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

[John2]

This seems like one of the least complicated things I've ever read. To me Josephus says everything anyone needs to know about the meaning of "Baptist":

... John, that was called the Baptist: for Herod slew him, who was a good man, and commanded the Jews to exercise virtue, both as to righteousness towards one another, and piety towards God, and so to come to baptism; for that the washing would be acceptable to him, if they made use of it, not in order to the putting away of some sins, but for the purification of the body; supposing still that the soul was thoroughly purified beforehand by righteousness.

All the information about the meaning of "Baptist" is there. It sounds like you are only making an issue out of the ordering of it.

Compare what Josephus says right before the John passage in Ant. 18.4.5:

... his name was Eleazar, who, for his tallness, was called a giant.

Everything you need to know about Eleazar's epithet is there, except in a different order than the information in the John passage. And I don't see what difference the ordering makes if in both cases all the information you need to understand the epithet is there. Would you be happier if Josephus had written the John passage like that?

"John, who, because he was a good man, and commanded the Jews to exercise virtue, both as to righteousness towards one another, and piety towards God, and so to come to baptism; for that the washing would be acceptable to him, if they made use of it, not in order to the putting away of some sins, but for the purification of the body; supposing still that the soul was thoroughly purified beforehand by righteousness, was called the Baptist."

[Giuseppe]

The following analogy may help Ben....

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

I am satisfied by this argument and I don't understand why I should require more arguments supporting the interpolation.

Essentially, my argument says that Josephus has to explain why John is called “Baptist” by the people and/or by him, if he cares to inform the Greek readers why the John's opinions about the baptism are so worth knowing.

Instead, as the passage stands, the Greek reader is left alone in complete darkness about why the guy is called “baptist” and about why he should have some interest to know the John's opinions about baptism. Afterall, he is not informed about the fact that John was baptizing people (to the point of being called “Baptist” in virtue of that precise reason) hence how could he be interested a priori about the opinions of a guy about the baptism?


Fortunately, only the Christians knew the answer, about why the “Baptist”'s opinions about the baptism were so worth knowing: the guy was baptizing a lot of people, to the point of being called a “Baptist”.

[Giuseppe]

All the information about the meaning of "Baptist" is there. It sounds like you are only making an issue out of the ordering of it.

Compare what Josephus says right before the John passage in Ant. 18.4.5:

... his name was Eleazar, who, for his tallness, was called a giant.

Everything you need to know about Eleazar's epithet is there, except in a different order than the information in the John passage.

In the case of John, it is simply not true that all the information necessary to know why he is called Baptism and why the his opinions about the baptism are worth knowing “is there”.

In the case of Eleazar, even if Josephus had said only that he was “called a giant” without explanation, I would have no need to question the passage.


But in the case of John, what is surprisingly absent (=unexpected, = not probable) is any mention of the why a Greek reader should consider as worth knowing the opinions of John about the baptism (basically, why the people had to be baptized by him), if before the same Greek reader is not informed about why John was “called Baptist”: because he was baptizing people.



My analogy works again and again:

I, as Italian, should be interested about what Trump thinks about X, Y, Z, for the only reason that Trump has the power and the influence necessary about X, Y, Z.

A Greek reader of Josephus, as Greek, should be interested about what John “called Baptist” thinks about the baptism, for the only reason that this John was so much famous for the his activity as baptizer of a lot of people [=the exact implication that is absent in Josephus], that he was called Baptist for that reason and that reason alone.

Would you be happier if Josephus had written the John passage like that?

"John, who, because he was a good man, and commanded the Jews to exercise virtue, both as to righteousness towards one another, and piety towards God, and so to come to baptism; for that the washing would be acceptable to him, if they made use of it, not in order to the putting away of some sins, but for the purification of the body; supposing still that the soul was thoroughly purified beforehand by righteousness, was called the Baptist."

No, because even in that case, there is no explicit explanation about why the Greek reader should take disturb to know why the John's opinions about the baptism are so important. Note that even in the your version no mention is made about the fact that John was baptizing a so high number of people that, precisely for that reason,

A) he was called Baptist

B) his opinions about the baptism are worth knowing.

[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.

I am satisfied by this argument and I don't understand why I should require more arguments supporting the interpolation.

No! Not more arguments. More of the same would be torture.

Better arguments. Arguments that do not embarrass other arguments simply by virtue of bearing the label "arguments."

[Giuseppe]

Better arguments. Arguments that do not embarrass other arguments simply by virtue of bearing the label "arguments."

In my view, I don't know about an argument better than mine. It has the advantage, in comparison to the arguments apparently confuted by Peter Kirby, that it reveals the unequivocal trace of the Christian interpolator precisely where a Greek reader is not able to find the answer.

[perseusomega9]

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

[Ulan]

[Ben C. Smith]

[MrMacSon]

Better arguments. Arguments that do not embarrass other arguments simply by virtue of bearing the label "arguments."

In my view, I don't know about an argument better than mine. It has the advantage, in comparison to the arguments 'apparently confuted by' Peter Kirby ...

Lots of arguments ... All the arguments ... Arguments for the win ...

[GakuseiDon]

Essentially, my argument says that Josephus has to explain why John is called “Baptist” by the people and/or by him, if he cares to inform the Greek readers why the John's opinions about the baptism are so worth knowing.

Instead, as the passage stands, the Greek reader is left alone in complete darkness about why the guy is called “baptist” and about why he should have some interest to know the John's opinions about baptism. Afterall, he is not informed about the fact that John was baptizing people (to the point of being called “Baptist” in virtue of that precise reason) hence how could he be interested a priori about the opinions of a guy about the baptism?

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. I think you should examine what a Roman reader would have made of that passage, i.e. one who didn't know anything about Christianity, using the definition of the word referred to, before deciding it would mean nothing to them.

Here is the word "baptizó" according to Strong's: https://biblehub.com/greek/907.htm

baptízō – properly, "submerge" (Souter); hence, baptize, to immerse (literally, "dip under"). 907 (baptízō) implies submersion ("immersion"), in contrast to 472 /antéxomai ("sprinkle")...

1. properly, to dip repeatedly, to immerge, submerge (of vessels sunk, Polybius 1, 51, 6; 8, 8, 4; of animals, Diodorus 1, 36).

So it is a word used by early non-Christian writers of Greek. Using that definition, IMHO here is how that passage in Josephus you gave would read to a Roman reader of Greek:

[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 Dipper/the Submerger.

[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 dipping/the submerging 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.

I think that it would make sense to the Roman reader, even one knowing nothing about Christian baptism. (Keep in mind that I'm speaking as someone whose knowledge of ancient Greek is as close to zero as it is possible to get.)