GakuseiDon

Yes, "if".

That's not my question. I understand the difficulties about using the CoE, and that is why everything I've read on it states that the CoE cannot be used on its own. That tells us only that it is limited though.

So, my question again: if the baptism was embarrassing for Mark, would you agree that this lends credence towards it being an actual event?

spin

How would one know what was embarrassing to the writer(s) of Mark?

Juststeve

We can't know for sure what the writer of Mark found embarrassing. If knowing for sure is the test the the discussion is pretty much at an end.

We can know for sure that the young Christian movement found the baptism embarrassing by the sequential way in which the four canonized gospels treat it, beginning with a rather straight forward account in Mark to no baptism at all in John. If you think the author of Mark was part of that early movement then it is reasonable to assume, without knowing for sure, that he would have been embarrassed by the idea of Jesus submitting to the baptism of another. Why then did he include the story is the argument?

Steve

avi

happy new year, Steve.

I am struggling to find out why the baptism of JC by JtB is embarrassing. I comprehend that the story is most elaborate in Mark, and absent in John, but, I don't follow several of the other points made in this thread.

If the Jewish encyclopedia is correct, about Josephus' comment regarding the substitution of baptism for circumcision, then, rather than embarrassing, baptism would have been life saving for some folks.

I don't think that people today understand the consequences of elective surgery two thousand years ago. Even today, with proper antiseptic measures, and antibiotics, scores of people die from elective surgery. Yes, those are not typically such relatively minor procedures as circumcision, and yes, circumcision in some situations is a very helpful procedure, but, no, it would not have been entirely innocuous, back then, to take a healthy male, and cut him, deliberately. A percentage of such folks would have died. Death of a wealthy potential donor, would have been reason enough to modify the requirement.

I see baptism as the logical consequence of Jewish leaders recognizing that "heathen" would not enter the Jewish religion, if this small act of barbarism, circumcision, were obligatory. There were some folks who recognized the arbitrariness of the entire process, and recognized that circumcision was a simple ceremony, one which could be replaced by baptism, with less danger, and more geld in the coffers.

The writer(s) of Mark, then, in harmony with accepted Roman Jewish practice, applied this technique to JC via JtB, to give weight to the argument against circumcision. The baptism of JC may, or may not, have been omitted/attenuated by subsequent authors of "Matthew", "Luke" and "John". We are not in possession of the original versions of any of these gospels. For all we know, the story was added to Mark, by subsequent leaders, keen to acquire some of that wealth, for themselves.

I think one ought not downplay the business end of things here. This was wealth acquired without war, theft, speculating in the money markets, or agriculture--> a very risky way to create wealth. As such, money was a powerful incentive, and I think it was the single most important driving force in the ideology. Become a Jew, and one becomes wealthy. That would have been a very strong incentive, particularly if the only serious barrier, circumcision, were removed, replaced by washing in a bath. How can that decision, to substitute bathing for mutilation, be described as anything short of brilliant?

avi

spin

What criteria can you employ to have a reasoned guess whether the writer would be embarrassed or not? You have none that I can see. You may as well be blowing smoke-rings. ("Don't bogart that joint!") This criterion of embarrassment is so vacuous, I don't understand how rational people can keep a straight face even talking about it in this context.

And if that puts the discussion at an end, that says a lot for the embarrassment factor, doesn't it?

:hysterical:

1. His readers had heard of John?
2. It's a symbolic passing on of the torch?
3. He wanted Jesus's ministry to start of with someone who could recognize him for who he is?
4. He was leading to the notion of a spiritual initiation that could be compared with baptism?
5. (Be inventive, add your own.)

You need to see that this clueless criterion is a lemon. It is a tacit admission that the employer of the criterion has no other way of dealing with the issue.


spin

Toto

You still don't get the point. The CoE is limited to nothing. You need to expand your reading past wikipedia.

spamandham

There is no known appropriate uses of it in ancient literature. Therefor, in each case in which it's proponents use it, it is being used inappropriately. So I agree with you in that unless it can be a priori proven that it is being used properly, it should not be used - which of course means it's useless. That's pretty much the point.


It's not a strawman when it's proponents - the people who invented the idea, use it this way. You claim that in the case of Mark, other criterion are used in conjunction with it. Sure, but they're bullshit too. This is advanced apologetics, not valid historical inquiry.


*If* we manage to determine that Luke and Matthew were embarrassed by the baptism, in no way does that imply that Mark was. This is more hand waving muddled thinking.

No, for the same reason that if we determine that Matthew found it embarrassing that we can not say anything of merit about Mark's opinion on it.

Even if we can determine from internal evidence that Mark found it embarrassing, in no way does that imply it was historical. The proper conclusions would be:

- Mark was not the original author of the story, but is a rewrite.

- The original author did not find the baptism embarrassing

maryhelena

Just a bit of info re deaths from circumcision practices in SA.

spamandham

To the extent we can validly conclude that Matthew, Luke, and John were increasingly embarrassed by the baptism, the proper conclusion is that these later writers recognized an incongruity, either because it was originally there, or because their concept of Jesus had changed.

It doesn't tell us anything we don't already know about 1st century history. Instead, it tells us something about how theology was evolving in the early church. You can see Jesus transforming from a son of God in Mark to God incarnate by the time of John.

aa5874

GakuseiDon appears to be going in circles.

GakuseiDon has ALREADY IMPLIED that ONE must think that the Gospels are ancient biographies and then apply the CoE.

In effect, one MUST FIRST think that JESUS was actually baptized by John and then use the CoE to prove Jesus was actually Baptized by John.


GakuseiDon thinks it is COMMON SENSE to ASSUME what he has to PROVE.

How embarrassing!!!