The "was-John-the-Baptist-real? thread has just about run
its course and there didn't seem to be much interest in it.

So I'll try address the topic with a different approach.
Many of the posters in this forum have been baptized --
one way or another, at some point in their lives. It is
a phenomenon most of us can discuss from experience.

I'm wondering when the first baptism took place? Do we
have any actual, physical evidence of ANY baptisms prior
to Christianity being adopted as official Roman religion?

At some point modern archaeologists can dig up the remains
of ancient churches that included a baptismal font, or at
least were located next to a place where baptisms occurred.

We might even come across a synagogue floor mosaic that
depicts the later Jewish proselyte baptisms.

But WHEN did this phenomenon develop, and why? Does that
history (if recoverable) bear any relation to the event
many of you recall from your own past religious days?

UD

My understanding is "ritual cleansing" existed long before Jesus' time and I would bet it existed in several cultures.

+1

I understood many religions have some sort of ritual cleansing. It is not at all unique to Christianity or Judaism.

Puli Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> +1
>
> I understood many religions have some sort of
> ritual cleansing. It is not at all unique to
> Christianity or Judaism.

A few decades back I took the pilgrimage to Muktinath in
the Himalaya Mountains, just south of the Tibetan border --
a ten-day trek from Kathmandu in hiking boots, and a month
long struggle for some of the pilgrims, who make the
journey on their hands and knees.

Tradition says that bathing in the spouting water there
insures escape from the cycles of re-birth. That is not
exactly the same notion as Judeo-Christian eternal life,
but the religious association of the water with life and
death seems to me to be at least a distant analogy.

The local Buddhist lama merely shook his head at such stuff.
I suppose that the belief is actually Bon and existed there
long before the first Buddhist missionary arrived at Muktinath

UD

You and Joan beat a difficult path to follow but I think that it is fairly clear that Baptism, while being a Christian rite, is older than Christianity. I think you, in the last thread, mentioned Jewish purification rituals. While John TB, I suppose, wasn't following the rules of purification it isn't a stretch to believe that his rule breaking was intentional. John seems, at least according to what I understand, to be anti institutional so his acts might have been expected to not be exactly what the Talmud required.

As far as the idea that the Roman church was being organized by the Greco Roman state as far back as the 3rd century I find that hard to grasp. One of the central characteristics of the empire at that time was decentralization. It was hard for the empire to maintain anything from Rome much less orchestrate the doctrinal development of a religion.

For me that most compelling evidence that baptism is older than Christian Institutionalization is found in the artwork. Perhaps the oldest known piece of art in all of Christianity depicts the Baptism of a child, in The Catacombs of Callisto. The specific fresco dates to the 2nd century and is older than some of the books of the New Testament.

jacob Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>...Perhaps the oldest known
> piece of art in all of Christianity depicts the
> Baptism of a child, in The Catacombs of Callisto.
> The specific fresco dates to the 2nd century and
> is older than some of the books of the New
> Testament.

Perhaps we cannot realistically hope to discover anything older
than kind of "evidence." Maybe a piece of preserved Pompeiian
graffiti, saying something like "Being dunked in the holy
water isn't going to save you, Julius!"

That leaves the copied, re-copied and re-re-copied texts
themselves for us to ponder.

That's where I began, with the Book of Mormon, in Rexburg
Idaho in 1953.

Fool me once...

UD

Perhaps, but at least this specific fresco refutes the idea Baptism didn't happen until the time of Augustine of Hippo.

Re-copying was not so inacurrate as you infer, It is remarkable how few errors were added in. From the totality of even the Dead Sea Scrolls, baptism was practiced very early. It is more important to note that Mormon baptismal ceremonies do NOT rest on those of other Christian groups not only in rejection of infant baptism, but in the entire concept. LDS baptisms, especially of 8 yr olds is primarily a matter of form and the substantive talks seem to stress that baptism is mainly just because Jesus was baptised by John. But the concept of burial into Christ and arising in newness of life, etc., is not explained. It is more a symbolic washing only. You become free from sin, etc. Mormon baptism is two-dimensional in a three dimensional world.

rhgc Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Re-copying was not so inacurrate as you infer, It
> is remarkable how few errors were added in.

I'm not sure how you can back up this statement given that there are zero original manuscripts. Which I think is UD's point.

The logic is this: If from say 200 AD to 800 AD there was little change, we can infer that from 70 AD to 200 AD there was not much change. Granted, such proof is not absolute, but it can be persuasive. Remember, copies were not made every hour each day for hundreds of years. That means the generations of copies were much fewer than we might see today. Early copy machines were such you could see each generation of copies because of imperfections. Yet, the readings would not change. While transcription (copy) errors did occur in scriptures, mainly by addition of what may have been footnotes, the essential writings show no wholescale changes, certainly not on the order of the BoM changes.

That isn't an entirely unexpected reply, it however doesn't take into consideration that there may well have been wholesale fabrication prior to the existing manuscripts. Take for example Luke who wasn't even versed in the geography of Palestine. Or John which is an obvious proselytizing tract.

jacob Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> That isn't an entirely unexpected reply, it
> however doesn't take into consideration that there
> may well have been wholesale fabrication prior to
> the existing manuscripts. Take for example Luke
> who wasn't even versed in the geography of
> Palestine. Or John which is an obvious
> proselytizing tract.

Which brings me around to my favorite biblical topic, the
relationship of the Jesus sayings in Matthew and Luke to
their counterparts in the Coptic Gospel of Thomas. There
are some earlier Greek fragments -- Papyrus Oxyrhynchus, etc.
Which seem to indicate that the wording we see in the later
Coptic text was translated fairly accurately from the Greek.

But, if that were the case (and I think it so) why would
the Greek "Thomas" sayings differ at all from their textual
cousins in Matthew and Luke?

Obviously, in the very early days, when manuscripts were
few, and nobody knew for certain which sect would prevail
as the one-true-orthodoxy, changes were made. Not just
scribal errors, or small insertions and deletions, but
entirely new spins on theology were woven into what some
adherents no doubt accepted as pure, uncorrupted scripture.

What was it I said before? Oh yes,
Fool me once...

UD

rhgc Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> ...But the
> concept of burial into Christ and arising in
> newness of life, etc., is not explained. It is
> more a symbolic washing only. You become free from
> sin, etc. Mormon baptism is two-dimensional in a
> three dimensional world.

It's not unlike Disciples of Christ baptism -- the only real
difference I see between the two is that the Mormon elders
confer the Holy Ghost at confirmation, by the laying on of
hands, but even a Campbellite layman can perform confirmations
in which God makes the Spirit to dwell, and not an elder.

But if Jesus truly sent out disciples to baptize, I cannot
picture them preaching his coming death, burial and rebirth.
That must have come later -- much later, I'm inclined to think.

UD

Christ sent out certain groups whether the seventy (or 72), disciples or apostles, for specific ministry during his lifetime. He also directed that they go out after his resurrection as set forth in at least one of the gospels and in the Book of Acts. Obviously, the message changed after Christ's death. The NT indicates that there were others also baptising as per John but that now it was to be done with the Holy Ghost etc. In sum, baptism changed, but TSCC still, though using the formula of the trinity, is really that of John with the confirmation (taken from other Christian groups which practiced infant baptism) being for the gift of the Holy Ghost instead of combined in the baptism itself. Using the trinitarian forumla, the separate laying on of hands is unnecessary.

Elephant in the room. The Noachian flood baptized the entire planet, cleansing and purification included (except for the cuckoo bird)--or are you dismissing them there earlier dispensations of time?

davidlkent Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Elephant in the room. The Noachian flood baptized
> the entire planet, cleansing and purification
> included (except for the cuckoo bird)--or are you
> dismissing them there earlier dispensations of
> time?

Ah! Mormonism!
Such a cruel mistress.
Inviting in her smile.
Deadly in her embrace.

UD

Let's try out the proposed Hellenistic origin of baptism, by taking a time machine
to Antioch in the year 180 C.E. -- Bro. Theophilus is addressing a small crowd in the
central marketplace:

"Friends, Syrians, Countrymen -- lend me your ears. How often have you journeyed
to Alexandria or to Mother Rome itself, and wished that you could get a decent meal
and friendly company, somewhere better than in their brothels?

"Well, my friends, some of you might have even contemplated getting your private
parts mutilated, so you could find brethren in a synagogue in Ephesus or Sidon --
but I'm here to sell you... er, tell you, of a better way. Yes, you heard me right.
For one thin drachma I'm ready to pass on to you the secret that Ignatius himself
gave me before he died. What? Nobody here remembers Ignatius? Well, I do
and he taught me all about this marvelous discovery, called baptism.

"Now step right up, friends. Because I'm establishing the Church of Paul the Apostle
right here where Brother Ignatius taught and died, so many years ago. We already
have a congregation in Ostia Antica and our Alexandrian missionaries have a
study group going there on Thursdays at the Library. And, do you know what?
Why, they'll all live after they die! Slaves just like kings. Women just like men!

"You see that watering trough over there, brothers and sisters? Just hand
Demetrius here your drachmas and step over to the fountain, and we'll sign
you up for membership. Hey! You're getting in on the ground floor, folks!" And
today only we're giving out a free copy of the 'Didache' and the 'Shepherd of Hermas'
to the first three lucky converts!"

UD

The Jewish ritual bath is called the Mikva. It would have been a very common part of every Jewish family's routine in the time of Jesus. One of the main requirements is flowing, fresh water.

presbyterian Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The Jewish ritual bath is called the Mikva. It
> would have been a very common part of every Jewish
> family's routine in the time of Jesus. One of the
> main requirements is flowing, fresh water.

I get the impression that folks in the Pharisee class were
keen on imitating the holiness of the temple priests, in
their daily family life --- so, you may just be correct in
your basic idea.

The next step would be to locate some physical evidence that
would confirm this idea -- and then to demonstrate that such
bathing was accompanied by repentance, or ever served as an
initiation. As an accompaniment to taking Nazirite vows maybe?

The idea itself is not much of a stretch of the imagination;
but I'm not yet seeing the compelling evidence.

UD

This article has lots of info on the Mikva:

http://www.myjewishlearning.com/life/Life_Events/Conversion/Conversion_Process/Mikveh.shtml

Very old Mikva (Jewish ritual bath practiced in the time of Jesus)

http://www.mikvahminder.com/mikvah-blog/ancient-mikvah-found-in-jerusalem.html

presbyterian Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Very old Mikva (Jewish ritual bath practiced in
> the time of Jesus)
>
> http://www.mikvahminder.com/mikvah-blog/ancient-mi
> kvah-found-in-jerusalem.html


Yes, and its location near an entrance to the ancient temple
in Jerusalem probably shows that the bath was used by others
than just the priestly class. As I mentioned previously,
there were then laymen Jews who attempted to live their daily
lives at the same level of ritual cleanliness and holiness
as did the courses of Sadducean priests, when on duty inside
the temple. All of that has an historical context.

But expanding/altering a periodic ritual priestly cleansing
into a once-in-a-lifetime public confession of sin and
repentance (in unholy, unconsecrated river or pool water)
would have been a big, big step away from Pharisee bathing.

First of all, there would have been the individual shame
of a personal acknowledgement of having transgressed the
Law of Moses. In the Temple there was a sin offering to
alleviate this problem -- generally a dove sacrifice. In
some instances such a sacrifice may have even been conducted
outside of the Temple. But a public admission of transgression,
and a public offering of repentance for that transgression
would have been something different.

Secondly, there would have been the problem of both males
and females being purified in the same unconsecrated water
indiscriminately -- I do not picture John the Baptist
working out a way to segregate the sexes in the Jordan stream.

Thirdly, there would be the matter of baptism being a once
in a lifetime ordinance. Would the baptized individuals
continue to engage in periodic ritual cleansings, having
already been baptized? Baptism seems to imply that the
person is forgiven at a level above and beyond compliance
with Mosaic Law. It is an initiation, or at least the public
demonstration of entering into a new life. Again, this is a
departure from Jewish ritual bathing.

So, the necessary evidence, to show an evolution from Jewish
bathing, into John's baptism or Christian baptism, would
have to be something other than our digging up a bathing
structure at a temple entrance. In fact, that sort of artifact
would serve as an indication that Christian baptism was not
a part of the lives of the people who used the mikvah.

UD

I would say that since the 2nd and 3rd century Christians were rabidly anti Jewish the adoption of a Jewish ritual doesn't make sense. On the other hand since the very first Christians were Jewish the integration of a Jewish ritual seems logical. To me the most logical conclusion is that the 2nd and 3rd century Christians morphed the ritual into something decidedly different. This would assuage their world view and their theological responsibility.

Any thoughts on how the preservers/followers of the
Jesus sayings would have viewed baptism? What hints can
we pick up from "Q" or from Thomas?

UD

Uncle Dale Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Any thoughts on how the preservers/followers of
> the
> Jesus sayings would have viewed baptism? What
> hints can
> we pick up from "Q" or from Thomas?
>
> UD

http://sidneyrigdon.com/vern/1997Dale.htm

One mention of John -- no overt mentions of baptism, but
perhaps a couple of allusions.

???

UD

There seems to be some indication that it wasn't considered a requirement, at a certain point it became a necessity of salvation. The famous dispute between Augustine and the Donatists shows that some even thought that incorrect application of the ritual could result in a loss of salvation. I know that there is 200 years worth of separation between the time of Thomas and the mythical Q, but Augustine was firm on the idea that a schismatic baptism is worthless. He must have had some written and theological backing on such an inflexible stance. Conjecture, I know, but it's the best I have.

Essenes were very much into Mikva. Some scholars suspect that John the Baptist was an Essene.

Ah, but since the Essenes weren't exclusive in the practice than it is fairly difficult to attach John to the the Essenes solely because of the practice.

A simple explanation of Essene belief would be that they were Monastic Jews. Which may or may not be in favor of John being an Essene, since John is portrayed as having a following and being a loner. One of the clear ideas of Essene belief is that they are a community, so much so that Josephus referred to them as being an independent race. John's supposed parental lineage doesn't bode well on the idea that he was Essene. The other is that there was that the community had group ownership, John's following doesn't seem to jive with that idea.

He might have been an Essene but for that to be the case the narrative found in the Gospels would have to be wrong. Not much of a stretch, but since it is the sole source of info on John the Baptist a logical conclusion.

jacob Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
...

>
> He might have been an Essene but for that to be
> the case the narrative found in the Gospels would
> have to be wrong. Not much of a stretch, but since
> it is the sole source of info on John the Baptist
> a logical conclusion.

I suppose that the Essenes were a real Jewish sect and that
they existed at least as far back in time as the period when
Herod's father took over governing Judea. That much said, I
do not see much evidence for linking this obscure sect with
the Qumranim, John or Jesus. There may have been overlap
of some kind -- even an overlap in how these various groups
viewed ritual cleansing -- but, lacking some hard evidence,
I think we've gone about as far as currently possible in our
speculation.

None of this goes very far in demonstrating whether John was
a real person, or a literary invention of the 2nd century.
A crafty scripture-forger could have made use of knowledge
about the Essenes or the Qumranim in order to make a fictional
John appear even more likely as an historical person.

I'm still inclined to think that the biblical/Josephus picture
of a baptizing John was founded upon a kernel of fact. How
much is fact and how much is fiction, I do not know.

I suspect that joan has a deeper knowledge of this matter than
most of the rest of us.

UD

Uncle Dale Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> I suspect that joan has a deeper knowledge of this
> matter than
> most of the rest of us.
>
> UD


I am a rank amateur and would never claim to have a deep knowledge of anything. At best I'm like the light rain that feels nice but doesn't really water the lawn.

Baptism was stolen from other religions/cultures.

Heck, Jesus was stolen from other religions/cultures. He's a composite of several of the various godmen myths that were floating around the Roman Empire.

forbiddencokedrinker Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Baptism was stolen from other religions/cultures.
>
...

Maybe a few of the physical features -- maybe even a few
of the theological features.

But there still had to be an event, somewhere about 1800
years ago, when the first Christian was baptized.

Should we assume that the guy knew he was participating in
a total fraud -- or should we go on the hunch that the guy
being baptized was sincere, and that only the baptizer was
a Christian con-man?

To my way of thinking, these questions are useful. Even if
we do not reconstruct past history perfectly, our asking
such questions helps us put our own conclusions in order.

UD

Christopher Hitchens brought up this point about Constantine.

I think shortly afterward is when the Hitch was waterboarded.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Efh_6_-tHgY

Not sure if the two were connected but Hitch was always the contrarian :)



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/11/2013 01:32PM by deco.