Amaleq13

Regarding the idea of a baptism scene in Q, I wrote:
I don't think argument for it are credible. If there had been a baptism scene, why wouldn't we evidence of it from Mt/Lk?

I don't understand this as an answer to my question. I'm suggesting that both Mt and Lk appear to be responding to Mk's account rather than a shared separate account. I'm suggesting there would be literary evidence of a shared source for the story just as there is literary evidence for other shared material.

I agree and know of no credible arguments for such a conclusion but I would be interested in seeing some.

Vinnie

If there was a baptism account in Q and it was simillr to Mark's we would not expect to see evidence of it since it would be a Mark // Q overlapp. That was my point.


Scholars now try to find minor agreements between Mt and Lk against Mk and so on.This is all speculative but I favor the much less than certain judgment that Q did not have baptismal account.

Vinnie

Amaleq13

I agree! Surely, this must be a Christmas miracle!



PS And I understand you point!

the_cave

There is no "problem". But it's interesting, and could teach us something about the early Christian community.

I didn't presume that the story was true. I presumed that whoever added it believed it was true.

Quote:

That makes no sense. The belief attributed to Trypho provides a motivation to create such a scene whether a baptism actually happened or not. Likewise, simply that a story exists that seems to match the belief we can't assume there was no historical reality.

Absolutely right. I don't disagree.

Interesting. This could also be true, I suppose.

Well, like I say, I believe the name Jesus is lacking a definite article, which is a unique occurence in the text. I can't remember who told me this or where--maybe it was Vorkosigan.

Well, it "matters" in the sense that we're all curious as to what was really going on at the time. And the historicity of certain events might in fact gain credibility, depending on their origins. Or not. How else are we going to find these things out besides by asking questions and looking for answers?

Doctor X

Vork:

Applying "basic logic" we can recognize what Mt and Lk did to Mk--as demonstrated in one case above.

Applying "basic logic" you have committed an ipse dixit not supported by what I wrote. On the contrary, I--and I believe Vinnie demonstrated Mk having J the B clearly subordinate himself to Junior. Nevertheless, allow me to quote it:

Why?

What you need to do, applying "basic logic" is explain why Mk would feel the need to do that and base it on his text. This would include Mk's description of J the B's death. Why would he bother mentioning it? Continuity? He does not even care to create a birth narrative for Junior.

Now does that prove "it" happened? No. However, what is interesting is the manner in which subsequent writers further subordinate J the B to Junior--especially Jn. Nowhere have I argued that the baptism actually happened. I speculate that the level of subordination in Mk suggests it was a tradition he had to deal with. Certainly, the other writers do.

Thus:

Now you have just assumed the event happened, that a J the B group arose, that it first caused problems after Mk--what, they like . . . appeared just after the fall of Jerusalem and started noticing the Junior followers after Mk?--that they really . . . really . . . caused problems in a roughly forty year period after having remained silent for half a century. . . .

If an unkind man, I would deem that rather "sloppy" analysis. Nevertheless, Mk clearly makes J the B subordinate himself to Junior. One can then speculate it was an issue. As I pontificated to Vinnie on another thread, "speculate" does not mean "it happened."

Now, I must confess I am lost, did you reverse terms?

for:

However the tradition can. The tradition that Junior had to be baptised or had followed J the B or whathaveyou implies a subordination.

I am afraid, as shown in the text above, his stressing J the B's subordination does.

Again, "embarrassed" does not have to imply Mk spending sleepless nights wracking his head and gnashing his teeth--does anyone actually "gnash" their teeth? He could have simply recognized the problem and dealt with it without any further thought. Or, to go to the other extreme, he could have been followed by a Raving Band of J the B Followers with Musical Accompaniment constantly heckling him. Who knows?

Or, even, he could have made it up and recognized the need to make sure no one would mistake Junior as being beholding to J the B.

I think what happned with Mt, Lk, and especially Jn is that the tradition became more "difficult"--or, perhaps, the obsessive control freak that Jn is--"Junior is behind EVERYTHING! Even being late to save Lazarus!!"--just went overboard.

Thus, when you make this point:

then you rather concede that Mk could be "embarrassed" or at least concerned by the details.

Another thing [ZZZzzzZZZZzzzZZZzz.--Ed.] which I got from re-reading Who Wrote the Bible?, why bother including anything you do not like? Why, for example, did not the Mosaics simply squish Aaron in the story?

Answer: audience knows the story enough you cannot get rid of the details.

This is the heart of embarrassing or concerning traditions. "Hey, wasn't your guy hung up on a tree by the Romans for a revolt?" "No . . . no . . . heavens! It was the JEWS . . . and he was crucified . . . and, well, he PLANNED it that way!"

With all due respect, Vork, you cannot claim Vinnie and I are wandering off the texts with that speculation. I am not saying it is wrong, I am not writing it is unfounded, just that I do not see it supported by the text of Mk. Mk really does not write about J the B that much. He does not write about his separate teachings. Heck, by that rational, Jn becomes a follower of J the B because he provides a birth for J the B!

Anyways, why I love this subject . . . it is all so certain. . . .

--J.D.

Amaleq13

I assume that the author believed the story to be theologically true even if he had no idea if or how any actual baptism took place.

That doesn't seem like enough to carry the weight of the conclusion but it isn't like I read Greek so I'll have to defer to the experts.

Vorkosigan

Quite true. But arguing that we know what MARK thought about something because Matt and Luke tinkered with his text is like arguing that we know what Polybius thought about something because we know what Suetonius and Tacitus thought about that thing. That is absurd. You want to argue about what Mark thought we he wrote these fictions, you have to argue from the text.

Since I never argued that JBap was not subordinated to Junior, I am at a loss to undestand your response here. The issue, from my point of view, is whether Junior is subordinate to JBap in Mark -- from Mark's point of view.

Yes, and you are lost. Sorry. perhaps I was unclear.

Can you prove that Mark saw it that way? Certainly later groups might have. But embarrassment cannot be demonstrated on the basis of what later groups thought of Mark's tale. You have to demonstrate that Mark thought that, using, as Vinnie put it so delicately, "at least a pinch of consideration for what the texts actually say."

Sure...but quit speculating about it and prove that from the text of Mark!

Right! That's my position. Who knows what the relationship between JBap and Junior was? Certainly not anybody writing today, and certainly not based on the embarrassment criterion, because it cannot logically be applied here.

Yes, that is my feeling.

Sure, anything is possible. But I keep hoping someone will make an argument about it from the text of Mark, not the text of Matthew or Luke.

Precisely. So the fact that Mark included this story, as I noted above, is strong prima facie evidence that he did not find that it reflected badly on Junior, and so the embarrassment criterion cannot be applied to it. Perhaps he intended it as a metaphor for his own journey from follower of JBap to follower of Junior.

But Matt and Luke got rid of details. John got rid of whole story. Q and Thomas don't have it. So the texts themselves cannot support your point of view.

Yes, I can. So far the only person to refer to the text of Mark with regard to the embarrassment criterion and the Baptism is yours truly. The Embarrassment claim is that John's baptism of Jesus is embarrassing, so it must be true. The problem of posed is to show that with the text of Mark and the Christology of Mark, not the text of Matt and Luke and the Christology of John. So far we have nil on that score

He writes quite a bit about JBap. More than about any disciple or any other figure, including Junior's 'rents.

Mark 1:1-14
Mark 2:18
Mark 6 (a lot)
Mark 8:28
Mark 11:30-33

We learn quite a bit about John from Mark.

You mean...Luke? No, Luke followed a second strategy, incorporating John into the family of Jesus.

Me too.....

Vorkosigan

the_cave

This is at least true, probably.

Well...I finally found the thread. Actually, it was Toto who mentioned it to me, and it came from Frank Zindler's The Jesus the Jews Never Knew. So far as I can tell, Frank Zindler is, um, not a mainstream scholar...but I'm not one to necessarily dismiss an argument out of hand. It's an argument that has yet to hit the mainstream, shall we say.

Toto

Frank Zindler is a linguist. He is also a paid staff member of American Atheists, and can get overly polemical.

Peter Kirby posted a good analysis of his work, which I might be able to locate when Bill rebuilds the index.

Thread on Zindler's book

Amaleq13

I've got a copy. I didn't remember the part about the article, though. Now that I've reread it, Zindler does have a point that the transition between 1:13 and 1:14 is pretty awkward. With regard to the article, I notice that he says Mark normally used the article. I'd be more likely to accept this is evidence if I knew how many other times the article is not present and the contexts.

I was more interested in the idea that Mark uses "the Jesus" at all. It reads more like a title than a name but maybe there is a legitimate, linguistic explanation.