Freethought & Rationalism Archive

stephan huller · 09-06-2011, 10:34 AM

We all know that Paul makes reference to a 'baptism for the dead' both explicitly and implicitly throughout the Apostolikon. Yet it is difficult to see why Jesus being baptized by John should be understood in these terms. Jesus was about thirty years old - according to our sources - and in seemingly good health. How then do we come to this understanding reported in the Philosophumena 6.30:

Quote:

Concerning this (Logos) they have a great question amongst them--an occasion both of divisions and dissension. And hence the doctrine of these has become divided: and one doctrine, according to them, is termed Oriental, and the other Italian. They from Italy, of whom is Heracleon and Ptolemaeus, say that the body of Jesus was psychic. And on account of this, (they maintain) that at his baptism the Holy Spirit as a dove came down--that is, the Logos of the mother above, (I mean Sophia)--and became (a voice) to the psychic, and raised him from the dead. This, he says, is what has been declared: "He who raised Christ from the dead will also quicken your mortal and natural bodies." For loam has come under a curse; "for," says he, "dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return." The Orientals, on the other hand, of whom is Axionicus and Bardesianes, assert that the body of the Saviour was spiritual; for there came upon Mary the Holy Spirit--that is, Sophia and the power of the highest. This is the creative art, (and was vouchsafed) in order that what was given to Mary by the Spirit might be fashioned.

Of course the typical waffle put forward by scholars would say that the gnostics allegorized the familiar account of the baptism of Jesus by John. Yet John is not mentioned here and as I noted earlier it is difficult to see how Jesus could be said to have 'died' or been 'raised from the dead' in our familiar narratives about this alleged incident.

My suspicion is that, as we see in a side by side comparison, of parallel passages in Irenaeus and Tertullian's Against the Valentinians, that the material in Against Heresies actually switches 'Jesus' and 'Christ' I think quite deliberately. In other words, the Valentinians actually believed - alongside the unnamed heresy associated with a longer text of Mark (cf. AH 3.11.7) that Christ and Jesus were separate people and - strangely - that while Jesus appeared crucified, Christ was resurrected from the dead (i.e. two separate events).

I wonder if the dove coming from heaven was associated with the initiated youth, resurrected from the dead in Secret Mark, crossing the Jordan. In other words, that there was no direct water immersion of the disciple Jesus loved in the secret gospel of Mark. Rather Jesus initiates the youth (likely by fire cf. Mark 9:49) and then the youth crosses the Jordan. The dove coming from heaven might have been part of another version of the gospel (= the Carpocratian or Valentinian gospel) and is paralleled by Jacob crossing the Jordan with an angel.

At the very least it is difficult to believe that Jesus's baptism by John was the source of Paul's 'baptism for the dead' or the Valentinian beliefs described in the Philosophumena.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.