The baptism of Jesus was so well known and such a part of the tradition that they couldn't leave it out anymore than a modern historian could leave out JFK's affairs or the Monica Lewinsy affair or Bush invading the wrong country and failing to find WMD.s Everyone knew about it so they were forced to deal with it.They made the lame excuse that Jesus did it as an example and then damn John with faint praise.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/20/2013 12:37AM by bona dea.

I accept that the baptism of Jesus was an early christian tradition, but I believe the reason church leaders couldn't abandon it was because it was an important initiation ritual. It worked for John the baptist so it probably worked for the early christians too. For the criterion of embarrassment to apply, baptism must have served no purpose, but clearly it did serve a purpose historically and it still does now.

Josephus knew of John the baptist and he inferred that John was known by many other Jews. If christians were baptising people then they couldn't do so without explaining the link between christian baptism and John's baptism. Even if the link was weak or unsound from a doctrinal point of view, to not acknowledge John as the source of the baptism ritual would have been unacceptable to most Jews, and particularly unacceptable to those who were baptised by John.

A story that acknowledged John, said he was a great man but he was only preparing the way for Jesus is a clear attempt to convert John's followers. Thus despite its imperfections, the baptism story had a clear purpose that was much more important than the doctrinal contradictions that it created.

I would be interested in hearing of any traditions in which
Jesus was ever said to have administered a baptism -- or
even some apocryphal extra-canonical passage in which he is
said to have supervised his disciples performing such a rite.

Who baptized Jesus' mother?

If my hunch is right, the Apostolic Christians inserted
baptism into the Christ myth, for reasons similar to what
you point out -- but were unable or unwilling to promote
any examples of Jesus baptizing his own disciples.

What sort of a religious history would have led to a NT canon
in which no baptisms of the first apostles themselves were
ever inserted into the narrative? Saul/Paul does not even
receive his baptism from the hands of recognized authority.

UD

Uncle Dale,

Jesus not passing on the ritual of baptism doesn't make any sense, assuming that Jesus was baptised himself and that he became a preacher.

If you assume that Jesus didn't exist then it is only logical that he didn't baptise anyone. It also explains why he didn't write anything, travel outside Judea and Gallilee, have a birth date, have relatives, establish a church, grow up in a town that existed at the time or be noticed by historians. Just sayin'!

Unless pre-Christian baptism was something other than
what we picture it to be, looking back into a past that
we are grossly misunderstanding.

What could baptism have been, that it became attached to
the followers/admirers of John, even giving a name to their
group, and yet was not administered by Jesus?

Concluding that there never was a John or never was a Jesus
is one possible explanation.

But, is that the ONLY logical explanation?

UD

My two cents:

1. Ritual cleansing in the form of immersion in water (which later evolved into baptism) as an vital initial/initiation ritual is not unique to Jesus movement. The Essenes at the time were doing it already. All you have to do is to tell those who intend to join that there's an initial/initiation ritual. And that's what the Essenes did.

2. The mention of Jesus receiving his baptism from a mortal and presumably inferior man actually undermines the divinity of Jesus.

3. Was it worth it creating a textual/narrative contradiction that undermines the divinity of Jesus and thus undermines the movement as well while Jesus' contemporary religious groups, such as the Essenes, simply had to orally inform those who intend to be initiated that there had to be an initiation ritual?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/20/2013 01:29AM by jl.

jl,

1. According to wikipedia the Essenes engaged in their ritual washing daily, kind of like having a bath every day? It sounds significantly different to a once off symbolic dunking.

2. There are plenty of other examples of Jesus being submissive despite his superiority, eg washing the feet of his disciples. The baptism story is merely being consistent with the other stories about Jesus.

3. If Jesus was baptised by the John described by Josephus then there was no contradiction. According to Josephus, John baptised for the purification of the body, not for the remission of sins. For christians to create two contradicting doctrines isn't smart but there are plenty of other examples.

The Essenes are interesting to me. I met a modern day Essene once. He was a nice guy.

Green Potato,

1. The one-time dunking did NOT become a practice that applied to all those who want to be counted as "followers of Jesus" until decades after Jesus' death. I said the ritual cleansing later evolved into baptism.

2. I suggest that you watch Dale Martin's lecture "Historical Jesus."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d_dOhg-Fpu0

Various parts of the four Gospels are analyzed and discussed here - though not in great detail.

The whole lecture series focuses on New Testament.

What I am trying to convey is that the historical existence of "historical Jesus" is not really disputed among scholars, especially those who are well-known for their expertise on New Testament, such as Dale Martin and Bart Ehrman. Ehrman went from Christian to agnostic and was even called an atheist due to the fact that he authored the book "Jesus: Misquoted," which challenges the conventional understanding (especially that of fundamentalists and literalists) of the authenticity of New Testament. And I suspect Martin went through the same journey of becoming agnostic as well, given the impression that I get from his lectures.

What scholars DO dispute is the "Christian Jesus," the Jesus who washes away the sins of the world, came back from the dead, and was born of a virgin.

1. Seriously this is news to me. Give a guy one job in life, only one job, and he can't even do that (re John the baptist and his FAILURE to establish the baptism ritual). What a waste of space!

I am a little concerned by what I have just read: "The theology of baptism attained precision in the 3rd and 4th centuries".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baptism_in_early_Christianity#Baptism_of_Jesus

I never realised that baptism was so complicated that it took centuries to perfect! If Jesus had actually been baptised then it would have been a lot simpler. Just do what John did to Jesus!

So when scholars say they are certain that Jesus was "baptised", what they really mean is that they are certain that Jesus underwent a ritual that nobody understood for another 200 to 400 years. They have no reliable accounts of what actually happened on the day of Jesus' alleged baptism.

2. Watched the first minute and got bored. Not going to watch the whole 52 minutes. If you have a point to make then make it. The big bang is an immensely complicated topic yet physicists can explain it to the general public in relatively easily understood terms.

No-one seems to be able to explain WHY scholars are so sure of the existence of a historical Jesus. All anyone can do is parrot that it isn't disputed by scholars and no, we don't need to explain why we haven't asked archaeologists or scientists and no, there is no need to do any actual surveys of scholars, and no, nobody has done a chi squared test to calculate a probability of the historical Jesus theory being true, and no, we don't need to define a historical Jesus because that might make the theory falsifiable.

The whole thing seems very strange... it is as if scholars believe everything the new testament says to the extent that it hasn't been proven false yet... a "Jesus of the gaps" so to speak. Given the quantity of false information in the new testament, isn't it about time scholars threw the whole thing in the bin?

So... I saved up the patience to watch the whole 52 minute video and I am glad that I did.

From watching the first minute yesterday, I knew that Dale Martin was incorrectly assuming that the New Testament was essentially true. That's why I didn't particularly want to watch any more. Now that I have watched the whole thing, I can see that the entire historical Jesus theory RELIES on the new testament being essentially true. There are no extra-biblical accounts that confirm the existence of Jesus Christ. If the New Testament is fiction then the conclusions that scholars reach are invalid.

The methods that scholars use to analyse the new testament books, if applied to the Star Trek series, would probably conclude that there was definitely a Romulan on board the star ship Enterprise. Although each series has differences, they all include a Romulan in the crew in a highly ranked position. A romulan being on board a human star ship is difficult to explain, especially since the romulan home world had previously been destroyed, so the criterion of embarrassment applies. Each series stands as a separate source of historical information about the star ship Enterprise, so the criterion of multiple sources is met.

If you accept the New Testament as essentially true, then what about the book of mormon? Sure, there are a few inconsistencies, conflicting archaeological evidence and some not very nice DNA evidence, but the New Testament isn't perfect either. A few errors doesn't mean that the rest of the book is false does it? Get ready for mormon apoligists to start using a similar excuse ;)

A book that has been shown to have serious errors in it can only be described as fiction. Applying historical techniques to fiction is just plain silly. Wake up biblical scholars! Snap out of your invalid paradigm! Take your christian goggles off and see the New Testament for what it is!

Provably incorrect assumptions:

New Testament scholarship is carried out by believers.

Provable answer: No. It is carried out by pagans, agnostics, atheists, Muslims, Catholics, Episcopalians, Africans hoping to revitalize their tribal traditions, and above all, lots and lots of nones, all of whom argue together and must get peer reviews from each other, so even if you are a Christian scholar, your thesis must pass muster in your atheist committee.

Compare please to BoM studies. No one studies BoM as a record of a civilization in the Americas except the Mormons. Others study it as a record of the Mormon religion -- exclusively.

New Testament scholarship is held to a lesser standard than other scholarship covering similar time frames and similar situations (ie. the life of Siddhartha or the lives of ordinary Jews in Jerusalem at that time).

Provable answer: No. If anything New Testament scholarship is in a spotlight and is more cautious about drawing conclusions. It is rigorously peer reviewed. You will not find a NT scholar who talks about Jesus walking on water, no matter her most personal beliefs about that. She talks about what she can prove as any historian can prove. There is no testimony bearing in NT scholarship. None. If anyone emerges from the fiery furnace of their graduate work with a belief that Jesus is the Christ, she saves if for eloquent writing on the teachings of Jesus -- while, just by the way, also emphasizing how the texts we have are unreliable. Please don't act as though you invented that. Please don't act as though you invented that. Please don't act as though you invented that. I am begging you. It was taught at universities before you were born for heaven's sake.

Compare and contrast to Mormon BoM "scholarship" which is never peer reviewed.

And you need to completely rethink your comparison. Are you saying that the Hebrew of the Mideast are an invention as the Lamanites are an invention? Are you saying there was no Jerusalem as there is no starship Enterprise? Hmm. There might be some rather solid evidence against you there -- like -- you know-- a city that can be carbon dated. In fact, I'll just be blunt -- that is as stupid as saying that man walked with the dinosaurs. You might to think about tiny little details such as there is Hebrew DNA -- that is how we are able to establish that there is no Hebrew DNA in Native American populations.

And that whole statement that a book with serious errors is then fiction, it is the equivalent of Star Trek. Wow. Just get a tee shirt that says "I NEVER MADE IT TO COMMUNITY COLLEGE -- AND PROUD OF IT!" Plato believed in Atlantis, and still managed to do the philosophy on which western civilization, including science, is built. I don't believe in a wooden horse large enough to hold an army, but they have established there was, in all probability, a Trojan war.

In fact, why are you making preposterous statements because some Jew in 7BC to 30 AD Palestine in all likelihood was baptized by an itinerant preacher named John? Do you usually take an interest in arcane Mideastern history? I'm sorry -- but -- so what? And why would people who do not claim this person turned water into wine and do not claim evidence he rose from the dead be motivated to lie about this one rather prosaic and homely detail of his life? Does being baptized seem "supernatural" to you? Are you aware of the universality of water rituals throughout human culture? This makes you feel so threatened you start acting crazy? Why?

The weird part is that YOU are the one who is operating like FAIR here -- not NT scholars. Provably untrue assumptions. No real research. Sketchy or non-existent logic. And above all satisfying some inner need to believe. And an emotion based, not reason based position consequently emerges.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/21/2013 05:12PM by Susan I/S.

LOL Thank you.

You may have watched it, but you obviously didn't get it. He is comparing Gospel accounts and the differences in them. He specifically criticized Fundamentalists for believing the Bible literally. I guess you missed that point.

The methods that scholars use to analyse the new testament books, if applied to the Star Trek series, would probably conclude that there was definitely a Romulan on board the star ship Enterprise. Although each series has differences, they all include a Romulan in the crew in a highly ranked position. A romulan being on board a human star ship is difficult to explain, especially since the romulan home world had previously been destroyed, so the criterion of embarrassment applies. Each series stands as a separate source of historical information about the star ship Enterprise, so the criterion of multiple sources is met.

That is absolute nonsense. Talk about anti intellectualism. Scholars are a bunch of pointy headed believers who don't know what they are talking about, but you do? Whatever.Have you actually read any of the scholars? If not, you really are not qualified to discuss their views.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/21/2013 03:32PM by bona dea.

Sorry Janeeliot and bona dea, the game is over.

Biblical scholars assume that the New Testament was based on a true story. If that assumption is wrong then the conclusions that biblical scholars reach is wrong. Surely you are honest enough to admit that?

No, they believe some of it is true and they have ways of determining what is likely to have happened, what is myth and what is impossible to determine. It is much more complicated than you make it out to be. If you are really interested,try reading Bart Ehrman' s "Did Jesus Exist". He is an actual scholar, historian and agnostic.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/22/2013 04:55PM by bona dea.

It is fairly simple to read the New Testament and see that it is fiction. The whole raised from the dead thing should be a dead (pun) giveaway. However what it (NT) claims are Jesus' teachings aren't mythical, they belong squarely in that time period, so we can justifiably label the New Testament historical fiction. Someone or some movement said and embraced the philosophical ideology of the New testament. People give that someone or some movement a name, and it happens to be Jesus, the same guy from the New Testament. If it makes it easier you can imagine that this historical Jesus is the founder of a group that broke off from the Pharisees (a political, religious, and social faction of the Jews). To be clear this historical Jesus didn't found Christianity, Paul (also a pharisee) did. Historical Jesus is represented in the New Testament solely in his sayings not in his works which again are obvious fiction.

This is no different than other historical figures surrounded in obvious myth.

At that time it was common to attach myth to important people. There are similar stories about Alexander,Caesar and Augustus. Attaching myths to someone you considered the messiah is to be expected.

Heroes are often credited with things that they didn't do, nowadays we won't swallow the idea that it was magical so we credit them with other peoples accomplishments. Abraham Lincoln, Ronald Reagan, Mother Teresa, and a litany of modern day heroes just don't live up the the myths that surround them.

In those days many people were very willing to believe in magic, healing etc. As far as modern myths, you are right. Washington didn't cut down a cherry tree or throw a dollar across the Potomic and I doubt the story of Honest Abe walking miles through the snow to return a few pennies he had overcharged someone.

Jacob, your opinion is quite sensible. The only thing that I can say against it is that there is no evidence to support the idea that Jesus taught anything. None of his supposed teachings in the gospels has survived scholarly analysis.

If it is found that there is no proof that Jesus did or said anything then you have to admit that it is possible that he didn't exist.

It all depends on your definition of Jesus of course. It could be that there were multiple people who inspired the gospel authors. Maybe his name wasn't Jesus. Maybe he was from a different era, or a different location. Maybe he was a she. We know that the miracle working Jesus of the gospels didn't exist, but on what basis do you define the "real" Jesus? Is Jesus the teacher a version of the "Jesus of the gaps"? In other words, do you believe in the miracle working Jesus of the gospels to the extent that he hasn't been proven wrong yet? Is it just a compromise to avoid hurting the feelings of Christians?

Where did you get the idea that none of his teachings have survived scholarly analysis? As I said,read some of the scholars

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_Jesus#Eight_possibly_historical_elements

None of the teachings of Jesus made the top 8 most probably things that can be said about the historical Jesus. Biblical scholars have only reached consensus on 2 of the items, the baptism of Jesus and his crucifixion.

So, bona dea, where did you get the idea that some of Jesus' alleged teachings have survived scholarly analysis? Which of all the scholars should we believe? Maybe we need to pray about it in the woods?