OK - back to John the Baptist: Tamas Visi, in the article heading this thread, proposes that the Josephan account should stand re dating. i.e. John the baptizer execution is dated to 35 or 36 c.e. Thereby, from his position as a secular historian he cannot but
''conclude that John the Baptist was executed after Jesus was crucified.''
The Chronology of John the Baptist and the
Crucifixion of Jesus of Nazareth: A New Approach: Tamás Visi
https://www.academia.edu/40137424/_Re ... _Approach
An article proposing that the JtB Josephan passage is an interpolation.
Josephus’ Account of John the Baptist: A Christian
Interpolation? Rivka Nir
https://www.academia.edu/9556504/Jose ... Christian
Rivka Nir
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
An article proposing that the Josephan JtB account is authentic.
The Authenticity of John the Baptist in Josephus: Peter Kirby
http://peterkirby.com/john-the-baptist-authentic.html
Peter Kirby: The passage makes sense in its Josephan context and in its historical context, and the arguments against its authenticity do not hold up. Authorship by anyone other than Josephus (along with his assistants) or a Christian is exceedingly unlikely in any case. The passage has both many indicators against Christian authorship (including 2, 3, 6, 7, and 14 above) and a few indicators in favor of Josephan authorship (including 8, 13, and 15 above). Thus, it seems very likely that this passage on John the Baptist is authentic to the publication of the Antiquities by Josephus.
An article proposing that the Josephan JtB passage is a chronologically dislocated story.
IS JOSEPHUS’S JOHN THE BAPTIST PASSAGE A
CHRONOLOGICALLY DISLOCATED
STORY OF THE DEATH OF HYRCANUS II? Gregory Doudna
https://www.academia.edu/43060817/_Is_ ... rcanus_II_
Greg Doudna: If this analysis is correct—that Josephus misplaced this story to the wrong Herod
in Antiquities—then there is no attestation external to the New Testament of the New
Testament figure of John the Baptist of the first century CE of the time of Jesus. The
implication would seem to be this: either the New Testament John the Baptist has been
generated in the story world of the Gospels, or he is a different figure than Josephus’s
John the Baptist, perhaps a later leader in the same movement bearing the same name,
who was secondarily conflated with Josephus’s John the Baptist. These issues are beyond
the scope of this paper.
If the Josephan JtB passage is authentic, re Peter Kirby, then its dating, re Tamás Visi, has significant impact upon the credibility of the gospel story. i.e. JtB is killed after the crucifixion of the gospel Jesus figure.
If the Josephan JtB passage in inauthentic, re Rivka Nir, then it's a case of check-mate - no further advance for either the Jesus historicists or the ahistoricists.
If the Josephan JtB passage is a chronologically dislocated story, re Greg Doudna, then both the authentic and the inauthentic positions on this Josephan passage fall by the wayside. A new approach to the Josephan JtB passage opens up the debate.