Message

Josephus’ Account of John the Baptist: Xian Interpolation?

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.

Josephus’ Account of John the Baptist: Xian Interpolation?

Postby MrMacSon » Fri May 06, 2016 3:31 pm

.
Rivka Nir (2012) 'Josephus’ Account of John the Baptist: A Christian Interpolation?' Journal for the Study of the Historical Jesus 10; pp.32–62
Abstract
This essay provides fresh insight into the possibility that the passage in Josephus about John the Baptist (Jewish Antiquities, 18.116-119) was not written by Josephus himself. In making the case for its interpolation or adaptation by the hand of a writer representing an early Christian or Jewish-Christian
sect, the essay focuses on how the text describes John’s baptism and its distinguishing characteristics as well as the similarities it shares with immersions common amid early Christian or Jewish-Christian sects. Of particular importance to uncovering the theological identity of this baptism is its description as an external physical purification, whose efficacy is preconditioned by inner spiritual purification. This essay shows that baptism of this nature did not exist amid mainstream Jewish circles of the Second Temple period. Such baptism appeared and developed within sectarian groups on the margins of Judaism, as at Qumran. It was then carried on and practised by early Christian or Jewish-Christian groups in the first centuries ce.

Full article here - https://www.academia.edu/9556504/Joseph ... _Christian

(and here - http://booksandjournals.brillonline.com ... 911x618885 )

More via Peter Kirby here - viewtopic.php?p=34233#p34233
User avatar
MrMacSon
 
Posts: 4285
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 3:45 pm

Advertisements

by »

 

Re: Josephus’ Account of John the Baptist: Xian Interpolatio

Postby Charles Wilson » Fri May 06, 2016 4:25 pm

MrMacSon --

Of course it's Interpolation, unless Josephus is really off the Reservation. That, BTW, is a real possibility since Josephus does his best to hide references to the Priesthood. For most of this commentary, Josephus follows Nicholas of Damascus and if NoD "simply" wrote the history, Josephus (or his ciphers) would have been even more obvious in his/their rewrites.

John 1: 6, 15, 27 (RSV):

[6] There was a man sent from God, whose name was John.
...
[15] (John bore witness to him, and cried, "This was he of whom I said, `He who comes after me ranks before me, for he was before me.'")
...
[27] even he who comes after me, the thong of whose sandal I am not worthy to untie."

Mark 1: 7 (RSV):

[7] And he preached, saying, "After me comes he who is mightier than I, the thong of whose sandals I am not worthy to stoop down and untie.

Jewish Encyclopedia, "Bilgah":

"One of the twenty-four divisions of the priests who officiated in the Temple. According to I Chron. xxiv. 14, Bilgah is the fifteenth in order, and is immediately preceded by that of Jeshebeab...The priests, when entering upon their duties, received their share in the northern part of the Tabernacle, because this was near the seat of their activity. The section assigned to each division of the priesthood was furnished with an iron ring fastened to the floor, for the purpose of securing the animal designed for slaughter, and there were accordingly twenty-four openings in the wall where the knives used for slaughtering were kept. Bilgah alone received his share in the south, his ring being nailed down, and his wall-closet tightly sealed, as a punishment..."

"John" is of Bilgah. the character who comes to us as "Jesus" is of Immer, the Group that comes AFTER Bilgah in Mishmarot Service. Hence, the Joke, "He who comes after me (Immer after Bilgah) comes before me (Since Bilgah has been Dishonored, Immer comes "before", i.e. by honor comes before Bilgah). There is a Word Play on "Immer" and "Immar" => " אמּר ", which is lost in the Greek and Lost anyway, since no one cares about looking into the Priesthood in any time frame. Bilgah and Immer are the 15th and 16th Mishmarot Service Groups of the House of Eleazar (1 Chronicles 24). The Hasmoneans believe that they are the leading Group in Jehoiarib although Immer believes that the Hasmoneans come from them.

So, when you read in Josephus about John being taken to Macherus and etc., etc., etc., etc., with no other Descriptors given in relation to the Priesthood, you may be cetain that what is written is addition or nonsense given to promote the New Religion and nothing more. NO illumination, no light, nothing to see.

CW
Last edited by Charles Wilson on Fri May 06, 2016 4:30 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Charles Wilson
 
Posts: 765
Joined: Thu Apr 03, 2014 8:13 am

Re: Josephus’ Account of John the Baptist: Xian Interpolatio

Postby outhouse » Fri May 06, 2016 4:26 pm

John’s baptism, as described in this paragraph, reveals characteristics of an early- Christian or Jewish-Christian sectarian rite.



I feel he is assuming here. And it makes sense the characteristics are Christian in nature.

Ritual immersion was a well known Jewish fact during this period. One not need to be a Christian for baptism.

I feel he is pointing out the differences between Hellenistic Judaism that had access to mikvas, and Aramaic Peasant Jews who only had rivers for ritual immersions.

He is really playing on a weak argument at best.




Accordingly, he draws the conclusion that we are dealing with a new sectarian movement, united under John’s leadership by means of baptism; that baptism served as a rite of initiation into the sect—an act transforming the person’s status from ordinary Jew to member of an elect group—and that John thus established a sect for which baptism was a condition of initiation.

20




The problem here is I can easily say this is a Zealot practice, and due to his ignorance, he cannot answer it. No one can.


IMHO he is playing on the ignorance of what being a Zealot actually was.
Last edited by outhouse on Fri May 06, 2016 4:29 pm, edited 1 time in total.
outhouse
 
Posts: 3250
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 6:48 pm

Re: Josephus’ Account of John the Baptist: Xian Interpolatio

Postby MrMacSon » Fri May 06, 2016 4:29 pm

outhouse wrote:
John’s baptism, as described in this paragraph, reveals characteristics of an early- Christian or Jewish-Christian sectarian rite.

Ritual immersion was a well known Jewish fact during this period. One not need to be a Christian for baptism.

Baptism was a well-known pagan ritual, too.
User avatar
MrMacSon
 
Posts: 4285
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 3:45 pm

Re: Josephus’ Account of John the Baptist: Xian Interpolatio

Postby outhouse » Fri May 06, 2016 4:30 pm

MrMacSon wrote:
outhouse wrote:
John’s baptism, as described in this paragraph, reveals characteristics of an early- Christian or Jewish-Christian sectarian rite.

Ritual immersion was a well known Jewish fact during this period. One not need to be a Christian for baptism.

Baptism was a well-known pagan ritual, too.



Source from the first century?
outhouse
 
Posts: 3250
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 6:48 pm

Re: Josephus’ Account of John the Baptist: Xian Interpolatio

Postby MrMacSon » Fri May 06, 2016 4:32 pm

Charles Wilson wrote:... Josephus does his best to hide references to the Priesthood...

Yes, Josephus certainly hid Vespasian's interaction(s) in Alexandria ~69 AD/CE with Serapis-cult priest Basilides that he (Josephus) was present at.
User avatar
MrMacSon
 
Posts: 4285
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 3:45 pm

Advertisement

by »

 


Return to Christian Texts and History

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot], Charles Wilson, Google Adsense [Bot], lsayre, MrMacSon, Yahoo [Bot] and 48 guests