What I mean is that each one of you says, "I belong to Paul," or "I belong to Apol'los," or "I belong to Cephas," or "I belong to Christ."
 Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Or were you baptized in the name of Paul?
 I am thankful that I baptized none of you except Crispus and Ga'ius;
 lest any one should say that you were baptized in my name.
 (I did baptize also the household of Steph'anas. Beyond that, I do not know whether I baptized any one else.)
I believe that the above comes from Tacitus, Histories, Book 4:
"While things were in this state, while there was division in the Senate, resentment among the conquered, no real authority in the conquerors, and in the country at large no laws and no Emperor, Mucianus entered the capital, and at once drew all power into his own hands. The influence of Primus Antonius and Varus Arrius was destroyed; for the irritation of Mucianus against them, though not revealed in his looks, was but ill-concealed, and the country, keen to discover such dislikes, had changed its tone and transferred its homage. He alone was canvassed and courted, and he, surrounding himself with armed men, and bargaining for palaces and gardens, ceased not, what with his magnificence, his proud bearing, and his guards, to grasp at the power, while he waived the titles of Empire. The murder of Calpurnius Galerianus caused the utmost consternation. He was a son of Caius Piso, and had done nothing, but a noble name and his own youthful beauty made him the theme of common talk; and while the country was still unquiet and delighted in novel topics, there were persons who associated him with idle rumours of Imperial honours. By order of Mucianus he was surrounded with a guard of soldiers. Lest his execution in the capital should excite too much notice, they conducted him to the fortieth milestone from Rome on the Appian Road, and there put him to death by opening his veins. Julius Priscus, who had been prefect of the Praetorian Guard under Vitellius, killed himself rather out of shame than by compulsion..."
While there is Chaos in Rome, Mucianus draws Imperial Power into his hands and allows several families to see just what that Power can do. There is much more to examine in the Tacitus quote and I invite everyone to see the Roman Thesis in full view here.
This is about as close to a direct quote from Mucianus as you might find in the Paulines. As a cipher for "Mucianus" the hiding of Intent is less hidden.
"Baptism". This is not "Water Immersion" or what has come down to us as such. This is Raw, Brute Force State Power and it is enforced by Death if need be. You can identify the Families and I remind everyone of the List in Acts 6. Octavian was the "Acolyte/Hero of Antioch" and moving up the List finds Stephen Martyr: "Frugi Piso", the Four Day emperor.
Baptism does not mean what you might think in the NT.
This would provide meaning for the Intro to the NT and what was Posted in another Very Fine Joe Wallack thread:
This opens up the Intro to the NT as Historical Story in the Form of the Story of a savior/god: Vespasian, the Father. Titus, the son. Domitian, the "Holy Spirit", whose followers rewrote the deification of the Flavians into a story of the Characters "John" (of Bilgah) and "Jesus" (Originally a Priest of Immer). The Story of the Mishmarot Priesthood becomes the transference of God's Grace from the Jews to the Romans.Charles Wilson wrote: ↑Thu Feb 06, 2020 8:48 amhttps://books.google.com/books?id=bsxkX ... 22&f=falseJoeWallack wrote: ↑Sun Jul 14, 2019 6:33 pmJW:
The combination of a minimum of quality External Manuscript support and The Difficult Reading Principle already makes omission of "river" likely original but further evidence:
GMatthew's first mention of Jordan likewise lacks "river".5 Then went out unto him Jerusalem, and all Judaea, and all the region round about the Jordan;
6 and they were baptized of him in the river Jordan, confessing their sins.
3 And he came into all the region round about the Jordan, preaching the baptism of repentance unto remission of sins;
No mention of "river".
Skeptical Textual Criticism
I believe that John is "of Bilgah". Bilgah had a Settlement attached to its name. Note that Ma'ariya is associated with Bilgah. Note also that "Gophna" is associated with Bilgah and Jakim. Gophna figures into Roman Mapping as a region and, as such would not necessarily be a Settlement.
Perhaps more later on this but it still appears that the readings of whether "River" appears in the Texts are correct depending on Scope.
FWIW: http://www.aymennjawad.org/2020/01/the- ... mouk-basin
[Edit Note] See Also: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jifna , "Iron Age and Classical period". A "Vespasian" and a "Titus" are mentioned. I wonder if that might be important?
"Baptism" and its meaning are Transvalued from Brutal State Power to an act of allegiance to another god.