Talk:Baptism of Jesus

Introduction

The introduction stating that the baptism is not the beginning of his ministry is odd. Any ideas on making it better? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 136.166.78.176 (talk) 18:40, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Mary

Was Mary, mother of Christ present at the baptism of Christ by John? The question came up in Bible study. The Article "Baptism of Jesus" tends to indicate no. Some one believed one of books not in the Bible says she was. What is the answer?

There is certainly nothing in scripture about Mary being there, and the wording of the Gospels makes her presence seem unlikely. It is entirely possible that there are stories that placed Mary at the event, but at best these would be apocryphal. - SimonP 04:12, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

The gospels are not a record of the event, they are a variety of written versions of older written/spoken sources, and they post-date any events that may have happened by many decades. Whether of not the Gospels do or do not have anything in them can not lead us to conclude that something did or did not happen in the historic past. --IseeEwe (talk) 04:53, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Harry Anderson Baptism of Jesus artwork...

The name Harry Anderson in the caption for the artwork links to a wiki article on a Harry Anderson, but the article seems to be on an entirely different Harry Anderson who was born in 1952, not the artist Harry Anderson who was born in 1906 referenced here ( http://www.christcenteredmall.com/stores/art/anderson/anderson_biography.htm ), who would seem to be the Harry Anderson in question who did this artwork. Could this be fixed? I'm going to unlink the article from Harry Anderson's name in the caption for the artwork for now. Twilight 15:59, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Edits -- RFC

I tried to shift the language towards NPOV where possible: changing "most"s to "some"s, for example, when different schools of thought are clearly in conflict. If any changes are objectionable, please indicate below. I have also tried to remove or qualify uncited speculations (e.g., that Luke's "crowd" did not respond to the voice of God from the heavens -- since the pericope ends, we have no indication of the crowd's response!). Again, if this needs discussion please indicate below.

Also (to those writing articles of this nature), please use a first initial for E.(duard) Schweizer to distinguish him from both Alexander Schweizer and the far better-known Albert Schweitzer, sometimes spelled 'Schwiezer.' jrcagle 19:58, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

More Edits -- RFC

In the "John's purpose according to the synoptic gospels" section, I have removed the following:

1)

"The quote, coming from Isaiah 40:3, is taken somewhat out of context, and the original referred to making straight the paths of God. In Isaiah, the passage was referring to how escape from the Babylonian Captivity would come about, whereas the synoptic Gospels have reinterpreted it as being a more metaphysical escape."

and replaced with

"The quote, coming from Isaiah 40:3, refers in its orginal context to making straight the paths of God."

My choice to do so is not simply POV (although it happens to agree with my POV!), but rather that the passage Is. 40 - 42 is highly disputed in terms of original intent; it makes no mention of Babylon; and the passage contains clear references to a coming servant. Hence, rather than drag the reader into a protracted discussion of Isaiah's near and far eschatology, I thought it best to mention the recontextualization in Matthew and let those interested pursue the topic on their own.

2)

"The quote otherwise has the wording of the Septuagint, in preference to that of the Masoretic text."

with

"The quote uses the wording of the Septuagint, typical for New Testament quotations of the Old Testament."

The Masoretic Text dates to AD 900 or so, and was not available to Matthew for quoting! (I don't know about the wording in any of the Dead Sea Scrolls). The majority of textual quotations in the NT are from the OT, so Matthew's choice is not surprising.

3)

"There are actually two justifiable punctuations for the quote, the traditional one being the voice of one crying in the wilderness: Prepare ...., whereas, based on the Hebrew, modern scholars feel that Isaiah was intending the passage to read the voice of one crying: In the wilderness prepare ...., which quite substantially changes the meaning. The latter meaning is far less able to apply to John the Baptist, and hence this interpretation is not favoured by those of a more fundamentalist persuasion."

with

"There are actually two justifiable punctuations for the quote, the traditional one being the voice of one crying in the wilderness: Prepare ....; the other reading, the voice of one crying: In the wilderness prepare ...., which substantially changes the meaning."

I actually disagree that it "substantially" changes the meaning, but I'm willing to concede the point. However, the Hebrew Mas. Text does not prefer either reading (qol qore bamidabar panu = A voice of one crying in the wilderness); both could readings could easily point to JtB; and the last clause of the original strikes me as POVish.

I'm certain that this topic is worthy of some discussion...

jrcagle 01:24, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

4) Removed

"The Gospel of the Nazarenes, a text which has very strong similarities to Matthew, adds a clarification to this story, stating that it was because of Jesus' sinlessness that John felt he was the one who should be baptised."

with no replacement. I was unable to find any such reference in the Gospel of the Nazarenes (text here. --jrcagle 01:47, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

The changes look pretty good, and make sense to me. It seems to help clarify and focus the text a bit better.

Twilight 14:29, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

On (2) what is meant is that the (Greek) Septuagint was used rather than the normal Hebrew version of the text (which was later standardised as the masoretic text). This is viewed as highly significant in academic circles because it implies that either Jesus' words are rewritten and edited by the Gospels rather than directly quoted, or that Jesus quoted the Greek rather than Hebrew, which would be extremely odd for someone who supposedly has a Jewish background speaking to a supposedly Jewish audience. Clinkophonist 22:50, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

On (3) the difference in punctuation is the difference between

A - Prepare the way of the lord - cried out by someone in the wilderness

B - In the wilderness, prepare the way of the lord - cried out by someone

B has the significant difference that it additionally refers to the current state of affairs as a wilderness, and does not describe the person doing the crying as having to be in the wilderness (i.e. does not necessarily equate so obviously to John the Baptist or other anchorites/hermits). Clinkophonist 22:58, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

On (1) by missing out the context it makes it seem as if Isaiah clearly refers to the coming of God in a messianic type way, wheras the passage in Isaiah is much less clear and most Jewish and Secular scholars see it as referring literally to the historic Babylon. Hence leaving out the context is quite biased. It would be akin to quoting George Bush like this and not mentioning the circumstances of such a quote. Clinkophonist 22:58, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Jesus's baptism

Please give reasons for removing work here, otherwise will be promptly re-inserted. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Traveller74 (talk • contribs) 23:55, 13 February 2007 (UTC).

The "work" I removed on 21 February (perhaps the same as someone else removed on 13 February or earlier) was:

Contrary to baptism practices of the thirteenth century onwards, and works of art of the period (as shown)<ref>Jules Corblet, Histoire Dogmatique, Liturgique et Archéologique du Sacrement de Baptême, volume II, opening words. See also [[Baptism#Apostolic period|Baptism, Apostolic period]]</ref>, historical evidence shows, more likely than not, Jesus' baptism was performed by immersion. The fact that Jesus was baptised in the Jordan River, where John the Baptiser frequently performed baptisms, and who was known to select an area where there was a lot of water, something required for immersion ({{bibleverse||John|3:23}}). Indeed the very meaning of the Greek ba´pti•sma used in the New Testament refers to the process of immersion, including submersion and emergence. Moreover, baptism by immersion is unquestionably and universally accepted as the normal practice for Christians during the apostolic period, which is supported by the [[Didache]], the Catholic Encyclopedia<ref>(''New Catholic Encyclopedia'', 1967, Vol. II, p. 56)</ref> and many historians (see [[Baptism#Apostolic period|Baptism, Apostolic period]]). Faithful first-century followers of Jesus would have followed his baptism example, as they did with other aspects of his life.

The last paragraph in the section on Jesus' baptism, which this "work" contradicts, makes it clear that there is no evidence that Jesus' baptism was by total immersion, since partial immersion was practised in Early Christian times and continued to be prelevant down to the eighth century. The word βάπτισμα does not necessarily mean total immersion ("the process of immersion, including submersion and emergence"): the corresponding verb is used twice in the Gospels to speak of a partial immersion or a mere washing. The Didache is quoted in the "work" in a manner that hides the fact that it expressly mentioned the conferring of baptism without total immersion. Lima 16:18, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Non-canonical and heterodox accounts: Urantia Book addition

A section referring to The Urantia Book is being added here. Written in 1934 and first published in 1955, its largest part, Part IV, has 774 pages on [[[The Life And Teachings of Jesus]]]. Much corroborates biblical Christian accounts with some material unique to its text. The material is included here as referenced in a work that is standing the test of time with over 650,000 books in print and translations in 11 major languages. Www.urantia.org and www.truthbook.org will be used as references; truthbook.org when better indexing to the exact quote is desirable. More talk as the substance of the article addition begins to take shape.Ensa (talk) 23:04, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

If I had first noticed this Talk-page intervention, I would have made my comment before removing from the article the material inserted on this book. I honestly do not see how this 20th-century book deserves a mention more than other books in the style of the Da Vinci Code. Soidi (talk) 04:37, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

I appreciate that lack of familiarity with The Urantia Book and/or The Da Vinci Code may elicit undue comparison. The Da Vinci Code was written intentionally as a work of fiction of 454 pages as a product by its author. The Urantia Book makes a claim to be a truthful and factual work in 196 Papers over 2097 pages in its original printing. The unusual nature of this work called for prudence in its placement in the Non-canonical and heterodox accounts section of this article in deference to it being a 20th-century work but one which continues to gain in adherents worldwide; much as occurred in the early centuries of other movements regarded as heterodox in their time.

The one reference to the date, "January 14, 26 CE," placed in the beginning of the article actually supports the assertion in the paragraph that

"In the Roman Catholic Church, the Anglican Communion, and some other Western denominations, it is recalled on a day within the following week [following January 6], the feast of the Baptism of the Lord."

Given that the addition to the article fits the spirit and intent of an encyclopedic article to add to the knowledge and address some aspects of the mystery about the subject of Jesus' baptism, there is a place for this material in this article except perhaps in the minds of fringe ultra-orthodox thinkers.

Summary reversals are dismissive and certainly not in the spirit of Wikipedia, let alone of the one who is the subject of this article. Your argument does not support reverting the article. Suggestions are welcome as editing proceeds and will be duly considered.Ensa (talk) 20:50, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Actually, what's not in the spirit of Wikipedia is reverting someone else's reversion of your original edit. See WP:BRD: it's great to be bold, but if someone then reverts your edit, your next step is to go to the talk page without reverting their revert. As for the Urantia Book, it certainly can't be considered a reliable source for the date of Jesus' baptism, nor does it seem notable enough to warrant a mention here. +Angr 21:31, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

John the Baptist

The long section on John the Baptist should be summarized since that material is already (or should be) covered on the John the Baptist page. Jonathan Tweet 03:40, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

historical perspective: yes, it's historical

I added reference to historical opinion on the baptism. This is one event that even skeptics admit is true. Since it stands out as one of few events that even more skeptical historians give credit to, that deserves a mention. Jonathan Tweet 01:17, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

The reader deserves to know that this event stands out from other Gospel events as getting lots of credit from historians. Lima doesn't like the idea that historians agree on the historicity of few events in Jesus' life so he deleted that information from the lead. I could scrounge up a reference myself, but I'm tired of Lima following me from page to page and messing with my edits. Is there anyone else out there who can help out with a reference? Jonathan Tweet 14:18, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

These are not the opinions of historians, they are the opinions of individuals who study Christianity, Christians, priests and theologians. There are no reliable sources for as vague a notion as the one proposed, that "even skeptics(sic) admit is true", or "even more skeptical (sic) historians give credit to". The range of stories about Jesus is broad beyond imagining. About the most we can say is that there are some specific sections of some of the early gospels that are probably more or less untouched, or come from another earlier common source. BUT, in the end they are still a written record by extremely subjective authors, not a photograph or video or first hand account by a pagan Roman. There is NO third party, disinterested, verifiable, archaeologically supported, historic proof of Jesus, outside of a very scant few highly diverse, non-linear, garbled, repeatedly edited, writings by the "Christian" faithful -which are not reliable. --IseeEwe (talk) 04:41, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

dissimilarity and embarrassment

A well-meaning editor added "embarrassment" to the criteria of "multiple attestation" and "dissimilarity." Unfortunately, the criteria of embarrassment and dissimilarity are essentially the same. I'd fix it myself, but I'm in a dispute with this editor at Purgatory, so I'd rather not mess with it if I could avoid it. Jonathan Tweet 00:35, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

The criteria in question are indeed essentially the same. There is a Wikipedia article on "embarrassment", but, I think, none of "dissimilarity". The dispute you raised elsewhere is surely no reason why you should not work here or elsewhere in accordance with Wikipedia rules (including that about verifiability). Please go ahead. Lima 04:32, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

In fact, the definitions of dissimilarity, discontinuity, embarrassment, and contradiction are so hard to get straight that I'm not sure whether this page should be referring to the criterion of "dissimilarity" or "embarrassment." Jonathan Tweet 03:26, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I said: Go ahead. Not: Go back. Reverting is not a way to cooperate to solve a problem. Lima 04:49, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

The quote from the Gospel of the Hebrews is relevant in its own right and should go in the "noncanonical" section. The commentary on the quote doesn't seem to rise to the level of notability, though maybe it would go on the Gospel of the Hebrews page. Jonathan Tweet 14:14, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

The link to "dissimilarity" takes one to "the criterion of embarrassment" which is "also known as the "criterion of dissimilarity". The sentence containing "the criterion of embarrassment" is therefore both redundant and less than clear, as it suggests that these two criteria are somehow clearly distinguishable. Said redundancy has been removed in hopes of improving clarity. Mannanan51 (talk) 22:34, 30 May 2011 (UTC)mannanan51

The point of baptism

If this baptism ritual is so important, why is there no mention of its purpose? Why were people being baptised by John at this time? Whas is an egyptian ritual? Was it a greek mystery? Some explanation is required. Mike0001 11:50, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

The second sentence of the article states, "In [the synoptic gospel accounts], John the Baptist preaches ... baptism for the forgiveness of sins" which seems relatively straightforward to me. A note in my Bible translation (New American Bible, footnote to Matthew 3:6) states, "Ritual washing was practiced by various groups in Palestine between 150 B.C. and A.D. 250. John's baptism may have been related to the purificatory washings of the Essenes at Qumran." -- MatthewDBA 12:21, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

That is one take on it. Catholics perceive it largely as the ritual of initiation into the church -from which other possibilities flow -such as the other dependent sacraments, and eventually salvation, etc... This whole discussion is oversimplified to the point where it doesn't make any sense. --IseeEwe (talk) 04:48, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Section "Jesus' baptism"

This section is overlong, and I see the reason why; paragraphs 3 to 13 are written like a sort of essay, completely wrong tone, etc. I, personally, found nothing in it worth of inclusion, but it's such a large block of text that I thought I'd get people's opinions before excising it. Dr. eXtreme 18:01, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

No objections. I'm gettin' rid of the chunk. Dr. eXtreme 12:48, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Spelling

Since the oldest version of the page uses American spellings ("baptize", "pedobaptism", "fulfill" rather than "baptise", "paedobaptism", "fulfil"), and since the topic is not closely associated with any English-speaking country, I have restored consistent American spellings in the article and added the {{American English}} tag above. —Angr 08:39, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Actually it might not be clear, but as the original creator of that oldest version, I would have used Canadian spelling. I would thus write baptize but also favourably and centre. Baptise is also a valid Canadian spelling, so I don't think there was any need to change that. - SimonP (talk) 12:06, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

How do Canadians spell p(a)edobaptism and fulfil(l), though? For both of those you used what look to me like US spellings. +Angr 12:41, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

"Fulfill" was in a faithfully rendered quotation (as were possibly all the cases of "baptize"). In British and, I presume, Canadian spelling, both the ae and the e forms are certainly admitted in words like - here I will use the unique US spelling, though it permits confusion between words derived from Greek παῖς, παιδός and words derived from Latin pes, pedis - pederast, pederasty, pediatrician, pediatrics, pediatrist; and the e form is the only form used in words like pedagogy. So I see no reason to consider the e form in pedobaptism as an exclusively US spelling. The WP:RETAIN rule says that, not the original spelling, but whatever spelling style has established itself should be retained. It seems that in this article the presence of favourably and centre may indicate that the non-US spelling had prevailed. Perhaps the only exclusively US spellings were in quotations. I suspect that SimonP's position is the correct one. Soidi (talk) 14:57, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

"Fulfill" was in a quotation from the Bible, so "faithful rendering" depends on which translation was used. (And anyway, Google shows that "fulfill" is 6 times more common than "fulfil" on sites in the .ca domain.) "Baptize" wasn't used in any quotations at all. Anyway, I don't mind moving back to SimonP's Canadian spellings (baptize, favourably, centre); the point is that the page should be consistent, which it wasn't before my edits - it had a mixture of "baptise" and "baptize", "favourably" and "favor", and so on. +Angr 15:18, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I've restored the Canadian spellings, including "baptize" because that seems to be more common in Canada than "baptise" (although both are correct). "Fulfill" and "pedobaptism" don't occur in the current version of the article anyway. I've also changed the tag above to {{Canadian English}}. +Angr 15:34, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, that resolves everything. - SimonP (talk) 20:51, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Voice of God

We don't seem to mention this rather notable aspect of the Gospel narratives at all, despite a great deal of no doubt learned wittering on about other matters! Johnbod (talk) 04:16, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Baptism of Jesus mentioned in the Gospel according to John

The article on the Baptism of Jesus makes the claim that the Baptism of Jesus Christ is not included in the Book of John. This claim does not seem correct when one studies John 1:29-34:

The next day John sees Jesus coming to him, and says, Behold the Lamb of God, which takes away the sin of the world. This is He of whom I said, After me comes a man which is preferred before me: for He was before me. And I knew Him not: but that He should be made manifest to Israel, therefore am I come baptizing with water. And John bare record, saying, I saw the Spirit descending from heaven like a dove,* and it abode upon Him. And I knew Him not: but He that sent me to baptize with water, the same said unto me, Unto whom you shall see the Spirit descending, and remaining on Him, the same is He whith baptizeth with the Holy Spirit. And I saw, and bare record that this is the Son of God.

• Spirit descending from heaven like a dove is recorded as happening at the Baptism of the Lord Jesus Christ in the account of the Baptism of Jesus in Matthew 3:16, Mark 1:10, and Luke 3:22.
  • The relationship of Jesus Christ as the Baptizer in the Holy Spirit is found in the texts of Christ's Baptism in Matthew 3:11, and Mark 1:8.

That the Baptism of Jesus Christ is found in all Gospels is important. The reason for the Baptism of Jesus Christ is found in Christ's to John the Baptist conversation in Matthew 3:15 - "But Jesus answered him, "Let it be so now, for thus it is fitting for us to fulfill all righteousness." Jesus Christ is setting an example for Christians to follow. Not only is the idea of Water Baptism found in the texts of the Gospels on Christ's Baptism, also the Baptism with the Holy Spirit and the Baptism of Suffering is also included. The Lord Jesus Christ desires a Chistian to be Baptised in Water, Baptized in the Holy Spirit, and Baptized with the suffering that a Christian is likely to go through in this world. On this Pentecost Sunday I say look to the Baptizer of the Holy Spirit in order to be Baptized in the Holy Spirit, (...the same is He which baptizeth with the Holy Spirit.)

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Easeltine (talk • contribs) 14:22, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

In the Gospel according to John, the baptism of Jesus is described the day after it happened in Jn 1:29-33.

In this section of Jn, John the Baptist sees Jesus by the river Jordan coming towards him. John the Baptist was able to recognize Jesus because of what happened on the previous day. John did not know who Jesus was until he saw the Spirit coming down on Jesus like a dove from heaven and rest on him during his baptism. It is the baptism of Jesus that happened on the previous day that is described in Jn 1:30-33. He who sent John to baptise with water had said to him 'the man on whom you see the Spirit come down and rest is the one who is to baptise with the Holy Spirit'. And that it was the Spirit coming down and resting on Jesus that John saw during Jesus' baptism. John's purpose for baptising was for the revelation of Jesus Christ to Israel.

On the day after Jesus' baptism, John again meets Jesus by the river Jordan and he testified on what had happened previously. Alan347 (talk) 10:32, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

There is no narrative of Jesus' baptism in John's gospel

The gospel writer does not directly describe the baptism of Jesus. He describes John the Baptist talking about the events that occurred at the baptism. But even the Baptist is not directly quoted as referring to Jesus' baptism - he talks about his own mission to baptize, and to be the instrument of Jesus' being revealed to Israel. He talks about the Holy Spirit coming down on Jesus. And there can be no doubt that even though the Baptist doesn't directly say (in the text) "I baptized Jesus", the gospel writer expected the reader to know and understand that John was talking about what happened when Jesus was baptized. The baptism of Jesus is taken for granted, and not mentioned

Nor does the phrase "the next day" mean "the day after Jesus' baptism". How can it, when the preceding passage (verses 19 to 28) doesn't mention the baptism at all? "The next day" means, in this context, "The day after the conversation with the priests and Levites from Jerusalem."

Verse 43 talks of Jesus' decision two days later to go to Galilee, which intention he carries out in chapter 2. If John is talking about the baptism the day after it happened, then this account of a the journey to Galilee contradicts the Synoptic Gospel accounts of Jesus going into the wilderness for 40 days and nights. You may be happy to let the assumed contradiction stand. But the contradiction disappears if we assume that verses 29 to 34 refer to something that happened after Jesus returned from the wilderness, six weeks after the baptism. Koro Neil (talk) 09:58, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Sentence that doesn't make sense

"Erasmus' 1516 translation and commentary (in Latin) became the first to use "repentance" (in Latin, paenitentia?) rather than "penitence" (in Latin, paenitentia?)."

So... Erasmus, writing in Latin, used the word paenitentia instead of ... the word paenitentia. ???

Oops, this was me Vultur (talk) 04:22, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Historicity section

A few WP:OR cn tags were added to this section now, and I think rightly so. In any case, the arguments presented therein and the Gosp of Heb etc. are all rather lukewarm, compared to the more solid Josephus reference (already mentioned further up in the article). I think those need to get axed and replaced by Josephus which is usually used to establish historicity in its own right, the links being Acts 10:37-38, and Antiquities of the Jews 18.5.2. History2007 (talk) 06:20, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Sounds good to me, I was tempted to axe it myself. Dougweller (talk) 11:04, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Ok, let us wait another day and if no other comments I will do it, and clean up a couple of the large images that get in the way of the text. History2007 (talk) 15:02, 29 October 2011 (UTC) History2007 (talk) 15:02, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

On that note, now that I have actually looked through here, there are large pieces of text with no source and many of them with sweeping generalizations. And some statements that can have excellent WP:RS sources instead use local websites like this. I think those need to get cleaned out too. History2007 (talk) 10:35, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Just a note here that those issues have been cleaned up. History2007 (talk) 17:59, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Most modern scholars agree?

This phrase keeps popping up in all the historicity and related articles in dealing with Jesus, but I can't find the actual reference to any poll or data point taken by scholars. It's just an assumption, and worse, a biased one at that. I call for its removal. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Positronics (talk • contribs) 01:18, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

What section/sentence are you specifically referencing? Ckruschke (talk) 13:56, 8 November 2013 (UTC)Ckruschke

And what change would you propose instead of "most modern scholars agree"? HectorMoffet (talk) 20:06, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

The introduction uses the phrase "modern theologians", but in the Historicity section the phrases "Most modern scholars", "overwhelming majority of modern scholars", "almost all modern scholars" and "most scholars" are used. These are all clearly subjective phrases with no reference to any evidence. As to replacements, why the need to refer to "scholars" at all, why should the number of students who may or not believe in something be of relevance in this article? Markb (talk) 08:42, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

What is the editorial position ??

This article is a mess. Is this article a book report on the biblical stories of Jesus, a look at the baptism story from differing faith perspectives, an historical study of Jesus, or an exegesis? Right now the article is a mess. It is not neutral, verifiable, coherent, clear, focused or comprehensive. The reliability is highly questionable. Dunn is a theologian, not a historian or archaeologist. Harrington a priest and again, not a historian or archaeologist. Most references relate to scholars from a religious perspective investigating the biblical Jesus, not to historians or archaeologists investigating the physical/historical record. Assertions of the "historicity" of Jesus, by Christian priests and theologians, is not reliable or neutral. This article should be a straight up exegesis, an explanation of the various Christian beliefs of this story, or scrapped until it is written by an historian or archaeologist. It cannot be all three in one. --IseeEwe (talk) 04:30, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

POV tone re historicity of baptism

The claim that "Based on this criterion, given that John baptised for the remission of sins, and Jesus was viewed as without sin, the invention of this story would have served no purpose, and would have been an embarrassment given that it positioned John above Jesus" seems somewhat misleading, or at the very least, not properly challenged with a balancing view.

There are indeed reasons why the story might be 'invented', for example:

• Some fashion of anointing was required in the narrative.
• A display of humility, similar to 'Jesus washing the disciples' feet'.

Whilst it may be the case that a particular Jewish person was indeed baptised by John, it certainly is not the case that there is 'no reason to invent it'.--Jeffro77 (talk) 01:55, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Baptism of Jesus. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120716141128/http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/travels/documents/hf_jp-ii_spe_20000322_al-maghtas_en.html to http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/travels/documents/hf_jp-ii_spe_20000322_al-maghtas_en.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:15, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Russian? (Bulgarian?) Website

Reference number 9 in this article right now is to something in Cyrillic. If any kind person can read it, it would be helpful if we get a translation, and maybe some kind of indication of whether this website is a reliable source or something more personal-blog-like. Alephb (talk) 19:57, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Historicity

This is a clear distortion and assertion of a counterfactual, i.e. that most/all modern secular scholars view this as historical. I expected the §, to say that Josephus or somesuch had attested to the fact but there's no such thing, so it's just a surmise that is asserted as a probable historical fact. For a contemporary comparison, the death of Octavian on 19 August 14 is a historical fact, that Livia poisoned him has about the same support as this assertion. 98.4.103.219 (talk) 00:11, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

Just noticed the thread above and the apparent premature declaration of a resolution, presumably by someone who thinks religious sources are sufficient. 98.4.103.219 (talk) 02:10, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

Further, it's an absurd embarrassment and illogical statement for this to be on the front page when the truth is that it's only the case that most serious, secular scholars accept that there probably was actually a person upon which the Christ myth is based (unlike John the Baptist who is historically attested) but that not a single fact establishes his historicity, it in fact is nil. Therefore it cannot be the case that a specific incident in a such an individual's life has historicity. 98.4.103.219 (talk) 02:20, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

The front page blurb has addressed this by specifying the authorities as religious. 98.4.103.219 (talk) 02:25, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

Merger proposal

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I propose to merge Baptism of the Lord into Baptism of Jesus. This has been suggested on that article's Talk page since 2008. The presence of both articles is somewhat confusing, and presenting the information together would help the reader to gain the full context. AndrewNJ (talk) 23:22, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

Can't see any reason not to. Manannan67 (talk) 04:15, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

I can see a potential downside, though perhaps one that is easily solved. If one wants more information on the Roman Catholic liturgical feast (as I did today), it makes sense to have an article with the name as used by the Church. I would hate to see something so specific get buried in such a long article. Any potential merger must include a redirect to the precise section.

Otherwise, how about an {{about}} hatnote template instead? Perhaps something like:

This article is about the liturgical celebration of the baptism of Jesus. For additional biblical context, see Baptism of Jesus.

Just my two cents.

1980fast (talk) 21:12, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose. the normal practice is to split biblical stories and liturgical observances: e.g. Transfiguration of Jesus and Feast of the Transfiguration. StAnselm (talk) 00:37, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

I wouldn't say that - some do, some don't, for example Visitation (Christianity) (and the non-biblical Presentation of Mary) or Pentecost. It rather depends on length I think. Johnbod (talk) 02:36, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

@StAnselm: it is Transfiguration of Jesus and Feast of the Transfiguration, not Transfiguration of Jesus and Transfiguration of Lord. —usernamekiran (talk) 09:16, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

• strong support: @Johnbod, 1980fast, StAnselm, AndrewNJ, and Manannan67: if these articles are about the same ropic, then merge them; otherwise split Death of Adolf Hitler into Death of Adolf Hitler (the death), Death of Hitler — post death stuff, and Death of Führer — about conspiracy theories. If the articles in discussion are not about the same topic, then rename one of them appropriately. —usernamekiran (talk) 09:07, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I'd be happy with a new name - such as Feast of the Baptism of Christ - but that's a separate discussion. StAnselm (talk) 14:20, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Not necessarily - I think the best solution is either to merge, or to keep the feast(s) under a different name. I don't think the Orthodox name should be used (per our usual practice). There are very clearly two different topics - the merge decision really depends on length. Johnbod (talk) 05:15, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

@StAnselm and Johnbod: apologies for the delayed reply. I dont know much about the subject of both the articles. If they are about different topics, then they should stay separate. They shouldnt be merged regardless their size. But I believe both the articles should be renamed properly. I am switching my vote to neutral. I will request for closure of this discussion soon after this comment. —usernamekiran (talk) 17:32, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Ok - User:StAnselm fancy proposing a move at the feast article? Actually, what is the WP:COMMONNAME in the major Western denominations? Johnbod (talk) 17:49, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

I'd support a rename of the feast rather than a merge. Maybe add "(feast)" for clarification if there's not a distinct name of the feast? -- Beland (talk) 10:38, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

A rename seems better than a full merge. Would 'day' be in the title ("feast day" rather than "feast")? Randy Kryn (talk) 13:08, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Perhaps "day" isn't needed. But there's also the issue of Jesus/Christ/the Lord. Hence my question what is the WP:COMMONNAME in the major Western denominations? Evangelicals prefer Jesus to Christ, but they don't celebrate the feast (much at all) - right? Johnbod (talk) 13:27, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

rename discussion

@Johnbod, 1980fast, StAnselm, AndrewNJ, Manannan67, Beland, and Randy Kryn: I think we should initiate a formal move discussion now. I would have done it myself, but I am currently on mobile, and I also don't know what the new title should be. Would any of you kindly start a formal move discussion? —usernamekiran (talk) 18:51, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Doing a search for the most common name - this Revised Common Lectionary website has "Baptism of the Lord". Maybe that's the most common English name after all. StAnselm (talk) 19:08, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

For reasons the article makes clear, the feast list at the Church of England official site doesn't list it.

Since we are now talking about renaming Baptism of the Lord, I will copy this section to talk there. PLEASE CONTINUE THE DISCUSSION HERE. Johnbod (talk) 00:42, 7 February 2021 (UTC)