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

[Giuseppe]

He does not have to. It is a epithet.

In virtue of the same “reason”, “called Christ” of Antiquities 20:200 would be genuine in Josephus because he does not have to give an explanation about who is the “Christ”. I am sorry but I can't follow you here.

[Giuseppe]

Kirby's arguments are still what you have to address in full. One argument against the pile is not enough. Anyone can see that.

Unfortunately for Peter's arguments, my argument goes straight to the heart of why Josephus has to introduce a guy called a Baptist, if he didn't even explain the meaning of “Baptist” for a Greek reader.

[Ben C. Smith]

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.

Neither of these. I am saying that your argument is a nonargument. "Baptist" serves as an epithet. I am also saying that, even if your argument had merit, which it does not, it would not be enough to topple the linked list.

Unfortunately for Peter's arguments, my argument goes straight to the heart of why Josephus has to introduce a guy called a Baptist, if he didn't even explain the meaning of “Baptist” for a Greek reader.

Heck, you did not even compare Josephus' use of this epithet to his use of epithets elsewhere! A minimum first step required by the very nature of your argument, and it apparently did not even occur to you.

[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.

Neither of these.

This is clearly not true (that your answer is “neither of these”). Basically, you are answering “yes” to both the my questions:
1) Peter would be addressing my argument (fact that is not true: he addresses other arguments)
2) as Ben says:

"Baptist" serves as an epithet.

But my precise point is that only Christian readers can know the origin of the epithet “Baptist” for John. Not a Greek-Roman reader.

I insist on the fact that Peter's arguments are valid against someone who isn't doing my argument.

And my argument, differently from these (presumably) confuted by Peter, goes straight to the core of the authenticity of the passage in a priori form that prevents any other discussion if before my argument is not confuted.

[Ben C. Smith]

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.

Neither of these.

This is clearly not true (that your answer is “neither of these”). Basically, you are answering “yes” to both the my questions:
1) Peter would be addressing my argument (fact that is not true: he addresses other arguments)
2) as Ben says:

"Baptist" serves as an epithet.

But my precise point is that only Christian readers can know the origin of the epithet “Baptist” for John. Not a Greek-Roman reader.

I insist on the fact that Peter's arguments are valid against someone who isn't doing my argument.

And my argument, differently from these (presumably) confuted by Peter, goes straight to the core of the authenticity of the passage in a priori form that prevents any other discussion if before my argument is not confuted.

Nonsense. Nobody is under any obligation to make sure, immediately and in the same breath or even ever at all, that readers know the origin of an epithet. Your argument fails to ignite. Once again, you decided against actually accumulating evidence for your argument and went full throttle on pure reasoning alone, which we already know to be perilous.

And, as I read your forked options again, I must again say: neither of those. I am doing (and agree with) neither.

[Giuseppe]

Heck, you did not even compare Josephus' use of this epithet to his use of epithets elsewhere! A minimum first step required by the very nature of your argument, and it apparently did not even occur to you.

It is not necessary. My argument is not of this kind:

1) Josephus introduces a guy called “Baptist”
2) Josephus doesn't give an explanation about why that guy is called “Baptist”
3) therefore: Josephus didn't write about that guy, Christians did.


My argument is this, more precisely:

1) Josephus introduces a guy called “Baptist”
2) Josephus doesn't give an explanation about why that guy is called “Baptist”
3) Josephus goes to explain the opinion of this guy about the theological/moralistic meaning of the his baptism
4) the points 3 is in conflict with the point 2 and viceversa, since only the Christians know in advance that John was baptizing masses, before that a reader could ask about the meaning of the baptism.

[Ben C. Smith]

If I understood any of the logic in that, I would most assuredly respond.

[Giuseppe]

If I understood any of the logic in that, I would most assuredly respond.

An Italian proverb says: “there is no worse deaf than those who do not want to hear”.

But I have already made clear my point in the first post of this thread:

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.

In essentia:

1) Once Josephus calls a guy as “Baptist”...

2) ...and once the same Josephus throws himself headlong into explaining the opinion of that guy about the “baptism he administered”,

...then it becomes immediately evident what is not only missing, but also required before anything:

...that Josephus informs the his Greek readers about the simple and pure fact that the guy is called “Baptist” because he was used to baptize people. Only after that info, he can explain anything about the opinion of the guy about what he was doing.

Hence a Greek reader can't explain himself:

1) why this John was called “baptist”
2) why this John had to have any opinion at all about a baptism, if he is not informed in advance by Josephus about the fact that John was baptizing people and hence he was called “Baptist”.

[Giuseppe]

Josephus basically informs us about two items:

A) A guy is called “baptist”.

B) The opinion of this guy about the baptism is reported.

if there was only A, then Josephus could be free of not giving any explanation of the term “baptism”.


But since there is also B, then Josephus is obliged to inform the his Greek readers that the guy was called Baptist because he was baptizing people.


In the Gospel of Mark, the readers are informed in advance about the fact that John was baptizing people, and only later, the same readers are said about a John “the Baptist”: hence they could already do very easily the correct connection: John “the Baptist” is the same guy who before, in the incipit of the Gospel, was baptizing people, and he is called “Baptist” for that reason.


But Josephus introduces before a “Baptist” and only after the opinion of this “Baptist” about the his action of baptism, without that the readers could learn by him about the why he is called “Baptist” and especially why he has to have an opinion at all about a “baptism”, since Josephus don't say that John was called “Baptist” because he was baptizing people: he is only assuming that his readers are assuming that, since John is called “Baptist”, then he was baptizing people.

My point is precisely that: only the Christians could assume with Josephus the implicit assumption that John was called “Baptist” because he was baptizing people.

A Greek reader was not able to infer that John, since he was called “Baptist”, then ipso facto he was one who was baptizing people and in virtue only of that fact an explanation is required about the opinion of John about the baptism.

Only the readers of the Gospels could know that John was called Baptist because he was baptizing people.

The following analogy may help Ben:

Effectively, in order that I learn why the opinions of a guy called “Trump” are dangerous, I should learn before that Trump is the more powerful man of the world: his decisions influence a lot of people.

In order that a Greek reader could learn why the opinions of “the Baptist” about the baptism are interesting, he should learn before why “the Baptist” is called Baptist: he was baptizing a lot of people.

Hence the Argument of Silence is Strong: the absence of an explanation of the term “Baptist” is in conflict with the importance given to the opinions of the “Baptist” about the baptism.

The Greek reader has right and even the duty to know why the opinion of John about the baptism have to be known, only if he is informed in advance about the fact that John was famous (=he was called “Baptist”) because he was baptizing people.

[Ben C. Smith]

The following analogy may help Ben....

What would "help Ben" is a raising of the bar for what counts as a good argument.