spamandham

Did you not notice the hypothesis that results from it?

Mark, and his audience, viewed John as an authority figure. This doesn't help us explain anything? :huh:

Steven Carr

So what is embarrassing about that?

If I claim that Stephen Hawking considers me the greatest physicist in the world, is my embarrassment proof that I have discussed physics with Stephen Hawking?

aeebee50

Embarrassment should go to the ones responsible for doubting Jesus. Roman soldiers were just a tool in the well laid plan of God.

ApostateAbe

The claim that Mark and his audience viewed JtB as an authority figure follows from the contents of Mark and the other gospels. It does not follow from your explanation that Mark was a mix between intended history and intended entertainment. If we were to discard your theory, then we would be left with a theory that explains everything--JtB was an authority figure to the Christians, Jesus was the highest authority figure, and there was a problem because Jesus was a disciple of JtB and he was publicly baptized by JtB. With that theory, we seem to expect everything that we read. With your theory, we read things in the gospels that we do not expect to read.

ApostateAbe

The extreme deference is difficult to explain except with the historical context and the plausible reality that follows from the claim that JtB baptized Jesus. Both Christianity and the cult of JtB were two apocalyptic cults that existed in the same time and place. The explanation is that: Jesus was a disciple of JtB, Christians didn't like that because it meant that JtB was superior, so they adjusted the myth of the baptism of Jesus in their own favor at the expense of the cult of JtB. But, if you can explain the passages the same way you would be able to explain Stephen Hawking calling you the greatest physicist in the world, then go for it. The point is that we need the best explanation.

Toto

The gospels never claim that Jesus was a disciple of John. That is an explanation invented by modern historians trying to make sense of things.

The gospels only claim that John was the forerunner of Jesus, and a player in the drama of his existence in the flesh.

spamandham

Does it really make any sense to presume that Mark and his audience were also familiar with the other canonical gospels? No, it does not.

You can not legitimately analyze Mark and his audience by reading works by other authors, unless you can first show that Mark is a derivative work of those other texts. But almost everyone, myself included, buys the arguments used to conclude that Mark is the earliest of the canonical gospels. This is very sloppy reasoning Abe.

Sure it does.

Let's suppose for a moment that Mark was pure fiction. What does that tell us about John in the eyes of Mark? Obviously, John is viewed as someone with the authority, else there is no reason to include him in the story.

How can you say this conclusion doesn't follow?

So what happens to the silly argument from embarrassment then? If Mark and his audience viewed John as an authority figure, then why would it be embarrassing to them for John to present Jesus at the start of Jesus' ministry? There is nothing embarrassing about that at all.

....such as?

(note, the idea of tragedy applies only to Mark, or perhaps proto-Mark, so let's not muddle things up by including later works in the discussion)

spamandham

What is the basis for claiming that JtB was apocalyptic?

ApostateAbe

It is a probability based on early Christian beliefs. Matthew 3:10 and Luke 3:9 (gospel of Q) quote JtB as saying:

"The axe is already laid at the root of the trees; therefore every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire."

Apocalypticism is something that a state leader would fear, so it makes plausible sense given that JtB was put to death by Herod, according to both the gospels and Josephus. It is uncertain and not essential to my point, though, so I am not willing to argue it at length.

aa5874

The criterion of EMBARRASSMENT is most absurd.

If we even assume that the Synoptics were based on oral tradition then it was NOT embarrassing to the EARLY Jesus cult that Jesus was BAPTIZED by John and it would have been the ONLY event that was BELIEVED to be PLEASING in oral tradition.

In gMark and gLuke, the BAPTISM of Jesus by John was the ONLY event where it was CLAIMED God was PLEASED and the author of gMathew did ALSO make a similar claim.

Now, if ApostateAbe is now claiming that the Baptism of Jesus was EMBARRASSING when it was recorded as PLEASING even by God, then he has in fact DISCREDITED the VERACITY of the authors of the Synoptics.