1) The Markan message in the incipit is entirely devoted to reveal that a very important event is going to happen in real History.
2) per (1) at least a name should serve to reveal the "when" of this important revelation.
3) This name is not of a historical person: John the Baptist.
Contradiction.
My point is that the Markan priority is inconsistent with the idea that John the Baptist never existed.
At contrary, under the Marcionite priority, it is 100% expected that a human icon of a rival sect is invented. Acts did the same with Simon Magus and Elimas bar Jesus.
No wonder that Kunigunde defends the authenticity of the Baptist Passage in Josephus. It is essential to reassure her that "Mark", considered as the oldest evangelist, was not insane.
Think the effect if I said that the discovery of the America happened when an ahistorical figure found it.
Apologists like Kreuzerin deny that John is the Euhemerization and Judaization of the preacher (keryx) of the baptise in the crater, described in CH IV as the means of the acquisition of the intellect (nous).
schillingklaus wrote: ↑Thu Jan 18, 2024 7:00 am
Apologists like Kreuzerin deny that John is the Euhemerization and Judaization of the preacher (keryx) of the baptise in the crater, described in CH IV as the means of the acquisition of the intellect (nous).
You really don't know how to back up your rhetoric, do you? Apparently you don't know how to write anymore without prefacing it with something like "Apologists like Kreuzerin deny," so much has your ability to communicate effectively, as though you were engaging in critical thinking that could persuade a reasonable person, atrophied.
Another reminder that you are detracting from the forum, then.
That John the Baptist is mentioned in NT *and* in Josephus is notable. (And in Clementines, and by Mandaeans.)
Steve Mason, editor of the Brill series of Josephus translations and commentaries, presented a good case that that account
of John the Baptist is indeed by Josephus, in an essay from a 2021 Enoch seminar, available here:
StephenGoranson wrote: ↑Thu Jan 18, 2024 10:00 am
That John the Baptist is mentioned in NT *and* in Josephus is notable. (And in Clementines, and by Mandaeans.)
Steve Mason, editor of the Brill series of Josephus translations and commentaries, presented a good case that that account
of John the Baptist is indeed by Josephus, in an essay from a 2021 Enoch seminar, available here:
It is also included in his 2023 collected essays book, Jews and Christians in the Roman World: from historical method to cases.
it would be interesting to know how Steve Mason deals with the serious possibility that Origen is a witness of the Baptist Passage being found in Hegesippus, not in Josephus.
Your argument from authority of Steve Mason would gain in persuasion.
The writer of Mark read Josephus. Mark is based on Josephus, Paul and the OT. Whether JtB was real or not doesn't matter. That JtB was in the works of Josephus is all that matters, cause that's where the writer got the character from.
rgprice wrote: ↑Thu Jan 18, 2024 11:18 am
The writer of Mark read Josephus. Mark is based on Josephus, Paul and the OT. Whether JtB was real or not doesn't matter. That JtB was in the works of Josephus is all that matters, cause that's where the writer got the character from.
Some sense at last. Josephus. Everything else is blowing in the wind. Greek words, church fathers. A side show. A distraction. I've said it for years: Josephus needs to be, as it were, placed in the Dock and given the nth degree.
rgprice wrote: ↑Thu Jan 18, 2024 11:18 am
The writer of Mark read Josephus. Mark is based on Josephus, Paul and the OT. Whether JtB was real or not doesn't matter. That JtB was in the works of Josephus is all that matters, cause that's where the writer got the character from.
but according to Rivka Nir, Origen would prove with equal probability that John the Baptist was in the works of Hegesippus, not of Josephus.
rgprice wrote: ↑Thu Jan 18, 2024 11:18 am
The writer of Mark read Josephus. Mark is based on Josephus, Paul and the OT. Whether JtB was real or not doesn't matter. That JtB was in the works of Josephus is all that matters, cause that's where the writer got the character from.
but according to Rivka Nir, Origen would prove with equal probability that John the Baptist was in the works of Hegesippus, not of Josephus.
This particular suggestion isn't exactly a good one, and even if we grant the false assumption you and/or Rivka Nir are making, so what? The passage on John is found in copies of the 18th book of the Antiquities. It's not like Josephus is a lost author that requires Origen to piece together what was found in his works.
