Did Jesus Baptise people?

[Secret Alias]

Matthew can't be what Clement has in mind. Jesus didn't drown Matthew. It changes the whole context of the story and it would mean Peter similarly enticed the brothers on the water knowing they would drown. That seems to redefine Christian baptism as schadenfreude rather than salvation

[Secret Alias]

" ... that Christ is said to have baptized Peter only, but Peter [in turn] Andrew, Andrew [in turn] James and John, and they the rest."



The origins of Christian baptism revealed.

[Michael BG]

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.

Your first statement which later you said might have been carelessly stated you wrote:

Then in 4:2 Jesus is no longer baptizing. Editorial additions attempting to make corrections to a text tend to make a better fist of harmonizing their contradictory statements. If the editor wanted to say Jesus himself was never baptizing then why not do so at 3:22 with a smoother explanation and not an apparently blunt and gauche contradiction some verses later? (Brodie cites other scholars for this particular observation.)

Rather, Jesus is wearing out and having to hand over the job to his disciples -- and this segues into the ensuing passages of an exhausted Jesus asking for water at a well.

I can’t see you stating here that you have changed the context from historicity which was my context.

Your second comment was

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 …

The second part which is clearly your view I didn’t comment on. The first part which seemed to be a clarification of your own “careless paraphrasing” I did comment on.

I feel that a reasonable person could make the same conclusions I made. At no time was I intentionally trying to misunderstand what you wrote.

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.

While “is said” might refer to a past tradition it could also I think mean “today it is said”. I don’t know if there is evidence that Clement knew the gospel of John, but if he did, he could just be presenting his own view as the view of others. However my point is that whatever he might have meant he is a late witness and therefore should not be just accepted as reliable, especially as we don’t accept the gospel authors as reliable, but always examine what they wrote.

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."
"

This seems equally as bad as my criticisms of Casey.
Temple should be able to present a better case for these verses to go back to his S source. While convincing someone that behind a gospel text there is another source is not easy, it has to involve more than this.

I can accept that verses 25 and 26 might go back to an historical event but without more of a context it is just a possibility and not a likelihood.

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

Thank you for this Andrew.

[Ben C. Smith]

While “is said” might refer to a past tradition it could also I think mean “today it is said”.

If I were to claim that "it is said" that Ronald Reagan suffered from diabetes during his second term, I think a lot of people, were they to learn that the first person who started to say that actually started only today, would feel that I had cheated a bit. It may be technically true, but in spirit it is a lie. (And, of course, Clement may be lying; that should always be an option.)

I don’t know if there is evidence that Clement knew the gospel of John....

There is. Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History 6.14.5-7:

Again, in the same books [the Hypotyposes], Clement gives the tradition of the earliest presbyters, as to the order of the Gospels, in the following manner: "The Gospels containing the genealogies, he says, were written first [or published openly]. The Gospel according to Mark had this occasion. As Peter had preached the Word publicly at Rome, and declared the Gospel by the Spirit, many who were present requested that Mark, who had followed him for a long time and remembered his sayings, should write them out. And having composed the Gospel he gave it to those who had requested it. When Peter learned of this, he neither directly forbade nor encouraged it. But, last of all, John, perceiving that the external facts had been made plain in the Gospel, being urged by his friends, and inspired by the Spirit, composed a spiritual Gospel." This is the account of Clement.

...but if he did, he could just be presenting his own view as the view of others.

Yes, he certainly could.

However my point is that whatever he might have meant he is a late witness and therefore should not be just accepted as reliable, especially as we don’t accept the gospel authors as reliable, but always examine what they wrote.

The proper procedure is to accept as reliable any datum which supports your pet theory and reject all others.

Ben.

[Michael BG]

While “is said” might refer to a past tradition it could also I think mean “today it is said”.

If I were to claim that "it is said" that Ronald Reagan suffered from diabetes during his second term, I think a lot of people, were they to learn that the first person who started to say that actually started only today, would feel that I had cheated a bit. It may be technically true, but in spirit it is a lie. (And, of course, Clement may be lying; that should always be an option.)

In the UK we are have a referendum on our membership of the EU – it is said that leaving the EU will cause the break-up of not only the Euro zone but of the EU itself.

I don’t know if there is evidence that Clement knew the gospel of John....

There is. Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History 6.14.5-7:

Again, in the same books [the Hypotyposes], Clement gives the tradition of the earliest presbyters, as to the order of the Gospels, in the following manner: "The Gospels containing the genealogies, he says, were written first [or published openly]. The Gospel according to Mark had this occasion. As Peter had preached the Word publicly at Rome, and declared the Gospel by the Spirit, many who were present requested that Mark, who had followed him for a long time and remembered his sayings, should write them out. And having composed the Gospel he gave it to those who had requested it. When Peter learned of this, he neither directly forbade nor encouraged it. But, last of all, John, perceiving that the external facts had been made plain in the Gospel, being urged by his friends, and inspired by the Spirit, composed a spiritual Gospel." This is the account of Clement.

...but if he did, he could just be presenting his own view as the view of others.

Yes, he certainly could.

Thank you.

However my point is that whatever he might have meant he is a late witness and therefore should not be just accepted as reliable, especially as we don’t accept the gospel authors as reliable, but always examine what they wrote.

The proper procedure is to accept as reliable any datum which supports your pet theory and reject all others.

Ben.

I will try to obey the site rules better in the future and try not to be swayed by a careful consideration of the evidence.

[Ben C. Smith]

While “is said” might refer to a past tradition it could also I think mean “today it is said”.

If I were to claim that "it is said" that Ronald Reagan suffered from diabetes during his second term, I think a lot of people, were they to learn that the first person who started to say that actually started only today, would feel that I had cheated a bit. It may be technically true, but in spirit it is a lie. (And, of course, Clement may be lying; that should always be an option.)

In the UK we are have a referendum on our membership of the EU – it is said that leaving the EU will cause the break-up of not only the Euro zone but of the EU itself.

And you see the difference, right? You "feel" it as you listen to it. Reagan was President 3 decades ago, therefore "it is said" seems disingenuous if the saying originated just today. The referendum is something contemporaneous, right? So "it is said" is also contemporaneous, and can easily have originated just today with no feeling that one has been cheated.

The example with Clement is more like the Reagan example (decades ago) than like the referendum example (currently happening).

However my point is that whatever he might have meant he is a late witness and therefore should not be just accepted as reliable, especially as we don’t accept the gospel authors as reliable, but always examine what they wrote.

The proper procedure is to accept as reliable any datum which supports your pet theory and reject all others.

Ben.

I will try to obey the site rules better in the future and try not to be swayed by a careful consideration of the evidence.

Good. This policy will serve you in good stead for years to come.

Ben.

[robert j]

I don’t know if there is evidence that Clement knew the gospel of John ...

The question seems to be mostly academic at this point, but Clement clearly cited a line from the Gospel of John in his Stromata.

As he often did, Clement wove passages from the scriptures --- and his other source material --- into his own running commentary. Here, Clement cited Matthew 13:34, John 1:3, and Proverbs 8:9 ----

The apostles accordingly say of the Lord, that "He spake all things in parables, and without a parable spake He nothing unto them;" and if "all things were made by Him, and without Him was not anything made that was made," consequently also prophecy and the law were by Him, and were spoken by Him in parables. "But all things are right," says the Scripture, "before those who understand," that is, those who receive and observe, according to the ecclesiastical rule … (Stromata, Book 6, chapter 15)

Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. (John 1:3, NIV)

[Secret Alias]

But this is so annoying. He is citing lines which appear in our 'Gospel of John' but the evidence suggests that the 'Super Gospel' was used in Alexandria at this time or at least was preferred. The way he weaves the references also supports that conclusion. To argue from the evidence that Clement is citing HERE or THERE from our 'Gospel of John' just because we know the passage from 'the Gospel of John' is about as likely as doing the same thing with the writings of Ephrem or Aphrahat. First came the super gospels and then c. 180 (possibly as late as 190 CE) the fourfold 'bundle' (= the 'separated gospels' as they are called in the East). The 'bundle' spread from Rome and eventually replaced the 'Super Gospel' (or 'super gospels') within the Empire by the middle of the third century. But in the East the effort didn't work until much, much later. That's a fact. Can we at least try to imagine that not only living things in nature but religious texts 'evolve' over time. The Jewish and Samaritan texts of the Pentateuch and Joshua EVOLVED. So too the gospel and the Pauline letters for fuck's sake. Why is this concept so hard for people trying to figure out the origins of Christianity? Oh I forgot, the universe has to bow down to their will. The legacy of atheism - a higher more serious sense of egoism for the world to deal with. The importance of 'me' as the new and only commandment in the universe.

[arnoldo]

Gospel writers also implied Jesus baptized in the following manner. .

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John+20:22

http://biblehub.com/acts/11-16.htm

[Secret Alias]

Oh and I should have added FIRST AND FOREMOST - the Patristic texts EVOLVED. Irenaeus Against Heresies is a composite text. It along with countless others - probably ALL Patristic testimonies up to Eusebius have been worked and reworked several times over. Why? Because orthodoxy was constantly evolving and it the original material was left in its authentic form it would be brutally apparent that there were no perfect witnesses (= saints) in antiquity.