Vinnie

If you look at my new thread outlaying my HJ methodology that I will evaluate the Jesus traditions from I ask you a question from there:

Where would you stand using my Jesus tradition guide?

"non liquet" or "more probable than not"???

I would have to say "more probable than not" or "highly probable". Once I re-evaluate the tradition under my methodological framework I will offer my final and more specific judgment.

I would not call the btptism virtually certain as did Crossan. Now, if I had a first stratum source as Crossan's stratification imagines (GHebrews!) I would agree with him. I tentatively agree that GHebrews is independent of the canonical baptism accounts but I date it tentatively in the third stratum. On what grounds he managed to date that in the first stratum completely defies my understanding! He wouldn't have been able to discuss Jesus and JBap in his book if he didn't though.

I wonder if some need to discuss the baptism and Jesus and Jbap didn't motivate Crossan's stratification here!

Vinnie

spin

I still think this HJ shite is absurdist waffle from scholars and would-bes who are not facing up with the scholarly responsibilities of seriously dating the texts they are analysing on purely literary grounds.

Without getting at concrete indications of dates, we have less hope of understanding audience dynamics, location of writing, and all the other clues that help us understand what the writer/s is/are doing.

The assumption that there is a historical jesus is a so far unjustified assumption, and I am not arguing from a position which says that there was no Jesus, but that no-one has shown that there was, therefore Jesus is still a hypothetical entity who may or may not have existed. (Historical figures can be shown as having interacted in the world. No such interaction has been demonstrated for Jesus.)


spin

Doctor X

Spin:

If you criticise the practice of dating to save a story--such as trying to make Mk pre-Squishing of Jerusalem to preserve it as a "witness" I definitely agree.

I am unfamiliar with G of Hebrews and Crossan so I cannot comment at all on either.

--J.D.

Vorkosigan

I agree. This is the best argument against invention. Not that it is embarrassing, but that it is dumb given the controversy between JBap followers and Jesus followers.

Everyone was dependent on Mark, who was the First (I do not believe any gospels are independent of his). I don't think Mark was dealing with firmly embedded tradition (imagine, the tradition records baptism by John in some detail, but the whole PN is made up out of the OT. Strange tradition, that.)

Like Luke and Matt, John preserved some events while deleting others. If it was historical, why did John delete it?

Perhaps. But unfortunately "some Christians found it embarrassing" cannot support an argument for authenticity by embarrassment. You need some support from Mark for that -- you know, that modicum of textual support you requested. And what I see in Mark is high approval of JBap, in small ways even more than Jesus (JBap's disciples rescue his body, Jesus' disciples flee his death).

Well, that is not a strike against my speculation (not assertion, big difference). I am simply wondering what could account for Mark's apparent stance on that material. If other sources have other stances, that's fine. Mark's story of JBap looks like he is trying to reconcile these two men who were obviously important to him, and further, use JBap to create an important event in Jesus' life, the beginning of his ministry (which is also more or less the end of John's -- fate takes a hand!).

You mean, "no real motive" that you will accept. No motive is needed; you're the one making arguments about Mark's head, not mine. The fictionality of the story and everything around it is obvious. That's powerful evidence that the "kernel" story itself was fictional. Further, even if it is tradition, that is no evidence for historicity either. The basic problem here and with NT scholars is that historicity is an axiom of inquiry, not an object of inquiry.

Vorkosigan

spin

Well, the information is wrong. Jesus, being a name, regularly appears without an article.


spin

Amaleq13

Or this is evidence that the goal suggested was not actually held by Mark's author. What controversy? The controversy between JBap's disciples and followers of Jesus is in the past according to Mark. His Gospel is being addressed to a post-70ce audience. What credibility did the surviving JBap followers have? Their leader was dead while the opposition claimed their leader was a Resurrected Messiah. According to Muller's website, the "descendants" of JBap followers consider Jesus to have been a fraud. Mark's story is not an attempt to somehow bridge the gap between the two groups. His story totally disregards any opposing views and essentially hijacks any residual credibility John had (but not his followers). Are we to believe that JBap actually did preach a "coming one" and recognized Jesus as that figure? Or is it more reasonable to assume that this is Mark's invention created without regard to what JBap actually taught? I suggest that the latter is more credible and that, in turn, argues against Mark attempting to reconcile with current/former Baptist followers.

John is described as the dividing line between the authority of the Law/Prophets and the Kingdom of God. He is given respect but he is also put in his subordinate place without apology. This suggests that Mark's audience highly respected JBap but needed to have him appropriately placed in context of beliefs about Jesus. He is reimagined as Elias predicting the coming of and enabling the identification of Jesus as the Messiah. This identification of Jesus is the goal of the story. Using John is only natural given that he was, no doubt, the most widely known prophet in recent memory.

It is a plausible suggestion but there does not appear to be anything to justify "more". It is also a plausible suggestion to understand Mark as depicting the Messiah being anointed/identified by a revered, deceased prophet-figure from the recent past.

This is consistent with my suggested goal (i.e. identification of Jesus). That is the common thread running through all Gospel depictions, not the baptism but the identification. Given that it is likely Mark has created this aspect of JBap's preaching, we can hardly suggest this is evidence of an historical event.

That Jesus intentionally went to JBap, who is explicitly described twice before as baptizing for the remission of sins, requires that we assume he either believed he had sins to repent or was not aware that he was sinless. Actually, both options are consistent with an original motivation of "Trypho's belief".

Correct, all that is required is evidence that the author was embarrassed by an event he describes. Evidence of such embarrassment suggests the story is either a known historical truth or an established tradition. The arguments for embarrassment in Mark (re: the baptism) I've read here seem to involve more subjective opinion than objective text evidence. Unlike the evidence from Mt and Lk, there is no apparent embarrassment in Mark's depiction. Thus, neither assumption can be made. There is nothing to eliminate the possibility that Mark has invented the entire scene. This appears to be true whether we assume an historical Jesus or not.

Untrue. Embarrassment supports either a known historical truth or an established tradition. The trail ends with Mark and no evidence of embarrassment.

"Trypho's belief" clearly provides the motive you deny exists. It is disingenuous to deny the existence of something that has been suggested several times but never disputed.

Amaleq13

If Mark had written his story this way, you would have evidence of embarrassment.

You missed the point of the request for an alternative version. Doctor X suggested that it was significant and supportive of reading embarrassment in Mark that JBap is subordinated to Jesus. I asked for an example of how the story could be written without that result.

Amaleq13

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Doctor X
[B]Behold the Gospel According to Your Humble Writer:

And John the Baptist came baptising poor worthless slobs. And Jesus came and was baptised. And the Voice from the Heavens spoke to him saying, "Hey Dude!"

Since you have earlier identified the Voice from Heaven as an example of Mark subordinating JBap to Jesus, you have failed to avoid the "problematic aspect" in retelling the story. Thus, supporting my point: the identification of Jesus as the Messiah automatically subordinates everyone. That John is subordinated cannot be considered meaningful.

The "weirdness" would not have read as "weird" to Mark's audience but an indication/confirmation of JBap's status as a Prophet of God. I agree that it is likely Mark has placed words in the Baptist's mouth but that is how the author hijacks the reputation of the most respected Prophet in recent memory.

Not "some guy" but it is not unreasonable to suggest he preached the coming End Times and the OT Judge that was to accompany The End. If Mark's portrayal were entirely historical, we wouldn't expect any Baptist followers to fail to convert.

The subordination of JBap to Jesus is the natural consequence of the divine identification of Jesus as the Messiah.

I don't consider Mark portraying JBap in his role as God's Prophet to qualify as "spelling it out". JBap's reputation as a Prophet of God is the reason Mark chooses him as the Elias figure. It would defeat his purpose to entirely avoid connecting that activity to Jesus. That subordination is a natural consequence of the goal of Mark's story does not mean it can remain entirely implied. On the contrary, it means we can expect it to be included in any telling of the story.

If you cannot offer an example of telling this story without subordinating the baptizer, it makes no sense to suggest that the subordination is meaningful beyond the necessity of the story.

There is no reason to assume there are earlier versions. I'm asking you to provide an example of how this story could be written without subordinating JBap to Jesus. Otherwise, it makes no sense to suggest that the inclusion of subordination should be considered meaningful beyond the requirements of the story.

I don't see how anyone could write the story without subordination.

Not "obvious", but "the natural consequence". Not "stresses" but "includes". Mark includes the subordination of JBap as the natural consequence of the identification of Jesus as the Messiah.

I agree that there is no evidence that Mark was concerned about the implication that Jesus went to JBap to repent sins.

There is no evidence that Mark considered Jesus "beholding" to JBap for anything except acting as the conduit or trigger for the divine identification. The anointing of the Messiah is clearly an exception to the typical power structure of a baptism.

Your conclusion is too strong for the evidence. We can only conclude that Mark believed Jesus either considered himself capable of sin or that he actually had sinned prior to the identification.

There is no evidence in Mark that this "problem" existed in his mind at all.

Within the context of their beliefs, apparently not. Mark only subordinated JBap as much as it was required by the story.

What more evidence do you need that your conclusion is untenable! At the very least, this should keep your "et tu's" to a minimum.

Amaleq13

Thanks for the information. Zindler, apparently, has to be taken with a grain of salt absence specific references.


PS Did you see my response to your request re: Acts depicting the "pillars" sending folks to check on Paul's preaching? If not, Acts 15 identifies Silas and Judas in this role.

Toto

Here is what Zindler says, at p.91:

Zindler is talking about the usage in Mark, not general usage. He does need to be read critically, since he is polemical, but also accurately to get his argument.