Personification of Group Dynamics: Mishmarot Problem or Christian?

[Charles Wilson]

Hello Everyone --

John 1: 14 - 15 (RSV, Emph. added):

[14] And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, full of grace and truth; we have beheld his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father.
[15] (John bore witness to him, and cried, "This was he of whom I said, `He who comes after me ranks before me, for he was before me.'")

The ever-cryptic John piles Puzzle upon Puzzle in these two verses and I would welcome some Learned Commentary on meaning here. The first Part of this is, of course, "...the Word became flesh..." and 2000 years of explanation finds us little better off than when those words were first penned.

There IS more to the Story, it appears and the following goes a LONG way towards explaining verse 15:
Jewish Encyclopedia, "Bilgah" (Again, Emphasis Added):

The priests, when entering upon their duties, received their share in the northern part of the Tabernacle, because this was near the seat of their activity. The section assigned to each division of the priesthood was furnished with an iron ring fastened to the floor, for the purpose of securing the animal designed for slaughter, and there were accordingly twenty-four openings in the wall where the knives used for slaughtering were kept. Bilgah alone received his share in the south, his ring being nailed down, and his wall-closet tightly sealed, as a punishment for the apostasy of a woman of that house by the name of Miriam, who, during the Greek dominion under Antiochus Epiphanes, had denied her faith and married a hipparch (Tos., Suk. iv. 28; Suk. 56b; Yer. Suk., end; "Rev. Et. Juives," xxxix. 54). It is further related that when the Greeks forced their way into the Temple, this woman beat her sandals upon the altar, crying: "Wolf, wolf [Λύκος, λύκος], thou hast swallowed the substance of Israel, but hast deserted us in the day of our need!"

"According to another opinion, the priests of Bilgah delayed too long in entering upon the performance of their functions; so that those of the division Jeshebeab were compelled to act in their place, and consequently received the prerogatives of Bilgah (Tos., l.c.; Yer. Suk., end); to which the Jerusalem Talmud adds that in this instance the division Bilgah was neither abolished nor amalgamated with the other twenty-three divisions, because this would have interfered with the ancient institution."

This small bit of History should not be dealt with lightly: "`He who comes after me ranks before me, for he was before me...."

The Mishmarot GROUP "Immer" comes after "Bilgah" in Temple Service but was RANKED ahead of Bilgah due to the Transgression "of a woman of that House...". Oh, RILLY!!! Repeating the Adam and Eve Motif to explain the Fall of the Mishmarot Priesthood in Israel's Time of Need (Again.).

The second explanation given is given about the GROUP Bilgah and simply begs for an explanation, political, religious or otherwise. How could an entire Faction of the Priesthood lose sight of their Mishmarot Week in Jerusalem?

Mark 11: 11 (RSV):

[11] And he entered Jerusalem, and went into the temple; and when he had looked round at everything, as it was already late, he went out to Bethany with the twelve.

Hmmm...Already late, huh?

With this, we look uneasily at the bare statement, "He who comes after me ranks before me, for he was before me."

The Question: If you are a member of a Group, in this case, a Mishmarot Service Group, MUST you take on the characteristics of the Group of which you are a member?
***
This "Personification" of a story would lead to:

Story: The Mishmarot Group Bilgah has committed an Offense against the Mishmarot Priesthood.
Personification of the Story: "John bore witness to him, and cried, "This was he of whom I said, `He who comes after me ranks before me, for he was before me."

There is much, much more to this with the second explanation/understanding of Bilgah's Offense against the Proper Holy Days. It leads to a fracture between the Synoptics and John.

"The Word made flesh" should point to Roman Rewrites of Internal Mishmarot Priestly Documents..
Does it appear this way to "everyone else" (Group)...That is, the Personification (You)?

CW

[StephenGoranson]

It does not appear to me that the Gospel of John is referencing priestly rotation issues.

[MrMacSon]

`He who comes after me ranks before me, for he was before me.'

I wonder if this reflects the heresiologists attempts to portray Jesus's predominance and priority in the same way they [now] seem to have been rewriting history to give proto-catholic orthodoxy priority over the so-called non-orthodox versions such as Sethianism, Valentinianism, the Simonians, the Carpocratians, etc. (as well as seeking to portray Jesus as having priority before (or perhaps part of) the Jewish Genesis creation accounts (which raises the prospect they were also seeking to dismiss and to displace pre-1st century Judaism)

[Charles Wilson]

1. MrMacSon --

Your comment deserves a follow-up and I left a few days open to see if anyone would comment.
More to follow.

2. As happens more often than not, I find an article floating around on the 'Net after a Post:

https://www.koltorah.org/halachah/miria ... im-jachter

The Problem (For me...) is that this Story straddles the Judaic Culture/History with the New Religion Christianity at a Construction Point and no one wants to examine either Branch except to denigrate the other branch.

I need to quote this verse for the N-th time to show what has transpired:

John1:16 (RSV):

[15] (John bore witness to him, and cried, "This was he of whom I said, `He who comes after me ranks before me, for he was before me.'")

John is of Bilgah, the "Jesus" character is of Immer. They have been Personified around a Judaic Story and the story has been Transvalued into the story of a savior/god.
Will anyone ever examine it?

CW

[StephenGoranson]

CW, you assert that "John is of Bilgah" and that "the 'Jesus' character is of Immer."
But you have not established either.

[Charles Wilson]

...And I have asked you to verify that Bilgah and Immer served Passover and Feast week of 4 BCE and 9 CE and you have refused to lift even pencil and paper to verify that this might be true.

So, go on down that Dead-End Path of yours. Just leave me out of it.

[StephenGoranson]

What even if they had done?
That a proposed obscure X followed Y does not, imo, explain John and Jesus.
You promise "much more," but apparently on that undemonstrated basis.