• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

How useful are the Gospels in regards historical information?

PruePhillip

Well-Known Member
The historical reliability of the Gospels refers to the reliability and historic character of the four New Testament gospels as historical documents. While all four canonical gospels contain some sayings and events which may meet one or more of the five criteria for historical reliability used in biblical studies,the assessment and evaluation of these elements is a matter of ongoing debate.Almost all scholars of antiquity agree that a human Jesus existed,but scholars differ on the historicity of specific episodes described in the Biblical accounts of Jesus,and the only two events subject to "almost universal assent" are that Jesus was baptized by John the Baptist and was crucified by the order of the Roman Prefect Pontius Pilate. Elements whose historical authenticity is disputed include the two accounts of the Nativity of Jesus, the miraculous events including the resurrection, and certain details about the crucifixion.

Historical reliability of the Gospels - Wikipedia

What are your thoughts about the usefulness of the Gospels as a source of historical information and why?

The bible is not a history book, nor is it myth. It's the story of God and his people.
If you read the account of Samuel and the ark of the covenant it doe not mention
that the cultic center of Shiloh was destroyed by the Philistines - it's just a story
about the ark. But excavations show it all happened, and priests were observing
the law of Moses about 1100 BC.
And it's the same with the New Testament.
 

Left Coast

This Is Water
Staff member
Premium Member
In terms of Jesus's baptism by John, yes I think it contains a likely historical kernel but in terms of the miraculous claims and fulfilment of prophecy, no it is a theological document trying to frame Jesus as a divinely appointed agent of eschatological judgment (the Son of God) ostensibly presaged / prophesied in the Tanakh.

The idea that a man, John the Baptist, whom we know about independently from Josephus as having baptised many people and had a considerable following in Palestine at this time, baptised Jesus is plausible and convincing.

The only place Jesus' baptism is mentioned is in the Gospels, starting here with what I just quoted. You can't argue that because baptisms were common that therefore some common baptism must lay at the root of this obviously mythological one. People have killed lots of lions before; that doesn't mean there's some historical kernel of truth laying behind the myth of Hercules killing the Nemean one.

The criterion of embaressment would lead one to presume that once you pare back the layers of theological accretion to try and make this event say about Jesus what Mark wants it to say - that Jesus is God's Son - the idea of Jesus undergoing the remission water rite of another figure, thus appearing to submit himself to the greater authority of John and moreover for forgiveness of sin (Jesus needs sin forgiveness/confession?) does not arguably cohere all that well with Mark's broader christology and theology.

As some scholars have argued, the criterion of embarassment is a bit anachronistic. What would be embarrassing to us is not necessarily embarrassing to people in another culture. One of the key themes of Jewish and Christian spirituality is that one must be humbled to be exalted. The first shall be last and the last shall be first. The foolish things of this world have been chosen over the wise. Etc. Jesus humbling himself to be baptized fits perfectly with this central Christian theme.

The end result is that Mark does make it cohere with his theology of Jesus being proclaimed God's Son but there appears to be some considerable effort involved in getting there (involving an attempt to lessen John's statute and make him subordinate to Jesus despite the former being the one actually performing the water ritual on the latter).

Again, I can't help but think that if this were any other myth, you wouldn't be putting as much effort into trying to somehow squeeze some plausible thread out of this obviously mythological story.
 

Tambourine

Well-Known Member
I think the issue many people have with the Gospels is that they tend to see them as singular (or fourfold, if you will) sources, when in general, primary sources tend to only become really useful when viewed in conjunction and in context with other historical accounts, archaeological evidence, and so on, about the events of the same time period.

The problem I see with this is that, due to their cultural and religious significance, and the strong political and economic influence of Biblical literalists on this area of historiography, that a lot of research on the subject is mixed up with Christian fundamentalist politics to such a degree that they become nearly useless for an interested layperson without a Christian literalist or otherwise strongly religious-political bend.
 

sojourner

Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
Been there, done that, time after time, Gospel after Gospel, in graduate school. Done the critical reading, all the pertinent criticisms, read many scholars on the subject. The Gospels are not history as we understand history. They are not fact-reporting. they are each written from a particular theological perspective, for the purpose, not in creating a biopic of Jesus, but with the intent of providing a theological framework for the Church. It is generally agreed upon that they contain some authentic quotations of Jesus that come from very, very early sources, but much of the material is mythic. They are not useful in providing historic information, but are useful in the purposes for which they were intended: providing a theological framework, each to its intended audience.
 

sojourner

Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
I think the issue many people have with the Gospels is that they tend to see them as singular (or fourfold, if you will) sources, when in general, primary sources tend to only become really useful when viewed in conjunction and in context with other historical accounts, archaeological evidence, and so on, about the events of the same time period.

The problem I see with this is that, due to their cultural and religious significance, and the strong political and economic influence of Biblical literalists on this area of historiography, that a lot of research on the subject is mixed up with Christian fundamentalist politics to such a degree that they become nearly useless for an interested layperson without a Christian literalist or otherwise strongly religious-political bend.
The term you're searching for is "bias." It's difficult to read and exegete the texts without bias.
 

loverofhumanity

We are all the leaves of one tree
Premium Member
Critical scholars apply perimeters to validate authenticity that are very limited.

There are other factors that prove Jesus existed and was sent by God but scholars are closed minded.

A closed minded analysis can never ever reveal truth because it is flawed.

Proof the sun exists is itself its light, heat and warmth. This is its physical proof.

Christ was a Great Spiritual Being that cannot be measured simply by physical parameters but signs He did indeed exist are all around us and have been for over 2,000 years. A non existent thing has no signs but His signs are everywhere.

His spiritual, ethical and moral teachings have encompassed the globe and billions daily use His teachings as a model for their lives. If Christ never existed not even His Name would be known today for a non existent thing has no signs.

How many have lived and died and have been completely forgotten?
 

Tambourine

Well-Known Member
The term you're searching for is "bias." It's difficult to read and exegete the texts without bias.
The problem is not simply bias, and I think you actually touched upon this in your previous post. Their religious significance not only outshines their utility as historical texts, but completely warps and distorts it to the point where I would argue that they are largely unusable as historical sources by sheer virtue of being so loaded with religious importance to so many people.
 

stvdv

Veteran Member: I Share (not Debate) my POV
What are your thoughts about the usefulness of the Gospels as a source of historical information and why?
When I see all the debating going on, and so many disagree with each other

I would say ... The Gospels are not so useful as a source of historical information

IMO: The Teaching of the Gospels is useful though, and more useful than knowing history facts
 

oldbadger

Skanky Old Mongrel!
The only place Jesus' baptism is mentioned is in the Gospels, starting here with what I just quoted. You can't argue that because baptisms were common that therefore some common baptism must lay at the root of this obviously mythological one. People have killed lots of lions before; that doesn't mean there's some historical kernel of truth laying behind the myth of Hercules killing the Nemean one.
The story of the Baptist and his actions make obvious sense. That's not myth, nor are the reasons why he carried them out.
Start there. Just there....... leave your lions in Africa and any other poor analogies and just examine the Temple coinage of that time, the Temple rip-offs and the corrupted priesthood.
John was cleansing folks and sending them back home before they reached the Temple. That's why he got arrested, the Temple takings were falling away.

You needn't worry about Jesus until the Baptist's story is investigated. Most mythers never investigated anything about the gospels, they just chant negative rubbish about them.

Jesus can be researched afterwards......... maybe?
 

Terry Sampson

Well-Known Member
Tidbit.
Source: Historical reliability of the Gospels - Wikipedia

525px-Relationships.png

The "triple tradition" is material shared by the three gospels, and the "double tradition" is shared by Matthew and Luke but not by Mark - this is the Q source. The unique material in Matthew and Luke is Special M and Special L. The chart is based on A.K. Honoré, "A statistical study of the synoptic problem", Novum Testamentum, Vol. 10, Fasc. 2/3 (Apr.-Jul., 1968),pp.95-147.
 

oldbadger

Skanky Old Mongrel!
Been there, done that, time after time, Gospel after Gospel, in graduate school. Done the critical reading, all the pertinent criticisms, read many scholars on the subject.
No verse overlooked, eh?
Seen it all?

Listening to professors who often disagree with each other can just produce graduates who mimic professors who disagree with each other.

To actually investigate the gospels requires Individual Investigation and not Institutional Indoctrination. You have to ask yourself questions and then research diligently, looking for possible answers. Then you can work with the balance of probabilities.

For instance....... why did Jewish boatmen go down to the Gadarenes? Why..... Nearly all the folks there were pagans. ?? Ask questions like these and the boffins just start bluffing, mostly. :)

The Gospels are not history as we understand history. They are not fact-reporting. [/QUOTE
G-Mark is mostly an accurate statement.
Even G-John is full of useful info and anecdotes, but he just jumbled them all together by guess. :)
 

Vouthon

Dominus Deus tuus ignis consumens est
Staff member
Premium Member
The only place Jesus' baptism is mentioned is in the Gospels, starting here with what I just quoted. You can't argue that because baptisms were common that therefore some common baptism must lay at the root of this obviously mythological one. People have killed lots of lions before; that doesn't mean there's some historical kernel of truth laying behind the myth of Hercules killing the Nemean one.

Well, the clear majority of scholars are not denying that Christian sources are the basis for Jesus's particular baptism by John, so I view this as a red herring that doesn't actually help validate or invalidate the claim (as its not even up for debate!). Practically everything we know about Jesus comes from Christian sources. The whole point of the scholarship is to sift through these sources using a rigorous academic methodology to determine which 'layers' represent the most primitive and thus 'better-candidates for historicity' elements of the tradition and which should be regarded as later theological accretions.

Your allusion to Hercules killing the Nemean lion is not a convincing one, because no scholar of antiquity accepts that Hercules actually existed whereas there is near unanimity amongst relevant experts that Jesus did. Nor are there any contemporary historical sources evidencing that there were 'lions' like the Nemean one described in the myth being slain by people in a manner akin to that of Hercules, such that we could deduce some plausible historical core to the myth. But we do have such parallels in our 'baptism' case from the only extant historical account of that period to have remained from antiquity, Josephus.

That we have independent historical testimony from Josephus that John the Baptist had a ministry of baptism of fellow Jews in this region at this time, is important in assesing the plausibility of the New Testament accounts (including the possibility that Jesus was a subject of such a baptism ritual). Were we lacking the former, then we would have reason to doubt the entire schema of a baptising itinerant preacher whom Jesus encounters and becomes affiliated with before starting his own ministry. But the independent historical testimony provides us with an important link in that chain. It is not decisive in proving the historicity of the latter but it does make it 'plausible' (which, when combined with other criterions, convinces most biblical scholars that it is also probable).

It certainly makes it far more plausible than your allusion to the Nemean lion.

Mark, Q (according to a number of scholarly assesments that it appears to have contained a different version of the baptismal pericope that was used by Matthew/Luke over against Mark's account) and John all portray Jesus as having been either baptised by John and/or his own ministry beginning after John's ministry of baptism.

There is nothing implausible in this portrait.

As some scholars have argued, the criterion of embarassment is a bit anachronistic. What would be embarrassing to us is not necessarily embarrassing to people in another culture. One of the key themes of Jewish and Christian spirituality is that one must be humbled to be exalted. The first shall be last and the last shall be first. The foolish things of this world have been chosen over the wise. Etc. Jesus humbling himself to be baptized fits perfectly with this central Christian theme.

There certainly are critics of the 'criteria of authority' approach, such as Dale Allison, yes (even though it is the gold standard in scholarship) as I demonstrated earlier in my discussion with firedragon. But Allison too doesn't deny the historical probability of Jesus having been baptised by John under his 'pattern' approach (which is concerned with 'general impressions' as opposed to the historical/unhistorical likelihood of individual pericopes). So the allusion to those 'some' scholars does not actually get around the fact that there is a consensus here amongst the ranks of the qualified experts in this field.

In his Constructing Jesus, Allison notes:


"Indeed, Jesus seems to have submitted to John’s baptism. . . .This is rarely doubted" (p. 53)​


Now, I'll grant that you may have a point in suggesting that 'humility' is a cardinal virtue in much early Christian literature. But the 'submission' to John's baptism is far more theologically problematic than depicting Jesus as humbly 'serving' the needs of others rather than being served himself but still from a position of exaltation as God's chosen, because it contradicts other 'patterns' that are fundamental to Mark's theology.

Mark does not pay any attention to the 'kenotic' theology we find in Paul's letters - where Jesus is a pre-existent divine being who humbles himself to take on human form and is then exalted after his crucifixion. He has an exaltation theology, in which Jesus is the prophesised 'chosen one' - predestined by God for election as his agent of eschatology and divine redemption, indeed the 'Son of Man' coming with the clouds of heaven (by allusion to Daniel in Mark's passion narrative). The narrative continually hits home that there is no one to compare with Jesus in authority - “Son of God” as a christological title occurs in Mark 3:11 and 15:39, the Lord of the Sabbath (2:28), has the authority to forgive sins (2:10), sits on the right hand of the Mighty One (14:62) and with great glory will judge the entire world flanked by his angels (8:38; 13:26).

And nothing about that specifically Markan account appears to match up with Jesus submitting himself to the baptismal authority - that is the religious authority, power and status - of another figure claiming to be divinely inspired, another human personage with an eschatological mission who isn't portrayed as God's Son, the Mighty One sitting on a throne and coming with the clouds of heaven or anything remotely akin to this.

That is not to refute your accurate reflection as to the importance of humility and indeed 'passive suffering' (in lieu of Mark's individuated exegesis and Messianic application of Isaiah's suffering servant in chapter 53 to Jesus) but I'm not convinced by this as a plausible reason for why Mark would include a scene showing Jesus being 'under' the authority of another figure who could have (in the early years of the tradition) potentially competed with him for status.

Mark himself and the later gospel writers appear to have been unsettled by the implications, which is why the 'validation' from God involved with the Spirit coming down becomes more grand with each telling - until John doesn't even describe the actual scene of the baptism in his gospel but has the Baptist orally declare that he saw the "dove" descend from on high and alight on Jesus as the only Son of God.

Again, I can't help but think that if this were any other myth, you wouldn't be putting as much effort into trying to somehow squeeze some plausible thread out of this obviously mythological story.

If I may ask, what is 'obviously' mythical about a person in first-century Judea being baptised by another person whom we know on good exterior authority actually baptised many Jews in that region, speaking about eschatology (like the person who baptised him) and after that figure's execution - for fear of inciting rebellion - taking over a mantle of leadership with some of his disciples and proceeding to initiate messianic fervour himself that ends up with this person being crucified (attested also in Tacitus and in the uninterpolated part of Josephus that most scholars concur with, as well as Paul's letters dating from the 50s CE), something the Romans did to upteen other people for crimes of slave rebellion, brigandry or sedition in this pre-70 CE time period?

I see no good reason for either the 'baptism' or the 'crucifixion' being contrived, as no Jews of this period were expecting a baptised and crucified Messiah - and moreover why would the Christians invent the tragic execution of their Jewish leader to try and convince Jews that he was the messiah, or indeed Romans that someone dying the most shameful slave-death on a Roman stavros as a dissident of the Empire might be a good person for them to follow?

It just doesn't fit with the Jewish 'prophecies' they are alleging that Jesus fulfilled or something that would seem logical for them to have contrived as a myth in that cultural context for the audiences in question.

Rather, the most plausible deduction is that this figure actually was both baptised and crucified - and after the fact they had to try and makes these unfortunate incidents "fit" with the theological agenda they desired. Which is what the consensus of the scholars actually is.
 
Last edited:

Terry Sampson

Well-Known Member
The story of the Baptist and his actions make obvious sense.
To some. To others, not so much.
I've been reading Jonathan Klawans book, Impurity and Sin in Ancient Judaism (Oxford Press, 2000).
From the book:
  • The argument of this book is that the distinction drawn between ritual and moral impurity in the Hebrew Bible —and in particular a correct understanding of the nature of moral impurity — allows for a better understanding of ancient Jewish literature broadly speaking. Scholars of ancient Judaism have been very interested in ritual impurity but not so interested in moral impurity. This fact has had two unfortunate results. First, passages that in fact discuss moral impurity have been misinterpreted in light of the more prevalent notion of ritual impurity. For instance, certain passages in the ancient Jewish book of Jubilees are commonly cited as evidence that ancient Jews considered Gentiles to be ritually impure. However, the passages in question in fact discuss moral impurity and not ritual impurity. A number of passages of ancient Jewish literature have been similarly misconstrued, as we will see, especially in chapter 2. Such misunderstandings are particularly conspicuous in contemporary scholarship on the New Testament. For this reason, this book expands the scope of previous analyses and takes into account evidence concerning John the Baptist, Jesus, and Paul.
  • In addition to the misunderstanding of various texts, a second unfortunate result of moral impurity's not receiving due attention is that an extremely important aspect of the dynamic of ancient Jewish sectarianism has been overlooked. Not only do a number of ancient Jewish texts discuss moral impurity, but some actually reveal that ancient Jews held different attitudes about the nature of moral defilement. This should not be surprising, since we know that ancient Jews disagreed on how ritual impurity was understood (rabbinic literature is full of such disagreements). Surprising or not, the fact that ancient Jews disagreed about the defiling force of sin has barely been recognized.
  • The purpose of this book is to counter these trends. It will argue that the notion of the defiling force of sin is articulated in a number of ancient Jewish texts. And it will argue that issues of moral impurity play an important role in the greater dynamic of ancient Jewish sectarianism. The writings and sayings of the Dead Sea sectarians, the early rabbinic sages, the Pharisees, and even Jesus will all make a good deal more sense when we give due attention to the notion of moral defilement.
Klawans tells me:
  • We will find, in the end, that the question of the relationship between impurity and sin was answered differently by various groups of Jews.
  • According to the information in the Gospels and Josephus, John's baptism appears to be a ritual of moral purification, with eschatological overtones. The ritual was performed, perhaps only once, on Jews who were influenced by John's preaching. And despite the initiatory character of the rite in Christianity, it does not appear that those baptized by John constituted a coherent group. As we will see, this combination of characteristics sets John's baptism apart from other water rites known from Qumran and tannaitic sources.
  • John, according to the Gospel of Mark 1:4, preached "a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins" ... Indeed one thing that almost all sources, including Josephus, agree upon is that baptism was conceived by John as a ritual of atonement. Yet Josephus goes out of his way to emphasize that for John, repentance was the prerequisite for the ritual: The "consecration" of the body ... would be performed by John only upon an individual who already had purged his or her soul of sin ....
  • Thus in the end, I think the emphasis ought to be where the New Testament sources place it: John's baptism was a ritual of atonement.
  • The second aspect that the gospel evidence emphasizes is that John's baptism had an eschatological motive behind it. According to Matthew 3:2, John's cry was "Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand" .... On a number of occasions, the gospel sources testify to the eschatological nature of John's message. The call for repentance, the coming doom, and the atoning power of the baptismal rite all come together into a single coherent program.
 
Last edited:

lukethethird

unknown member
In Mark (unlike in Paul or the other gospels) Jesus is simply a Jewish lad from an ordinary family, not even a descendant of David.

And John the Baptist, whose message appears to have been simple but whose politics didn't please the establishment, baptized this Jewish lad, and metaphorically washed his sins off him.

At which point, on the model that God adopted David as his son in Psalm 2:7, as affirmed Acts 13.33, the heavens opened, and God adopted Jesus as [his] son.

Do I think that last part is an accurate report of real events? No. Instead, like so much of Mark, the author moves Jesus through a scene based on a part of the Tanakh (Psalm 2:7). So much of Mark is written in this way, so much can be mapped onto passages in the Tanakh, that it isn't necessary for there to have been an historical Jesus for Mark to have been written. (To be clear, I find no clincher either for or against an historical figure somewhere behind the stories, so I think it 50:50 that an historical Jesus existed.)

Indeed, the NT is full of occasions where the author directs your attention to what he's just done, had Jesus fulfill a part of the Tanakh that the author thinks will serve as a purported messianic prophecy. Perhaps the most egregious example is the author of Matthew making Jesus' mother a virgin BECAUSE the Septuagint had inaccurately translated Isaiah 7:14's Hebrew 'almah (meaning 'young woman') into Greek as παρθένος (parthenos, 'virgin'). The author of Luke repeats the error. Thus the Jesuses of Matthew and Luke are the only two Jesuses who necessarily have God's Y-chromosome. (And then those authors trip over their feet with those absurd genealogies, not only fake but incompatible, trying to make Jesus a descendant of David.)

No, I don't think those accounts are accurate reports of real events either.
I agree with you, there is no way of knowing if the author of Mark had a specific itinerant preacher in mind when he put pen to paper. He draws from his ancient scriptures which, BTW, is the same source that Paul used among others such as visions. Rather than defending a given theory I merely acknowledge them because we otherwise cannot know how it went down back then. Having said that I suspect we are primarily dealing with a form of literary tradition.
 

Jayhawker Soule

-- untitled --
Premium Member
For the record, I don't regard the proclamation as passing the bar for historicity either..
Good. You clearly know more about this stuff than I do, so your concurrence is comforting.

The existence of a Q baptism story is inferred on the basis of several concurrences between Matthew and Luke against Mark, for example the "heaven's opening" (the Greek phrasing used in both) rather than being "torn apart".

For Q sceptics, these kind of parallels are more likely construed as a case of Luke preferring Matthew over Mark but if one adheres to Marcan priority + Q then the common assessment is that they stem from the original shared source that Matthew/Luke relied upon, which apparently describes the theophany at the baptism of Jesus differently from Mark (but similarly trying to "buck" up Jesus at the expense of the Baptist, as John also does later in a different way, by bringing in the miraculous verification of Jesus being greater than John. This tendency is shared by all the sources and hints at discomfort with the whole baptism scenario in that one has to explain why Jesus is submitting himself to John's baptism in the first place).

So, if I understand you correctly, you suggest multiple attestation based on an inferred existence of some subset of the pericope in Q. That strikes me as a rather thin argument. I think this becomes more the case if one views Q as a collection of writings and oral traditions rather than some ossified document, in which case all traces of John the Baptist could simply be variations on a theme. No?
 

oldbadger

Skanky Old Mongrel!
To some. To others, not so much.
I've been reading Jonathan Klawans book, Impurity and Sin in Ancient Judaism (Oxford Press, 2000).
From the book:
  • The argument of this book is that the distinction drawn between ritual and moral impurity in the Hebrew Bible —and in particular a correct understanding of the nature of moral impurity — allows for a better understanding of ancient Jewish literature broadly speaking. Scholars of ancient Judaism have been very interested in ritual impurity but not so interested in moral impurity. This fact has had two unfortunate results. First, passages that in fact discuss moral impurity have been misinterpreted in light of the more prevalent notion of ritual impurity. For instance, certain passages in the ancient Jewish book of Jubilees are commonly cited as evidence that ancient Jews considered Gentiles to be ritually impure. However, the passages in question in fact discuss moral impurity and not ritual impurity. A number of passages of ancient Jewish literature have been similarly misconstrued, as we will see, especially in chapter 2. Such misunderstandings are particularly conspicuous in contemporary scholarship on the New Testament. For this reason, this book expands the scope of previous analyses and takes into account evidence concerning John the Baptist, Jesus, and Paul.
  • In addition to the misunderstanding of various texts, a second unfortunate result of moral impurity's not receiving due attention is that an extremely important aspect of the dynamic of ancient Jewish sectarianism has been overlooked. Not only do a number of ancient Jewish texts discuss moral impurity, but some actually reveal that ancient Jews held different attitudes about the nature of moral defilement. This should not be surprising, since we know that ancient Jews disagreed on how ritual impurity was understood (rabbinic literature is full of such disagreements). Surprising or not, the fact that ancient Jews disagreed about the defiling force of sin has barely been recognized.
  • The purpose of this book is to counter these trends. It will argue that the notion of the defiling force of sin is articulated in a number of ancient Jewish texts. And it will argue that issues of moral impurity play an important role in the greater dynamic of ancient Jewish sectarianism. The writings and sayings of the Dead Sea sectarians, the early rabbinic sages, the Pharisees, and even Jesus will all make a good deal more sense when we give due attention to the notion of moral defilement.
Klawans tells me:
  • We will find, in the end, that the question of the relationship between impurity and sin was answered differently by various groups of Jews.
  • According to the information in the Gospels and Josephus, John's baptism appears to be a ritual of moral purification, with eschatological overtones. The ritual was performed, perhaps only once, on Jews who were influenced by John's preaching. And despite the initiatory character of the rite in Christianity, it does not appear that those baptized by John constituted a coherent group. As we will see, this combination of characteristics sets John's baptism apart from other water rites known from Qumran and tannaitic sources.
  • John, according to the Gospel of Mark 1:4, preached "a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins" ... Indeed one thing that almost all sources, including Josephus, agree upon is that baptism was conceived by John as a ritual of atonement. Yet Josephus goes out of his way to emphasize that for John, repentance was the prerequisite for the ritual: The "consecration" of the body ... would be performed by John only upon an individual who already had purged his or her soul of sin ....
  • Thus in the end, I think the emphasis ought to be where the New Testament sources place it: John's baptism was a ritual of atonement.
  • The second aspect that the gospel evidence emphasizes is that John's baptism had an eschatological motive behind it. According to Matthew 3:2, John's cry was "Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand" .... On a number of occasions, the gospel sources testify to the eschatological nature of John's message. The call for repentance, the coming doom, and the atoning power of the baptismal rite all come together into a single coherent program.
Hi....... :)
It amazes me, how intellectuals spin themselves in to mists of complexity, when in fact the historical content of reports about the Baptist are so simple.
Yes..... simple.
The people wanted to be cleansed, but they also had to attend the Temple regularly and pay in to its funds. We read, later on, how folks like Paul were contracted as an enforcer to this end. Josephus adds clarity there.
The Temple coinage was a smack in the teeth for decent working people. The image of Baal on the obverse, graven images on reverse and Caesar's abbreviated name in Greek there as well.
The people of and around Jerusalem looked down upon, patronised and fleeced the visiting peasants, made fun of their voices.
The Temple priesthood (Vipers!) didn't care about anything but money. The currency exchange rates were a rip-off.

And a man who was apart from all that 'sin', who self subsisted out in the wastes to the East of Jordan came to the river, to offer 'cleansing' to all.......... for nothing! And the Temple and its sick trades began to fall away because so many people flocked to John (and his disciples).

Why did Antopas have to arrest John, and not Pilate? Easy, but I never read any ideas from any professors.... ! :)

All that's needed for study is the archaeology, the coinage, the actual cultures, the farming, the trades, the politics, and the earliest gospels possible, because well-meaning Christians did mess with them later on.

The first verse of G-Mark was increased by four words...... leaving just eight in the earliest bibles! That's how much sieving needs to be done.

Much of your material from your post is accurate but it doesn't need all the spin. That could all have been precised down to about four paragraphs, but these authors do love their words so. :)
 

oldbadger

Skanky Old Mongrel!
For someone who doesn't have "skin in the game" or "a dog in the race", you seem to like your words quite a bit, too. Eh?

So try and debate anything I wrote.
It was all simple to defend.
No drivvel in it.
:D

You don't need to be a dog in the race, you just need to have a case.
 
Top