Biblical Criticism & History Forum - earlywritings.com

Peter Kirby wrote:Robert Webb, "Jesus' Baptism: Its Historicity and Significance"

This one is online:
https://bible.org/article/jesus-baptism ... plications

toejam wrote:^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?

I don't think there's much reason to doubt Josephus on this one, but I think it should be noted that Josephus never says his Baptist preached either an apocalyptic or Messianic message.

^That's right. But he tells us that he was perceived as a political threat.

I don't think there's much reason to doubt Josephus on this one, but I think it should be noted that Josephus never says his Baptist preached either an apocalyptic or Messianic message.

Josephus considered John as a saint and did not want to suggest he was a false prophet or a rebel against the ruling class (that is Herod Antipas because he married Herodias).
John was very likely apocalyptic but not necessarily messianic. The later was probably invented by Christians, starting by Mark, for the benefit of their Jesus Christ.

Cordially, Bernard

If a subtext here is the historicity of Jesus then does not a Josephan support for the historicity of John the Baptist somewhat undermine Jesus' historicity? Josephus gives as a John the Baptist at a time that does not synch with our narratives of Jesus and a John the Baptist whose baptism is different from the one described in the gospels. If John the Baptist is a "midrashic" construct in the gospels that contradicts what we read in Josephus then I don't see what grounds we have for declaring a historical John the Baptist as anything stronger than a working hypothesis.

Have the arguments against the interpolation of the John the Baptist passage in Josephus been addressed and settled here or in the previous version of this board?

Josephus gives as a John the Baptist at a time that does not synch with our narratives of Jesus and a John the Baptist

See here: http://historical-jesus.info/85.html
Could Antipas-Herodias' wedding, John the baptist's arrest & execution and Jesus' crucifixion have happened in 35-36 AD?
Josephus simply did not say Antipas arrested and executed John right before the tetrarch's army was defeated by Aretas.

whose baptism is different from the one described in the gospels

Josephus added that first the sinner has to sincerely repent and then, for ritualistic purification of the body, get baptized.
Later Christians simplified by not mentioning the prior repentance (which apparently was not asked from them)
OR
Josephus, aware of the "cheap" Christian baptism for removal of sins, wanted to give the impression that John was more demanding on that matter.

Cordially, Bernard

Bernard Muller wrote:

Josephus gives as a John the Baptist at a time that does not synch with our narratives of Jesus and a John the Baptist

See here: http://historical-jesus.info/85.html
Could Antipas-Herodias' wedding, John the baptist's arrest & execution and Jesus' crucifixion have happened in 35-36 AD?
Josephus simply did not say Antipas arrested and executed John right before the tetrarch's army was defeated by Aretas.

whose baptism is different from the one described in the gospels

Josephus added that first the sinner has to sincerely repent and then, for ritualistic purification of the body, get baptized.
Later Christians simplified by not mentioning the prior repentance (which apparently was not asked from them)
OR
Josephus, aware of the "cheap" Christian baptism for removal of sins, wanted to give the impression that John was more demanding on that matter.

Cordially, Bernard

Why should we create imaginative scenarios to reconcile quite distinct accounts and thus produce a third option for which we have no evidence?

The harmonized creation may have been correct but we have no evidence to support this. It may be a more valid approach to seek the most satisfying explanation directly grounded in the texts themselves (as opposed to hypothetical scenarios of what may have happened) for each set of data we have.

neilgodfrey wrote: ... It may be a more valid approach to seek the most satisfying explanation directly grounded in the texts themselves ... for each set of data we have.

Except we often don't know what the texts were based on, if the events in them occurred as described, or to what extent the texts have been changed.

As you said -

neilgodfrey wrote: ... Josephus gives ... a John the Baptist at a time that does not sync with our narratives of Jesus, and a John the Baptist whose baptism is different from the one described in the gospels. If John the Baptist is a "midrashic" construct in the gospels that contradicts what we read in Josephus then I don't see what grounds we have for declaring a historical John the Baptist as anything stronger than a working hypothesis.

Have the arguments against the interpolation of the John the Baptist passage in Josephus been addressed and settled ...

MrMacSon wrote: Except we often don't know what the texts were based on, if the events in them occurred as described, or to what extent the texts have been changed.

I see this as the reason we need to be more tentative about most of our conclusions when exploring ancient historical questions than more recent ones. To use these difficulties with the evidence we have to justify imagining scenarios for which we have no evidence at all is not kosher. In the case of JtB we have explanations that can be found within the gospels and their known sources themselves, and ditto for the account in Josephus. These respective explanations are grounded in interpretations of the evidence in which the different accounts appear. We need to accept such explanations as the most that the state of the evidence allows us to understand.

If we have other questions unanswered that's just too bad: it's not valid to imagine unfounded third scenarios simply for the sake of giving us answers we want. Or if we do that, we need to separate our scenarios from "history" and understand they are nothing more than speculation.

neilgodfrey wrote: I see this as the reason we need to be more tentative about most of our conclusions when exploring ancient historical questions than more recent ones. To use these difficulties with the evidence we have to justify imagining scenarios for which we have no evidence at all is not kosher. In the case of JtB we have explanations that can be found within the gospels and their known sources themselves, and ditto for the account in Josephus. These respective explanations are grounded in interpretations of the evidence in which the different accounts appear. We need to accept such explanations as the most that the state of the evidence allows us to understand.

I'm not sure we should be calling stuff 'evidence' - a lot of it is information that may be evidence [for a proposition or an argument; and it seems most arguments around inquiry into these texts are not deductive arguments].

neilgodfrey wrote: If we have ... questions unanswered that's just too bad: it's not valid to imagine unfounded third scenarios simply for the sake of giving us answers we want. Or if we do that, we need to separate our scenarios from "history" and understand they are nothing more than speculation.