so John the baptizer appeared[e] in the wilderness, proclaiming a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins. 5 And the whole Judean region and all the people of Jerusalem were going out to him and were baptized by him in the River Jordan, confessing their sins. 6 Now John was clothed with camel’s hair, with a leather belt around his waist, and he ate locusts and wild honey. 7 He proclaimed, “The one who is more powerful than I is coming after me; I am not worthy to stoop down and untie the strap of his sandals. 8 I have baptized you with[f] water, but he will baptize you with[g] the Holy Spirit.”
The Baptism of Jesus
9 In those days Jesus came from Nazareth of Galilee and was baptized by John in the Jordan. 10 And just as he was coming up out of the water, he saw the heavens torn apart and the Spirit descending like a dove upon him. 11 And a voice came from the heavens, “You are my Son, the Beloved;[h] with you I am well pleased.”
“he saw the heavens….”
was this a secret revealed just to jesus? was mark saying to his audience, the worthy guy came to john and he didnt realise who he was baptising ?
Perhaps straying from the topic, I find it interesting how in Mt and Lk, John ends up uncertain of who Jesus is (Mt 11:2-3; Lk 7:18-19).
Prima facie this seems inconsistent with what each has previously narrated about John. In Lk 1:41 & 44 John was supposed to have recognized Jesus as the messiah in utero. In Mt 3:11 and Mt 3:13-14, John knows who Jesus is even before the baptism (though interestingly, Lk doesn’t fails to make clear whether John recognized Jesus at the baptism).
The incongruity with the rest of these gospels combined with the plausibility of the episode taken in itself makes me wonder whether this might not be a genuine historical episode (the fact it’s Q material makes this more likely); especially if we notice that both Matt and Luke begin the story with John hearing reports of Jesus (giving the distinct impression that he didn’t already know who Jesus was: Mt 11:2 and Lk 7:18).
By itself the sequence in this passage makes perfect sense: John is thrown in jail; Jesus’ ministry takes off; John hears (for the first time) about this Jesus, and he sends disciples to ask if he is the one. But they are perplexing in the context of the gospels that preserve them, and that go to pains to show that John was sent, and knew he was sent, to prepare the way for Jesus, whom he personally identified long before John was imprisoned.
The incongruity with the rest of these gospels combined with the plausibility of the episode taken in itself makes me wonder whether this might not be a genuine historical episode (the fact it’s Q material makes this more likely); especially if we notice that both Matt and Luke begin the story with John hearing reports of Jesus (giving the distinct impression that he didn’t already know who Jesus was: Mt 11:2 and Lk 7:18).
Some scholars suppose that there might have been conflicts off and on between the historical followers of Jesus and John. We can trace disciples of John into the second century before we lose track. And if we go by Josephus, John was by far the most well-known figure. All the gospels are queasy about John. But they can’t simply remove him from the story.
All the gospels are queasy about John. But they can’t simply remove him from the story.
I agree that the gospels seem to be not just riding John’s coattails but trying to coopt him by making the famous prophet into a prophet of Jesus. But I’m curious what indications you see of queasiness; maybe in the baptism?
I think the queasiness is illustrated in that the writers acknowledge John but they progressively distance him from Jesus. One of the first problems that occurred to me with mythicism was that if the stories are being invented by partisans of the mythical Jesus then why oh why would you ever associate him with John in your stories? Any relationship with John is going to be problematic for followers of Jesus. Jesus goes to John. He willingly participates in John’s baptism which was for the forgiveness of sins! The one who baptizes is regarded as the spiritual superior of the one being baptized. If we follow Josephus John was more widely known than Jesus. John and Jesus seem to have shared disciples.
The solution of the gospel writers was to have John present himself as a forerunner. By the time you get to the gospel of John the actual baptism of Jesus is not even mentioned.
“Unlike a Q text (Mt 11,2-6 Lk 7,18-23) or the gospel of John (1,29-36), which give rather opposing answers, Mark does not seem concerned with what John the Baptizer himself may have thought of Jesus. Many scholars see the baptismal scene as part of a literary prologue, designed to give the reader and the reader only an insider view of who Jesus really was. Not just John the Baptizer, but the rest of the characters never really understand who Jesus is, except the Roman centurion immediately after the death of a despairing Jesus on the cross (15,39).”
I don’t believe the “Q source” exists.
What I believe happened was it was well known that Jesus joined John the Baptizer’s group, which is why the author of Mark wrote about it.
The author of Matthew reading Mark felt that it was strange that John the Baptizer baptized the messiah, so he put words in John’s mouth saying he was inferior to Jesus.
“I think the queasiness is illustrated in that the writers acknowledge John but they progressively distance him from Jesus. One of the first problems that occurred to me with mythicism was that if the stories are being invented by partisans of the mythical Jesus then why oh why would you ever associate him with John in your stories? Any relationship with John is going to be problematic for followers of Jesus. Jesus goes to John. He willingly participates in John’s baptism which was for the forgiveness of sins! The one who baptizes is regarded as the spiritual superior of the one being baptized. If we follow Josephus John was more widely known than Jesus. John and Jesus seem to have shared disciples.
The solution of the gospel writers was to have John present himself as a forerunner. By the time you get to the gospel of John the actual baptism of Jesus is not even mentioned.”
For some reason Bart didn’t discuss this in “Did Jesus Exist?” but it’s one of the primary reasons I’m convinced Jesus existed. It passes the criterion of dissimilarity because anyone inventing the story of Jesus would not have had him baptized.
BDEhrman
FreedomBen
evgendob
Robert
1 Guest(s)