Desert Dunking: 2,000 years ago & next week.

Where did the Baptist dunk Jesus?

Winter, AD 27

Sorry, I don't know. And nobody else knows, either.

But I'm going to be doing some self-dunking wayyy out in the desert next week, and I'm distracted. I looked into John's baptism spot and found more claimants than you can shake a stick at. So I'll give you an overview of John's sweet spot, and then I'll give you a peek into my sweet spot for next week's dunkings.

Where did John Baptize Jesus?

Ready? Okay, jump into the time travel machine with me. Our first stop is 1200 BC. Gideon has been selected by God to judge Israel, and his first job is to kick out all the Midianites who had been oppressing Israel (Judges chapter 7). God gives him victory in battle and Gideon rouses up the tribe of Ephraim to chase them back over the Jordan River. They chase them as far as Beth-Bara and capture their kings. Now Beth-Bara is Hebrew for "place of the [river] crossing," likely a shallow ford where the water won't sweep you away. But since Beth also means "house," this could be the housing location of a ferry-boat crossing. Starting from Ephraim's territory going east, the most likely spot would be the river crossing near Jericho (not far from Jerusalem) where God parted the waters to bring the Israelites into Canaan.

Why did I just say all that? Hang on, I'll get to that. But remember Beth-Bara.

Back to the time machine. This time you set the dial for AD 27, when Jesus gets baptized. (Remember that Jesus was born in 4-5 BC, so he's about 31-32 years old.) Click forward a couple months on the time machine and we find Jesus inviting his first disciples to a wedding in Cana. They walk to Cana (couldn't hail a taxi) and get there on the third day, before the wine was poured.

Now if John was baptizing near Jericho, Cana is a fur piece--some sixty miles if you're a winged creature, and considerably farther if you're a biped. So maybe John was baptizing a bit closer to Jesus' home territory of Galilee. Hang with me, we'll get back to this also.

Time machine time: Set the dial for AD 90. Here we find John the Evangelist (I say he's the same  as John the Apostle) writing his magnificent Gospel. The other three Gospels have been out in print for 30 years or so, but none of the other evangelists have thought that the location of Jesus' baptism was important enough to tell us about it. And then, and then, and then, along comes John, and he tells us that "these things took place in Bethany beyond the Jordan" (John 1:28, NASB).

But wait a minute. My beloved KJV says that "these things were done in Bethabara beyond Jordan." What's going on here? For the full answer--or at least a hint--we will have to hop back in to the time machine.

Set the dial for AD 220. Here we find a man named Origen, who's one of the ancient Fathers of the Church. He's got the gospels in his hand, and he's using them as a gazetteer--a written atlas--and he's touring the Holy Land trying to find all the places where Jesus stepped foot. (Not recommended, by the way--the gospels were written to teach us the Kingdom of God, not a history or geography lesson.) But Origen can't find any such place as "Bethany beyond Jordan."

Now hold still--this won't hurt, I promise. We're going to do a lesson in "Textual Criticism." Now Origen has seen many copies of John's Gospel, and nearly all of them said "Bethany beyond Jordan," but a couple of them say Bethabara." Not only that, but Origen's translation for Bethabara is "House of Preparation," which he thinks is a quite fortuitous name for the site of Jesus' baptism. (His translation is wrong, but never mind that.) Origen adopts Bethabara as the "more accurate" reading, and others began to follow his teaching. Those others include John Chrysostom, another Father of the Church, some 60 years later. Chrysostom says, "Bethany is neither beyond the Jordan, nor in the desert, but is somewhere near Jerusalem," so that is not logical.

So most of the earliest and best manuscripts say "Bethany," while a few others, supported by  two venerable fathers of the church, say "Bethabara." Which shall we choose? The textual criticism test is this: If the original autograph that John the Evangelist wrote said "Bethabara," why would anyone change it to "Bethany?" Bethabara is the "easier" text, and we can't explain why it would have been changed to Bethany.  Here we apply the guideline of "choosing the more difficult text," which is "Bethany beyond Jordan." In this case we have actual history of why it got changed.

(By the way, this is not the only time that Origen fooled around with the text of the Gospels. There's confusion about where Jesus met the man with a legion of demons, and in John: Episode Two I had to deal with that. But that's for a future blog post.)

Okay, back to the time machine. Take us home. You do remember how to operate this contraption? Good, then engage.

Today, if you consult the Biblical maps, you may find "Bethany beyond Jordan" on some of them, and "Bethabara" on others, but maps will disagree on where to place the dot that shows its location. Some maps even have both names. If you think that the mapmakers are guessing, you are probably correct, because there is no definite archaeological evidence for the site of Jesus' baptism. Oh yes, there is archaeological evidence for churches and monasteries supposedly at the sweet spot (both on the Jordan and far from it), but those ancient Christians were likely guessing also. Besides, we gotta have a location somewhere, 'cause the tourists are coming, and they want to see it.

And me too. Plus, I had to have a location for it because I'm writing a book with lots of action that takes place there. So I found at least one map that showed the spot as being on the Jordan just south of the Sea of Galilee and I picked that one. Why? First, that spot is on one of the caravan routes between Damascus and Jerusalem, and I figured that would bring a lot of customers in for this "baptism" thing he was doing. Also, if I were doing the hike, I think I could make it from there to Cana "on the third day." I'd really like to do that some day. And I didn't wanna have to resort to holy teleportation to get Jesus and his disciples to the wedding on time.

But, back to my distraction, which is probably a good thing. Without it, there's no telling how long and boring I would have made this blog post.

So, where am I going next week?

Here's a photo of that. This is the Wizard Pool, one of the hot soaking pools near Palm Spring in the Saline Valley, a suburb of Death Valley National Monument. When I lived there in ages past, there were 3 year-round residents in the valley--me and two others. The temperatures remained below 118 degrees in the daytime, and above 7 degrees at night.

West of this spot is Lower Warm Spring, a former hideout for Charles Manson and various hippies. It is accompanied by several soaking pools, some tables, a lawn, and real pit toilets. East of this spot is Upper Warm Spring, still undeveloped and natural. 12 miles west of here are the Inyo Mountains, rising steeply to Ten Thousand Feet.

I'M GOING!  It's been 20 years since I've been there. My family and their friends are going also! We're going hiking in the Inyos!  We're having a potluck on Thanksgiving! 

Did I mention I was distracted?

There won't be a blog post next Friday, 'cause I don't have a carrier pigeon to carry the text out to someone who has access to the World Wide Web. This place doesn't even have radio reception, except from Boise Idaho on AM radio during night-time hours only. Besides, I'm distracted.

Pray, please, for safe travel. See you in two weeks.

What Language Did Jesus Speak?

Aramaic? Hebrew? Greek?  Latin?

Or did Jesus speak more than one language?

Scholars, especially scholars of the 19th and 20th centuries, have been divided on the language of Jesus. From the pat answers of the past, we have evolved to a more nuanced understanding. From my viewpoint, I stand mostly on the shoulders of scholars before me, especially the Jerusalem School of Synoptic Studies (through the Pasadena teachings of E. William Bean), and on discoveries during research for my Master's thesis on the Letter of Jude (especially from the foremost scholar on Jude, Richard J. Bauckham). I have also consulted the excellent Patheos blog post of Mark D. Roberts to refresh my mind on this subject.

Jesus Spoke Aramaic

Aramaic was the language of the East, with roots in what is now Iraq. Starting in the 6th century BC, conquerors from the east established Aramaic as the official government language of the region of Galilee and Judea. By the time of Jesus, Aramaic was still the most common language in Palestine, even though the official government language was now Greek, brought in by Alexander the Great and his successors, and reinforced by the dominance of the Roman Empire. Aramaic would be especially prominent in rural villages such as Nazareth where Jesus grew up, while Greek would be more common in the newer, Roman-inspired cities such as nearby Sepphoris.

We have solid Biblical evidence that Jesus spoke Aramaic. Although the Gospels are written in Greek, in certain places they quote actual Aramaic words spoken by Jesus. Prominent among these is Mark 5:41, in which Jesus enters a home in Capernaum where a young girl has died. Jesus held her hand and said to her, "Talitha, koum!" which means, "Little girl, get up!"  These are words in Aramaic, the common language of the people, and the most likely words that the girl would understand.

Jesus spent a considerable portion of his ministry going from small town to small town, preaching the message of the Gospel. In these circumstances he would be mostly using Aramaic, to be understood by the majority of his listeners there.

Jesus spoke Hebrew.

Since the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls, we now know that the overwhelming majority of the manuscripts of the Old Testament in first-century Palestine were written in the original Hebrew language. In Egypt the Jews used the Greek translation of the Scriptures, but in Palestine, most synagogues would read from the original Hebrew. After a reading from the Five Books of Moses, their liturgical worship would go on to the Haftarah, a reading "after the Torah" from the books of the prophets. It was just such a reading that we find Jesus doing in Nazareth at Luke 4:16, showing that he not only spoke Hebrew, but also could read it from a scroll, and had been doing that as "his custom."

If he then translated that reading into Aramaic for the listeners in the synagogue we do not know. He may have expected his listeners to understand Hebrew. More likely, Luke skips over the translation task and cuts to the chase: Jesus' pesher "inspired interpretation" of the reading, delivered in the common language of the people, Aramaic (Luke 4:21). This method of teaching from scripture is well attested from the Dead Sea Scrolls collection.

But on other occasions, Jesus would have been using Hebrew as the prime language. Hebrew was the "language of religious discourse" used by scribes and by the great schools in Jerusalem. Jesus would have used Hebrew when he was in dialogue with Jerusalem's Pharisees and Scribes (Matthew 15:1-9) about matters of Jewish law, putting himself on a level plain with the great teachers of Jerusalem, who considered him and his disciples to be "unschooled."

Hebrew was also the language of patriots and zealots, the "national language" of those opposed to outside rulers, even as it is today. Jesus had at least one of these zealots among his disciples, and he may have used Hebrew when teaching such nationalists a more precise understanding of the Gospel message.

Jesus spoke Greek.

This is less certain than Aramaic or Hebrew, for we lack a direct citation of him speaking in Greek. Mark Roberts notes that we find Jesus in conversation with the Roman governor Pilate, who might not want to "lower" himself to speaking the common language--and certainly would not hear an official trial in anything but Greek. But here again, if there were translators present the Gospel writers would likely pass over their role in silence.

More to the point, Greek was prevalent in the major cities (perhaps not Jerusalem) and would have been the language of commerce. There were any number of major construction projects under way around Galilee, not only in Sepphoris but also in Herod Antipas' regional capital of Herodias on the shore of the Sea of Galilee. As a construction worker (the real meaning of "carpenter"), Jesus during his earlier 30 years would have worked on some of these projects, where great sums of money were spent to build elaborate structures.

For use of Greek I would point to Jesus' older brother Jude, one of the many offspring of Joseph and his first wife, before Mary. (This was the familial relationship understood and accepted during the first 200 years of Christianity--and certainly not a "cousin.") Jude's letter, while lacking in structures such as dependent clauses, is a powerful seven-minute sermon in fine sophisticated Greek using a broad vocabulary with sound structures such as alliteration and onomatopoeia. Jude certainly was exposed to Greek during his two or more years in Egypt as a boy, and I find it hard to accept that Jesus, although he was a toddler in Egypt, would not have picked up Greek from his four brothers and his two or three sisters.

Jesus may not have spoken Latin.

Although it is certain that there would have been Latin loan-words that crept into the Aramaic and Greek languages, the Roman Empire did not require Latin for its dependent territories to its east. On the other hand, there were Rome-loving cities in Syria and Palestine (the 10 towns of the Decapolis) where they were eager to adopt anything Roman, and would likely value its language. But the Bible does not attest to dealings of Jesus in these Rome-loving areas other than the boat trip that put him in contact with the man possessed by a legion of demons. The reaction of the citizens of the area was to ask Jesus to kindly leave the premises.

So, Jesus spoke Aramaic, Hebrew, and Greek, and could probably read all three. This is far from some of the teachings of mid-20th century Christianity, which loved to portray Jesus and his disciples as uneducated, illiterate, poverty-stricken peons of the Nazareth countryside. Although Jesus had much to say about the treatment of such common people, these other perceptions were well off the mark.

But what about our teenage hero John? What language(s) does he speak? He grew up in the Aramaic-speaking village of Bethsaida, so that part's known. But does he speak Hebrew? If so, where did he learn it? And Greek? Same questions. If John the Baptist in his wilderness outpost takes young John in as his disciple, will he have to teach him how to read the Hebrew scrolls? Check out Episode One, where I deal with these issues in chapters 3 through 7!

Roman Soldiers Submitted to John's Baptism.

It's really true - here's the facts.

Preachers & scholars have said the soldiers were not Roman.

Luke 3:10-14 recounts some conversations between John the Baptist and people who have just been (or are just about to be) baptized by him in the Jordan River. First he speaks with the general crowd, then with tax collectors, and then with soldiers.

I've encountered professors and preachers who say these "soldiers" must be temple police, for surely they could not be soldiers of the occupying Roman army. Others leave the possibilities open. But on the other hand, what would temple police employed by the Jewish establishment in Jerusalem be doing hanging out with an anti-establishment prophet down by the Jordan? That doesn't seem to be a career-friendly move on the part of such a "soldier." So this week I did the research.

Let's look at how Luke uses soldiers in the first (Gospel) and second (Acts) parts of the two-volume opus he prepared for a Roman dignitary. He refers to army-type soldiers 18 times across the 52 chapters of his opus, and introduces the first group of them in Chapter 3 of his Gospel, in the passage cited above.

The soldiers at the Jordan:

ONE: Before the conversations in Luke 3 begin, we catch the end of the Baptist's sermon, in which he says, "Don't say to yourselves, 'We have Abraham as our father.' For I tell you that out of these stones God can raise up children for Abraham." He is telling his Jewish listeners that if they fail to confess their sins, they are in no better position than godless Gentiles.

The Jews ask what they should do, and the Baptist preaches social justice. Then some hated tax collectors ask the same question. They are told to do their jobs as they have been assigned, and not to extort more money than they have been ordered to collect. And then some soldiers (stratuomai) speak up, saying "What about us?"  The Baptist gives them the same instruction, that is, to do their own job and not extort money--to be content with their wages. Stratuomai are soldiers trained for warfare.

I see this as a three-part levelling of the plain. The Jews are not exempt, not even the Jewish tax collector. John doubles down for the soldiers: they must also behave the same. Remember that Luke is writing this opus to a Roman "friend of God," one Theophilus. Luke is implying that not even Theophilus is exempt from this lesson taught by John the Baptist.

The centurion and his soldiers:

 TWO: The next mention of a soldier is imbedded in Luke 7:2-10. A Roman military official (centurion) in Capernaum asks for Jesus'  help, but says that Jesus need not come to him because Jesus is in a position to order things done just like himself, who is a man placed under authority with soldiers (stratiotees)  placed under him that do his bidding. (I will deal in part EIGHT below with the difference in the Greek word used)

This centurion was a lover of the Jewish nation and put up the money to build the synagogue. The lesson for Theophilus is that a person of high office can love the Jewish nation even if he is a Roman.

Herod's soldiers:

THREE: During the trial of Jesus, Herod the kinglet of Galilee and Perea happens to be in town, along with his personal security detail of soldiers. Pilate sends Jesus to Herod, who questions him at length with the chiefs of the temple present. Then Herod and his soldiers (stratuma) mock Jesus, dress him in a royal robe, and send him back to Jesus (Luke 23:7-11). I will deal with the word stratuma in part Eight below.

Theophilus might have noticed that it was not Roman soldiers but Jewish soldiers who were mocking Jesus. This is the only mention of Jewish soldiers by Luke.

Pilate's soldiers:

FOUR: The Roman soldiers (stratiotees) of the crucifixion detail cast lots for Jesus' clothing and joined the temple officials in mocking Jesus, the "King of the Jews" (Luke 23:36). The Roman Centurion in charge of the crucifixion says, "Certainly this man was innocent!" (Luke 23:47). Theophilus' lesson is the great injustice done to Jesus, as attested by a Roman official.

A devout Roman soldier:

FIVE: Cornelius was a Roman Centurion who was a devout respecter of God and friend of the Jews (Acts 10:1-2). He had a devout soldier (stratiotees) working for him who he sent to Joppa to fetch Peter (Acts 10:7-8). Theophilus could certainly identify with these Romans.

Other Roman soldiers in Acts:

SIX: Squads of Roman soldiers are assigned to guard Peter, who escapes anyway (Acts 12:4,6,18).
SEVEN: Soldiers of the Roman cohort rescue Paul from a riot (Acts 21:32,35).
EIGHT: Roman soldiers take Paul to Caesarea in Acts 23:10,27 (stratuma) and Acts 23:23,31 (stratiotees). While Luke appears to use these words interchangeably, stratuma refers to a troop of soldiers while stratiotees refers to a simple plurality of soldiers.
NINE: Roman soldiers guard Paul and other prisoners on a ship (Acts 27:31,39,42).
TEN: A Roman soldier is assigned to guard Paul in Rome (Acts 28:16).

In sum, Luke portrays Roman soldiers in his two-part opus as men who could reasonably be expected to accept a baptismal  immersion at the hand of John the Baptist. When we are in tune with Luke's writings, there is nothing fantastic or unbelievable about such an act.

But still, what about the temple police? Could Luke possibly have meant that Jewish policemen were baptized?

Officers, Magistrates, and the Captain of the Guard:

A soldier is a man of war, trained in battle. A police officer is a civic official, trained to enforce the law. Luke uses a word entirely different from "soldier" to identify an "officer," namely, strateegus.

ELEVEN: The chief priests and officers (strateegus) conspire with Judas (Luke 22:4). Later the chief priests and officers arrest Jesus (Luke 22:52).
TWELVE: The "captain of the temple guard" (strateegus) comes to arrest Peter and John (Acts 4:1), then goes to the temple to fetch them again (Acts 5:24,26). This was the "chief of police" who had a magistrate's job, in that he sat with the chief priests on the Jewish High Council.
THIRTEEN: Paul and Silas are jailed then released by the chief magistrates (strateegus) in Philippi (Acts 16:20,22,36,36,38).
None of these uses of the Greek word quite fit our concept of a policeman.

Roman Policemen:

FOURTEEN: Policemen (rabdouchous) in Philippi do the jailing and releasing under the command of the Roman magistrates (Acts 16:35,38).

In sum, if Luke had meant that anyone other than a Roman soldier was baptized by John, he would have made that clear with different words.

But what did they do with their swords and shields? If they were expected to be baptized in the nude, how did they react? To find that out, you'll need to read the book: See http://rolinbruno.com/