John and Jesus in the wilderness: vox dei versus vox satanae?

[lsayre]

If the purpose of John is only to fix the date of Jesus, then John is likely a development that arose among the proto-orthodox. But then again, doesn't Josephus mention John the Baptist?

[MrMacSon]

... doesn't Josephus mention John the Baptist?

There has been commentary Josephus's mention of JtB (Antiquities 18.109-19) interrupts the flow of Antiquities: ie. as if it's an addition.

[Giuseppe]

If the purpose of John is only to fix the date of Jesus, then John is likely a development that arose among the proto-orthodox. But then again, doesn't Josephus mention John the Baptist?

At contrary, this is further evidence of the historical existence of John the Baptist.

If John the Baptist never existed, the proto-catholics would have used another historical figure to witness the apparition of Jesus in the real history.

John the Baptist is particolarly fit (for the role of witness) since the his activity as baptizer ensures the complete anonymity of all the his baptized people. How can you deny that one of the his baptized was named Jesus and he came from Nazaret?