Paul baptizes “twelve”

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
User avatar
Secret Alias
Posts: 12513
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Paul baptizes “twelve”

Post by Secret Alias » Tue Sep 22, 2020 8:32 pm

The Pesikta de Rav Kahana says "this" in Hebrew זה was taken to mean twelve by Aramaic speakers.
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote

User avatar
Giuseppe
Posts: 8123
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: Paul baptizes “twelve”

Post by Giuseppe » Tue Sep 22, 2020 8:34 pm

Irish1975 wrote:
Tue Sep 22, 2020 11:58 am
Giuseppe wrote:
Tue Sep 22, 2020 10:42 am
I am curious about your view on John the Baptist in Josephus.
Can you be more specific?
do you think that the Baptist Passage in Josephus is probably genuine so there is no need of further inquiry about the genesis of John the Baptist's legend in the gospels ?
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.

User avatar
Irish1975
Posts: 284
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2017 8:01 am

Re: Paul baptizes “twelve”

Post by Irish1975 » Wed Sep 23, 2020 9:07 am

Giuseppe wrote:
Tue Sep 22, 2020 8:34 pm
Irish1975 wrote:
Tue Sep 22, 2020 11:58 am
Giuseppe wrote:
Tue Sep 22, 2020 10:42 am
I am curious about your view on John the Baptist in Josephus.
Can you be more specific?
do you think that the Baptist Passage in Josephus is probably genuine so there is no need of further inquiry about the genesis of John the Baptist's legend in the gospels ?
I have no reason to doubt the passage's authenticity, but I haven't given much time to it.

The Gospel writers looked to situate the Jesus story in the context of known historical figures, eg, Pontius Pilate. But they also made up stories and characters. I tend to think that JB belongs in the former category. They had no qualms about distorting the character of Pilate to suit their purposes, so the same probably happened with JB. About the purpose of John's baptism, they might have looked at Josephus and said, "let's go with the alternative that Josephus rejects: it was a baptism for the remission of sins."

Anyhow, whether the Josephus text is authentic doesn't seem to matter, since the evangelists could have used it one way or the other.

User avatar
Giuseppe
Posts: 8123
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: Paul baptizes “twelve”

Post by Giuseppe » Wed Sep 23, 2020 9:37 am

Irish1975 wrote:
Wed Sep 23, 2020 9:07 am
They had no qualms about distorting the character of Pilate to suit their purposes, so the same probably happened with JB.
I agree fully with you about this point: that if John the Baptist is genuine in Josephus, then he could even be a violent Zealot, the fact remains that the Christian result was a mere cooptation of a historical person. Period.

But what if the Baptist Passage is not genuine at all? In that case, the co-optation is still in action, only with a figure - a guy named John - who could be with equal probability a mythical figure or (in absence of other candidates) the same John from Ephesus of which we have talked in the previous posts of this thread.

A Christian Ephesine could have been transformed in a pre-Christian Prophet working near Jerusalem. Why?

I write this only to give the suggestion that the discourse becomes surely more complex and speculative, but it gives more pleasures in exchange :lol:
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.

davidmartin
Posts: 429
Joined: Fri Jul 12, 2019 2:51 pm

Re: Paul baptizes “twelve”

Post by davidmartin » Wed Sep 23, 2020 3:02 pm

Giuseppe what you think of this
One Gnostic group rejected John the Baptist
"Neither he nor those before him (Moses), from Adam to Moses and John the Baptist, none of them knew me nor my brothers"
2nd treat. seth

So then, assuming the dating around 200AD - did this Gnostic writer's knowledge of earlier church history inform him that John the B was nothing to do with Jesus?

Or... did the Gnostic writer not have any privileged information but rejected John the B based on orthodox accounts of him in the gospels?

The text itself seems to claim it has information but doesn't say more than this

PS This group probably rejected Simon Magus as well (linked to John) if this comes from the same group as the Copt. Apoc. of Peter which appears to bash the Simonians. And they appear to bash Mary M as well, in fact who don't they bash :)

User avatar
Giuseppe
Posts: 8123
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: Paul baptizes “twelve”

Post by Giuseppe » Wed Sep 23, 2020 8:45 pm

davidmartin wrote:
Wed Sep 23, 2020 3:02 pm
The text itself seems to claim it has information but doesn't say more than this
far from me the idea that theological claims of this kind need the possession of "information" to be advanced. I don't see our texts as appealing to "information", but only to theological views.

An example: if you reject YHWH and then you realize that John adores YHWH, then you should reject John , too.
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.

User avatar
Giuseppe
Posts: 8123
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: Paul baptizes “twelve”

Post by Giuseppe » Wed Sep 23, 2020 10:53 pm

I think that just as in Syria the gospel character named "Matthew" was used to label the gospel of Matthew, so in Ephesus the Pillar John was used to label the epistles and the gospel of John.

Hence, the John of Ephesus, the John the Elder 'known' By Papias, didn't exist as a historical person, but only as a name.

The problem then is reduced to ask:

if the Baptist Passage in Josephus is a forgery, then the Gospel John the Baptist comes first or after the invented John from Ephesus?
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.

davidmartin
Posts: 429
Joined: Fri Jul 12, 2019 2:51 pm

Re: Paul baptizes “twelve”

Post by davidmartin » Thu Sep 24, 2020 12:43 am

Giuseppe wrote:
Wed Sep 23, 2020 8:45 pm
davidmartin wrote:
Wed Sep 23, 2020 3:02 pm
The text itself seems to claim it has information but doesn't say more than this
far from me the idea that theological claims of this kind need the possession of "information" to be advanced. I don't see our texts as appealing to "information", but only to theological views.

An example: if you reject YHWH and then you realize that John adores YHWH, then you should reject John , too.
That would be ok if we could be sure there was only one 'John' figure
But that's the problem
The Clementine's portray John as being a forerunner to Simon Magus not Jesus and reject 'John the baptist' - and they adore YHWH!
As for the 2nd Treat. of Seth appealing to information - it does because it contains a history of the church from their POV, thus they have information
I make heavy use of the historical history of the church contained in gnostic texts because thats the only way to get a unified theory
So if there is information available we should use it

User avatar
Giuseppe
Posts: 8123
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: Paul baptizes “twelve”

Post by Giuseppe » Thu Sep 24, 2020 5:13 am

davidmartin wrote:
Thu Sep 24, 2020 12:43 am
The Clementine's portray John as being a forerunner to Simon Magus not Jesus and reject 'John the baptist' - and they adore YHWH!
it is false that the Clementines reject John the Baptist, sorry. Mere association with Dositheus and the Magus is not equivalent to a condemnation.
davidmartin wrote:
Thu Sep 24, 2020 12:43 am
As for the 2nd Treat. of Seth appealing to information - it does because it contains a history of the church from their POV, thus they have information
I disagree that the 2nd Treat. Of Seth appeals to (true or presumed) information. John the Baptist is rejected only because Marcion rejected him. For a pure theological reason: Christ was a new deity never known before then.
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.

davidmartin
Posts: 429
Joined: Fri Jul 12, 2019 2:51 pm

Re: Paul baptizes “twelve”

Post by davidmartin » Thu Sep 24, 2020 6:35 am

Giuseppe wrote:
Thu Sep 24, 2020 5:13 am
it is false that the Clementines reject John the Baptist, sorry. Mere association with Dositheus and the Magus is not equivalent to a condemnation.
yes it is, take another look and you will see i'm right
it's more than mere association, it's about leaders of the very same sect
John led it, after his death Dositheus and Simon duked it out for leadership
how do you explain that?

And John is condemned when it says "There was one John, a day-baptist, who was also, according to the method of combination, the forerunner of our Lord Jesus"
Surely you know in their method of combination a forerunner is a false prophet?
First comes the false prophet then the true one - that is their method of combination

"he hath varied the figures of combinations, placing before him small things first, and great ones afterwards, such as the world and eternitv. But the world that now is, is temporary; that which shall be, is eternal. First is ignorance, then knowledge. So also has He arranged the leaders of prophecy"

They condemned John the Baptist. However it doesn't mean for sure that this John is the John of Josephus or the gospels. It could be another John. But i'm saying the Clementines condemned the John that they mention and he has many 'John the baptist' like traits

Post Reply