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]

[Jagella]

[Replying to post 2 by Zzyzx]

I have a different take on the 'baptism':

Jesus was said to be a laborer until age thirty or so until attended some religious services conducted by 'John'. He evidently recognized the advantages of preaching over laboring and took up a new profession as a wandering preacher. He didn't last long before irritating Roman and Jewish authorities enough to get himself executed.

Long after his death, Paul/Saul and accomplices picked him as icon for a new religion splintered from Judaism, 'deified' Jesus with tales of supernatural feats, and pitched their religion to Gentiles living far from Judea. Eventually the splinter group was refined it enough to be acceptable to Roman officials and it was adopted as official religion of the empire.

From Rome it was spread by conquest to much of Europe and with further conquest to other parts of the world -- competing with other religions for dominance regionally.

You didn't say anything about Jesus' baptism, at least not explicitly. Are you saying that the story of Jesus' baptism is allegory for his adoption as the god of Christianity? If the story is allegory, then it's not historical. And once again, we have a story about Jesus that is probably fiction rather than fact.

[Jagella]

… The first is that almost everything in the New Testament suffers from being unlikely to be historical. …

Yes, it is also unlikely that I would write here, so it must not be true, you are just imagining this.

Well, if somebody told a story in which they said you posted a good argument here, then I would not say the story had a basis in history.

If the things in Bible would be likely things, there would not have been any reason to write them. People don’t make a number out of likely things.

The Superbowl is very likely, but people write about it all the time.

I assume you believe the story of Jesus baptized by John is historical. Why is it probable that Jesus was baptized by John? I always thought that it was strange that Jesus would be baptized by anybody. On the other hand, it's not strange at all that his followers would make up such a story to send a message that when it comes to preachers, you can't beat Jesus!

[Jagella]

Yes I believe so, there's nothing in the notion that renders it impossible...

It's not impossible that Satan told Charles Taze Russell to start the Jehovah's Witnesses either, but I wouldn't say it was a historical event. We're talking about history, so claiming that a story is merely possible isn't enough. To conclude that a story is historical it must be probably true and/or have very good evidence to support it. In the case of the baptism narrative, both factors are lacking.

...and I see no reason to not to believe the gospel narrative.

I think it's very unlikely that a preacher like Jesus (assuming he existed) would be baptized by John under normal circumstances. The early Christians probably made up the story to send the message that when it came to preachers, Jesus was second to none. That's why the baptism story includes the elements of the booming voice from heaven and the descending dove. Especially, though, the element of John proclaiming Jesus as his superior is not at all likely to be historical. The early Christians stuffed those words into John's mouth in a work of fiction.

[Jagella]

I think you have misunderstood his argument (I watched the video to be sure). He is saying the baptism would have been embarrassing so it likely to have happened, historically speaking, but those words and reasons for the baptism (from Matt) were later added.

I am not agreeing, but that was his argument.

I don't agree with Martin either. Why assume that the actual baptism took place while it is immersed in fictional elements? Jesus historians seem to be making an effort to make Jesus historical telling us that there are kernels of truth among all that baloney. Applying Occam's Razor, why make those two assumptions when you can make just one? Make one assumption that the entire story, and not just parts of it, is fictional.

He also stated that the baptism fits the historical criteria of having multiple independent attestation (Mark and "John"), which is another means by which historians conclude whether something is likely historical.

We also have multiple attestation for Bigfoot, ETs, ghosts, and even mermaids! Are any of these things historical?

Baptism seems like a pretty simple thing to have been done and to get reported. Lots of people were being baptized, so I don't see how you determine that it was unlikely to have been historical.

You're making the same mistake JW made. Just because something is possible does not mean it is historical. I already posted my reasons for concluding that the baptism of Jesus probably did not happen. To argue your case, you will need to present reasons why it probably did happen.

Peace again to you!

Matthew 10:34:

Do not think that I have come to bring peace to the earth...

[marco]

Well, if somebody told a story in which they said you posted a good argument here, then I would not say the story had a basis in history.

This is blatant incivility. Demeaning another poster is not what we do here.


Moderator Warning



Please review our Rules.

______________

Moderator warnings count as a strike against users. Additional violations in the future may warrant a final warning. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.

[Jagella]

He is saying the baptism would have been embarrassing so it likely to have happened, historically speaking, but those words and reasons for the baptism (from Matt)

Actually, I don't see how the story of Jesus' baptism is embarrassing. In fact, the story brags up Jesus as superior to John. If the story was embarrassing to the early Christians, then they probably thought that by adding apparently shameful elements to the narrative, they could fool those people who believe that those Christians would never make up such a story!

[Mithrae]

He is saying the baptism would have been embarrassing so it likely to have happened, historically speaking, but those words and reasons for the baptism (from Matt)

Actually, I don't see how the story of Jesus' baptism is embarrassing. In fact, the story brags up Jesus as superior to John.

"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). According to Mark, John says that someone much greater will be coming along shortly, but there's no recognition of Jesus specifically and no explanation of why he'd come to be baptized. In Matthew, "John tried to prevent Him, saying, “I need to be baptized by You...�" (Matt. 3:14) and Jesus explains that he's only doing it "to fulfill all righteousness," whatever that means. Luke's innovation lay in explaining the relevance of John rather than explaining Jesus' baptism itself; he claims that Jesus and John were actually cousins and both births had been part of God's plan all along. And in the fourth gospel Jesus isn't baptized at all, and rather than John coming before Jesus both the prologue and John himself say that "He who comes after me is preferred before me, for He was before me."

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.

[tam]

Peace to you,

I think you have misunderstood his argument (I watched the video to be sure). He is saying the baptism would have been embarrassing so it likely to have happened, historically speaking, but those words and reasons for the baptism (from Matt) were later added.

I am not agreeing, but that was his argument.

I don't agree with Martin either. Why assume that the actual baptism took place while it is immersed in fictional elements? Jesus historians seem to be making an effort to make Jesus historical telling us that there are kernels of truth among all that baloney. Applying Occam's Razor, why make those two assumptions when you can make just one? Make one assumption that the entire story, and not just parts of it, is fictional.

Perhaps because then you will have opened up an entirely new can of worms, stating that the person (Christ) and all the events surrounding Him are fictional, and the witnesses all got together and lied. You would need evidence to support such a thing, but there is no evidence to support this conspiratorial fiction.

He also stated that the baptism fits the historical criteria of having multiple independent attestation (Mark and "John"), which is another means by which historians conclude whether something is likely historical.

We also have multiple attestation for Bigfoot, ETs, ghosts, and even mermaids! Are any of these things historical?

I'm not sure these are on the same level, Jagella. We do not have multiple witnesses describing their 1-3 year long interactions with Bigfoot. We do have multiple witnesses who claim to have seen BF (they could have seen anything), but separately, elusively. BF is in hiding and has not interacted with society, garnering multiple witnesses and friends and family members, etc. We also live in an age where we can record such things for anyone to see, and as far as I understand, any attempt at 'showing' BF has been debunked.


I don't have a problem with their being ET's (what else do you think an angel would be)? But this also tends to be a secret and elusive thing. Not like the account of Christ and His disciples and their experiences and interactions with other Jews, Samaritans, Gentiles, Romans, etc. Hollywood doesn't help; that movie about Travis Martin (Fire in the Sky) was nothing like the actual experience he described.

Baptism seems like a pretty simple thing to have been done and to get reported. Lots of people were being baptized, so I don't see how you determine that it was unlikely to have been historical.

You're making the same mistake JW made. Just because something is possible does not mean it is historical. I already posted my reasons for concluding that the baptism of Jesus probably did not happen. To argue your case, you will need to present reasons why it probably did happen.

I was not making a 'case', Jagella, and I never said something is historical just because it is possible. I was questioning your conclusion, where you state that it was highly unlikely to be historical. For what reason would his baptism be 'highly unlikely'? It is simple thing and Jews were being baptized. So how could it be highly unlikely that this Jew was also baptized?

Peace again to you!

Matthew 10:34:

Do not think that I have come to bring peace to the earth...

Luke 10:5, 6


And as for His own: John 14:27; 16:23




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

[Goose]

He also stated that the baptism fits the historical criteria of having multiple independent attestation (Mark and "John"), which is another means by which historians conclude whether something is likely historical.

For anyone who may want to skip to the part where Martin covers the methodology used by historians, start at 36:30.
[youtube][/youtube]

[JehovahsWitness]

. We're talking about history, so claiming that a story is merely possible isn't enough. To conclude that a story is historical it must be probably true and/or have very good evidence to support it. In the case of the baptism narrative, both factors are lacking.

Emphasis MINE


History cannot verify every exchange, conversation and interaction that has ever happened, this doesn't mean we should reject all biographical accounts as falsehoods. My great grandfather "probably" spoke to my great grandmother and if I had a credible account or testimony of one such conversation written or oral and no good reason to reject it, it would be foolish of me to do so. Indeed we stand to lose a lot more than we gain with rabid sceptism for not all that is true is falsifiable.

The bible has an excellent record for historical accuracy and the gospel writers present a balanced, well observed and accurate picture of their day. They were written within living memory of events and at least two writers explicitly state they were recording factual events based on eyewitness testimony.

There are four independent written testimonies of the baptism of Jesus, a lot of our accepted ancient history stands on less and if, as you say that which is historical must be "probably true" (rather than verifiably so) and/or have very good evidence to support it, then the baptism of Jesus can by that criteria be considered a historical event.



JW



HISTORICAL ACCURACY

Are historians always unbiased?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 59#p795559

Historical method: does historical method require that the document be written by eyeswitness?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 98#p356498

BIBLICAL HISTORY

Is the bible a history book?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 73#p800473

Should the bible be classified as "historical fiction"?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 3#p1000673

Should the bible be classified as fantasy fiction?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 54#p997154

Is there any archaeolgical evidence that supports biblical detail?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 76#p823576

THE GOSPELS

Can the gospel writers be considered "historians"?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 95#p987495

Do the gospels provide enough detail for us to pinpoint exactly when Jesus of Nazareth lived?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 05#p987505

Why is there no mention of Jesus by numerous contemporary historians (by goose) ?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 90#p945590