spamandham

Surely this conversation is not historical in any sense, so we should instead by trying to figure out the intents of the late 2nd century author who invented it.

It seems to me that the author is familiar with the gospels wherein Jesus is set up as the one who follows John, and this passage was inserted so that Paul is depicted as basically reprimanding the followers of JtB for forgetting that they should now be following Jesus. It's propaganda to use to persuade JtB followers to join Christianity.

Solo

Hi Andrew,
I don't find it that clear and unambiguous. In Acts 8 Philip baptizes people in Samaria into Jesus Christ, and among them Simon Magus. It appears his was the water baptism (from the later description of Philip and the eunuch). The plot of the Magus story revolves around his not receiving the Holy Spirit with the baptism into Jesus Christ which was something (apparently) only the apostles could do by their laying on hands. So when he saw that Peter and John could activate the Holy Spirit by what he took to be a magical technique he wanted to obtain it for money. Peter was upset and lectured to Magus on the appropriateness of such a propositon (which BTW, could be also understood as a little PR for a business decision since Paul tells us Peter himself made a living by his ministry).

In contrast Acts 19, Paul baptizes JtB's disciples into Jesus, (by laying his hands on them) and they speak in tongues and prophesize (19:6). It really confuses me since Magus could see signs and miracles apparently without the agency of the Holy Spirit (8:13), on the water baptism alone. What do you make of that ?

Best,
Jiri

bacht

Yep, and by then the idea of apostolic authority was being developed to buttress the proto-catholic leadership. Having baptism as an official rite opens the way to clerical control, traced back of course to the first followers of Christ.

Maybe John the Baptist was invented as an etiological ploy to validate the ritual. If real his original Essene or gnostic beliefs would've been altered to suit catholic needs.

spamandham

Although we'll probably never know whether or not JtB was historical, I think we can say with confidence that there was a JtB cult, and that we do see within the NT an attempt to coopt that cult, suggesting it was in some way closley related to early Christianity.

bacht

Right, I've seen it suggested that Jesus was one of John's followers. Stephan would know but I think there was a Samaritan connection, so maybe it's a repeat of the old north/south conflict.

andrewcriddle

Hi Jiri

I agree there are ambiguities in the similarities and differences of the two passages. What follows is what I think.

I don't think that Luke (or the author of Acts) held that in general the Holy Spirit could only be received from the apostles. The special case of Samaria with its history of bitter conflict with the Jews may have required some special act by the Jerusalem apostles before the Samaritan converts could become full members of the church.

I tend to think that at Ephesus the disciples were baptized (or re-baptized) in water as well as Paul laying his hands on them. The miracles in 8:13 may be miracles performed by Philip rather than by the Samaritan converts.

Andrew Criddle

aa5874

Why do you think the author of Acts is credible? What were his sources for the ascension of Jesus through the clouds, the day of Pentecost when the disciples magically became multi-lingual and the blinding bright light affair of Saul/PAUL?

I don't know how in the world anyone could attempt to understand the thoughts of author of Acts.

When do you think he wrote those incredible fiction stories?

I tend to think that Paul did not lay hands on anyone in the 1st century.

But, maybe Constantine laid his hands on one of the "Paul's". Or perhaps "Eusebius". Some one had to spread the news that Jesus was the new God of the Roman Empire.

Now, Paul admitted that he did preach his GOSPEL all over the Roman Empire.

Solo

Thanks, Andrew.
Yes, I would say that the Pentecost event and Peter's speech in Acts more or less affirm the spontaneus appearance of the Holy Spirit as a manifestation of 'end of times' and the faith in (and of) Jesus Christ. That is why the laying hands of apostles, as a precondition to receiving the Holy Spirit in ch's 8 and 19 is confusing. If Samaria presented its own special problem then fine, it would be a local problem. But why Paul had to 'lay hands' at Ephesus for the Holy Spirit to appear ? Why wouldn't the re-baptizing in water into Jesus Christ have sufficed ?

FWIW, my own take on the gap, is that it illustrates the confusion arising from the on-going merger of Paul's communities and the exiled Nazarene communities, which accepted the cross theology after the war but wanted to still hold onto the occult beliefs in the 'objective reality' of the miracles - something vouched for by the figure of Peter. Paul of course rejected this: to him, the miracles and speaking in tongues were the manifestation of the 'power of the spirit' which had no other external effect to the outsiders than that the one experiencing the miraculous events appeared 'mad' and talked gibberish (to confute the wise and mighty).
It is clear that Luke (or a Lukan editor who wrote Acts), had some kind of tradition to work with that attested to the Holy Spirit being manufactured, as it were, by a group of select apostles which included Paul. I am convinced of it, because the reaction of Simon Magus to Peter and John implies that he believed the 'laying of hands' (whatever it was) was a technique which could be taught. A part of Peter's rebuke ('you have neither part or lot in this matter') more or less confirms that it was a technique and it was transferrable. IOW, Simon Magus was thought unsuitable to be initiated.

Best,
Jiri

aa5874

The Pentecost event and Peter's speech in Acts of the Apostle affirm NOTHING about the Holy Spirit.

Not even Church writers personally claimed to have been filled with the Holy Ghost and spoke in "tongues". Yet Acts of the Apostles and the Pauline writers appear to show that there were many persons all over the Roman Empire in the churches that spoke in tongues.

Ignatius, Papias, Polycarp, Clement of Rome, Irenaeus, Justin Martyr, Tatian, Athenagoras, Theophilus of Antioch, Tertullian, Origen, Eusebius and Jerome did not write that he spoke in "tongues".

Steven Carr

I see.

So it was very important to be baptised 'in the name of Jesus'.

Was it important to be baptised in any other name?

Philippians 2
Therefore God exalted him to the highest place
and gave him the name that is above every name,
that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow,
in heaven and on earth and under the earth,
and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord,
to the glory of God the Father.

Was 'Jesus' the name given by God when God exalted him to the highest place,and so Christians were required to be baptised 'in the name of Jesus'?