DS Murdock calls John Baptist a reworked water god

[ficino]

D.S. Murdock argues what she calls a "mythicist" position on John the Baptist as inspired by the Sumero-Babylonian water god, Uanna (Oannes in Greek). She says he was the central savior figure for the Mandeans/Nasoreans. Murdock outlines what she takes as a solar alliance that unites JtB and Jesus (both mythical figures). She says that the account of John the Baptist in Josephus' AJ has the appearance of an interpolation.

http://www.examiner.com/article/new-res ... he-baptist

[Blood]

I believe this was actually a theory of Robert Eisler back in the early 1900s.

[ficino]

Interesting, since R. Eisler (I assume, same guy) in the '20s was the major proponent of Slavonic Josephus as a source of the "first" version of the BJ - complete with a form of the TF plus other mentions of Jesus not found in our texts of Josephus.

[perseusomega9]

Josephus as a source of the "first" version of the BJ -

[DCHindley]

Interesting, since R. Eisler (I assume, same guy) in the '20s was the major proponent of Slavonic Josephus as a source of the "first" [Aramaic] version of the BJ - complete with a form of the TF plus other mentions of Jesus not found in our texts of Josephus.

Yes, that is the same man, although he theorized that the Slavonic translation(s) of Josephus' War had been influenced by an otherwise lost Aramaic account of the capture of Jerusalem spoken of by Josephus. It is generally assumed that his single volume Aramaic account was the nucleus of the multi volume War.

I thought the hypothesis was published around 1933. He originally wrote in German (although the title itself was in Greek), in two volumes, and this was later translated into English as a single condensed volume. It is almost impossible to lay hands on a copy (although I managed do so in the early 1990s and photocopied it, although it is starting to get a bit dog eared). Some while back I tried to determine whether the copyright had been continuously renewed in the USA, and think I found where they missed a renewal deadline, meaning it may be out of copyright here.

While I do recall that Eisler had an interest in the Mandaeans (this was a few years before E S Drower's Mandaeans of Iraq & Iran in 1937), I do not recall at all anything about Babylonian/Sumerian myths in relation to their beliefs about John the Baptist. He may have speculated that they were influenced by Gnostic ideas, who many at that time believed derived from a school of John the Baptist that was corrupted by Simon Magus and Dositheus. Unfortunately, the Subject Index is very tiny and his thinking so muddled that it is very difficult to trace where he may have said any specific thing.

Drower does speak of them, though:

Babylonian(s), influences, xviii xxx,
xxi; qiblah, 18; (language, relation
of Mandaean to, 13; New
Year, 89, 97; intercalation, 97;
and world-periods, 96 ; ritual use
of foliage, 122; and pit pi, 122;
and Sumerian water cults, xxi,
1 19, 1 24, 142 ; and Sumerian rites
for dead, xix; sacrifices, 225 ; and
Assyrians, 284; and salt, 348 ; and
women dead in childbed, 366.

DCH

[Leucius Charinus]

D.S. Murdock argues what she calls a "mythicist" position on John the Baptist as inspired by the Sumero-Babylonian water god, Uanna (Oannes in Greek). She says he was the central savior figure for the Mandeans/Nasoreans.

John is mentioned in the Nag Hammadi Codices.
The Jordan River turned back when the Son of Man arrived.

"Change the course of mighty rivers, bend fig trees in his bare hands ..."

But the Son of Man came forth from Imperishability, being alien to defilement.
He came to the world by the Jordan river, and immediately the Jordan turned back.
And John bore witness to the descent of Jesus.
For it is he who saw the power which came down upon the Jordan river;
for he knew that the dominion of carnal procreation had come to an end.
The Jordan river is the power of the body, that is, the senses of pleasures.
The water of the Jordan is the desire for sexual intercourse.
John is the archon of the womb.

She says that the account of John the Baptist in Josephus' AJ has the appearance of an interpolation.

http://vridar.org/2011/01/29/5-reasons- ... -josephus/

• Frank Zindler's 5 reason to suspect an interpolation
  
  (1) The Baptist material intrudes into its context quite roughly. The paragraphs on either side of it follow perfectly if the Baptist section is removed.
  
  (2) The passage about John the Baptist says Herod sent John to the castle of Macherus to be killed. Yet only two sentences before the Paragraph [1] summarized above, Josephus had written that the castle of Macherus did not belong to Herod, but to the king who soon afterwards attacked him.
  
  (3) In the John the Baptist paragraph the author writes that the reason Herod’s army was defeated by Aretas was because God was punishing him for his unjust treatment of John.
  
  (4) Josephus makes no mention of John the Baptist when discussing Herod in his other book, The Wars of the Jews.
  
  (5) John the Baptist is not mentioned in the early Greek table of contents to the Antiquities of Josephus, but he is found in the later Latin version.

Be well,



LC