ApostateAbe

OK, cool. Do you think that maybe that my explanation for the four different accounts of the baptism and JtB has the advantage of explanatory scope, if nothing else? I ask because you seem to have four different explanations specific to the nature of each gospel, which I suppose is not too bad if the expectations are closely met. I don't know the particulars--I don't know how the account in Mark is any more Gentile-friendly than the account in Matthew, for example. Maybe you can start your explanation there, if you like. Here is the passage from Mark:

John the baptizer appeared in the wilderness, proclaiming a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins. And people from the whole Judean countryside and all the people of Jerusalem were going out to him, and were baptized by him in the river Jordan, confessing their sins. Now John was clothed with camel’s hair, with a leather belt around his waist, and he ate locusts and wild honey. He proclaimed, ‘The one who is more powerful than I is coming after me; I am not worthy to stoop down and untie the thong of his sandals. I have baptized you with water; but he will baptize you with the Holy Spirit.’

In those days Jesus came from Nazareth of Galilee and was baptized by John in the Jordan. And just as he was coming up out of the water, he saw the heavens torn apart and the Spirit descending like a dove on him. And a voice came from heaven, ‘You are my Son, the Beloved; with you I am well pleased.’

Here is the passage from Matthew:

In those days John the Baptist appeared in the wilderness of Judea, proclaiming, ‘Repent, for the kingdom of heaven has come near.’ This is the one of whom the prophet Isaiah spoke when he said,
‘The voice of one crying out in the wilderness:
“Prepare the way of the Lord,
make his paths straight.” ’
Now John wore clothing of camel’s hair with a leather belt around his waist, and his food was locusts and wild honey. Then the people of Jerusalem and all Judea were going out to him, and all the region along the Jordan, and they were baptized by him in the river Jordan, confessing their sins.

But when he saw many Pharisees and Sadducees coming for baptism, he said to them, ‘You brood of vipers! Who warned you to flee from the wrath to come? Bear fruit worthy of repentance. Do not presume to say to yourselves, “We have Abraham as our ancestor”; for I tell you, God is able from these stones to raise up children to Abraham. Even now the axe is lying at the root of the trees; every tree therefore that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire.

‘I baptize you with water for repentance, but one who is more powerful than I is coming after me; I am not worthy to carry his sandals. He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and fire. His winnowing-fork is in his hand, and he will clear his threshing-floor and will gather his wheat into the granary; but the chaff he will burn with unquenchable fire.’

Then Jesus came from Galilee to John at the Jordan, to be baptized by him. John would have prevented him, saying, ‘I need to be baptized by you, and do you come to me?’ But Jesus answered him, ‘Let it be so now; for it is proper for us in this way to fulfil all righteousness.’ Then he consented. And when Jesus had been baptized, just as he came up from the water, suddenly the heavens were opened to him and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove and alighting on him. And a voice from heaven said, ‘This is my Son, the Beloved, with whom I am well pleased.’

Toto

A single fact is not a pattern :huh:

Matthew, Luke and John add some extra indications that the baptism is an anomaly, because Jesus was born sinless (to them.) These indicate some embarrassment in their retelling of Mark's story, some need to spin the story that is missing in Mark.

I don't think you have thought this through.

ApostateAbe

No, I do not think that Mark knew Matthew. I do know that Matthew knew Mark, and that is what's important. Matthew is the earliest known interpreter of Mark, so I take it to be extremely useful to use Matthew to help us understand Mark. Since the two gospels use the same story, with the same event, the same miracle (that you take to be Adoptionist in one account but not the other?), and the same quote of humility by JtB, then it makes perfect sense to ascribe the same motives to both accounts. Am I really assuming anything that I shouldn't?

Toto

Yes, damn it. No one who knows anything makes that assumption. There is no logical basis for it. You are just trying to construct a rationalization for your case.

mountainman

But what if the Gnostics themselves were the remnants of the oldest religions that were domicile in the Roman Empire during the rise of christianity? The Gnostics are certainly cited with regard to the followers of Plato and Pythagoras, in the epoch BCE and afterwards. There is no doubt that these people were also involved in the preservation of astronomical and mathematical knowledge and medical knowledge and building knowlege, etc.

How far removed from the modern Mythicist position was the position adopted by the Gnostics in key issues, such as their belief in the historical accounts about jesus and the apostles as presented in the NT canon?

mountainman

It's like trying to dress up the emperor in luxurious but imaginary clothes.
See The Emperor's New Clothes by Hans Eusebius Anderson.
Hence the controversy which commenced c.325 CE

Both the Mythicist Position and the Historicist Position commence with a political and military miracle ....
At that time most certainly the orthodox christians expressed most pious concordance with the historical jesus.
But the Arian controversy was diametrically opposed to the historicists.
Was Arius of Alexandria and those who followed his five sophisms "mythicists"?
Or were they "gnostics"?
Or were they simly "heretics" of the Historicists position?

ApostateAbe

Cool, thanks. I will run down ABE, comparing my explanation to your explanation. I will be heavily slanted toward my own explanation, so I would love it if you could do the same thing from your own perspective.

My explanation is that a historical baptism occurred. Jesus began as a follower of John the Baptist. Jesus broke off his ministry from the JtB movement, maintaining enormous respect for him. After the death of Jesus, the followers of Jesus maintained that Jesus was the sinless Son of God. The Christians competed with the cult of JtB for recruitment and loyalty, and they had to fight the point from the rival camp that JtB baptized Jesus. So, the four churches of each of the four gospels each came up with their own set of histories of the baptism.

Explanatory power. The explanation that expects the evidence the most has the greatest explanatory power. All four gospels display an extreme expression of humility from JtB with respect to Jesus, which is very much expected from a rivalry with the JtB. The synoptic gospels weave a miracle into the story, where God calls Jesus (not JtB) his son, and my explanation has a moderate degree of explanatory power to match this. In Luke, JtB is apparently in prison before the baptism of Jesus. In John, the baptism account is skipped.

Your explanation has only minor explanatory power. It does not strongly expect the extreme expressions of humility from JtB. Your explanation accepts the expressions as a mere plausibility. Nor does your explanation expect the miracle story.

Explanatory scope. I think both our models at least cover the baptism accounts as an explanation. However, there is more evidence about JtB that I haven't mentioned, and I my own model explains it. It is Matthew 11:11.

Truly I tell you, among those born of women no one has arisen greater than John the Baptist; yet the least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he.

Such a quote can be expected if Jesus was a follower of JtB. However, it can not be easily expected if JtB's association with Jesus was merely a device to prop up the status of Jesus.

Plausibility. Go ahead and state what you think is implausible with my model, or restate it if you have already done so. I believe that there is a problem of plausibility for your model if JtB was historical and Jesus was not, but I am willing to be proved wrong on this point. Can you find a comparable situation in religious myth where a non-historical character has a close association with a historical human? For the power of popularity of the historical human or any other reason? The problem of plausibility arises from the seemingly unintuitive nature of a model that requires completely mythical or fictional people to have close associations with historical people, yet people still believe it.

Less ad hoc. Without the accounts of the baptism of Jesus, the belief that Jesus was a follower of JtB is not part of the model. Your model doesn't directly predict that a historical JtB would be used to prop up Jesus, and neither would that belief exist without the baptism, so I think we are equal on the ad hoc point, for now. Very many ad hoc explanations arise only as the debate progresses, so beware.

Disconfirmed by fewer accepted beliefs. I don't think that this is an issue for either model.

So, if you have a little extra time, I would love to have your evaluation of the two models using ABE.

ApostateAbe

Sorry, what assumption are you referring to? The assumption that Matthew knew Mark?

aa5874

If someone assumes Jesus and John the Baptist existed then whether or not Jesus was baptised becomes irrelevant.

If someone assumes Jesus claimed or believed he was sinless or that the Jews assumed he was sinless then John need not baptise Jesus.

What does it matter, Jesus and John are already assumed to have existed?

But, there is a problem, the baptism of Jesus or by the followers of Jesus cannot be found outside the assumptions of the Church and the NT before the Fall of the Temple.

Josephus wrote about John's baptism in "Antiquities of the Jews " 18.5 but completely forgot to mention that Jesus baptised more disciples than John. See John 4.1

ApostateAbe

I do not depend on the scholarly consensus, nor do I argue that you should accept the scholarly consensus regardless of the evidence. I have tried to make this all about the objective evidence of the Christian texts. I guess that I shouldn't have brought up any sort of point about what the scholarship thinks, because I only meant to point out what I found wrong with your argument. You thought that we didn't "know" anything about the life of Jesus, and I said that I do "know" a few things about the life of Jesus (using my loose definition of the word). We can just leave the scholarly consensus out of it.
In my time spent investigating apologetics, I have noticed that the points that are covered by the apologists are not necessarily the points that pose the biggest problems from a fully-informed supremely-intelligent perspective. For example, in my very experienced opinion, the biggest problem for creationism is the double-nested hierarchy of species that fulfills the expectations of the theory of evolution with astronomical statistical probability. However, a rebuttal to that point is not what you typically find in creationist literature. Why? It is not because they are just trying to dodge tough questions. It is because the typical lines of attack are different. Therefore, they write rebuttals to the point that there are "missing links" like Lucy or the Archaeopteryx. They actually spend more time trying to win over the Old-Earth creationists using Biblical theology than they do battling the secular evolutionists.

Jesus was part of the cult of JtB. We might find that to reflect poorly on Jesus. Would that reflect poorly on Jesus in the eyes of either the Christians or the followers of JtB? Maybe so, but that isn't the one-liner that they would hear repeatedly. Instead, they would hear that JtB baptized Jesus, therefore, "Who is superior?" If Jesus was part of the cult of JtB, then, not only can we explain why Jesus was baptized, but we can explain why JtB comes at the beginning of each gospel, we can explain why baptism is an early part of Christian practice, and we can explain Matthew 11:11.
OK, maybe you can explain in detail why you think those two explanations are better than my absurdly-applied argument from embarrassment. You can use ABE, like I did with Steven Carr. Good luck.