Biblical Criticism & History Forum - earlywritings.com

Tenorikuma wrote:Great article, Peter. Definitely the definitive review of the subject.

Thanks.

It's easy to overlook, but the article links to the output of the stylometry program I'm working on:

http://peterkirby.com/word-frequency-baptist.html

Don't know when I'll be able to release a version into the wild. It's pretty raw yet.

a question

Josephus wrote
ἀλλ’ ἐφ’ ἁγνείᾳ τοῦ σὼματος
but as a consecration of the body

Maybe "sanctification".

Can anyone say something about such a concept or recommend a good article?

Peter Kirby wrote:A new blog post:

http://peterkirby.com/john-the-baptist-authentic.html

I Think it was a very fair comparison, showing strength and weakness of both sides.

I thought your conclusion as well, was balanced matching the evidence presented.


Question then becomes, if we remove Josephus as a source, how much does it effect Johns historicity?


I personally feel it was interpolated to the point of tuning the pre existing passages on John to meet the later theology of the popular movement, opposed to a whole cloth insertion of John. I also feel this matches your conclusion.

I Think it was a very fair comparison, showing strength and weakness of both sides.

I thought your conclusion as well, was balanced matching the evidence presented.

outhouse wrote:Question then becomes, if we remove Josephus as a source, how much does it effect Johns historicity?

It does? The conclusion of the essay was that the passage likely was authentic and belonged to the text of Josephus' Antiquities.

outhouse wrote:I personally feel it was interpolated to the point of tuning the pre existing passages on John to meet the later theology of the popular movement, opposed to a whole cloth insertion of John. I also feel this matches your conclusion.

What do you mean? Do you mean that you believe that the passage at Ant. 18.5.2 were redacted/changed, although there was an original?

(I did not find any evidence that would provide support for such an opinion.)

outhouse wrote:I personally feel 'it'1 was interpolated to the point of tuning the pre existing passages2 on John to meet the later theology of the popular movement, opposed to a whole cloth insertion of John. I also feel this matches your conclusion.

1 You feel what was interpolated - Antiquities 18.116-119?

2 What "pre-existing passages on John"??

Peter Kirby wrote:It does? The conclusion of the essay was that the passage likely was authentic and belonged to the text of Josephus' Antiquities

I agree with your conclusion. But even if it went the other way. Would it effect Johns historicity. Sorry I should have been more direct with my question.

What do you mean? Do you mean that you believe that the passage at Ant. 18.5.2 were redacted/changed, although there was an original?

(I did not find any evidence that would provide support for such an opinion.)

I mean, I don't trust them and leave the possibility for small changes to have taken place. I don't think anyone can rightfully attribute a 100% certainty here.

And if I had to trust anyone, I would trust you.

Well, you have to consider both the fact that a positive mention of John the Baptist by Josephus can be considered (significant?) evidence for historicity _and_ the fact that the absence of a mention by John the Baptist by Josephus can be considered (minor?) evidence against historicity.

The combined considerations (the negative indication if absent & the positive indication if present) implies that there _would_ be a significant 'effect' (when switching one premise with the other) _unless_ you were _extremely confident_, on other grounds, either that John did or did not have historicity (such that the 'effect' would be mere quibbling--say, if you had a time machine and went back and talked to John the Baptist, or whatever...).

But, then, that should be obvious. So are you really just asking whether we can be extremely confident on other grounds?

If so, then no, I don't think we can be extremely confident on other grounds. So, yes, if you asked me, I'd have to say that the question of interpolation (or not) here is significant with regard to the question of the historicity of John the Baptist. But, then, that should seem evident to anyone who doesn't simply trust the Gospels implicitly (and who really does that these days? fundamentalists?), so again I'm not sure why you ask.

Kunigunde Kreuzerin wrote:a question

Josephus wrote
ἀλλ’ ἐφ’ ἁγνείᾳ τοῦ σὼματος
but as a consecration of the body

Maybe "sanctification".

Can anyone say something about such a concept or recommend a good article?

The word "ἁγνείᾳ" is used four times in the Septuagint (Nm 6:2; Nm 6:21; 2Chr 30:19; 1Mc 14:36). Numbers 6 is the Nazarite vow.

Nm 6:2 speak to the children of Israel, and thou shalt say to them, Whatsoever man or woman shall specially vow a vow to separate oneself with purity (ἁγνείαν) to the Lord,
Nm 6:21 This is the law of the votary who shall have vowed to the Lord his gift to the Lord, concerning his vow, besides what he may be able to afford according to the value of his vow, which he may have vowed according to the law of separation (ἁγνείας).

Was this the thought of GLuke 1:15?

Peter Kirby wrote:It's easy to overlook, but the article links to the output of the stylometry program I'm working on:

http://peterkirby.com/word-frequency-baptist.html

Don't know when I'll be able to release a version into the wild. It's pretty raw yet.

What program are you using? There appears to have been a link planned, but there is no active hyperlink.

I have an interest in stylometric analysis, in my case to test my hypotheses about redaction of Pauline letters, but based on the books I have consulted (more than a few, from A. Q. Morton to Anthony Kenny to Kenneth J. Neuman and a few stray articles on analysis of the Federalist Papers, etc.), it seems that we have some serious issues with regard to estimating universe size from the existing letters, sample sizes being too small, and choosing the right combination of variables to search for.

Depending on your assumptions, and by selectively choosing which variables to search, it seems to me that you can prove anything you want! In other words, the selection of variables often times depends on what you are expecting in the results, or by subjectively selecting what you want to believe is authentic (and not a source being cited without attribution), making the procedure a self-fulfilling prophesy. A combination of variables that seems to work for one author does not work with another.

We have considerably more material to work with in the case of Josephus, but his War is in good Attic Greek due to the help of professional grammarians provided by Epaphroditus, a Flavian freedman, while the Antiquities and his other works are more Koine-ish as he wrote them largely himself.

Still, I would be happy to have a way to quantify the demographics of the texts I assign to my "original author" (Paul), and that of my proposed redactor/interpolator.

DCH

And my grass cried out: "Praise unto thee, O Mower of yards, Operator of the riding mower! You have cut down the high and mighty blades, and raised up (relatively speaking) the low blades, equalizing all by your might." And the sound of angels battling with swords was heard (actually the sound of the @#$%^ metal bar processing plant on the other side of the aforementioned train tracks, which constantly moves about the bars with a skid steer, which beeps 24/7 because they only drive it in reverse, dropping the loads of bars a dozen or more times a day it seems.)