Ratel

Hi folks, please help me understand the view of John the Baptist to Mythicists. Did he exist or is he also considered a mythical creation? If the latter please give the explanations for the supposed historical notices of him and of his disciples. If he did exist please share your view of his influence on the Jesus movement.

Thanks

Steven Carr

There is no evidence that John the Baptist was linked to Jesus in any way.

The first linkage is in 'Mark' where he fulfills the needed 'Elijah' role , playing the part of somebody who anoints the Messiah.

This is no more evidence of a real connection than the introduction of witches in Macbeth to announce that Macbeth will become Thane of Cawdor.

ApostateAbe

I am not a mythicist, but my understanding is that there are mixed views among mythicists about John the Baptist. It is a messy and difficult topic for mythicists, generally. The predominant view around here is that John the Baptist was an actual human being who was popular and was integrated into the Christian legend in order to provide a boost to the mythical character of Jesus. I don't think any mythicists assert that John the Baptist had any direct intended influence on Christianity.

Diogenes the Cynic

John the Baptist is attested by Josephus, so he was probably real.

Steven Carr

I think you will find that the connection of John the Baptist to Jesus is 'historically certain' because it is multiply attested. I may be mistaken though. It might be historically certain because John's Gospel is silent about it happening.

Anyway, it is historically certain. After all, it is in the Bible.

Diogenes the Cynic

GJohn attests to a connection between Jesus and JBap. It doesn't explicitly say that Jesus was baptized by John, but it has Jesus going to John, and John calling him "the lamb of God."

The HJ position is not only that JBap has MIA, but that it fits the criterion of embarrassment. The argument is that Christians would not invent the baptism of Jesus by John because it appears to put Jesus in a subordinate position to John, and implies that Jesus had sins

Minimalist

It could be a later xtian interpolation but, I think not. If they were going to forge something they would have made it agree with the gospel tale. Josephus' version does not.

Steven Carr

Where does GJohn have any character called John the Baptist?

Why were Christians taunted that their so-called Messiah had not been anointed by Elijah? 'For we all expect that Christ will be a man of men, and that Elijah when he comes will anoint him.'

They answered by simply claiming that 'And we know that this shall take place when our Lord Jesus Christ shall come in glory from heaven; whose first manifestation the Spirit of God who was in Elijah preceded as herald in [the person of] John, a prophet among your nation'

Christians had a ready answer to taunts that their Messiah had not been anointed by Elijah. Look they said, John the Baptist had baptised Christ.

The proof by made up claims of embarrassment is logically fallacious, which is why mainstream Biblical scholars use it so often. They have no evidence so have to resort to fallacies.

Shakespeare put in witches announcing who would be future kings. It must be historically true, as why would somebody claim that King James had been foretold by demonic forces? How embarrassing is that!

Diogenes the Cynic

1:6 calls him John. 1:25 calls him a baptizer. If you want to argue that this is a different character from John the Baptist simply because it doesn't use the construction, Ἰωάννης ὁ βαπτιστὴς? Neither do Mark or Luke (only Matthew uses that precise construction), are those different Johns who happen to baptize too?
Anointing and baptizing are two quite different things. Baptism cleanses impurity. Anointing is...well...ANOINTING - it signifies that the anointed has become either a king or the high priest (or both). If early Christians had needed to invent an anointing, they would have invented an anointing, not a baptism.

Steven Carr

They would have invented John the Anointer?

They wouldn't have invented a scene where God calls out from Heaven 'This is my Son'?

They wouldn't have invented a scene where an Elijah figure declares '“After me comes the one more powerful than I, the straps of whose sandals I am not worthy to stoop down and untie. I baptize you with water, but he will baptize you with the Holy Spirit.”

If the baptism really had been embarrassing, it would have been written out of the story of Jesus before he was cold in the grave.