yin_sage

Hi Andrew,

I wonder if Matthew might have kept this part because of John's association with Elijah. If the baptism by John gets snipped, then who is to herald the messiah? Seems like he had a pretty good narrative reason to keep it, no?

andrewcriddle

If you accept Q; then John as the precursor/herald of Jesus seems to have been part of the non-Markan material available to Matthew.

Matthew 11:11-12 Compare Luke 7:28 and Luke 16:16

Andrew Criddle

EarlDoherty

This is a good example of thinking inside the box, and why it is indeed necessary to keep the HJ/MJ issue in view at all times. Meier is of course assuming the HJ, and the existence of an early “Church” that has arisen out of his life and death. For him, the Gospel of Mark is a reflection of traditions about that life, even if some of it is invented. Meier’s reasoning on this saying is not unreasonable, but if one steps outside his box, other explanations are available. If Jesus in the Gospel of Mark is a symbolic figure in an allegorical story, representing the prophets of the Kingdom-preaching community of which Mark is a part, then his Jesus can do no other than not know the hour of the Kingdom’s arrival, since those prophets do not know it and he symbolizes them. The criterion of embarrassment simply does not come into play here. The same sort of argument applies to the equally “embarrassing” prediction that some here will not taste death before the Kingdom arrives. Mark was not recording or inventing a prophecy for some figure who lived decades earlier, and whose words are rapidly being falsified, but for the community contemporary with himself which his Jesus symbolizes and speaks for.

When later evangelists come along and build on Mark, they may still be treating Jesus as a symbolic figure for their purposes, but may now be more conscious (and self-conscious) about the implications of the story as a story, and may even be treating the Jesus figure in a more historical sense, even though they are still inventing (and redacting Mark) in ways which are not imagined to record actual historical traditions.

Anyway, my point is, one cannot ignore the MJ theory in analyzing the passages under discussion, since it often provides a feasible way out of the dilemma. If or when (I anticipate the latter) the non-existence of a Jesus is eventually accepted even by mainstream scholarship as a probable solution to the perennial problems of New Testament research, reams of books, articles, discussion board threads, etc. spanning centuries will become as dead as the dodo.

But it is NOT rooted in the earliest traditions. It is totally missing on all the non-Gospel writings, even in Paul’s discussion about the soteriological significance of his cult’s baptism where a reference to Jesus’ own by John would have been very natural and useful. If you accept the existence of Q (as I do), there is nothing in Q that says John baptised Jesus (even though some Q scholars try to insert it). In Josephus, in his description of John, there is not even a reference to his connection with Christianity. So where is the evidence that “John’s baptism of Jesus appears to have been something rooted in the earliest traditions”?

It is things like this which justify MJ theorists jumping all over the appeal to authority whenever it is used in venues like ours. This is so riddled with fallacious reasoning it discredits mainstream scholarship as nothing more than wishful thinking. Multiple sources do not attest, since the rest of the Gospels simply follow Mark’s lead. And why wouldn’t early Christians make up a baptism for Jesus, even in the context of an HJ? Whether he existed or not, baptism was obviously an important rite in the Synoptic communities, and a standard sectarian practice is to impute to one’s founder figure (real or imagined) an originating event or experience which the sect now follows.

Yes, Ehrman (if he is the author of this) ought to be ashamed of himself. We have no indication in Matthew that he had any independent traditions about Jesus’ baptism other than what he read in Mark. (Even a use of Q does not give him this, since Q is silent on the topic.) In fact, if he did, we would expect the likelihood that his account of Jesus’ baptism would have some different aspect to it, different details (this principle is true of ALL elements of the story of Jesus between the various evangelists and their communities). Instead, the only differences we see are those which can be identified as ‘corrections’ to Mark to reflect the others’ sensitivities and agendas.

Again, in the context of the MJ theory, Matthew is reacting to Mark’s story, and no historical tradition on which Matthew could “fact check” would be involved. In general, thinking outside the box using the MJ theory can lead to all sorts of reevaluations as to what would, could, or should have been embarrassing to the writer or his community in the context of the story being presented. The same applies to all the other “criteria” used by HJ-committed scholarship. And the use of “common sense” is very much dependent on the a priori assumptions that are being brought to the problem.

Earl Doherty

aa5874

Markan priority DEALS with chronology not with VERACITY. The determinatin of actual order of writing of the different versions of the Jesus stories by anonymous writers do NOT resolve the historicity of Jesus NOR any events associated with him.

But, you are doing the very same thing as GakuseiDon.

You ASSUME you know that an ANONYMOUS wrote the John the Baptist story to avoid misunderstand when you have ZERO evidence of antiquity or ZERO information of antiquity about the ANONYMOUS author and the ACTUAL reason he wrote HIS version of the Jesus story.

How can an ASSUMPTION of "Q" makes it CLEAR that "Q" associated John with Jesus?

Speculations and Assumptions SIMPLY do NOT clarify or resolve any matter.

You have just ASSUMED what you posted about John's baptism of Jesus and then DEMAND that others do NOT make assumptions.

This is just highly illogical. You are NOT making sense.

Assumptions and Speculations are YOUR default position.

EarlDoherty

I know I sound like a broken record on this subject, but I do wish that people who reject Q (for whatever reason) would at least acknowledge that Q is not an "assumption". It is a theory based on evidence, and is held because that evidence is regarded by the holder of the theory as strong and pertinent. That doesn't make it true, but this kind of naive dismissal of Q does not speak well for the basis on which such a person advocates a no-Q position.

Yes, Q (if it existed) does associate John the Baptist with a Jesus (at least at the stage at which the Dialogue between Jesus and John was formulated, which Q scholars like John Kloppenborg admit was at a later stratum), but it does not speak of a baptism of Jesus by John. In fact, one might suggest that the latter would be notably incongruent with the Dialogue (Lk./Q 7:18-35). If John was supposed to have baptized Jesus, recognizing (according to the Gospels) some significance in him, why does he have to inquire of him whether he is the "one to come"? In fact, scholars like Kloppenborg recognize the incompatibility of the Dialogue with the earlier preaching by the Baptist, in which he prophecies "one who is to come" who is obviously not yet on the scene; yet now John presumes that a man here already (whom he had even baptized?) was "the one who is to come"? It is inconsistencies like this (and Q is full of them) which point to the evolution of ideas within Q's life-span, and even to a later introduction of a founder figure who, unlike earlier strata in Q, is now on the scene. Later editors of an evolving Q were unable to avoid creating conflicts and contradictions with earlier material.

Earl Doherty

show_no_mercy

I don't know if you've followed any Evolution vs Creationism debates. But these debates are never squashed with "there's a consensus among biologists that evolution happened". No, most Creationists (much like the expert biologists who are appealed to) were convinced by the actual evidence.

So appealing to a consensus of scholars does nothing for this discussion, just like it does nothing for discussions about the theory of evolution. We need to be presented with actual evidence that forms this consensus.

Juststeve

Show No Mercy:

In dealing with complicated issues to which experts have devoted entire career I don't think it is wrong to appeal to their expertise as evidence. It save me the trouble of learning the languages and devoting years of my life full time to evaluating the evidence. I really don’t have the time while maintaining my own expertise in another field. I will therefore continue to rely upon scholarly opinion and won’t expect you to be impressed.

Like you, evolution deniers are wrong to reject expert opinion as well.

Steve

show_no_mercy

But people who doubt evolution should still be presented with evidence, not an appeal to authority. I know, appealing to authority is quick, and it saves us time on investigating matters ourselves - especially when we only have a tangential interest in a particular subject. We've put a fair amount of trust in scholars only because we recognize that they've done all of the thinking for us so we don't have to. But for those of us who do want to think critically about an issue, we're going to have to do a little homework.

If all you're going to do is appeal to authority, I don't see any reason why you're on this particular part of the board.

Toto

When "evolution deniers" ask for evidence, scientists provide it in a form that any half way literate person can understand.

When those who doubt the existence of Jesus ask for evidence, the historicists refer to Authority. When the sincere doubters ask for more evidence, and track down the references (most of which are in good English translations) it turns out that there is no there there. The case for a historical Jesus is based on a few out of date assumptions and bad logic. Modern defenders of a historical Jesus have to believe that there is a historical core to the gospels (for which there is no evidence) and a few other improbabilities. The idea that there is some reliable expertise behind their opinions does not stand up to scrutiny.

You as a trial lawyer may be used to constructing a case for a jury by finding a qualified expert who agrees with your point of view who can present a well constructed expert opinion to the jury (that then allows them to act on their emotions, of course.) It is the only way of getting a decision in a reasonable amount of time. But this isn't a trial. There is no need to come to a conclusion in an abbreviated time period.

spamandham

There are *big* differences in regard to Biblical History and evolution:

1. History is an art, not a science
2. A good number of Biblical historians also hold theology degrees and have a religiously vested interest in the existence of a historical Jesus. Historically, these two fields went hand in hand.
3. We are directly attacking the methods used and explaining why they do not lead to the conclusions being drawn in a coherent manner.
4. Even the experts are not in agreement. There are multiple well qualified scholars who have argued for the nonhistoricity of Jesus, and who have argued against the criterion of contradiction in particular.
5. You have the analogy backwards. HJ is the equivalent of the creationist side - asserting something based on assumption and preconceptions rather than as a result of serious investigation. There was a time when creationists were the authority.