ApostateAbe

It is not often that someone lends support to the assertions of Dave31, because he very often tends to make claims that rest on evidence that can not possibly be traced to an original source, and he is very abrasive in the process of trying to defend the claims. But, not here. The claim that he made here actually checks out, and I have to give him props for that. It really is what the first line of the translated pyramid texts actually says (sacred-texts.com).

The next step is to find the best explanation for the seeming similarity between that line and Matthew 3:17. On that note, I have three points to make.

• The purpose of this line of the pyramid text is considerably different from a baptism. It is part of a funerary ritual, something that is said upon the death of a king.
• Acharya S replaced some of the text with ellipses. With the omitted text, the similarity to the line in the New Testament does not seem nearly as striking.

  To say by Nut, the brilliant, the great: This is (my) son, (my) first born, N., opener of (my) womb; this is (my) beloved, with whom I have been satisfied.

• There are 2500 unique lines of pyramid text, according to the introduction.

Without these points in mind, then it may seem an empty and uninformed criticism to call the similarity a mere coincidence. But, that really is typically the best explanation for parallels found in such ideas as conspiracy theories, numerology, Bible codes, and almost anywhere else that otherwise-disconnected parallels are found. We expect such parallels by mere probability.

Dave31 said that pyramid texts are 4400 years old. That actually seems to add to the problem. Was there a spoken myth containing a quote that lasted 2500 years or longer? Or, did someone read the hieroglyphics and invent a New Testament myth out of it? Is either explanation more likely than a mere trivial coincidence?

By the way, I don't know what your model is. Acharya S's explanation may strike you as more likely if it also fits your model.

ApostateAbe

Sorry that I haven't paid as much regard to your ideas as they deserve, maryhelena. This is an argument from authority--and I do resort to such a thing if I don't want to get too involved in a debate--the scholars who study Josephus very much tend to regard him as a relatively trustworthy historian. I know that Josephus was more than just a historian (such as also a dream reader), but I think that explaining his passage about JtB as anything but a sincere attempt at history is probably taking too many skeptical steps backward, and you will need darned good evidence to overcome that. I will get involved if there are more people willing to stand behind the position, or I wouldn't be involved in the debates of this forum at all.

Toto

If you are going to argue from authority, you should be sure of your authority. Which scholars regard Josephus as relatively trustworthy? Relative to what? Since we have few other surviving accounts, how would we know?

Are you sure you are not just repeating what you have heard from Christian apologists about the trustworthiness of Josephus?

ApostateAbe

You are right, I am not sure of my authorities, so I don't ask anyone to believe me. I am only explaining my own absence from the debate. Hell, if someone could show me that there is significant scholarly doubt about the trustworthiness of Josephus, then I would certainly be much more willing to look into alternative explanations for the passage about JtB.

maryhelena

Another interesting book re viewing Josephus as a prophet.

my bolding.

Viewing Josephus (or whoever is writing under that name) as a prophet - and, lets not forget, at a time of relevance to early christian origins - should raise a few alarm bells. Especially when what he has written has serious consequences for interpreting the NT storyline.

A description of the above book:

Toto

How about doing some work on your own? Are you aware of the signficant contradictions between Josephus' different books?

Historians evaluate different parts of Josephus depending on his sources and the context. He has obviously made some things up (like the visit of Alexander to Jerusalem to sacrifice at the Temple because of the accurate predictions in Daniel - which had yet to be written.) He was a propagandist for his cause and for himself.

And we know that some things in Josephus have been interpolated by Christians, who included his works along with the Bible. This opens the possibility of larger interpolations, so the idea that John the Baptist was interpolated cannot be summarily dismissed.

aa5874

Why are you reading my post? You must NOW apologize for giving people the impression that you ignore me.

Your apology is NOT ACCEPTED.

avi

This thread emerged as a split from mythicism, in general.

In considering whether or not John the Baptist was, or was not, a mythical invention, versus a genuine historical figure, one ought, in my opinion, consider the date assigned to his birth, by Lord Constantine:

The Summer Solstice--the most important holiday of the Pagan calendar.

At the time of Constantine, in other words, John the Baptist, not Jesus of Capernaum, was regarded as the single most important prophet of the current epoch.

Even Islam accepts the validity of the existence of John the Baptist. Accordingly, as a contrarian, I support, without evidence, the notion that John the Baptist is a mythical character. My rationale is very simple: most authorities regard Jesus as an historical figure, and then accept the fables about John, supposedly baptizing the God, as if a supernatural, omnipotent being required cleansing, and with the amazing assumption that a mere human possessed the power to alter in some fashion a supernatural creature's defects, by immersing said God into river water.

What is there about the word omnipotent that people find so difficult to comprehend? Lowly humans, no matter how humble, how noble, how talented, how empathetic, how contrite, have no ability to alter, change, or modify supernatural deities' existences, in any way, shape, or form. Since Jesus is God, there is no possibility of any human "baptizing" him, or killing him either.

avi

aa5874

But, John the Baptist did NOT baptize any character called Jesus of Nazareth in the writings of Josephus.

In the writings of Josephus, the baptism of John was NOT for the remission of sins.

It was the fiction writers who claimed Jesus was KILLED or who ALSO claimed Jesus was baptized.

It was the fiction writers who claimed Jesus walked on the sea, transfigured, was on TRIAL before Pilate, and was RAISED from the dead who claimed John baptized Jesus.

It was NOT Josephus who said the daughter of Herodias asked for the head of John.

Josephus said that it was Tiberius who asked for the head of Aretas, the father of Herodias.

The fiction writers MUTILATED the writings of Josephus.

ApostateAbe

I think it is a brave step to support the idea that JtB was mythical. Jesus and JtB are very closely associated and pretty-much on the same level in terms of evidence (at least in my opinion), so I do think that that it would be at least consistent with the arguments for a Jesus-mythicist or a Jesus-skeptic to take the same position with respect to JtB. It is certainly not something I would like to encourage--what about moving in the opposite direction? You can instead think that they were both probably historical human beings. Josephus describes JtB as an ordinary founder of an ordinary Jewish cult. There is nothing especially unusual about that. And, the evidence leads me to think that he wrote about Jesus the same way (see my recent thread where I talk about Origen and Josephus). The idea that they really were historical characters does not demand believing anything unusual. They were historical characters that had historical settings within historical cultures that had expected historical effects. There is a bundle of other mythicist theories, on the other hand, that seem to make considerable demands on belief. If we have examples of mythical characters that were thought to be humans who lived in a specific time, place and society, then we just do not have so many.