ApostateAbe

A single fact found in all four accounts is a pattern, one way or the other. I am saying that you have two separate explanations for one fact found in two different gospels. I have one explanation for one fact.
OK, cool.

spamandham

You seem to be essentially agreeing with me that there was a conflict between early Jesus cultists and contemporary JtB cultists, and that what we see in the NT reflects this. It's nice to find common ground.

But it fundamentally undermines your simultaneous argument from embarrassment. It is not valid to say the story is historical because it is embarrassing in light of this acknowledged conflict. Instead, the proper conclusion is that the authors of the NT thought this story would help them win the argument. It's not trustworthy because it's embarrassing, it's untrustworthy because it's obviously propaganda - something you seem to be tacitly agreeing with.

In Matthew, we see a series of certainly unhistorical claims made back to back for obvious propaganda purposes. First we see a genealogy all the way back to the fictional Abraham. Next we see a fictional birth story. Next we see the *fictional* baptism of Jesus, then the fictional temptation in the desert, and only after these plot devices setting up the gospel do we see Jesus begin his ministry. The author has obviously addressed the bones of contention first.

Well, although you don't accept it, you and I have previously discussed the Eucharist. This is a practice that really makes no sense from an HJ perspective. You would have us believe that it made such an impression on his followers that they ritualized it. But this is only viable if the last supper is essentially historical and Jesus really did correctly predict his own death on the passover. This is so improbable (in a real probabilistic sense) it's amazing to see someone of your obvious high intellect trying to foist it off.

Yet if it is not historical, and I am more than justified to say there is a high *probability* it is not, then there is no longer any explanation for the existence of the Eucharist within Christianity. The proper conclusion then, is that the story was invented to explain a pre-existing practice. This isn't surprising since ritual meals were the norm among Roman religions - hell, they were practically supper clubs.

Ok, so we've established that the NT contains origins stories. Now when we look at the baptism in this light, it is clear that it serves to explain why Christians - who reject Jewish ritual - are nonetheless engaged in Jewish ritual washing. You already seem to agree that there was infighting going on among Christians and JtB cultists, so having John fawn all over Jesus and grovelling in a Wayne's World "we're not worthy" style, kills two birds with one stone.

Toto

Your assumption that Matthew can be used as a guide to interpreting Mark.

dog-on

Yes Abe, it is important that Matthew knew Mark if, in fact, Matthew used Mark as the core of his story.


Since Mark appears to hold an adoptionist theology and Matthew does not, is it rational to interpret Mark's view of this event via Matthew?

If so, why exactly?

bacht

Several posters have provided explanatory ideas in this thread.

As for the four kinds of accounts, this applies across the board. Each gospel writer after Mark used his story and 'improved' it one way or another. We can trace a development of Christian theology, but as to the preceding events before Mark we're still left guessing.

All we really know is that the IDEA of Christ and the IDEA of John were established and had followers. Whether either or neither of these people really lived is still not known.

If John was Samaritan (as apparently his followers were like Simon Magus and Dositheus) it's possible we've got a memory of northern culture filling the vacuum caused by the destruction of Judea, maybe a belated revenge for the destruction of the northern temple by the Hasmoneans.

avi

Thanks for this reference. Very interesting. Did "Josephus" forget this, OR, was he (were they) oblivious of John's writings? In my opinion, John arrives on the scene somewhat later than "Josephus".

Thanks for your advice: I did look at John 4:1. Here's an off topic question about it:

Hort and Westcott: John 4:1
wV oun egnw o kurioV oti hkousan oi farisaioi oti ihsouV pleionaV maqhtaV poiei kai baptizei h iwannhV

Alexandrian: John 4:1
wV oun egnw o ihsous oti hkousan oi farisaioi oti ihsouV pleionaV maqhtaV poiei kai baptizei h iwannhV

Codex Sinaiticus: John 4:1
ωϲ*ουν*εγνω*ο*ιϲ*ο τι*ηκουϲαν*οι*φα ριϲαιοι*·*οτι*ιϲ*πλει
οναϲ*μαθηταϲ*ποι ει*και*βαπτιζει*·*η*ϊω

It would be interesting to see what P66and P75 have written. I wish that Codex Vaticanus were online. Apparently, P75 at least, (and maybe also P66,) is closer to Codex Vaticanus......By the time of Sinaiticus, nomina sacra are employed, perhaps to eliminate confusion over “God”, and “son of God”, i.e. compelling trinitarianism post Nicea.

Does Codex Vaticanus write “kurios” / “iesous” for this passage? Is “kurios” then synonymous, in the third century, with BOTH Jesus and God, or only Jesus, or only God?

Thanks aa, a stimulating post, as usual.

avi

aa5874

Not even the contradictory gospels stories make such a claim. There is just NO source that show that Jesus of the NT followed John the Baptist before he was baptized.

Toto

The discussion on John the Baptist as a historical figure has been split to here

mountainman

Hi Avi,

From my own reading on the nomina sacra it is generally acknowledged that while there may be some very few exceptions (I am not certain if there are, and what they are) all the papyri fragments exhibit the universal use of nomina sacra.

Strangely, at the same Oxyrynchus rubbish tip, the papyri fragments of non canonical gospels also exhibit the universal use of nomina sacra. The coptic at Nag Hammadi also exhibit this "characteristic encryption".


As far as I am aware all the Codices Vaticanus, Alexandrinus (5th) and Sinaticus etc are dated from the later 4th century and 5th. All the early dated stuff appears to exhibit the use of nomina sacra.


Yes. Seconded. ApostateAbe (as usual) seems to have hijacked this thread about the mythicist position for grandstanding on his pet historical jesus conjectures. It would seem that the hegemonic Historical Jesus Hobby Horse is permitted to be run in any thread.

Question for Dave, what does Acharya's astro-theology say about the Ayanamsa?

Toto

All posts that mention "pygmies" have been split off here. If you think a post is in the wrong thread, PM me with details.

Carry on.