ascribe to a Jew engaged in a disputation with Jesus.

Remember the surviving testimony regarding Celsus's original work is like a matryoshka doll - we have Origen telling us about Celsus's original lengthy citation of a Jewish work which makes these statements. Origen rhetorically raises doubts that Celsus's source is legitimate. In this case he asks - how could a Jewish source have connected Jesus's punishment with John when Jews don't do that? Yet the figure of the one 'who was checked or chastised along with Jesus' isn't necessarily a reference to John. It just seems like that because our gospels have John as a witness.

The situation is very akin to those who argue for the falseness of the Mar Saba document merely because they don't like what it says. Origen is saying Celsus forged this text in order to plant words in it which suited his argument. But we no longer can see how this text was utilized by Celsus - i.e. what it's 'function' was.

I have always thought that the original source must have been someone very significant - i.e. a Jew like Philo, whose testimony was very damaging by virtue of its association with a figure close to Christianity.

stephan huller · 04-26-2012, 11:08 AM

And then it occurs to me. Celsus is clearly referencing the Ebionite gospel:

Quote:

And the beginning of their Gospel runs:

It came to pass in the days of Herod the king of Judaea, when Caiaphas was high priest, that there came one, John by name, and baptized with the baptism of repentance in the river Jordan. It was said of him that he was of the lineage of Aaron the priest, a son of Zacharias and Elisabeth : and all went out to him. (Epiphanius, Panarion 30.13.6)

And after much has been recorded it proceeds:

When the people were baptized, Jesus also came and was baptized by John. And as he came up from the water, the heavens was opened and he saw the Holy Spirit in the form of a dove that descended and entered into him. And a voice sounded from Heaven that said: "You are my beloved Son, in you I am well pleased. " And again: " I have this day begotten you". And immediately a great light shone round about the place. When John saw this, it is said, he said unto him : "Who are you, Lord?" And again a voice from Heaven rang out to him: "This is my beloved Son in whom I am well pleased." And then, it is said, John fell down before him and said: "I beseech you, Lord, baptize me." But he prevented him and said: "Suffer it; for thus it is fitting that everything should be fulfilled." (Epiphanius, Panarion 30.13.7-8)

Clearly this is the text Celsus was using and clearly also John is the one identified as being 'chastised' along with Jesus. This is significant.

stephan huller · 04-26-2012, 11:15 AM

So one of Celsus's sources is certainly and without question the Gospel of the Ebionites. He also knew Marcionite arguments. He does not use the Catholic gospel of Matthew. He may not even have been aware of the Catholic quaternion. When did Celsus write? I have never been able to figure that one out. There are compelling arguments for (a) the period immediately following the Bar Kochba revolt (b) the joint rule of Marcus Aurelius and his Lucius Verus and (c) the joint rule of Marcus Aurelius and Commodus.

stephan huller · 04-26-2012, 11:20 AM

And before mythicists tie themselves up in knots figuring out a way to deny this testimony, they should read what immediately follows in Epiphanius:

Quote:

Moreover, they deny that he was a man, evidently on the ground of the word which the Saviour spoke when it was reported to him:

"Behold, your mother and your brethren stand without." namely: "Who is my mother and who are my brethren?" And he stretched his hand towards his disciples and said: "These are my brethren and mother and sisters, who do the will of my Father." (Epiphanius, Panarion 30.14.5)

They say that Christ was not begotten of God the Father, but created as one of the archangels ... that he rules over the angels and all the creatures of the Almighty, and that he came and declared, as their Gospel, which is called Gospel according to Matthew, or Gospel According to the Hebrews?, reports:

"I am come to do away with sacrfices, and if you cease not sacrificing, the wrath of God will not cease from you." (Epiphanius, Panarion 30.16,4-5)

But they abandon the proper sequence of the words and pervert the saying, as is plain to all from the readings attached, and have let the disciples say:

"Where will you have us prepare the passover?" And him to answer to that: "Do I desire with desire at this Passover to eat flesh with you?" (Epiphanius, Panarion 30.22.4)

stephan huller · 04-26-2012, 11:31 AM

I know I am biased - and possibly quite vain (although many, many years of marriage may have finally broken my spirit), but isn't my approach to the question of the baptism of Jesus superior to everyone else? I mean, I don't get in the way of the ancient sources. I just let them speak and we see that - without a doubt - on both sides (i.e. the 'Jewish Christian' and Marcionite) traditions that Jesus was not a man but that the gospel nevertheless said he was baptized by John. I happen to think the Marcionites and the Ebionites were one and the same (or related) but then again what do I know.

I also don't know why everyone is so tied up in knots about Ehrman or Carrier's response to Ehrman. It is so stupid to define what is clearly an ancient tradition be defined by what a bunch of modern nitwits have to say about this ancient tradition. The sources are right there. Neither Ehrman or Carrier has any 'magic powers' of understanding. Just spend the time seeing what the sources themselves say and I am sure you will all see that Jesus was originally conceived as a God who was later adapted to a human being.

All the intellectual games and fighting back and forth is a waste of time.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

04-25-2012, 12:43 PM	#2
aa5874 Contributor Join Date: Feb 2006 Location: the fringe of the caribbean Posts: 18,988	The HJ argument is just a Compilation of logical fallacies. I know this from Ehrman. HJers themselves put forward the notion that Jesus was ENTIRELY human. Therefore if Jesus was Baptized by John then he could NOT be perceived as sinless. It could NOT have been embarrassing for an Ordinary man to have been Baptized by John. Hundreds of ordinary people were supposedly Baptized by John. There were NO people called Christians on the day Jesus was baptized in gMark--Jesus was UNKNOWN even to John. What embarrassment could there have been for Jewish Men, and Jesus [ if he was a man] to be baptized by John??? HJers OWN claim that Jesus was an ordinary man have destroyed the logical fallacy of embarrassment.

04-26-2012, 10:34 AM	#5
stephan huller Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: seattle, wa Posts: 9,337	Here is the original Greek (Against Celsus 1:41): Ἵνα δὲ μὴ δοκῶμεν ἑκόντες διὰ τὸ ἀπορεῖν ἀπαντή σεως ὑπερβαίνειν αὐτοῦ τὰ κεφάλαια, ἐκρίναμεν ἕκαστον κατὰ δύναμιν λῦσαι τῶν ὑπ' αὐτοῦ προτιθεμένων, φροντί σαντες οὐ τοῦ ἐν τῇ φύσει τῶν πραγμάτων εἱρμοῦ καὶ ἀκολουθίας ἀλλὰ τῆς τάξεως τῶν ἐν τῇ βίβλῳ αὐτοῦ ἀναγε γραμμένων. Φέρ' οὖν ἴδωμεν, τί ποτε καὶ λέγει διαβάλλων τὸ οἷον σωματικῶς ἑωραμένον ὑπὸ τοῦ σωτῆρος πνεῦμα ἅγιον <ἐν> εἴδει περιστερᾶς· ἔστι δ' ὁ Ἰουδαῖος αὐτῷ ἔτι ταῦτα λέγων, πρὸς ὃν ὁμολογοῦμεν εἶναι κύριον ἡμῶν τὸν Ἰησοῦν· Λουομένῳ, φησί, σοὶ παρὰ τῷ Ἰωάννῃ φάσμα ὄρνιθος ἐξ ἀέρος λέγεις ἐπιπτῆναι. Εἶτα πυνθανόμενος ὁ παρ' αὐτῷ Ἰουδαῖός φησι· Τίς τοῦτο εἶδεν ἀξιόχρεως μάρτυς τὸ φάσμα, ἢ τίς ἤκουσεν ἐξ οὐρανοῦ φωνῆς εἰσποιού σης σε υἱὸν τῷ θεῷ; Πλὴν ὅτι σὺ φῂς καί τινα ἕνα ἐπάγῃ τῶν μετὰ σοῦ κεκολασμένων. and again Against Celsus 1:49: Ἐπεὶ δὲ Ἰουδαῖός ἐστιν ὁ παρὰ τῷ Κέλσῳ λέγων τῷ Ἰησοῦ περὶ τῶν κατὰ τὸ πνεῦμα τὸ ἅγιον ἐν εἴδει περιστερᾶς τό· Πλὴν ὅτι σὺ φῂς καί τινα ἕνα ἐπάγῃ τῶν μετὰ σοῦ κεκολασμένων, ἀναγκαῖον αὐτῷ παραστῆσαι ὅτι καὶ τοῦτο οὐκ οἰκείως τῷ ἰουδαϊκῷ προσώπῳ περιέθηκεν. Οὐδὲ γὰρ συνάπτουσι τὸν Ἰωάννην οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι τῷ Ἰησουκαὶ τὴν Ἰωάννου τῇ τοῦ Ἰησοῦ κολάσει. Καὶ ἐν τούτῳ οὖν ἐλέγχεται ὁ πάντ' ἀλαζονευσάμενος εἰδέναι μὴ ἐγνωκώς, τίνα προσάψῃ ῥήματα τῷ ἰουδαϊκῷ πρὸς τὸν Ἰησοῦν προσώπῳ

04-26-2012, 11:15 AM	#8
stephan huller Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: seattle, wa Posts: 9,337	So one of Celsus's sources is certainly and without question the Gospel of the Ebionites. He also knew Marcionite arguments. He does not use the Catholic gospel of Matthew. He may not even have been aware of the Catholic quaternion. When did Celsus write? I have never been able to figure that one out. There are compelling arguments for (a) the period immediately following the Bar Kochba revolt (b) the joint rule of Marcus Aurelius and his Lucius Verus and (c) the joint rule of Marcus Aurelius and Commodus.

04-26-2012, 11:31 AM	#10
stephan huller Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: seattle, wa Posts: 9,337	I know I am biased - and possibly quite vain (although many, many years of marriage may have finally broken my spirit), but isn't my approach to the question of the baptism of Jesus superior to everyone else? I mean, I don't get in the way of the ancient sources. I just let them speak and we see that - without a doubt - on both sides (i.e. the 'Jewish Christian' and Marcionite) traditions that Jesus was not a man but that the gospel nevertheless said he was baptized by John. I happen to think the Marcionites and the Ebionites were one and the same (or related) but then again what do I know. I also don't know why everyone is so tied up in knots about Ehrman or Carrier's response to Ehrman. It is so stupid to define what is clearly an ancient tradition be defined by what a bunch of modern nitwits have to say about this ancient tradition. The sources are right there. Neither Ehrman or Carrier has any 'magic powers' of understanding. Just spend the time seeing what the sources themselves say and I am sure you will all see that Jesus was originally conceived as a God who was later adapted to a human being. All the intellectual games and fighting back and forth is a waste of time.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.