Was the baptism of Jesus historical?

[Jagella]

Question for Debate: Was the baptism of Jesus historical?

Yale professor of religious studies, Dale Martin, answers "yes!" He reasons that John baptizing Jesus demonstrated that Jesus was inferior to John. The early Christians would never have made up such a story, so it must be historical.

But let's take a look at the passage from Matthew 3:11 (NRSV) in which John the Baptist predicts the arrival of Jesus:

“I baptize you with water for repentance, but one who is more powerful than I is coming after me; I am not worthy to carry his sandals. He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and fire.

So the story does clearly portray Jesus as superior to John, something that Christians would make up.

I'd like to make two points. The first is that almost everything in the New Testament suffers from being unlikely to be historical. The second point is that Bible scholars seem unable to tell! Why trust such sloppy scholarship?

[youtube][/youtube]

[Difflugia]

"The story" does not exist; there are four different stories. That's a pretty basic factoid which is highly relevant, as anyone familiar with the topic should know: Reading them each in turn makes it painfully obvious that the later authors were indeed uncomfortable about Jesus undergoing a "baptism of repentance for the remission of sins" (Mark 1:4).

I think this makes sense if Mark is (as I think) adoptionistic. The baptism is when the Spirit of God enters into Jesus and God acknowledges the new role of Jesus as His Son. Prior to this, Jesus wasn't divine and there would have been no conflict with Jesus receiving a baptism of repentence and from Mark's point of view, it could even have been necessary. Even priests needed to become ritually pure before entering into the divine presence.

This is also interesting in a different sense if John the Baptist and Jesus were originally collaborators (as James Tabor has suggested) in an Essene-like sect in which John and Jesus were a priest and king pair, with the priest (John) preparing by baptism and then anointing Jesus as king. In Mark's Gospel, the original (historical?) baptism was retained, but God Himself now performed the anointing via the Holy Spirit.

All the later gospels evidently sought to deal with that uncomfortable association of Jesus with John's baptism of repentance, each in their own different ways but with the latest gospel taking the revisionism furthest. Conversely, extrapolating backwards past Mark we might reasonably infer that some or all of the elements in that story which glorify Jesus are likewise non-historical - perhaps John didn't predict someone greater coming afterwards at all, and perhaps Jesus was simply a disciple of John to begin with - but it's quite difficult to imagine that the detail which the later authors all found so problematic was itself an invention.

If we're extrapolating backwards, Paul's baptism makes no sense if it arose from the same source as the Gospels. Paul seems to think that Jesus gained his power at the resurrection and the two times Paul mentions baptism more than in passing (Rom 6:4 and Col 2:12), baptism is described as the analog for Christ's death and burial. There's no indication from Paul that Jesus himself underwent a baptism aside from his crucifixion and I think an argument could be made that he didn't. Paul's baptism isn't for remission of sins, but is to unite Christians with Jesus in the mystery of his death, burial, and rebirth.

I've been thinking and rethinking a bit lately about the whole mythicism thing. The bit that I've decided is incongruous is that Paul seems to be completely unhinged, but he's also the one that I've been treating as the most reliably honest by virtue of being (apparently) earlier than the Gospels and a competent rhetorician. For me, mythicism thing is built around the idea that Paul's Christianity was original, but too weird, so the Gospels retconned it into something comprehensible by Hellenized Jews. Maybe Paul was just nuts?

[Jagella]

That you don't see it can't be helped, perhaps.

I see nothing in your post that shows "painfully obvious" shame on the part of the gospel propagandists over the baptism of Jesus. It was your claim that their narratives showed such embarrassment, so you have the burden of proof. I have no burden to agree with what you say.

As I highlighted, your repeated comments about "the story" of Jesus' baptism already implied a very incomplete grasp of scholars' approach to the topic; others are able to provide that information for you (again, since I'm sure you'd already been exposed to it before) but no-one can make you internalize it.

I'm well aware that the gospel propagandists provide very different and often contradictory accounts of many stories about Jesus including the baptism story. Thank you for pointing out those inconsistencies.

As I've noted elsewhere, in my view the baptism of Jesus is probably among the top five most reliable conclusions about him (after the facts of his bare existence as a first century Jew; having a brother named James; starting or inspiring a new sect; and being crucified): Given a ~90% plausibility of his existence, his baptism might be somewhere in the order of ~80% likely to have occurred. Or put differently, while there is some chance that for reasons unknown Mark invented the apparently-embarrassing story of Jesus undergoing a baptism of repentance for remission of sins - and simultaneously baptism becoming a key early Christian ritual as per Paul - it seems far more likely that we have these reports because Jesus was actually baptized.

In typical real-Jesus-apologetics fashion, you assert what you want to believe about Jesus. The "historical Jesus" is essentially a "construction based on assertion." So I would recommend that if you wish to post good evidence, then demonstrate these assertions.

In the meantime, I think my view is far superior to yours in that we have many good reasons to believe the gospel propagandists made up the story of John baptizing Jesus. On the other hand, all the opposition can say is: "But Jesus was baptized! He was he was!"

[Mithrae]

This is also interesting in a different sense if John the Baptist and Jesus were originally collaborators (as James Tabor has suggested) in an Essene-like sect in which John and Jesus were a priest and king pair, with the priest (John) preparing by baptism and then anointing Jesus as king. In Mark's Gospel, the original (historical?) baptism was retained, but God Himself now performed the anointing via the Holy Spirit.

That sounds exceptionally speculative and contrary to information about John from both the NT and Josephus. If John had anointed Jesus as king, surely that would have been mentioned by the gospel authors? That's one of the biggest Christian apologetic hurdles, that the nearest thing there is to Jesus becoming an actual 'anointed one' is the story of his anointing by the sinful woman!

"The story" does not exist; there are four different stories. That's a pretty basic factoid which is highly relevant, as anyone familiar with the topic should know: Reading them each in turn makes it painfully obvious that the later authors were indeed uncomfortable about Jesus undergoing a "baptism of repentance for the remission of sins" (Mark 1:4).

I think this makes sense if Mark is (as I think) adoptionistic. The baptism is when the Spirit of God enters into Jesus and God acknowledges the new role of Jesus as His Son. Prior to this, Jesus wasn't divine and there would have been no conflict with Jesus receiving a baptism of repentence and from Mark's point of view, it could even have been necessary. Even priests needed to become ritually pure before entering into the divine presence.

True, it would make sense if Mark is adoptionistic, but what basis is there for that view? It's radically different from all other NT sources, and while we needn't assume that they all thought and wrote in lock-step (indeed they obviously didn't) I think there ought to be some clear basis for asserting any major differences in theology. There's no hint of adoption theology in Mark 1 as far as I can see; John just says that one is coming who is infinitely greater than he, and then God says to Jesus that "You are my son who I love, with whom I am well pleased." If that were meant to be an adoption - and in particular if Mark were written as a way of retconning Pauline theology of Christ's pre-existence as a divine agent - surely we should expect more clarity in what had gone on there?

In fact I'd argue quite the opposite, that Mark's introductory references to Isaiah 40 ("prepare the way of the Lord, make straight in the desert a highway for our God") and Malachi 3 ("I will send my messenger, who will prepare the way before me. Then suddenly the Lord you are seeking will come to his temple") both strongly hint at the actual divinity of the one for whom John the Baptist was preparing the way.

All the later gospels evidently sought to deal with that uncomfortable association of Jesus with John's baptism of repentance, each in their own different ways but with the latest gospel taking the revisionism furthest. Conversely, extrapolating backwards past Mark we might reasonably infer that some or all of the elements in that story which glorify Jesus are likewise non-historical - perhaps John didn't predict someone greater coming afterwards at all, and perhaps Jesus was simply a disciple of John to begin with - but it's quite difficult to imagine that the detail which the later authors all found so problematic was itself an invention.

If we're extrapolating backwards, Paul's baptism makes no sense if it arose from the same source as the Gospels. Paul seems to think that Jesus gained his power at the resurrection and the two times Paul mentions baptism more than in passing (Rom 6:4 and Col 2:12), baptism is described as the analog for Christ's death and burial. There's no indication from Paul that Jesus himself underwent a baptism aside from his crucifixion and I think an argument could be made that he didn't. Paul's baptism isn't for remission of sins, but is to unite Christians with Jesus in the mystery of his death, burial, and rebirth.

As I see it the questions are 1) Why did Paul fixate so much, almost exclusively, on Jesus' death and resurrection and 2) Is there any specific reason why baptism became an early Christian/Pauline ritual? Presumably the answer to the first is that given his sometimes shaky relationship with the 'pillars' in Jerusalem and questionable claim to be an 'apostle,' Paul obviously didn't want to put too much emphasis on the life of a man he hadn't actually followed in life! Besides mention of Jesus' presumed descent from David (Romans 1:3) and fundamental Jewishness (Galatians 4:4) one might get the impression from Paul's letters that Jesus existed solely for the purpose of dying; I suppose he does also mention Jesus' teaching on divorce (1 Cor. 7), but beyond that, from memory there's absolutely nothing until "the night he was betrayed" (1 Cor. 11). A clearer description of Jesus being baptised by John would seem to be counter-productive for Paul, in that light.

As for the second question, it may well be that there was no specific reason why baptism became an early Christian/Pauline ceremony - ritual immersions were hardly an uncommon practice in either Jewish or Hellenic societies from what I gather - but given that this is one of only two clear rituals described by Paul and the other (the Lord's supper) is explicitly described as something done by Jesus himself, it makes the most sense to suppose that Jesus' own baptism was likewise the reason for early Christians' baptism ritual. Note that whereas Paul does associate baptism with Jesus' death as you've noted, elsewhere he also associates it simply with entry into the Christian community and indeed pretty heavily downplays baptism at one point; "Were you baptized in the name of Paul? I thank God that I did not baptize any of you except Crispus and Gaius. . . . For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel" (1 Cor. 1:13-17): To my mind that suggests that his association between baptism and Jesus' death is more contrived than original - contrast that almost dismissive treatment of baptism with the seriousness he gives the Lord's supper. It may be that when he first wrote to the Corinthians he hadn't yet worked out how to fully incorporate baptism into his theology.

[tam]

Peace to you,

I plan to examine the historicity of many of these stories and make my case in this forum that they are unlikely to be historical events.

Aren't you getting a little ahead of yourself?

Let's just say I have foresight.

Drawing a conclusion before examining the evidence does not leave much room for an honest evidence-based conclusion.

You have not yet examined the historicity of these stories, yet you have already decided that they are unlikely to be historical events... and... you are already planning to make a case for that?

Well, if I'm wrong, then I'm sure that you will be so courteous as to point out my errors.

Your method is wrong from the start, is it not?

Paul only described his hearing voices and hallucinating Jesus, and the gospel writers were making up stories about Jesus decades after Jesus' presumed death never knowing him.

Big claim, Jagella. You have provided no evidence to support it, of course, and the evidence we do have contradicts your claim.

It's actually common knowledge in the scholarly community that none of the writers of the New Testament knew Jesus or were eyewitnesses of anything he did.

Oh, so now the 'sloppy research' of the scholarly community can be trusted?


You're also dodging.

I did not move the goalposts...

You started out claiming that multiple attestation is a criterion for historicity,

It was the scholars' claim, I simply repeated it for you since you misunderstood his argument.

but when I cited examples of figures you do not believe existed who are multiply attested, you said that the eyewitnesses of those figures saw them "separately, elusively" presumably invalidating their attestation.

You're speaking in past tense, but these figures you cited as examples are supposed to physically exist here and now on the earth, yes?

Christ is not on the earth right now so as to physically show Himself.

If only he would come around. He'd sure help your case, wouldn't he, Tam?

You're dodging again.

I was not making a 'case', Jagella, and I never said something is historical just because it is possible.

I accept this as a concession that as far as you are concerned, there is no "case for Christ" or at least for his baptism.

What dishonest tactics you resort to using, Jagella. Why?

For a dishonest guy, I divulge an awful lot!

The only thing you have divulged is that you misunderstand and misrepresent the arguments of others. Your conclusion above is illogical.

You said you were not making a case for the baptism of Christ. I then concluded that you are incapable of making such a case, and you fear having your argument scrutinized.

As stated, this conclusion does not logically follow the premise.

There's nothing dishonest about that on my part. Now on your part, well...

If there was nothing dishonest about that on your part, then you do not seem to understand how to form logical conclusions - at least not where this subject is concerned.





Peace again to you.

[otseng]

Moderator Comment

The thread is veering off into a disrespectful tone. As a general comment, please avoid making personal comments and mischaracterizations. In the future, if you believe a post is uncivil, please report it and do not respond to it.

Please review the Rules.


______________

Moderator comments do not count as a strike against any posters. They only serve as an acknowledgment that a post report has been received, but has not been judged to warrant a moderator warning against a particular poster. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.

[Difflugia]

That sounds exceptionally speculative and contrary to information about John from both the NT and Josephus. If John had anointed Jesus as king, surely that would have been mentioned by the gospel authors? That's one of the biggest Christian apologetic hurdles, that the nearest thing there is to Jesus becoming an actual 'anointed one' is the story of his anointing by the sinful woman!

It is speculative (which Tabor seems to be prone to, leading to his career-damaging involvement with Simcha Jacobovici), but it makes more sense considering Tabor's work involving the Essenes and the Qumran site. His Jesus Dynasty is interesting, but he primarily works backward from what he knows of the Qumran community to find parallels in the Gospel stories. I don't remember the exact details, but there are some differences in the Dead Sea Scrolls messianic passages of Isaiah, Daniel and Malachi (I think?) that split the priest-king messiah into a priest descended of Joseph and king descended of David. He accepts the dubious Lukan detail that Jesus and John were cousins in order to presuppose a tighter connection than may have otherwise existed. He also finds a lot of connections between the Qumran apocalypticism and some of Jesus' more apocalyptic statements, but that might simply be because there are only so many directions Jewish apocalypticism can take.

True, it would make sense if Mark is adoptionistic, but what basis is there for that view? It's radically different from all other NT sources, and while we needn't assume that they all thought and wrote in lock-step (indeed they obviously didn't) I think there ought to be some clear basis for asserting any major differences in theology. There's no hint of adoption theology in Mark 1 as far as I can see; John just says that one is coming who is infinitely greater than he, and then God says to Jesus that "You are my son who I love, with whom I am well pleased."

Perhaps I'm reading too much into it, but I think that Mark's language is adoptionistic and both Matthew and Luke made changes in their narratives to remove the adoptionistic language.

First, Mark begins with the baptism and 1:10 (in the earliest manuscripts) has the Spirit descending into (εἰς) Jesus rather than Matthew's and Luke's upon (�πʼ). Since εἰς is broader than English into and can also mean things like toward or ending at when a motion verb is used, it's not conclusive itself, but I think it's meaningful within the rest of the context.

Second, Mark's theophany is personal. Jesus ("he") saw the Spirit descending as a dove does. Matthew and Luke both changed the vision to make it more public. Matthew changed God's words to "...this is my Son..." and Luke changed the Spirit's descent to being like a dove "in bodily form."

Third, Mark's testing in the wilderness has serious Job overtones. It is the Spirit of God that drives Jesus into the wilderness to be tested by Satan. To me, this only makes sense from the standpoint of an adoption. God has chosen Jesus as his righteous agent on Earth, but it is up to Satan to test his righteousness before his ministry begins. The other Synoptics retain (and add to) the story, but I don't think it makes sense anymore. It's the same thing as Matthew and Luke retaining Mark's rhetorical question, "How is he David's son?" In Mark, with no genealogy, he's not. In Matthew and Luke, the question remains, but doesn't make sense.

If that were meant to be an adoption - and in particular if Mark were written as a way of retconning Pauline theology of Christ's pre-existence as a divine agent - surely we should expect more clarity in what had gone on there?

I don't see Paul's Jesus as pre-existent. God's plan for Jesus was, but for Paul, Christ's power came after his death and upon his resurrection. Mark's Jesus gains his power at his baptism, which makes him a divine agent during his ministry. Paul mentions neither a ministry nor miracles of Jesus, but makes both of those the purview of the apostles.

The evolution of Christology as I see it is that Paul's Jesus was mundane until his death, Mark's was mundane until his baptism, Matthew's and Luke's were divine at conception, and John's was pre-existent "in the beginning."

In fact I'd argue quite the opposite, that Mark's introductory references to Isaiah 40 ("prepare the way of the Lord, make straight in the desert a highway for our God") and Malachi 3 ("I will send my messenger, who will prepare the way before me. Then suddenly the Lord you are seeking will come to his temple") both strongly hint at the actual divinity of the one for whom John the Baptist was preparing the way.

I agree that Mark thought Jesus was divine, just not until after his baptism. Whether an explicit reference or not, I think the language allows for an Elijah-Elisha relationship between John and Jesus. At the end of Elijah's ministry, God told Elijah to seek out Elisha as his successor. Apparently Elisha didn't know beforehand, and Mark's language doesn't necessarily indicate that Jesus knew beforehand, either. I think John was preparing the way for the coming Messiah, but neither John nor Jesus knew who that would be until they were together in the Jordan and Jesus was rising from the water.

As I see it the questions are 1) Why did Paul fixate so much, almost exclusively, on Jesus' death and resurrection and 2) Is there any specific reason why baptism became an early Christian/Pauline ritual? Presumably the answer to the first is that given his sometimes shaky relationship with the 'pillars' in Jerusalem and questionable claim to be an 'apostle,' Paul obviously didn't want to put too much emphasis on the life of a man he hadn't actually followed in life! Besides mention of Jesus' presumed descent from David (Romans 1:3) and fundamental Jewishness (Galatians 4:4) one might get the impression from Paul's letters that Jesus existed solely for the purpose of dying; I suppose he does also mention Jesus' teaching on divorce (1 Cor. 7), but beyond that, from memory there's absolutely nothing until "the night he was betrayed" (1 Cor. 11). A clearer description of Jesus being baptised by John would seem to be counter-productive for Paul, in that light.

I think you've characterized everything correctly. If we assume that the Gospels are reasonably historical and the James and John of Paul's epistles were followers of Jesus in the flesh, then I'm inclined to think that the fixation on Christ's death and resurrection just amounts to Paul being weird. It's clear that James and John had severe reservations about Paul's "gospel" and whatever Paul sees as the relationship between Christ's death and sin has no direct parallel in the Gospels, but it must have also been close enough for them to at least accept him for a little while.

Note that whereas Paul does associate baptism with Jesus' death as you've noted, elsewhere he also associates it simply with entry into the Christian community and indeed pretty heavily downplays baptism at one point; "Were you baptized in the name of Paul? I thank God that I did not baptize any of you except Crispus and Gaius. . . . For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel" (1 Cor. 1:13-17): To my mind that suggests that his association between baptism and Jesus' death is more contrived than original - contrast that almost dismissive treatment of baptism with the seriousness he gives the Lord's supper. It may be that when he first wrote to the Corinthians he hadn't yet worked out how to fully incorporate baptism into his theology.

That makes some sense, especially since Paul seems to be the only Christian writer with that particular take on baptism. Even the gnostics, who incorporated various mystical elements into their baptisms, still explicitly anchored to the baptism at the beginning of Jesus' ministry.

[Jagella]

Drawing a conclusion before examining the evidence does not leave much room for an honest evidence-based conclusion.

I have read the gospels. What made you think I haven't examined the "evidence"?

Your method is wrong from the start, is it not?

What method is that? I just read the story(s) and assess how probable they are. If they are improbably true, then I conclude that they are not historical.

In what way am I going wrong with that approach?

Oh, so now the 'sloppy research' of the scholarly community can be trusted?

Scholarship is better than nothing, and sometimes it's all I have to go on.

You're also dodging.

Dodging what? I assume you are upset that I didn't post any sources regarding the authorship and dating of the gospels. A good book I've made use of is Blair's The Illustrated Bible Handbook. Read it, and you'll see that no gospel writer is known, and whoever they were, they could never have known Jesus because they wrote their stories decades after he presumably lived.

You started out claiming that multiple attestation is a criterion for historicity,

It was the scholars' claim, I simply repeated it for you since you misunderstood his argument.

OK, but that criterion is still not valid like I explained. Since Martin uses it, he's not doing good scholarship.

You're speaking in past tense, but these figures you cited as examples are supposed to physically exist here and now on the earth, yes?

I suppose some people would say so, but many say that Jesus is with us today too. He said he would be with us always. He could have fooled me.

Your conclusion above is illogical.

Go ahead and prove me wrong by making a case for the historicity of the baptism of Christ. Until then, I will assume that you have no case.

If there was nothing dishonest about that on your part, then you do not seem to understand how to form logical conclusions - at least not where this subject is concerned.

My concluding you have no case is not illogical. It might be an incorrect conclusion, but until you fork over "the goods," my conclusion just might be right!

Anyway, the story of the baptism of Christ is not historical.

[tam]

Peace again to you,

Drawing a conclusion before examining the evidence does not leave much room for an honest evidence-based conclusion.

I have read the gospels. What made you think I haven't examined the "evidence"?

Your own words make me think this:

I plan to examine the historicity of many of these stories and make my case in this forum that they are unlikely to be historical events. - Jagella

**

Your method is wrong from the start, is it not?

What method is that? I just read the story(s) and assess how probable they are. If they are improbably true, then I conclude that they are not historical.

We were talking about the historicity of the gospels - which you said you PLANNED to examine (see your own words above). My words were in response to that.

Oh, so now the 'sloppy research' of the scholarly community can be trusted?

Scholarship is better than nothing, and sometimes it's all I have to go on.

How do you know scholars are not wrong in this matter? One of the gospels directly states that it is written by an eyewitness. Do scholars have evidence overturning this, and if so, how strong is that evidence?

You're also dodging.

Dodging what?

Dodging the fact that you made a claim with no supporting evidence (that the gospel writers were just making up stories):

We have no such eyewitnesses for Jesus either. Paul only described his hearing voices and hallucinating Jesus, and the gospel writers were making up stories about Jesus decades after Jesus' presumed death never knowing him. - Jagella

**

I assume you are upset that I didn't post any sources regarding the authorship and dating of the gospels.

I am not at all upset about this; this was never the issue.

A good book I've made use of is Blair's The Illustrated Bible Handbook. Read it, and you'll see that no gospel writer is known, and whoever they were, they could never have known Jesus because they wrote their stories decades after he presumably lived.

Why would it be impossible to write about someone you knew but who had died decades earlier?

You can summarize the argument if you like, but just linking to a book is not evidence. That being said, I have read some of the reasoning from others as well, but I have seen no evidence that is strong enough to overturn the claim of the gospel writer himself.

You started out claiming that multiple attestation is a criterion for historicity,

It was the scholars' claim, I simply repeated it for you since you misunderstood his argument.

OK, but that criterion is still not valid like I explained. Since Martin uses it, he's not doing good scholarship.

You're speaking in past tense, but these figures you cited as examples are supposed to physically exist here and now on the earth, yes?

I suppose some people would say so, but many say that Jesus is with us today too. He said he would be with us always. He could have fooled me.

This is apples and oranges Jagella. My response to this would be the same as it was earlier:

Christ is not on the earth right now so as to physically show Himself. He has not been physically on the earth for almost two thousand years (though we have many witness accounts and testimonial from those who knew Him and interacted with Him when He was physically on the earth). On the other hand, BF is supposed to be on the earth here and now (that is not historical, Jagella, that is here and now). - tam

In order for you to be able to compare the two, Christ would have to have been on the earth wherein only a few people claimed to have seen or spoke to him, but no one else could ever find or see or speak to him. Even though He was supposed to have been physically present.

Instead we have friends, mother, step-father, brothers, cousins, disciples, guards, crowds, etc, seeing and speaking with him.


Also, the baptism has multiple witnesses (including multiple independent witnesses) attesting to the exact same event.

Your conclusion above is illogical.

Go ahead and prove me wrong by making a case for the historicity of the baptism of Christ. Until then, I will assume that you have no case.

You can assume anything you want. That does not make your position logical. To refresh your memory, your position was that just because I said I was not making a case (at that moment), I had somehow conceded that I had no case.

A - we were discussing your claim at that time, not any claim or case of mine.

B - Just because someone is not making a case (at that moment), does not mean that there is no case, and it certainly does not follow that they have conceded that there is no case.

If there was nothing dishonest about that on your part, then you do not seem to understand how to form logical conclusions - at least not where this subject is concerned.

My concluding you have no case is not illogical.

How you drew that conclusion was illogical.

Anyway, the story of the baptism of Christ is not historical.

I understand that this is your position, but you have provided no evidence to examine, much less to support it.


The baptism has multiple witnesses attesting to it (including multiple independent witnesses who testify to the same event); baptisms were ongoing at the time, so it was a common enough occurrence. There seems to be no reason to reject it - unless you are of the mind that Christ never existed to begin with. But then - as stated earlier - you have opened a whole new can of worms (a mass conspiracy theory) that has no evidence to support it.



Peace again to you,
your servant and a slave of Christ,
tammy

[Jagella]

Your own words make me think this:

Quote:
I plan to examine the historicity of many of these stories and make my case in this forum that they are unlikely to be historical events. - Jagella

Tam, it's called "reading again." I will reread stories in the gospel legends with the purpose of scrutinizing them for plausible historical content or the lack of.

I'll give you a heads-up: my next target is the story of Jesus' arrest. You may wish to prepare by coming up with reasons to believe that story.

How do you know scholars are not wrong in this matter?

I don't know if they're right or wrong. If I base a conclusion on what they say, I just explain that I base what I'm saying on what they are saying. All such conclusions are subject to correction if the evidence warrants correction, of course.

It's messy business, Tam, but I didn't make the mess. I just try to clean it up the best I can.

Dodging the fact that you made a claim with no supporting evidence (that the gospel writers were just making up stories):

Well, on most of this thread I've been arguing that the story of Jesus' baptism was made up. (Did you miss it?) As I said, I will get to all those other tall tales later.

So the mess is BIG. It takes a lot of work and time to tidy it up.

Why would it be impossible to write about someone you knew but who had died decades earlier?

It's possible to write about a person you knew decades ago, but getting your facts straight after all those years is another matter. Psychologists know that what we "remember" is often a result of lots of distortion in the intervening time. If the gospel writers knew Jesus, then they would have been very old by those days' standards when they wrote about him compounding the problem of their abilities to remember him when they were very old men.

You can summarize the argument if you like, but just linking to a book is not evidence. That being said, I have read some of the reasoning from others as well, but I have seen no evidence that is strong enough to overturn the claim of the gospel writer himself.

That's fine, Tam. In these matters we all need to come to our own conclusions.

This is apples and oranges Jagella.

Apples and oranges share a lot of traits, just like Jesus shares many traits with legendary figures like Merlin and Hercules. As far as I can tell, there is no more reason to believe Jesus is historical than these figures.

Instead we have friends, mother, step-father, brothers, cousins, disciples, guards, crowds, etc, seeing and speaking with him.

Nah. All you have are stories of such people. Stories that might well be fiction.

Go ahead and prove me wrong by making a case for the historicity of the baptism of Christ. Until then, I will assume that you have no case.

You can assume anything you want. That does not make your position logical.

My assuming you have no case is not illogical in any way. It breaks no rules of logic. I think you are confusing the possibility of error with logical fallacy. Just because what I said might be wrong, doesn't mean it is illogical.

The baptism has multiple witnesses attesting to it...

Name them.

[brunumb]

[Replying to post 38 by tam]

The baptism has multiple witnesses attesting to it (including multiple independent witnesses who testify to the same event);

In that case you should have no problem presenting that verified testimony. Please do.