Diogenes the Cynic

I've actually been trying to research precisely this question. strictly speaking, both the Gospels and Josephus (Josephus takes special pains to emphasize this), that the immersion was only symbolic and only cleaned the body after their spirit had already been "cleansed" by God. It was the repentance that got them the remission. The question is exactly how JBap (or whoever) developed or sold the idea that repentance alone, without a sacrifice, was sufficient for remission from sins. The sources don't tell us what argument he used, or how people came to trust his authority on it (I would guess that he cited scriptural examples of people receiving forgiveness by repentance alone), but the implication from Josephus is that his very popularity sort of became its own authority. People started buying into it, and thinking he must be a prophet.

Duvduv

The term "the Baptism of John" which we also find in Acts must mean something to the authors. Anyone could immerse in the river or the mikveh on their own for purification and remission of sins simply by virtue of entering the water. WHAT was it about doing it specifically under the Baptist that took care of remission of sins even if he aroused people to repentance?

Was there some other element, OR is it simply that the author(s) didn't understand the Jewish notion of forgiveness which in itself IS intangible. As far as I can recall, even within the context of the DSS sect(s) immersion was linked strictly to purification.

The only thing that makes sense in the context of the storyline is that the "baptism of John" was a preparatory step for induction into the faith in the Christ, the one following the Baptist. Thus it wasn't something by itself and on its own, which would be why the authors linked the Baptist to Jesus in the first place. So that once Jesus came on the scene the baptism of John would not be needed. However, what about new believers who didn't get "preparation" from John first?
And how was it that Paul never had to be baptized and never mentions in the epistles having been baptized?

Then there is the fact that in Matthew 26 Jesus says that his blood is poured out for "the remission of sins." Yet Jesus himself immersed in the water under the Baptist, but for what reason is unknown even if Jesus were only a holy man. Why would such a person have ANY sins to remit or be forgiven??

Diogenes the Cynic

Well, presumably Josephus understood it, and he said John's immersions were purely for the body, not the spirit.

As to why they were drawn to do this specifically under the auspices of John the Baptist is something I'm still trying to figure out. The sources really don't tell us.

John Crossan says that the location was significant - that they were coming across the Jordan into Judea, and thereby reenacting Joshua's original entrance into the Promised Land - that JBap was instituting some kind of coded "reoccupation" of Judea.

I don't know about that. Josephus says that John was just popular. People just liked him. Mark says that even Antipas liked John and liked to listen to him, which indicates to me that John had some kind of compelling voice or personality or was entertaining in some way. People apparently decided he was a prophet, which in itself constitutes a kind of authority.

Duvduv

I added a few more thoughts to the posting you replied to, Diogenes.

Diogenes the Cynic

Most scholars will tell you that the explanation for the connection is that Jesus was known to have been a follower of John the Baptist and it had to be explained.

If there is a through line in the narrative connecting John and Jesus, I think it's that Jesus is described as expanding the free forgiveness program out beyond the Jordan and basically doing all kinds of free purifications, healings and exorcisms without Temple authority or requirement of sacrifice. Mark says Jesus justifies this by saying that "the son of man has the authority to forgive sins" (2:10), but I still think this leads back to what is meant by "son of man," and even whether Mark means the same thing by it that a hypothetical Jesus may have meant.

That's an interesting point about Paul not getting baptized, though. Acts says he was baptized, but Paul himself never mentions it.

Duvduv

What do you think remission of sins under the Baptist actually means? The scenario seems to suggest the the Baptist is described as having a new revelation about the Christ, perhaps the first person to do so, and that his baptism, whatever it was, became obsolete as soon as he found out about the one coming after him.....and the baptism of Jesus by john is simply some kind of symbolic act.

Diogenes the Cynic

The same thing as expiatory sacrifice, he was just making it easier (and free). That whole thing with John recognizing anything special about Jesus is almost certainly just post hoc, apologetic bullshit by the authors of the Gospels.

John's baptism became obsolete because he was arrested and killed by Antipas (Josephus corroborates this). Jesus is then shown as taking up the mantle.

It's also far from certain that John was preaching the coming of a human Messiah. Josephus doesn't corroborate that, and the Gospels show some massaging of more general "God is coming" stuff to"A Messiah is coming" to "Jesus is the Messiah."

The consensus of current scholarship is that Jesus was genuinely a follower of John, that this was known, and that it had to be explained. John therefore gets turned into an Elijah figure. He was there to herald Jesus.

GJohn omits the baptism, by the way. The synoptics apologize, but GJohn can't deal with it at all.

aa5874

Well, in the Synoptics Jesus was just telling people that their sins were forgiven WITHOUT Baptism just by BELIEF.

In the earliest Jesus story there was NO NEED for Jesus to be sacrificed or raised from the dead for Salvation.

Mark 2:5 KJV.

Even the author of gMark show that there was no need for Jesus to have been crucified and resurrected for remission of sins.

Duvduv

AA, that is an interesting point, and it is reinforced in the same chapter with:

10 But I want you to know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins.”

Although I suppose the believers will say that the forgiveness for future generations of sinners could only be accomplished by the crucifixion. However in the case in GMark there is no indication of belief in WHAT specifically enabled the healing.

Diogenes the Cynic

You are right about the contradiction between Paul's soteriology and that alleged to have been espoused by Jesus, but Paul was making things up out of his own ass, for most part. He didn't know (and I don't think even cared) what Jesus himself taught. He was only interested in his imagined resurrection event.