Freethought & Rationalism Archive

JoeWallack · 11-16-2011, 12:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by andrewcriddle

Quote:

Originally Posted by JoeWallack

..................................................
Starting with the first criteria above for Interpolation = Textual Criticism, and going External, I have Faith that the same Oannomoly that exists for the TF also exists for the BF (Baptism shower Flavium), which is little/no early Patristic identification. I've documented this phenomenon for the TF in my Legendary:

“Say It Ain’t So Joe. Testimonium Flavium. Will Eusebius Be Convicted In Civil Court?”

Thread. Naturally, there would be a much greater expectation of Patristic interest in Jesus in Josephus, than there would be John the Baptist, but still, the early lack of Patristic identification of John the Baptist in Josephus is strange/bizarre/macabre.

We have a reference in Origen Contra Celsum Book 1

Quote:

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.

I wouldn't expect an earlier reference.

Andrew Criddle

JW:
I tell you the truth, "Mark's" Jesus would be amazed at how much easier it is to get information by throwing out an assertion critical of Christianity rather than doing the research one's self. Good one AC.

Actually the list of silence to Origen looks freakishly like the list to Eusebius. The list is long and distinguished (so is m...never mind):

http://www.freeratio.org/thearchives...&postcount=198

Quote:

ca.140’s CE Justin Martyr

General evidence indicates he probably was aware of Josephus and specifically Antiquities of the Jews.

ca.165 CE Tatian

General evidence indicates he probably was aware of Josephus and specifically Antiquities of the Jews.

ca.170’s CE Theophilus of Antioch - probably used Antiquities of the Jews

For all you Holy Rappers out there with big gold crosses putting your fingers together in a cross and spelling out "East Ghost", while Theophilus is East Ghost, here's what's happening on the other Coast:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ut0WDb-xzks

Way out West (way out west)
The stories told (the stories told)
Bout some Jew boy
Tiny and bold (tiny and bold)
Writing tall (writing tall)
Tall in the saddle.
Herding flock with human brains
who act like cattle

Yippe kai yeah, mini sir Lyons bugger
Yippe kai yo, mini sir Lyons bugger
Yee haw!

ca.180’s CE Irenaeus of Lyons (yes, "Lyons") - used Antiquities of the Jews

ca.190’s CE Clement of Alexandria - used Antiquities of the Jews

ca.200’s CE Tertullian - probably used Antiquities of the Jews

ca.200’s CE Minucius Felix - probably used Antiquities of the Jews

ca.210’s CE Hippolytus - used Antiquities of the Jews

ca.220’s CE Sextus Julius Africanus [probably used Antiquities of the Jews]

Wikipedia dates Contra Celsus at 248 so the only difference between the silences is ironically Origen. I could also throw in lesser Patristic here as compiled by Snapp in his attempt to claim clear Patristic reference to the LE by virtue of a Patristic using the same language as the LE. So the silence is to 248.

Advice to the NewFRDBies here. You can immediately gain a, as Larry David would say, "pretty good" reputation around here by just starting out with the opposite assertions of Roger Pearse. Roger, commenting on the related Patristic silence, asks why a Patristic would be interested in Josephus. The right question though is the opposite. Why wouldn't a Patristic be interested in Josephus, the official 1st century Jewish historian of Jesus' supposed time. I think it's safe to say that my related Eusebius Thread has made clear that it is likely that all of these Patristic had heard of Josephus and were to varying degrees familiar with him. So the silence to Origen is evidence against. Now onto Origen.

Joseph

ErrancyWiki

Doug Shaver · 11-16-2011, 10:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tanya

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doug Shaver

I don't know, partly because I cannot figure out what you might mean by a "situation where there had been no interpolation, just apparent forgery."

How about this:

We assume interpolation (forgery) of Josephus' original text, by Christians, one, two or even three centuries after the initial publication in the last third of the first century.

You might assume it. I do not. I can think of no justification for assuming such a thing.

Quote:

Originally Posted by tanya

What if, however, with regard to his mention of John the Baptist, Josephus, himself, had been deliberately describing a fictional character?

If you can suggest a good reason to think that, then I will speculate about its implications.

Quote:

Originally Posted by tanya

Is there any characteristic of the JtB passage in Josephus' text that would suggest, instead, much later interpolation?

I am aware of no characteristic of the passage that would suggest either that it was fictional or that it was interpolated.

Doug Shaver · 11-16-2011, 10:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doug Shaver

I have yet to see an argument against its authenticity that does not seem to rest on anti-Christian presuppositions.

Quote:

Originally Posted by dog-on

My problem with the passage has more to do with the digression itself and the question that arises regarding who, exactly, Josephus is responding to when he clarifies the purpose of the baptism.

That might be an interesting problem, but I don't see how it constitutes a problem for authenticity.

dog-on · 11-17-2011, 12:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doug Shaver

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doug Shaver

I have yet to see an argument against its authenticity that does not seem to rest on anti-Christian presuppositions.

That might be an interesting problem, but I don't see how it constitutes a problem for authenticity.

Perhaps.

Are you aware of any other reference to the practice of baptism in Antiquities, specifically one for the remission of sin?

tanya · 11-17-2011, 01:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dog-on

Are you aware of any other reference to the practice of baptism in Antiquities, specifically one for the remission of sin?

:thumbs:

aa5874 · 11-17-2011, 06:21 AM

Any claim that John the Baptist baptized for the Remission of Sins in "Antiquities of the Jews" 18 is most likely an interpolation since such a claim would be Contrary to Jewish Laws as stated in an Earlier book of "Antiquities" by the very Josephus.

"Antiquities of the Jews" 3.9

Quote:

......But if a person fall into sin by ignorance, he offers an ewe lamb, or a female kid of the goats, of the same age......... if any one sin, and is conscious of it himself, but hath nobody that can prove it upon him, he offers a ram, the law enjoining him so to do........ if the rulers offer sacrifices for their sins, they bring the same oblations that private men do; only they so far differ, that they are to bring for sacrifices a bull or a kid of the goats, both males.....

There is no requirement in Jewish Law to baptized by John for Remission of Sins.

Josephus himself also claimed to have observed a RITUAL of Bathing in Water but NOT for the Remission of Sins.

"Life of Flavius Josephus"

Quote:

..... when I was informed that one, whose name was Banus, lived in the desert, and used no other clothing than grew upon trees, and had no other food than what grew of its own accord, and bathed himself in cold water frequently, both by night and by day, in order to preserve his chastity, I imitated him in those things......

Any claim that John baptized for the Remission of Sins in "Antiquities" is COMPATIBLE with the Gospels and was most likely authorized to be interpolated by the Church.

dog-on · 11-17-2011, 06:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Any claim that John the Baptist baptized for the Remission of Sins in "Antiquities of the Jews" 18 is most likely an interpolation since such a claim would be Contrary to Jewish Laws as stated in an Earlier book of "Antiquities" by the very Josephus.

"Antiquities of the Jews" 3.9

Quote:

......But if a person fall into sin by ignorance, he offers an ewe lamb, or a female kid of the goats, of the same age......... if any one sin, and is conscious of it himself, but hath nobody that can prove it upon him, he offers a ram, the law enjoining him so to do........ if the rulers offer sacrifices for their sins, they bring the same oblations that private men do; only they so far differ, that they are to bring for sacrifices a bull or a kid of the goats, both males.....

There is no requirement in Jewish Law to baptized by John for Remission of Sins.

Josephus himself also claimed to have observed a RITUAL of Bathing in Water but NOT for the Remission of Sins.

"Life of Flavius Josephus"

Quote:

..... when I was informed that one, whose name was Banus, lived in the desert, and used no other clothing than grew upon trees, and had no other food than what grew of its own accord, and bathed himself in cold water frequently, both by night and by day, in order to preserve his chastity, I imitated him in those things......

Any claim that John baptized for the Remission of Sins in "Antiquities" is COMPATIBLE with the Gospels and was most likely authorized to be interpolated by the Church.

Except that the reference being referred to specifically states that John's baptism was not for the remission of sin.

My question is why the specificity?

Solo · 11-17-2011, 07:32 AM

:constern01:In view of the amazing new factual data that bubbed up after this thread has been revived, I am changing my vote to "Not sure". If you, by any chance, stumble on the discovery that my vote already is in that category, be advised that I am now - more than ever - sure I am not sure. Or as the frogs croak, plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose.

(Translation available on request for a modest fee).

Best,
Jiri

aa5874 · 11-17-2011, 07:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dog-on

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

...Any claim that John baptized for the Remission of Sins in "Antiquities" is COMPATIBLE with the Gospels and was most likely authorized to be interpolated by the Church.

Except that the reference being referred to specifically states that John's baptism was not for the remission of sin.

My question is why the specificity?

That is not so at all. The inclusion of the words "SOME" and "ONLY" implies that John the Baptist did Baptize for the Remission of Sins.

Antiquities of the Jews" 18.5.2

Quote:

2. Now some of the Jews thought that the destruction of Herod's army came from God, and that very justly, as a punishment of what he did against John, that was called the Baptist: for Herod slew him, who was a good man, and commanded the Jews to exercise virtue, both as to righteousness towards one another, and piety towards God, and so to come to baptism; for that the washing [with water] would be acceptable to him, if they made use of it, not in order to the putting away [or the remission] of some sins [only], but for the purification of the body; supposing still that the soul was thoroughly purified beforehand by righteousness....

It is remarkable that the interpolator did NOT even understand or forgot that Josephus would have been happy that John the Baptist was executed if he violated the Laws the Jews by baptizing for the remission of sins.

If John the Baptist was baptizing CONTRARY to the Laws of the God of the Jews then Josephus may have claimed JtB's destruction CAME from God and not only Herod's Army.

JoeWallack · 11-17-2011, 07:57 AM

JW:
Let's take a look at the offending reference by Origen to John the Baptist in Josephus:

Origen. Contra Celsus BOOK I.

Quote:

CHAP. XLVII.

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. Now this writer, although not believing in Jesus as the Christ, in seeking after the cause of the fall of Jerusalem and the destruction of the temple, whereas he ought to have said that the conspiracy against Jesus was the cause of these calamities befalling the people, since they put to death Christ, who was a prophet, says nevertheless--being, although against his will, not far from the truth--that these disasters happened to the Jews as a punishment for the death of James the Just, who was a brother of Jesus (called Christ),--the Jews having put him to death, although he was a man most distinguished for his justice. Paul, a genuine disciple of Jesus, says that he regarded this James as a brother of the Lord, not so much on account of their relationship by blood, or of their being brought up together, as because of his virtue and doctrine. If, then, he says that it was on account of James that the desolation of Jerusalem was made to overtake the Jews, how should it not be more in accordance with reason to say that it happened on account (of the death) of Jesus Christ, of whose divinity so many Churches are witnesses, composed of those who have been convened from a flood of sins, and who have joined themselves to the Creator, and who refer all their actions to His good pleasure.

Verses:

Antiquities of the Jews - Book XVIII

Quote:

CHAPTER 5.

...

2. Now some of the Jews thought that the destruction of Herod's army came from God, and that very justly, as a punishment of what he did against John, that was called the Baptist: for Herod slew him, who was a good man, and commanded the Jews to exercise virtue, both as to righteousness towards one another, and piety towards God, and so to come to baptism; for that the washing [with water] would be acceptable to him, if they made use of it, not in order to the putting away [or the remission] of some sins [only], but for the purification of the body; supposing still that the soul was thoroughly purified beforehand by righteousness. Now when [many] others came in crowds about him, for they were very greatly moved [or pleased] by hearing his words, Herod, who feared lest the great influence John had over the people might put it into his power and inclination to raise a rebellion, (for they seemed ready to do any thing he should advise,) thought it best, by putting him to death, to prevent any mischief he might cause, and not bring himself into difficulties, by sparing a man who might make him repent of it when it would be too late. Accordingly he was sent a prisoner, out of Herod's suspicious temper, to Macherus, the castle I before mentioned, and was there put to death. Now the Jews had an opinion that the destruction of this army was sent as a punishment upon Herod, and a mark of God's displeasure to him.

Josephus

ErrancyWiki

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

11-17-2011, 07:32 AM	#188
Solo Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2004 Location: Ottawa, Canada Posts: 2,579	:constern01:In view of the amazing new factual data that bubbed up after this thread has been revived, I am changing my vote to "Not sure". If you, by any chance, stumble on the discovery that my vote already is in that category, be advised that I am now - more than ever - sure I am not sure. Or as the frogs croak, plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose. (Translation available on request for a modest fee). Best, Jiri

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.