Atheos

Steve, do you actually have an argument to present or does everything you have to contribute on this subject amount to nothing more than "Myther, myther, kiss your sisther"?

Let's put my argument back into its context:

andrewcriddle said,

I responded by offering what I believe is a very reasonable scenario whereby the tradition may have developed.

My only conclusion at this point is that while this story (the baptism of Jesus) could be a historical event it also could have developed in response to conflicts of interest between various sectarian groups. And there could be other explanations for its inclusion in the written traditions that none of us have yet considered.

I'm not advocating for the mythicist position, I'm simply advocating for not drawing conclusions based on incomplete evidence or incomplete analysis of the evidence.

Do you believe scholarship is better served if everyone just quits questioning traditional viewpoints?

2-J

Surely if Mark (or some earlier version of Mark) was originally Adoptionist, as some claim, then the Baptism need not be embarrassing at all.

There needed to be some moment of Adoption in some relevantly holy way. And this was it...

Then, later, as different groups adapt the Gospel for their own ends, often developing higher and higher Christologies (all the way to John) it only later becomes embarrassing.

bacht

I don't disagree, but part of Mark's agenda would be to explain which Jewish traditions were being maintained by Christians and why.

As you say, if Mark believed that Jesus was divine it's hard to see how he could justify this gesture from John (gJohn adjusts his version accordingly). As others have pointed out, Mark's Jesus seems to have been understood in an adoptionist fashion at the time of writing, receiving the spirit of God as witnessed by JtB (and losing the spirit on the cross).

Maybe the simplest symbolism would be to see John as embodying the apocalyptic Jewish trend of the previous couple of centuries ("The end is near!"). In Mark's eyes such Jews were almost there, but still incomplete in their understanding of the kingdom of God.

Vorkosigan

It is created out of the literary demands of the writer of Mark's Adoptionism and the use of baptism in that strand of early proto-Pauline Christianity that he belonged to. It only created problems for Christianities other than Mark's. This weaker form of the "embarrassment" position depends on a fuzzily held assumption that everyone's Christianity in that period was the same. It was not.

When the writer of Mark cracked open the Paulines, he read passages like:

"....For you did not receive a spirit that makes you a slave again to fear, but you received the Spirit of sonship."

The writer of Mark created a scene in which the believer receives the spirit of sonship through baptism. The use of a historical figure is a convention of the Greek historical-romances whose conventions one or another found their way into his work. The writer of Mark simply found one associated with baptism.

If it was not part of the original tradition it would not have been invented.

This should be read the other way: if it hadn't been invented, it wouldn't have become part of the tradition.

Vorkosigan

Sheshbazzar

:thumbs: +1

Atheos

That sounds like a perfectly reasonable interpretation of the available evidence to me, which is another reason why I just don't think the CoE is very persuasive in this instance.

This is more than just a specious objection. It's at the heart of the issue. Unlike GMatt and GLuke, GJohn was likely written independently of GMark which gives it some value as an independent attestation of any possibly historical events contained in the synoptics.

If you did not have access to the synoptics would you honestly infer from GJohn that JTB baptized Jesus? All you get from GJohn is how humble JTB is in the presence of Jesus - "whose shoe's latchet I am not worthy to unloose", "After me cometh a man which is preferred before me: for he was before me.", "And I saw, and bare record that this is the Son of God."

The problem here is that once you eject the "baptism" from the equation you're left with nothing more than nebulous encounters between JTB and Jesus.

As if that weren't bad enough these nebulous encounters are largely punctuated with mythological elements. Did JTB witness "The spirit of God descending in the form of a dove and remaining" on Jesus? Did JTB make the proclamations that Jesus was "The lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world?" or that Jesus was "The son of God?"

These things seem unlikely at best. As a rule Jews considered it blasphemy to equate a man with being "the son of God". Assuming a historical JTB existed he may have been unorthodox but it's unlikely he would have been that unorthodox.

I'm not saying it is completely without merit to consider the possible historicity of these encounters between JTB and Jesus, but when the account is so heavily festooned with mythological overtones the evidence certainly gets weak. GJohn may be an independent attestation of encounters between Jesus and JTB, but it's a very weak one for the reasons I've enumerated.

I think it's reasonable to consider the possibility that these encounters between JTB and Jesus were fabricated by early christians to draw leftover disciples of JTB into the christian movement.

JoeWallack

JW:
I vote likely fiction.

We've seen that Source Criticism can not tell us much. The author and provenance are unknown. The subsequent Gospels, "Matthew"/"Luke" (M/L), use "Mark" as a base. "Mark" has a primary theme of discrediting historical witness which follows the theme of the only known earlier Christian writings, Paul and Fake Paul. (M/L) have a primary theme of trying to credit historical witness. For them to use as a base something which has the opposite primary theme tells us that either they had no access to historical witness (possibly because there was none) or they did not accept it. Without a minimum of Source Criticism evidence you can not prove Historicity or Fiction.

We are reduced than to Literary Criticism. Can Literary Criticism primarily by itself conclude that either historicity or fiction is likely? Maybe not. But I Am going to try.

What puts me over the edge here is the extent of the evidence for fiction within the baptism story as a whole. Evidence of fiction and likely fiction gradually impeaches the credibility of the story and creates increasing doubt as to the possible parts. I think everyone here would agree that there is a point where the amount of known and likely fiction makes it likely that a specific possible statement is likewise fiction. Where is that point here?

There is just no substitute for such a detailed literary analysis of the extent of fiction and likely fiction in the Baptism story as a whole. The Legendary Vorkosigan has already provided such an analysis here:

Historical Commentary on the Gospel of Mark Chapter 1

My analysis follows:

http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php?title=Mark_1

I will list each significant statement from the Baptism story as a whole and evaluate for evidence of fiction:

The literary source is explicitly The Jewish Bible. Evidence of fiction. John is presented as fulfilling prophecy. Prophecy fulfillment is Impossible.

Possible and confirmed by Josephus.

Josephus related excerpt:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_the_Baptist#Josephus

No implication of a wilderness setting. "Wilderness" looks like it has a Literary Source.

Per Josephus this is fiction. Interestingly, Josephus here almost looks like a reaction to "Mark":

Never mentioned as evidence for early dating of "Mark" even though it may be the best such evidence. You know what they say, just like Cops have the best dope, Counter-missionaries have the best evidence for Christianity.

The use of "all" (twice) is evidence of fiction and is contradicted by Josephus.

1:6 And John was clothed with camel`s hair, and [had] a leathern girdle about his loins, and did eat locusts and wild honey.


This looks like a literary source of The Jewish Bible:

http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php?title=2_Kings_1

Making prophecy is possible. Supernatural fulfillment is Impossible. Contradicted by Josephus. Improbable.

Again, making the prophecy is possible. But the context is clear that the meaning is a literal expectation. Impossible.

Unlikely that someone would go from Galilee to get baptized near Jerusalem.

The odds are that most Jews in Israel at the time were not baptized by John.

It's unknown whether Jesus was active in the time John was baptizing.

Improbable.

Impossible. For added measure, we also have a literary source:

Impossible.

Impossible.

So, after we exorcise the Impossible, the Improbable and the clear Literary Sources, what do we have left from the Baptism story:

That John baptized.

For the baptism story as a whole, so many Impossible/Improbable claims, so few possible ones. Trying to evaluate the quality of the lone survivor here as potential for historicity, supporters of a historical baptism posture that Jesus being baptized by John is the core of the story, but it is not. The beginning prophecy claim is that the messenger will be the introduction for what follows and not that the messenger will baptized what follows. The core of the story is that Jesus receives god's spirit at the baptism, which is Impossible, and not that Jesus was baptized by John.

With the issue at hand, was Jesus baptized by John, the only statement in the accompanying story that is likely historical, is that John did baptize. Therefore, the extent of fiction in the story convinces me that Jesus' supposed baptism by John is likely fictional. Word.

Reminds me too much of the classic Adam Family story where they decide to give Cousin It a haircut, and when they finish there is nothing left.



Joseph

ErrancyWiki

Solo

Michael,
you made my day ! Now I get Mark's loopback to 1:2 from 16:8:

Rom 8:15 goes into my table of Markan-Pauline parallels at 16:8 / 1:2

(It would have been prettier if Mark 1:1 started 'en arxe tou euaggeliou...', but as your website says, Mark was messed with by far the most among the gospellers. :huh: )

Best,
Jiri

blastula

I don't think you can even say that gJohn is independent.

blastula

You're conflating all "explanations" as "imagined explanations" to tar them all as equally unsound and improbable.

"The story says John was baptized because Jesus existed and it happened" is also an "imagined explanation."