Biblical Criticism & History Forum - earlywritings.com

Chris Hansen wrote: ↑Fri Oct 21, 2022 10:49 pm Here is a bibliography I'm assembling of those who have challenged the authenticity of Josephus' reference to John the Baptist.
...
Jonathan Klawans, Impurity and Sin in Ancient Judaism (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004), 138
...

Jonathan Klawans does not appear to be challenging that the passage about John in the Antiquities is authentic to Josephus; he is cautioning that whether Josephus has described John's message accurately is in question.


Best,

Ken

I think Antiquities 18.5.2 is an interpolation.

18.5.1 ends with Vitellius being being ordered by Tiberius to get revenge on Aretas for defeating Herod's little colonial and mercenary army.

Then 18.5.3 has immediacy of Vitellius taking his orders and marching on Arabia.

As you can see 18.5.2 is unnecessary, a complete tangent. It talks about events --if believed-- five years prior, completely out of sequence. As if the interpolator was unaware of the real timeline. That's a departure for Josephus, especially without marking.

The loss of a small colonial army, made up of auxiliaries and mercenaries would hardly constitute a calamity for Jews. This sort of defeat was not uncommon in the Roman world. And the Roman reaction was always to send a legion or two (or three if need be) to put down those who struck at a Roman province or client state. Herod's army was likely nothing more than the equivalent of half a dozen Cohorts, likely less. If there were a calamity it would have been the erosion of client state status to that of occupied territory, i.e., full on Roman province, and not the loss of a private mercenary army of Herod's. But that is not at all what 18.5.2 talks about. It's subject matter mostly makes sense from a Christian apologetic standpoint, and surprisingly consistent with elements of the gospels.

One does wonder how many layers of editing from various perspectives occur in Josephus' works. This is a case where "most scholars" constitute a false consensus, much like the majority Byzantine text does on many NT textual variants.

Stuart wrote: ↑Mon Oct 24, 2022 2:01 pm < . . omitted . . >
As you can see 18.5.2 is unnecessary, a complete tangent. It talks about events --if believed-- five years prior, completely out of sequence. As if the interpolator was unaware of the real timeline. That's a departure for Josephus, especially without marking.

The loss of a small colonial army, made up of auxiliaries and mercenaries would hardly constitute a calamity for Jews. This sort of defeat was not uncommon in the Roman world. And the Roman reaction was always to send a legion or two (or three if need be) to put down those who struck at a Roman province or client state. Herod's army was likely nothing more than the equivalent of half a dozen Cohorts, likely less. If there were a calamity it would have been the erosion of client state status to that of occupied territory, i.e., full on Roman province, and not the loss of a private mercenary army of Herod's. But that is not at all what 18.5.2 talks about. It's subject matter mostly makes sense from a Christian apologetic standpoint, and surprisingly consistent with elements of the gospels.

One does wonder how many layers of editing from various perspectives occur in Josephus' works. This is a case where "most scholars" constitute a false consensus, much like the majority Byzantine text does on many NT textual variants.

One thing that's noteworthy about Antiquities 18.5.2 is it opens and closes with statements that 'the Jews' thought that 'Herod's army' was destroyed as a punishment from God : "a mark of God's displeasure pleasure" for "kill[ing] "this good man", 'John, who was called the Baptist', "who was [merely] telling the Jews to practice good virtue", "making 'the washing acceptable to Him [so] the soul was already purified by righteousness."

That seems like Christian apologetics, imo.

Antiquities 18.5.2 / 116-119


Furthermore -

.Ἰωάννου τοῦ ἐπικαλουμένου βαπτιστοῦ

...John . who . was called .the .Baptist

- in the first sentence in Antiquities. 18.5.2 / 116 is similar to -

.Ἰησοῦ τοῦ λεγομένου Χριστοῦ

.Jesus who was called Christ

- in Antiquities. 20.9.1 / 200.

IIUC, ἐπικαλουμένου | epikaloumenon = λεγομένου | loumenon

• according to the use of ἐπικαλουμένου in Acts 11:13, at least:* https://biblehub.com/greek/epikaloumenon_1941.htm
  • * also Acts 7:59, 12:12; and probably Acts 9:14, Acts 9:21, Romans 10:12, and 2 Timothy 2:22 : https://www.billmounce.com/greek-dictionary/epikaleo

• ἐπικα | epika may be accounted for by the 'the' (?)

This is an example of an interpolation with reprise, extremely frequent also in the NT.

schillingklaus wrote: ↑Tue Oct 25, 2022 1:30 am This is an example of an interpolation with reprise, extremely frequent also in the NT.

This.

I am also suspicious of part of 18.5.1 being inserted for NT gospel harmonization purposes. But that is a separate matter.

We have to acknowledge that revisions of books by later editors was not restricted to the New Testament books, but also found frequently in Patristic writings, histories --be they Christian or other-- and even common books and tales. The narrative seams are everywhere. This is not a phenomena limited to Europe and the Near East, but worldwide. We have examples of the story of 大禹 (Da-Yu) on how he built the first flood control during the Xia dynasty. Some hundreds of years later the story and monuments were modified to add a "son" who was by his side to fulfill later generations expectations that great men have their first born as their helper and rightful heir. There are examples everywhere in the world, continuing well into the middle ages and beyond.

BTW, it's a strange sentiment to think a loss by Herod would somehow constitute a punishment of the whole of the Jews. They barely accepted him as a ruler, thinking him something other than a good Jew. His misfortune would more likely be seen as proof that he was not legitimate.

Stuart wrote: ↑Tue Oct 25, 2022 12:36 pm BTW, it's a strange sentiment to think a loss by Herod would somehow constitute a punishment of the whole of the Jews. They barely accepted him as a ruler, thinking him something other than a good Jew. His misfortune would more likely be seen as proof that he was not legitimate.

Where do you see that sentiment expressed?

Best,

Ken