Did Josephus mention John the Baptist?

[Bernard Muller]

But according to Allen Origen interpolated also the ''called Christ'' in the James passage! Therefore it is not true that the forger of the Baptist passage did leave ''the text bereft of any passage regarding the much more important figure in Christian belief, i.e., Jesus''.

then,

1) the fact that the same forger, Origen, inserted the entire Baptist passage and the construct ''called Christ'' in the James passage

So now Allen's opinion (very weakly evidenced in my view) makes Kirby's study conclusion wrong. And that opinion becomes a fact!

2) the fact that the Baptist passage is meant to exalt the Baptist as a Jew, the Baptism as a rational act (who is going to receive it is already purified), and the Baptism as a magical act (who is going to receive it will receive further purification of the body) is all functional to Origen's apology against a Celsus despising the Jews, the Baptist (as Jew) and the Gospel baptism episode (as fiction).

So, even functional, what would be the connection with Origen allegedly interpolating John's passage in Josephus' Antiquities?
Of course Christian apologists would quote or mention what or who serves their purpose. That does not mean they were interpolators on these, except for rare cases.

overcome alone all the other arguments pro authenticity.

It's amazing that so little can overcome so much. I suppose mythicists can do that. Actually, they must do that, because of the weakness of their evidence & arguments. And I feel sorry for them for putting themselves in that position.

Cordially, Bernard

[Kunigunde Kreuzerin]

Peter has already neutralized that argument (disagreeing between the two baptisms of Josephus and of the Christian tradition) as potential support for authenticity:

Clare Rothschild argues accordingly (“Echo of a Whisper,” in Ablution, Initiation, and Baptism, p. 268):

Most scholars think that Christian redaction cannot account for the claim in A.J. because it contradicts the celebrated Markan proclamation – contradicting Christian claims being equated with authenticity. It is possible, however, that in not just removing but denying ‘baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins’ (Mark 1:4 par.) a Christian editor sought to settle once and for all the question that surfaces in Matthew. One may, therefore, view this line as a Christian contradiction of Mark 1:4 par., as a Christian insertion favoring Matt 3:14-15 over Mark 1:4 par.

Therefore that line of argument (excessive characterizing of the baptism in the BP) is not evidence of authenticity.

Matthew didn't claim that John's baptism was a "purification of the body". He omitted the "forgiveness of sins", but emphasized the "repentance".

3:1 In those days John the Baptist came preaching in the wilderness of Judea, 2 “Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.”
3:8 Bear fruit in keeping with repentance.
3:11 I baptize you with water for repentance

and btw Luke and Acts are in line with Mark

I think that the passage in Josephus could be best understood as a claim by the Jewish historian to the Romans that the "best" Jews are "like you". Josephus: "We also practise justice and piety and ( yo and behold) we also bath together. Okay, we don't have these wonderful public baths in Judea."

[Charles Wilson]

A Simple (Not complete) review:

Mark 1:7 (RSV):
[7] And he preached, saying, "After me comes he who is mightier than I, the thong of whose sandals I am not worthy to stoop down and untie.

and

John 1: 15 (RSV):
[15] (John bore witness to him, and cried, "This was he of whom I said, `He who comes after me ranks before me, for he was before me.'")

and

1 Chronicles 24: 3, 14 (RSV):
[3] With the help of Zadok of the sons of Elea'zar, and Ahim'elech of the sons of Ith'amar, David organized them according to the appointed duties in their service.
...
[14] the fifteenth to Bilgah, the sixteenth to Immer

Jewish Encyclopedia, "Bilgah":

"The priests, when entering upon their duties, received their share in the northern part of the Tabernacle, because this was near the seat of their activity. The section assigned to each division of the priesthood was furnished with an iron ring fastened to the floor, for the purpose of securing the animal designed for slaughter, and there were accordingly twenty-four openings in the wall where the knives used for slaughtering were kept. Bilgah alone received his share in the south, his ring being nailed down, and his wall-closet tightly sealed, as a punishment..."

By way of simple Maff, it is possible to show that Bilgah was on Duty on Wednesday, Passover, 4 BCE. Immer Rotates into Jerusalem on the Sabbath. "Destroy this Temple and in three days I will raise it up". "So THAT"S what it means!" Yeah...Like, Jokes 'n Stuff". Tha Markan Verse makes perfect sense paired with John. John, of Bilgah, is ahead of the (created) "Jesus" character, of Immer.

I've paired these verses with the Temple Slaughter of 4 BCE in an exhaustive Analysis. YMMV. So it goes. Etc., etc. So, did Josephus mention John?

Josephus, Antiquties..., 17, 9, 3:

"But those that were seditious on account of those teachers of the law, irritated the people by the noise and clamors they used to encourage the people in their designs; so they made an assault upon the soldiers, and came up to them, and stoned the greatest part of them, although some of them ran away wounded, and their captain among them; and when they had thus done, they returned to the sacrifices which were already in their hands..."

and

Josephus, War..., 2, 1, 3:

"At this Archclaus was aftrighted, and privately sent a tribune, with his cohort of soldiers, upon them, before the disease should spread over the whole multitude, and gave orders that they should constrain those that began the tumult, by force, to be quiet. At these the whole multitude were irritated, and threw stones at many of the soldiers, and killed them; but the tribune fled away wounded, and had much ado to escape so. After which they betook themselves to their sacrifices, as if they had done no mischief..."

Now, Josephus does not mention ANY Mishmarot Courses here and Josephus claims membership in the Priesthood. Therefore, IF there is a mention of a "John the Baptist", it must be from an Interpolation OR whoever is writing this is in on the Transvaluation Joke. I incline to the latter opinion since there is evidence of Hiding in Josephus' treatment of Jannaeus as he and his followers nearly die at the hands of Demetrius Eucerus (The Abomination of Desolation at Gerizim, near Shechem).

The non-mention of John in Josephus argues for mischief and Transvaluation.

CW

[Peter Kirby]

overcome alone all the other arguments pro authenticity.

It's amazing that so little can overcome so much. I suppose mythicists can do that. Actually, they must do that, because of the weakness of their evidence & arguments. And I feel sorry for them for putting themselves in that position.

There are two types of people in this field, and many others: (a) people on the lookout for the strongest arguments on an issue and (b) people on the lookout for the strongest arguments for their position on an issue. Sometimes people are very transparent about "neutralizing" arguments or "overcoming" evidence or appealing to "even the conventional X says Y" type of things. They essentially are in combat, fighting for a "side," and have little appreciation for the fact that they are interrupting the quieter, more scholarly (and non-zero-sum) games of wit and learning that get in their way.

(Not a comment on Allen. He certainly has earned his thesis.)

[Peter Kirby]

I am fascinated to discover that my name is in the thesis, but that due to a circumstance of timing, the extremely relevant blog post of May 21, 2015 doesn't appear to have any impact on the thesis. Allen and I might now be one of a handful of people who have written this much on the subject. It would be very interesting to talk to him about his research -- although I am not sure if I should be flattered or not when being called a "conservative scholar"!

[Giuseppe]

Peter,
I should be very grateful with you for that splendid blog post on JtB. It has allowed me with a rapid coup d'oeil the comprension of what Allen is adding of new in the debate, strongly in support of forgery.
Therefore: thank you!

[Giuseppe]

So now Allen's opinion (very weakly evidenced in my view) makes Kirby's study conclusion wrong. And that opinion becomes a fact!

So Celsus (I, 41):

"When you were bathing," says the Jew, "beside John, you say that what had the appearance of a bird from the air alighted upon you." And then this same Jew of his, continuing his interrogations, asks, "What credible witness beheld this appearance? Or who heard a voice from heaven declaring you to be the Son of God? What proof is there of it, save your own assertion, and the statement of another of those individuals who have been punished along with you?"

Note that for Celsus ''the statement of another of those individuals who have been punished'' with Jesus is the same statement of John the Baptist in John 1, 32 :

Then John gave this testimony: “I saw the Spirit come down from heaven as a dove and remain on him

Therefore, Celsus is declaring by fair letters that the testimony of John doesn't prove nothing about the presumed miracles happened during and after the baptism of Jesus.

What KK is describing:

I think that the passage in Josephus could be best understood as a claim by the Jewish historian to the Romans that the "best" Jews are "like you". Josephus: "We also practise justice and piety and ( yo and behold) we also bath together. Okay, we don't have these wonderful public baths in Judea."

...is precisely the argument that a Origen would have made against the Greek-Roman Celsus in defense of the value of the baptism of Jesus: it was really miracolous (insofar it is evidence of ''justice'' and ''piety''), even according to someone who wasn't Christian and didn't believe to the magic post-Baptism effects.

Therefore under the hypothesis of Origen as forger, we have the Baptist passage just how it has to be under that hypothesis. Said otherwise: a Josephus who is not distinguishable at all from a Origen in polemic against Celsus.

Stantibus rebus, the priors are fifty-fifty.

But if you add the fact that Origen was the probable interpolator of ''called Christ'', then you have the precise qualitative difference between the arguments pro and con.

But obviously I am assuming already that Origen was the interpolator of ''called Christ''.

[Bernard Muller]

Therefore, Celsus is declaring by fair letters that the testimony of John doesn't prove nothing about the presumed miracles happened during and after the baptism of Jesus.

I agree about the alleged & faked testimony, but that does not say Celsus denied the existence of John the Baptist.

Cordially, Bernard

[Giuseppe]

Therefore, Celsus is declaring by fair letters that the testimony of John doesn't prove nothing about the presumed miracles happened during and after the baptism of Jesus.

I agree about the alleged & faked testimony, but that does not say Celsus denied the existence of John the Baptist.

Cordially, Bernard

Precisely. Celsus assumed as true a minimal core behind the Gospels. Origen's goal, with the his interpolation of the Baptist passage, was not to prove the historicity of John (since the Jew of Celsus seemed already to assume it basing on the Gospels only) but was the rehabilitation of the baptism of John against the Celsus's denigration of it (as mere magic rituals for the forgiveness of sins). Now "Josephus" himself can confirm that the baptism of John had not only positive effects but was also a *rational* act (as the people already purified morally were going to receive it).

I agree with Allen that, IF the Baptist passage is an interpolation, THEN the case of a historical John becomes even more weak than the case of a historical Jesus. Think about Joseph of Arimathea. Think about Nicodemus. John becomes as much "historical" as them.

And in my modest opinion the Allen's proof is correct.

[MrMacSon]

Therefore, Celsus is declaring by fair letters that the testimony of John doesn't prove nothing about the presumed miracles happened during and after the baptism of Jesus.

I agree about the alleged & faked testimony, but that does not say Celsus denied the existence of John the Baptist.

Cordially, Bernard

Precisely. Celsus assumed as true a minimal core behind the Gospels. Origen's goal, with the his interpolation of the Baptist passage, was not to prove the historicity of John (since the Jew of Celsus seemed already to assume it basing on the Gospels only) but was the rehabilitation of the baptism of John against the Celsus's denigration of it (as mere magic rituals for the forgiveness of sins).

We only know about Celsus thru Origen. Celsus could well be a sock-pupppet (as could be Typho).