Is the baptism (but not John) interpolated in Mark?

[Giuseppe]

According to Rylands, the part in red is a late interpolation, made in a time when there was more no embarrassment about the baptism of Jesus by John:

1 The beginning of the good news of Jesus Christ, the Son of God.

2 As it is written in the prophet Isaiah,

“See, I am sending my messenger ahead of you,
who will prepare your way;
3
the voice of one crying out in the wilderness:
‘Prepare the way of the Lord,
make his paths straight,’”

4 John the baptizer appeared in the wilderness, proclaiming a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins. 5 And people from the whole Judean countryside 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 thong of his sandals. 8 I have baptized you with water; but he will baptize you with the Holy Spirit.”

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 on him. 11 And a voice came from heaven, “You are my Son, the Beloved; with you I am well pleased.”

12 And the Spirit immediately drove him out into the wilderness. 13 He was in the wilderness forty days, tempted by Satan; and he was with the wild beasts; and the angels waited on him.


14 Now after John was arrested, Jesus came to Galilee, proclaiming the good news of God, 15 and saying, “The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God has come near; repent, and believe in the good news.”

Only in this way there is effectively a contrast between who comes first - John - and who comes after - Jesus. The two men don't act more at the same time.

The current version, instead, raises numerose questions about when precisely John was arrested: when was Jesus still in the wilderness? Or immediately after the baptism? And so on.

[Giuseppe]

If Mark is pauline, Jesus cannot be adopted by God during the baptism, since Jesus in Paul is a pre-existent being.

[Giuseppe]

Per Rylands, there is no apology in our Mark for the baptism, and this is evidence that it didn't raise problems for the readers since they had already known about the baptism (and relative apology) thanks to Matthew etc.

[andrewcriddle]

The presence of the baptism of Jesus by John in both Matthew and Luke is good evidence, (assuming Marcan priority), that it is original to Mark.

Andrew Criddle

[Giuseppe]

Even assuming the Markan priority AND that Luke is based on Mcn (that is without the baptism)?

[Giuseppe]

It is strange (=unexpected, =surprising, =not probable) that:

1) in Matthew there is the baptism + apology
2) in Luke there is the baptism + apology
3) in current Mark there is only the baptism
4) the Markan priority.

If Mark is first and had the baptism, why there was not apology for it?

Vice versa if I recognize that the baptism *requires* an apology, why was it in the late Gospels but not in the first one having the baptism?

[iskander]

The presence of the baptism of Jesus by John in both Matthew and Luke is good evidence, (assuming Marcan priority), that it is original to Mark.

Andrew Criddle

Mark was the first and in Mark's the intellectual ( religious ) development of Jesus is clearly discernible as a man seeking a personal understanding of God.
Mark 1: 4, John the baptizer appeared* in the wilderness, proclaiming a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins.

Mark 1:5 And people from the whole Judean countryside and all the people of Jerusalem were going out to him, and were baptized by him in the river Jordan, confessing their sins



John and Jesus were on the same side and the temple clerics were their opponents. The clerics run an expensive Temple which they used to sell forgiveness through an elaborate ritual which involved the killing of animals, dressing up in fancy clothes etc.

John claimed to offer all that almost for free etc. Jesus went to John as a customer to be forgiven etc. The clerics visited John and later Jesus as opponents , as enemies of those fraudsters, even as enemies of heretics. Men visited John trusting his capacity to forgive the sins. Jesus was one of those men.


Jesus eventually learned that every man and woman can forgive himself and herself . If the death of an animal in a building can forgive a human and John can forgive in the river Jordan , then God alone can forgive if man repented .


Jesus was a formidable thinker but his disciples eventually replicated the old Mosaic Temple with the new papal Vatican

[Giuseppe]

There are other indications that the part in red (see my first post in the thread) was a late interpolation. In the following passages of Matthew, I put in parallel what represents clearly a rapid and effective summary of the entire point of Matthew (not coincidentially, a summary found as interpolation in Mark):

Matthew 4	Mark 1
Then Jesus was led up by the Spirit into the wilderness to be tempted by the devil.	And the Spirit immediately drove him out into the wilderness.
He fasted forty days and forty nights, and afterwards he was famished.	He was in the wilderness forty days,
The tempter came and said to him, “If you are the Son of God, command these stones to become loaves of bread.” 4 But he answered, “It is written, ‘One does not live by bread alone, but by every word that comes from the mouth of God.’” 5 Then the devil took him to the holy city and placed him on the pinnacle of the temple, 6 saying to him, “If you are the Son of God, throw yourself down; for it is written, ‘He will command his angels concerning you,’ and ‘On their hands they will bear you up, so that you will not dash your foot against a stone.’” 7 Jesus said to him, “Again it is written, ‘Do not put the Lord your God to the test.’” 8 Again, the devil took him to a very high mountain and showed him all the kingdoms of the world and their splendor; 9 and he said to him, “All these I will give you, if you will fall down and worship me.” 10 Jesus said to him, “Away with you, Satan! for it is written, ‘Worship the Lord your God, and serve only him.’” 11 Then the devil left him,	tempted by Satan;
and suddenly angels came and waited on him.	and he was with the wild beasts; and the angels waited on him.

If the passages in Mark were really first just as Mark is first, then one reader may ask himself/herself: if Jesus was tempted by Satan, did he fail to at a least some temptations ? Surprisingly (=not probably), in Mark there is no apology of the kind : “Yes, Jesus was tempted by Satan, but he resisted very good!”.

The only possible reason for this absence of apology in Mark (about baptism + temptations by Satan) is that the readers were already immunized by any possible embarrassment about the baptism and temptations: they have read Matthew before.

[Giuseppe]

Which was the reason, for Matthew, of inserting for the first time a baptism + apology for it ?

Clearly to make Jesus and John “strange” allies against both the followers of only John (the Mandeans?) who hated Jesus, and the followers of only Jesus (the Gnostics?) seen as radical antithesis against anything Jewish and by extension against the same John.

[Giuseppe]

And obviously the story of the temptations by Satan was added to make it clear that the enemy of Jesus is Satan (and not the god of the Jews).