The baptism and death of Jesus as bookends (for John2).

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
Post Reply
User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 8994
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

The baptism and death of Jesus as bookends (for John2).

Post by Ben C. Smith »

Subject: Question on GMark's Adoptionism vs. the Empty Tomb
John2 wrote: Tue Jul 31, 2018 8:03 amAnd I'm not sure I fully appreciate the significance of the Temple veil being torn and such at Jesus' crucifixion. I suppose these things are a "bookend' of sorts to the baptism, but the empty tomb scene also has an accompanying "bookend" in 16:4-7:
But when they looked up, they saw that the stone, which was very large, had been rolled away. As they entered the tomb, they saw a young man dressed in a white robe sitting on the right side, and they were alarmed.

“Don’t be alarmed,” he said. “You are looking for Jesus the Nazarene, who was crucified. He has risen! He is not here. See the place where they laid him. But go, tell his disciples and Peter, ‘He is going ahead of you into Galilee. There you will see him, just as he told you.’ ”
Hi again, John.

That other thread was getting crazy. Josephus was being misread or misinterpreted, Mithras and the Tauroctony were suddenly under discussion, seemingly out of the blue, and things were just getting muddled in general. So I thought I would start afresh.

I think, based on the above, that we are using the term "bookends" in two different ways. I am using the term as a substitute for another, more technical term: the inclusio. And, if that term does not work for you, then please drop it and just focus on the concepts at play. You seem to be using it merely to mean the first and the last pericopes in the gospel.

But I believe that the baptism and death of Jesus, in our extant gospel of Mark, are set up to reflect one another conceptually. The death is supposed to remind one of the baptism. This belief of mine derives from an article by David Ulansey, the one which you have already read. My fivefold set of correspondences between the baptism and the death are as follows:
  1. At both events something descends; the holy spirit descends as a dove at the baptism of Jesus, and the veil rips in two from top to bottom at his death.
  2. At both events the spirit is moving; at the baptism the spirit enters Jesus, and at his death the spirit exits him (the word for expire or exhale in Mark 15.37, ἐξέπνευσεν, literally means "expire" or "spirit out" in etymological terms).
  3. At both events somebody claims that Jesus is a son of God (υἱὸς θεοῦ); at his baptism it is a voice from heaven, at his death a nearby centurion.
  4. At both events the eschatological figure of Elijah is symbolically present; at the baptism of Jesus it is in the person of John the baptist (whom Jesus himself affirms as Elijah in Mark 9.9-13), while at his death the bystanders mistake his forlorn cry for a call to Elijah.
  5. At both events something tears or rips; at the baptism of Jesus it is heaven that rips open (σχιζομένους), and at his death it is the veil that rips (ἐσχίσθη) in twain.
Ulansey himself credits Stephen Motyer for (most of) this list:

David Ulansey: Indeed, in his 1987 article, "The Rending of the Veil: A Markan Pentecost," S. Motyer points out that there is actually a whole cluster of motifs which occur in Mark at both the baptism (1:9-11) and at the death of Jesus (15:36-39). In addition to the fact that at both of these moments something is torn, Motyer notes that: (1) at both moments a voice is heard declaring Jesus to be the Son of God (at the baptism it is the voice of God, while at the death it is the voice of the centurion); (2) at both moments something is said to descend (at the baptism it is the spirit-dove, while at the death it is the tear in the temple veil, which Mark explicitly describes as moving downward), (3) at both moments the figure of Elijah is symbolically present (at the baptism Elijah is present in the form of John the Baptist, while at Jesus' death the onlookers think that Jesus is calling out to Elijah); (4) the spirit (pneuma) which descends on Jesus at his baptism is recalled at his death by Mark's repeated use of the verb ekpneo (expire), a cognate of pneuma.

My list has five items instead of four because I separate the concept of descent from the concept of something tearing or ripping. But the overall effect is the same. I always mention Ulansey in this context because I have not read Motyer's article.

At any rate, my point is and was that this list of correspondences implies, for me, that the spirit entering Jesus at his baptism is parallel to the spirit exiting Jesus at his death. In other words, the idea that Mark means more by ἐξέπνευσεν than merely that Jesus died or breathed his last is strengthened, to my mind, by the other items on the list. It is also strengthened by how the other evangelists treat this moment. Matthew 27.50 says that Jesus yielded up his spirit (ἀφῆκεν τὸ πνεῦμα), while in Luke 23.46 Jesus is said to have committed his spirit (παρατίθεμαι τὸ πνεῦμά μου) to his Father. John 19.30 says that Jesus gave up his spirit (παρέδωκεν τὸ πνεῦμα). Peter 5.19 has Jesus shouting out that his Power has forsaken him, and then he is "taken up" (ἀνελήφθη), even though his body was still on the cross to be taken down and buried. All of these evangelists seem to have gotten the point: something departed Jesus at his death, leaving his body behind. If that something in Mark 15.37 is the same spirit that had entered him at his baptism, then what we have is the makings of a separationist theology.

This is the extent of the argument that I have made: the gospel narrative seems to betray a separationist theology by the exit of the spirit from Jesus at his death after it had entered at his baptism. All of the other correspondences, so far as this argument is concerned, simply prop up this central contention.

Now, Ulansey actually argues that there is another correspondence between the death and the baptism (one which so far I have not discussed at all) for those who had known what the outer veil of the Jerusalem Temple looked like. He quotes part of Josephus in the body of his article and then another part in a footnote, but let me lay the entire passage out for convenience:

Josephus, Wars 5.5.4 §212-214: 212 Πρὸ δὲ τούτων ἰσόμηκες καταπέτασμα πέπλος ἦν Βαβυλώνιος ποικιλτὸς ἐξ ὑακίνθου καὶ βύσσου κόκκου τε καὶ πορφύρας, θαυμαστῶς μὲν εἰργασμένος, οὐκ ἀθεώρητον δὲ τῆς ὕλης τὴν κρᾶσιν ἔχων, ἀλλ᾽ ὥσπερ εἰκόνα τῶν ὅλων: 213 ἐδόκει γὰρ αἰνίττεσθαι τῇ κόκκῳ μὲν τὸ πῦρ, τῇ βύσσῳ δὲ τὴν γῆν, τῇ δ᾽ ὑακίνθῳ τὸν ἀέρα, καὶ τῇ πορφύρᾳ τὴν θάλασσαν, τῶν μὲν ἐκ τῆς χροίας ὁμοιουμένων, τῆς δὲ βύσσου καὶ τῆς πορφύρας διὰ τὴν γένεσιν, ἐπειδὴ τὴν μὲν ἀναδίδωσιν ἡ γῆ, τὴν δ᾽ ἡ θάλασσα. 214 κατεγέγραπτο δ᾽ ὁ πέπλος ἅπασαν τὴν οὐράνιον θεωρίαν πλὴν ζῳδίων. / 212 But before these doors there was a veil of equal largeness with the doors. It was a Babylonian curtain, embroidered with blue, and fine linen, and scarlet, and purple, and of a contexture that was truly wonderful. Nor was this mixture of colors without its mystical interpretation, but was a kind of image of the universe; 213 for by the scarlet there seemed to be enigmatically signified fire, by the fine flax the earth, by the blue the air, and by the purple the sea; two of them having their colors the foundation of this resemblance; but the fine flax and the purple have their own origin for that foundation, the earth producing the one, and the sea the other. 214 This curtain had also embroidered upon it all that was mystical in the heavens, excepting that of the [twelve] signs, representing living creatures.

So this great curtain bore four textures or colors: scarlet, linen, blue, and purple. I have no idea whether Josephus' matching these up with the four classical elements (fire, earth, air, and water) is his own preference or was current among his fellow Jews. But what is important for our purposes is what was actually depicted upon the veil: Whiston translates it as "all that was mystical in the heavens," but the Greek phrase is more literally rendered as "the entire heavenly spectacle" (ἅπασαν τὴν οὐράνιον θεωρίαν). The Loeb edition translates it as "a panorama of the heavens," as does Ulansey himself (though he adds "entire" to further capture the force of ἅπασαν). Josephus adds that the zodiac symbols were not present (the "zodiac" is literally a list of animals, and depictions of living creatures was forbidden in mainstream Judaism). But the curtain seems to have contained some kind of representation of the heavens, and this is the only thing which Josephus describes as actually depicted upon it.

If Ulansey is correct, then at the baptism the heavens ripped apart, while at the death a depiction of the heavens (on the veil) ripped apart. My argument does not require this point, and I have to this point never used it, but there it is: possible extra support for the thesis of correspondence between the death and the baptism.

Finally, I would add that I do not think that the gospel of Mark as it stands, as a whole, is necessarily separationist. Matthew and Luke preserve the departure of the spirit at Jesus' death, after all, and they can hardly be considered to be separationist (the infancy stories preclude such a contingency, for example). But my contention is that underneath the current gospel storyline there is another storyline which is (or was) separationist before additional details and layers got added.

What do you think?

Ben.
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ
John2
Posts: 4309
Joined: Fri May 16, 2014 4:42 pm

Re: The baptism and death of Jesus as bookends (for John2).

Post by John2 »

I'm fine with the parallels between the "spirit" entering Jesus at his baptism and leaving him at his death. The only thing that would dissuade me of that now would be to press for a narrow definition of ekpneo to mean to stop breathing without the "suggestion" of something more, but even if that were possible (and I couldn't say for sure, having only looked at a few dictionaries online), why bother? Uncle.

But now I see what has me so confused. Jesus had a human soul (or spirit) of his own prior to his baptism, right? (Duh.) So the spirit that entered him at his baptism in Mark is God's spirit (the Holy Spirit, the "Christ" spirit, thing that gave Jesus his Son of Man/God-powers), and it was this spirit, and not Jesus' human "soul," that departed Jesus at his death in Mark. In this scenario I can have my cake and eat it too, since what Paul says in 1 Cor. 15 would still apply to Jesus' resurrected body, i.e., that it was a spiritual body that was made from his physical body (and which would be why there is no body in the tomb in Mark). So I'm happy.
You know in spite of all you gained, you still have to stand out in the pouring rain.
John2
Posts: 4309
Joined: Fri May 16, 2014 4:42 pm

Re: The baptism and death of Jesus as bookends (for John2).

Post by John2 »

But wait a second. I'm still confused (this whole subject is confusing!). What "spirit" is sitting at the right hand of God in heaven, the one that left Jesus at his death or Jesus' spiritual body that was made from his physical body (as per Paul)? I would say the latter. I think the "spirit" that entered Jesus is the Holy Spirit and is also somehow associated with the divine "Son of Man" in Daniel, and it was because of his Torah observance.

Hippolytus RH 7.22:
They live conformably to the customs of the Jews, alleging that they are justified. according to the law, and saying that Jesus was justified by fulfilling the law. And therefore it was, (according to the Ebionaeans,) that (the Saviour) was named (the) Christ of God and Jesus, since not one of the rest (of mankind) had observed completely the law. For if even any other had fulfilled the commandments (contained) in the law, he would have been that Christ. And the (Ebionaeans allege) that they themselves also, when in like manner they fulfil (the law), are able to become Christs; for they assert that our Lord Himself was a man in a like sense with all (the rest of the human family).


I think this idea of anyone being able to "become Christs" if they observe the Torah could also be based on Daniel's "Son of Man" too, since it can be seen as representing an individual or "the holy people of the most high" (Dan. 7:22, 27). In other words, by observing the Torah, anyone can become Christ (or "the Son of Man") like Jesus did and sit at the right hand of God and judge people at the end of the world and such.

As Jesus says in Mk. 12:24-25, “Are you not in error because you do not know the Scriptures or the power of God? When the dead rise, they will neither marry nor be given in marriage; they will be like the angels in heaven."

This is in keeping with what Paul says in 1 Cor. 15:43-35: "The body that is sown is perishable, it is raised imperishable; it is sown in dishonor, it is raised in glory; it is sown in weakness, it is raised in power; it is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body.

So I think what Mark (and Jesus himself in Mark) and Paul (and 1 Peter) say about the resurrection, and the thing that Paul says everyone preached (i.e., that Jesus died, was buried, resurrected and appeared to Peter and the Twelve, etc.) and was of first importance, are all in sync here. Jesus died (and let's say the Holy Spirit left him then), then his body was buried, then it came to life as a new spiritual body (which is why the tomb was empty), the same kind of new body believers will have when Jesus comes back from heaven (whether you are dead or alive when it happens) with his spiritual body.

I think it was this new spiritual body that went to hell and is now sitting at the right hand of God in heaven, not the Holy Spirit that left Jesus at his crucifixion, since the latter is something I see as being more intrinsic to God and not something that would need a throne to sit on like "one like a son of man" would. And in due time, all believers will be "like a son of man," or "like the angels in heaven," as Jesus puts it.

As Paul says in Php. 3:20-21, "our citizenship is in heaven. And we eagerly await a Savior from there, the Lord Jesus Christ, who, by the power that enables him to bring everything under his control, will transform our lowly bodies so that they will be like his glorious body."
Last edited by John2 on Mon Aug 06, 2018 12:21 pm, edited 1 time in total.
You know in spite of all you gained, you still have to stand out in the pouring rain.
User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 8994
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: The baptism and death of Jesus as bookends (for John2).

Post by Ben C. Smith »

John2 wrote: Mon Aug 06, 2018 10:56 am I'm fine with the parallels between the "spirit" entering Jesus at his baptism and leaving him at his death. The only thing that would dissuade me of that now would be to press for a narrow definition of ekpneo to mean to stop breathing without the "suggestion" of something more, but even if that were possible (and I couldn't say for sure, having only looked at a few dictionaries online), why bother? Uncle.

But now I see what has me so confused. Jesus had a human soul (or spirit) of his own prior to his baptism, right? (Duh.) So the spirit that entered him at his baptism in Mark is God's spirit (the Holy Spirit, the "Christ" spirit, thing that gave Jesus his Son of Man/God-powers), and it was this spirit, and not Jesus' human "soul," that departed Jesus at his death in Mark. In this scenario I can have my cake and eat it too, since what Paul says in 1 Cor. 15 would still apply to Jesus' resurrected body, i.e., that it was a spiritual body that was made from his physical body (and which would be why there is no body in the tomb in Mark). So I'm happy.
I wanted to highlight a bit of this to point out that something else is going on in the ancient Christian literature with respect to the terms "soul" and "spirit." They do not seem to mean the same thing. The locus classicus is:

Hebrews 4.12: 12 For the word of God is living and active and sharper than any two-edged sword, and piercing as far as the division of soul and spirit [μερισμοῦ ψυχῆς καὶ πνεύματος], of both joints and marrow, and able to judge the thoughts and intentions of the heart.

But there are plenty of other indicators, especially in Paul:

1 Corinthians 2.14: 14 But a natural [ψυχικός, literally "soulish"] man does not accept the things of the Spirit [πνεύματος] of God; for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually appraised.

1 Corinthians 15.44-46: 44 It is sown a natural [ψυχικόν, literally "soulish"] body, it is raised a spiritual [πνευματικόν] body. If there is a natural [ψυχικόν, literally "soulish"] body, there is also a spiritual [πνευματικόν] body. 45 So also it is written, "The first man, Adam, became a living soul [ψυχήν]." The last Adam became a life-giving spirit [πνεῦμα]. 46 However, the spiritual [πνευματικόν] is not first, but the natural [ψυχικόν, literally "soulish"]; then the spiritual.

James 3.15: 15 This wisdom is not that which comes down from above, but is earthly, natural [ψυχική, literally "soulish"], demonic.

Jude [1.]19: 19 These are the ones who cause divisions, worldly-minded [ψυχικοί, literally "soulish"], devoid of the Spirit [πνεῦμα].

So any theory as to Jesus' own anthropology, so to speak, probably ought to bear this distinction in mind.
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ
John2
Posts: 4309
Joined: Fri May 16, 2014 4:42 pm

Re: The baptism and death of Jesus as bookends (for John2).

Post by John2 »

This would also explain why the Holy Spirit was able to appear in other Christians and give them Jesus-like powers too. The Holy Spirit doesn't need a throne, it comes and goes as God (and Jesus) pleases, all while Jesus's divine-like, angelic-like spiritual body is presumably sitting at the right hand of God in heaven.

And Jesus was able to spread his God-powers around in his time as well, according to Mk. 3:13-15:
Jesus went up on a mountainside and called to him those he wanted, and they came to him. He appointed twelve that they might be with him and that he might send them out to preach and to have authority to drive out demons.
I see this as being the same divine "authority" that "the Son of Man" is given in LXX Dan. 7:14, as per Boyarin ("He was given authority, glory and sovereign power; all nations and peoples of every language worshiped him").

But now I'm confused again. If Jesus had this divine "authority" to spread around during his life, then it must be associated with the spirit that entered him at his baptism, which in turn would have to be the source of his "Son of Man" status. Are they (the spirit that entered Jesus at his baptism and Jesus' resurrected spiritual body) somehow the same thing after all? And is the spirit that entered Jesus at his baptism the same spirit that entered Christians in Acts 2:1-4?
When the day of Pentecost came, they were all together in one place. Suddenly a sound like the blowing of a violent wind came from heaven and filled the whole house where they were sitting. They saw what seemed to be tongues of fire that separated and came to rest on each of them. All of them were filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak in other tongues as the Spirit enabled them.


If so, then what made Jesus so special (aside from being the first "Christ" or the "first fruits" of the resurrection)? And would this not in a sense be an example of other Christians "becoming Christs," as per Hippoltyus? After all, Peter goes on to say in Acts 2:32-33:
God has raised this Jesus to life, and we are all witnesses of it. Exalted to the right hand of God, he has received from the Father the promised Holy Spirit and has poured out what you now see and hear.
And Acts 2:43 says:
Everyone was filled with awe at the many wonders and signs performed by the apostles.

Hm.
You know in spite of all you gained, you still have to stand out in the pouring rain.
User avatar
John T
Posts: 1567
Joined: Thu May 15, 2014 8:57 am

Re: The baptism and death of Jesus as bookends (for John2).

Post by John T »

Yes, the other O.P. became confusing for the reason I feared, John2 had too many questions to answer on just one thread.
So, I shall refrain from correcting any mythicist/Gnostic errors on this thread unless asked.

Enjoy. :cheers:

Sincerely,

John T
"It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into."...Jonathan Swift
User avatar
rakovsky
Posts: 1310
Joined: Mon Nov 23, 2015 8:07 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: The baptism and death of Jesus as bookends (for John2).

Post by rakovsky »

Good analysis. yes I agree that there is a deliberate parallel between the baptism and death.

My research on the prophecies of the Messiah's resurrection: http://rakovskii.livejournal.com
andrewcriddle
Posts: 2817
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 12:36 am

Re: The baptism and death of Jesus as bookends (for John2).

Post by andrewcriddle »

Philo Lifr of Moses Book II has something similar to Josephus about the sacred veils representing the cosmos
XVII. (84) Moreover the architect surrounded the tabernacle with very beautiful woven work of all kinds, employing work of hyacinth colour, and purple, and scarlet, and fine linen for the tapestry; for he caused to be wrought ten cloths, which in the sacred scriptures he has called curtains, of the kinds which I have just mentioned, every one of them being eight and twenty cubits in length, and extending four cubits in width, in order that the complete number of the decade, and also the number four, which is the essence of the decade, and also the number twenty-eight, which is likewise a perfect number, being equal to its parts; and also the number forty, the most prolific and productive of all numbers, in which number they say that man was fashioned in the workshop of nature. (85) Therefore the eight and twenty cubits of the curtains have this distribution: there are ten along the roof, for that is the width of the tabernacle, and the rest are placed along the sides, on each side nine, which are extended so as to cover and conceal the pillars, one cubit from the floor being left uncovered in order that the beautiful and holy looking embroidery might not be dragged. (86) And of the forty which are included in the calculation and made up of the width of the ten curtains, the length takes thirty, for such is the length of the tabernacle, and the chamber behind takes nine. And the remaining one is in the outer vestibule, that it may be the bond to unite the whole circumference. (87) And the outer vestibule is overshadowed by the veil; and the curtains themselves are nearly the same as veils, not only because they cover the roof and the walls, but also because they are woven and embroidered by the same figures, and with hyacinth colour, and purple, and scarlet, and fine linen. And the veil, and that thing, too, which was called the covering, was made of the same things. That which was within was placed along the five pillars, that the innermost shrine might be concealed; and that which was outside being placed along the five pillars, that no one of those who were not holy men might be able from any secret or distant place to behold the holy rites and ceremonies.

XVIII. (88) Moreover, he chose the materials of this embroidery, selecting with great care what was most excellent out of an infinite quantity, choosing materials equal in number to the elements of which the world was made, and having a direct relation to them; the elements being the earth and the water, and the air and the fire. For the fine flax is produced from the earth, and the purple from the water, and the hyacinth colour is compared to the air (for, by nature, it is black), and the scarlet is likened to fire, because each is of a red colour; for it followed of necessity that those who were preparing a temple made by hands for the Father and Ruler of the universe must take essences similar to those of which he made the universe itself. (89) Therefore the tabernacle was built in the manner that has been here described, like a holy temple. And all around it a sacred precinct extended a hundred cubits in length and fifty cubits in width, having pillars all placed at an equal distance of five cubits from one another, so that there were in all sixty pillars; and they were divided so that forty were placed along the length and twenty along the breadth of the tabernacle, one half on each side. (90) And the material of which the pillars were composed was cedar within, and on the surface without silver; and the pedestals of all of them were made of brass, and the height was equal to five cubits. For it seemed to the architect to be proper to make the height of what was called the hall equal to one half of the entire length, that so the tabernacle might appear to be elevated to double its real height. And there were thin curtains fitted to the pillars along their entire length and breadth, resembling so many sails, in order that no one might be able to enter in who was not pure.
Andrew Criddle
Post Reply