Vinnie

http://www.after-hourz.net/ri/baptistchrist.html

Argument: Jesus was initially a follower of John, was baptized by him but broke away at some point into a significantly different ministry.

Stratification (1S=40-60, 2S=60-80, 3S=80-100) used:
Mark-2S, Thomas-2S, Q-2S, Matt-3S, Lk-3S, John-3S.

Vinnie

Vinnie

1st Unit
The first unit of these two occurs in the Gospel of Thomas and the Q Gospel.

GThomas 78: Jesus said, "Why have you come out to the countryside? To see a reed shaken by the wind? And to see a person dressed in soft clothes, [like your] rulers and your powerful ones? They are dressed in soft clothes, and they cannot understand truth."


Q//Luke 7:24-26: 24After John's messengers left, Jesus began to speak to the crowd about John: "What did you go out into the desert to see? A reed swayed by the wind? 25If not, what did you go out to see? A man dressed in fine clothes? No, those who wear expensive clothes and indulge in luxury are in palaces. 26But what did you go out to see? A prophet? Yes, I tell you, and more than a prophet.

Crossan wrote on this unit: "In terms of format the saying is set up as an implicit dialogue; it is addressed to those presumably sympathetic to John. In terms of content the saying sets up a contrast between desert and palace and between their appropriate and expected inhabitants. But, while a prophet is clearly named as the one you expect to find in the desert, the palace dweller is not defined as king or courtier, ruler or minister. He is simply described, metaphorically, as one who bends to the prevailing wind and, literally, is dressed in soft or luxurious garments. But, even if that is a correct reading, why is the saying set up like that? Why compare and contrast the desert-dwelling prophet with, precisely, the palace-dwelling "man." The only answer I can imagine is that the saying intends a comparison between John and Antipas and that it arose, directly and immediately, from the crisis engendered among his followers by John's incarceration and execution. It reads like an attempt to maintain faith in John's apocalyptic vision despite John's own execution. What do you prefer: a dead Baptist or a living Antipas? Maybe Jesus was still with John when Antipas struck and that saying correctly summarized his initial defense of John despite the shock of his arrest."

Vorkosigan

A typical Crossan analysis, with only the most feeble reference to the actual evidence. Two simple rebuttal points: first, there is no evidence that this has anything to do with Antipas. The reference to fine clothes and palaces works fine as a simple contrast. Any Antipas connection is pure speculation on Crossan's part, and the idea that the saying grew after John's arrest is nothing more than a flight of fancy unsupported by evidence. Second, the Thomas saying does not refer to John but to Jesus himself. Clearly, the saying has been transferred from Jesus to John, or John to Jesus. However, there is no way to know.

As for Jesus being a follower of John, there is no evidence for that at all. Another flight of fancy. The writer of Mark may have been a follower of John, but any connection between Jesus and John was established in the realm of fiction, and therefore cannot be counted on as historical fact.

Vorkosigan

Vorkosigan

Interesting Ludemann dismisses this story as a fiction, citing certain features that indicate it is post-Easter. Have you read Jesus After 2000 Years yet?

Vinnie

Which 'story' and what are the features?

Not yet.

Vinnie

Vorkosigan

The pericope containing this verse:

• GThomas 78: Jesus said, "Why have you come out to the countryside? To see a reed shaken by the wind? And to see a person dressed in soft clothes, [like your] rulers and your powerful ones? They are dressed in soft clothes, and they cannot understand truth."

Specifically, verses 18-28 in Luke 7. Ludemann says that John could not have asked that of a historical figure, as the one he expected was heavenly. <shrug> It is a post-Easter construction, or so he claims.

Vorkosigan

Vinnie

Whether that "story" is historical or not is not a part of my argument. We already been through the "settings are more prone to change than sayings line". The saying occurs in Thomas with no setting. The saying that I dealt with does not having anything indicating later post easter views.

His view may have some merit about John though. John did expect one to come after him. I don't remember any specifics of this stronger one to come off the top of my head though. I do know post-easter Chistians decided it was Jesus.

Vinnie

Amaleq13

Crossan thinks John was referring to God:

"But what appears from a careful reading of those texts, [Lk 3:16b-17 and Jn 1:26b-27, 29-31] somewhat against themselves, is that John's message was an announcement of imminent apocalyptic intervention by God and not at all about Jesus." (The Historical Jesus, p235)