spin

Toto's citation is correct.

I had only looked at certain references in Matthew and Acts, which had no article, but now I see that it is usually prefixed with an article, but then so is Peter!? (I couldn't see others that are similar with a quick scan.)

Hmmm.


spin

Amaleq13

This is all in Mark, correct?

Does the article with "Peter" mean it should read "the Rock" or would that only be with "Cephas"?

Doctor X

Amaleq13:

Honestly, that is far less "subordinating" than having a J the B eating insects, living like Saddam after a heavy invasion and proclaming his subordination. Thus my point stands, undaunted, unshaken, defiant, and a few other adverbs, because it is that J the B subordinates himself that remains "meaningful."

. . . and your socks smell too. . . .

Again, just to reiterate, again, with some repetition in is redundancy, this only suggests a tradition Mk had to, or felt he had to, deal with. It does not tell us much more about the tradition because we do not have anything earlier that I am aware of.

Aaaaaaaaa . . . to a Greek speaking/reading/ possibly therefore Hellenistic audience? I am not sure about that. As for a Jewish audience, I do not think the major prophets ate bugs.

Now do you suggest that Mk made up the baptism? That is possible. Then the "embarrassment" or "concern" is simply him making sure no one could later complain that Junior was "beholdin' to J the B." The problem I have with this is that Mk is relatively late in the mythmaking. I think someone might have noticed this little addition!

Of course, one could counter that the opposing birth narratives of the much later Lk and Mt did not cause hair-tearing either.

What evidence do you have that J the B was "the most respected Prophet in recent memory?" Now, incidentally you have argu'd my point--Mk places the words in J the B's mouth to subordinate him for the reasons I have detailed above.

Quod erat demonstrandum

Incidentally, it could just be the tradition--rather than historical fact--of J the B that Mk had to deal with. Perhaps you have evidence of this tradition with regards to J the B? I do not deny it given how later writers make progressive efforts to subordinate J the B.

I have to admit that I think that is far more likely Mk than a real J the B. History does not have too many "Bodhisatvas" as cult leaders!

See above. You can even remove Da Big Voice. The level of subordination implied by eating bugs and living in the forest, and proclaiming it directly, should not be diminished as I believe you do. Even Da Big Voice is not as denegrating or debasing as these details. Incidentally, in actual Mk, there is question as to whether or not Da Big Voice addresses only Junior directly--Lk and Mk "clean up" this ambiguity. If just Junior, it gives us some wonderful considerations about Mk's Junior--did Junior "know" who he was before the baptism? This dovetails into your comment:

which is something later writers/theologian would lose sphincter control over. I think it valid to consider that though the text is not abolutely clear that Junior needed "sin washing." Much of your post before that is on our disagreement regarding the level of subordination wrought by Mk--or perhaps "degree"--and what that suggests.

"Et tu" too much?

--J.D.

Vorkosigan

Luke made up a familial relationship between JBap and Jesus. The whole PN is made up. Fictions of all kinds are common here. Time is not relevant, indeed, looking at the second century gospels, things got wilder as time went on.

Vorkosigan

Doctor X

Vork:

Do not let Vinnie read that! [Stop it.--Ed.]

Anyways, I understand and actually agree with your point. What I am now circling Vinnie about on another thread is the definition of "fact." "It is reasonable to speculate" that traditions such as the baptism and, particularly getting executed "may have had" a basis in fact. We can argue about how "embarrassing" the baptism is, but getting executed is embarrassing.

Thus "we can reasonably speculate" that "no one would have made it up" and--puff of smoke!--getting nailed to something becomes a "possible" historical event.

Neat.

Problem I have with Vinnie at this point is that none of that constitutes proof that the events happened. Indeed, the fact that the PN as portrayed in Mk is unhistorical--which Vinnie accepts--argues against historicity more than for.

Similarly, the baptism narratives have a lot of "literary" quality. I am sorry, but it is a big assumption to believe that a historical J the B wandered around proclaming someone else was to come and just so happened to recognize Junior! In fact, I find it unbelievable. So if Mk "made up" some parts of the baptism why not all of it? One needs a baptism story involving Junior earlier than Mk and, frankly, I have not been shown it. I am not concluding that Mk, himself, made it up, I am just recognizing how uncertain this is.

[Mounts soapbox.--Ed.] Which is why it becomes rather pathetic for scholars to pretend to be scientists and make conclusions like scientists when they do not have good evidence!

On the other tentacle, I do not go so far yet to declare "everything myth" just because the traditions became that.

--J.D.

Amaleq13

JBap subordinates himself because he was a prophet speaking about the "coming one". How can a prophet speak about the coming Messiah and not subordinate himself? Your point has suffered such a grievous wound that it doesn't even know it is dead.

Apparently, the author thought so since he doesn't find it necessary to explain.

It was my understanding this was part of whatever vows JBap has taken (Nazarite?).

I'm pretty sure I've been suggesting that possibility all along.

I deny any embarrassment on the part of Mark. Any and all subordination is part of the story and not required by external forces (i.e. embarrassment).

Addition to what? Virtually the entire story is new. Who is around to question it given the fall of Jerusalem and the destruction of the Temple?

What other prophet gets "mad props" from Josephus? In addition, Mark has Jesus identify JBap as an important marker dividing the authority of the Law and that of the Kingdom of God. That identification presupposes an existing reputation.

You've got the motivation wrong. Mark is motivated to put words in the Baptist's mouth because he is the most prominent baptizing prophet in recent memory. They naturally subordinate him because he is predicting the coming of the Messiah.

I don't think he did. I think Mark believed (consistent with "Trypho's belief") that the Messiah would be unknown, even to himself, until he was anointed by an Elias figure.

Doctor X

'Tis but a scratch!

Here is the problem that results in your gelding! If Mk does not make up the J the B character, then he certainly makes an effort to have J the B subordinate himself. If Mk does make it up as you suggest then he clearly makes an effort to have J the B subordinate himself. As I noted before, if you wish to use a less "scary" word than "embarrassment" such as "concern" that as part of his story he makes this clear, fine.

I now leave you to struggle in my Grip of Logic [Available while supplies last.--Ed.]

For the rest of your pile of excre[Stop that!--Ed.] post, some interesting things . . . you must have eaten well. . . .

Nazarite--I will have to look up the "rules" again, but I do not believe it at any time required bug ingestion. However, Mk clearly does not understand it in his misquotes so, perhaps, he saw it as that way, but he does not mention it as part of a vow. Indeed, he does not even frame J the B that way.

Well according to a number of [Strawmen--Ed.] scholars, quite a bit. Anyways, if no one existed, then why bother kicking the hell out of the disciples and Peter? Why would Lk try to Petrify Paul and . . . damn . . . you had a better word . . . ah! Paulinate Peter if at least a tradition of these clowns did not persist. Similarly, why would Mt-Lk-then Jn progress the subordination of J the B if at least the tradition of followers did not exist?

But . . .

Are the Josephus passages legitimate? Seriously. I do not think so, but let us imagine they are . . . then, all of a sudden, Mk is preserving a tradition with a basis in fact. Of course, he could have a "bare-bones" tradition and made everything else up--I agree with that, frankly. Certainly, J the B serves as an initiator paralleled by the tranfiguration and crucifixion in framing the Mk story. Anyways, if Josephus was true why did no one else notice this guy? All of the stories--unless you believe Q preserves J the B--can merely be derivative of Mk.

Again, why this is all so much fun.

I know you are but what am I?

. . . and will you please change your socks?

No, in that I highly doubt a REAL--historical--J the B would have subordinated himself--wandering around looking for a greater person. We are spliting hares here--man those things can scurry when you come at them with a chainsaw--in that I can agree that Mk may not have been beating his brow in mortal fear of J the B seeming to have influence over his Junior. However, recognizing that his story requires subordination does not overturn his efforts--he does more than the needs of the story.

Again, if he "made it ALL up" then he made sure J the B was an "efficient causality" at best. If not, he made clear no one could question the positions.

I have always found that an attractive analysis. Given Mk has a limited Junior--has to spit twice, cannot heal in some circumstances--it would make sense. It would also solve the "why did not anyone who knew him think he was a Messiah or, better, son of a god?" questions he may have had to confront. If you read Da Big Voice speaks directly to Junior, this makes a lot of sense.

Now what does that say about earlier traditions about Junior?!

--J.D.

Amaleq13

Surely, thou art the Black Knight!

Arms and legs assunder but still eager to scrap!

There is no "effort" nor is there "concern/embarrassment". There is only "the story" and the natural consequences of its primary goal (i.e. divine identification of Jesus as the Messiah). Secondary to that goal is a desire to fulfill the expectations of "Trypho's belief" (i.e. anointing by Elias). Mark explicitly connects JBap with Elias (the opposite of subordination!) in several places. In 12:27-33, Mk portrays JBap as someone "all" held to be a prophet and someone the Pharisees were afraid to criticize even though they didn't believe his teachings! Clearly, Mark understands JBap to have been a widely known and respected Prophet with a capital "P". He seems perfect for the role of "Elias" in the story of Jesus' identification by God. This role is subordinate, therefore, JBap must be subordinate despite his reputation. No extra effort needs to be made to subordinate him beyond placing JBap in that role and I see no evidence that any "extra effort" was made in Mark's story.

In reply to my suggestion that the baptism scene is a creation of Mark, you wrote:
I replied:
Addition to what? Virtually the entire story is new. Who is around to question it given the fall of Jerusalem and the destruction of the Temple?

Let's first get back to any earlier traditions that seem implied by your description of Mark as "relatively late".

The primary contenders for earlier JBap traditions are Q and GTh. Both of which are thought to be documents that have undergone alteration/accretion over time but are also thought to have begun their existence in the mid 1st century (possibly as early as Paul). What do they to say about JBap?

Paul: Never mentions JBap.

Q: JBap is an apocalyptic prophet preaching the "coming one", baptizing for the remission of sins, dividing point between authority of Law and authority of Kingdom of God ("more" than a prophet).

GTh: JBap is the dividing point marking onset of authority of Kingdom of God, no one "born of women" is greater.

I tend to accept Crossan (Birth of Christianity) in understanding GTh and Q to have diverged from a shared tradition into different theological directions. Where Q moves toward an apocalyptic view, GTh moves toward a more gnostic view that apparently did not include apocalyptic/prophetic expectations. Note that GTh doesn't describe JBap as "more than a prophet" but greater than any human. If we take this passage from GTh and then read Paul's declaration that Jesus was "born of a woman", the GTh appears to be either declaring JBap greater than Paul's Jesus or implying that Jesus was not "born of a woman"!

(As an aside, considering this reference to JBap as greater than any "born of women" has made me realize that I incorrectly ceded a point to Layman regarding the oddity of Paul asserting that Jesus was "born of a woman". I claimed this was an extremely odd thing for Paul to feel it necessary to assert. I questioned whether any human in history had ever had it claimed of them. He replied with this reference to JBap and I accepted it as a sufficient counter-example to defeat the claim. Now, however, I realize that his argument is invalid because the phrase is not used to assert JBap's humanity as in Paul but to compare him favorably against all humans. Too bad he is currently ignoring me because he considers my objections to his review of Doherty on Hebrews to not be "serious" enough. )

Q and GTh agree that JBap was the dividing point between the way things used to be and the way things were going to be from now on (i.e. Kingdom of God). If these two can be said to be relying on earlier traditions, here it is. Note that this concept includes the subordination of JBap to the Kingdom of God in general. Mark takes that general subordination and makes it specific to Jesus in portraying the Divine Identification but makes no "extra effort" to subordinate him beyond the requirements of the story.

Now, back to the "stupid disciples". What do Q, GTh, and Paul offer in the way of a potential tradition for Mark?

Paul: Peter, James, and John maintain Jewish Law despite their belief in the Risen Christ. Paul=Jesus renders Law irrelevant, "pillars" don't get it.

Q: The unnamed disciples are not portrayed as failing to understand Jesus but are promised authority over the twelve tribes if they stick by him. Jewish Law is to be preserved but too strict adherance is criticized and following it will not be enough to avoid the Final Judgement. Q=Jesus considers Law important to keep but not sufficient, disciples understand.

GTh: According to Mack (Who Wrote the New Testament?), the disciples are criticized for seeking prophecies of the coming Kingdom and for being interested in maintaining Jewish Law. Thomas and James are singled out as privy to secret knowledge (T) and the approved new leader (J). Q=Jesus renders Law irrelevant, Peter and other disciples don't understand.

Knowing the chronological relationship between these would certainly be helpful. Specifically, knowing when or if the depiction of the disciples as agreeing with Jesus that the Law should be followed in Q comes before, during, or after Paul would help in making the case that Mark is historically correct in identifying the "pillars" as former Disciples.

Again relying on Mack, Mark portrays the disciples as interested in following the Law but, as we have noted, Mark also portrays the disciples as not understanding Jesus. That agrees with Paul's portrayal of Peter, James, and John against Q's depiction of the disciples following Jesus' lead in preserving the Law. It also agrees with GTh's portrayal of Peter but not of James who seems to have better understood that Jesus felt the Kingdom rendered the Law irrelevant.

I'm getting a headache from all this so I'll leave it to you to make sense of it all.

I can't believe you want to knock out our JBap card after we've started our tottering tower! Have you been reading Zindler (The Jesus the Jews Never Knew)? He makes some interesting point on whether the JBap passages in Josephus are authentic. I'll get to that later as well.

Doctor X

"Running away are you?!! You yellow bastards!"

We are just not going to agree on that. Mk makes too much of an effort to demonstrate that J the B is subordinate than a "story" would require.

At this point, I neither agree nor disagree that J the B is actually in Q--I do not know myself, and I note the topic appears to be controversial. If not that sinks them as an early witness to the tradition but it does not mean such traditions did not exist . . . either completely mythic or based on "some guy."

Not up on my GTh . . . will have to review it. I would also have to review the dating of GTh. Last I looked . . . some time ago . . . composition was later than Mk, but I could be wrong on that.

"makes it specific" requires "extra effort."

"You are indeed brave, Sir Knight, but the fight is mine!"

Indeed. IF the "Pillars" and others did not consider Junior divine, this would really rankle a Paul. This idea comes from the accusation of failing to appreciate Juniors "True Nature" [Tm.--Ed.] in Mk and then in the other gospels. Of course it could be a polemic like, "Catholics are not Christians!" which caught on. It does seem reasonable based on Paul that the "Pillars" are more "secular" in considerations. Clearly, the Junior of Mk and others does not care about Jewish Laws--and even, if Paul's portrayal is valid--contradicts them.

As an aside, I, too, use Mack as a source . . . and will run to the same book for the details on Th dating! However, he feels Mk had access to a LOT of texts--A Myth of Innocence--including Q. As another scholar puts it, he does not believe that Mk had a Passion Source--which others do--but believes Mk had acess to Q--which others do not. In his defense, Mack is not "dogmatic" about these speculations. He notes that it is not established that Mk had a Passion Source. I would have to review why he thinks Mk had access to Q.

Indeed. I reviewed A Myth of Innocence recently. One of the "difficult" or "embarrassing" traditions is Rock-Head's Denial. It appears to me like a "mistake" Peter made which opponents used. IF it is true that Junior made him the leader, the "rock" pun and highlighting this denial is a great way of putting the bastard in his place--"He may have been the leader, but he not only did not understand the message, he even BETRAYED Junior!"

However, Mack argues that this has too much literary flavor, to make a long argument short. Thus, like the "get behind me stumbling block" taunt, this could have been another creation of Mk that caught on.

Incidentally, sometimes when quoting scholars, "we" assume they hold on to positions for dear life. Some do. Most do not. For example, it does not really matter to me, personally, whether or not Mk had "concern" about J the B other than to crush you into the fine paste that you deserve.

Another scholar mentioned to Mack that it could be that Junior actually claimed he could destroy the Temple, a riot ensued when he, obviously, could not when trying, the Romans round people up, a "Judas" follower turned "state's evidence" and Peter actually denied any involvement--"Him?! I don't no him! I was just here to check out the gift shop!"--and the Romans hung up Junior. Mack agreed that could explain a lot of the traditions.

"'Tis a sure cure for a headache!"

--Sir Walter Reilly, inspecting the blade before his execution.

Well, one of the reasons I look at the J the B and Junior interpolations as interpolations is that they really convey little information. Josephus provides a lot more for other clowns. I have not read Zindler.

--J.D.

Amaleq13

Regarding Mark's alleged embarrassment about Jesus submitting to John for baptism:
Ah, the only "reasonable" ploy! Funny how seldom that crops up in my discussions with other individuals.

Is the notion of existing tension between Mark's "people" and surviving followers of JBap sufficient to explain the "embarrassment" you see? That is Zindler's understanding of the reason for the subordination.

JBap entirely or just the baptism? If you make JBap a later addition to Q, Mark's story starts looking more and more creative.
Given how Mark emphasizes JBap's reputation, don't we have to conclude that it is true (i.e. that JBap was respected as a Prophet)?

It is more of a mess than Q. Given that Q and GTh originally shared a sayings tradition, portions of the latter have to be at least as old as the earliest portions of the former.

Yeah, you have to assert that Jesus is the Messiah heralding the Kingdom. Probably broke a sweat on that.

More "secular" or more Jewish? Paul describes the Pillars as adhering to the Law and we have many descriptions of James suggesting his piety was legendary. We also have Church Fathers claiming the Ebionites were "descendents" of the Jerusalem group and they denied the virgin birth, etc. and focused on the Jesus as a prophet/teacher.

How does all this work with the Pillars described as having the first resurrection appearances? Hebrews seems to describe Jesus as ascending straight to heaven immediately following the crucifixion to wait for The End to appear.

I agree that the story seems made up but I understand it as speaking to those in Mark's community who may be having doubts.

I have to agree with Doherty's review that he includes a LOT more information than is necessary but there is some interesting stuff. I'll post more on his understanding of JBap in Josephus as an interpolation but, from memory, I can provide one interesting observation. In Mark, Jesus is (2 or 3 times) identified by others as "John the Baptist". Herod explicitly wonders if he might be John reborn. Thinking Jesus was John reborn suggests that John lived and died quite some time before Jesus.