Page 6 of 56

Re: Was the Baptism of John = Forced Conversion of John Hyrc

Posted: Sun Jan 10, 2016 6:03 pm
by Secret Alias

Re: Was the Baptism of John = Forced Conversion of John Hyrc

Posted: Sun Jan 10, 2016 6:04 pm
by Peter Kirby
Secret Alias wrote:I think the first question is to ask whether Clement's Josephus (who developed a chronology down to the middle of the second century) is an earlier version of our Antiquities.
Here's another possibility:

http://peterkirby.com/chasing-hegesippus.html
Secret Alias wrote:Antiquities I would argue was a pseudepigraphon developed in the mid second century.
The 20 book work that we now possess? On what grounds?

Do you think Josephus wrote anything we do have?
Secret Alias wrote:If this is the extent of John the Baptist references it's going to be easier to argue for forgery;
That argument you now bring up is part of the article. It might save both of us some time for you to interact with the article:

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

If you can come up with any new arguments, I can add them to the article.

Re: Was the Baptism of John = Forced Conversion of John Hyrc

Posted: Sun Jan 10, 2016 6:07 pm
by Secret Alias
And yes it is a well recognized 'fact' about the Marcionite gospel that there was no baptism of Jesus by John and (owing to Adversus Marcionem 4.12) there is an 'unexplained' or uncontextualized reference to John early in the text. This situation has been acknowledged since Harnack.

Re: Was the Baptism of John = Forced Conversion of John Hyrc

Posted: Sun Jan 10, 2016 6:10 pm
by Secret Alias
And on the article. It's great that you've written that. Let me see how things go tonight. But there is another article to look at which compares Clement of Alexandria's references to another ancient author. Both authors reference a text written in the same year (143, 144 CE?). I forget. I know I wrote about it extensively in the old BCH site.

Re: Was the Baptism of John = Forced Conversion of John Hyrc

Posted: Sun Jan 10, 2016 6:13 pm
by Secret Alias

Re: Was the Baptism of John = Forced Conversion of John Hyrc

Posted: Sun Jan 10, 2016 6:17 pm
by Secret Alias
From your article:
Flavius Josephus the Jew, who composed the history of the Jews, computing the periods, says that from Moses to David were five hundred and eighty-five years; from David to the second year of Vespasian, a thousand one hundred and seventy-nine; then from that to the tenth year of Antoninus, seventy-seven. So that from Moses to the tenth year of Antoninus there are, in all, two thousand one hundred and thirty-three years
I think I also mentioned that 147/148 (the date of the Chronicle) was the 77 year since the destruction of the Jewish temple. A great year to forge a chronicle which makes reference to the events of the war. Hard to get around the idea of who Clement thought wrote the chronicle - Flavius Josephus the Jew. Why isn't the simplest solution that Clement was using a forgery like Antiquities? I'd say that's the simplest solution.

Re: Was the Baptism of John = Forced Conversion of John Hyrc

Posted: Sun Jan 10, 2016 6:22 pm
by Secret Alias
The conclusion to Antiquities:
But then what actions we were forced to do, or what miseries we were enabled to suffer, may be accurately known by such as will peruse those books which I have written about the Jewish war.

2. I shall now, therefore, make an end here of my Antiquities; after the conclusion of which events, I began to write that account of the war; and these Antiquities contain what hath been delivered down to us from the original creation of man, until the twelfth year of the reign of Nero, as to what hath befallen the Jews, as well in Egypt as in Syria and in Palestine, and what we have suffered from the Assyrians and Babylonians, and what afflictions the Persians and Macedonians, and after them the Romans, have brought upon us; for I think I may say that I have composed this history with sufficient accuracy in all things. I have attempted to enumerate those high priests that we have had during the interval of two thousand years; I have also carried down the succession of our kings, and related their actions, and political administration, without [considerable] errors, as also the power of our monarchs; and all according to what is written in our sacred books; for this it was that I promised to do in the beginning of this history. And I am so bold as to say, now I have so completely perfected the work I proposed to myself to do, that no other person, whether he were a Jew or foreigner, had he ever so great an inclination to it, could so accurately deliver these accounts to the Greeks as is done in these books. For those of my own nation freely acknowledge that I far exceed them in the learning belonging to Jews; I have also taken a great deal of pains to obtain the learning of the Greeks, and understand the elements of the Greek language, although I have so long accustomed myself to speak our own tongue, that I cannot pronounce Greek with sufficient exactness; for our nation does not encourage those that learn the languages of many nations, and so adorn their discourses with the smoothness of their periods; because they look upon this sort of accomplishment as common, not only to all sorts of free-men, but to as many of the servants as please to learn them. But they give him the testimony of being a wise man who is fully acquainted with our laws, and is able to interpret their meaning; on which account, as there have been many who have done their endeavors with great patience to obtain this learning, there have yet hardly been so many as two or three that have succeeded therein, who were immediately well rewarded for their pains.

3. And now it will not be perhaps an invidious thing, if I treat briefly of my own family, and of the actions of my own life (28) while there are still living such as can either prove what I say to be false, or can attest that it is true; with which accounts I shall put an end to these Antiquities, which are contained in twenty books, and sixty thousand verses. And if God permit me, I will briefly run over this war (29), and to add what befell them further to that very day, the 13th of Domitian, or A.D. 03, is not, that I have observed, taken distinct notice of by any one; nor do we ever again, with what befell us therein to this very day, which is the thirteenth year of the reign of Caesar Domitian, and the fifty-sixth year of my own life. I have also an intention to write three books concerning our Jewish opinions about God and his essence, and about our laws; why, according to them, some things are permitted us to do, and others are prohibited.
There is something immediately suspicious about this. Jewish War was written first. Any time you see these 'greatest hits' compilations (like Irenaeus, Tertullian etc) there are grounds for misgivings. Jewish War was more original and earlier than this book. And here we see the presence of a later editor pretending to be Josephus presenting the world with a fully edited 'package.' But as I said earlier, let me attend to my guests.

Re: Was the Baptism of John = Forced Conversion of John Hyrc

Posted: Sun Jan 10, 2016 10:47 pm
by Secret Alias
It's also odd that Antiquities is a chronology which doesn't end at the time the author wrote. I think it's the only chronology ever written which doesn't end with "today." Africanus' does. Eusebius' does. Clement's "Flavius Josephus the Jew" does but not our chronology of Flavius Josephus the Jew. Odd

Re: Was the Baptism of John = Forced Conversion of John Hyrc

Posted: Mon Jan 11, 2016 4:20 am
by Peter Kirby
Secret Alias wrote:It's also odd that Antiquities is a chronology which doesn't end at the time the author wrote. I think it's the only chronology ever written which doesn't end with "today." Africanus' does. Eusebius' does. Clement's "Flavius Josephus the Jew" does but not our chronology of Flavius Josephus the Jew. Odd
I always guessed that it is because the author realized that he was bumping into the territory covered extensively in his history of the Jewish war. You could perhaps call it one of literature's first prequels.

Re: Was the Baptism of John = Forced Conversion of John Hyrc

Posted: Mon Jan 11, 2016 4:53 am
by Ulan
Secret Alias wrote:And the connection with John Hyrcanus (= Jannai) would explain why Jesus is associated with the king in later Jewish tradition (you know the Mead Jesus lived 100 BCE stuff). The Jews don't know "John the Baptist" and don't associate him with Jesus but do associate Jannai with Jesus
Just for clarification: Did you mean that John Hyrcanus and Jannai did the same regarding baptism, or what is that equation sign meant to tell? Did you mean that Jannai followed on John Hyrcanus in the same way as Jesus followed on John the Baptist? At least the conflict with the Pharisees would fit.

We are nearly in Maryhelena territory here, although it sounds a bit more likely.