Vinnie

Sparked by this:
http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?threadid=66872

Since Carr's thread in on the Brian//Earl HJ debate I figured I'd give this its own topic:

Hot off the press:

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

Vinnie

Steven Carr

Meier says 'Yes with all due hesitance.'

Anyway, in the debate Doherty said it did not, and Brian sneered that Doherty believed it did, showing that Brian was not really listening to Doherty's actual words.

Meier says 'While the criterion of embarrassment is the major argument for the historicity of the baptism of Jesus,.....'

Could somebody show me the embarrassment in the earliest version of the story (ie Mark), or in Q if you believe Q was the earliest version?

Vinnie

As I wrote on my own article on embarrassment and Jesus' baptism:

Is it true that Mark does not have any problems with Jesus' baptism by John the Baptist? The author of GMark seems quite content to tell of the baptism itself without much defensive commentary but what Mark states before and after the baptism of Jesus by John seems to certainly be enough to overshadow the account. JBap is started off as being a precursor to Jesus or the one who prepares the way. Right before Mark moves on to the baptism he has JBap state: "After me will come one more powerful than I, the thongs of whose sandals I am not worthy to stoop down and untie. I baptize you with water, but he will baptize you with the Holy Spirit." The same general theme (the thongs of whose sandals I am not fit to untie) is followed by Luke in his infancy narrative whose parallels seem to have one purpose in mind: prioritizing Jesus over JBap. Mark even says that the quote above was JBap's message as he was baptizing "the whole Judean countryside and all the people of Jerusalem". Fredriksen (Jesus of Nazareth p. 189) states that "Such pronouncements flatly fail a claim to authenticity based on the criterion of dissimilarity, for they present John enunciating precisely the later Christian community's own beliefs about him, and about Jesus' superiority to him."Mark sets it up that JBap went around preaching the coming of Jesus or rather, more accurately, the coming Messiah. Mark's point is clear: Elijah reincarnated is here preparing the way for Jesus.

Then Mark moves on to the actual baptism: "At that time Jesus came from Nazareth in Galilee and was baptized by John in the Jordan."

This seems simple enough but that's not the end of it though as Mark proceeds to tell us that when Jesus was coming up out of the water the heavens tore apart and the spirit descended on Jesus and let's not forget about the voice that came from heaven declaring Jesus to be God's Son, the Beloved with whom God is much pleased by. As John Dominic Crossan noted in Jesus A Revolutionary Biography (p. 44), "Mark 1:9 tells about the baptism without any defensive commentary, but immediately overshadows it with the heavenly voice in 1:10-11.

In those days Jesus came from Nazareth of Galilee and was baptized by John in the Jordan. And just as he was coming up out of the water, he saw the heavens torn apart and the Spirit descending like a dove on him. And a voice came from heaven, "You are my Son, the beloved; with you I am well pleased."

That would seem quite adequately to exalt revelation over baptism and Jesus over John."

The author of Mark seems fine NOT with "the baptism" but with "the baptism and the epiphany" in the context of John being the precursor and returned Elijah preparing the way for Jesus. The author of the account immediately overshadows the baptism with the epiphany and precedes it with (or has it in the context of) JBap's prophetic announcements of Jesus. I don't think it can be established that the author of Mark would not or did not find the idea of an "apparently sinful" Jesus being baptized by JBAP embarrassing or slightly embarrassing or as raising theological issues. Mark's account is already "apologized" to a fair degree. It gets apologized even further by those who copy off of Mark.

We actually have every reason to believe Jesus was baptized by John and none to suppose he wasn't. Mythicists start special pleading and stretching to the max on this issue.

Vinnie

Doctor X

Interesting.

Jn seems to pay even more attention to the "problem." He has J the B subordinate himself to Junior to such an extent--even chastizing his followers--that I have often wondered if Jn's "group" or "intended audience" had conflict with remenants of a J the B group. Of course, his Junior is in control of everything and perhaps he wished to remove any doubt that Junior was subordinate at any point to anyone. Perhaps Jn was involved in a little over-kill.

In Mk, "the spirit" leads Junior away for a bit of sight-seeing and yoga in the desert . . . both Lk and Mt, in their own way, soften this. They also stress the subordination of J the B.

Which . . . if we extend the "what ifs" . . . could suggest Junior was once a follower of J the B and that at least the tradition of subordination existed.

From a "mythicist" standpoint, this could also just be the Junior myth capturing the J the B myth!

Nothing like certainty. . . .

--J.D.

Vinnie

The real question is, since this might not be a first stratum reference, what reason would the early church have created this pericope for? And if they did, why would latert authors retain this?

In order for a gospeler to retain material which goes against its own theological grain--well that must be some widely or commonly accepted material!

And discontinuity does not present problems for the baptism. Meier addressed this on 105.

But there is no certainty anywhere in HJ studies.

I wouldn't doubt that Christ mythicism forces people into further absurdities like JBap mysticism.

Vinnie

Doctor X

Well it is akin to Islam making Junior "just another prophet" subordinate to Mohammed . . . if a J the B "group" or "tradition" existed, a Junior follower simply replies with an "oh yeah? Well OUR GUY was better than YOUR GUY. In fact, the only reason YOUR GUY existed was for OUR GUY!!"

I "liked" to think the "Jn group" had conflict with the remnants of the J the B followers, but, then what happened to them? As far as I am aware, no records exist of such a group independent of the texts and--I think--an insertion into Josephus.

--J.D.

Celsus

You may like to check out the Mandean sect (also known as Manicheans) who IIRC inhabit southern Iraq. They remain JBap followers to this day. Ebionites are an extinct but interesting lot caught in the crossfire of DSS controversies who are probably the most Jewish of the early Jesus sects.

Joel

Vinnie

So the real live flesh and blood earth baptism account was created solely by the early church to prioritize their heavenly-mthical-cosmic-Christ over John? Was John a cosmic myth baptizer too? Was the Jordan symbolic for the Jet Stream? The heavenly river? LOL

One can rationally argue that the account is not historical on the grounds you but lets be aware of the fact that the argument itself seems to presume the early church who created this account believed in a flesh and blood Jesus which means mythicists CAN'T CAN'T CAN'T use this argument

At any rate, why would the early church go out of its way to create a story that was problematic for itself? Surely a different story between John and Jesus could have been created that did not subject John to Jesus' baptism or have a sinless Jesus being baptised by John for the remission of sin.

All these instances of special pleeding and bad arguments of interpolation (e.g. James the brother of Jesus in Paul and FlavJo) by stretching skeptics get very tired after while. On what groungs are we now saying the baptist material was a forgery in Josephus?

Because it confirms the existence of what Q and the Gospels sufficiently demonstrate themselves and thereby lends support to the historicity of Jesus? Is that the methodology employed? Whatever supports Jesus in Josephus is an interpolation?

Maybe because John didn't rise from the dead his group scattered after he died???

Or maybe they just dwindled down. This is no reason to doubt that John the baptist baptized in the first third of the first century C.E. Or that he baptized Jesus for that matter.

Vinnie

Vinnie

Woops. Reverse that

Vinnie

Did I scare everyone away?

I have demonstrated that whether historical or not, given the historicity of John the baptist (which should be affirmed--Q, Mark, Josephus, and maybe even John for a 4th), the earth church must have believed in a historical Jesus to give him a flesh and flood baptism by a flesh and blood baptizer.

Come on, maybe you can twist the Gospel of the Hebrews (probably had baptism account) if you see it as first stratum (it very well may be) into supporting a mythological baptism which was later runed into a literal-mythological one (GMark)

Vinnie