Toto

Jordan- Officials, church leaders denounce Israel claim to site of Jesus' Baptism

gupwalla

Ah, the Religious Antiquities Tourism Industry strikes again!

This would all be but a curious footnote in the research journals if only the two sites lay within the same tourism taxation zone.

avi

Mark 1:9
A. Alexandrian:
kai egeneto en ekeinaiV taiV hmeraiV hlqen ihsouV apo nazaret thV galilaiaV kai ebaptisqh eiV ton iordanhn upo iwannou

B. Byzantine:
kai egeneto en ekeinaiV taiV hmeraiV hlqen ihsouV apo nazaret thV galilaiaV kai ebaptisqh upo iwannou eiV ton iordanhn

Though the two different Greek versions change the emphasis, (B. by John, versus A. in the Jordan River), ALL of the English translations maintain the Byzantine word order.

Maybe I am just being picky, fussing over something without any significance. Why would the Byzantine version change the word order, emphasizing John's role, rather than the location where this episode supposedly took place. For an event described as of such importance, is it not strange that the gospels do not spell out in detail, precisely where this event occurred?

If baptism, for Jesus, required his entering the river Jordan, then, how did the Catholics (or others) manage to change the procedure to one affecting primarily infants, with a technique consisting of a mere sprinkling of "holy" water, by the priest, rather than the whole body immersion process of an adult, presumably enacted by John at the River Jordan? Why wasn't Jesus baptized as an infant?

Mark 1:10, the next verse, clarifies that Jesus indeed was immersed, as an adult, into the river:

A: Alexandrian
kai euqus anabainwn ek tou udatoV eiden scizomenouV touV ouranouV kai to pneuma ws peristeran katabainon eis auton

B: Byzantine
kai euqews anabainwn apo tou udatoV eiden scizomenouV touV ouranouV kai to pneuma wsei peristeran katabainon ep auton

World English Bible:
Matthew's account of the same event, changes the meaning of the Baptism ritual slightly, (from signalling the relationship of JC to God, the father, via the spirit (dove), using one supposes, his dark, husky voice (Mark 1:11),) offering the reader of his account, a more ominous, theological significance of this process of immersion in water:

Matthew 3:11

A. Alexandrian:
egw men umaV baptizw en udati eiV metanoian o de opisw mou ercomenoV iscuroteroV mou estin ou ouk eimi ikanoV ta upodhmata bastasai autoV umaV baptisei en pneumati agiw kai puri

B. Byzantine:
egw men baptizw umaV en udati eiV metanoian o de opisw mou ercomenoV iscuroteroV mou estin ou ouk eimi ikanoV ta upodhmata bastasai autoV umaV baptisei en pneumati agiw

World English:
WHOA, nellie, do you see what I see?

OOPSIE, somebody forgot to translate "kai puri". Fortunately, the Vulgate did not forget: "et igni".

All of the other English versions, e.g. King James, ALSO translate this verse using the Alexandrian version, "with fire", instead of the Byzantine version, which omits "kai puri". (I never had thought of fire as purifying, but this passage just goes to show that those ancient Greeks knew a lot more microbiology than we give them credit for.....)

Why? Why did the Byzantine version omit "with fire"?

Notice that word, "metanoian", English: repentance? Yes, Matthew has changed the baptism story from one focused on JC and his relationship to God, to an action involving--well, no, actually, REQUIRING, ACTION BY--the readers/listeners of his story.

Either we repent, or we end up in a very bad place:

Here's the next verse, explaining that scenario, Alexandrian and Byzantine versions identical for this verse:

ou to ptuon en th ceiri autou kai diakaqariei thn alwna autou kai sunaxei ton siton autou eiV thn apoqhkhn to de acuron katakausei puri asbestw

You may have misunderstood that last word in the verse, "asbestw", thinking that it implied protection from the fire, but no, Matthew means, contrarily, that we will burn without asbestos protection, if we do not repent.

Luke's version, in harmony with both Mark and Matthew, but, without explicitly citing John's role, simply reiterates the heaven's opening, and the Dove descending:

Luke 3:21
Alexandrian (= Byzantine)

egeneto de en tw baptisqhnai apanta ton laon kai ihsou baptisqentoV kai proseucomenou anewcqhnai ton ouranon

World English Bible:
Of interest to me, is the fact that, as Philosopher Jay has pointed out, in another thread, the Gospels refer to ihsou, without the accompanying word cristou.

John's Gospel does not even mention Jesus by name:

John 1:33 (Alexandrian = Byzantine)

kagw ouk hdein auton all o pemyaV me baptizein en udati ekeinoV moi eipen ef on an idhV to pneuma katabainon kai menon ep auton outoV estin o baptizwn en pneumati agiw

World English Bible:

"on whoever"???? Hmmm.

Well, now we arrive at the central point: Paul's first letter to Corinthians.

Context: Matthew wrote in chapter 28, verse 19 (Alexandrian = Byzantine)

poreuqenteV oun maqhteusate panta ta eqnh baptizonteV autouV eiV to onoma tou patroV kai tou uiou kai tou agiou pneumatoV

World English Bible:
Baptize: Go out and Baptize. But, Paul repudiates Matthew in 1 Corinthians 1:17

Alexandrian:

ou gar apesteilen me cristoV baptizein alla euaggelizesqai ouk en sofia logou ina mh kenwqh o stauroV tou cristou

Byzantine:
ou gar apesteilen me cristoV baptizein all euaggelizesqai ouk en sofia logou ina mh kenwqh o stauroV tou cristou

World English Bible:
Notice, as Philosopher Jay has explained: Paul generally refers to JC as "cristou", not as "ihsou".

So, in my opinion, this baptism story is very complicated, with lots of forks in the road, and many issues to explain. I think the storyline is far more complex than simply figuring out, whether John plied his trade from the left bank or the right bank of the Jordan River.

To my way of thinking, Paul's first correspondence with the Corinthians suggests that his letter was written, as aa5874, among others, has argued, previously on this forum, after the gospels, not before the Gospels, else, how can one interpret the apparent repudiation of Matthew's directive?

avi

Horatio Parker

Competing agendas?

If the gospels were written in competition with each other, supporting rival views or factions, then there would be no coherent narrative.

Toto

Follow up: A senior official on Monday called on Christian leaders to help establish beyond doubt that the Kingdom [or Jordan] hosts the holy site where Jesus Christ was baptised by John the Baptist.

Should be easy, since it's an unquestioned historical fact.

EarlDoherty

Hmmm...I wonder why all these Christian religious leaders so sure of the location of Christ's baptism don't check all the other documents of the Christian record outside the Gospels to see where they place this unquestionable historical fact?

Perhaps someone mentions the tradition of the voice and dove from heaven, which might help locate the event where witnesses had seen it. Or perhaps someone might at least have mentioned John the Baptist as the one who performed this rite, thus confirming the Gospel account.

With all his talk about believers being "baptized into Christ", perhaps Paul had something to say about the place of Christ's own baptism, even a suggestion that a Christian's rite of baptism into Christ might be that much more powerful an experience if performed at the very site of Christ's own at the Jordan.

Perhaps some clue might lie in some non-Gospel writer who happened to mention the bare fact that Jesus had been baptized.

Sadly, no...

Earl Doherty

avi

Thank you Earl, well written. Perhaps it is not so strange that there are essentially no first century commentaries on the presumptive baptism of Jesus, since, in my view, at least, there were no documents about Jesus until the second century.

avi

Juststeve

Yes but Avi's view, that there were no first century documents about Jesus, is a distinctly minority, even fringe view. As such no one need take it seriously until substantial proof, not argument is offered.

Steve

Toto

But there are no first century documents surviving about Jesus. There are religious documents that are claimed to be based on first century writings. But no one familiar with the scholarly debate on the issue thinks that the issue is so well settled that any point of view can be summarily rejected.

Juststeve

Toto:

Always at the ready to defend the myther. Avi's assertion was "there were no documents about Jesus until the second century." Notice the tense. His point was not that the first century documents no longer exist, it was that there never were any. That is a claim on a par with the claim that Aliens helped build the pyramids. People believe that, they write books about that, they go one television and say so, but serious people don't pay much attention.

Steve