Page 21 of 29
Re: Is 'Serious Scholarship' Biased in Favor of Historicity?
Posted: Mon Apr 13, 2015 7:20 pm
by MrMacSon
I think there are a number of possibilities: The synoptics and Josephus may feed off each other, in number of possible sequences; or they refer to different entities.
It's possible there were a number of people fulfilling memes or prophecies.
I'm intrigued by the implication of "a messenger being sent ahead and a voice crying out in the wilderness" (Wikipedia/Kazmierski) and the possibility this has ties with Josephus's
War of the Jews account of Jesus son of Ananias/Ananus and Albinius in "A Voice from the East, etc" -
http://www.josephus.org/causeofDestruct.htm#voice - which, in turn, may have ties with
Antiquities 20.9.1
Re: Is 'Serious Scholarship' Biased in Favor of Historicity?
Posted: Mon Apr 13, 2015 7:21 pm
by MrMacSon
It's possible, if there was a John the Baptist (or several), that he/they wasn't/weren't Jewish - other religions were also baptising
Re: Is 'Serious Scholarship' Biased in Favor of Historicity?
Posted: Mon Apr 13, 2015 7:25 pm
by toejam
^I know it's possible. It's possible there wasn't a historical JtB as well. The question is what you believe/suspect? Do you believe there was a historical John the Baptist or not?
Re: Is 'Serious Scholarship' Biased in Favor of Historicity?
Posted: Mon Apr 13, 2015 7:30 pm
by MrMacSon
Dunno.
Re: Is 'Serious Scholarship' Biased in Favor of Historicity?
Posted: Mon Apr 13, 2015 7:32 pm
by toejam
^Me neither. But the question isn't about "knowledge", but what we suspect. You've avoided the question long enough. I'll leave it there.
Re: Is 'Serious Scholarship' Biased in Favor of Historicity?
Posted: Mon Apr 13, 2015 7:40 pm
by Peter Kirby
I suspect there was one, anyway.
Re: Is 'Serious Scholarship' Biased in Favor of Historicity?
Posted: Mon Apr 13, 2015 7:42 pm
by toejam
^Me too. Should we say then that 'Serious Scholarship' is biased in favor of John the Baptist historicity?? Nope. It's a fairly sound, if not water tight, conclusion.
Re: Is 'Serious Scholarship' Biased in Favor of Historicity?
Posted: Mon Apr 13, 2015 7:49 pm
by Peter Kirby
In all seriousness, there can be bias in favor of a conclusion that is both true and fairly sound.
For example, I'd be biased against the claim that I rob defenseless old people, but I'd also be correct and fairly sound.
Re: Is 'Serious Scholarship' Biased in Favor of Historicity?
Posted: Mon Apr 13, 2015 8:03 pm
by outhouse
toejam wrote: It's a fairly sound, if not water tight, conclusion.
Lets say it is solid historically speaking.
Would it be natural for a large enough group of Aramaic Galilean Apocalyptic Jews who though the end was near, to try and find another leader to keep the movement alive before the end came, after Johns death?
Re: Is 'Serious Scholarship' Biased in Favor of Historicity?
Posted: Mon Apr 13, 2015 8:05 pm
by MrMacSon
outhouse wrote:
Would it be natural for a large enough group of Aramaic Galilean Apocalyptic Jews who though the end was near ...
You mean like after the Temple was destroyed?