Proofs that John the Baptist Existed

[Secret Alias]

He might have been the messiah. He might have foretold the messiah. It's not true that all Jews believed that Elijah was coming to announce the coming of the messiah. Many Jews thought Elijah Redivivus was the messiah. The original conversation was whether John the Baptist as Elijah Redvivus was messianic.

[Chrissy Hansen]

He might have been the messiah. He might have foretold the messiah. It's not true that all Jews believed that Elijah was coming to announce the coming of the messiah. Many Jews thought Elijah Redivivus was the messiah. The original conversation was whether John the Baptist as Elijah Redvivus was messianic.

What pre-Christian text indicates they believed that Elijah would be the Messiah or in any way connected? That's what I'm asking, and so far I've not been given any explicit connections.

[Sinouhe]

Yes, it's very easy to nitpick over small details for all these sources and pretend it's enough to end the debate. It's more difficult to explain why this idea has endured through the ages before, during and after the advent of Christianity.

What's more, if it's a Christian invention, you'd have to explain these elements:

- Why would Mark invent or use a purely Christian idea and then turn John into Elijah redivivus? An absurd and very complicated idea if it's a Christian concept. It's easy to see why Mark portrays John as Elijah. if we assume that the forerunner of the Messiah = Elijah was a Jewish idea that was in the air at the time.

- You'd have to explain why Mark lies by making it a Jewish concept? Does he need to falsely attribute a Christian idea to the Jews?

- You'd have to explain why the Jews held this belief after the advent of Christianity. Did they steal the idea from the Christians? Absurd. The reverse is much more logical.

Well it endured because Christianity endured and became a dominant powerhouse that forcibly spread its beliefs over the entire world, and programmatically exterminated rivals. Like, none of your three points are remotely difficult to explain unless you just assume Judaism is this unchanging movement that never gets influenced by anything.

-Because Mark was writing for Christians... why wouldn't he use Christian ideas when he is writing for a Christian audience? As for John, probably to unite a socially popular movement previously led by John under Jesus, and create a semblance of unity (Luke-Acts does the same thing with rival Christian groups, such as the infighting between Paul and Peter; this wouldn't be a first time).

-Where on earth does Mark claim this was a Jewish concept? He never cites any scriptural prophecy (except Malachi, which we already went over) or non-Christian tradition concerning John as Elijah. Just looks like a Christian innovation on Malachi to me. According to Malachi, Elijah prepares the way for God himself, not the Messiah. The Gospel of Mark is the first to switch this up as far as I can see. The best I can see for Mark attributing this to a Jewish source is that he says "the scribes say X" which is just done for rhetorical effect, i.e., to give Jesus a one-up on his opponents. Mark claims they say that Elijah must come, so Jesus replies that Elijah has come. Doesn't have to be a real belief at all, the Gospels are full of just misread and madeup things. Did any Jews believe that the Messiah will ride into Jerusalem on two donkeys? That is a Matthean tidbit entire.

-Why is it absurd that Jews would be influenced and take an idea from Christianity? It happened elsewhere, and they clearly were aware of Christian traditions. What's absurd is thinking that ancient syncretism and the transmission of ideas only happens unidirectionally. Given Christianity dominated over Judaism, in fact, it is entirely understandable how that would occur. Dominant forces historically leave imprints on all of their subjects. For instance, we know that during the Second Temple, there was some pretty widespread Hellenistic cult material all over Roman Palestine, indicating that first and second century Jews took up some of the cultic beliefs of their oppressors. That is just how things happen.

In fact, as a case in point, the Talmudic references, as a case in point, actually showcase a number of interpretations that derive from Christianity that demonstrate the influence. For instance, the interpretation of the suffering servant with the Messiah (which most scholars do not think was a pre-Christian development, and it is hotly debated elsewhere), the usage of Daniel 7 and Zech 9 as having the Messiah identified with the "son of Man" and riding on a donkey, etc. That there was Christian influence on the Talmud is seen as just a consensus reality among academics. Peter Schaefer finds other examples, particularly with all the Jesus passages which seem to be polemics reliant on the Gospel tradition.

So, yeah, to say that they couldn't be influenced by Christian concepts on the Messiah is just bogus. Christianity was influential enough that late Apollonians (followers of Apollonius) took note of them, and the worship of Jesus was even introduced into magical cults (such as the Greek Magical Papyri, which invoke Jesus and Jewish angels and Yahweh for various magical purposes). If they can influence pagans, they can influence everyone else, and given the numerous overlaps of known Christian interpretations and the very late date for the Talmud as well, this I think rules out any good reason to consider it uncontaminated by Christianity. The Talmud infamously cannot be taken as blanket evidence for what Jewish people believed in the first century CE.

And given that was like, the only source you had which explicitly mentions a return of Elijah in connection with the Messiah, it makes the case pretty difficult to claim there was any such belief.

I would say, actually, the best case to be made (if only by implication) comes from 1 Enoch, but Rivka Nir notes a number of caveats there. The Qumranic texts may very well have at one time attested to that belief of Elijah coming prior to and anointing the Messiah, but they are so fragmentary that we cannot be certain by any means.

Your explanations as to why Mark falsely attributed a christian concept to the scribes or why Mark invented a twisted concept of Eljah = John are absolutely unconvincing.

You give far too much credit to Christianity.

You downplay the Jewish origin of Christianity.

You underestimate the antiquity of certain Talmudic concepts.

The idea that the Servant of Isaiah was interpreted messianically in Second Temple Judaism before the advent of Christianity is generally accepted by scholars of Second Temple Judaism. Bart Ehrman is not a specialist in Second Temple Judaism.

[schillingklaus]

It does not matter whether it was actually interpreted messianically. All it matters is that it could give a Christian missionary the foggy idea that it could be read or misread at some point in such a manner, so they would at least try use it in order to persuade Jews or Godfearers. Whether teh attempts were successful is a wholly different matter.

[Sinouhe]

It does not matter whether it was actually interpreted messianically. All it matters is that it could give a Christian missionary the foggy idea that it could be read or misread at some point in such a manner, so they would at least try use it in order to persuade Jews or Godfearers. Whether teh attempts were successful is a wholly different matter.

The idea that Mark invented or took over a christian concept unknown to Judaism to convince Jews seems illogical to me.

Is Mark trying to demonstrate through his text that Jesus is the Messiah of the Jewish scriptures? Yes

Is Mark interacting with the prophets and Jewish messianic expectations from the Second Temple to prove the first point? Yes

Does Mark present the concept of Elijah's return before the advent of the Messiah as a Jewish concept? Yes

Then there's no debate for me.

This excellent study sums it up :

Anthony Ferguson - The Elijah Forerunner Concept as an Authentic Jewish Expectation

Although many past scholars affirmed that the idea of Elijah as the forerunner of the messiah is an authentic Jewish expectation, recent scholars have questioned this notion. Morris M. Faierstein, in particular, evaluates the primary evidence and concludes that there is little support for this assertion. Moreover, he suggests that Christians may have originated this concept. In this article, I reevaluate the relevant evidence and point out methodological errors committed by those on both sides of the issue. I conclude that, although no direct pre-Christian textual evidence exists, there is abundant circumstantial evidence that indicates that the concept originated among Jews.
(…)
The above survey has demonstrated that no text codified prior to the rise of Christianity directly states that Elijah will precede the messiah. There is persuasive circumstantial evidence, however, that this expectation was likely pre-Christian. Malachi 3:23–24, 4Q558, and Matt 17:9–13 all present early circumstantial evidence that, once coupled with other pre-Christian expectations, imply the Elijah forerunner concept. In addition, there are later texts that attest to the Elijah fore- runner concept: Justin, Dial. 8; 49.1–12; and b. Erub. 43a–b. Each individual piece of evidence may have some persuasive power, but, taken together, these texts point to the origination of the Elijah forerunner concept among Jews, not Christians, contrary to Faierstein’s suggestion.

https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.15699/j ... 018.204404

[schillingklaus]

It is nowhere near illogical if thye Christian author was poorly informed or desperate.

[Sinouhe]

It is nowhere near illogical if thye Christian author was poorly informed or desperate.

Poorly informed and/or desperate ?
That's not the impression I get when I read Mark.

Joel Marcus - The Way of the Lord

EXCURSUS : « ELIJAH MUST COME FIRST »
The question of whether or not there was in the first century A.D. a Jewish expectation that Elijah would come before the Messiah has been fercely debated in recent scholarship. M. M. Faierstein and J. A. Fitzmyer deny such a Jewish expectation and suggest that it may be a Christian innova-tion, while C. Milikowsky and D. C. Allison affirm it.
Though this is not the place for a detailed discussion of this debate, we must at least state our agreement with Allison that Mark attributes to "the scribes" a belief that Elijah must come before the Messiah, and that ascrip-tion itself is evidence for a first-century Jewish belief in Elijah as the Messiah's forerunner. Fitzmyer argues that 9:11 only implies that Elijah must come before the Son of man rises from the dead. Against this position is that the difficulty with which the disciples are struggling in 9:1l is not the expectation that Elijah must come before the Son of man rises from the dead; there would be no occasion for such an objection at this point in the Markan narrative, since the Son of man has not yet risen. The objection must have to do with something that has already happened — namely, the appearance on the scene of Jesus the Messiah, whose messianic dignity (cf. 8:29) has just been confirmed by the transfiguration (9:2-8). Compare the Matthean version (Matt. 17:9-13), where it is even clearer, because of the omission of Mark 9:12c, that the author presupposes a Jewish expectation of Elijah as the Messiah's forerunner.
Fitzmyer says: "There is not even a hint here [in Mark 9:11-13] about a Messiah, and 'Son of man' is not a messianic title." Fitzmyer probably means that "Son of man" is not a messianic title in first-century Judaism. This itself is debatable (see 1 Enoch); and in any case, for Mark, as the coalescence of "Christ" and "Son of man" in 14:61-62 shows, "Son of man" is a messianic title.

[Kunigunde Kreuzerin]

2) Mark starts with the revelation that a very important event is going to happen in the real History.

3) therefore Mark has to give a chronological marker in the incipit.

4) the chronological marker is: John the Baptist.

I believe we have already discussed this topic in another context (one of my arguments in favor of Lukan priority over Marcion - if the beginning of GMarcion was actually "In the fifteenth year of Tiberius Caesar ..."). It has already emerged from this discussion that I do not think your assumption is correct.

Such secular time references that occur primarily in Luke, but also in Matthew and Marcion, are, imho, not the rule, but the exception and seem strange to me.

In Galatians, Paul counted the years from his revelation (then after three years...then after fourteen years). Why the hell would Paul, who cares only about God and the Lord, write: I met Cephas in the Xth year of Caesar Y ...

John's time marker is the beginning of creation, he doesn't care about anything else. The author of Hebrews gives the time reference: "in these last days". Revelation was written in a time before the "soon coming of the Lord." These are the crucial points in time for these authors. “History” is a human concept that imho was irrelevant to them.

Mark's time reference seems to be "in those days" (1:9) - of which the prophets spoke - when "the time is fulfilled and the kingdom of God is at hand" (1:15). That was all that mattered.

[Ken Olson]

The idea that the Servant of Isaiah was interpreted messianically in Second Temple Judaism before the advent of Christianity is generally accepted by scholars of Second Temple Judaism.

What scholar(s) of Second Temple Judaism do you think make the best case for it (and where do they it)?

Thanks,

Ken

[Chrissy Hansen]

The idea that the Servant of Isaiah was interpreted messianically in Second Temple Judaism before the advent of Christianity is generally accepted by scholars of Second Temple Judaism.

What scholar(s) of Second Temple Judaism do you think make the best case for it (and where do they it)?

Thanks,

Ken

Was about to say, last I checked (and I checked literally a few months ago) this was still a minority position and heavily contested in the field.