Toto

How does this follow?

John is assumed to be historical because he is described in Josephus. Frank Zindler argued that this passage was another Christian interpolation, but Peter Kirby argued persuasively against that near the end of this thread.

However, the description of John in the NT is fairly mythologized, and it does not follow that the historicity of John proves the historicity of Jesus. The early church could have concocted the baptism scene for a number of reasons - to provide a dramatization of a fictional or fictionalized Jesus receiving the Holy Spirit, to connect to an ongoing movement and to go one up on them (your guy said he wasn't worthy to touch the feet of our guy, nyah nyah), or for some motive that is lost to us now.

Vinnie

Toto, Q and Mark also are evidence for John the baptist. We do not really "need" Josephus but he add the final nail into the coffin for would be skeptics.

My argument follows because if the early church believed in a historical Jesus then the historicity of Jesus is a closed case. There is no reason whatsoever to dispute the existence of a historical Jesus if it is shown that the early church accepte a historical Jesus. Doherty's case rests precisely on the opposite claim. Without it his case his absolutely worthless. Edited again to add--Yes I realize he places several pieces togther but in reality, without this early silence, there is no argument. I find it to be a crucial part of his thesis.

To deny that is equivalent to denying all valid history in my book. We have primary-eyewitness source data connecting Paul with the "followers of Jesus"--appearently the same ethereal cosmic being who was bapotized in the Jordan river by John the Baptist.

I can understand why the church would attribute a baptism to a Jewish maned named Jesus who grew up in Galilee. My question is simple, why would the church have attributed a flesh and blood baptism to their "casper the friendly Jesus"? Naturally thi leads me to think tat there must have been an early belief in an actual historical Jesus. Further, one might argue that for the later authors to retain this troubling tradition, it must have been secure or widespread data.

So whether Jesus was baptized or not, it leads to the conclusion of an HJ. it undercuts both mythicism and agnosticism in regards to the existence of an HJ. You can still be agnostic as to the events of Jesus' life, however.

Vinnie

did a pinch of editing just after submission...nothing major changed.

Vinnie

I said:Q and Mark also are evidence for John the baptist. And as mentioned otherwise, GJohn might be another one depending on your take on its baptist traditions, and also GHebrews depending if you make judgment on the dating and literary dependence or independence of this very partial text.

The first three are more solid of course.

Vinnie

Toto

Q is a hypothetical document, not evidence of anything historical. The idea that there are layers that can be dated to a particular time period is literary speculation, not historical proof.

gMark is a piece of fiction / allegory / midrash. The author of Mark shows no particular sense of embarrassment over the Baptism. The Baptism only becomes embarrassing to later orthodoxy, when Jesus had to be too pure and holy and sinless from birth to need a baptism for the remission of sins. Mark has no virgin birth and clearly takes an adoptionist view, that the baptism was the equivalent of an anointing, and that thereafter Jesus became the son of God.

Vinnie

First, I find that there are layers to Q to be irrelevant to this discussion right not.

Second, Q may be hypothetical but if you accept the 2ST then you believe that Matthew and Luke used Q and that it had John the baptist material in it.

Do you or do you not subscribe to the Q theory? If you do i am nto going to allow you to have your cake and eat it too like this.

COMPLETELY UNSUBSTANTIALED ALLEGATION. Please explain why there is such a paucity of Gentile relate material in Mark if it is entirely fiction. I've articulate this argument a number of times here and no one has touched it.

The baptism is lumped in between John being the precursor to Jesus--the one preparing the way for him--and the epiphany which declares Jesus to be God's son.

Unless you believe--against the evidence--that this was true of John then I do not see how there is not a degree of theological damage control in Mark's account. Matthew and Luke have even more but the problem is you think there is NONE in Mark but you have no evidence.

Well would you have a problem here if the alleged sinlessness of Jesus is documented in the 1st stratum and even the second? If I provide a reference or references will you concede this point?

jesus was viewed as sinless pretty early. This view did not originate later.
And the proof that Mark did not spin a troubling account into this into is what exactly?

Vinnie

Vinnie

As I said above: "The author of Mark seems fine NOT with "the baptism" but with "the baptism and the epiphany" in the context of John being the precursor and returned Elijah preparing the way for Jesus. The author of the account immediately overshadows the baptism with the epiphany and precedes it with (or has it in the context of) JBap's prophetic announcements of Jesus. I don't think it can be established that the author of Mark would not or did not find the idea of an "apparently sinful" Jesus being baptized by JBAP embarrassing or slightly embarrassing or as raising theological issues. Mark's account is already "apologized" to a fair degree. It gets apologized even further by those who copy off of Mark.

Toto

I am agnostic on Q, but leaning against it.

In this case, it is possible that Luke used both Matthew and Mark as sources, or that there was another source different from a collection of sayings, which is what Q is presumed to be, which Matthew and Luke both used.

I don't understand this. What does a paucity of gentile-related material have to do with fictionality?

If you are determined to find damage control, you will find it.

Well, provide your reference and we will talk about it (or type about it.)

Why should the burden of proof be on the fictional nature of Mark?

Consider the legend of Washington chopping down the cherry tree. It could be damage control. He did a naughty thing, but then it is turned into a virtue because he could not tell a lie. But we know that is a fictional account written by Parson Weems.

Steven Carr

Is this an embarrasment at the baptism?

Surely no more than having somebody nominate a Preidential candiate, and having him say that the candidate will be the best President ever.

I fail to see how having John give a glowing reference to Jesus is a sign of embarrasment that John baptised Jesus.

Not embarrasment, but pride surely, that this was the annoucement to the world of Jesus, the Son of God. I wonder if Mark was an adoptionist.


VINNIE
"The author of Mark seems fine NOT with "the baptism" but with "the baptism and the epiphany" in the context of John being the precursor and returned Elijah preparing the way for Jesus. The author of the account immediately overshadows the baptism with the epiphany and precedes it with (or has it in the context of) JBap's prophetic announcements of Jesus.

CARR
This is still not embarrasment at the baptism, but pride. I still honestly can't see any more embarrasment than any 'embarrasment' that a Presidential candidate has to have somebody nominate him at the convention - ie none.

Mark had to choose some story for an epiphany, so why not a baptism? Remember there is nothing in Mark to hint that Jesus knew of any divine status before being told by God of his status, so why not have him as a normal person chosen by God to be the saviour?


I agree with your point that the authors of the baptism of Jesus by John bits, thought of Jesus as flesh and bones.

I don't want to misrepresent you. Do you still feel there is no baptism in Q?

Vorkosigan

Such a story would also provide a rationalizion for why Christians baptize that would be wholly "christian" in origin, and explain why they had the same practices as some of their non-Christian neighbors.

I see JBap as simply another example of the gospels borrowing historical figures for their own purposes.

Vinnie

The burden of proof is on both of us. For me to explain why it was embarrasing since I am making the positive claim that it was and for you to show the opposite since you said Mark did not find it embarrasing.

""""Toto: The author of Mark shows no particular sense of embarrassment over the Baptism. The Baptism only becomes embarrassing to later orthodoxy, when Jesus had to be too pure and holy and sinless from birth to need a baptism for the remission of sins. """"

In an account where there is a high level of polemic and overshadowing where there is clearly large amounts of uneasiness in the Christian record on, and you want me to assume without argumentation your viewpoint that Mark was fine with it? Surely you need to defend your positive statement just as much as I need to defend mine?!

These comparisons are ridiculous and only serve to show how far you have to stretch. Jesus being subjected JBap--who bapptized for the remission of sin (will defend if need be even though it shouldn't!!!)-- goes against the theological grain of the Gospel of Mark and the early church who believe 1) Jesus had the power//authority to forgive sins and 2) was sinless.

The logic behind this is simple. Why would the church create problems for itself? Why attribute (make-up) things about Jesus and preach them when you disagree with them//find them disagreeable? George Washington has absolutely NOTHING to do with that question. You have to come up with a motif for Mark to do such a thing if you think he created it.

So here we go:

Sinlessness of Jesus.

2 Cor 5:21 21God made him who had no sin to be sin for us, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.

This is first stratum material. It occurs in the early church.

It is also widespread.

Heb 4:14 For we do not have a high priest who is unable to sympathize with our weaknesses, but we have one who has been tempted in every way, just as we are--yet was without sin.

John 8:46 Can any of you prove me guilty of sin? If I am telling the truth, why don't you believe me?

1 Pet 1:19 but with the precious blood of Christ, a lamb without blemish or defect.

1 Pet 2:22 "He committed no sin, and no deceit was found in his mouth."

Now we will list the verses that view Jesus as the forgiver of sins:

1 Cor 15:3 For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance[1] : that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures,

First stratum reference and Paul is claiming to have passed this information in the past. And its information that he received prior to this! Of course you will discredit this verse as an interpolation *yawn* so I'll move on

Rom 3:23-26 23for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, 24and are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus. 25God presented him as a sacrifice of atonement, through faith in his blood. He did this to demonstrate his justice, because in his forbearance he had left the sins committed beforehand unpunished-- 26he did it to demonstrate his justice at the present time, so as to be just and the one who justifies those who have faith in Jesus.

Yes this is another Pauline reference. How does it help? It was written to a different group of people right? meaning many people believed it See allso Rom 4:25; and 5:8-21

Col 1:14 14in whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins.

Thats another community.Since I'm tired of reprinting (copying and pasting) the numerous verses:

Eph 1:7, 1 Tim 1:15, Matt 1:12; 26:28, Luke 7:36-49; 24:46-47; Acts 5:31; Heb 1:3; ; John 1:29; 1 John 1:7-2:21 Pet 2:24-25; 3:18;

Well, I guess almost everyone believed this except --according to Toto--Mark. But Mark himself has something extremely similar following chapter one which has the baptismal story!!!!

Mark 2:1-12 "1A few days later, when Jesus again entered Capernaum, the people heard that he had come home. 2So many gathered that there was no room left, not even outside the door, and he preached the word to them. 3Some men came, bringing to him a paralytic, carried by four of them. 4Since they could not get him to Jesus because of the crowd, they made an opening in the roof above Jesus and, after digging through it, lowered the mat the paralyzed man was lying on. 5When Jesus saw their faith, he said to the paralytic, "Son, your sins are forgiven." 6Now some teachers of the law were sitting there, thinking to themselves, 7"Why does this fellow talk like that? He's blaspheming! Who can forgive sins but God alone?" 8Immediately Jesus knew in his spirit that this was what they were thinking in their hearts, and he said to them, "Why are you thinking these things? 9Which is easier: to say to the paralytic, 'Your sins are forgiven,' or to say, 'Get up, take your mat and walk'? 10But that you may know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins . . . ." He said to the paralytic, 11"I tell you, get up, take your mat and go home." 12He got up, took his mat and walked out in full view of them all. This amazed everyone and they praised God, saying, "We have never seen anything like this!"

Yes Jesus--if he said your sins are forgiven--may haven meant "by God" when he first said it (e.g. E.P. Sanders) but that is irrelevant since Mark is under discussion. Jesus forgives sins according to Mark. He has been granted that authority. According to a whole host of references he is the source of forgiveness of sins and according to sosome (1st stratum included) Jesus is sinless.

Well, this seems to naturally go hand in hand with Jesus being the source of forgiceness of sins if you ask me. but I could be wrong of course!

Given all these verses, its a shame that you said this:

Do we even read the primary literature we are discussing. Look out, Carr might make a thread saying Jesus mythicism or agnosticism evidence is made up

So you are arguing that Mark went out of his way to contradict himself and create a problem for orthodoxy when all this stuff on Jesus being sinless and the source of forgiveness was so well known and he even accepted Jesus as a source of forgiveness of sin???

Wow!

I would argue that Jesus was baptized by JBap and his followers (including the early church) found it embarrassing--Mark included given that he accepted Jesus as a source of forgiveness and has the account jumbled the story in with John being subordinated into Jesus' precursor and the account ending with the voice from have.

Where else could Mark put this baptism but at the beginning od Jesus' ministry? Adoptionism is hardly a threat to the embarrassment criterion here. They can be seen as working in tandem here:

Sure Mark was an adoptionist. Thats how he mitigated the problems posed by this embarrassing fact of history.

At any rate, Mark did not make this up.There are two possibilities:

Either someone before him did----before information about Jesus being sinless and the source of forgiveness spread as well. Otherwise we wouldn't expect the church to even have "reatained" a false story like this or have dealt with it in the manner that they did.

Or the more likely theory which explains the evidence the best, Jesus was baptized by John and it was widely known. It had to be dealt with.

Either way the historicity of Jesus is pretty much a lock.

As John Meier wrote, "Whether the original point of the theophany was to balance a baptism of repeentance for the remission of sins with a heavenly proclamation of Jesus as the So of God or to counter the claim of a rival Baptist community (which saw the baptism as proof of John's superiority to jesus) with God's affirmation of Jesus' superiority, the theophany obviously mitigates the theological difficulty that a bare, unadorned account of Jesus' baptism by John would create."

You only have one real stance to move into from here: John the baptist did not baptize for the remission of sin. But that will only present temporary shelter.

Vinnie