John the Baptist is Historical

[Adam]

I thought I had found the scholarly vehicle to display how the gospels present John the Baptizer in so many ways that we can't really doubt he existed historically. On the Blasphemy & the Passion Narrative thread I had started displaying the comparative gospels to reveal the source elements. (I did not finish because I realized that the translation employed was not literalistic enough. The RSV 2nd Ed. is relatively literalistic, but does not always use the same English words to translate the Greek, so Reuben Swanson put in an awful lot of detailed work that does not properly compare the comparative Synoptics and John in his Horizontal Line Synopsis of the Gospels, 1975.)
Meanwhile I started doing the same thing with the portions of the gospels that are about John the Baptist. I probably correctly came to some generalizations, but now know I can't prove my points. I would have loved to display numerous unrelated sources about John the Baptizer. There is an earliest source written in Aramaic that includes verses in the Gospel of John. There are thus comparative four verses all somewhat alike. More commonly we see the three Synoptics sort of similar, going back to a common Aramaic source. Then there are three Synoptics quite similar, coming from a common Greek source. This latter case is particularly for parallels between Matthew and Mark, which indicates a common Greek Proto-Matthew. But beyond this we find verses so very alike that neither can be a source; they must both be late insertions by a Redactor. In addition there are stand-alone verses in each of the gospels that attest to further independent information about John the Baptizer.
I feel particularly impelled to attest to John's historicity, since I am one of those who seconded attempts to sort out John the Baptizer passages as being late additions. Yes, some are, but the over-arching and repeated presence of such items, argues historicity. Not to mention that he made such an impact upon his times that a cult sprang up that lasted for two thousand years. We thus can't make much headway against the possibility that some verses in Josephus were interpolated. Give it up, mythicists.
As I said, with the resources at hand I can't prove this as well as I would like. However, I do have a copy of the English Standard Bible on order, and it may be literalistic enough for my purposes while yet accepting Lower Criticism.

[neilgodfrey]

the over-arching and repeated presence of such items, argues historicity. Not to mention that he made such an impact upon his times that a cult sprang up that lasted for two thousand years. We thus can't make much headway against the possibility that some verses in John were interpolated. Give it up, mythicists.

Not sure what over-arching presence means but can you explain how "repeated presence" argues for historicity?

" Not to mention that he made such an impact upon his times that a cult sprang up that lasted for two thousand years." -- This is circular. We have a cult that purports to be two thousand years old or is for various reasons believed to be two thousand years old. What evidence do we have for the origins of that cult that assures us it was initiated by a most impressive JtB figure?

"Give it up, mythicists."

I first heard the arguments questioning the historicity of JtB from scholars who accept the historicity of Jesus.

[Adam]

My apologies. I meant to write against "verses in JOSEPHUS were interpolated", not JOHN.
As I said, there is some justification for thinking some major sections about John the Baptizer were late, thus conceivably made up by a redactor. However, there is more than one type of "late" interpolation (in my system, "late" being 30-40 years after the Crucifixion). Most convincingly, however, there are sets of verses about John the Baptizer that are of different origin. some Aramaic and several Greek either sources or added at the time of writing, only later followed by the suspected interpolations that are exactly the same over several gospels.

I may well be wrong about what various types of "mythicists" there are out there. You speak of JB Mythicists, the usual form is Jesus Mythicist, and are there or not some who regard BOTH as myths, that there never was a John the Baptist nor a Jesus? If there are none now. surely there were some Radicals in the 19th Century?

[neilgodfrey]

there are sets of verses about John the Baptizer that are of different origin. some Aramaic and several Greek either sources or added at the time of writing,

I don't follow the logic that concludes from the above that JtB was historical.

[Secret Alias]

I will tell you what I have a hard time with Adam. The law and the prophets were until John. I don't get it. Why? By what authority? That's why I think "John" wasn't this John.

[Charles Wilson]

I will tell you what I have a hard time with Adam. The law and the prophets were until John. I don't get it. Why? By what authority? That's why I think "John" wasn't this John.

By the Authority of the Priestly Courses, which found "John" as being from the Mishmarot Group "Bilgah". "Jesus" would have been of "Immer" *BUT* Jesus becomes a manufactured savior/god and thus "The Law and the Prophets were until John...".

CW

PS: The problem is not with Adam or even with you, Stephan. The problem is in finding a way to see the Data such that "The Law and the Prophets..." DID end with John, even though the manufactured savior/god began a New Religion on the Debris of a rewritten Stolen Jewish History.

[Bernard Muller]

See http://peterkirby.com/john-the-baptist-authentic.html

Cordially, Bernard

[Giuseppe]

My problem with John the Baptist in Josephus is not the improbability of his death or of his action, etc. But because the uniqueness of his figure is a ''fact'' a priori. Without no mention by Josephus of why so much uniqueness. Unless we consider as ''uniqueness'' the pure and simple solitary conflict of John against Herod (but the tropos à la David versus Goliath serves only to make great David).

Now some of the Jews thought that the destruction of Herod’s army came from God, and that very justly, as a punishment of what he did against John, that was called the Baptist: for Herod slew him, who was a good man, and commanded the Jews to exercise virtue, both as to righteousness towards one another, and piety towards God, and so to come to baptism;

Note that what I put in red is not a true explanation of the ''uniqueness'' of John (there is not a real explanation of it even when Josephus alludes to his misunderstanding as seditionist by Herod). But only a pure re-statement of it, apparently without a plausible reason. What interests to Josephus (or to the interpolator?) is uniquely to emphasize the uniqueness of the man John (with a clue to his activity as baptizer and potential seditionist: facts concerning his great effect among people, not concerning himself per se). Nothing more.

I wonder why PK doens't concern to confute this my obvious criticism of JtB's episode in his post.

In any case, the authenticity of the Baptist passage in Josephus works a bit against the same historicity of Jesus: why John the Baptist - victim of Herod - was recorded by Josephus while Jesus (who was called Christ), a presumed victim of Pilate, was not?

If John is already an insignificant figure of prophet or martyr, how could Jesus be even more insignificant martyr and be existed?

But note that ''Josephus'' is saying that John is not insignificant at all.

[outhouse]

There is an earliest source written in Aramaic that includes verses in the Gospel of John

.

Please provide sources

[outhouse]

the manufactured savior/god began a New Religion on the Debris of a rewritten Stolen Jewish History.

This I agree whole hearted.

To me there is no reason an Aramaic teacher of apocalyptic Judaism who baptized, held enough popularity to be murdered for gathering large crowds, did not exist.


Then we are left with cross cultural traditions where any possible historicity has to be teased out with careful study. Leaving only a vague definition as a best guess.