Stephen said
Robert wroteWe cannot rule out the possibility that the gospel of John was not at least indirectly dependent upon the gospel of Mark or other synoptic gospels. So ‘independent attestation’ is at best debatable.
I’ve been pondering this for the last couple years. I’ve read several attempts to demonstrate some relationship online and hardcopy and all they’ve done is convince me otherwise. Who do you think makes the best case for a dependency? If I’m lucky it’ll be someone I’m unfamiliar with.
It it[sic] true for most scholars Mark and Q are considered independent, but some truly great scholars challenge this assumption.
Sure but I ask you, how could an author like the genius who wrote Mark have all that scrumptious dialogue available and not use any of it?
___
We have zero access to Jesus’ internal spiritual life. Was he an ecstatic visionary? He wouldn’t be the first mystic prophet in Judaism. How else would he have convinced himself he had a special destiny unless God’s finger touched him right between the eyes?
And just before that happened, he was exposed to the most prominent charismatic visionary in Palestine during that time period.
You can argue it different ways–while John baptizing Jesus was a problem later on, because the divinely begotten Son of God, born without sin, shouldn’t have needed baptism, in the early days (before the crucifixion and for a time after) it would have made sense to emphasize Jesus’ connection to John, who was better-known to most Jews. The story of Jesus and John changes in each of the four gospels. We should probably not assume it hadn’t been changing prior to that.
Unfortunately (but not surprisingly), Paul leaves John out of the picture entirely. Paul already considered Jesus a pre-existent divine being, so he didn’t want to talk about the baptism.
What we can prove is one thing. What we can reasonably intuit quite another. Ancient history necessitates a fair amount of guessing, and there is no reason to impose different rules on the study of early Christianity. No amount of textual analysis is ever going to unravel the mystery, in and of itself.
Robert said
** you do not have permission to see this link ** These are not particularly strong arguments for independent attestation. If you like, we could consider each one individually, but that might be rather tedious.
i appreciate the offer . . Webb made a reasonable sounding argument to me (including original greek in Matt and Luke) that led him to the conclusion that Q probably includes baptism and vision, I don’t doubt you can find issues with his thesis, but it might be over my head and yes I expect would be tedious.
———–
and yes I understand
Independent attestation does not prove historicity,
as well as that single attestation does not prove the passage is unhistorical
and that passing the criteria of embarrassment does not prove historicity
and that failing the c. of e. proves a passage unhistorical
———–
So may I ask
Given that it is “not at all implausible that Jesus had visions”
Do you find it implausible that such a vision occurred during his baptism?
or that you find it implausible that Jesus related such visions to his disciples ?
which is my only contention
I guess I find it more plausible that if the vision were a later addition (i.e not attributable to Jesus) it would be placed at any place OTHER THAN THE BAPTISM. Why not place it at an early age like Samuel’s? of course this is speculation.
but would appreciate your opinion
So we all agree it’s likely Jesus had visions, one of them might well have been connected to his baptism, and that we can assume whatever story he told about that would have changed over time as people repeated it?
Because we’ve typed a lot of words just to say that. 🙄
The study of history can, in fact, involve common sense. Common sense says that we probably wouldn’t have this story at all if some version of it did not happen–the very way the baptism story changes over the four gospels shows how much of a problem it was for Christians.
Common sense also says that Jesus having a vision doesn’t prove God actually spoke to him. But as Stephen said, if he never had any such visions, his subsequent behavior is difficult to explain. Probably the real story is a lot more complex than Mark’s version. But that’s a common problem in ancient historical accounts in general (in historical accounts, period).
There is no reason to apply a different standard of evidence to the gospels than we do to non-religious sources from that time period. And yet almost everyone does. A higher standard, or a lower one. Same difference.
godspell said
. . Mark was an adoptionist, so it’s a bit convenient that Jesus is having a vision that confirms his adoption by God.
glad some consensus at least among no-scholars – one point to clarify
Whether Mark was an adoptionst or not I dont know, but the vision/voice came from heaven: “You are my Son, whom I love; with you I am well pleased.”
does not confirm adoption – I infer the opposite
adoption means switching from a state of not being son of God to a state of being son of God (maybe because of his special or unique character or something else)
but there is no indication of
a) a time Jesus was not God’s son, or that
b) Jesus is adopted as son of God because of some aspect of Jesus character or righteousness, or that
c) God loves any other more or less than He loves Jesus, or that
d) God is any more or less well pleased with any other
Does Jesus during his ministry imply any of the above a – d ?, I would say no but that may be a different topic, or to be continued if interested here
Mark begins his story with Jesus’ baptism. He doesn’t tell us who Jesus was before. He doesn’t talk about how Jesus came to be born. He doesn’t talk about Jesus’ remarkable childhood, or state that Jesus had any special abilities, prior to his baptism. He doesn’t produce a bogus genealogy to say Jesus is descended from David, nor does he try to arrange for Jesus to be born or raised somewhere other than Galilee.
He chooses the baptism, because that is the moment when Jesus became more than a man. Where God chose him to be his son, and the Messiah. You can argue about whether God knew for all time this would happen (I find such arguments dreary, though Aquinas didn’t). But Jesus didn’t know. Under John’s tutelage, he had developed spiritually, and the baptism cleanses him of sin, making him a worthy vessel of God’s grace.
This is the story being told, and adoptionist is as good a word as any to describe it.
Again. Common sense. You can’t prove anything beyond a doubt. You don’t need to.
BDEhrman
FreedomBen
evgendob
Robert
1 Guest(s)