Doctor X

Vork:

It might be had I made that argument. On the contrary, I argued what the text Mk stated and speculated why the need to have this character and have him subordinate himself to Junior. I added the Mt, Lk, and Jn examples to demonstrate how the response to a possible J the B developed and to speculate why.

Which is your right, however, what remains in the text is that J the B baptises Junior. This will always imply a position of authority. Mk deals with the implication, again in the text, by having J the B subordinate himself . . . plus a Big Voice which others may or may not have heard depending on how you interpret it. Thus:

remains your error. I will reiterate that the argument you made, particularly this later:

rather assumes a great deal. The reason I stated that you assume a J the B group causes problems after Mk is to keep your argument that Mk is not "embarrassed" or "concerned" with J the B consistent:

Hilarious banter transpires.

No more than you can prove your speculations. Nevertheless, I have not sought to "prove" anything, as banter with Vinnie demonstrated. Rather, I have recognized that Mk found the need to have J the B subordinate himself to Junior. I have also recognized that later writers expanded upon this. I have then asked why this was necessary.

Which, again, is not my argument. Methinks if you light that touch you will find yourself less lost? Again, I am not an unkind man. . . .

See above.

See above.

Again, no one, other than you, argued what the relationship actually was.

Now with regards to misreading intent:

You rather "missed the ebb." As my demonstrated with that introduction, if you believe Freedman, the Mosaics could not squish Aaron in a story because too many in the "potential audience pool" knew the stories. Thus Mk could find the story "reflected badly on Junior," but he could not simply ignore it; he had to explain it.

Really? Forgive me if I quote the texts:

you no doubt notice that Mt 3:4 is from Mk 1:6 and Mt 3:5 is based on Mk 1:5

Lk: Sports fans will note that Mt 3:7a-10 and Lk 3:7a-9 are the same and suggest the Q source. I will let others wonder if J the B said it in the original Q source or if it was someone else, such as Fred.

Both seem to have quite a bit of "details" from Mk. Now both Mt and Lk play with the Mk story, add some details, expand others. We can have fun trying to speculate why they did . . . and if Lk quote Mt rather than Q why he detracted so far from Mt! A rather funny one in Lk is that he puts J the B in jail just before the baptism and does not mention him in the act. This leads one to speculate whether or not Lk intenteded to so subordinate J the B that he suggests he did not actually baptise Junior!

this is problematic:

Jn clearly did a bit more than "just got rid of whole story." Thus:

Apparently they do as demonstrated above. As for Q, I will leave to others to speculate who bitches about the winnowing fan.

No you cannot and remain consistent in your criticism. Thus:

Note my many references to the text of Mark above.

That is your reading of the "embarrassment claim." Since I have not made it I will not be held to it.

See text of Mk quotes in above posts . . . again . . . and again . . . particularly since you cite them and concede that Mk has J the B subordinate himself to Junior.

which clearly suggests he was born from above--note the clever allusion to the mistranslated requirement in Jn to be "born again" which is really "born from above" [Give it up.--Ed.]

Sigh. . . .

Hey . . . if you can switch J the B with Junior I get to mistype an evangelist now and then . . . fair is fair. . . .

--J.D.

Amaleq13

Can we really say there is an implied "need"? How else could you write the story of the Messiah getting anointed and identified by God without everybody getting subordinated, let alone the baptizer?

Vorkosigan

It is apparent that we are talking at cross purposes here. I am responding to the argument that this event is embarrassing because Junior subordinates himself to JBap. For some reason you keep discussing JBap subordinating himself to Jesus. I am not the least bit interested in that.

Yes, as I said, this is quite true and of no interest to me. The argument from embarrassment depends on Jesus' subordination to John. As Theissen and Merz put it in The Historical Jesus:

"The recollection of Jesus' baptism by John visibly caused problems for the earliest Christian tradition, on the one hand because of John's apparent superiority to Jesus, on the other because the of the forgiveness of sins associated with the baptism, which indicated an awareness of sin on the part of Jesus."

This embarrassment criterion that Vinnie has put forth is based on this problem. Unfortunately, since we do not know what Mark thought of this affair, we cannot know whether embarrassment applies here. Certainly later strata were embarrassed, but they do not count for historicity. Had I realized you were so confused about the actual issue, I would not have included you with Vinnie in my discussion of the issue.

What you are discussing is something I quite agree with. Mark presents John as subordinate to Jesus. However, that is not what is at issue here. What is at issue is the sloppy logic and faulty methodology of assuming that somehow Vinnie and everyone else knows what Mark thought of this aspect of the story he is creating.

No, it is because the evidence indicates that there were continuing conflicts with that group, in Acts 19 and elsewhere. It has nothing to do with the reason you have stated above, since I quite agree with it.

...and have thus, missed the point entirely. Which makes your next comment...ummm...a little self-referential.

...that is good. I've been attempting to light a torch for you, but seem to have failed. So again, here is the argument that Vinnie and I are having. Crossan notes in his book entitled The Historical Jesus:

"The tradition is clearly uneasy with the idea of John baptizing Jesus because that seemed to make John superior and Jesus sinful. (italics mine).

It is this uneasiness that forms the basis for a methodologically unjustifiable claim that Jesus was baptized by JBap.

[quote]See text of Mk quotes in above posts . . . again . . . and again . . . particularly since you cite them and concede that Mk has J the B subordinate himself to Junior.[quote]

...of course I have conceded that! It's a basic part of the facts under discussion here! The argument is over whether JESUS' subordination to JOHN can be used as the foundation for an argument from embarrassment.

So, once again, the argument Vinnie and I were having over several threads here is whether it is possible to derive something from the text that would show that Mark was embarrassed by this story. Except for Josephus, which specifically deny that John's baptism was for forgiveness of sins, all the other texts deny that Jesus went to John needing forgiveness of sins; Nazoreans has Jesus getting all huffy about it. They are all aware of this story. What does that awareness mean? The issue is whether they are aware of it because it was known to early Christians from the historical Jesus, or because Mark included it in his best-seller because, as Crossan notes again, the Jesus story is fundamentally an example of the standard Greco-Roman myth of Wisdom embodying herself in a representative of the human race for the revelation and redemption of humankind. Neither Vinnie nor any other scholar has demonstrated that we can apply the embarrassment criterion to Mark; instead, they invent a fuzzy methodological approach whereby we can impute historicity to an event if the tradition is embarrassed by it. This is bad methodology, since the embarrassment criterion can only applied to authors, not traditions.

Although you are mostly correct in your comments on the Gospel of John, it is nevertheless true that in the gospel of John, the baptism disappears, and John simply witnesses to Jesus.

Vorkosigan

Doctor X

Amaleq13:

Et tu, Amaleqe?

Just as I have Vork quivering in my grip of logic?

Anyways, I was about to reply "define 'need'" and suddenly felt like a fat southerner with an unhappy marriage and a legacy in shambles. What I mean by "need" is similar to what I meant by "embarrassment"--unfortunately, the word implies more than it should in this case. The "need" may have only been a minor consideration on the part of Mk. It seems to be less for him than subsequent writers.

The problem is the textual evidence can potentially support a number of flights of fancy from Mk simply making sure no one made a mistake considering Junior subordinate to J the B to an outright attempt to smear a J the B group. Frankly, for Mk I find the later unlikely.

Which brings us . . . to Mr. Vork. One of Mr Soze's . . . less-intelligent couriers. . . . [No Usual Suspects references!--Ed.]

Vork:

Yeah, but where is the fun in actually arguing the same thing? We might agree.

Okay . . . perhaps I should add the word "potentially." As above, and I think in a previous post, "embarrassing" can imply a lot of bagage. I am interested in why Mk and, especially writers like Jn, make a concerted effort to have J the B subordinate himself. I do not intent to imply that I know the answer. I "think" it is more than just a device or a "need" to have Junior revealed or whathaveyou. It is a potential problem that he--real or by tradition--"had" to go to J the B to get baptized.

Again, I do not want to imply that Mk is banging his head on a table wondering how to solve the problem! I must admit I have to wonder about Jn considering how much space he devotes to this.

Oh yeah! Well you are . . . are . . . TRIPLE times more confused!

Your socks also smell. . . .

In all seriousness, I can understand if your "beef" with Vinnie is that the "potential embarrassment" actually proves a historical Junior and a historical bath-party. However, I have to agree with him that it is a good suggestion. I will disagree with you because your socks smell [Stop that!--Ed.] because I do think the text of Mk indicates a concerted effort to resubordinate J the B to Junior. If you do not agree then we are stuck on that point. It is not a "big need" like in Jn, but I feel it is there.

That is no fun!

In all honesty and with some modicum of seriousness, so long as the speculator is willing to admit the uncertainty and not try to make a conclusion of fact based on it I do not mind. This is why I argued with Vinnie about "accepted facts" in scholarship. They are at best "reasonable assumptions and conclusions."

Thus, I do feel the text indicates that Mk felt the need to make the subordination clear. How "big" this need was and what it indicates is anyone's guess.

Turn it around a bit--it indicates that if there was a conflict with a J the B group/tradition/remnant it was not as severe as it could potentially be with a, say "Jn group." Mk subordinates, he does not stomp.

Now:

Yes it does! [Stop that!--Ed.] Actually, the reason I will needle you on this point is if you are concerned about assumptions on Mk's motivations, you seem to grant a lot to Lk's. Remember, Lk-Acts is quite late. I am not saying that there were no conflicts.

However, let us assume you are correct. It would fit the late Lk-Acts and Jn. Well . . . when did the conflict arise? I rather think it unlikely that it did after Mk.

You may wish to dispense with the rubbing the two sticks together and try this Zippo. On the contrary, it is not a "methodologically unjustifiable claim," it is actually a reasonable assumption. Now, I do not know Crossan--if he and others state that the "uneasy" "tradition" proves the historical Junior was baptized, that is going too far. It also does not "prove" a historical Junior exists. Though I do not write for Vinnie, he seemed to agree that "reasonable assumption/conclusion" does not mean "fact."

However, frankly, it is good reasoning based on above. Thus:

I think it can. Again, this is speculative argumentation. I likened it to your suggestion of Mk as a follower of J the B.

I would agree that the text does suggest it . . . with "embarrassed" perhaps proving too strong a word. Given the time of Mk, it is also possible that Mk is only preserving a tradition that others created to handle the problem. I must admit that if any of this happened or was a valid tradition, I strongly doubt a "historical J the B" or the tradition of one--if independent from Junior's--wandered about proclaiming he was unworthy and all of that!

Well, as an aside, I am not sure we can trust Joe's account as historical rather than an addition. Certainly, those who interpolate do not want a "Junior that Sins." Frankly, I suspect Joe would not have cared. If he did as the way he is portrayed with these, why was he not a "Christian?" Interestingly, Mk does not highlight that Junior "did not need forgiveness of sins."

Well, Junior is not "huffy about it" in Mt. Mt does imply that Junior does not need repentence, but "huffy" is a bit strong for Mt.

The $37.82 question.

Were they aware because it happened in some way?
Were they aware because it was a popular tradition?

Methinks you jump a bit here. I think one can "apply the embarrassment criterion" to Mk as demonstrated above--how "embarrassed" is anyone's guess. "Impute historicty to an event if the tradition is embarrassed by it" is another issue. It is reasonable to explore that as a possibility, but as I indicated to Vinnie elsewhere, once cannot conclude it acts as evidence of historical fact.

Hmmmm . . . I tend to think of traditions and what the authors did with them and why. I am unaware of traditions earlier than Mk . . . unless I have forgotten that Paul mentions it or that someone has "proved" Q mutters about it with regards to baptism.

Ah! I see a spark from those twigs! You are correct. Much like Lk puts J the B in jail before Junior's bath, Jn does not actually portray a baptism.

--J.D.

Vorkosigan

No, it is methodologically unjustifiable. Embarrassment can only be used from the standpoint of individual authors. Whenever NT scholars discuss this criteria, they give examples in terms of a single author -- two common examples are Tacitus' praise of Nero, since he hated Nero, and Josephus' admissions of his own cowardice. Historians do not use it of an entire tradition, since a tradition is rich ocean of attitudes, ideas, stories, and concepts, many of which are contradictory, incomplete, or used differently by different proponents of the tradition.

But in NT studies, scholars slip in, without anyone really sitting up and paying attention, a methodological twist: if the tradition is embarrassed, the event must be true. In this case, of John the Baptist, there is no question that later tradition is not comfortable with the idea that Jesus was baptized by John. But that discomfort is not probative of anything. The only way you can apply the embarrassment criterion here is if you can demonstrate, using the text of Mark, that Mark was embarrassed by Jesus' apparent subordination to John, and even Meier, himself no slouch at sloppy deployment of historical logic, calls Mark's position "mysterious." So if the writer's position is "mysterious" then it cannot be used to support any argument from embarrassment in this case.

A second problem with the embarassment criterion is its high degree of subjectivity. Is getting baptized embarrassing or not for Mark's "lower" Christology? How would you demonstrate that?

Vorkosigan

Doctor X

Not always. See refence to Freedman's Who Wrote the Bible? above concerning denegrating Aaron or Moses depending upon what author or group was behind a particular text.

Well, that is something I do not advocate and, frankly, not every scholar does either. Return to the example above, the use of stories to denegrate traditions of a Moses does not establish that a Moses existed!

However, Mk does take the effort to make this subordination--J the B to Junior--clear . . . even has a Big Voice. If you wish to dispense with "embarrassed" and try another word such as "concern," fine. Nevertheless, the textual fact remains that Mk made the effort. "Why" is the question.

It becomes "embarrassing" only if a competitor--or wags in his audience--question the "authority" of his Junior. Did this happen? That other writers--particularly Jn--and as you indicate, Lk-Acts--portray a potential competition suggests this could have happened.

It further "suggests" that Mk would not make it up for this reason. However, one can argue the other way--Mk makes up the baptism to have his "moment," makes sure that it does not imply Junior is subordinate, then goes on to wacking the disciples. Then other writers feel concerned about it and there you go.

However, since Mk is late, I suspect he responds to existing traditions rather than makes all of them up. Of course, how much he makes up and responds to is quite controversial. Mack playfully speculates that Mk "made up" the whole crucifixion, for example.

Good point. From my perspective, all one can "conclude" is that it was enough of a concern for Mk to make his hierarchy clear and move on. Since Mk portrays a limited Junior--cannot always heal, et cetera--it is, frankly, not that much of a problem unless he has to respond to a specific tradition that suggests competition . . . or has actual competition . . . from J the B groups/remnants/traditions. Of course, that is all speculation.

Here is another example--Rock-Head's denial of Junior. It is quite embarrassing . . . to Rock-Head . . . and probably to whatever group Rock belonged to--the Pillars, perhaps.

Was it "true?" Well, certainly a Mk and later writers who clearly disagree with the traditions of the group--whatever that means/implies!--would love the story. It is like Jessie Jackson pretending he held the dying Martin Luther King in his arms . . . something that follows him to this day . . . and supporters "apologize" for.

So . . . it is reasonable to speculate that the denial happened.

Or . . . in his attempt to denegrate the "competition" Mk or someone before him made it up and the tradition stuck.

Who knows?

Frankly, all one can do with a historical Junior--for this is what all of these discussions eventually boil/burn down to--is come up with a "figure" that could account for the traditions. The problem, which you recognize, is going from "account" in reverse to "proof." Again, I already bitched at Vinnie regarding "accepted facts."

--J.D.

Amaleq13

I would be more inclined to think of Mark's scene in terms of "need" if it could be shown that the scene might have been written in some other way. There is no good reason to think Mark was concerned in the least about anyone getting confused about who was superior.

Mark tells us that JBap preached "the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins" as well as the "coming one". Mark then tells us that Jesus came all the way from Nazareth of Galilee just to be baptized by JBap. No attempt is made to avoid the obvious implication (i.e. Jesus went to repent sins just like everybody else). Jesus is baptized. Jesus is identified. Jesus is sent into the wilderness and tested.

The subordination of JBap to Jesus is the natural consequence of the divine identification of Jesus as the Messiah. This identification immediately follows the baptism. If you cannot offer an example of telling this story without subordinating the baptizer, it makes no sense to suggest that the subordination is meaningful beyond the necessity of the story.

Without an earlier version of the story to compare Mark against, there is no evidence for embarrassment here.

Mark does it because it is a logical requirement of his story.

Later authors do it in reaction to Mark within the context of developing conceptualizations of Jesus.

Why? Mark provides nothing beyond what is required by the "plot".

There is evidence that the authors of Mt, Lk considered this to be problematic because they appear to be reacting against Mark. There is no similar evidence suggesting this was a problem for Mark.

Likewise, there is evidence that the authors of Mt and Lk considered the portrayal of Jesus making two attempts to cure a blind man problematic but we cannot say the same about Mark. It would be equally illegitimate to try to read embarrassment into that story.

EXACTLY!! If he had any embarrassment about it, this would have been the place where we would find evidence of it. Mark shows elsewhere he is not afraid of breaking the narrative with a parenthetical explanation. That he does not can only be considered evidence against the suggestion of embarrassment.

Vinnie

The problem is mixing a high Christology with Jesus undergoing the rite of another leader of a rival group. Mark has a very strange way of alleviating controversy between the Baptist and Christian cells if this was his goal with the baptism account. Surely a better story could have been invented by this story writing Mark who writes fiction after fiction?

The more plausible suggestion is that Mark was simply dealing with tradition he had that was firmly embedded. That is why the other evangelists dependent on Mark retained this tradition as well.

Now John says nothing of the baptism (he will have none of it) but curiouslky the baptist appears at the beginning of his Gospel as well, proclaiming Jesus.

And the embarrassment criterion does not require an event be provable embarrassing to every single Christian in the early church. That certai ngroups of Christians found it embarrassing and a high Christology was extant early makes it improbably or much less probable that Christians invented this tradition.

You assertion that maybe Mark was a foller of JBap doesn;t really work. because Mark is not the only source with Jesus//baptist material.

That and that there is no real motive for creation makes it probable Jesus was baptized. This is one of those traditions cast in light of the OT, not one of the ones created out of it.

Vinnie

Vinnie

Since everyonei sl ooking for how Mark could have written another story:

Gospel of the Nazoreans 2; NTA 1.146-147; Cameron 1982:99)

Behold, the mother of the lord and his brethren said to him: John the Baptist baptizes unto the remission of sins, let us go and be baptized him. But he said to them: Wherein have I sinned that I should go and be baptized by him. Unless what I have said is ignorance (a sin of ignorance).

Heaven could have even opened and spoke in the narrative after Jesus said this....

Vinnie

Doctor X

Amaleq13:

I am here, currently, because someone is watching the [CENOSRED--Ed.] SciFi "investigation" of UFOs. Screw this baptism stuff . . . there are aliens all over the place! With rectal probes! This might explain Magus [Stop that!--Ed.]

Okay . . . okay . . . anyways, the SciFi "investigation" makes our musings seem positively scientific.

Behold the Gospel According to Your Humble Writer:

Basically, Mk specified the "weirdness" of J the B--eating bugs--and J the B proclaiming that he was less than Junior. Sorry, that strikes as a literary device . . . unless you want to believe a J the B guy who might of existed actually wandered around stating he was subordinate to some guy . . . stranger things could happen.

which means, if you are correct, that Mk would not have to spell it out. Unless his audience would not understand, then we are right back to my point that Mk had to specify it. Sorry, it seems to stress that Mk felt the need to do it.

This is a bit of an "argument to ignorance" in that, since we do not have the earlier versions we cannot say anything about them. That an early version which may have not had this subordination did not survive . . . it is all speculation . . . like speculating that there was a version from a J the B group where Junior leaves J the B and is a prat . . . unfortunately no copies survived. The bottom line is Mk stresses the subordination which you, yourself, declare should be obvious.

As noted above, I cited that Mk does not have a problem with a limited figure. I never suggested "read embarrassment into that story" other than Mt and Lk did not use it! It is not relevant to possible dependence upon J the B.

Which only means you can conclude that Mk would not be concerned with a "forgiveness of sins." It does not mean you can conclude he was not concerned with Junior appearing beholding to J the B. Indeed, to turn around your argument, you would have Junior specifically going to J the B to have his sins wash'd away . . . which he does not in Mk. Mk then does not want that idea to exist.

Anyways, I would caution again that "embarrassment" does not imply, in my mind, an obsessed-brow-beating Mk. He simply took care of a potential problem. Whether the problem existed in his mind only or it was a problematic tradition can only be speculated based on Mk. One can argue that it becomes one based on Lk and Mt and then Jn . . . but that could be reactions to the story in Mk! In otherwords, Mk did not subordinate J the B enough!

Again, such certainty! At least it is better than SciFi Channel. . . .

You and Vork are going to make me and Vinnie team up. . . .

Indeed. Now, as I wrote to Vork, I do not consider this "proof" that it "actually happened."

--J.D.