Was "who was called the Baptist" an interpolation in Josephus?

[GakuseiDon]

The fact that someone became known as "the Baptist" suggests that the person was baptizing a lot of people. Why else call him "the Baptist"?

you conclude so because you have lens colored by the Gospels. But it is not prima facie evident to conclude so. One can conclude with equal right that John was baptizing continually only himself, or only 10 people, and hence he was called "Baptizer".

Sure, why not? Why would the Roman reader care if John the Baptist baptised one person, or 10, or many? But Josephus writes:
http://www.earlyjewishwritings.com/text ... ant18.html

Now when [many] others came in crowds about him, for they were very greatly moved [or pleased] by hearing his words, Herod, who feared lest the great influence John had over the people might put it into his power and inclination to raise a rebellion

Now, maybe the crowds of people coming to see John did so to see him dipping himself into the water continually, like some kind of human porpoise. But it doesn't matter. The point is that John the Baptist was popular, regardless of how many he dipped.

In addition, it is necessary that Josephus informs us that John was "called Baptizer" because he was baptizing a lot of people: the precise measure of the his influence (in terms of people baptized by him) by the his baptism is necessary in order to derive the reader's attention about the meaning of the his baptism. He couldn't ignore that premise so necessary for the his implications.

I'm still missing the logic, I'm afraid. John the Baptist attracted crowds, for whatever reason. Herod feared a rebellion. The Roman reader would understand why Herod wanted John the Baptist gone.

In addition, Josephus had to specify that John was called Baptist because he was baptizing people, since there is the concrete possibility that, according to the his opinions about the baptism, this John warned men off baptism and in that case could not be considered as the “Baptist”:

That the Jordan water, being of mixed nature, was not considered legally admissible for purposes of purification ha been mentioned before. It is remarkable that Josephus (Anti. 18,5,2) - differing from the Evangelists - records that John taught that the Baptism, the purpose of which was bodily purification, was only pleading to God when the soul had already been purified. that would mean that John, in fact, warned men off baptism and in that case could not be considered as the “Baptist”. If the passage is authentic, then Josephus did not grasp the real attitude of the Baptist.

(1935, first pub. 1919: G. Dalman, Sacred Sites and Ways: Studies in the Topography of the Gospels, p. 98, original cursive)

Where does Josephus tell us that John the Baptist baptised in the Jordan river? I hope you haven't had your lens colored by the Gospels! I suggest that Dalman has "the Gospels are undoubtedly correct!" firmly in mind when he evaluates Josephus.

[Giuseppe]

Sure, why not? Why would the Roman reader care if John the Baptist baptised one person, or 10, or many? But Josephus writes:
http://www.earlyjewishwritings.com/text ... ant18.html

Now when [many] others came in crowds about him, for they were very greatly moved [or pleased] by hearing his words, Herod, who feared lest the great influence John had over the people might put it into his power and inclination to raise a rebellion

You are making the my argument. Josephus writes that others came in crowds about him, only not for the his baptism, hence a Roman reader couldn't learn minimally that John was “called Baptist” because he was baptizing a lot of people (the exact information that is missing in Josephus but not in the Gospels).

Now, maybe the crowds of people coming to see John did so to see him dipping himself into the water continually, like some kind of human porpoise. But it doesn't matter.

Of grace, how can you say “it doesn't matter”? Josephus spends a lot of words and bores Roman readers about John's opinions on baptism, without specifying nowhere why all that discussion is important.

But we who read the Gospels, we know well the why: that discussion about John's opinions on the baptism is important because John was baptizing a lot of people, and accordingly he was called “the Baptizer” to distinguish him from other baptizers as the essenes.

I'm still missing the logic, I'm afraid. John the Baptist attracted crowds, for whatever reason. Herod feared a rebellion. The Roman reader would understand why Herod wanted John the Baptist gone.

In all this, ask yourself: why is so important a boring discussion (“boring” from the POV of a Roman reader) by Josephus about the John's opinions on the baptism, when the reader can't know even why John is “called Baptist” (i.e., because he was baptizing a lot of people and was attracting crowds precisely for that reason).

The Trump's opinions are irrilevant for me, if it were not that Trump is the most powerful man in the world.


The John's opinions on the baptism were irrilevant for the Roman readers, if it were not that John, just in virtue of the his baptism, was baptizing a lot of people to the point of being called “Baptizer”.

But where from only the Josephus passage could the Roman readers infer that John became famous (he was called “Baptist”) because he was baptizing a lot of people?

Uniquely from the his label “Baptist”?

An epithet doesn't mean nothing, as Ben wrote before in this thread.
Note that even the Essenes could be called “baptizers”.

Only, it requires an explanation, if only for the purpose of explaining why a Roman reader has to find interesting the opinions of a guy from the remote Judea about the baptism.

And that explanation is missing in Josephus. But not in the Gospels.

[Giuseppe]

Where does Josephus tell us that John the Baptist baptised in the Jordan river? I hope you haven't had your lens colored by the Gospels! I suggest that Dalman has "the Gospels are undoubtedly correct!" firmly in mind when he evaluates Josephus.

The point made by Dalman (note: a historicist) is still useful as only an example of the “can of worms” provoked by the missed mention, by “Josephus”, of the reason why John was “called Baptist”.

[GakuseiDon]

... My point is that the Roman readers had no reasons at all to be interested [in] John's opinions about baptism, if they couldn't learn from Josephus that this John was baptizing a lot of people and consequently he was “called the Baptist”.

Josephus is omitting information --the fact that John “was called Baptist” because he was famous as [a] baptizer of a lot of people-- that is strictly necessary in order to understand why his opinions about the baptism were particularly interesting and worth knowing in [the] first place.

The problem is not resolved by simply re-defining the terms.

Clearly, as my argument goes, the Christians alone were able to understand the meaning of the term “Baptist” and the importance of the John's opinions regarding the baptism: they knew that John was called “Submerger” because he was submerging a lot of people.

Good points.

Are they really? I've been going through this thread trying to understand Giuseppe's argument. I know English isn't his first language, though he is almost native level. Perhaps that may be the problem. Could you explain what his good points are, please?

[Giuseppe]

In the whiletime, I would like to explain how this argument is risen in the my mind for the first time:

Searching for references to Graetz, I have found this:

https://books.google.it/books?id=PxM9AA ... st&f=false


...and I have asked myself: could the Graetz's argument be apparently so idiot? “The entire passage is spurious because Josephus doesn't explain why John is called Baptist”.

Clearly there would be a more sound point behind the missed mention of Baptism, in the Graetz's argument.

I think that I have found this more sound point. This thread is the result.

[GakuseiDon]

Sure, why not? Why would the Roman reader care if John the Baptist baptised one person, or 10, or many? But Josephus writes:
http://www.earlyjewishwritings.com/text ... ant18.html

Now when [many] others came in crowds about him, for they were very greatly moved [or pleased] by hearing his words, Herod, who feared lest the great influence John had over the people might put it into his power and inclination to raise a rebellion

You are making the my argument. Josephus writes that others came in crowds about him, only not for the his baptism, hence a Roman reader couldn't learn minimally that John was “called Baptist” because he was baptizing a lot of people (the exact information that is missing in Josephus but not in the Gospels).

I'm sorry, I still don't get it. I don't think a Roman reader would care how many John had baptized. The important thing that Josephus is imparting is that John was popular.

John the B baptized one or more people --> he attracted crowds --> Herod was worried by the crowds --> Herod killed John the B.

Now, maybe the crowds of people coming to see John did so to see him dipping himself into the water continually, like some kind of human porpoise. But it doesn't matter.

Of grace, how can you say “it doesn't matter”? Josephus spends a lot of words and bores Roman readers about John's opinions on baptism, without specifying nowhere why all that discussion is important.

But we who read the Gospels, we know well the why: that discussion about John's opinions on the baptism is important because John was baptizing a lot of people, and accordingly he was called “the Baptizer” to distinguish him from other baptizers as the essenes.

I'd say let's agree to disagree, but I don't know what I'd be disagreeing with. I don't see anything in Josephus that looks strange with regards to the John the Baptist passage, or the "called Christ" passage as well for that matter. But you do seem to have identified a new criterion: the Criterion of Boredom, whereby if something would bore Roman readers it suggests an interpolation has been made.

[Giuseppe]

I'm sorry, I still don't get it. I don't think a Roman reader would care how many John had baptized.

Not even when the same Roman reader is obliged by Josephus to learn the John's opinions about the baptism?

Can you explain me why I shouldn't care about Trump's opinions about foreign policy, please?

The important thing that Josephus is imparting is that John was popular.

Only, not for the baptism he administered. Hence why talk about John's opinions about the baptism at all? Only to bore the Roman readers?

John the B baptized one or more people --> he attracted crowds --> Herod was worried by the crowds --> Herod killed John the B.

In Yellow the exact implication that is missing in Josephus.

But not in the Gospels.

I'd say let's agree to disagree, but I don't know what I'd be disagreeing with. I don't see anything in Josephus that looks strange with regards to the John the Baptist passage, or the "called Christ" passage as well for that matter.

Now all is clear. I have already said you: if you believe that “called Christ” is genuine because Josephus didn't need to give information about why this Jesus was called Christ, then this thread is decisively not for you.

But you do seem to have identified a new criterion: the Criterion of Boredom, whereby if something would bore Roman readers it suggests an interpolation has been made.

Better: it suggests that the true Josephus would have given necessarily more reasons* in order to bore the Romans (and we) with a so boring (!) argument as the John's opinions about the baptism could be, sincerely.

* = the exact reasons we find in the Gospels: that John was baptizing a lot of people and therefore he was called Baptist.

[Ben C. Smith]

Now all is clear. I have already said you: if you believe that “called Christ” is genuine because Josephus didn't need to give information about why this Jesus was called Christ, then this thread is decisively not for you.

I harbor the gravest suspicions about "called Christ" in Josephus, and you already know how I feel about your reasoning on this thread. Doubts about "called Christ" do not translate cleanly into accepting your premise(s) on John the Baptist.

[Giuseppe]

Now all is clear. I have already said you: if you believe that “called Christ” is genuine because Josephus didn't need to give information about why this Jesus was called Christ, then this thread is decisively not for you.

I harbor the gravest suspicions about "called Christ" in Josephus, and you already know how I feel about your reasoning on this thread. Doubts about "called Christ" do not translate cleanly into accepting your premise(s) on John the Baptist.

really the case against "called Baptist" and the rest of the passage about John is slightly stronger than the case against "called Christ".

As I said, Josephus is not obliged, in line of principle, to explain why he says that someone is "called X".

But we (or at least I) doubt about "called Christ" because Jesus son of Damneus is a better candidate in the role of the brother of the James who was killed by Ananus: he replaced Ananus himself!

Note that without Jesus son of Damneus, the Mythicists would be obliged to argue that the entire passage about James is interpolated (!).

And I have given reasons to doubt about "called Baptist" (and the remaining passage): basically, the absence of explanation by Josephus of the importance given by Josephus to the John's opinions about the baptism, an absence that is filled only in the Gospels.