Ben Smith responded to this with "I agree":
Mark doesn't have the fire on the water. And reconstructions of *Ev don't have the baptism at all.
This seems like an important clue to the gospel behind canonical Mark. What is this gospel that begins telling of a baptism with fire? Why are its stories suppressed?
This
Fire Gospel
may be the key to gospel origins.
Justin's text also knew the story of the baptism as a story with fire on the water.The idea that the fire motif was suppressed or transformed into "light" makes a lot of sense.Cyprian (or pseudo-Cyprian), On Rebaptism 100.17: 17 There is a concocted book which is inscribed as the Preaching of Paul, in which book, against all the scriptures, you will find Christ even confessing his own sin, who alone failed in nothing at all, and that he was compelled by his own mother Mary almost unwillingly to accept the baptism of John, that likewise, when he was baptized, a fire was seen over the water, which is written in no gospel, and that after so much time Peter and Paul, after the bringing together of the gospel in Jerusalem and the mutual cogitation and the altercation and disposition of matters to be done, finally were in the city (of Rome), as if there first they recognized each other, and certain other things of this nature, absurdly and disgracefully concocted, which you will find all congested in that book.
At the same time, it opens up the question of whether we need to reconsider "Markan priority" as so often conceived. There may be a gospel before it.
Mark doesn't have the fire on the water. And reconstructions of *Ev don't have the baptism at all.
This seems like an important clue to the gospel behind canonical Mark. What is this gospel that begins telling of a baptism with fire? Why are its stories suppressed?
This
Statistics: Posted by Peter Kirby — Sat Jan 25, 2025 4:22 pm