Did Jesus Baptise people?

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
Ulan
Posts: 1505
Joined: Sat Mar 29, 2014 3:58 am

Re: Did Jesus Baptise people?

Post by Ulan »

The major problem I have with the "super gospel first" scenario is: why make those 4 gospels so distinct, with different styles and theologies? Do you think that one person would be able to pull this off, just to draw in the followers of different heresies?
Ulan
Posts: 1505
Joined: Sat Mar 29, 2014 3:58 am

Re: Did Jesus Baptise people?

Post by Ulan »

Secret Alias wrote:So Irenaeus is saying only the quadriform gospel was acceptable. He infers only Luke was a problem for heretics. No word about a rejection of Matthew, Mark or John by anybody. Why Luke?

Could it be because Luke was also the author of Acts and all the heresies loathed Acts?
I thought that was because "Luke" was the new kid on the block of which nobody had ever heard a word before, with the big exception of the Marcionites, who at least saw the similarities to their own gospel. This part of the "Irenaeus or someone else (Polykarp?) faked it" scenario is one that is more commonly pursued.

I guess, if you look at the different "heresies", they all played in different ballparks. The docetic point of view seemed to have been very widespread and pervaded all of Christianity. That was tackled by small additions to many gospels. Just "Mark" seems to have evaded this, or they went into the other direction and threw something out (which raises the question why they left the adoptionist twist that was still interpreted in a docetic manner in). On the other end of the spectrum were sects like the Valentinians, which were probably too weird to have real mass appeal, if their characterization is to be believed (and even the Gospel of Truth looks rather contrived). The only real problem for the "Catholics" were the Marcionites, as they seemed to have a rather large following, plus a well established church hierarchy. In fact, they may have had a better organized hierarchy than the Catholics (the idea that Ignatius was actually a Marcionite bishop still has some appeal to me).

In this sense, the Marcionites were the real opponents and needed a bit more wrangling down than the others. With mystery groups, there isn't really any problem with the approach to just corrupt or rewrite their texts and declare those the originals, as it's the nature of such groups that their teachings have some kind of secrecy, which makes them vulnerable to be taken over by con artists. A well organized church with an openly available canon is a different beast to tackle.

Which was now a very long-winded and roundabout way to answer the question "Why Luke"...
Secret Alias
Posts: 18362
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Did Jesus Baptise people?

Post by Secret Alias »

Sort of. But why (or how) the ultimatum that if they don't accept Luke they don't get to use all these stories native to (now) only Luke. That's an odd statement. How do people know these Lukan stories if they don't possess the gospel? Why can't they - or better yet HOW CAN'T THEY - use the gospel by which they knew these stories in the first place? What's stopping them from using the original source?

"If you don't buy Ford you won't be able to enjoy the comfort of driving your own car?" Well what happened to GM?
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote
Secret Alias
Posts: 18362
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Did Jesus Baptise people?

Post by Secret Alias »

I can't get over the original "known" gospel being taken away from the entire entire readership. The way Adv Haer is set up the readership has to wade through this section. The "you have to accept Luke" business if you want to possess what we would call "Lukan narratives" is odd. It goes beyond just the Marcionites. There's more than one group and he appeals to ignorant people. They know the stories but not the source where the stories came. How else could he hope to fool them with the revelation of the existence of this Luke and his gospel (both concepts are introduced in the section). Some don't even accept Paul but know the Pauline gospel (Luke) stories. Encratites? As such these are harmony hearers or part of a community who were read from Justin's or Tatian's gospel. Laity suddenly promoted to the presbytery. But what happened to those who knew what was going on behind the curtain? Who knew the gospel form from which the liturgy was read? This isn't for them. They couldn't be won over.
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote
Ulan
Posts: 1505
Joined: Sat Mar 29, 2014 3:58 am

Re: Did Jesus Baptise people?

Post by Ulan »

Secret Alias wrote:Sort of. But why (or how) the ultimatum that if they don't accept Luke they don't get to use all these stories native to (now) only Luke. That's an odd statement. How do people know these Lukan stories if they don't possess the gospel? Why can't they - or better yet HOW CAN'T THEY - use the gospel by which they knew these stories in the first place? What's stopping them from using the original source?
He may have just switched target here without telling. If Irenaeus' goal was church unity under the "catholic" banner, he also had to draw those groups in that didn't use the Marcionite gospel. That may have even been the Catholics themselves. "Here, take gLuke. You need it!"
Secret Alias
Posts: 18362
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Did Jesus Baptise people?

Post by Secret Alias »

Well yes. The question of 'what is Adversus Haereses?' - how did it come to take its present form is of course a difficult question to answer. There does seem to be a later hand (perhaps Irenaeus's own) which has shaped the existing narrative. The narrator pops out at the beginning of each book and sometimes at the end and in between certain sections. There are two different citations of various scriptures which makes the identification of the work as the product of one writer dubious.

But with that said, let's suppose for argument's sake that Irenaeus is the final editor of the work. The question of who the work was addressed is the next important question. Did Irenaeus just address 'Christians' as such? No. This had to be a work directed toward Christians in leadership positions. They must have been newly appointed as they seem to be a clueless lot. The general tone of the work makes it clear that Irenaeus presents himself as a superior authority even though in retrospect it does not seem as if Irenaeus held a position of absolute authority himself and doesn't make reference to an authority higher than himself.

Again the closest parallel that I can come up with is his Jewish contemporary Judah HaNasi. What was the basis to Judah's authority? He wasn't elected to the position. There is no explanation of the office of 'prince.' Without meaning to soon overly conspiratorial this must be - in both communities - the beginning of an Imperial appointed 'ethnarch' for lack of a better word, a ruler of the people.

Moreover if you read the account of the Marcosians in particular it does seem as if Irenaeus arose in an age of persecutions. Not only does this sect pray to the divine mother to avoid 'the judge' and has an unusual interest in 'redemption' (a politically charged term) "because of the "Redemption" it has come to pass that they can neither be apprehended, nor even seen by the judge. But even if he should happen to lay hold upon them, then they might simply repeat these words, while standing in his presence along with the "Redemption." (Adv Haer 1.13.6) I don't think this interest is strictly supernatural any more than the Donmeh's ritualized deception.

While there is little in the way of direct evidence (outside of what happened to the Samaritans at this time and garbled accounts like that of Al Jabbar) I can't account for the situation which is outlined in Irenaeus. That is, I think that for whatever reason Christian documents were destroyed in the reign of Commodus or perhaps the end of Marcus Aurelius's reign (when Commodus sat as co-regent). It has been theorized by at least one Italian scholar recently that it was the result of the revolt in Alexandria first witin what was called Boetia the location of the Church of St Mark. But this is at this moment only speculation.
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote
Michael BG
Posts: 665
Joined: Thu Aug 13, 2015 8:02 am

Re: Did Jesus Baptise people?

Post by Michael BG »

Secret Alias wrote:
A document has to be in existence for someone to attest to it, but this doesn’t tell us how long it has been around for. And I don’t understand why you only talk about Luke. Do you believe that Mark is older than Luke?
For me at least the question is always goes back to - what are the Lukan readings? Do they derive from a separate gospel - i.e. as Mark is to Luke? As it stands now Luke has a number of unique stories. Irenaeus lists them all and - if you read carefully - says to the heretics 'if you want to use/know these stories you have to use Luke.' But is this an accurate reflection of the situation when Irenaeus was writing or did Irenaeus create Luke a a separate gospel? This is the difficulty. If, as Criddle here would agree, Adversus Marcionem goes back to a 'harmony gospel based' polemic clearly Irenaeus's claims are false. The Lukan readings were at one time shared with another gospel. Why then does Irenaeus state a bald-faced lie?

Here is the bald-faced lie:


4. It follows then, as of course, that these men must either receive the rest of his narrative, or else reject these parts also. For no persons of common sense can permit them to receive some things recounted by Luke as being true, and to set others aside, as if he had not known the truth. And if indeed Marcion's followers reject these, they will then possess no Gospel; for, curtailing that according to Luke, as I have said already, they boast in having the Gospel [in what remains]. But the followers of Valentinus must give up their utterly vain talk; for they have taken from that [Gospel] many occasions for their own speculations, to put an evil interpretation upon what he has well said. If, on the other hand, they feel compelled to receive the remaining portions also, then, by studying the perfect Gospel, and the doctrine of the apostles, they will find it necessary to repent, that they may be saved from the danger [to which they are exposed].
The form is a lie (the birth narrative as many have shown was added later). The claim is a lie. Irenaeus is lying.
(bold added)
Iranaeus seems to be saying that these “L” materials are not in the gospel of Marcion. I therefore don’t understand the recent discussion that implied that Iranaeus is saying that this “L” material is in Marcion.

Using Ben’s thread - The Marcionite gospel with accompanying sources - viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1765#p39306 it appears that Marcion did have the rich man and Lazarus Lk 16:19-31 and the parable of the Pharisee and the Publican (Tax-collector) Lk 18:10-14 (Ben has lots of them in blue = Roth says it is attested). I have not bothered to check any more.

Many people may have argued that the Lucan birth narrative is a later addition, but others have argued that they are an integral part of Luke’s gospel.

I have no desire to read Irenaeus or any other untruthful “church father”. So I don’t really care what rubbish Irenaeus is saying. I am interested in reading a case for why you think a gospel harmony (yet to be named by you) is earlier than the four gospels using internal evidence. I am getting the feeling that you may never done this before.
Post Reply