JoeWallack

JW:
I suspect that "Mark" writing that John baptized Jesus was just another of many anachronisms in "Mark". It is more representative of a Christian practice in Paul's time than a Jewish practice in Jesus' supposed time. Paul set Jesus as a model for Christian behavior so "Mark", fleshing out Paul's outline of Jesus, projects that Jesus started the same Way that Christians who are supposed to follow him start out (baptism).

A significant piece of the defense here for the historicity of the baptism is the attitude:

Why would "Mark" make it up?

Keep in mind that all we know is that:

"Mark" wrote it.

There's a difference between writing it and believing it. Hey, I read that "Mark" did not believe that John baptized Jesus. Yea, I wrote it down and than I read it. The even bigger potential difference is between believing it and knowing it.

The whole question is starting to remind me of the famous chicken joke:

Why did the chicken cross the road?

Why did John baptize Jesus?

To get to the "other" side.



Joseph

ErrancyWiki

Vivisector

I think you're exactly right, as is Toto - this is the adoption scene. My question is, why connect the adoption to baptism - specifically, to baptism by JtB his-own-self? Is there no other device that Mark could have used that would have avoided the issues that the other gospel authors seem to have tried to sidestep?

Cheers,

V.

dog-on

Why would Mark care about future redactors?

aa5874

Again, the author of gMark does NOT "flesh" out Paul's outline. The Jesus story PREDATE "Paul" based on the Pauline writings. There was some written source that STATED Jesus DIED, was BURIED and was RAISED from the dead BEFORE "Paul".

1 Cor.15 3 There was some WRITTEN source AVAILABLE to "Paul" about Jesus Christ and "Paul" claimed he NOW preached the Faith he once destroyed.

gMark does NOT need "Paul" and show no influence by "Paul".

Now , this is evident when "Paul" claimed he was NOT called to BAPTIZE but the author of gMark BAPTIZED Jesus.

"Paul" THANKED GOD he baptized only a FEW but the author of gMark claimed God was PLEASED with the Baptism of Jesus.

It is OBVIOUS that "Paul" was AWARE that some, perhaps like John the Baptist was called to BAPTIZED but Paul implied that Baptism was a HINDRANCE to the Gospel of the Crucifixion.

1Co 1:17 - Now, why have people PRESUMED that gMark is the first Jesus story of the Baptism and that he is writing history?

Why was the Son of God baptized if he did NOT exist?

Mr 15:39 - ALL we have is a FICTION STORY of a character called Jesus the Son of God who was baptized by John the Baptist.

mountainman

The why question might be answered according to the cultural context of the author if it could be established that the notion of some kind of ritual baptism in various non christian forms may have existed in the Panhellenic millieu of the first three centuries. Is there evidence for non christian "baptism-like rites"? Do we know what the "Mystery Rites" described by Emperor Julian entailed? Julian does for example describe a re-awaking ritual, and seeing the sun again and that sort of stuff.

aa5874

So, WHY is the uknown author NOT merely REPEATING some ORAL tradition?

avi

In my opinion, obviously amateurish, this episode is not about JC at all. The purpose of this vignette, according to no one else, I am sure, is to elevate the stature of John the Baptist, by demonstrating that he was so important that even the godlike, ghostly, mystery man called JC was subservient to him.

I have no other explanation for why Lord Constantine assigned to John the Baptist the single most important holiday of the pagan calendar. Why is JtB still revered as a prophet, i.e. stature equivalent to (not less than) that of JC, by Muslims?

Somewhere, eons ago, this legend, John the Baptist acquired an importance which has been lost over time, so that we get all worked up about JC, instead of JtB, the real focus of Mark's fable reported in this chapter of his novel...

avi

maryhelena

I think I’d go for the baptism story being as much about JtB as it is about JC....

Since I don’t consider either figure historical - I would look to history for some ideas re this story. Interestingly, an important point made in the Nativity gospel of James is that both boy children, Jesus and John, are both destined to be King of Israel. What that means is that both figures were, at one time, considered messianic figurers. Obviously, no two kings are to rule simultaneously (the 6 month or so difference in the birth narratives is just that - a means to connect the two figures in a prophetic time slot, ie not historically.)

Historically, we have the last King of the Jews, Antigonus, crucified, scourged, mocked and beheaded, in 37 b.c. We have the later Agrippa I - a King both Philo and Josephus have inferred messianic ideas about. Philo, with his Carabbas symbolism re Antigonus and Josephus with his Joseph story re Agrippa I. If Agrippa I was made King around 37 ce - then we have about 74 years between these two historical Kings. Two Kings that are being used as models for the JC and JtB storyline re the baptism, the adopting, the passing on of the messianic torch. (JC being a composite figure therefore able to reflect both these last two Jewish kings.....the torch is passed on and so too is the former history.....)

The gospel writers had to incorporate a story to link two historical messiah figures together - the chosen story is the baptism story. JtB having, in Slavonic Josephus, no connection with the wonderworker story and already baptizing long before Pilate, ie during the time of Archelaus. The Nativity gospel of James links the two via their mothers being pregnant around the same time - thus closing the time gap between these two figures and making the ‘meeting’ possible.

The gospels of Mark and Matthew have JC coming up out of the water. gJohn and gLuke leave out the water bit and just have the spirit element. Thus, both physically, the water, and spiritually, the dove, JC inherits the messianic torch. Or, historically, from Antigonus to Agrippa I. The two historical figures that have been used as models for the gospel storyline.

And, interestingly, it is around 37 ce - when Agrippa I becomes King - that Josephus has the JtB figure killed off................the messianic torch had been passed on, the anointed Christ figure, had a new face....

avi

Thank you maryhelena, brilliant narrative. Very interesting idea. Well expressed.

regards,

avi

maryhelena

Thanks, avi.....

I might seem to be always on about history - but I do think that if one puts the gospel story and Jewish history side by side, that one can see a relationship. In other words, the gospel story is a 'movie', a retelling, in condensed form, of Jewish History from the end of the Hasmonean period and the following period of Herodian rule. Obviously, with a historical JC one misses all of this...and with only a cosmic Christ figure, re Paul, one would be stepping over a lot of history. Yes, JC is a composite figure - but a composite of which historical figures is helpful if one is trying to understand early christian origins.