spin

This was directed at Earl Doherty, but it might be good if you didn't just allude to the issues you would like to deal with but give specifics. I find your presumption is not indicative of anything much other than a possible retrojection of modern desires on what you think should have certain types of relevance to the authors.

(Is it that John reflected a Hebrew lifestyle while Jesus reflected a more gentile lifestyle?? Christianity after all made its appeal to gentiles, didn't it -- with the first gospel being written in Rome?)

One important thing that we get from the necessity for christianity to deal with the figure of JtB is that it apparently had to deal with him. JtB adds nothing whatsoever to christianity, though christianity is a witness to JtB and we have sufficiently diverse information about in Josephus, that we have a good indication -- with these two distinct accounts -- of his historicity. How does one strengthen one's preferred figure but to attach him to something that has strength in itself? Elijah was certainly coming as a precursor to god's hurrying of the end and introducing of his messiah.

The discourse between Jesus and John is a natural consequence of the bond forged between the two figures. Scant tradition stimulates enlargement. We have seen tradition developments with Pilate's wife's message about her dream, the diverse deaths of Judas, and the innumerable spurious letters.

So, if you have some specific argument about the gospel rapport between Jesus and John, it might be good if you could expand so one knows exactly what is in your mind on the subject, so that it can be looked at in depth.


spin

Ben C Smith

Let us assume that you are correct, to wit, that Christianity had no choice but to deal with John the baptist. The gospels imply a set of events that created this situation: John baptized Jesus, who was apparently part of the movement for a time. Out of curiosity, then, given your seeming agnosticism on the existence of Jesus, what do you think created the situation in which Christianity had to deal with John the baptist?

Ben.

Malachi151

That's quite silly. If JtB was a known real person with a following, then the Gospel use of him was simply a device for riding his train. Its a way of putting the Jesus character in the same realm of authority and taking advantage of a ready-made audience.

And we can't forget that this all rests solely on The Gospel of Mark.

One author decided to write JtB into his story for some reason.

The use of JtB in all the other Gospels is just following that lead, they only did it because the Gospel of Mark did it.

Aside from that, there really is no discussion of JtB in the Christian sources.

All discussion of JtB in the Christian sources stems from his use as a character in GMark.

So, I wouldn't say that one person's choice to use him as a character is proof of anything in particular actually.

Ben C Smith

My honest informational question was quite silly? :huh:

Ben.

spin

When you ask me straight out what I think created the situation, I have to fall back on the fact that there isn't enough evidence for me to have a useful thought on the matter. What I can do is propose some alternative to the literal reading and why I should want to propose an alternative is based on the knowledge that we do not really know what sort of material we are dealing with in the gospel literature.

Functionally baptism is a social act that initiates an individual into a religious association. It serves no purpose in christian theology, though a metaphorical use of the term has been used with a certain theological importance. This suggests that baptism, which was not a mainstream Jewish rite, was inherited by the earliest christianity from an earlier cultic movement, only to be maintained -- somewhat as a fossil -- when the new religion more fully developed its theology. Non-christian baptist movements survived JtB if we can go by Apollos in Acts 18:24ff, as well as the Mandaean sect.

Baptism is already a feature of Pauline christianity (eg 1 Cor 1:13) and we know that Paul's christianity is derived from his vision. It may be that Paul used baptism as a rite for his religion from the fact that he had experienced the rite in existent baptist sects. It would be from this basis, ie that Pauline christianity has baptism, that a gospel writer retrojected it into the gospel. Then again, Jesus may actually have been baptized by John.


spin

Ted Hoffman

My view is that "they" did not have to deal with it. I argue below that it was not a "situation" for the early Christians like Paul and the author of Mark.

Your question assumes a homogenity of ideas and perceptions that was not present in early Christianity. Some Christian groups had no problem with it just the same way some had no problem with the idea that Jesus was flesh and blood whilst others like Marcion found the idea totally irreconciliable with their beliefs. Those that likely had a problem with Jesus being baptized by JtBap were likely believers in conception Christilogy.

The initial ones (and I have Mark and Paul in mind here respectively) were adoptionists or resurrection Christologists who were, by virtue of their Christological beliefs, very comfortable with the idea. Brown in The Birth of the Messiah: A commentary on the Infancy Narratives in the gospels of Matthew and Luke (or via: amazon.co.uk), p.141 and Mack in A Myth of Innocence (or via: amazon.co.uk) talk about these various Christologies.

Problem solved.

Amaleq13

Given that you clearly missed the point of their exchange, this comment becomes ironic in addition to being unnecessarily antagnostic.

spin suggested that JB "had" to be included and Ben was directly and specifically addressing that suggested necessity. Your comments utterly missed that crucial point and offered only reasons why an author might have chosen to include the Baptist in a story about Jesus.

Ben C Smith

This is a fair and comprehensible answer to my question. Thanks, spin.

Ben.

Malachi151

To all:

My post was directed at both Ben and spin, not one or the other. My point is that reading anything too deep into the use of John the Baptist is silly.

Based on the themes in the Gospel of Mark some figure would have been needed to play the role of Elijah.

Whomever the author chose, people would then be asking today "why was so-and-so in the story?"

It really has little to do with JtB, he's just filling in for Elijah.

One person chose to use JtB as a character, and then rest just spawned from that, it doesn't indicate anything significant IMO.

The only real question of interest is whether JtB was in fact a real person or not.

If he was a real person, not at all unlikely, then he was used in the role in order to take advantage of his known "celebrity".

spin

Where did Paul get his attitude to baptism, which is an initiation rite (not Jewish ritual bathing)?


spin