Rick Sumner

Why do they look interpolated to you?

Unfortunately I'm not at home right now, and can't double-check, but will do so tomorrow. I don't believe he thought John baptized for the remission of sins, I was just pointing out that what Josephus says isn't always regarded as the best account. I agree with you--he probably didn't baptize for the remission of sins, just because it doesn't fit the context.

Essenes ate locusts.

That being the case, why isn't Mark more explicit? John really doesn't come out inferior to Jesus in Mark's account--a point Matthew was certainly aware of.

Regards,
Rick

Toto

The argument is Frank Zindler's, which you can read about in this thread:

The Jesus the Jews Never Knew: Book Review By Earl Doherty of Zindler's New Book

Why do you think you are agreeing with me? I only asked whether JtB baptized for the remission of sins (as claimed in Mark) or not (as claimed in Josephus).

Steve Mason inJosephus and the New Testament, p 152-3, says:

The difference of content that Mason speaks of is that the Gospels portray John as showing the way for Jesus, while Jospephus portrays him as a leader in his own right, with no relation to Jesus, whether or not Josephus mentioned Jesus. Mason then asks which is more likely - that Josephus took a figure who was a herald for Jesus, and erased the Jesus connection, or that early Christian tradition coopted a famous Jewish preacher and made him an ally and subordinate of Jesus. The answer seems obvious - the Gospels have coopted John; and in spite of their attempted rewrite, glimpses of the original John keep showing through, as in Acts 19:1-5

OK

I think that John does come out as subordinate in Mark's account - he is there to prepare the way for Jesus, not worthy to even touch his feet, etc. If Mason is correct, John was an imposing figure of the time.

Rick Sumner

Fair enough. Am I agreeing with you?

Mason has created a fasle dichotomy, in which Josephus has either omitted something he should have mentioned, or the Christians made it up. This doesn't follow at all. Josephus doesn't mention anyone JBap baptized. Why should Jesus be the exception?

The question isn't what you think, it's how Mark and his audience viewed it. Clearly Matthew and John didn't think JBap came out overly subordinate, and elaborated accordingly. What evidence do you suggest indicates that anyone viewed JBap as coming out on the bottom? And if there is none, the question remains as to why Mark wasn't more explicit.

Regards,
Rick

Toto

I haven't answered the question, so I don't know what you would agree with. You said "I agree with you--he probably didn't baptize for the remission of sins, just because it doesn't fit the context." I don't know what this means - why would it not fit the context? What context?

I don't see any false dichotomy here. Sometimes absense of evidence is evidence of absense. If JtB had baptized the high priest or Herod Antipas, that would be such a signficant event that you would expect to hear about it. If JtB had announced that he was preparing the way for one greater than himself to follow, you might expect to hear about it. But you don't.

Are you assuming that Jesus was just a nobody who followed the crowds to John's baptism and got dunked, but nothing much happened, and then Jesus went on to be an obscure preacher who never made much of an impression on anyone until he got himself crucified somehow? And this nobody was the creator of a major religion? I guess that's possible, but it seems unlikely, compared to the idea that the whole baptism scene was a literary invention for a theological purpose.

After all, there is no trace of the baptism in Paul's letters (and no mention there of John), or in the Gospel of Thomas, or in the earliest stratum of Q if you believe in Q. Mark invents the scene, and uses it to introduce a variety of obviously non-historical events - the holy spirit descending in the form of dove, the voice of God, a 40 day fast in the wilderness plus being tempted by Satan, who takes Jesus up and shows him the entire world. Why should you pluck one incident out of that theological tale and claim that it represents history?

Matthew appears to be more concerned with the idea of "remission of sins" since Matthew has gone to the trouble of having Jesus born without sin. That appears to be the point of his revisionism, not the prominence of John.

Rick Sumner

Why would we expect to hear about it? Josephus liked John the Baptist, but wasn't digging apocalyptic prophets. Besides which, that doesn't address the question:

Is it not possible that John baptized Jesus but never said he was preparing the way for anyone? Why is that integral to the baptism?

As an aside to this: The absence of John's apocalypticism in Josephus leads to an interesting problem--we can discern from other executed leaders of the time (minus Jesus, for the time being), that they were executed for eschatological prophecies or promises of eschatological events. Yet John seems to have been arrested simply for being popular, or perhaps for speaking against Herod.

The former makes no sense. There were lots of popular leaders who weren't executed for being popular--both Theudas and the Egyptian garnered huge crowds, but weren't executed until they led those crowds into action. The latter likewise makes no sense, because Josephus wouldn't omit that--Josephus hated Herod, and would have delighted in another condemnation of him.

Josephus is sympathetic to John, and is clearly omitting something: Why was John arrested? Would Josephus omit John's condemnation of Herod? Probably not, he has no reason to do so. Would he omit an apocalyptic message? Yes.

I've never understood where anyone got the idea that Josephus was some sort of great and accurate historian, keen on reporting events as they happened. Josephus was an apologist first, last, and always--as Sandmel noted, Josephus' work is "pretension, not precision."(JBL 81 (1962), "Parallelomania," p.9).

That's exactly what I'm suggesting. The scene is specifically doctored to serve a theological purpose, but that doesn't mean that it needs to be theological in history.

All it would take is for this Jesus to have equated his baptism with the start of his mission--with his "calling" so to speak, and it becomes hugely important. The theological additions are of course redaction.

I think it is intrinsically likely that a great many people equated baptism by John with a spiritual experience. If they didn't, no one would have gone to be baptized.

Okay, when would you expect Paul to have mentioned it? Why would Thomas have mentioned it? And on what grounds to you contend that it wasn't in Q? I'd venture it's quite likely that Mark had Q in front of him while he wrote--we just can't reconstruct those sections because our understanding of Q is restricted to that which is common to Matthew and Luke, but excluded from Mark.

I'd venture John had heard Mark's baptism story. The fact that he omits it, and then goes on to denigrate John further argues against you, not for, as it shows that John did not think Mark had served to show JBap was inferior--which you have contended was a primary motivation in writing the story.

Why should we conclude that because parts of something have characteristic X, all parts of it have characteristic X? Each part needs to be analyzes separately.

What leads you to this conclusion? John is made subservient in Matthew's baptism. Jesus isn't described as being without sin. The issue doesn't even come up in the pericope.

Which leads back to the original problem: If one of Mark's primary aims was to emphasize JBap's subservience, he didn't do a very good job of it. Which would seem to indicate that it wasn't an aim at all.

Regards,
Rick

[Ed. for spelling]

Toto

How does this not indicate subservience? (from the NIV version)

Mark 1:7 And this was his message: "After me will come one more powerful than I, the thongs of whose sandals I am not worthy to stoop down and untie. 8 I baptize you with[4] water, but he will baptize you with the Holy Spirit."

Compare Mark's version:

The Baptism and Temptation of Jesus

1:9 At that time Jesus came from Nazareth in Galilee and was baptized by John in the Jordan. 10 As Jesus was coming up out of the water, he saw heaven being torn open and the Spirit descending on him like a dove. 11 And a voice came from heaven: "You are my Son, whom I love; with you I am well pleased."

with Matt 3:


11 "I baptize you with[2] water for repentance. But after me will come one who is more powerful than I, whose sandals I am not fit to carry. He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and with fire. 12 His winnowing fork is in his hand, and he will clear his threshing floor, gathering his wheat into the barn and burning up the chaff with unquenchable fire."

The Baptism of Jesus

13 Then Jesus came from Galilee to the Jordan to be baptized by John. 14 But John tried to deter him, saying, "I need to be baptized by you, and do you come to me?"

15 Jesus replied, "Let it be so now; it is proper for us to do this to fulfill all righteousness." Then John consented.

16 As soon as Jesus was baptized, he went up out of the water. At that moment heaven was opened, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove and lighting on him. 17 And a voice from heaven said, "This is my Son, whom I love; with him I am well pleased."

Matthew adds some apocalyptic speeches for John, which Mark didn't see fit to report. He reports the vision of the spirit descending like a dove and the voice proclaiming Jesus to be God's son, as if the entire crowd heard them, rather than as a private vision of Jesus. He also adds John's statement that John should be baptized by Jesus - but in light of the comment about "not worthy to carry his sandles", I don't see this as downgrading John's status in relation to Jesus, since John is subordinate to Jesus in both cases. It is the baptism itself that causes problems for Matthew and John, not John's status.

John, in my reading, does not "denigrate" John the Baptist - he reworks the material to avoid mentioning the actual baptism, but has all the elements there.

1:15 John testifies concerning him. He cries out, saying, "This was he of whom I said, 'He who comes after me has surpassed me because he was before me.' " . . .

John the Baptist Denies Being the Christ

19 Now this was John's testimony when the Jews of Jerusalem sent priests and Levites to ask him who he was. 20 He did not fail to confess, but confessed freely, "I am not the Christ."
. . .

Jesus the Lamb of God

29 The next day John saw Jesus coming toward him and said, "Look, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world! 30 This is the one I meant when I said, 'A man who comes after me has surpassed me because he was before me.' 31 I myself did not know him, but the reason I came baptizing with water was that he might be revealed to Israel."
32 Then John gave this testimony: "I saw the Spirit come down from heaven as a dove and remain on him. 33 I would not have known him, except that the one who sent me to baptize with water told me, 'The man on whom you see the Spirit come down and remain is he who will baptize with the Holy Spirit.' 34 I have seen and I testify that this is the Son of God."

Rick Sumner

Toto

Matthew's version is decidedly more subservient than Mark's--while Mark simply has John observe that someone greater than him will come, he never explicitly identifies that someone with Jesus. In Matthew, there can be no doubt that Jesus is greater--after all, it is John who should be baptized by Jesus, and not the other way 'round. John had to be persuaded to baptize one so much greater than himself. This is absent in Mark.

What? John doesn't even get to be Elijah in the GJohn. In all three events of JBap in the fourth gospel--the first witness (1.19-34), the first disciples (1.35-51) and the second witness (3.25-36), it is emphasized--far more than any of the other gospels--that John is less than Jesus. He sends his disciples to follow Jesus, he explicitly speaks at length about how much greater Jesus is, he explicitly identifies Jesus as the one to come. He observes that Jesus will grow greater, as JBap grows lesser, and so on.

I don't know how you can possibly conclude this. Mark doesn't show any real sign that the passage was made up to denigrate JBap, yet you conclude that it was. John is explicit and repetitive in emphasizing Jesus' superiority by putting praise of Jesus on JBap's lips, and you conclude that it doesn't show John as inferior.

I'm beyond puzzled by this reasoning.

Regards,
Rick

Toto

And I am beyong being able to understand your reasoning. But I think that the problem is the word "denigrate". You say I say that the passage was made up to subordinate John to Jesus, which is the only way I can interpret the "not worthy to untie his sandals" comment. I don't see this as "denigrating" John.

Matthew and John give more details, and get more flowery, and expand on the basic theme, but retain the same relationship - John is subordinate to Jesus, self confessedly unworthy to touch his feet.

To get back to the topic, your only source for the baptism of Jesus by John is a story with a theological purpose and a multitude of supernatural and mythological elements. Perhaps there is a small kernal of truth in it, but how would you know?

Rick Sumner

And I say that if it was made up to subordinate John, Mark would have been more explicit. He never identifies Jesus as the "one who is to come." He never says that it is Jesus whose sandals he is unworthy to touch. It's implied, but if emphasizing this was the purpose of the narrative, it wouldn't be implied, it would be explicit and clear.

This is better, but it's not what you said above. Glad to see you've changed your mind.

Actually, the topic--my reason for posting--was to call into question your reasoning regarding Mark and subservience. My stance on the baptism is another issue.

You can find my responses--given on the Jesus Mysteries list--on www.didjesusexist.com . Unfortunately, my entire address to the baptism can only be found on the JM list. I've since unsubsribed from it, so am unable to hunt it down. Perhaps another poster can do so?

My original answer to the baptism echoes yours in some ways. In retrospect, my answer wasn't terribly well thought-out.

Regards,
Rick

Toto

I have not changed my mind, and at this point I will not put the effort into trying to figure out why you think I have.

The idea that Mark would have been more explicit about subordinating John to Jesus makes no sense to me, given Mark's overall style.