Biblical Criticism & History Forum - earlywritings.com

I'm posting by smartphone but this is the Abstract

Abstract
This research project concerns itself with the three disputed passages of Christian
import as preserved in extant manuscripts of the AJ (Ἰουδαϊκὴ Ἀρχαιολογία a.k.a.
Antiquitates Judaicae), viz.: AJ, XVIII, 3, 3 / 63 (i.e. the so-called Testimonium
Flavianum), AJ, XVIII, 5, 2 / 116 -119 (i.e. the references to John the Baptist) and AJ,
XX, 9, 1 / 200 - 203 (i.e. the references to James the brother of Jesus). Within the
context of contemporary historicity research outcomes, and employing an
interpretist/constructivist episteme, a series of critical analyses was undertaken aimed
at verifying to what degree the three passages in question may be deemed to be in any
way authentic and/or historically reliable. The result of the investigation proves beyond
reasonable doubt that no reliable extra-biblical/scriptural accounts exist to support the
historical existence of, inter alia, Jesus of Nazareth, James the Just or John the Baptist.
Certainly, no such accounts ever appeared in Josephus’ original texts. Furthermore, and
most importantly, the three passages are confirmed to be total forgeries initiated in the
first four centuries of the Common Era most likely by Origen and Eusebius respectively

of the following 2015 thesis:

Clarifying the Scope
of Pre-5th Century C.E.
Christian Interpolation in Josephus’
Antiquitates Judaica (c. 94 C.E.).
NPL Allen

This would be the link:

https://www.google.it/url?sa=t&source=w ... Hi-1MgKVTA

I am only surprised about the addition of JtB in the set of the men not mentioned by Josephus "beyond any reasonable doubt".

Giuseppe wrote:I'm posting by smartphone but this is the Abstract

Abstract
This research project concerns itself with the three disputed passages of Christian
import as preserved in extant manuscripts of the AJ (Ἰουδαϊκὴ Ἀρχαιολογία a.k.a.
Antiquitates Judaicae), viz.: AJ, XVIII, 3, 3 / 63 (i.e. the so-called Testimonium
Flavianum), AJ, XVIII, 5, 2 / 116 -119 (i.e. the references to John the Baptist) and AJ,
XX, 9, 1 / 200 - 203 (i.e. the references to James the brother of Jesus). Within the
context of contemporary historicity research outcomes, and employing an
interpretist/constructivist episteme, a series of critical analyses was undertaken aimed
at verifying to what degree the three passages in question may be deemed to be in any
way authentic and/or historically reliable. The result of the investigation proves beyond
reasonable doubt that no reliable extra-biblical/scriptural accounts exist to support the
historical existence of, inter alia, Jesus of Nazareth, James the Just or John the Baptist.
Certainly, no such accounts ever appeared in Josephus’ original texts. Furthermore, and
most importantly, the three passages are confirmed to be total forgeries initiated in the
first four centuries of the Common Era most likely by Origen and Eusebius respectively

of the following 2015 thesis:

Clarifying the Scope
of Pre-5th Century C.E.
Christian Interpolation in Josephus’
Antiquitates Judaica (c. 94 C.E.).
NPL Allen

This would be the link:

https://www.google.it/url?sa=t&source=w ... Hi-1MgKVTA

I am only surprised about the addition of JtB in the set of the men not mentioned by Josephus "beyond any reasonable doubt".

Interesting. The thesis contains 34 mentions of the name Frank Zindler -- 5 reasons to suspect John the Baptist was interpolated into Josephus.

(There are other well-known mythicists who features prominently, too, but we don't want to stir up any controversy by mentioning names.)

neilgodfrey wrote:
Interesting. The thesis contains 34 mentions of the name Frank Zindler ..

There are 55 mentions of Paul Barnett in the body of the thesis wrt Barnett, Paul. 2009. Finding the Historical Christ. Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.

What I find surprising is this feature of prof Price pointed out by the author of the thesis:

For some strange reason, R.M. Price seems to buy into this doubtful suggestion that such a cult [of John the Baptist] actually existed.

(p. 342, my bold)

Even after we are said that Price gives good reasons in support of interpolation.

Why has Price need of a historical John the Baptist, after all?

I think/suspect for three reasons:

1) he would like to show John as a better author of the source Q, if Q existed (also Roger Parvus thinks in these terms).

2) he would like to show the desire of the earliest Christians to coopt the Baptist's legacy, given the embarrassing fact that John was famous and historical, while Jesus was neither famous nor historical (something I has thought, too).

3) the Baptist passage in Josephus, even if partially interpolated, would throw serious doubt about Gospel's accuracy and chronology.

Vice versa, for Allen:

Therefore, if one wants to retain the gospel accounts, as at the very least, based on some historical truth, then clearly, the BP is an obvious forgery. If the gospel accounts are pure religious mythology then either John the Baptist most probably did not exist or his actions have been adulterated and redacted to suit a religious agenda. Either way, the BP is again shown up as fraudulent since it specifically highlights Josephus, as a practicing Jew, brought up as a Sadducee, being uncharacteristically concerned with advanced, perceptive, Christian-based, doctrinal issues concerning the role of baptism.

(p. 345)

I think that if the Baptist passage is forgery (for sake of argument, I am assuming it is forgery) then why would some Christian (''Mark''?) invent the figure of Baptist ex nihilo?

And why would some Christian insert/corrupt the Baptist passage in Josephus?

At moment I don't know the answer, but the hypothesis of the invention of Baptist may be explained better under other mythicist paradigms more interested about chronology, different from Doherty/Carrier models (I think here about J Vermerein or Lena Einhorn's views...).

Giuseppe wrote:
I think that if the Baptist passage is forgery (for sake of argument, I am assuming it is forgery) then why would some Christian (''Mark''?) invent the figure of Baptist ex nihilo?

And why would some Christian insert/corrupt the Baptist passage in Josephus?

The Baptist "midrash" in Mark functions as a link between Jesus and the Law & Prophets, between Jesus and the Jewish Scriptures. The Baptist represents the old pointing the way to the new as the fulfilment of the old.

Such a "midrash" suggests a development subsequent to the time of the original Gospel of Mark, to a time when it was becoming important for "proto-orthodox" Christians to expropriate the Jewish Scriptures for themselves as the "true religion" of Israel.

Doherty suggests that the Baptist passage was not inserted into Josephus by a Christian but by a member of the Baptist sect.

I'm reading avidly the thesis about what it says about Origen as best candidate author of the forgery about John the Baptist:

So Origen:

I would like to say to Celsus, who represents the Jew as accepting somehow John as a Baptist, who baptized Jesus, that the existence of John the Baptist, baptizing for the remission of sins, is related by one who lived no great length of time after John and Jesus. For in the 18th book of his Antiquities of the Jews, Josephus bears witness to John as having been a Baptist, and as promising purification to those who underwent the rite. [My emphases].

I am particulary galvanized/excited when I have read this precise point:

Then, he [Origen] has Josephus confirm (on his behalf) the following details:
1. John the Baptist may have been a Jew, but he was not only a proven “good man”, he also actively worked towards making other Jews “exercise virtue” and practice righteous behaviour and “piety towards God”;
...

(my bold and colours)

What I see here if not the typical marcionite antithesis, used in a proto-catholic sense by Origen, between ''the Jews'', seen similar to their just God, and the ''good man'' John, ''good'' just as the marcionite alien God ?

In this light, the Baptist passage sounds very hostile to Judaism.


Neil, you have read in my mind even before I read this by you:

Such a "midrash" suggests a development subsequent to the time of the original Gospel of Mark, to a time when it was becoming important for "proto-orthodox" Christians to expropriate the Jewish Scriptures for themselves as the "true religion" of Israel.

Doherty suggests that the Baptist passage was not inserted into Josephus by a Christian but by a member of the Baptist sect.

This idea of a Jewish-Christian forger of the Baptist passage in Josephus is seriously confuted implicitly by Allen. The Baptist passage is very proto-catholic and intimately anti-Jewish in nature, since his author assumes impliciter as a true fact for his readers the contrast between the ''good'' John and the Jews being in strong need of learning ''virtue'' and ''morality'' by John himself.

Pace Secret Alias, the anti-Judaism of typical Marcionite times is found here.

Giuseppe wrote:

Doherty suggests that the Baptist passage was not inserted into Josephus by a Christian but by a member of the Baptist sect.

This idea of a Jewish-Christian forger of the Baptist passage in Josephus . . .

I wasn't aware that the Baptist sect was said to be "Jewish-Christian". Or have I forgotten something in the history of the argument?

neilgodfrey wrote:

Giuseppe wrote:

Doherty suggests that the Baptist passage was not inserted into Josephus by a Christian but by a member of the Baptist sect.

This idea of a Jewish-Christian forger of the Baptist passage in Josephus . . .

I wasn't aware that the Baptist sect was said to be "Jewish-Christian". Or have I forgotten something in the history of the argument?

I think that Doherty - when he says that the forger was a follower of the Baptist - is on the same line of the view of Rivka Nir , author of “Josephus’ Account of John the Baptist: A Christian Interpolation?” in the Journal for the Study of the Historical Jesus (2012) 32-62.

The same Neil talked about his article:

http://vridar.org/2013/08/24/so-john-th ... gery-case/

Nir's conclusion:

Josephus, as is well known, remained a faithful Jew. He was neither initiated into one of the Jewish-Christian sects, nor did he convert to Christianity. Thus, the inevitable conclusion is that the description of John’s baptism, as provided in the passage under review, was not written by Josephus, but was rather interpolated or adapted by a Christian or Jewish-Christian hand.

What irony to see that it is all the contrary! The real forger was soundly anti-Jewish!

Giuseppe wrote:
. . . .

The same Neil talked about his article:

http://vridar.org/2013/08/24/so-john-th ... gery-case/

Nir's conclusion:

Josephus, as is well known, remained a faithful Jew. He was neither initiated into one of the Jewish-Christian sects, nor did he convert to Christianity. Thus, the inevitable conclusion is that the description of John’s baptism, as provided in the passage under review, was not written by Josephus, but was rather interpolated or adapted by a Christian or Jewish-Christian hand.

What irony to see that it is all the contrary! The real forger was soundly anti-Jewish!

That looks like an interesting blog. I'll have to read it more often.