Did Jesus baptize John?

[rgprice]

I've been going over the opening of Mark trying to make sense of how it could have originally been written.

This is a continuation of the ideas previously address in these threads:

The opening of Mark really Marcion's?

The Parable of the Sower

Under this proposal, the beginning of the Gospel of Mark has been revised from some earlier narrative.

So what might this have looked like? Here is the canonical form of Mark:

1 The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God.

2 As it is written in Isaiah the prophet:

“Behold, I send My messenger ahead of You,
Who will prepare Your way;
3 The voice of one crying in the wilderness,
‘Make ready the way of the Lord,
Make His paths straight.’”

4 John the Baptist appeared in the wilderness preaching a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins. 5 And all the country of Judea was going out to him, and all the people of Jerusalem; and they were being baptized by him in the Jordan River, confessing their sins. 6 John was clothed with camel’s hair and wore a leather belt around his waist, and his diet was locusts and wild honey. 7 And he was preaching, and saying, “After me One is coming who is mightier than I, and I am not fit to stoop down and untie the thong of His sandals. 8 I baptized you with water; but He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit.”

9 In those days Jesus came from Nazareth in Galilee and was baptized by John in the Jordan. 10 Immediately coming up out of the water, He saw the heavens opening, and the Spirit like a dove descending upon Him; 11 and a voice came out of the heavens: “You are My beloved Son, in You I am well-pleased.”

12 Immediately the Spirit impelled Him to go out into the wilderness. 13 And He was in the wilderness forty days being tempted by Satan; and He was with the wild beasts, and the angels were ministering to Him.

14 Now after John had been taken into custody, Jesus came into Galilee, preaching the gospel of God, 15 and saying, “The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand; repent and believe in the gospel.”

In this opening John the Baptist says that, "He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit." So this tells us that "He" - Jesus is going to to some baptizing.

Then we are told that Jesus was baptized by John. But John just said that he was not fit to untie his sandals and that Jesus was going to do some baptizing.

A key to this is the Parable of the Sower.

13 And he said to them, ‘Do you not understand this parable? Then how will you understand all the parables? 14 The sower sows the word. 15 These are the ones on the path where the word is sown: when they hear, Satan immediately comes and takes away the word that is sown in them. 16 And these are the ones sown on rocky ground: when they hear the word, they immediately receive it with joy. 17 But they have no root, and endure only for a while; then, when trouble or persecution arises on account of the word, immediately they fall away. 18 And others are those sown among the thorns: these are the ones who hear the word, 19 but the cares of the world, and the lure of wealth, and the desire for other things come in and choke the word, and it yields nothing. 20 And these are the ones sown on the good soil: they hear the word and accept it and bear fruit, thirty and sixty and a hundredfold.’

Here I contend that the Parable of the Sower uses three figures from the story as examples of those who hear the word but fail to full accept it. Those figures are John the Baptist, Peter and Judas.

John the Baptist is on the path where the word is first sown, and then Satan comes and takes the word away. Going back to the opening...

I had previously proposed that John saw the heavens open and saw Jesus descend, but is what we currently read in Mark 1:10 actually an account of John being baptized by Jesus and being filled with the Holy Spirit? We are told only that "he saw" and that the Spirit "drove him". Who is he?

John had just said that the one who is coming would be the one to baptize with the Holy Spirit. So should this not instead read:

8 I baptized you with water; but He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit.”

9 In those days Jesus the Nazarene came and baptized John in the Jordan. 10 Immediately coming up out of the water, He [John] saw the heavens opening, and the Spirit like a dove descending upon Him;

12 Immediately the Spirit impelled Him[John] to go out into the wilderness. 13 And He was in the wilderness forty days being tempted by Satan; and He was with the wild beasts, and the angels were ministering to Him.

[When John told the scribes and the priests what had happened, they had him arrested.]

14 Now after John had been taken into custody, Jesus came into Galilee, preaching the gospel of God, 15 and saying, “The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand; repent and believe in the gospel.”

Such a reading may be difficult to imagine given the traditional reading of story, but it makes some sense.

Firstly, why does John say that Jesus will baptize with the Holy Spirit but then we never actually see Jesus baptize anyone with the Holy Spirit?

What is the purpose in Mark of Jesus being driven into the wilderness and being tempted by Satan? This is really only given a familiar meaning in Matthew and Luke, but that meaning isn't present in Mark. If we read Mark on is own, without bringing Matthew and Luke into it, how does v12 make sense?

Why is John arrested? In Mark the arrest of John has no explanation until much later in Mark 6. I'm actually not fully convinced that John was actually ever arrested in the original version of the story, because John is not arrested in the Gospel of John, and the description of the arrest and execution of John in Mark 6 is a very brief interruption of the narrative. I would say its also possible that John was not arrested, he was just driven away into the wilderness and v14 would have said something more like, "Now after John was driven away..."

We may object then that the Gospel would open with the first act of Jesus being to baptize someone who was then driven away to be tempted by Satan. Seems like a grim prospect. But the Parable of the Sower is surely talking about John the Baptist, Peter and Judas. It must be John who was tempted by Satan and taken away, not Jesus.

The Parable of the Sower indicates that, "These are the ones on the path where the word is sown: when they hear, Satan immediately comes and takes away the word that is sown in them."

Regardless of whether we want to think that it could be that JtB would have been driven away and tempted by Satan, we cannot escape the fact that in the story Jesus says that there are those who hear the word and Satan comes to take it away. The tempting by Satan here is to show that even though John the Baptist was a holy man who had accepted "the word", even he could be driven astray. The tempting here is supposed to show JtB being tempted by worldliness and somehow giving in to the temptations. We don't know exactly what happened because the story has been revised.

It seems that in the original story Jesus baptizes John and John is filled with the Spirit, but John is then tested to see if he will remain loyal to Jesus, but he fails the test. We see this similar test given to Peter. Peter pledges his faith and loyalty to Jesus, but this isn't enough and he falls away. The same thing happens to John the Baptist.

Why are the angels ministering to him? They are opposing Satan, trying to counsel him not to be tempted, but it is too much and Satan wins the battle. So the fate of John, like Peter and Judas, serves as a cautionary tale.

What this shows is that even being baptized, accepting the word, and pledging loyalty is not enough. By the end of the Gospel of Mark, essentially no one remains who has faith in Jesus Christ. Everyone has failed. John the Baptist, even though he prepared the way, gave in to temptation. Peter and the other disciples all abandoned Jesus during times of strife. Judas betrayed him for the lure of wealth. The women who open the tomb flee in fear. The Roman centurion, who took place in his persecution, accepts who he is and has faith.

Now the stage it set for Paul, who never directly heard the word, to be the one who endures in the faith of Christ and bears fruit.

It is a twisted tale, but that is the tale nonetheless. While this story may seem to have its difficulties, I would contend that the canonical story also has as many or more difficulties, its just that we are used them.

[StephenGoranson]

imo, no.

[Charles Wilson]

John is of Bilgah, the created "Jesus" character is of Immer.
That's the Original.

"Baptize" is the Key Word to Study to verify your Thesis.

1 Corinthians 1: 14 - 16 (RSV):

[14] I am thankful that I baptized none of you except Crispus and Ga'ius;
[15] lest any one should say that you were baptized in my name.
[16] (I did baptize also the household of Steph'anas. Beyond that, I do not know whether I baptized any one else.)

I believe that this is Mucianus speaking, in as close to a quote of this figure as you can find.
Mucianus has "Baptized" Priscus and Caius in an act of violence, The House of Stephanas contains the Piso Group.

"Baptize" is a Code-Word for Political Violence. In this sense, Immer, which is at the center of the Planned Coup at Herod's death, does "Baptize" Bilgah, since the Passover and Feast of 4 BCE begins during Bilgah's Service Week in Jerusalem. At the weekly Sabbath, when Immer takes over in the Mishmarot Temple Service, the "Traditional" Tented Service will be Re-Instated and the Herodians and Romans - especially the Romans - will be eliminated from the True Worship.

It's a stretch ["that Jesus Baptized John"]but it is not completely eliminated from the possibilities.

John 1: 19 -20 (RSV) (emph. added):

[19] And this is the testimony of John, when the Jews sent priests and Levites from Jerusalem to ask him, "Who are you?"
[20] He confessed, he did not deny, but confessed, "I am not the Christ."

Bilgah confesses. Perhaps he has been "Baptized".

CW

Note: The following is from Tacitus, Histories, book 4:

"While things were in this state, while there was division in the Senate, resentment among the conquered, no real authority in the conquerors, and in the country at large no laws and no Emperor, Mucianus entered the capital, and at once drew all power into his own hands. The influence of Primus Antonius and Varus Arrius was destroyed; for the irritation of Mucianus against them, though not revealed in his looks, was but ill-concealed, and the country, keen to discover such dislikes, had changed its tone and transferred its homage. He alone was canvassed and courted, and he, surrounding himself with armed men, and bargaining for palaces and gardens, ceased not, what with his magnificence, his proud bearing, and his guards, to grasp at the power, while he waived the titles of Empire. The murder of Calpurnius Galerianus caused the utmost consternation. He was a son of Caius Piso, and had done nothing, but a noble name and his own youthful beauty made him the theme of common talk; and while the country was still unquiet and delighted in novel topics, there were persons who associated him with idle rumours of Imperial honours. By order of Mucianus he was surrounded with a guard of soldiers. Lest his execution in the capital should excite too much notice, they conducted him to the fortieth milestone from Rome on the Appian Road, and there put him to death by opening his veins. Julius Priscus, who had been prefect of the Praetorian Guard under Vitellius, killed himself rather out of shame than by compulsion. Alfenius Varus survived the disgrace of his cowardice. Asiaticus, who was only a freedman, expiated by the death of a slave his evil exercise of power..."

So you can Play Match-'em-Up if you want: "Crispus" => "Priscus" and so on. "Baptize" becomes a scarier word.
One more quote to let you see what is afoot:

Recall above:

"The murder of Calpurnius Galerianus caused the utmost consternation. He was a son of Caius Piso, and had done nothing, but a noble name and his own youthful beauty made him the theme of common talk..."

Have we seen this before? Of course:

Acts 6: 8, 15 (RSV):

[8] And Stephen, full of grace and power, did great wonders and signs among the people.
***
[15] And gazing at him, all who sat in the council saw that his face was like the face of an angel.

Over and over we see that the NT is a Construction from OT Jewish Mishmarot, to incorporation of History - This time from Tacitus - into the story of a savior-god loyal to Rome. We may now identify Stephen Martyr with Calpurnius Galerianus (There is another Proof here also.).

CW

PS: or Note or whatever:

I should point out that "Stephen Martyr" is a composite character, one part Calpurnius Galerianus ("Face of an angel") and one part Frugi Piso. In the list given in Acts 6, "Nicholas, proselyte of Antioch" must be Octavian, who championed that city. The List, therefore, is an inverted List of Caesars, of which Frugi is the last. The Composite Stephen is made up of Piso People, and Mucianus is telling them that their attempts to obtain Imperial Power will never succeed, as in, "Back off, if you want to live".

[RandyHelzerman]

It's hard to see what a convincing justification for a "yes" answer would be. Mark does loop around, sending the disciple right back to where it all started, so scrutinizing the original ending might give some clues as to what the original beginning was. Its problematic because its not at all obvious that we even have the original ending either.

Having John as yet another failed disciple seems like a stretch to me. Jesus may have been powerless before the Romans, but all the demons couldn't resist him--how would they know him if Jesus hadn't already defeated the big guy in the desert?

I rather think that the most likely thing is that there was no John the Baptist at all in the earliest versions of Mark. Tertullian is our earliest witness to the text of Luke, which makes him the earliest witness to the text of Mark, and very likely the Evangelion is an even earlier witness.....and the Evangelion doesn't have a baptizing episode. That is something which needs an explanation.

As you've mentioned before, John the Baptist is clearly an OT figure. What is he even doing in a NT book? What *is* his purpose in Mark anyways? He suddenly "appears" and just as suddenly disappears--he is not well-integrated into the story at all. And the ludicrous story of Salome dancing is obviously an add-on as well. It sticks out like a sore thumb, as being pretty much the only erotically-charged story in an otherwise very Marcionite, very anti-marriage, completely sexless NT.

And the Evangelion proves that you can just drop the whole thing and still have a very compelling Gospel.