PhilosopherJay

Hi All,

It is clear that there was an interpolation within the John the Baptist based on the two facts, 1) the point that Origen reports seeing a different text and 2) the issue of the type of baptism by John for purity of sins or body presupposes a debate over the baptism of Jesus by John. I would like to go further and demonstrate that the entire John the Baptist passage is a forgery and reconstruct what the original passage must have been about based on in order to resolve the major contradictions that now exist in the text.

As I pointed out in "The Master Forger Hypothesis and the "Multiple Forgeries Hypothesis", Origen says this in Anti-Celsus (1:47):

This contradicts our current version of the passage in Josephus and Church History which explicitly says that John did not baptize for the remission of sins (Jewish Antiquities, Books XVIII-XIX, Loeb Classical Library, 433 ), Translated by L. H. Feldman):

Origen says that John baptized for forgiveness of sins, the Josephus text we now have says explicitly that he did not.

This argument about the nature of John's baptism is clearly a Christian argument aimed at a Christian audience who knew that Jesus was baptized by John and might wonder why Jesus had to be cleansed of his sins.

The greek word baptizo would have been completely mistifying to Josephus' Roman audience.

Imagine a First Century Greek or Roman who had never heard of Christian baptism reading that Herod put a good man, Jacob the dipper to death. Jacob the dipper dipped people not to forgive their sins, but to clean their bodies. It would have been perfect nonsense to Josephus' Greco-Roman audience. Even saying only that he dipped to forgive people's sins, as Origen reports Josephus said, would have been perplexing.

This only tells us that this particular reference to John the Baptist was an interpolation and at some point was reinterpolated to erase the idea that he baptised for the forgiveness of sins. What evidence is there that the entire reference to John the Baptist is forged?

Let us say that Harry Potter fanatics take over the world. They insist that Harry Potter actually existed and they put to death anybody who disagrees. They offer as evidence, this famous speech by Martin Luther King:
Even if the Harry Potter fanatics had destroyed all the copies of the original text, it is would not be hard to reconstruct the original by taking out the Harry Potter references and seeing how what is left over relates.

In the same way, we can reconstruct the Josephus text before the John the Baptist material was put in.

First note that the text as it stands now presents at least one horrific logical problem. It says that Machaerus is in the hands of Aretas.

The text also tells us that Herod sent John to Machaerus in chains.

Why does Herod send someone to Machaerus which is under the governance of Aretas and the Nabateans? How is it that he has the power to have somebody put to death there? Isn't it a strange coincidence that Aretas' daughter wants to be sent there?

One could say that Aretas and Herod were allies and therefore Aretas was doing this favor for Herod. However, Josephus doesn't tell us this. It can only be confusion to the reader who doesn't know why Herod sent him to Machaerus instead of holding him in Jerusalem or a hundred other places. What is the meaning of the strange coincidence of Aretas' daughter going to Machaerus and John being imprisoned there? In the text as we now have it, this is a mystery.

This is our first puzzle:

Herod sends John in chains to Machaerus, but Machaerus is in the hands of Aretas. Josephus doesn't explain why he does this.

Puzzle number two is why Josephus emphasizes the speed with which Aretas' daughter gets to Aretas:

Why the rush? Once Aretas' daughter was in Machaerus, she could easily have gotten the governor to give her passage to her father. This seems a needless detail that Josephus has told us.
This would make sense only if it was Herod planning to ship her back to her father. It would make sense only if he told her that he was planning to send her to Machaerus and instead made plans to send her back to her father. That she reached her father quickly would emphasize how clever Herod was in planning and executing the whole thing.

The third puzzle is in the letter sent by the Emperor Tiberius:

Tiberius sends instructions for Aretas to be brought in chains to him or killed. We never find out what happens. Instead it is John the Baptist who is put in chains and killed. This is the clue that unravels all our mysteries. Aretas is ordered chained and/or killed, but suddenly it is John the Baptist who gets chained and/or killed.

Let us go back to our Harry Potter fanatical world and imagine we had found this text:

Herod told Tiberius what Aretas had done and Tiberius had ordered his governor Vitellius to put Aretas in chains. Vitellius did what he was told and Harry potter was put in chains.

Not only is the forgery obvious, but once we take out Harry Potter's name, we see the name that belongs there - Aretas.

Once we see that it was Aretas and not John the Baptist who was chained and killed, the actual original story falls into place. Josephus must have written originally something along these lines.
While a specific reconstruction is impossible, the narrative only makes sense if Aretas, not John, was the man brought in chains to Machaerus and executed. Note how in this version Herod uses first the daughter of Aretas to have him start a war and get arrested and then the daughter of Herodias to have Aretas executed. This parallel manipulation of daughters motif gets lost when the John the Baptist text replaced the Aretas text.

The fact that the Aretas narrative gets left hanging in midair in our current text, but the narrative gets completed when we substitute Aretas for John as the victim is the best proof that Aretas was the victim of Herod's intrigues in the original text. Also, we now have the irony that Aretas gets arrested and sent as a prisoner to Machaerus, a city he governed. The mentioning of Machaerus in relationship to Aretas' daughter now makes sense as a source of irony and misfortune in the story.

While, I am not certain that Mark and Matthew's recitation of the killing of John the Baptist story derives directly from Josephus' narrative, it seems to fit perfectly and may be considered as part of the hypothesis.

Warmly,

Jay Raskin

aa5874

If Jesus was known as an ordinary man who did NOT even begin to preach before he was baptized why would people think an ordinary man had NO sin on the day he was baptized?

1. If Jesus was a MAN then he was regarded as a Sinner.

2. Ordinary people, ordinary sinners, wanted to be BAPTIZED by John the Baptist in the River Jordan. That is PRECISELY why they did go to be BAPTIZED by John and not another baptizer.

3. It would have been TOTALLY out of the ordinary for Jesus, an ordinary man and sinner, to have asked to Baptize John the Baptist when the BAPTISM of John was EXACTLY what Jesus WANTED.

For example, people go to BENNY HINN crusades so that BENNY HINN can pray and physically TOUCH them for healing. It would be quite extraordinary that an unknown ordinary person would attempt to reverse roles unannounced and that Benny Hinn would even allow such a thing.

The baptism story of Jesus by John only makes sense if Jesus was NOT regarded as human.

In the NT Canon, Jesus is NOT described as Human but as God Incarnate and really did NOT need to be baptized for remission of sins.

maryhelena

Hi, Philosopher Jay

Interesting ideas you have there.....

My position on John the Baptist is that this figure is not historical. So Josephus using this pseudo-historical figure in his story re Antipas, Herodias, Aretas and his daughter, has more to do with his own prophetic interests - than that the JtB character has been interpolated by someone else into the Aretas and Herod (Antipas) story.

My own view here is that Josephus is replaying the historical tape of 37 b.c. It is Herod the Great that wants rid of his wife, Doris, in order to marry the Hasmonean Mariamne. There was a long engagement - was Mariamne already married - perhaps to her uncle Antigonus?

If, and I think it is a big if, Herodias marries Herod (Antipas) after the 33/34 c.e. death of Philip - then Herod (Antipas) has already got rid of the daughter of Aretas by that date. Which is giving Aretas a couple of years to think about starting his war with Herod (Antipas) - usually dated to 36 c.e. or shortly prior to the death of Tiberius in 37 c.e. However, I think the whole Josephan Herodias/Antipas/Aretas story is pseudo-history. It's a Josephan replaying of the historical tape of 37 b.c.

Herod the Great = Herod (Antipas)
Antigonus = Aretas
Doris = daughter of Aretas
Mariamne = Herodias, granddaughter of Mariamne

Bringing John the Baptist into the Aretas/Antipas story - the ghost of Antigonus......

And Josephus does a very nice reversal with this war - Aretas wins the day and it's Herod (Antipas) that gets the chop - exile. The destruction of Herod's army being because of what he done to JtB - (Herod the Great sending Antigonus to Marc Antony in Antioch who beheaded him).

Josephus - a master of the double meaning....

If the gospel writers can tell tall tales re their pseudo-historical JC - there is no reason to deny Josephus the same ability.....he is a prophetic historian after all....

(gMark and gMatthew have Herodias being married to Philip prior to her marriage to Herod (Antipas). Josephus does not relate this marriage. The dating for the marriage to Herod (Antipas) is difficult to ascertain with any certainty - if it ever happened. All in all, the whole issue re Herodias is fraught with problems.)

aa5874

You are so engulfed in your error that you simply cannot admit that it is highly unlikely that Josephus would INVENT characters like John the Baptist when there were persons like APION who would have used those inventions to destroy Josephus' credibility.

Have you forgotten about APION?

There is NO evidence that APION accused Josephus of inventing the character called John the Baptist.

See "Against Apion" by Josephus.

maryhelena

Please see:

Dreams and Dream Reports in the Writings of Josephus:A Traditio-Historical Analysis,Robert K Gnuse (or via: amazon.co.uk)

my bolding

Vivisector

Hi, Jay.

It seems that at least some of your argument hinges on how Origen uses his materials - in this case, Josephus. I have tried to to make the case in my blog how Origen seems to have been quite capable of great selectivity and creativity in this regard; here with Origen representing Josephus as stating that James's death brought about the fall of Jerusalem, here with Origen apparently revising Paul on the issue of James as a brother of Jesus, and here with Origen correcting the prophet Ezekiel where he perceived Ezekiel as referring to David (rather than Jesus) as Christ. Based on the little I know, I wouldn't be surprised if Origen followed Josephus with respect to baptism for purification (because it's what Josephus presumably wrote) but added, of his own initiative, baptism's role in remission of sins (because this is what Origen himself knew to be the true case). It seems to me that, for Origen's witness to be supportive of this hypothesis, one would have to demonstrate Origen's fidelity to the texts he cites.

Cheers,

V.

aa5874

No, I don't want FLAWED OPNION based on IMAGINATION. I want SOURCES of antiquity that support your claim that Josephus may have invented John the Baptist.

I REFERRED to "AGAINST APION" so that you would be able to have an idea of the things that APION may have questioned in the writings of Josephus.

There is NO indication in the 2 books of "Against Apion" that Apion suggested that John the Baptist was an Invention, prophetic or not.

maryhelena

OK - aa5874 - out with the historical evidence that a character referenced as John the Baptist - in Antiquities - is a historical figure. Unless you can do that - I'm free to think otherwise.....:huh:

Toto

A quick search shows no mention in Against Apion of John the Baptist.

aa5874

You seem to be dreaming your history of John the Baptist and still accuse Josephus of doing the very same thing.

You simply cannot show that Josephus invented John the Baptist.

The DATA you need to make such a claim cannot be found anywhere in Extant sources of antiquity.

Please, stop dreaming.