Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Vorkosigan · 05-29-2011, 10:13 PM

Quote:

"The Teaching of the Law stands in the center, with a Good Shepherd immediately
to the right and an Orante immediately to the left. Continuing left is a Jonah
cycle, first Jonah resting, then Jonah cast out of the ketos, and finally Jonah
in the boat. To the extreme left side stands a river god. To the right of the
Good Shepherd there is a baptism of Jesus with a dove descending. Jesus is young,
nude, and quite small next to the older, bearded John the Baptist. A pastoral
scene concludes the right end"

What's Xtian about any of that?

Vorkosigan

Toto · 05-29-2011, 10:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

... Graydon Snyder seems to think the baptism of jesus by john is not only historical, but is represented in "early christian art". ...

I browsed through the section around p. 110 on google books.

Clearly the Baptism is portrayed in Christian art, but I don't see any indication that Snyder contends that the baptism was historical or presents any arguments to that effect. In fact, Snyder treats this as a symbolic scene.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Snyder at p. 112

Has the Baptism of Jesus as a New Testament scene been utilized to reference the baptism of the local church member, as the Feeding of the 5,000 references the Agape? If so, this would explain the nudity of the Jesus figure, the size and age of John the Baptist in comparison to the smallness of Jesus, and the laying on of the hands. The dove would represent the descent of the Spirit in the New Testament picture, while the imposition of the hands on Jesus would represent Church practice regarding the gift of the Spirit.

Even so there are problems. If the fish does not represent Christ before Constantine, it seems unlikely the dove would represent the Holy Spirit. As we have seen, the dove functions as a peace symbol. Furthermore, the New Testament pictures stress deliverance. Even the cultic Feeding of the Five Thousand was a form of deliverance from hunger and poverty. The Baptism of Jesus should be understood as the capstone of the deliverance pictures: Jesus delivers from the alien social environment, water. The nude Jesus is the pre-Christain wonder worker. In Ignatius, Eph. 18:2, the author spoke of the baptism as a cleansing or healing for the water for us. Actually, then, the little nude Jesus must be the boyish wonder-worker of the healing scenes, who for his first "sign" heals the water -- the antagonistic Roman social environment. THe dove then symbolized the peace achieved, a peace that can be symbolized by the Orante, fish, and anchor. Jesus as the deliverer would never be seen as an Orante, oras one delivered by a redeeming ritual. The presence of river gods near the scenes... and the resemblance of John the Bpatist to them, could strengthen this picture of Jesus who enters the chaotic water and eliminates the social thread.

Pete - this is an official request from your moderator. Stop posting this same image of that sarcophagus in unrelated threads. :angry:

mountainman · 05-30-2011, 06:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vorkosigan

Quote:

"The Teaching of the Law stands in the center, with a Good Shepherd immediately
to the right and an Orante immediately to the left. Continuing left is a Jonah
cycle, first Jonah resting, then Jonah cast out of the ketos, and finally Jonah
in the boat. To the extreme left side stands a river god. To the right of the
Good Shepherd there is a baptism of Jesus with a dove descending. Jesus is young,
nude, and quite small next to the older, bearded John the Baptist. A pastoral
scene concludes the right end"

What's Xtian about any of that?,

Hi Vorkosigan,

Nothing as I see it. It seems to be some form of insidious propaganda. The problem is that it is some sort of blatant advertising which is seriously misguided in my opinion, since there is absolutely nothing about the entire item of evidence -- claimed to be christian - that it indeed, or in fact, Christian.

Yet there we have an entire book "Ante Pacem" filled with such nonsense, served up to the "Christian Modern World" as edifying reading material.

I only mentioned this image and its caption because of its direct relevance to the OP. The problem is the caption, and who authored that caption. The central figure is the Orante, the "Mother Goddess" and Snyder's published caption is either myopic propaganda, or wishful thinking. Either way, it is a disservice to ancient history.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

In fact, Snyder treats this as a symbolic scene.

QUESTION: Why does Snyder treat this as a central symbolic "Christian" scene?
ANSWER: Because he does not understand the central "Orante" (the "Mother Goddess")

Snyder imposes the symbolic christian veneer on his evidence via the caption.
Can everyone see John the Baptist baptizing Jesus with their own eyes in antiquity?
We need to see through the christian veneer.
It's 300 years thick.

Best wishes,

Pete

JoeWallack · 06-01-2011, 07:57 AM

JW:
I Am not finished. Regarding "John" as making the Criterion of Multiple Attestation because he confirms that John baptized Jesus, I've already demonstrated that "John" is reaction to "Mark":

Telling Your Source He Doesn't Know What He Is Talking About. John as Denial of Mark

"John" uses "Mark's" Passion as a base for his and "John's" Teaching & Healing Ministry is a reaction to "Mark's". "Mark", reflecting the original Christianity (Paul), has a primary theme that Faith produces miracles. "John", a product of the "orthodox" Christianity of the second century, has a primary theme that miracles produce faith. We can see this in the John the Baptist stories. In "Mark" Jesus is revealed to be god's son while in "John", John is a supposed historical witness to it.

Theological Methodology (TM) only tries to proof-text supposed positive evidence for historicity. Here it claims that "John" supports John baptizing Jesus. But "John" never states that John baptized Jesus. TM tries to use an implication of such baptism due to the overall similarities. The stories are very similar because "Mark" is the base so there is no independence anyway. Because "John" is dependent on "Mark", "John's" omission of John baptizing Jesus is deliberate and intended to deny that John baptized Jesus. Clearly "John" intended his Gospel as a replacement for "Mark" and not a supplement. Reading "John" by itself, there's no reason to think that John baptized Jesus.

Using Historical Methodology and also looking for evidence against historicity, you also have to evaluate the differences in baptism stories between "Mark" and "John":

[T2]{r:bg=black}{c:bg=lightblue;ah=center}Mark's John
|
{c:bg=red;ah=center}John's John
||
Fulfilled prophecy
|
Fulfilled prophecy
||
John is Elijah
|
John is not Elijah
||
Baptism in the wilderness
|
Baptism in Bethany
||
Baptized in the Jordan
|
Baptized beyond the Jordan
||
John baptizes Jesus
|
John does not baptize Jesus
||
Jesus becoming god's son is revealed
|
Jesus becoming god's son is witnessed by John
||
[/T2]

Again, note that "John" is not just contradicting "Mark", but it is a conscious reaction of contradiction. "Mark" says location "Jordan". "John" says "beyond Jordan". These differences provide a context to support the position that "John" intended to show that John did not baptize Jesus.

Regarding trying to take "John" as confirmation that John baptized Jesus, I advise proponents of TM not to go there. You have "John" saying that the baptism was in Bethany beyond the Jordan. So this is no longer in Judea, yet all of Judea was coming to it and no one from Perea was. Comically Origen confesses that in his time he had no idea where this Bethany was:

http://www-user.uni-bremen.de/~wie/TCG/TC-John.pdf

Quote:

TVU 13
Minority reading:
NA27 John 1:28 tau/ta evn Bhqani,a| evge,neto pe,ran tou/ VIorda,nou( o[pou h=n o` VIwa,nnhj bapti,zwnÅ
...
Origen (Jo Comm. book 6), who was under the probably mistaken notion that the only Bethany was that near Jerusalem (he couldn't find a Bethany near the Jordan in his travels), opted for Bhqabara/ which he apparently found in some
copies (Bhqani,a| is found in "nearly all the manuscripts"). He explained it (wrongly) allegorically as oi=koj kataskeuh/j ("house of the preparation"), but it actually means "house of passing over". It has been suggested that Origen actually created this reading, but this is not clear. Note that Origen once writes the curious ta. Bhqabara/. He writes:

Perhaps John's hands became so long from trying to baptize with his fists that they reached to the other side of the Jordan. spin?

Map of Israel

Joseph

ErrancyWiki

maryhelena · 06-01-2011, 09:50 AM

I’m wondering if gJohn is earlier than gMark - or at least some of it’s storyline is earlier than the storyline in gMark.

Consider that in gJohn there is no mention of JC coming out of the water nor of him being baptized by JtB, then would this indicate not a later storyline but the earliest storyline?

Consider the ‘...Bethany on the other side of the Jordan, where John was baptising”. There seems to be no record of this ‘second Bethany’. I’m wondering if ‘Bethany’ is a later addition to the gJohn storyline, ie that the ‘other side of the Jordon’ is the important element - and that ‘Bethany’ was a later addition.

Was the original name place ‘Bethsaida’? After JC meets with JtB he chooses some disciples - and these disciples, followers, are from Bethsaida. (Bethsaida Julius, the other side, East, of the Jordan river).

Slavonic Josephus has JtB baptizing in the Jordan, people from all Judea and areas around Jerusalem, coming to him. However, after being brought before Archelalus and questioned, he leaves for “the other side of the Jordan”. Slavonic Josephus goes on to relate how JtB is brought before Philip the Tetrarch - utters some interpretation of a dream - and Philip dies that night. According to Josephus, Philip died at Bethsaida Julius. Slavonic Josephus stating that after the death of Philip, Herodias marries Herod (Antipas).

Both Slavonic Josephus, and Josephus, relate how Herodias marries Herod (Antipas). This storyline of Herodias is in all three synoptic gospels. gJohn makes no mention of the Herodias/Herod/JtB storyline. Perhaps this might indicate that the setting for the gJohn storyline is during a time period in which Philip the Tetrarch was still alive. Only after his death can the synoptic gospels storyline run with the Herodias/Herod/JtB storyline. (Both gMark and gMatthew saying that Herodias was previously married to Philip - gLuke dropping Philip’s name).

If gJohn and it’s high Christology is the earliest gospel storyline - then gMark has the job of downgrading that storyline to his adoptonist water baptism storyline.. Hence, he contradicts, turns upside down, the elements of the gJohn storyline. Or one could say that he is attempting to give a ‘fleshly’ element to gJohn’s ‘spiritual’ JC. Bottom up instead of top down.......which would make these two gospels complimentary rather than outright contradictory.

jgoodguy · 06-01-2011, 09:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by maryhelena

I’m wondering if gJohn is earlier than gMark - or at least some of it’s storyline is earlier than the storyline in gMark.

Consider that in gJohn there is no mention of JC coming out of the water nor of him being baptized by JtB, then would this indicate not a later storyline but the earliest storyline?

Consider the ‘...Bethany on the other side of the Jordan, where John was baptising”. There seems to be no record of this ‘second Bethany’. I’m wondering if ‘Bethany’ is a later addition to the gJohn storyline, ie that the ‘other side of the Jordon’ is the important element - and that ‘Bethany’ was a later addition.

Was the original name place ‘Bethsaida’? After JC meets with JtB he chooses some disciples - and these disciples, followers, are from Bethsaida. (Bethsaida Julius, the other side, East, of the Jordan river).

Slavonic Josephus has JtB baptizing in the Jordan, people from all Judea and areas around Jerusalem, coming to him. However, after being brought before Archelalus and questioned, he leaves for “the other side of the Jordan”. Slavonic Josephus goes on to relate how JtB is brought before Philip the Tetrarch - utters some interpretation of a dream - and Philip dies that night. According to Josephus, Philip died at Bethsaida Julius. Slavonic Josephus stating that after the death of Philip, Herodias marries Herod (Antipas).

Both Slavonic Josephus, and Josephus, relate how Herodias marries Herod (Antipas). This storyline of Herodias is in all three synoptic gospels. gJohn makes no mention of the Herodias/Herod/JtB storyline. Perhaps this might indicate that the setting for the gJohn storyline is during a time period in which Philip the Tetrarch was still alive. Only after his death can the synoptic gospels storyline run with the Herodias/Herod/JtB storyline. (Both gMark and gMatthew saying that Herodias was previously married to Philip - gLuke dropping Philip’s name).

If gJohn and it’s high Christology is the earliest gospel storyline - then gMark has the job of downgrading that storyline to his adoptonist water baptism storyline.. Hence, he contradicts, turns upside down, the elements of the gJohn storyline. Or one could say that he is attempting to give a ‘fleshly’ element to gJohn’s ‘spiritual’ JC. Bottom up instead of top down.......which would make these two gospels complimentary rather than outright contradictory.

That would also aid the JMers. We'd have the missing mythic only Jesus tradition becoming historic. A quick Google found this that discusses the HJ in John.

aa5874 · 06-01-2011, 11:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by maryhelena

I’m wondering if gJohn is earlier than gMark - or at least some of it’s storyline is earlier than the storyline in gMark.

Consider that in gJohn there is no mention of JC coming out of the water nor of him being baptized by JtB, then would this indicate not a later storyline but the earliest storyline?....

Is that a question or what.

It is CLEAR that the author of gJohn was ATTEMPTING to RE-WRITE the Jesus story.

The author of John RE-WROTE or EXCLUDED the following:

1.The Origin of Jesus--Jesus was the WORD that was God and Creator.

2. The Baptism of Jesus by John.

3. The Temptation by the Devil is missing.

4. In gJohn, People are CONFUSED about the claim the Christ was from Nazareth

5. The Miracles of Jesus, turning water into wine and the RAISING of Lazarus.

6. Jesus died on a THURSDAY in gJohn

7.The so-called Failed Prophecies are Missing.

8. The author of gJohn claimed that the body of Jesus was ANOINTED BEFORE he was buried.

9.The Ascension of Jesus is missing.

10. Unlike the Synoptics, in gJohn, Jesus claimed or implied he was the Son of God.

It is just a SIMPLE case where the author of gJohn may have seen MASSIVE Holes in the Gospel stories and attempted to cover them.

Quote:

Originally Posted by maryhelena

....If gJohn and it’s high Christology is the earliest gospel storyline - then gMark has the job of downgrading that storyline to his adoptonist water baptism storyline.. Hence, he contradicts, turns upside down, the elements of the gJohn storyline. Or one could say that he is attempting to give a ‘fleshly’ element to gJohn’s ‘spiritual’ JC. Bottom up instead of top down.......which would make these two gospels complimentary rather than outright contradictory.

So you are claiming the EXACT OPPOSITE to HJers.

HJers are claiming Jesus was EMBELLISHED decades later but now you say Jesus was DE-EMBELLISHED later.

But, your theory is an utter failure.

The author of gMatthew did NOT give his Jesus any "fleshy element" and in fact the very author claimed Jesus was the CHILD of a GHOST.

It is a COMPLETE FALLACY that the Synotics Gospels give FLESH to the Pauline writings.

Tell me what FLESH did Jesus have in gMatthew, gMark and gLUKE?

Mt 1:18 -

Quote:

Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise..... his mother........ was found with child of the Holy Ghost.

JoeWallack · 06-02-2011, 07:51 AM

Cherry-Hill-Park

JW:
Okay, no one has been able to articulate an argument here for the historicity of the Baptism. Meanwhile, James McGrath (JM), self-proclaimed champion of historical Jesus (HJ), continues to demonstrate that regarding whether he is avoiding Historical Methodology or just does not understand it, the latter is more likely than the historical baptism:

http://www.patheos.com/community/exp...r-god-nor-man/

Quote:

Presumably the first thing to note it that the latter completely undermines Doherty’s argument. Paul refers to encounters with Peter – a real historical individual – and thus if he can be a real individual without stories from the later Gospels appearing in the epistles, then clearly so can Jesus.

JM needs to be doing less writing on the subject and more reading.

Let's give AA el-All another analogy to work with:

Was Jesus illegitimate?

I'd like supporters of the historical baptism to use the same methodology they used to determine that the baptism was historical to evaluate the historicity of Jesus' legitimacy. If you can prove that Jesus was illegitimate than you have proven that Jesus was legitimate (HJ).

Go ahead and try to use the same Criteria of Embarrassment and Multiple Attestation. Be sure and add in Jewish confirmation.

After you have proven that Jesus was illegitimate than back up your argument by going to the same scholars you appealed to for the historicity of the baptism and find their corresponding arguments for Jesus' illegitimacy.

Joseph

ErrancyWiki

maryhelena · 06-02-2011, 08:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jgoodguy

Quote:

Originally Posted by maryhelena

I’m wondering if gJohn is earlier than gMark - or at least some of it’s storyline is earlier than the storyline in gMark.

Consider that in gJohn there is no mention of JC coming out of the water nor of him being baptized by JtB, then would this indicate not a later storyline but the earliest storyline?

Consider the ‘...Bethany on the other side of the Jordan, where John was baptising”. There seems to be no record of this ‘second Bethany’. I’m wondering if ‘Bethany’ is a later addition to the gJohn storyline, ie that the ‘other side of the Jordon’ is the important element - and that ‘Bethany’ was a later addition.

Was the original name place ‘Bethsaida’? After JC meets with JtB he chooses some disciples - and these disciples, followers, are from Bethsaida. (Bethsaida Julius, the other side, East, of the Jordan river).

Slavonic Josephus has JtB baptizing in the Jordan, people from all Judea and areas around Jerusalem, coming to him. However, after being brought before Archelalus and questioned, he leaves for “the other side of the Jordan”. Slavonic Josephus goes on to relate how JtB is brought before Philip the Tetrarch - utters some interpretation of a dream - and Philip dies that night. According to Josephus, Philip died at Bethsaida Julius. Slavonic Josephus stating that after the death of Philip, Herodias marries Herod (Antipas).

Both Slavonic Josephus, and Josephus, relate how Herodias marries Herod (Antipas). This storyline of Herodias is in all three synoptic gospels. gJohn makes no mention of the Herodias/Herod/JtB storyline. Perhaps this might indicate that the setting for the gJohn storyline is during a time period in which Philip the Tetrarch was still alive. Only after his death can the synoptic gospels storyline run with the Herodias/Herod/JtB storyline. (Both gMark and gMatthew saying that Herodias was previously married to Philip - gLuke dropping Philip’s name).

If gJohn and it’s high Christology is the earliest gospel storyline - then gMark has the job of downgrading that storyline to his adoptonist water baptism storyline.. Hence, he contradicts, turns upside down, the elements of the gJohn storyline. Or one could say that he is attempting to give a ‘fleshly’ element to gJohn’s ‘spiritual’ JC. Bottom up instead of top down.......which would make these two gospels complimentary rather than outright contradictory.

That would also aid the JMers. We'd have the missing mythic only Jesus tradition becoming historic. A quick Google found this that discusses the HJ in John.

Indeed, it would aid the ahistoricist position were gJohn to be updated instead of being assigned to the end of the JC storyline. Most probably a reason why historicists are not very keen on the idea....However, The John, Jesus and History Project has been running for some years now - so who knows maybe one of these fine days an update might be in the works. In the meantime The Bible and Interpretation website has a number of interesting articles by Paul N. Anderson on the whole gJohn issue. (follow some links from this article).

http://www.bibleinterp.com/opeds/fourth357921.shtml

Once gJohn is updated to an earlier position - then it’s storyline can be viewed as reflecting an earlier setting for this gospel. Updating gJohn would put gLuke as the last gospel - and that means that the storyline re the census in 6 c.e. and 15th year of Tiberius in 29 c.e, can be put on hold for a while. gLuke has thrown a spanner in the works with that dating...A necessary spanner maybe - but a spanner nevertheless!

With no 15th year of Tiberius the JC storyline in gJohn can have a far earlier setting. Josephus, as this post mentions -

Quote:

Originally Posted by maryhelena

21 c.e. for the crucifixion of JC under Pilate?

- is rather ambiguous in dating Pilate. If Pilate can be dated to 19 ce then the crucifixion storyline, with gJohn’s three year ministry, would be in 21 ce. JtB, according to Slavonic Josephus, is already doing his baptism activity during the rule of Archelaus - which was from 4/1 b.c. to 6 c.e.

In other words - dating the setting for the individual gospel stories has a far better chance of reaping dividends than dating copies of copies of copies of manuscripts....we should not be assuming that the four gospels are dealing with the exact same time slot. The historicists need that - but the ahistoricists do not...

maryhelena · 06-02-2011, 12:16 PM

As noted in my previous post, Josephus is ambiguous in dating Pilate. The Eusebius mention of the ‘forgery’ regarding the crucifixion date to the 7th year of Tiberius around 21 ce (presumably from the Acts of Pilate) and Tertullian’s mention of the reign of Augustus as being the time from when the name Christians had it’s source - does suggest that gJohn has an earlier time slot than gMark. (gMark necessitating a time slot for it’s crucifixion story after the death of Philip, when Herodias is married to Antipas. Philip’s death being given by Josephus as either the 20th or 22nd year of Tiberius. Either 33/34 ce of 36 ce. Slavonic Josephus indicating that JtB continued to live after Philip’s death.)

I think that gJohn is modelling it’s JC story on Antigonus - not of course as the Word coming down from above, ie the theology/spirituality element, but the history element in the gJohn storyline - a messiah figure that is crucified. The early dating for Pilate suggests that a mini interpretation of Daniel was being applied to the 7 years from 19 ce to 26 ce - thus bringing forward the earlier death of Antigonus in 37 b.c. to fit into this mini interpretation, retelling of history.

So, no baptism of JC by JtB in gJohn is necessary. The model, Antigonus, is/was king of Israel. But gMark needs that baptism in order for his JC model to reflect, to emphasize, another historical figure that was not King of Israel - hence needed to be ‘adopted’ as god’s son in order to become a messiah figure. (JC being a composite figure).

In other words - history moves on, re-interpretations become necessary. Updates and additions to the JC story become necessary. The new additions to the JC story bringing about questions and doubts in gMark re the Casearea Philippi storyline. In contrast, in gJohn - it's positive affirmation all the way - JC is the messiah figure, son of god and king of Israel. From certainty in gJohn to doubts and questions in gMark re the identity of JC.

(the reference in Acts to it being Antioch where the christians were first called by that name.........Antioch is where Antigonus was crucified and beheaded by Marc Antony......)

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

06-01-2011, 09:50 AM	#75
maryhelena Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: England Posts: 2,527	I’m wondering if gJohn is earlier than gMark - or at least some of it’s storyline is earlier than the storyline in gMark. Consider that in gJohn there is no mention of JC coming out of the water nor of him being baptized by JtB, then would this indicate not a later storyline but the earliest storyline? Consider the ‘...Bethany on the other side of the Jordan, where John was baptising”. There seems to be no record of this ‘second Bethany’. I’m wondering if ‘Bethany’ is a later addition to the gJohn storyline, ie that the ‘other side of the Jordon’ is the important element - and that ‘Bethany’ was a later addition. Was the original name place ‘Bethsaida’? After JC meets with JtB he chooses some disciples - and these disciples, followers, are from Bethsaida. (Bethsaida Julius, the other side, East, of the Jordan river). Slavonic Josephus has JtB baptizing in the Jordan, people from all Judea and areas around Jerusalem, coming to him. However, after being brought before Archelalus and questioned, he leaves for “the other side of the Jordan”. Slavonic Josephus goes on to relate how JtB is brought before Philip the Tetrarch - utters some interpretation of a dream - and Philip dies that night. According to Josephus, Philip died at Bethsaida Julius. Slavonic Josephus stating that after the death of Philip, Herodias marries Herod (Antipas). Both Slavonic Josephus, and Josephus, relate how Herodias marries Herod (Antipas). This storyline of Herodias is in all three synoptic gospels. gJohn makes no mention of the Herodias/Herod/JtB storyline. Perhaps this might indicate that the setting for the gJohn storyline is during a time period in which Philip the Tetrarch was still alive. Only after his death can the synoptic gospels storyline run with the Herodias/Herod/JtB storyline. (Both gMark and gMatthew saying that Herodias was previously married to Philip - gLuke dropping Philip’s name). If gJohn and it’s high Christology is the earliest gospel storyline - then gMark has the job of downgrading that storyline to his adoptonist water baptism storyline.. Hence, he contradicts, turns upside down, the elements of the gJohn storyline. Or one could say that he is attempting to give a ‘fleshly’ element to gJohn’s ‘spiritual’ JC. Bottom up instead of top down.......which would make these two gospels complimentary rather than outright contradictory.

06-02-2011, 12:16 PM	#80
maryhelena Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: England Posts: 2,527	As noted in my previous post, Josephus is ambiguous in dating Pilate. The Eusebius mention of the ‘forgery’ regarding the crucifixion date to the 7th year of Tiberius around 21 ce (presumably from the Acts of Pilate) and Tertullian’s mention of the reign of Augustus as being the time from when the name Christians had it’s source - does suggest that gJohn has an earlier time slot than gMark. (gMark necessitating a time slot for it’s crucifixion story after the death of Philip, when Herodias is married to Antipas. Philip’s death being given by Josephus as either the 20th or 22nd year of Tiberius. Either 33/34 ce of 36 ce. Slavonic Josephus indicating that JtB continued to live after Philip’s death.) I think that gJohn is modelling it’s JC story on Antigonus - not of course as the Word coming down from above, ie the theology/spirituality element, but the history element in the gJohn storyline - a messiah figure that is crucified. The early dating for Pilate suggests that a mini interpretation of Daniel was being applied to the 7 years from 19 ce to 26 ce - thus bringing forward the earlier death of Antigonus in 37 b.c. to fit into this mini interpretation, retelling of history. So, no baptism of JC by JtB in gJohn is necessary. The model, Antigonus, is/was king of Israel. But gMark needs that baptism in order for his JC model to reflect, to emphasize, another historical figure that was not King of Israel - hence needed to be ‘adopted’ as god’s son in order to become a messiah figure. (JC being a composite figure). In other words - history moves on, re-interpretations become necessary. Updates and additions to the JC story become necessary. The new additions to the JC story bringing about questions and doubts in gMark re the Casearea Philippi storyline. In contrast, in gJohn - it's positive affirmation all the way - JC is the messiah figure, son of god and king of Israel. From certainty in gJohn to doubts and questions in gMark re the identity of JC. (the reference in Acts to it being Antioch where the christians were first called by that name.........Antioch is where Antigonus was crucified and beheaded by Marc Antony......)

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.