the_cave

I was just wondering...for those of you who believe Q existed and that it had a baptismal account at some point, how did it get there? In other words, which came first: the account in Q, or the account in Mark? Or were they simultaneously written?

I'm curious because someone here mentioned to me that tha name of Jesus is lacking a definite article in Mark's account, which suggests it's an interpolation. For those of you who would agree, do you think it could be that it was added due to influence from Q? It occured to me that this is one explanation...

So, first would come Mark w/o a baptism, and Q with a baptism. Then a revised Mark w/ a baptism. Possible, no?

Doctor X

After castigating/teasing Vinnie about what are agreed upon "facts" it may seem a bit strange that I think if a historical Junior existed he was baptised.

Why?

It is an uncomfortable tradition that Mk and then the others "explain." It could appear that Junior was a follower of J the B. Mk has J the B subordinate himself to Junior--then, of course, you have "Da Big Voice" explain it to Junior. If you believe in Mk that only Junior hears "Da Big Voice," Lk and Mt alter Mk to specify it addresses all present.

Jn may have had more problems with J the B followers because he expands on J the B admonishing his followers if they follow him rather than Junior. It seems like too much protest for it to be made up. . .

. . . but, it could also be a tradition that became uncomfortable for some writers. Mk's Junior is limited--some days he cannot heal people, he worries a croud will crush him, for example. This is not Jn's Junior--he is in control of everything.

--J.D.

Vinnie

:notworthy :notworthy :notworthy

:notworthy :notworthy :notworthy

Vinnie

Vinnie

I do not think Q originally contained a baptism account for the reasons articulated here:

http://www.after-hourz.net/ri/baptismq.html

As my article notes, I am not certain of this and I am close to agnostic on the issue.

This of course largely dependens on when you date Q. Q must be dated, of course, no later than 80 C.E. (given a little time for popularity at least) since two authors used it slighlty afte that.

I think it would be very unreasonable to dat the final composition of Q to any earlier than c. 50 C.E. Q is either a first or second stratum source. It of course has traditions that go back very early. The Gospel of Thomas is likewise an first or second stratum source. They have overlapping material and dependence of THomas on Q or vice versa is not held to by scholars. Not evne is Thomas commonly argued to be dependent upon Q1 by many of those who reconstruct specific layers of Q. This places the overlapping material very early.

But the baptism account, even if in Q, is not overlapped in Thomas. We have good reason to think the baptism goes all the way back to the laqte 20's though so Q really doesn't add anything if you ask me.

I might add in the Gospel of the Hebrews which I think may very well be early and independent but I certainly understand why a scholarly judgment of non liquet given its very fragentary and sparse nature. Some of the passages (e.g. baptism and appearance to James) do not even resemble canonical material. But that could mean its simply late and indirectly dependent.

As PK put it: "The Gospel of the Hebrews seems to be independent of the New Testament in the quoted portions; unfortunately, since the gospel is not extant, it is difficult to know whether unquoted portions of the Gospel of the Hebrews might show signs of dependence. "
http://www.earlychristianwritings.co...elhebrews.html

A baptismal account probably preceded this section. It makes sense of "coming up out of the water" and the statement after.

Vinnie

Vorkosigan

How do you know it was uncomfortable to Mark? How would you demonstrate from Mark's text that he wrote it to cover an embarrassing fact?

I don't think there was any baptism of Jesus by John. Acts 19 and Q report differing relationships, and John and Jesus are not linked at all in Josephus. The John of Mark's account is an obvious fiction built out of Isaiah and behaves in exactly the opposite way that Josephus says he did. Finally, the account of the event itself is fictional. It may be based on a real event or relationship, but how would you go about discovering which aspects are real?

Vinnie

The fact thats its preceded and followed by a lot of apologetics leans it in this direction.

As pointed out numerous times in the past, Josephus is not to be taken as reliable on this point. Further, much of Mark's baptismal narrative can be called fiction except for the fact of baptism. Its most easily read as an historical detail cast in light of sacred scripture. Not vice versa.

"""""Acts 19 and Q report differing relationships,"""""""

Acts 19 and Q are inconsistent with a baptism of Jesus by John? How so?

""""John and Jesus are not linked at all in Josephus."""

Who cares? This isn't probative of anything.

Vinnie

Vorkosigan

Vinnie, here's the NIV:

• Mark 1
  1The beginning of the gospel about Jesus Christ, the Son of God.[1]
  2It is written in Isaiah the prophet:
  "I will send my messenger ahead of you,
  who will prepare your way"[2] --
  3"a voice of one calling in the desert,
  'Prepare the way for the Lord,
  make straight paths for him.' "[3] 4And so John came, baptizing in the desert region and preaching a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins. 5The whole Judean countryside and all the people of Jerusalem went out to him. Confessing their sins, they were baptized by him in the Jordan River. 6John wore clothing made of camel's hair, with a leather belt around his waist, and he ate locusts and wild honey. 7And 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. 8I baptize you with[4] water, but he will baptize you with the Holy Spirit."
  9At that time Jesus came from Nazareth in Galilee and was baptized by John in the Jordan. 10As Jesus was coming up out of the water, he saw heaven being torn open and the Spirit descending on him like a dove. 11And a voice came from heaven: "You are my Son, whom I love; with you I am well pleased."
  12At once the Spirit sent him out into the desert, 13and he was in the desert forty days, being tempted by Satan. He was with the wild animals, and angels attended him.

Where are the apologetics?

Reads like fiction to me. All the way through. What methodology did you use to extract that as a historical fact from the text?

In Q John sends emissaries to Jesus to ask if he is the One. Why would he do that if he already knows? Hasn't he just been spending his career announcing Jesus?

In Acts 19 John's disciples -- why does he have disciples if his job is to announce Jesus? -- have no idea that John and Jesus have some relationship. The event is fiction, but the ideological point of view suggests that the JBap movement was a problem for the Jesus movement. The gospelers use several approaches, from deleting it (John) to subsuming JBap into the family of Jesus (Luke) to deal with the John problem. GosJohn also has JBap as Jesus' rival, with Jesus poaching his disciples. This too smacks of a later attempt to downplay JBap.

It's another weight on the scale.

Vorkosigan

the_cave

Let me put it this way: Doherty's mythicist account suggests that all of Mark is a fiction, based on the actions of apostles who believed in a heavenly savior. The baptism of Jesus would therefore be a midrashic account of the baptism of these apostles by John.

Except that the account of the baptism is missing a definite article (in the manuscripts we have, anyway), which suggests it was added later. Which means that even if Doherty's theory about Mark is correct in some way, there may have been an altogether different reason for the inclusion of Jesus' baptism. One explanation is that it was in Q, and from there found its way into Mark.

(Another explanation, of course, is that it actually happened, and Mark is not midrash. I'm just suggesting yet another interesting alternative for discussion. And of course there would be interesting issues to discuss if it originated in Q.)

Vinnie

Do you believe that a voice actually spoke from heaven, or that given the record, John actually knew he was proclaiming Jesus? The record indicates that Christians backread this in. Mark's account is preceded by John being the precursor to Jesus and its followed by a heavenly voice. Its clear the event was cast in sacred terms and apologized a fair degree as found in Mark, who explicitly states Johh baptized for remission of sin. Its all about subordinating John to Jesus, just as Luke's Infancy Narrative parallels are and Mathew's account (you must baptize me), and John's treatment of JBap (pronouncing Jesus as Lord of the universe first time he ever sees him).

The possibility that John represents and independent stream of baptist material must be considered as well. John is also our only source that says Jesus baptized. What to make of that I do no know.

The chief criterion: embarrassment. The fact that Jesus' baptism is never connected with Christian baptism till the church fathers. The lack of any plausible reason for early Christians to invent an account which makes Jesus lesser than John. The explanation of overlapp btween Jesus and John's followers (why should their be any or such a high degree of conflict?).

I would even add its attestation GHebrews but that is not necessary and many might find it controversial.

That is not an objection against the baptism. No one argues that John went around announing Jesus' arrival. The opposite is usually argued, Jesus started off as a follower of John and we do think John may have actually spoke of one coming after him, but it simply wasn't Jesus. Christians read that in.

Likewise, your reference in Acts is irelevant.

Naturally their were issues between JBap and Christians after both died. Christians spend a great amount of time making John Jesus' precurson and inferior.

John's self-claims were different than Jesus' as apparent from the texts. The overlapp between the two movements here is most easily explainable by the notion of John baptizing Jesus ( ABE ) and Christians making John out to be the precursor to Jesus out of embarrassment.

Furthermore, why later Christians ever retained this tradition to begin with is evidence that something happened. They were certainly free and capable of dropping problematic traditions.

Vinnie

Amaleq13

There is another potential reason for the creation of this scene hinted at in Justin's dialogue with Trypho. Apparently, there was a belief that the Messiah would be unknown, even to himself, until he was anointed by "Elias".