[64] It goes back to [Jeremiah, xxi, 8]. [↑]
[66] Cp. Prof. A. Seeberg, Die Didache des Judentums und der Urchristenheit, 1908, p. 8; and his previous works, cited by him. [↑]
[68] A. Seeberg, work cited, p. 1. [↑]
[69] Dr. Conybeare nevertheless (Histor. Christ, p. 3) calls it a “characteristically Christian document,” in an argument which maintains the early currency and general historicity of Mark. [↑]
[70] This thesis was put in C.M. 345. Yet Dr. Conybeare alleges (p. 20) that I represent Jesus as surrounded by twelve disciples solely because of the twelve signs of the zodiac. The latter item is given simply as an explanation of the calling of the twelve on a mountain (412), which Dr. Conybeare finds quite historical. [↑]
[71] It was probably about the year 80 that the Jewish authorities framed the formula by which they sought to mark off “the Minim” from the Judaic fold.—Herford, Christianity in Talmud, pp. 135, 385–7. [↑]
[72] Mr. Lester (The Historic Jesus, p. 84) argues that the baptism of Jesus by John must be historical, since to invent it would be gratuitously to make him “in a way subordinate to John.” But when John is put as the Forerunner, acclaiming the Messiah, where is the subordination? [↑]