Hello. I have lately wondered about the role of Baptism in history, as well as in Christianity. I have always wondered about John the Baptist and who he was. Supposedly he was a Jew but Judaism does not Baptize the same way as John the Baptist did. If that is the case, then who was he representing? What were his beliefs? Some believe that he was part of the Essences that may have practiced a similar form of Baptism that he performed. I have always thought that he must be very important because Jesus speaks highly of him. “Truly I tell you, among those born of women there has not risen anyone greater than John the Baptist” (Matthew 11:11a). That is a very powerful statement. And lets face it, not everyone can open the heavens for you. I did discover a religious group that reveres John the Baptist called Mandaeism but there is no mention of Jesus. It seems like John the Baptist ends up being a mystery because little is known about him. It’s like a story untold that is begging for an answer. Perhaps one day we will find a manuscript somewhere making who he was clearer.
However, my main question really is, considering how important Baptism is in Christianity, I started to read that Jesus, himself did not Baptize anyone which I found curious. I was reading a passage from gotquestions.org
But it has conflicting statements “The Bible does not record anyone being baptized by Jesus. There are a couple of verses that seem to indicate that Jesus baptized people, but when we compare Scripture with Scripture, we conclude that Jesus did not personally baptize anyone.”. Aside from the couple of conflicting verses, why did Jesus not consider it important to Baptize others. You would think there would clearer references to Jesus Baptizing, considering how important it has become in Christianity. I just don’t understand why it wouldn’t be clearer and mentioned more about Jesus baptizing anyone.
And then it becomes even more confusing about Paul being baptized by Ananias of Damascus, who was a disciple of Jesus at Damascus that is mentioned in the acts of the Apostles. Ananias was not an Apostle chosen by Jesus. Who chose him? I’m imagine an Apostle of Jesus. Some believe he was also a prophet. This is where you really begin to scratch you head. People talk about reading Bible. The reason most people do not read the Bible because it is too difficult to understand, particularly its nuances. Lots of people don’t really care about the Bible’s nuances but I find them interesting, though I am not a believer, per se.
So if anyone can shed more light on why there is really no mention or even very little mention of Jesus baptizing anyone considering how important it is in Christianity, I would appreciate it.
Supposedly he was a Jew but Judaism does not Baptize the same way as John the Baptist did.
John the Baptist was a Jew as evidenced by Josephus’ writings. However, he does appear to have taken the idea of ‘purification by water’ from pagans.
** you do not have permission to see this link **
cstu said
And then it becomes even more confusing about Paul being baptized by Ananias of Damascus, who was a disciple of Jesus at Damascus that is mentioned in the acts of the Apostles.
Acts is not historical IMO.
A more moderate position would be that we do not know the degree to which it might contain historically useful information. Most family histories are full of errors in details, missing information and stories that get refined or mixed up, but that does not totally invalidate such a history.
JAS said
cstu said
And then it becomes even more confusing about Paul being baptized by Ananias of Damascus, who was a disciple of Jesus at Damascus that is mentioned in the acts of the Apostles.
Acts is not historical IMO.
A more moderate position would be that we do not know the degree to which it might contain historically useful information. Most family histories are full of errors in details, missing information and stories that get refined or mixed up, but that does not totally invalidate such a history.
If the author of a book (in this case Luke-Acts) would lie about things Paul said, then why assign any historical significance to anything found in Luke-Acts that isn’t supported outside of those books?
JAS said
What do we have that is supported outside of those books? Do any of those sources have inaccuracies that you think would totally invalidate them, or are your concerned limited to Christian texts?
That’s my point, we have nothing to support the stories in Acts. In Luke we can at least see that Luke copied from Mark and Matthew (I don’t think the evidence supports the Q hypothesis) for most of his stories. As far as I know there’s nothing in L(material unique to Luke)-Acts that passes the criterion of dissimilarity. If you can make that case for it I’d like to see it.
The same historical methods I use for the NT is the same I apply to other ancient texts.
If the author of a book (in this case Luke-Acts) would lie about things Paul said, then why assign any historical significance to anything found in Luke-Acts that isn’t supported outside of those books?
What makes you think the author of Luke was lying? A lie is a deliberate falsehood. It’s not a lie if you share a story you think is true. We have to enthusiastically resist the temptation to ascribe motivations to these ancient authors. We have no access to their motivations. We are forced to take these documents at more or less face value. We search for clues provided in the text. What clues do you find in the text that make you think the author is telling a lie instead of merely passing on traditions he knows and thinks are true and meaningful enough to pass on?
Robert said
RayRainer said
Hello. I have lately wondered about the role of Baptism in history, as well as in Christianity. …
Welcome, Ray, to the Readers Forum.
Joel Marcus wrote ** you do not have permission to see this link **.
Again for source-critical reasons, I do think the evidence that Jesus was himself was baptized by John is rather weak but I do think this is quite plausible. If he himself was baptized by John, I think Jesus also may have baptized people, but by the time the gospels were written, baptism had become a rite of initiation into the death and resurrection of Jesus so it may not have made much sense in projecting such a specifically Christian rite into the life and ministry of Jesus.
cstu said
However, [John the Baptist] does appear to have taken the idea of ‘purification by water’ from pagans.
Why do you discount the Jewish roots of baptism?
This place is so dead even the crickets are leaving.
Hey! I know! Let’s talk about baptism and the Secret Gospel of Mark!!
That’d be fun, huh?
Oh my. Look away kids; Robert’s chewing his arm off again.
Robert said
What are you talking about, CEJ? What do you mean by saying I’m chewing off my arm? I’m merely discussing ideas about John’s baptism.
Those are fair questions.
I was referring to our previous discussions regarding Secret Mark, which seemed to animate you a tad.
So what I was talking about was the theme of baptism in canonical Mark and how Secret Mark seems to play into that.
And just a note, I may be off line for a day or so because of a personal matter.
But I will respond.
What I want to know is how John’s baptism worked. Functionally. Operationally. Did he personally dunk the epigone in the river? Or did he preside over a host of ritual bathers? I was disappointed that Joel Marcus didn’t mention it in his book. But that’s because we don’t really have enough information. The Mandaeans have an elaborate ritual that involves multiple immersions and anointings and even a kind of communion. But their baptism seems clearly influenced by later Jewish and Christian practices.
JAS said
And why should you trust Mark or Mathew? This accepting or rejecting of a source merely because it fits or does not fit our ideas of what happened is a very slippery slope.
It’s not a matter of what fits my ideas of what happened. Mark stands to have the most historical information of the gospels since it was the first written. I’m not convinced of how much historical information it contains, but it’s the best we have besides Paul. I treat the later gospels progressively more skeptically.
Robert said
CEJ said
Robert said
What are you talking about, CEJ? What do you mean by saying I’m chewing off my arm? I’m merely discussing ideas about John’s baptism.
Those are fair questions.
I was referring to our previous discussions regarding Secret Mark, which seemed to animate you a tad.
So what I was talking about was the theme of baptism in canonical Mark and how Secret Mark seems to play into that.
And just a note, I may be off line for a day or so because of a personal matter.
But I will respond.
If I recall correctly, we agree that neither Secret Mark nor Carpocratian Mark represents the original stage(s) of the gospel of Mark, ‘though you see Secret Mark as preceding canonical Mark and I do not. We further disagree as to how important is the pederastic interpretation of the relationship of Jesus to the young man who ran away naked at Mk 14,51-52. Whereas the pederastic interpretation is the view of many commentators, see it as an extreme minority view among Markan scholars and commentators.
How does this relate to my discussion above as to the nature of the baptism of the historical John? And how am I supposedly chewing off my arm?
How does one chew one’s arm off? Usually by gnawing at it, assuming anyone does so other than proverbially.
Apparently that colloquialism doesn’t travel well. Maybe one needs to have grown up in the country to get it.
Regardless, you are correct: I hold that Secret Mark, whether Clement’s version or the Carpocratian one, preceded canonical Mark. My money is on the Carpocratian one.
As to pederasty and Secret Mark, I would *guess* that most who view Secret Mark as a modern hoax by Morton Smith see it as suggesting a pederastic relationship between Jesus and an unnamed young man. And that seems to be why many of them object to Secret Mark more than for any other reason. Witness, for example, Lee Strobel railing against the academy (of which he could only dream of belonging) and Secret Mark:
But some who accept the document as a genuine Clementine text, reject the pederastic implications.
Witness, for example, Scott Brown:
** you do not have permission to see this link **
If you don’t wanna drop fifty or a hundred bucks on a used copy of his book, his PhD thesis on the same subject is available for free here:
** you do not have permission to see this link **
It’s less polished than his book, but it’s worth every penny you spend.
But now to the real point:
Mark 1 Claims Jesus will bring the baptism of the holy spirit. Yet he never does that within the four corners of canonical Mark.
Why? Possibly because the text is missing the Secret Mark passages as a consequence of redaction.
And that those passages may have been meant to show Jesus baptizing a young man into the mystery of the kingdom through a nocturnal sexual union.
cstu said
It’s not a matter of what fits my ideas of what happened. . . .
Are you so sure about that? As someone who has done deep research on the highly contested biography of Edgar Allan Poe, I can tell you that it is all a great deal more subjective than you might think, and that is without the addition of centuries of passing time and the religious implications.
To clarify a bit, I am not saying that we cannot know anything, so any crackpot idea is as good as any other idea. I am merely saying that we should be very aware of how much of our understanding is based on layers and layers of assumptions. One error in any of these layers can be minor and simply take an adjustment, or it can multiply into a catastrophic failure. One hopes that all or at least most of these assumptions have been established by as much careful thought and research as possible. It is not necessarily enough to concoct a theory that covers or seems to fit a series of available points; it must also account for alternative ideas and deal in some way with points of disagreement. Long established ideas gain some credibility from having endured, but even they can be overturned if new evidence comes forward or a better idea can be demonstrated. (The probability that such ideas come from dabblers in the field is not impossible, but is highly unlikely.) The test of that new idea is usually the scholarly community. It is all too easy to fall into the trap of certainty and confirmation bias. That is partly a function of how the human brain works, and the necessity of creating and retaining summary positions for complicated issues. But we should ever be mindful of the limitations of what we know and what we can know.
BDEhrman
FreedomBen
evgendob
Robert