Iosephiana

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
Post Reply
Secret Alias
Posts: 18362
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Was the Baptism of John = Forced Conversion of John Hyrc

Post by Secret Alias »

Indeed if Jesus brought up the episode pushed back to the end of the gospel - viz. 'is the baptism of John from heaven or man' - it would make perfect sense here.
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote
Secret Alias
Posts: 18362
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Was the Baptism of John = Forced Conversion of John Hyrc

Post by Secret Alias »

Does anyone know where I can reconstruct this understanding or the source behind this:

Peter Richardson has observed on the temple mount the remains of a gate across from Robinson's gate. Beyond this gate is a virtual precipice overlooking the Kidron valley. As such, it would have been very difficult to construct a staircase and was probably not be used for large groups of people. He suggests that this gate and pathway may have been used by the messenger who led the scapegoat into the wilderness https://books.google.com/books?id=at3eB ... 22&f=false
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote
User avatar
Peter Kirby
Site Admin
Posts: 8025
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 2:13 pm
Location: Santa Clara
Contact:

Re: Was the Baptism of John = Forced Conversion of John Hyrc

Post by Peter Kirby »

Secret Alias wrote:McGrath agrees that the case for the historicity of Jesus is stronger than John the Baptist - http://www.patheos.com/blogs/exploringo ... ptist.html
On the other hand, consider the source. This is a very common format of argument for beleaguered historicists: "(1) J is better attested than A. (2) You accept A. (3) Therefore, you should accept J."

The premise is questionable, as it hinges entirely on the analysis of the authenticity of the Josephus passage(s). Someone like me, who considers the evidence rather clear in both cases (John the Baptist IN, Jesus Christ OUT), will obviously disagree with McGrath -- and I've essentially altered none of the logic to get there, only the premise regarding the text criticism of Josephus.
"... almost every critical biblical position was earlier advanced by skeptics." - Raymond Brown
Secret Alias
Posts: 18362
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Was the Baptism of John = Forced Conversion of John Hyrc

Post by Secret Alias »

But Peter, Christianity is a (purported) surviving remnant of the remembrance of Jesus's crucifixion. You can posit that it was a fictitious event. But at least there is something to argue on behalf of the existence of Jesus. With John the Baptist you have nothing. No community associated with his (alleged) baptism of 'forgiveness of sins.' Serious questions raised (by those who know) about how a baptism of forgiveness of sins could have arisen in Judaism. What is the precedence for this? All sins wiped clean by a 'dip' in the Jordan? That's complete nonsense. It would never have been accepted by anyone of authority. So what are you left with - the Church against the world. But who took control of the world - that's what's decisive.
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote
User avatar
Peter Kirby
Site Admin
Posts: 8025
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 2:13 pm
Location: Santa Clara
Contact:

Re: Was the Baptism of John = Forced Conversion of John Hyrc

Post by Peter Kirby »

Secret Alias wrote:But Peter, Christianity is a (purported) surviving remnant of the remembrance of Jesus's crucifixion. You can posit that it was a fictitious event. But at least there is something to argue on behalf of the existence of Jesus. With John the Baptist you have nothing.
This argument has practically zero value as evidence, as nearly all religious movements (conservatively, let's put it at 80% or more) die out, then or now. Those that survive for hundreds and thousands of years are the exception, not the rule.
Secret Alias wrote:Serious questions raised (by those who know) about how a baptism of forgiveness of sins could have arisen in Judaism. What is the precedence for this? All sins wiped clean by a 'dip' in the Jordan? That's complete nonsense. It would never have been accepted by anyone of authority.
Of the two arguments, this is the better one, but one question is whether you're interpreting Josephus correctly (be sure to be interpreting Josephus, not Mark, here) and whether the correct interpretation really does create an implausible scenario.
So what are you left with - the Church against the world. But who took control of the world - that's what's decisive.
If you look at the classics (Josephus and Tacitus), the Talmud, and the Christian literature as three different literary sources for first century Palestine, two out of three ain't bad. Even one of three isn't horrible (and I'd say it's the mode of the distribution! i.e. the most common scenario). Yes, Jesus is in 3 out of 3 (except for those who consider the Tacitus mention interpolated), but that's exceptional. Jesus can be exceptional both in being mythical and in having a wide literary impact, as 'wide literary impact' is not the sole way to answer questions about historicity.

Can you provide a good argument to the effect that we know that John the Baptist was absent from Marcion's Gospel? Something more than speculation leading to a plausibility?

I can offer a pretty good one that it was in the Antiquities of Josephus, an extant first century source who is a Jewish historian:

http://peterkirby.com/john-the-baptist-authentic.html
"... almost every critical biblical position was earlier advanced by skeptics." - Raymond Brown
Secret Alias
Posts: 18362
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Was the Baptism of John = Forced Conversion of John Hyrc

Post by Secret Alias »

But Josephus is ultimately a Christian or a Christianized text. You accept I assume the Testamonium Flavianum is a forgery and at least a few others. It's not as if Josephus is anything but a Christian source. If you accept the Marcionite gospel was a distinct text from the orthodox gospel(s) surely one of the most significant differences is that it contains no allusions or appropriations from Josephus. So what does that tell you?
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote
User avatar
Peter Kirby
Site Admin
Posts: 8025
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 2:13 pm
Location: Santa Clara
Contact:

Re: Was the Baptism of John = Forced Conversion of John Hyrc

Post by Peter Kirby »

Secret Alias wrote:But Josephus is ultimately a Christian or a Christianized text. You accept I assume the Testamonium Flavianum is a forgery and at least a few others.
That's why I needed to make a positive case regarding the John the Baptist passage not being a "Christian" interpolation. I believe that I have done that. The case is out there. That case isn't addressed by calling Josephus' text "Christianized." And Josephus' Antiquities is ultimately a Josephan text, the vast majority of which was not of Christian origin. Speaking in short quips like this will get us exactly nowhere.
Secret Alias wrote:It's not as if Josephus is anything but a Christian source. If you accept the Marcionite gospel was a distinct text from the orthodox gospel(s) surely one of the most significant differences is that it contains no allusions or appropriations from Josephus. So what does that tell you?
(1) I don't know whether the Marcionite gospel contained allusions or appropriations from Josephus. I'm not sure what you're talking about.

(2) I would guess you might be talking about the parts of Luke-Acts that seem to have a literary relationship with Josephus that are absent from Marcion's text. If so, then it would be slightly strange for someone to excise them all strictly by chance. The more likely scenario is that the version of the Gospel used by Marcion preceded the work we possess, i.e., Luke-Acts.

(3) I have no idea what else you're reading into this.
"... almost every critical biblical position was earlier advanced by skeptics." - Raymond Brown
Secret Alias
Posts: 18362
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Was the Baptism of John = Forced Conversion of John Hyrc

Post by Secret Alias »

I skimmed through your article (we are having a Seahawks party). I think the first question is to ask whether Clement's Josephus (who developed a chronology down to the middle of the second century) is an earlier version of our Antiquities. I am not sure that it makes sense to argue that there was a Jewish Antiquities which was authentic and then it was corrupted by a Christian editor. If I am not mistaken all the John the Baptist references are in Antiquities (memory). Shaye Cohen's theory about an original hypomnema comprises only Life and Jewish Wars. Antiquities I would argue was a pseudepigraphon developed in the mid second century. I wonder whether the origin of 'John the Baptist' derives its origin from the Marcionite gospels reference to a 'baptism of John' (Hyrcanus) and this reference in Life:
When I was about sixteen years old I had a mind to make a trial of the several sects that were among us. There are three of these, that of the Pharisees, the Sadducees, and the third that of the Essenes, as we have frequently told you. I thought that being acquainted with them all I could choose the best. So I consigned myself to hardship, and underwent great difficulties, and went through them all. Nor did I content myself with the trying of these three only, for when I was informed that one whose name was Banus lived in the desert, and used no other clothing than what grew upon trees, and had no other food than what grew of its own accord, and bathed himself in cold water frequently, both night and day, to purify himself, I imitated him in those things, and continued with him three years.
Last edited by Secret Alias on Sun Jan 10, 2016 5:59 pm, edited 1 time in total.
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote
Secret Alias
Posts: 18362
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Was the Baptism of John = Forced Conversion of John Hyrc

Post by Secret Alias »

I think the first thing is to find out whether there are John the Baptist references in Jewish Wars.
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote
Secret Alias
Posts: 18362
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Was the Baptism of John = Forced Conversion of John Hyrc

Post by Secret Alias »

If this is the extent of John the Baptist references it's going to be easier to argue for forgery;

Antiquities 18.5.2 116-119

Now some of the Jews thought that the destruction of Herod's army came from God, and was a very just punishment for what he did against John called the baptist [the dipper]. For Herod had him killed, although he was a good man and had urged the Jews to exert themselves to virtue, both as to justice toward one another and reverence towards God, and having done so join together in washing. For immersion in water, it was clear to him, could not be used for the forgiveness of sins, but as a sanctification of the body, and only if the soul was already thoroughly purified by right actions. And when others massed about him, for they were very greatly moved by his words, Herod, who feared that such strong influence over the people might carry to a revolt -- for they seemed ready to do any thing he should advise -- believed it much better to move now than later have it raise a rebellion and engage him in actions he would regret.
And so John, out of Herod's suspiciousness, was sent in chains to Machaerus, the fort previously mentioned, and there put to death; but it was the opinion of the Jews that out of retribution for John God willed the destruction of the army so as to afflict Herod.

Herodias and Salome

Antiquities 18.5.3 136

Herodias was married to Herod, the son of Herod the Great by Mariamme the daughter of Simon the high priest. They had a daughter Salome, after whose birth Herodias, taking it into her head to flout the way of our fathers, married Herod the Tetrarch, her husband's brother by the same father, who was tetrarch of Galilee; to do this she parted from a living husband.

Herod and Herodias and Herod's First Wife and Aretas

Antiquities 18.5.1 109-115
(This paragraph immediately precedes the one about John.)

About this time Aretas, the king of Petra, and Herod the Tetrarch had a quarrel on account of the following. Herod the tetrarch had married the daughter of Aretas and had lived with her a great while; but once when he was on his way to Rome he lodged with his half-brother, also named Herod but who had a different mother, the high priest Simon's daughter. There he fell in love with Herodias, this latter Herod's wife, who was the daughter of their brother Aristobulus and the sister of Agrippa the Great.
This man ventured to talk to her about a marriage between them; she accepted, and an agreement was made for her to come to him as soon as he should return from Rome, one condition of this marriage being that he should divorce Aretas's daughter. So when he had made this agreement, he sailed to Rome; but when he had finished there and returned again, his wife, having discovered the agreement he had made with Herodias, and before he knew that she knew of the plan, asked him to send her to Machaerus, a place on the border between the territories of Aretas and Herod, without informing him of any of her intentions.
Accordingly Herod sent her there, thinking his wife had not perceived anything. But she had sent messages a good while before to Machaerus, which had been under the control of her father, and so all things necessary for her escape were made ready for her by the general of Aretas's army. By that means she soon came into Arabia, under the conduct of the several generals, who carried her from one to another successively; and soon she came to her father and told him of Herod's intentions.
Aretas made this the start of his enmity toward Herod. He also had a quarrel with him about their boundaries in the area of Gabalis. So they raised armies on both sides and prepared for war, sending their generals to fight instead of themselves. And when they had joined battle, all Herod's army was destroyed by the treachery of some fugitives who, though they were of the tetrarchy of Philip and joined the army, betrayed him. So Herod wrote about these affairs to Emperor Tiberius, who was very angry at the attempt made by Aretas and wrote to Vitellius to make war upon him and either to take him alive, and bring him in chains, or to kill him, and send him his head. This was the command that Tiberius gave to the governor of Syria.

Again unless I am mistaken, there are no John the Baptist references in Jewish Wars. Jewish Wars is closer to a historical Josephus than Antiquities (and the original [Aramaic] hypomnema). It's an easier argument to discount Antiquities than Antiquities and Jewish Wars.
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote
Post Reply