>There are four different accounts of Jesus' baptism, one of which
>(John) does not mention a voice. This points out what Brown is
>getting at when he warns against overly naive readings. Based on the
>four accounts, it is unclear to me whether there was a voice, or if
>there was, who heard it(Jesus only, John the Baptist or the
>audience)<
John does not exactly give an account of the baptism of Jesus; John
the Baptist refers back to it but does not give a full description,
so the omission of mention of the voice there does not seem
significant. The synoptics all mention a voice from heaven. They do
not say who heard it or how, but someone had to hear something for
the event to be recorded.
John 12:29 is rather more explicit about a noise that was heard by
the crowd, though only some identified it as words.
>This [part of Daniel] is definitely incorrect. Darius became king
>many years after Belshazzar, and was preceded by other Persian
>Kings, notably Cyrus the Great. <
This depends on the equation of Darius the Mede of Daniel with Darius
I, the rather later king of Persia. However, conservative
commentators have suggested that "the Mede" is intended to
distinguish Daniel's character from Darius I. Assuming that Darius
the Mede is someone known under another name in the other accounts,
Cyrus would probably provide the best match.
It also presumes an odd mix of flagrant error and detailed knowledge
on the part of the author. A Maccabean forger knew about the
existence of Belshazzar and the lack of a siege or defense at
Babylon, yet was ignorant of Cyrus and did not even read Ezra?
Dr. David Campbell
Old Seashells
University of Alabama
Biodiversity & Systematics
Dept. Biological Sciences
Box 870345
Tuscaloosa, AL 35487 USA
bivalve@mail.davidson.alumlink.com
That is Uncle Joe, taken in the masonic regalia of a Grand Exalted
Periwinkle of the Mystic Order of Whelks-P.G. Wodehouse, Romance at
Droitgate Spa
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Jun 26 2002 - 21:52:46 EDT