Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Doug Shaver · 11-18-2011, 03:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dog-on

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doug Shaver

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?

No. Neither am I aware of any historiographical principle that says if a document mentions something only once, then it must be inauthentic.

aa5874 · 11-18-2011, 09:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doug Shaver

Quote:

Originally Posted by dog-on

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doug Shaver

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?

No. Neither am I aware of any historiographical principle that says if a document mentions something only once, then it must be inauthentic.

We are not really dealing with events that are mentioned once we are dealing with a specific passage in "Antiquities of the Jews" 18.5. where certain statements were made that may be contrary to Jewish Laws for the remission of sins.

Josephus in an earlier book of Antiquities stated the Jewish tradition of sacrifice for remission of sins according to Jewish Laws so it is likely that Josephus did NOT write that John the Baptist baptized for the Remission of sins but was interpolated to MATCH the Jesus story.

In the Gospels, John Baptized for the Remission of Sins which would have been CONTRARY to Jewish Laws and perhaps could be punishable by death.

JoeWallack · 11-19-2011, 01:02 PM

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.

JW:
Let's take a look at the first part:

Quote:

I would like to say to Celsus, who represents the Jew as accepting somehow John as a Baptist, who baptized Jesus, that [B]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.

As far as the related times, Origen is writing c. 248 while Celsus was c. 177. Qualitatively, Celsus was exponentially superior, making the modern textual observation that there was one original Gospel narrative and subsequent Gospels edited the original for Apologetic purposes, while Patristics are still catching up with this righteous observation 2,000 years later.

Note that Origen is indicating that Celsus accepted the historicity of John as a baptist for the sake of argument. The implication is that Celsus doubted it as history. If Celsus doubted it than presumably it either did not exist in Josephus at the time or Celsus was unaware of it in Josephus. For those who need points sharply explained, it is said that the truth often lies somewhere in between. Original Josephus may have lacked the "baptist" references ("the Baptist, baptizing" may be Origen's editorial comment).

I think I've already demonstrated that all of "Mark's" baptism story is more likely fiction than history but I will not consider this Thread authoritative until Stephen Huller votes.

Josephus

ErrancyWiki

Doug Shaver · 11-19-2011, 10:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JoeWallack

Note that Origen is indicating that Celsus accepted the historicity of John as a baptist for the sake of argument.

Which part of the quoted material are you construing to mean "for the sake of argument"?

JoeWallack · 11-25-2011, 09:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doug Shaver

Quote:

Originally Posted by JoeWallack

Note that Origen is indicating that Celsus accepted the historicity of John as a baptist for the sake of argument.

Which part of the quoted material are you construing to mean "for the sake of argument"?

JW:
The bolded of course. I probably would not include that in a list of evidence that the supposed baptism was not historical though because of how indirect it is:

1) Based on English translation

2) Based on implication

3) Based on Origen response to Celsus

4) Based on fictional Celsus character

Continuing with Origen here:

Origen. Contra Celsus BOOK I.

CHAP. XLVIII.

...

Quote:

For the Jews do not connect John with Jesus, nor the punishment of John with that of Christ.

JW:
I suspect that Origen's only written support for this statement is Josephus. In addition there is also the argument from silence that c. 220 Origen was not aware of any Jewish memory connecting John the Baptist with Jesus.

Joseph

ErrancyWiki

aa5874 · 11-25-2011, 11:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JoeWallack

.....Note that Origen is indicating that Celsus accepted the historicity of John as a baptist for the sake of argument. The implication is that Celsus doubted it as history.....

No, Joe. The implication is that Celsus ACCEPTED it as history.

CHAP. XLVII.

Quote:

...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....

Doug Shaver · 11-26-2011, 12:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JoeWallack

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doug Shaver

Which part of the quoted material are you construing to mean "for the sake of argument"?

JW:
The bolded of course.

Here is what you bolded, with a piece of context on each end.

Quote:

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 . . . ,

I'm sorry, but I just don't see how you infer "for the sake of argument" from that.

Quote:

Originally Posted by JoeWallack

I probably would not include that in a list of evidence that the supposed baptism was not historical though because of how indirect it is:

If you mean the baptism of Jesus, I agree that that was not historical, because I don't believe Jesus was historical. But, "John did not baptize Jesus because Jesus never existed" hardly implies "John never existed."

Quote:

Originally Posted by JoeWallack

Continuing with Origen here:

Origen. Contra Celsus BOOK I.

CHAP. XLVIII.

...

Quote:

For the Jews do not connect John with Jesus, nor the punishment of John with that of Christ.

JW:
I suspect that Origen's only written support for this statement is Josephus.

I'll stipulate it for now.

Quote:

Originally Posted by JoeWallack

In addition there is also the argument from silence that c. 220 Origen was not aware of any Jewish memory connecting John the Baptist with Jesus.

If Jesus never existed, it should surprise no one that Jews had no memory of his relationship with John.

If some deranged prosecutor were to accuse me of murdering James T. Kirk, and I manage to convince a jury that Kirk never existed, what happens then is that I get acquitted. What does not happen is that I cease to exist.

JoeWallack · 11-26-2011, 09:48 AM

JW:
Stopping here to compare the evidence for historicity with the evidence for fiction regarding the assertian:

Jesus was baptized by John

The evidence for historicity is relatively weak. We have no non-Christian support. We also have no known witness support of any hand or foot and the author of the original baptism story lacks credibility. On the other hand, the evidence for fiction is relatively strong.

I previously identified specific criteria for evaluating fiction:

Amount of Qualitative/Quantitative Evidence Needed to Conclude Markan Story Fiction?

Quote:

1) Impossible claims

2) Contradictions

3) Parallels to non-historical sources

4) Thematic motivation

5) Contrivance/Implausibility

6) Necessity of tying to other stories

In the Thread here I've condensed these into:

Impossible

Impossible claims (in total)

Contradictions (impossible in part)

Improbable

Implausibility (in general)

Contradictions (improbable in part)

Contrived

Parallels to non-historical sources

Thematic motivation

Necessity of tying to other stories

Contrivance (other types)

This Thread already documents the existence of all of the above criteria for fiction within "Mark's" baptism story. At the end of this Thread I'll list the specifics. Continuing now with the criterion for Fiction of Contradictions here are the contradictions of "Mark" regarding the supposed baptism by John:

http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php?title=Mark_1:2

Quote:

Even as it is written in Isaiah the prophet, Behold, I send my messenger before thy face, Who shall prepare thy way.

JW:
Everyone agrees that this is not written in Isaiah.

http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php?title=Mark_1:4

Quote:

John came, who baptized in the wilderness and preached the baptism of repentance unto remission of sins.

Josephus says the baptism was not for the remission of sins.

http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php?title=Mark_6:17

Quote:

For Herod himself had sent forth and laid hold upon John, and bound him in prison for the sake of Herodias, his brother Philip`s wife; for he had married her.

Not the reason per Josephus.

http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php?title=Mark_6:17

Quote:

For Herod himself had sent forth and laid hold upon John, and bound him in prison for the sake of Herodias, his brother Philip`s wife; for he had married her.

Wrong woman per Josephus.

http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php?title=Mark_6:25

Quote:

And she came in straightway with haste unto the king, and asked, saying, I will that thou forthwith give me on a platter the head of John the Baptist.

Per Josephus it was all Herod.

Josephus

ErrancyWiki

JoeWallack · 06-17-2012, 10:18 AM

JW:
Super-Skeptic Neil Godfree is at it again questioning the historicity of Jesus' supposed baptism by John:

Why many historical Jesus Scholars NEED John to Baptize Jesus

Quote:

Associate Professor of New Testament Leif E. Vaage argues that New Testament scholars have no valid reasons for believing that John the Baptist really did baptize Jesus

...

Vaage’s conclusion?

Thus, the event of Jesus baptism by John lacks “multiple attestation” in the canonical Gospels or in any other text of the New Testament.

The abiding scholarly conviction that the historical Jesus was baptized by the historical John depends wholly and solely on the assumption that what we now read in Mark 1:9-11 (and parallels) and, specifically, v. 9 is necessarily “historical” in some sense, even though, again, the reasons for this assumption have been primarily “theological” and not conventionally “historical” in nature. (p. 282, my formatting and emphasis)

Joseph

BAPTISM, n.
A sacred rite of such efficacy that he who finds himself in heaven without having undergone it will be unhappy forever. It is performed with water in two ways -- by immersion, or plunging, and by aspersion, or sprinkling.

But whether the plan of immersion
Is better than simple aspersion
Let those immersed
And those aspersed
Decide by the Authorized Version,
And by matching their agues tertian.

ErrancyWiki

JoeWallack · 08-04-2012, 08:29 PM

JW:
Related to the question of whether John baptizing Jesus is historical is the question of whether Herod executing John is historical since these are the two stories "Mark" gives regarding John. The following table gives "Mark's" major assertions regarding the execution and whether the evidence indicates the assertion is likely history or fiction:

[T2]
#|
"Mark"|
Fiction|
History||
1|
6:14 "King Herod"|
"Mark" describes this Herod as "King". Per Josephus, it was Herod Antipas who had John executed and Herod Antipas was a Tetrarch and not a King.|
-|
||
2|
6:17 "his brother Philip`s wife"|
per Josephus Herod Antipas married Herodias, who had been the wife of Herod and not Phillip|
-|
||
3|
6:19 "And Herodias set herself against him"|
The implication from Josephus' chronology is that Herod married his brother's wife after he killed John the Baptist. "Mark's" Herod marries his brother's wife before he kills John the Baptist|
-|
||
4|
6:22 "and when the daughter of Herodias herself came in and danced"|
The textual evidence indicates that "the daughter of Herod, Herodias" is likely original. Josephus does not say if Herod Antipas had any children, but the contrivance of a fictional daughter Herodias here is consistent with the clearer contrivance of "King Herod" and wife "Herodias" making it more likely than not that daughter Herodias is fiction|
-|
||
5|
6:23 "And he sware unto her, Whatsoever thou shalt ask of me, I will give it thee, unto the half of my kingdom"|
This Herod was a Tetrarch and not a King so he was subject to the authority of Rome and not in a position to give away any part of his "kingdom"|
-|
||
6|
6:27 "And straightway the king sent forth a soldier of his guard, and commanded to bring his head: and he went and beheaded him in the prison"|
-|
Herod Antipas had John executed|
||
7|
6:27 "And straightway the king sent forth a soldier of his guard, and commanded to bring his head: and he went and beheaded him in the prison"|
Per "Mark" Herod gives Herodias the head of John as a party favor but per Josephus Herod executes John to prevent potential sedition|
-|
||
8|
6:27 "And straightway the king sent forth a soldier of his guard, and commanded to bring his head: and he went and beheaded him in the prison"|
The implication from Josephus' chronology, assuming that he mentioned Jesus, is that Jesus died before John the Baptist did. "Mark's" Jesus dies after his John the Baptist.|
-|
||
[/T2]

JW:
Per the above "Mark" makes eight assertions in his related story that can be compared to Josephus. 7 likely contradict and 1 agrees.

Contradiction is an important criterion in Historical Methodology measuring the % that witness testimony is contradicted in general and for specific testimony. In "Mark's" John the Baptist death story, the most basic assertion, that John was executed by a Herod, agrees with Josephus. But every other related assertion is contradicted. This is evidence that "Mark" made up all the other details of the story. In the baptism story Josephus only says that John baptized, not that John baptized Jesus. So the above analysis of "Mark's" story of John's death is evidence that "Mark's" claim that John baptized Jesus is fiction.

Word.

Joseph

SCRIPTURES, n.
The sacred books of our holy religion, as distinguished from the false and profane writings on which all other faiths are based.

ErrancyWiki

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

08-04-2012, 08:29 PM	#200
JoeWallack Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Nazareth Posts: 2,357	JW: Related to the question of whether John baptizing Jesus is historical is the question of whether Herod executing John is historical since these are the two stories "Mark" gives regarding John. The following table gives "Mark's" major assertions regarding the execution and whether the evidence indicates the assertion is likely history or fiction: [T2] #\| "Mark"\| Fiction\| History\|\| 1\| 6:14 "King Herod"\| "Mark" describes this Herod as "King". Per Josephus, it was Herod Antipas who had John executed and Herod Antipas was a Tetrarch and not a King.\| -\| \|\| 2\| 6:17 "his brother Philip`s wife"\| per Josephus Herod Antipas married Herodias, who had been the wife of Herod and not Phillip\| -\| \|\| 3\| 6:19 "And Herodias set herself against him"\| The implication from Josephus' chronology is that Herod married his brother's wife after he killed John the Baptist. "Mark's" Herod marries his brother's wife before he kills John the Baptist\| -\| \|\| 4\| 6:22 "and when the daughter of Herodias herself came in and danced"\| The textual evidence indicates that "the daughter of Herod, Herodias" is likely original. Josephus does not say if Herod Antipas had any children, but the contrivance of a fictional daughter Herodias here is consistent with the clearer contrivance of "King Herod" and wife "Herodias" making it more likely than not that daughter Herodias is fiction\| -\| \|\| 5\| 6:23 "And he sware unto her, Whatsoever thou shalt ask of me, I will give it thee, unto the half of my kingdom"\| This Herod was a Tetrarch and not a King so he was subject to the authority of Rome and not in a position to give away any part of his "kingdom"\| -\| \|\| 6\| 6:27 "And straightway the king sent forth a soldier of his guard, and commanded to bring his head: and he went and beheaded him in the prison"\| -\| Herod Antipas had John executed\| \|\| 7\| 6:27 "And straightway the king sent forth a soldier of his guard, and commanded to bring his head: and he went and beheaded him in the prison"\| Per "Mark" Herod gives Herodias the head of John as a party favor but per Josephus Herod executes John to prevent potential sedition\| -\| \|\| 8\| 6:27 "And straightway the king sent forth a soldier of his guard, and commanded to bring his head: and he went and beheaded him in the prison"\| The implication from Josephus' chronology, assuming that he mentioned Jesus, is that Jesus died before John the Baptist did. "Mark's" Jesus dies after his John the Baptist.\| -\| \|\| [/T2] JW: Per the above "Mark" makes eight assertions in his related story that can be compared to Josephus. 7 likely contradict and 1 agrees. Contradiction is an important criterion in Historical Methodology measuring the % that witness testimony is contradicted in general and for specific testimony. In "Mark's" John the Baptist death story, the most basic assertion, that John was executed by a Herod, agrees with Josephus. But every other related assertion is contradicted. This is evidence that "Mark" made up all the other details of the story. In the baptism story Josephus only says that John baptized, not that John baptized Jesus. So the above analysis of "Mark's" story of John's death is evidence that "Mark's" claim that John baptized Jesus is fiction. Word. Joseph SCRIPTURES, n. The sacred books of our holy religion, as distinguished from the false and profane writings on which all other faiths are based. ErrancyWiki

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.