Re: [Synoptic-L] Re: [Synoptic list] Jesus baptism
- Maluflen@... a écrit:
>In a message dated 6/2/2004 2:31:13 PM Eastern Daylight Time, tonybuglass@... writes:The argument of embarrassement is convincing because evangelists looks
>>>This looks like one of those places where the criterion of embarrassment is a key tool, and that the most likely explanation is that Jesus was in fact baptised by (his supposed inferior) John.>>
>Sorry, I know it is very popular, but I don't buy the argument from embarrassment at all, and never have found it convincing. It presupposes that there was some compulsion for the evangelists to tell the story of John and Jesus even though they found it embarrassing. This is nonsense. There is no reason why the evangelists would have felt any compulsion to include the story of John baptizing Jesus, and it may well have been "invented" by Matthew to make some profound theological point, most likely along the lines of Poirier's suggestion.
About the compulsion :
-- if Jesus would have been baptised by John, then the fact would have
been hardly forgotten, either by christians (through your baptism, you
are following Jesus) or by John followers (your baptism is in fact our
since your Jesus has been baptised by our John). This fact is a
compulsion for evangelist : a Jesus without John would have hardly been
-- how baptism would have been early an important stage in christian
life, if it has not been related to the life of Jesus ? It looks hard
that John's followers would have introduced it in Jesus group whithout
an early link between Jesus and John.
-- Is it possible to say that Jesus created a concurrent baptism against
John's baptism, without any connection between both groups ? In that
case, why do the gospel present Jesus either as following John at the
early beginning (=synoptics) or deeply connected to John (=johannine
Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...