Goosing Anthony Le Donne


August 22, 2014 by Harnessing Chaos

Anthony Le Donne, one of the most important advocates of social memory studies in historical Jesus and New Testament studies, likes being goosed by ‘a good Johannine parenthetical statement’. And who doesn’t? In this instance, Anthony wants to challenge one point on the use of John in historical Jesus studies which I raised in a previous blog post. However, I’m not sure this is actually a point of disagreement between us. In fact, I think I agree with his general point.

Anthony has raised the question, ‘Did Jesus baptize’? This is based on the contradictory accounts in John 3.22 and John 4.1-3. Anthony adds:

Why is the Fourth Evangelist so concerned that we might think that Jesus was baptizing? Furthermore, why doesn’t the author correct or clarify to this effect a chapter earlier when the topic is introduced? And why is it a problem that the Pharisees think that Jesus was baptizing? Finally, we have a fascinating “he learned” that they “had heard” situation. Are we to imagine that the Judean rumor mill has run amok?
But embedded in this politicized counter-memory is a memory of a specific rumor about Jesus. Could it be that some Pharisees in the late first-century believed that Jesus baptized people en masse? Given the way the storyteller presents this datum, I would tend to think so.

Yes, it would certainly seem that this is, at the very least, a view which was present at the end of the first century for reasons Anthony gives. Anthony makes a further suggestion:

And it is possible that Jesus did baptist. Indeed we might think of Jesus’ foot washing and Peter’s request to be washed entire differently in this light. Given that Jesus had a high respect for John the Baptist, this claim is worth considering. Not only is it historically possible, it had enough traction to have created a minor controversy. The Fourth Evangelist seeks to create distinction between Jesus and John and thus interjects a counter-memory. Whether or not we conclude that Jesus was a baptizer is a thesis left for another day. My point here is much more limited: the Fourth Evangelist’s not so subtle attempts to revise the tradition betray information that we would not otherwise have. Without the Fourth Gospel, the question “did Jesus baptize?” is simply uninteresting.

I would go along with that too. It certainly does raise a question that might not otherwise be raised and does show that such thinking was present when John’s Gospel was being composed. Anthony doesn’t make the case for this going back to the time of the historical Jesus, though possible suggestions are raised. But I also think this discussion shows some of the limitations of John’s Gospel. While accepting that there may be exceptions throughout John, we are left with difficulties tracing this idea back, and this is only problematized further by its absence from the Synoptic tradition. There are further problems with this specific example, if we were to push for the idea of the historical Jesus baptising. Could it have been that a tradition about Jesus baptising was invented some decades after Jesus’ death, perhaps to counter the importance of John? Perhaps, perhaps not. Were there (mis-)readings of Pauline views of baptism? Perhaps, perhaps not. And then there is this tradition (linked with Ephesus, where John may well have been written):

While Apollos was in Corinth, Paul passed through the inland regions and came to Ephesus, where he found some disciples. He said to them, ‘Did you receive the Holy Spirit when you became believers?’ They replied, ‘No, we have not even heard that there is a Holy Spirit.’ Then he said, ‘Into what then were you baptized?’ They answered, ‘Into John’s baptism.’ Paul said, ‘John baptized with the baptism of repentance, telling the people to believe in the one who was to come after him, that is, in Jesus.’ On hearing this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. When Paul had laid his hands on them, the Holy Spirit came upon them, and they spoke in tongues and prophesied—altogether there were about twelve of them. (Acts 19.1-7)

Whatever is behind this, there were, clearly, some differing views on baptism by the end of the first century, some (most? all?) associated with John the Baptist, some also with Jesus, some not with Jesus, some with the holy spirit, and some not with the holy spirit. Unfortunately, there appears to have been some confusion (again, associated in some way with Ephesus) about baptism and, while I agree with Anthony’s main point, for my purposes of trying to understand the kinds of ideas, traditions, or memories potentially present in the 30s (or what others might understand as getting back to the historical Jesus), this Johannine tradition remains limited on the basis of the material with which we can work. Is it possible John is countering a much earlier memory or tradition? Certainly. But it is too difficult to say anything with any comparative degree of certainty in this specific case…or is it, Anthony…?


3 thoughts on “Goosing Anthony Le Donne

  1. Thanks James, I have argued in many places that the historian must gather as much data as possible and do her/his best to explain all of it plausibly. My worry is that your previous post argues for the bracketing out of certain material (namely, the FG). Rather than bracketing it out, I would like historians to explain it all in a robust way. Explain it as fiction or fact or memory or counter-memory or whatever, but don’t dismiss it from the conversation. -anthony


  2. Deane says:

    “the historian must gather as much data as possible and do her/his best to explain all of it plausibly”

    This suggested procedural direction (from “data” to explanation) might not be as quite at odds with typical historical procedure as it sounds. But do you agree with R.G. Collingwood’s point that no historical “data” or evidence comes “ready made”? esp: “You can’t collect your evidence before you begin thinking… because thinking means asking questions … and nothing is evidence except in relation to some definite question”. And if so, would it not be proper to judge some evidence/”data”, in relation to the historical questions being asked, of dubious or even spurious relevance from the beginning of one’s investigations? And if so, is this judgment really the a priori “bracketing out” that you imply it is, or is it the result of the ordinary procedures of historical judgment?

    Liked by 1 person

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

Selected recent publications

%d bloggers like this: