JW:1:9 And it came to pass in those days, that Jesus came from Nazareth of Galilee, and was baptized of John in the Jordan.
10 And straightway coming up out of the water, he saw the heavens rent asunder, and the Spirit as a dove descending upon him:
11 And a voice came out of the heavens, Thou art my beloved Son, in thee I am well pleased.
Josephus' description of John is general. The implication is that John baptized a lot of people. Limitations on the extent of John's baptism activity are geographical, improbable that most of Israel was close enough to get baptized, interest, unlikely that most people close enough were interested in that baptism and chronological, "John's" baptism career was cut short, was Jesus around and ready during John's baptism career? Again, in general it's improbable that Jesus was baptized by John. You also have the issue of defining "baptism by John". How much different could it have been from what "Mark" describes and still be considered likely history just because it involved something somewhat similar?Now some of the Jews thought that the destruction of Herod's army came from God, and was a very just punishment for what he did against John called the baptist [the dipper]. For Herod had him killed, although he was a good man and had urged the Jews to exert themselves to virtue, both as to justice toward one another and reverence towards God, and having done so join together in washing. For immersion in water, it was clear to him, could not be used for the forgiveness of sins, but as a sanctification of the body, and only if the soul was already thoroughly purified by right actions. And when others massed about him, for they were very greatly moved by his words, Herod, who feared that such strong influence over the people might carry to a revolt -- for they seemed ready to do any thing he should advise -- believed it much better to move now than later have it raise a rebellion and engage him in actions he would regret.
And so John, out of Herod's suspiciousness, was sent in chains to Machaerus, the fort previously mentioned, and there put to death; but it was the opinion of the Jews that out of retribution for John God willed the destruction of the army so as to afflict Herod.
JW:1:9 And it came to pass in those days, that Jesus came from Nazareth of Galilee, and was baptized of John in the Jordan.
10 And straightway coming up out of the water, he saw the heavens rent asunder, and the Spirit as a dove descending upon him:
11 And a voice came out of the heavens, Thou art my beloved Son, in thee I am well pleased.
So, if "Most people of "Mark's" Jesus' time were not baptized. So only considering this general observation, it is more likely that" any one person "was not baptized since most people of his time were not."1) Jesus is baptized. Most people of "Mark's" Jesus' time were not baptized. So only considering this general observation, it is more likely that Jesus was not baptized since most people of his time were not.
2) Jesus is baptized by John. "Mark" appears to have written the original baptism story and the only related outside the Christian Bible information is from Josephus:
A lot of assumptions here. And you set up arbitrary limitations. Could not the Jews of Palestine walked 2 to 4 days in order to be baptized by John? or go to a festival in Jerusalem, like the Passover?Josephus' description of John is general. The implication is that John baptized a lot of people. Limitations on the extent of John's baptism activity are geographical, improbable that most of Israel was close enough to get baptized, interest, unlikely that most people close enough were interested in that baptism and chronological, "John's" baptism career was cut short, was Jesus around and ready during John's baptism career? Again, in general it's improbable that Jesus was baptized by John. You also have the issue of defining "baptism by John". How much different could it have been from what "Mark" describes and still be considered likely history just because it involved something somewhat similar?
What are you assuming here? that Jesus could not walk away from his village for more than one day?3) Jesus is baptized in the Jordan. Josephus gives no description of where John baptized. Maybe there was no fixed location. The Jordan River runs south from the ...Sea of Galilee. A river, connected to the Sea of Galilee, runs the length of the border of much of the Country = no improbability issue.
So now, it is unlikely that people being baptized came from any small village. Why not?Jesus came from Nazareth of Galilee to the baptism. There's a lot of uncertainty here. Nazareth was sufficiently small so that it would be unlikely from someone to come anywhere from Nazareth. On the other side it's uncertain where exactly the baptism was. Most of the Jordan River is a long way from Nazareth. The combination makes it improbable that Jesus came from Nazareth of Galilee to the baptism.
And what does that have to do with Mk 1:9?Here, verse 9.
The primary themes of our test pericope in order of importance:
1) Jesus is identified as God's son
2) This is a divine identification
3) The baptism is a transitional moment for Jesus
4) The identification is only witnessed by Jesus
Now I'll list what I consider to be the primary themes of "Mark" in order of significance:
1) Jesus was rejected in his time
2) Jesus was rejected by his own disciples
3) What was significant about Jesus was his suffering, not his ministry
4) Jesus post baptism and pre-death was the son of God
5) Belief in Jesus is based on faith and not evidence
Matching consideration:
Pericope theme -
1) Jesus is identified as God's son = Matches Markan primary theme 4).
2) This is a divine identification = Matches Markan primary theme 5).
3) The baptism is a transitional moment for Jesus = Matches Markan primary theme 4).
4) The identification is only witnessed by Jesus = Matches Markan primary theme 5).
So the pericope as a whole has strong matches to overall primary themes of "Mark". Note here that lack of matching to the first 3 overall themes of "Mark", rejection and suffering, is understandable as the baptism is at the start of Jesus career, where he would not yet be rejected or suffer.
JW:Bernard Muller wrote:to JW,So, if "Most people of "Mark's" Jesus' time were not baptized, it is more likely that" anyone "was not baptized since most people of his time were not."1) Jesus is baptized. Most people of "Mark's" Jesus' time were not baptized. So only considering this general observation, it is more likely that Jesus was not baptized since most people of his time were not.
I think there is something wrong in your logic.
JW:Bernard Muller wrote: Just like me saying:
So, if "Most people from France did not emigrate, it is more likely that Bernard Muller did not emigrate since most people from France did not." But I did, really!
I agree with Mr. Muller that the logic leading up to those conclusions is faulty. I don't see how any of those four things is improbable at all. I'm not saying they're all probable, but certainly not the opposite of that either.JoeWallack wrote: [...]
In summary:
Looking forward, we'll see that "Mark's" description of Jesus being baptized looks anachronistic. In Paul/"Mark's" time Christians baptized and this is projected back to Jesus' supposed time.
- 1) Jesus is baptized. = Improbable
2) Jesus is baptized by John = Improbable
3) Jesus is baptized in the Jordan. = Probable
4) Jesus came from Nazareth of Galilee to the baptism = Improbable
Joseph
ErrancyWiki
JW:Bernard Muller wrote:2) Jesus is baptized by John. "Mark" appears to have written the original baptism story and the only related outside the Christian Bible information is from Josephus:A lot of assumptions here. And you set up arbitrary limitations. Could not the Jews of Palestine walked 2 to 4 days in order to be baptized by John? or go to a festival in Jerusalem, like the Passover?Josephus' description of John is general. The implication is that John baptized a lot of people. Limitations on the extent of John's baptism activity are geographical, improbable that most of Israel was close enough to get baptized, interest, unlikely that most people close enough were interested in that baptism and chronological, "John's" baptism career was cut short, was Jesus around and ready during John's baptism career? Again, in general it's improbable that Jesus was baptized by John. You also have the issue of defining "baptism by John". How much different could it have been from what "Mark" describes and still be considered likely history just because it involved something somewhat similar?
Lot of people were baptized by John, so any limited time of John's baptizing activities was not a hindrance. Why not Jesus be like and among this "a lot of people"?
And John baptized when a whole generation was present in Israel. Could Jesus be not among them? Does that have to be improbable?
3) CBS tries to pick off and dismiss these types of Literary Criticism criteria that weigh against historicity one at a time. The son of Mantra is "It's possible, not impossible, so it does not prove fiction and therefore can be ignored". It does not prove fiction and it may be little weight for fiction but it's still evidence and needs to be weighed. There is also the consideration of the usage of the improbable. If the author is consistently putting the subject, so to speak, in the improbable situation, than the sum of the improbable may be greater than the subject's parts. Know any religious writings like that Bernard? Don't be like CBS.A puzzle for readers is that Josephus' description of John the Baptist occurs several paragraphs after his description of Jesus (18.5.2 116 compared to 18.3.3 63), implying that John came later in time; but it is important in the gospels that John appeared before Jesus so as to announce him. When, exactly, does Josephus state that John arose?
He is not at all clear, as is often the case for events that occurred before his time. Even when Josephus is precise about dates he can frequently shown to be somewhat off (as when he gives the length of the reigns of Roman emperors). So any conclusions about John from this passage must be taken cum grano salis.
Having said that, it does appear that Josephus is giving John's death as occurring in 36 CE, which is at least 6 years later than what is expected from the New Testament, and after the crucifixion of Jesus. This date is seen as follows. Herod's battle with Aretas appears to have broken out soon after Herod's first wife, Aretas's daughter, left him. If so, then John did not have much time between the moment people were aware Herod was remarrying and the start of the battle with Aretas, for John was already dead before the battle. Josephus gives several indications that the battle occurred in 36 CE:
He states that the quarrel with Aretas sprang up "about the time" (Ant. 18.5.1. 109) that Herod's brother Philip died in 34 CE (Ant. 18.4.6 106).
During this time Herod's brother Agrippa had gone to Rome "a year before the death of Tiberius" (Ant18.5.3 126), which places Agrippas's departure in 36 CE.
Soon after the battle, the Syrian commander Vitellius was ordered by Tiberius to attack Aretas, whereupon Vitellius marched through Judea with his army, pausing in Jerusalem to placate the Jews and to sacrifice at a festival (probably Passover). On the fourth day of his stay in Jerusalem he learned of the death of Tiberius, which had occurred on March 16 37 CE (and it could have taken up to a month for Jerusalem to get the news). This puts the battle in the winter of 36/37 CE.
Vitellius' action against Aretas must have occurred between his action against the Parthians, under Tiberius' orders, and the death of Tiberius. The Parthian war occurred in 35 and 36 CE, as indicated both by Josephus and by the Roman historians Tacitus and Suetonius. (Herod the Tetrarch assisted Vitellius in negotiations between Tiberius and the Parthian king.)
The only question, then, is whether Josephus is misleading when he implies that the battle with Aretas came immediately after Herod separated from Aretas' daughter.
So when did Herod marry Herodias? The only hint Josephus gives is that the pair first met when Herod was on his way to Rome, but unfortunately the only such journey we know about was when Herod visited Augustus to receive his inheritance in 6 CE. This is not very helpful. So the evidence of Josephus is that John the Baptist was executed in 36 CE, well after the time indicated by the gospels - but, it should be noted, still within the governorship of Pontius Pilate.
