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

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
Giuseppe
Posts: 13732
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

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

Post by Giuseppe »

So Josephus:
[18.116] Now some of the Jews thought that the destruction of Herod's army came from God as a just punishment of what Herod had done against John, who was called the Baptist.

[18.117] For Herod had killed this good man, who had commanded the Jews to exercise virtue, righteousness towards one another and piety towards God. For only thus, in John's opinion, would the baptism he administered be acceptable to God, namely, if they used it to obtain not pardon for some sins but rather the cleansing of their bodies, inasmuch as it was taken for granted that their souls had already been purified by justice.

[18.118] Now many people came in crowds to him, for they were greatly moved by his words. Herod, who feared that the great influence John had over the masses might put them into his power and enable him to raise a rebellion (for they seemed ready to do anything he should advise), thought it best to put him to death. In this way, he might prevent any mischief John might cause, and not bring himself into difficulties by sparing a man who might make him repent of it when it would be too late.

[18.119] Accordingly John was sent as a prisoner, out of Herod's suspicious temper, to Macherus, the castle I already mentioned, and was put to death. Now the Jews thought that the destruction of his army was sent as a punishment upon Herod, and a mark of God's displeasure with him.

I see a very strange thing in Josephus.

Josephus introduces John as John "who was called the Baptist", but he doesn't explain minimally why this John was called "Baptist". This remembers the strange absence of explanation by Josephus about the construct "called Christ": in both the cases no explanation is there about the origin of the label for the guy who is going to be mentioned.

A possible objection is that Josephus really would describe why John is called "Baptizer" in the following sentences. But this is simply not true:
For only thus, in John's opinion, would the baptism he administered be acceptable to God, namely, if they used it to obtain not pardon for some sins but rather the cleansing of their bodies, inasmuch as it was taken for granted that their souls had already been purified by justice.
Josephus isn't explaining at all why John is named "Baptist". At contrary, he is introducing the "John's opinion" about the baptism only on the assumption that the readers know already that John was called "Baptist" because he was baptizing people. But clearly the Roman readers couldn't realize in advance the implication:

Being called "Baptist" -------> being one who was "administering the baptism" to people

...not more than the same Roman readers could know who James was from the mere fact that he was the brother of a Jesus "called Christ".

Unless the readers of that particular version of Josephus were CHRISTIAN readers.

Unless the entire passage about John (or at least only about the his reference to the baptism and his label as "Baptist") was a Christian interpolation.
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.
User avatar
GakuseiDon
Posts: 2296
Joined: Sat Oct 12, 2013 5:10 pm

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

Post by GakuseiDon »

Giuseppe wrote: Sun Sep 23, 2018 11:45 amI see a very strange thing in Josephus.

Josephus introduces John as John "who was called the Baptist", but he doesn't explain minimally why this John was called "Baptist".
You need to get together with nightshadetwine and others on the thread here: viewtopic.php?f=3&t=4538

Everybody back then was doing baptism! You couldn't walk down the street without tripping over someone doing baptism. Thus Josephus apparently wouldn't need to explain it.
Giuseppe wrote: Sun Sep 23, 2018 11:45 amThis remembers the strange absence of explanation by Josephus about the construct "called Christ": in both the cases no explanation is there about the origin of the label for the guy who is going to be mentioned.
You mean, someone called Christ was called Christ, without explanation? Remarkable! :cheers:
It is really important, in life, to concentrate our minds on our enthusiasms, not on our dislikes. -- Roger Pearse
Giuseppe
Posts: 13732
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

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

Post by Giuseppe »

GakuseiDon wrote: Sun Sep 23, 2018 3:37 pm Everybody back then was doing baptism! You couldn't walk down the street without tripping over someone doing baptism. Thus Josephus apparently wouldn't need to explain it.
Are you joking? :D I would hope. Were they so clean? :roll: Image
You mean, someone called Christ was called Christ, without explanation? Remarkable! :cheers:
Are you one of those who believe that “called Christ” of Ant.20:200 is not an interpolation? In this case this thread is not for you, believe me.

Josephus would have written something of the kind if the his readers were really Roman readers:

[18.116] Now some of the Jews thought that the destruction of Herod's army came from God as a just punishment of what Herod had done against John, who was called the Baptist because he used to adiminister the baptism to masses.

[18.117] For Herod had killed this good man, who had commanded the Jews to exercise virtue, righteousness towards one another and piety towards God. For only thus, in John's opinion, would the baptism he administered be acceptable to God, namely, if they used it to obtain not pardon for some sins but rather the cleansing of their bodies, inasmuch as it was taken for granted that their souls had already been purified by justice.

But evidently “Jospehus” was writing for Christians and for Christians alone.

I note that even Peter Kirby doesn't address this strong argument for interpolation in the his blog.
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.
Giuseppe
Posts: 13732
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

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

Post by Giuseppe »

I see that this same argument against the authenticity of the passage was already made by H. Graetz:
Wie konnte auch Josephus geschrieben haben Ἰωάννου τοῠ ἐπικαλουμένου Βαπτιστοῠ, ohne für die griechischen Leser zu erklären, was denn eigentlich ein Täufer ist? Dieses Kapitel ist eine geschickt-ungeschickte Fälschung.
http://www.zeno.org/Geschichte/M/Graetz ... ristentums
How could Josephus have written Ἰωάννου τοῠ ἐπικαλουμένου Βαπτιστοῠ, without explaining to the Greek readers what a Baptist really is? This chapter is a skilfully-fake forgery.

Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.
lsayre
Posts: 769
Joined: Sun Jan 04, 2015 3:39 pm

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

Post by lsayre »

There were several "daily bather" groups back then. Did baptism evolve from this practice? Was John the Baptist (if a real human) a daily bather, or does he represent an insightful evolution which sprang from among those who followed this practice?
Giuseppe
Posts: 13732
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

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

Post by Giuseppe »

lsayre wrote: Mon Sep 24, 2018 5:37 am There were several "daily bather" groups back then. Did baptism evolve from this practice? Was John the Baptist (if a real human) a daily bather, or does he represent an insightful evolution which sprang from among those who followed this practice?
If your goal is to judaize the Gospel against Marcion, then all you have to do is to create a precursor of Jesus and a “soft” way to subjugate Jesus to this precursor.

From this POV, the “daily bather” is simply the mark of traditionalist Jewish groups. The implication is evident: if the Gospel Jesus was baptized, then he was really Jewish. Pace Marcion.
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.
User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 8994
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

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

Post by Ben C. Smith »

ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ
Giuseppe
Posts: 13732
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

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

Post by Giuseppe »

Ben C. Smith wrote: Mon Sep 24, 2018 6:35 am This is the mountain to climb: http://peterkirby.com/john-the-baptist-authentic.html.
Not even Peter Kirby addresses the my argument: Josephus doesn't explain nowhere why John is called “Baptist”. Only the Christian readers know the reason: John is called Baptist because he used to administer the baptism (but this info comes from the Gospel, not from Josephus).

I see that you are ignoring also the fact that I have written before:
Giuseppe wrote: Mon Sep 24, 2018 4:29 am I note that even Peter Kirby doesn't address this strong argument for interpolation in the his blog.
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.
User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 8994
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

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

Post by Ben C. Smith »

Giuseppe wrote: Mon Sep 24, 2018 6:52 am
Ben C. Smith wrote: Mon Sep 24, 2018 6:35 am This is the mountain to climb: http://peterkirby.com/john-the-baptist-authentic.html.
Not even Peter Kirby addresses the my argument: Josephus doesn't explain nowhere why John is called “Baptist”.
He does not have to. It is a epithet.

Kirby's arguments are still what you have to address in full. One argument against the pile is not enough. Anyone can see that.
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ
Giuseppe
Posts: 13732
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

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

Post by Giuseppe »

Ben, are you reducing your entire argument against the my argument (the absence of an explanation of the term “Baptist” for John by Josephus) to the list of arguments by Peter Kirby addressing entirely other arguments?

Or are you reducing your entire argument against the my argument (the absence of an explanation of the term “Baptist” for John by Josephus) to the stupid objection that Josephus really explained why John was called “Baptist” in the following sentence:
For only thus, in John's opinion, would the baptism he administered be acceptable to God, namely, if they used it to obtain not pardon for some sins but rather the cleansing of their bodies, inasmuch as it was taken for granted that their souls had already been purified by justice.
If your answer is yes to both the questions, then I can conclude already from now that the best argument is the my.
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.
Post Reply