Did Jesus Baptise people?

[Adam]

At the moment I am reading Maurice Casey Jesus of Nazareth. He states John’s gospel has Jesus baptising people but

this is so unlikely, that one of his authors corrected it, announcing that Jesus did not baptise, but his disciples did (Jn 4.2 seeking to correct Jn 3.22; 4.1). We should not believe this. The synoptic gospels have no trace of Jesus or his disciples baptizing, and they had no reason to omit it, … The whole passage (Jn 3.22-4.3) is a quite overblown attempt ... inspired ... At the same time, it contains the correct view that some of Jesus’ ministry took place ‘when John had not yet been thrown into prison’ (Jn 3.24), …

Casey may be right. John 3:22 to 4:3 is very disparate in origin. Using the text already presented here, here is Howard M. Teeple's breakdown into five components. S=Source, probably a text underlying (not derived from) the Synoptics. G=Gnostic type source. E=Editor who drew at least these two sources together. R=Redactor. Also there is later gloss, textually dubious.
John 3.22-4.3 RSV

[R]
[22]After this
[Jesus and his disciples went into the land of Judea; there he remained with them and baptized.
[R]
[23] John also was baptizing at Ae'non near Salim, because there was much water there; and people came and were baptized.
[24] For John had not yet been put in prison.

25]Now a discussion arose between John's disciples and a Jew over purifying.
[26] And they came to John, and said to him, "Rabbi,
{E}
he who was with you beyond the Jordan, to whom you bore witness, here he is, baptizing, and all are going to him."
[27] John answered, "No one can receive anything except what is given him from heaven.
[28] You yourselves bear me witness, that I said, I am not the Christ, but I have been sent before him.
{G}
[29] He who has the bride is the bridegroom; the friend of the bridegroom, who stands and hears him, rejoices greatly at the bridegroom's voice; therefore this joy of mine is now full.
{E]
[30] He must increase, but I must decrease."
[G]
[31] He who comes from above is above all; he who is of the earth belongs to the earth, and of the earth he speaks;
[E]
he who comes from heaven is above all.
[32] He bears witness to what he has seen and heard, yet no one receives his testimony;
[33] he who receives his testimony sets his seal to this, that God is true.
[34] For he whom God has sent utters the words of God, for it is not by measure that he gives the Spirit;
[G?]
[35] the Father loves the Son, and has given all things into his hand.
[36] He who believes in the Son has eternal life; he who does not obey the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God rests upon him.
[John 4:1]
[E]
Now when
[gloss] the Lord knew that

the Pharisees had heard that
[E]
Jesus was making and baptizing more disciples than John
[gloss]
[2] (although Jesus himself did not baptize, but only his disciples),

[3] he left Judea and departed again to Galilee.

I expect most people can agree that Jn 4:2 is a later addition, but is it not possible to see Jn 3:22-23 as historical and Jn 3:24 as a later addition?

It seems that Casey is just picking the bits he likes rather than treating the whole section in the same way.

Teeple is ambiguous on whether "S" if lifted from the Synoptics or is a source underlying the Synoptics

[neilgodfrey]

To see an exhausted Jesus in verse 6 because of his baptising is contrary to what the verse actually says –

so Jesus, wearied as he was with his journey, sat down beside the well. It was about the sixth hour.

You are correct. I think that was my own careless paraphrase of Brodie's argument and not what Brodie himself claims. The Samaritan well passage shows that Jesus was capable of being exhausted, thus lending support to the interpretation that Jesus was weary and needed the disciples to continue the baptizing. My own interest here is that I have tended to see John's Jesus as superhuman -- as per the Passion Narrative -- showing no human weakness. But that is not so in these early scenes. It makes sense that in John we are reading a prefiguring of his death.

(I would not want to argue strongly for Brodie's interpretation, by the way. I have some reservations about Brodie's views in his commentary. But they are worth serious consideration, nonetheless, I think.)

[Michael BG]

Clement of Alexandria apparently said that Jesus baptized Peter.

Why would we think something written after 200 CE is more likely to be historical rather than something written earlier? Not that just because it was written earlier makes it historical.

Casey may be right. John 3:22 to 4:3 is very disparate in origin. Using the text already presented here, here is Howard M. Teeple's breakdown into five components. S=Source, probably a text underlying (not derived from) the Synoptics. G=Gnostic type source. E=Editor who drew at least these two sources together. R=Redactor. Also there is later gloss, textually dubious.
John 3.22-4.3 RSV

[Jesus and his disciples went into the land of Judea; there he remained with them and baptized.

25]Now a discussion arose between John's disciples and a Jew over purifying.
[26] And they came to John, and said to him, "Rabbi,

the Pharisees had heard that

[3] he left Judea and departed again to Galilee.

Teeple is ambiguous on whether "S" if lifted from the Synoptics or is a source underlying the synoptics

These verses do not seem to hang together. The first and last verses might well be redaction to place a tradition in a created context. Verses 25 and 26 do not comprise a whole pericope that would have been passed down orally. However none of these verses appear in the synoptics – which have “Jesus came/withdrew/into Galilee” with no mention of Judea.

… The Samaritan well passage shows that Jesus was capable of being exhausted, thus lending support to the interpretation that Jesus was weary and needed the disciples to continue the baptizing. … It makes sense that in John we are reading a prefiguring of his death.

(I would not want to argue strongly for Brodie's interpretation, by the way. I have some reservations about Brodie's views in his commentary. But they are worth serious consideration, nonetheless, I think.)

It seems a strange argument to say that because Jesus can be weary when in Samaria this means he was weary of baptising people as an argument for it being historical. I expect from time to time I come up with some strange arguments but I hope none are as bad as this one.

My own tentative interpretation of verse 2 might be better and at least it seems that Clement of Alexandria has got there before me in some sense.

I have an impression that John often manages to get a reference to Jesus death in all over the place.

[Secret Alias]

Why would we think something written after 200 CE is more likely to be historical rather than something written earlier?

It wasn't necessarily written after 200 CE and more importantly it's a tradition which dates to that period about a text which is certainly older than 200 CE. I don't believe any of these stupid stories were 'historical' in our modern understanding of the term but the testimonies are certainly 'historically significant' since they are as old as many of our oldest testimony about 'Matthew,' 'Mark,' 'Luke' (Luke = Irenaeus) or the rest of our compromised corrupted (but ultimately 'surviving') texts.

[Michael BG]

Why would we think something written after 200 CE is more likely to be historical rather than something written earlier?

It wasn't necessarily written after 200 CE and more importantly it's a tradition which dates to that period about a text which is certainly older than 200 CE. I don't believe any of these stupid stories were 'historical' in our modern understanding of the term but the testimonies are certainly 'historically significant' since they are as old as many of our oldest testimony about 'Matthew,' 'Mark,' 'Luke' (Luke = Irenaeus) or the rest of our compromised corrupted (but ultimately 'surviving') texts.

You suggested Clement of Alexandria as having reliable tradition and Ben I assume quoted him being quoted by someone else. If you believe it is earlier than after 200 CE please make the case? From the quote provided by Ben, Clement is not stating he is quoting an independent tradition. It just seems to be a Christian making things up. If you believe otherwise please present your case?

If you are saying that what Clement is telling us is as reliable as what other Christians wrote about the authors of the gospels then I have no problem, as there is nothing they tell us which is likely to be historically meaningful.

[neilgodfrey]

… The Samaritan well passage shows that Jesus was capable of being exhausted, thus lending support to the interpretation that Jesus was weary and needed the disciples to continue the baptizing. … It makes sense that in John we are reading a prefiguring of his death.

(I would not want to argue strongly for Brodie's interpretation, by the way. I have some reservations about Brodie's views in his commentary. But they are worth serious consideration, nonetheless, I think.)

It seems a strange argument to say that because Jesus can be weary when in Samaria this means he was weary of baptising people as an argument for it being historical. I expect from time to time I come up with some strange arguments but I hope none are as bad as this one.

You have taken the second comment of mine in which I attempted to add a clarifying point to the argument I initially set out as the substance of the argument itself. Brodie does not "say that because Jesus can be weary when in Samaria this means he was weary of baptising people" at all and I never suggested as much in either the initial statement or clarification.

Nor does Brodie (nor I) at any point suggest that any of this interpretation has anything whatever to do with anything "being historical". Brodie certainly rejects the historicity of anything in John.

[Ben C. Smith]

Why would we think something written after 200 CE is more likely to be historical rather than something written earlier?

It wasn't necessarily written after 200 CE and more importantly it's a tradition which dates to that period about a text which is certainly older than 200 CE. I don't believe any of these stupid stories were 'historical' in our modern understanding of the term but the testimonies are certainly 'historically significant' since they are as old as many of our oldest testimony about 'Matthew,' 'Mark,' 'Luke' (Luke = Irenaeus) or the rest of our compromised corrupted (but ultimately 'surviving') texts.

You suggested Clement of Alexandria as having reliable tradition and Ben I assume quoted him being quoted by someone else. If you believe it is earlier than after 200 CE please make the case? From the quote provided by Ben, Clement is not stating he is quoting an independent tradition.

I am not going to vouch for Clementine reliability, but the inference that Clement is here drawing from tradition and not from his own imagination alone would come at least partly from λέγεται ("is said"):

Yes, they were truly baptized, just as Clement the Stromatist in the fifth volume of the Hypotyposeis mentions. For he says, explaining the apostolic statement that says: "I give thanks that I have baptized none of you," that Christ is said [λέγεται] to have baptized Peter only, but Peter [in turn] Andrew, Andrew [in turn] James and John, and they the rest.

This certainly seems to be a Clementine claim that the statement comes from some other source(s): call it/them hearsay or tradition or what have you, but there it is.

Ben.

[Adam]

Casey may be right. John 3:22 to 4:3 is very disparate in origin. Using the text already presented here, here is Howard M. Teeple's breakdown into five components. S=Source, probably a text underlying (not derived from) the Synoptics. G=Gnostic type source. E=Editor who drew at least these two sources together. R=Redactor. Also there is later gloss, textually dubious.
John 3.22-4.3 RSV
[Jesus and his disciples went into the land of Judea; there he remained with them and baptized.

25]Now a discussion arose between John's disciples and a Jew over purifying.
[26] And they came to John, and said to him, "Rabbi,

the Pharisees had heard that

[3] he left Judea and departed again to Galilee.

Teeple is ambiguous on whether "S" if lifted from the Synoptics or is a source underlying the synoptics

These verses do not seem to hang together. The first and last verses might well be redaction to place a tradition in a created context. Verses 25 and 26 do not comprise a whole pericope that would have been passed down orally. However none of these verses appear in the synoptics – which have “Jesus came/withdrew/into Galilee” with no mention of Judea.

I have over-simplified Teeple. Teeple's analysis includes the following re verse 26, following "Rabbi":
"Again E drops the story in S and substitutes his own writing, which has nothing to do with the Purification."
"

[andrewcriddle]

Clement of Alexandria, as cited by John Moschus in Spiritual Meadow 5.176 (volume 3 of Otto Stählin, 196.21, fragment 6 of the Hypotyposeis):

Ναὶ ἀληθῶς ἐβαπτίσθησαν, καθὼς Κλήμης ὁ Στρωματεὺς ἐν τῷ πέμπτῳ τόμῳ τῶν Ὑποτυπώσεων μήμνηται. φησὶ γάρ, τὸ ἀποστολικὸν ῥητὸν ἐξηγούμενος τὸ λέγον «εὐχαριστῶ, ὅτι οὐδένα ὑμῶν ἐβάπτισα»· ὁ Χριστὸς λέγεται Πέτρον μόνον βεβαπτικέναι, Πέτρος δὲ Ἀνδρέαν, Ἀνδρέας Ἰάκωβον καὶ Ἰωάννην, ἐκεῖνοι δὲ τοὺς λοιπούς.

Yes, they were truly baptized, just as Clement the Stromatist in the fifth volume of the Hypotyposeis mentions. For he says, explaining the apostolic statement that says: "I give thanks that I have baptized none of you," that Christ is said to have baptized Peter only, but Peter [in turn] Andrew, Andrew [in turn] James and John, and they the rest.

I think the source of Clement's claim is Matthew 14

29...Then Peter got down out of the boat, walked on the water and came toward Jesus. 30 But when he saw the wind, he was afraid and, beginning to sink, cried out, “Lord, save me!”
31 Immediately Jesus reached out his hand and caught him. “You of little faith,” he said, “why did you doubt?”

interpreted as a sort of Baptism (Peter goes into the water as an expression of discipleship and is raised up by Jesus.)

This may seem bizarre but there is evidence that the passage was so interpreted. Tertullian On Baptism

Others make the suggestion (forced enough, clearly) that the apostles then served the turn of baptism when in their little ship, were sprinkled and covered with the waves: that Peter himself also was immersed enough when he walked on the sea.

Andrew Criddle

[Ben C. Smith]

Clement of Alexandria, as cited by John Moschus in Spiritual Meadow 5.176 (volume 3 of Otto Stählin, 196.21, fragment 6 of the Hypotyposeis):

Ναὶ ἀληθῶς ἐβαπτίσθησαν, καθὼς Κλήμης ὁ Στρωματεὺς ἐν τῷ πέμπτῳ τόμῳ τῶν Ὑποτυπώσεων μήμνηται. φησὶ γάρ, τὸ ἀποστολικὸν ῥητὸν ἐξηγούμενος τὸ λέγον «εὐχαριστῶ, ὅτι οὐδένα ὑμῶν ἐβάπτισα»· ὁ Χριστὸς λέγεται Πέτρον μόνον βεβαπτικέναι, Πέτρος δὲ Ἀνδρέαν, Ἀνδρέας Ἰάκωβον καὶ Ἰωάννην, ἐκεῖνοι δὲ τοὺς λοιπούς.

Yes, they were truly baptized, just as Clement the Stromatist in the fifth volume of the Hypotyposeis mentions. For he says, explaining the apostolic statement that says: "I give thanks that I have baptized none of you," that Christ is said to have baptized Peter only, but Peter [in turn] Andrew, Andrew [in turn] James and John, and they the rest.

I think the source of Clement's claim is Matthew 14

29...Then Peter got down out of the boat, walked on the water and came toward Jesus. 30 But when he saw the wind, he was afraid and, beginning to sink, cried out, “Lord, save me!”
31 Immediately Jesus reached out his hand and caught him. “You of little faith,” he said, “why did you doubt?”

interpreted as a sort of Baptism (Peter goes into the water as an expression of discipleship and is raised up by Jesus.)

This may seem bizarre but there is evidence that the passage was so interpreted. Tertullian On Baptism

Others make the suggestion (forced enough, clearly) that the apostles then served the turn of baptism when in their little ship, were sprinkled and covered with the waves: that Peter himself also was immersed enough when he walked on the sea.

That is a great point. It makes me wonder, though, what Clement would have thought constituted Peter baptizing Andrew and Andrew the brothers Zebedee.