John the Baptist Mythicism

[neilgodfrey]

And what does one "do" with Greg Doudna who argued the JtB passage in Josephus is a misplaced text about Hyrcanus II.
(Now you see him now you don't.)
not sure if his article is published, tho.

Gregory Doudna, 'Is Josephus's John the Baptist Passage a Chronologically Dislocated Story of the Death of Hyrcanus II?' in: E. Pfoh and L. Niesiolowski-Spano, eds., Biblical Narratives, Archaeology, and Historicity: Essays in Honour of Thomas L. Thompson, London: Bloomsbury/T & T Clark, 2020, pp. 119-137 (hyperlink to a pdf: https://www.academia.edu/43060817/_Is_J ... rcanus_II_)

Of course. Thank you. I keep forgetting to take my memory pills.

[Giuseppe]

Not always, because a lot of them do think that JtB existed despite all of that. If I were to do a list of those who specifically argue the Josephus passage is inauthentic, it would be a pretty long one, especially since I have found challenges to its authenticity back into the 1600s.

How do you classify my position:

• the Baptist Passage in Josephus is a forgery

• a John the Baptist only appears the first time in Christian times in Mcn, and later, against Mcn, Mark invented the narrative about him baptizing Jesus and being killed by Herod, etc.

• the possibility exists that Marcion mentioned John the Baptist in Mcn only because he represented, in the eyes of Marcion, a rival exponent of a Jewish-Christian sect particularly devoted to preach a Jewish Davidic Jesus.

The third point doesn't assume necessarily that the John meant by Marcion lived during Tiberius's reign. He could be even a contemporary of the heresiarch.

[MrMacSon]

• the Baptist Passage in Josephus is a forgery

Why do you think the Baptist Passage in Josephus is a forgery ??

[schillingklaus]

It is an excessively impious forgery by Eusebius and his henchmen, part of a strategy to fool people into thinking that Christianity was a derivative of Judaism and fulfilling Scripture. The passage is full of late Christian theology unacceptable for FJ.

[Giuseppe]

• the Baptist Passage in Josephus is a forgery

Why do you think the Baptist Passage in Josephus is a forgery ??

in addition to all the (old and new) arguments listed by Rivka Nir in The First Christian Believer, essentially the fact that, assuming the priority of Mcn, the connection John/Herod has been made probably the first time by Mark, not by Mcn, where Herod is never mentioned in connection with John and/or his arrest.

[MrMacSon]

assuming the priority of Mcn, the connection John/Herod has been made probably the first time by Mark

Even if Mcn did not have priority, the connection would have been first made by the author of Mark, anyway (ie. even with Markan priority).

And see viewtopic.php?f=3&t=10032

[Giuseppe]

assuming the priority of Mcn, the connection John/Herod has been made probably the first time by Mark

Even if Mcn did not have priority, the connection would have been first made by the author of Mark, anyway (ie. even with Markan priority).

And see viewtopic.php?f=3&t=10032

Doudna's case is based on a presumed historical connection John/Herod, given its presence in both Josephus and Gospel of Mark.
But the Mcn's priority removes the connection John/Herod, hence raising the reasonable suspicion that it was entirely a post-Marcionite invention of Mark.

[MrMacSon]

Doudna's case is based on a presumed historical connection John/Herod, given its presence in both Josephus and Gospel of Mark.

I think Doudna's case is independent of the Herod/John connection in the Gospel of Mark

But the Mcn's priority removes the connection John/Herod, hence raising the reasonable suspicion that it was entirely a post-Marcionite invention of Mark.

Or, as an invention of Mark, as you say, Marcionite or Markan priority doesn't matter

[schillingklaus]

It has not been made by Mk first, as it also appears in Mt and Lk.

[Giuseppe]

I think Doudna's case is independent of the Herod/John connection in the Gospel of Mark

Doudna makes it clear that the historical nucleus — if one exists —, of the John's legend is the connection John/Herod, since it is attested in both the first gospel (Mark, according to Doudna) and Josephus.

In Mcn, the death of John the Baptist is related only through an interior monologue by Herod:

But Herod said, "I beheaded John. Who is this man about whom I hear such things?" An he sought to meet him.

(Mcn 9:9)

The implication is implicit but clear: if Herod had beheaded John, then Jesus couldn't be John.

It would seem an episode invented to exorcise rival voices about John (and not Jesus) being the Messiah, but I agree with Rivka Nir about the invented character also of that rival hearsay.

In particular, Nir writes:

As to the Pseudo-Clementines, this material, which in its final form is dated to third-fourth century CE, provides no evidence of a dispute at the end of the first century CE, to which the Fourth Gospel is dated. Moreover, its relibaility as a source for John the Baptist is questionable, given the unfavorable light it casts on him. John appears as Christ's antithesis and contemporary with the creation of all heresies, including the Sadducees, Samaritans and Pharisees (Rec. 1.53-54), whose disciples are notably Simon Magus, considered the father of all heresies, and the heretic Dositheus (Hom. 2.23, 24; Rec. 2.8). John the Baptist is recknoned among the representatives of false prophecy, along with such negative charactes as Cain, Esau, Simon Magus and antichrist, and presented, without being specifically named, among those created from woman (on the basis of Mt. 11.11), in contrast to Jesus who is son of man (Hom. 2.16-17; 3.22; Rec. 3.61). Against Jesus' twelve disciples, who represent hte twelse solar months, the thirty people around John, among them a woman who is half man, stand for the days of the lunar month, through which the moon does not run its full course (Hom. 2.23; Rec. 2.8). How John is presented in the Pseudo-Clementines accord with its description in Gnostic sects: a wind-shaken reed wavering between two extremes — preaching Judaism and announcing Christ. 80

(The First Christian Believer, p. 185-186, my bold)

Note 80 refers to Epiphanius, Panarion 26.6.3-4. Moved by curiosity, I quote it:

They use both the Old and the New Testaments, but renounce the Speaker in the Old Testament. And whenever they find a text the sense of which can be against them, they say that this has been said by the spirit of the world. (2) But if a statement can be represented as resembling their lust—not as the text is, but as their deluded minds take it—they twist it to fit their lust and claim that it has been spoken by the Spirit of truth. (3) And this, they claim, is what the Lord said of John, “What went ye out into the wilderness for to see? A reed shaken with the wind?” John was not perfect, they say; he was inspired by many spirits, like a reed stirring in every wind. (4) And when the spirit of the archon came he would preach Judaism; but when the Holy Spirit came he would speak of Christ. And this is the meaning of “He that is least in the Kingdom” < and so on >. “He said this of us,” they say, “because the least of us is greater than he.”

So the capital sin of John in the eyes of Marcion is in the fact that John is a Jewish-Christian and as such a contradiction in terms, from a marcionite POV: one can be Christian or (AUT) Jew, not both in the same time.