Diogenes the Cynic

This is technically true, but I think it's a specious objection. I think the implication is undeniable that Jesus went there to get baptized. The author of that passage in John is just being circumspect.
I didn't say Matthew and Luke are independent. Of course they aren't. I was saying that the synoptics collectively are independent of John. It might have been better, though, to simply say that Jesus'...if you don't want to stipulate to baptism, let's just say "association"...with John the Baptist is independently attested by Mark and John.
I think if Mark had wanted to invent an association with a known and respected historical character, he would have done so in a way that did not seem to place Jesus in a subordinate position to John, and did not seem to suggest that Jesus needed to be cleansed of sins.
I think you can just as easily read them as being progressively more defensive.

Atheos

See, I just don't see it that way.

I can imagine a very likely scenario similar to religious discussions and compromises that go on today.

The disciples of John the Baptist get into a pissing contest with the disciples of Jesus over who was greater.

Some of the disciples of John the Baptist start claiming John was greater because "Jesus came to him to be baptized."

The disciples of Jesus say "No way! John never baptized Jesus!"

JTB disciples get more persistent. Some even claim they talked to people who saw the whole thing in person.

As a compromise the Jesus disciples recant and say they "talked to others who were there" who related the story of how John the Baptist baptized Jesus but that John the Baptist himself insisted that Jesus was greater. John said "I am unworthy to touch his foot." They begin painting John the Baptist as someone who was simply preparing the way for Jesus.

Those of the John the Baptist discipleship who believe this go on to join with the christians. After all, John the Baptist is dead. A resurrected spiritual leader living in heaven is better than nothing.

Ninja Edit: Diogenes, this hopefully explains my current thoughts on the origin of this part of GMark's writings.

Juststeve

Atheos:

So John didn't baptize Jesus because you can imagine a way the story might have started even if he didn't. This is the myther at his best. Jesus didn't exist so long as the myther can imagine another explanation for the data. The imagined explanation really doesn't have to explain anything except why the evidence doesn't support Jesus' existence.

Steve

bacht

hi avi
-John seems to play the Elijah role, the herald of the messiah.
-Also there's the parallelism with Elijah/Elisha and John/Jesus.
-A Paulist might see John as a symbol of early primitive Jewish Christianity, which was surpassed by the catholic expansion.
-More radically, John could be the actual founder of the movement, who was displaced by Jesus and his posse. This is consistent with the Hebrew theme of the passed-over firstborn.
-John could simply be there to validate the ritual of baptism

I'm not sure there would have been a theological problem in the early days. Mark's Jesus is not fully divine, he seems to be more of a super-prophet.

avi

Thanks Bacht.

a. The Jews held ritual washing in very high esteem, long before the emergence of JtB.
That is one reason why I believe that the "house-church" at Dura Europos, located as it had been, proximate to the synagogue, was in fact a Jewish guest house for visiting rabbis, not at all a "Christian" dwelling used for baptism of infants. The prominent water cistern in that dwelling was a necessary adjunct required for the elaborate process of ritual Jewish rabbinical function.

b. I think there would have been/was an enormous theological problem associated with JtB "purifying" the omnipotent son of God. It is completely, utterly, unacceptable, and we know that as late as Constantine, JtB was more highly regarded than JC (whose birthday was assigned to the second most significant date in the gnostic calendar.) So, my guess is that JC was not, at the start of the fourth century, a god, at all.

How can a human dare to touch a God, with the idea of "improving" in some fashion this supernatural deity? The whole concept is completely alien to ancient Judaism.

avi

aa5874

But, the description of Jesus as the offspring of the Holy Ghost is far more problematic yet Christians appear to have no problems.

It is simply ILLOGICAL to argue that the baptism of Jesus, a Ghost, is an historical event beause it was a problem when even in the very same Gospels, God was PLEASED with the baptism of Jesus.

There is ZERO evidence in the Synoptics that Christians had problems with the baptism story of Jesus.

And further, the baptism of Jesus in the Synoptics was NOT merely a baptism in water, the Holy Ghost ENTERED Jesus like a dove.

Mt 3:16-17 -
Mr 1:10-11 - Lu 3:22 - It is CLEAR that in the Synoptics Jesus must be FIRST baptized BEFORE the Holy Ghost could have ENTERED Jesus like a dove.

It is simply unsubstantianted that the baptism of Jesus was problematic to Christians.

aa5874

You are not making any sense. The same authors that claimed Jesus was baptized by John claimed Jesus EXISTED as the CHILD of a Ghost or as God Incarnate.

None of the authors of the NT who claimed Jesus was baptized by John claimed that Jesus fathered by a human being.

You have imagined Jesus was human and IGNORE the very same sources which claimed Jesus was baptized.

It is complete PROPAGANDA that MJers have to imagine another explanation when it is HJers who PRESUMED that Jesus was a mere man CONTRARY to the actual written evidence.

Mt 1:18 -Matthew 3.16 The very HJ argument is an ALTERNATE explanation to the actual written evidence that Jesus was a child of a Ghost and that God was PLEASED with his baptism.

Solo

The argument can go both ways.

Both, the early Jesus following and the Baptist cult were likely housed in the Jacobite congregation in Jerusalem after their leaders were martyred - both were referred to as Nazoreans. So,there would have been proximity and rivalry between them early. Whether the baptism was a legend or a real deal is hard to say.

There is something to what Andrew says, in that creating the legend of the baptism the early Christians would have been conceding seniority to John. But, since it is unlikely Jesus was worshipped as Christ in Jerusalem after his death, I don`t think it would have been unthinkable as invention . For all we know, the legend actually may have come from the Nazorean Baptists. Mark who was a Paulinist did not care that much about the actual mechanics of Jesus` election as son by the descent of the holy spirit. His concern was with John acknowledging the Jesus' baptism as the far more efficacious one.

Best,
Jiri

Doug Shaver

I voted "likely fiction" because (1) there is no attestation for the incident outside the gospels and (2) the gospels themselves are likely fiction.

Vorkosigan

The story is fiction, of course, like everything else in Mark.