StephenGoranson wrote: ↑Tue Jan 12, 2021 12:29 am
Yesterday I heard most of the session below. Some of the speakers were very good. Note that here and in other sessions there are readings available, even if you don’t register for zooming.
(-) 9:45-11:45am — Freedman Panel, organized by the Department of Middle East Studies of the University of Michigan: Who is my John the Baptist? Contemporary Scholarly Portraits
• Chair: Kelley Coblentz Bautch
• Speakers: Joel Marcus, Joan Taylor, Edmondo Lupieri, Rivka Nir, Albert Baumgarten, Gabriele Boccaccini
Supplemental reading for Joan Taylor’s presentation [click here]
Rivka Nir’s presentation [click here]
Supplemental reading for Rivka Nir’s presentation [click here]
Supplemental reading for Albert Baumgarten’s presentation [click here]
Today I’ll probably miss it, because at work (I’m not retired, pace S.) there’s a different scheduled zooming.
Shayna Sheinfeld, “Revisiting the Historical John the Baptist as Prophet in First-Century Judaism”
It is no surprise, given the eventual success of the religion we have come to know as Christianity, that John the Baptist has been imagined to be a unique outlier in the first-century Judaean landscape. These preliminary remarks revisit John’s place among his prophetic peers, seeking to position him not as an outlier but as part and parcel of the Jewish prophets in his socio-historical context.
Presentation handout for Shayna Sheinfeld [click here]
Supplemental reading for Gregory Doudna [click here]
StephenGoranson wrote: ↑
Tue Jan 12, 2021 12:29 am
Yesterday I heard most of the session below. Some of the speakers were very good. Note that here and in other sessions there are readings available, even if you don’t register for zooming.
(-) 9:45-11:45am — Freedman Panel, organized by the Department of Middle East Studies of the University of Michigan: Who is my John the Baptist? Contemporary Scholarly Portraits
• Chair: Kelley Coblentz Bautch
• Speakers: Joel Marcus, Joan Taylor, Edmondo Lupieri, Rivka Nir, Albert Baumgarten, Gabriele Boccaccini
Supplemental reading for Joan Taylor’s presentation [click here]
Rivka Nir’s presentation [click here]
Supplemental reading for Rivka Nir’s presentation [click here]
Supplemental reading for Albert Baumgarten’s presentation [click here]
Today I’ll probably miss it, because at work (I’m not retired, pace S.) there’s a different scheduled zooming.
Kunigunde Kreuzerin (two messages above)
The “Supplemental reading for Steve Mason’s presentation” may be of interest to those who think that the Baptist passage is authentic.
Mason also cites well-wrought reasons for the authenticity of the Baptist passage which are based on stylistic reasons, especially word usage.
**
Me, SG again:
IMO, Steve Mason makes a very good case that the Josephus passage on the Baptist is authentic.
According to the G. Doudna paper maryhelena linked to again, Josephus called Hyrcanus II John the Baptist instead of Hyrcanus II and also placed the story in the time of a wrong Herod. Each one of these seems to me unlikely. Taken together, even more unlikely.
StephenGoranson wrote: ↑Wed Jan 27, 2021 4:40 am
IMO, Steve Mason makes a very good case that the Josephus passage on the Baptist is authentic.
Yeah, it's a great read with interesting insights into how the passage is to be understood in the larger context of Josephus' work and also of Greco-Roman literature.
I disagree about Steve Mason on two particular points.
He doesn't explain:
1. how could Herod Antipas have killed John in a so short interval of time between his arrival from Rome and his defeat by Aretas. The John's fame, dangerous in the eyes of Herod, would need more time to grow.
2. when Mason says in p. 16-17:
9 Graetz noticed what seemed historical mismatches in Josephus’ account: the chronological problem that Aretas’ war with
Antipas comes shortly before Tiberius’ death in March 37 CE, whereas John was apparently active before Jesus’ ministry and death around 30 CE (so Luke 3:2), and Josephus’ apparent implication at 18.112 that Machaerus belonged to Aretas, whereas in the following John passage it belongs to Antipas (18.119). Graetz thought it a simple (leicht zu erledigen) solution that the passage was a brazen Christian interpolation.40 His puzzlement that Josephus would mention John’s nickname βαπτιστής (allegedly) without explanation further encouraged him in this view. It is not clear, however, how the Christian-interpolation hypothesis would resolve the historical problems raised by Graetz
(my bold)
Really, a hypothetical Christian interpolator would have had interest to interpolate John the Baptist precisely there: to exorcize the suspicion raised by John 1:21:
"Are you the Prophet?" He answered, "No."
...that John was the Samaritan Prophet, described just earlier by Josephus.
StephenGoranson wrote: ↑Wed Jan 27, 2021 5:02 am
According to the G. Doudna paper maryhelena linked to again, Josephus called Hyrcanus II John the Baptist instead of Hyrcanus II and also placed the story in the time of a wrong Herod. Each one of these seems to me unlikely. Taken together, even more unlikely.
Greg Doudna's paper on the Josephan figure of John the baptizer is linked in the John the Baptist (Online 2021) conference website.
That you find it necessary to state your objection to Greg's paper, whenever you find that I have referenced it, seems, to me, that you might have some personal stake in voicing your criticism of Greg's paper - whenever you find an opportunity.
This forum is called "Biblical Criticism & History Forum," not "Criticism except for X, Y, or Z's papers." I agree with some papers, including recently as you can see, and disagree with others. Do you wish to disallow such?
Steve Mason makes a very good case that the Josephus passage on the Baptist is authentic.
I knew Steve Mason. I kind of hung out with him at York U where he taught for many years. He used to complain about his extra-circular work load at at Canadian university.
I can psychologize about his motives for accepting the authenticity of Josephus. His lifework is Josephus. Not many people make something there lifework and think it is bullshit. Stephen G = 'there are lots of fakes everywhere' = lifework. Stephan H. = 'humanities studies have INCREDIBLY subjective methodologies.' Everyone has a life project. Mason's is Josephus.
I don't think what we have as 'Josephus' is by the Jewish general Josephus. I subscribe to the idea that Greek assistants reworked an Aramaic proto-text but then again that's my subjective assessment in an entirely subjective field. We should just have MMA fights to settle controversies.
