Biblical Criticism & History Forum - earlywritings.com

In addition to this, I remember what the Jewish scholar Nir says about the use of baptism, apparently in contradiction with what GDon has written about a presumed familiarity with the term: [F]urther incredulity is raised by the presence of βαπτισμός and βάπτισις, the two terms used in the passage f...

Giuseppe, I think the logic to your point -- that the word "baptism" would not have been meaningful to Roman readers thus suggesting an anachronistic interpolation -- is reasonable. GDon, the my point is never been that the Romans didn't understand what a baptism is, and what a “Baptist” ...

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 Excuse me if I have given that impression. Giuseppe, I think you are making the same mistake that others who try to recast Christian ideas as ancient G...

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 un...

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 ...

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...

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 info...

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 Jo...

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 “B...

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...