
Mark 1:4New International Version (NIV)
4 And so John the Baptist appeared in the wilderness, preaching a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins.
would it be reasonable to assume that jewish john the baptist, after he dunked individual in water, said to the individual in the passive voice, “your sins are forgiven”

In Judaism “forgiveness” was achieved through the sacrifice of animals at the Temple in Jerusalem. The Torah specifies this place alone can be used for sacrificial offerings, conversely no other place can be used. The Temple was destroyed by the Romans in 70AD so the practice of sacrifice ended. Today the Rock of the Dome sits over the spot where the Temple was so even today it is impossible to offer sacrifices. This is the real cause of the tension over the presence of the Muslim mosque in Jerusalem. In lieu of sacrificial offerings Jews can achieve forgiveness by prayer (this took the place of sacrifices I believe), good deeds and charity.
Note the obvious call to the latter by the Jesus of the Gospels and in particular the Epistle of James (highly controversial to Martin Luther, but little appreciated in today’s churches).
Regarding Mark 1:4 however, contrary to Steefen’s simplistic one-liner, the exact meaning of the latter half of that verse is not easily understood and is debated. What brings the forgiveness of sins for John? The baptism or the repentance? How exactly dies it happen? Is the ritual cleansing of the water the key? There were many rituals involving water known from the ancient world and from Judaism in particular. Temple priests ritually cleansed themselves. The Essenes wrote about it in the Qumran scrolls. Other cultures, such as the Egyptians, even went so far as to completely shave the hair from their bodies AND ritually cleanse themselves with water. There’s far more to it than these few sentences, but this is the gist of the discussion of the matter.
Steefen said
No, it is not reasonable.Forgiveness of sins in Judaism relates to Yom Kippur.
Jesus was charged by Jews for leading people astray, not John the Baptist.
So, when the Babylonian Talmud charges Jesus with damnation (and it does, in no uncertain terms–read Jesus in the Talmud by Schafer) it is partly because Jesus led people away from the High Holy Day in Judaism, Yom Kippur.
No, John the Baptist is not reviled in the Talmud but Jesus is.

See the debate between Michael Bird and James Crossley on** you do not have permission to see this link **: Bird defends the traditional view of Jesus’ high self-understanding while Crossley insists that Jesus is not doing anything radical, translating the Greek as your sins are loosed” meaning that the paralytic’s limbs are set free of satanic bondage (cf. Luke 13:16) and that the blasphemy charge may just be over where Jesus received his authority (see Mark 3:22, 29 on the charge that Jesus is in league with Beelzebub; cf. CD 4.12-8) rather than a reaction to an implicit claim to divinity.
** you do not have permission to see this link **
comments please on this quote.
BDEhrman
FreedomBen
evgendob
Robert
1 Guest(s)
