Iosephiana

[Giuseppe]

In my modest opinion, I may doubt about the historicity of a personage quoted by Josephus only if:
1) that personage is a Rank-Raglan hero,
2) there is evidence that that personage is adored as a god before that his mention did appear in Josephus.

or

3) the name and surname of the personage is so densely symbolic to betray his same 'historical' role (see Ebion as example).

The same reason because I believe the qumranite Teacher of Justice is historical, after all.
I may even assume that the Baptist passage is only partially interpolated, but all not. Sorry.

[MrMacSon]

.. If also Josephus had said that John was baptizing not-Jews ...

then I would be persuaded that John was part of a water-centric religion such as the cult of Serapis, or also part of an aligned Egyptian mystery religion such as those centered on Osiris, Isis, & Horus, or both.

eta -

Pummer brings up some interesting arguments that water immersion may have been introduced by John Hyrcanus - https://books.google.com/books?id=5RVAC ... on&f=false .. Marcionite[s] aimed their message at Jewish proselytes (i.e. those pagans who had been converted by Jews) rather than 'Gentiles' [-] they would presumably have known who John was, and how his baptism was not 'of heaven' but merely a human conversion.

eta 2 -

... 'John the Baptist' [could] be just the prophet of the Demiurg's messiah in Mcn ... the extraordinary coincidence between the negative representation of 'John the Baptist' in Mcn and John Hyrcanus is that that circumcision, that conversion, that baptism, was forced ... made on not-Jews. An act of hybris by the same Demiurg (that in Marcionite theology had to limit his sadic actions only within Israel).

[Secret Alias]

Come on. Stop it with this fucking nonsense. This has nothing to do with paganism. The point I am trying to make here is that there is a lot of archaeological evidence to suggest that John Hyrcanus (= John) invented the 'quick' conversion of converts en masse by water immersion. Hence 'the baptism of John' might well be a code word for rendering the conversion illegitimate. This might well have been the Marcionite point - viz. it was 'according to man.' Go away with this pagan nonsense.

[MrMacSon]

... The point I am trying to make here is that there is a lot of archaeological evidence to suggest that John Hyrcanus (= John) invented the 'quick' conversion of converts en masse by water immersion.

Such as?

Hence 'the baptism of John' might well be a code word for rendering the conversion illegitimate.

How so?

This might well have been the Marcionite point - viz. it was 'according to man.'

[Secret Alias]

And the connection with John Hyrcanus (= Jannai) would explain why Jesus is associated with the king in later Jewish tradition (you know the Mead Jesus lived 100 BCE stuff). The Jews don't know "John the Baptist" and don't associate him with Jesus but do associate Jannai with Jesus

[Secret Alias]

Seahawks break

[Secret Alias]

The miqvaot suddenly appear during or after his reign.

[MrMacSon]

Zindler [in The Jesus the Jews Never Knew] suggests that the John the Baptist passage [in Josephus] was inserted by a Jewish Christian or “an apologist for one of the myriad ‘heretical’ sects which are known to have existed from the earliest periods of Christian history.” (p. 96) One possibility he offers is even a pre-Christian Baptist of some sort.

"many non-gospel views of the Baptist existed during the first three centuries"

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

Zindler (2003) 'The Jesus the Jews Never Knew: Sepher Toldoth Yeshu and the quest of the historical Jesus in Jewish sources'; Cranford, NJ: American Atheist Press. xvii, 524 p. : 22 cm.

[MrMacSon]

One of Zindler’s reasons for believing the passage in Josephus is a forgery -

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.

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

Zindler (2003) The Jesus the Jews Never Knew: Sepher Toldoth Yeshu and the quest of the historical Jesus in Jewish sources; Cranford, NJ: American Atheist Press. xvii, 524 p. : 22 cm.

[Secret Alias]

I think the argument for the existence for 'John the Baptist' is weaker than the crucifixion referenced in the gospel. Because the crucifixion is presumably the historical event around which a demonstrable religion developed. No trace of 'John the Baptist' or any tradition associated with him. The Mandaeans do not qualify.