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

[Giuseppe]

I guess the only thing for you to conclude is you are way too smart for us Giuseppe and should probably not waste your immense talents posting here

Excuse me if I have given that impression.

Giuseppe, I think you are making the same mistake that others who try to recast Christian ideas as ancient Greek ones: you are applying the word "Baptism" in its modern sense.

Are not you who was described by Carrier as who would like to "prove" something by simply re-defining again the words?

I would like to hear what Peter Kirby thinks about this my argument.

[GakuseiDon]

Giuseppe, I think you are making the same mistake that others who try to recast Christian ideas as ancient Greek ones: you are applying the word "Baptism" in its modern sense.

Are not you who was described by Carrier as who would like to "prove" something by simply re-defining again the words?

Giuseppe, I think the logic to your point -- that the word "baptism" would not have been meaningful to Roman readers thus suggesting an anachronistic interpolation -- is reasonable. Where it runs into problems IMO is that the root of the word would have been meaningful to the Romans, as suggested by Strong's.

Do you agree that a Roman reader without any knowledge of Christian baptism would have come away with the sense that John was "John the Dipper/Submerger", who cleansed the body by "dipping/submerging"?

[Giuseppe]

Giuseppe, I think the logic to your point -- that the word "baptism" would not have been meaningful to Roman readers thus suggesting an anachronistic interpolation -- is reasonable.

GDon, the my point is never been that the Romans didn't understand what a baptism is, and what a “Baptist” is. My point is that the Roman readers had no reasons at all to be interested about the John's opinions about baptism, if they couldn't learn from Josephus that this John was baptizing a lot of people and consequenty he was “called the Baptist”.

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

[MrMacSon]

... 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.

[Giuseppe]

In addition to this, I remember what the Jewish scholar Nir says about the use of baptism, apparently in contradiction with what GDon has written about a presumed familiarity with the term:

[F]urther incredulity is raised by the presence of βαπτισμός and βάπτισις, the two terms used in the passage for the immersion associated with John. Being quintessentially Christian terms that Christian tradition applied to Christian baptism, they occur in Josephus only within this passage, marking divergence from his usual usage of terms associated with the Jewish ritual of immersion—λούεσθαι, ἀπολούεσθαι, meaning to purify a person from external physical defilement.

https://vridar.org/2013/08/24/so-john-t ... gery-case/

But note that this is not essential to my argument.

While what may help partially the my argument is the Nir's conclusion:

Josephus, as is well known, remained a faithful Jew. He was neither initiated into one of the Jewish-Christian sects, nor did he convert to Christianity. Thus, the inevitable conclusion is that the description of John’s baptism, as provided in the passage under review, was not written by Josephus, but was rather interpolated or adapted by a Christian or Jewish-Christian hand.

(my bold)

Note that Nir is adding further reasons of the why Josephus had to explain what the baptism was for Josephus.

But even Nir is ignoring the fact that, even before that Josephus had to give all these informations in addition about the John's opinions on the baptism (informations that are surprisingly missing according to Nir), Josephus had to explain in first place why a Roman reader should have been interested in such an exotic subject, when he is deliberately left in the dark about the only fact that could have aroused his curiosity about the John's opinions on the baptism: that he was baptizing a lot of people to the point of being “called Baptist”.

Hence I repeat: only the Christians had the means and right knowledge to appreciate the explanatory effort attempted by Josephus, who therefore was not the authentic Josephus, but a false “Josephus”, a Christian interpolator.

[Giuseppe]

In addition, I read:

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)

Even this author is ignoring the fact that Josephus doesn't inform why the reader has to know about “the real attitude” of John about the baptism.

[Giuseppe]

Another scholar who doubts about the John passage in Josephus is Joshua Efron:

218 Acts 4:6ff.; 5:17ff.; Luke 3:2; John 18:13ff. To the two forged passages should be added the extremely suspect testimony in Josephus (Ant. XVIII 116 ff.) on John the Baptist carrying out a baptismal ceremony in the Christian spirit to atone for sins, without a sacrifical offering and without the Temple, contrary to the Torah. The term “the Baptist” and the man, unknown in Jewish tradition, as is baptism to obtain forgiveness for sins through purification of the body after purification of the soul (as in Heb. 10:22) show this to be a Christian version. A number of scholars came to this conclusion long ago: D. Blondel, Des Sibylles (Paris 1649), p. 28 ff.; Richard Simon (Mr. de Sainjore), Bibliotheque Critique, vol. 2 (Paris 1708), p. 26ff.; H. Graetz, Geschichle (see n. 8 above), vol. 33, p. 293 ff. Origen (n. 223 below) already knew the dubious passage: Contra Celsum 147. (Efron 1987, pp. 334-35)

https://vridar.org/2018/01/22/6-more-re ... s-passage/

Note that even dr Efron is missing partially my point. The problem, more than being the Christian or not-Jewish feature of the baptism (as this scholar is focusing on), is the fact that Josephus isn't giving the first reason to be interested in first place about the meaning of this baptism per John: the information that John was baptizing a lot of people to the point of being called “Baptist”.

An information that is found (not coincidentially) only in the Gospels.

[GakuseiDon]

Giuseppe, I think the logic to your point -- that the word "baptism" would not have been meaningful to Roman readers thus suggesting an anachronistic interpolation -- is reasonable.

GDon, the my point is never been that the Romans didn't understand what a baptism is, and what a “Baptist” is. My point is that the Roman readers had no reasons at all to be interested about the John's opinions about baptism, if they couldn't learn from Josephus that this John was baptizing a lot of people and consequenty he was “called the Baptist”.

I apologise! I was wrong. The logic to your point isn't reasonable. 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"?

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

I'm sorry, I don't understand the logic of that. Calling someone "the baptist" in itself suggests that that person is someone known for baptising. What else can calling someone "the baptist" mean? What would a Roman reader make of the term, in your opinion?

[Giuseppe]

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". By your "logic", then the Jesus son of Damneus is the same Jesus "called Christ" because any high priest is "anointed" and therefore a "Christ" without need of further explanation for the his being "called Christ".

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.

[Giuseppe]

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)


Hence surely a more clear specification by Josephus would have dispelled any doubt about the real nature of “Baptist” of this John.

It is impossible that Josephus avoided a specification of that kind, if he was really the author of the passage, and not a Christian interpolator in the his place.