Steven Carr

On page 169 of 'A Marginal Jew' JP Meier writes about the baptism of Jesus by John the Baptist that 'the event simply never occurs in John's Gospel'

Meier regards the baptism as historically certain, and gives the silence in John's Gospel as part of the evidence for this certainty.

But is this silence multiply attested?

Surely if we managed to unearth some more Gospels in some abandoned monastery library somewhere, and the baptism simply never occurred in those Gospels, then the silence would be multiply attested.

And then we would have proof that the baptism really did happen.

Surely, a responsible historian cannot conclude that the baptism happened, until the time that we find more texts where the event never occurred.

Until we find more texts which back up the silence in John about the baptism, we cannot leap to the conclusion that it happened....

dog-on

ApostateAbe

Can you please tell us Meier's explanation for the silence in John?

Steven Carr

John 'locked as he was in a struggle with latter-day disciples of the Baptist' knew that the baptism was historical so erased it from his Gospel.

ApostateAbe

That does seem like a non-sequitur. A non-historical baptism would have the same effect. Is there any more to the argument than that? Does he argue that the baptism of Jesus by John the Baptist seems a little out of place in the Christian gospels except if Jesus was a follower of John, therefore, the baptism is probably historical?

Steven Carr

How does the baptism of Jesus by John seem out of place when Meier points out that neither Luke nor John claim John the Baptist baptised Jesus?

Something cannot look out of place if it is not there.

ApostateAbe

It seems out of place to have John (lesser figure) baptize Jesus (greater figure), which would be part of my own personal argument for historicity. I am just curious if there is any more substance to Meier's arguments.

Steven Carr

You seem to have nailed Meier's arguments.

Meier claims that because there is no mention of any baptism in John's Gospel, then it must have happened.

Toto

Well, let's be fair. The argument typically is that John omits the actual baptism because it was "embarrassing." But he does have John as forerunner and the events leading up to the baptism in Mark; the implication is that he couldn't expunge it completely because it was established in an "early tradition" so he just tiptoed around it.

But notice that the careful historicists only talk about an "early tradition" because they know that tradition is not the same as history. (At least until they misdirect your attention to that shiny object over there...)

But all this shows is that the baptism was not embarrassing to Mark, yet became embarrassing to later authors who worked over Mark's material. Why would this be? perhaps shifting theological sands? A different meaning attached to baptism?

Steven Carr

Meier claims the 'event simply never occurs' in John's Gospel.

How can this not be expunging it completely?

Meier takes the non-mention of the event as proof that it was embarrassing.

This is an argument from silence of the worst kind. Something is historical because it is not mentioned....

If one Gospel writer could simply not mention the event, so could the first Gospel writer.

Especially if Christians really had been battered over the head for 30 years by people pointing out that their Messiah had submitted to baptism by John the Baptist.

The fact that it appears in the first Gospel, and then proved embarrassing shows that it is not historical.

Or else Christians would have developed some spin on the event in the 30 years between it happening and Mark writing about it.

Tiger Woods has apologised for his embarrassing behaviour. If it had taken him 30 years to respond to talk about his behaviour, we would start to think he was not embarrassed by his deeds.


If it took Christians 30 plus years to realise that it was embarrassing for their Messiah to have been baptised, then it wasn't embarrassing.