Malachi151

What is the Christian explanation for baptism?

Where did it come from and why did John do it?

From what I know, baptism was a common practice in the mystery religions of the Hellenistic region.

Going with the view that Mark is the first gospel, aside from Thomas, the sayings gospel, it seems significant that Mark opens with the story of baptism:

Why this setup? Of course it seems quite absurd to say that all of the people of Jerusalem and the surrounding area went out to be baptised, a non-Jewish practice, at least in this context.

The intro to Mark reads exactly like what one would expect of the mystery religions.

So, my question is, WHY, supposedly, was John "baptising" people?

Paul mentions baptism a couple of, like literally 2 or 3 times, but not in any meaningful way.

(Is this Paul below?)

At any rate, those are all of the mentions of baptism prior to the gospel of Mark, as far as I know.

So, again, why this baptism, and how do the Christaisn explains its use in Christianity? It seems so clearly an aquired practice from "paganism", yet it is central in many ways to Christianity.

In fact, I would say that baptism is the clearest and most definative tie between Christianity and the mystery religions.

RUmike

The following is from the Gospel of Mark commentary of the Sacra Pagina series (Donahue and Harrington), on verse 1:9 (pg. 62). Perhaps it will help you.

The translation "baptism" risks anachronistic interpretation as a fixed initiation rite. In Greek baptein abd baptizein mean "dip" or "immerse," and in the middle voice "wash oneself." Mark knows of Jewish ritual washings (7:4) and also uses "baptism" metaphorically as being "drenched" in suffering (10:38-39). Both the origin and meaning of John's baptism are disputed. Two different proposals have emerged: (1) water rituals of purification known from the OT and Qumran (Lev 14:5-6, 50-52; Num 19:13, 20-21), which are symbols of interior purification (Isa 1:16; Ps 51:7; 1QS 3:4-12; 4:20-22; 1QH 7:6-7; 17:26); and (2) proselyte baptism, which was a ritual washing of initiation for converts to Judaism. Problems attend both as a background to John's baptism. Ritual washings are self-administered and repeated frequently, while John is the agent of a baptism that is not repeated, prepares for the eschaton, and implies moral conversion. Proselyte baptism is not clearly attested in the NT period, nor does John seek to form a community of baptized persons only around himself. John Meier (A Marginal Jew 2:53-55) suggests that John's practice of baptism should be regarded as original.

Malachi151

I completely don't buy that John's baptism was based on any Jewish root, or, even if John's was, that the Christianization of it was.

Jews never used baptism the way that it is used in teh Bible, yet hundreds of mystery religions used it in the same way that its used in the Bible.

Also, Holy Water is used by Catholics the exact same way that it was used by the Egyptians for over a thousand years.

The baptism of John was in relation to the revelation of a mystery, i.e. the coming of Jesus (at least how it is portrayed in the Bible).

RUmike

Yes but do you really buy that as historical fact?

Rick Sumner

In which religions? Cybelle and Attis preformed the Taurobolium (a rite frequently, though inaccurately, attributed to Mithraism as well--the product of Franz Cumont. I'd reccommend Duthoy, The Taurobolium: Its Evolution and Terminology, on this. I don't know how good the English translation of his work is, having read the French, but I'd presume it catches his point. So far as I know, it's the only book on the matter), but the taurobolium is not really analogous to baptism. Water is used to purify--whether John authentically did it for "the remission of sins" or not, the purpose is clear, particularly in the light of Jewish purity regulations. Blood does not seem to fit that description. Both, however, do seem to be initiation rites.

I'm not aware of any other analogue, good or otherwise.

"Non-Jewish" is overstating it a little. It's unique, to be sure, but not so much so that it doesn't fit the context of Judaism. Compare with Bannus, for example, who led Josephus to engage in ritual washing with him. The notable distinction is John acting as the washer. I don't think this is enough to demand a new context for it.

It's not as though we have no surviving texts from mystery religions, so we don't have to limit ourselves to "what one would expect." What texts do you see the parallels in? Meyer's "The Ancient Mysteries" provides a purportedly comprehensive list and the text of this type of literature. I must confess, looking through it, that I don't see the parallel you suggest.

Huh? Paul mentions it in the context of initiation in 1Cor 1. I'd suggest this gives us more than passing clue what it's intention was. Gal.3.27 confirms this, with "baptized into Christ." What Paul thinks baptism means is pretty clear, whether that meant the same thing to John is questionable.

And you make this connection by citing no evidence. Nowhere in your post is there a mention of what Mystery Schools practiced this, and what texts, epigraphs or iconography we find it confirmed in. Not one word is said about what texts you think Mark parallels. Only your own declarations.

Regards,
Rick Sumner

Clivedurdle

Rick, from a xian perspective, what is the point of Baptism? It looks like a duplication, an unneccessary accretion.

Is it not the ritual of death of the old self and rebirth into the new life in Christ? But that is not John's Baptism of Christ for the remission of sins - did Jesus have sins to be remitted?

It is said that that is the point where Man and God became one - the holy spirit descending, thus baptism now is where man and god are reunited in the church.

But as I said on an earlier thread, there was a widespread belief that demons did not like to get wet! Washing was not to wash germs off but to be ritually pure - whited sepulchres.

Innuit believed until recently that menstruating women would make it impossible to be successful at hunting. Why is this baptism ritual given any more authenticity than the innuit beliefs?

Rick Sumner

Clivedurdle I can't help but wonder how you think any of this addresses the points of my post. I noted that one may question whether or not John's baptism was for the "remission of sins." I also noted that Paul seems to see it as an intitiation ritual.

Regards,
Rick Sumner

Clivedurdle

http://www.abacci.com/annotated/eboo...&pagenumber=46

Far from

Baptism looks like a typical very ancient ritual to mark childbirth that was also used later on to mark new birth - into the true light of xianity.

Rick Sumner

Interesting. Now you need to get from the Druids to Judea. More importantly for present claims, you need to establish that Druidism was a "Mystery Religion," which, of course, it was not.


It's not "far from" at all. This is cited in your post, not Malachi's. My original assertion regarding his post remains accurate. He cited no information on the matter.

That's rather what an "initiation" is.

Regards,
Rick Sumner

Clivedurdle

Will Galatians and Simon Magus do for starters - ignore the off topic stuff here, and forget about esus!

http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=167032

Please define mystery religion. One of the roots of druid is knowing or gnosis!