Freethought & Rationalism Archive

mike_decock · 12-22-2003, 07:57 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by rlogan
Now you see, Mike - why a myth needs to avoid giving a date for the crucifixion.

Way too much risk of fatal contradictions.

Well, we've got at least 2 options:

1) The JBap passage in Josephus is an insertion and the gospels report the correct timeframe for the death of JBap.

The problem with that is, if we can't rely on Josephus for JBap, we can't rely on him for Jesus, either.

2) The gospels are in error regarding the timeframe for the death of JBap.

If JBap was indeed a popular fellow, it would take many years before most people would recognize the anachronism. That implies a late date for the gospels.

-Mike...

Amaleq13 · 12-22-2003, 08:13 AM

Zindler also asks if JBap and Jesus were contemporaries, why would Herod think that Jesus could be John reborn?

"And king Herod heard of him [Jesus]; (for his name was spread abroad: ) and he said, That John the Baptist was risen from the dead, and therefore mighty works do shew forth themselves in him."

"But when Herod heard thereof, he said, It is John, whom I beheaded: he is risen from the dead." (Mk 6:14, 16, KJV)

The author of Mark also seems to attribute a similar notion to others besides Herod:

"And Jesus went out, and his disciples, into the towns of Caesarea Philippi: and by the way he asked his disciples, saying unto them, Whom do men say that I am? And they answered, John the Baptist; but some say, Elias; and others, One of the prophets." (8:27-28)

mike_decock · 12-22-2003, 08:52 AM

I did some poking around and a few sites refer to a Slavonic version of Josephus which have a different reference to JBap:

Quote:

CONCERNING ST JOHN THE BAPTIST I
(Book II, ch. vii, after 2, before the opening words of section 3.)

In those days there walked amongst the Jews a man in strange garments since he had glued the skins of oxen to his body, where it was not covered with his own hair. But in face he was like a savage. That one came to the Jews and called them to liberty, saying: 'God has sent me, that I should show you the way of the Law, in which you will free yourselves from many tyrants, and no moral will rule over you, only the Most High, who has sent me.' And when the people heard this, they were glad. And all Judea that lies around Jerusalem followed him. And he did nothing else to them but that he dipped them in the River Jordan and then dismissed them. exhorting them that they should cease from evil works and promising that then there would be given unto them a Caesar, who would deliver them and subject all things hostile to them, but they themselves would be subject to none. At these words some blasphemed and others gained faith.
And when he was brought before Archelaus and the learned in the Law were gathered together, they asked him who he was, and where he had dwelt hitherto. And he answered and said: 'I am guileless, as the Spirit of God has moved me, and I live on reeds and roots and wild fruit.' Now, as they threw themselves upon him to torture him, that he should desist from his preachings and doings, he spoke: 'It is you, who should abandon your abominable doings and turn back to the Lord your God.'

On this Simon, a Pharisee, formerly one of the Essenes arose in great wrath and spoke: 'We read the divine books every day, but thou, who hast come out of the forest as a wild beast, thou darest to teach us and to deceive the people with thy reckless speech.' And he leaped forward to do him bodily mischief. But John rebuked them saying: 'Unto you I will not reveal the mystery that dwelleth amongst you, for you would not. Hence there has come upon you an unspeakable evil and because of you it cometh.' And after he had thus spoken he went to the country beyond the Jordan, and as no one dared to gainsay him he did the works which he had done before.

Russian Josephus

Toto · 12-22-2003, 11:03 AM

Slavonic Josephus is generally considered to be a medieval forgery.

The dating of JBap is examined here.

There is some material in old threads on this from before the index crashed, in particular a post by Peter Kirby on Zindler, rejecting his conclusions. Doherty's favorable review is here.

Zindler is very polemical, and appears to be trying to push the envelop as much as possible. I think that the portrait of John in the gospels is loaded with mythology, but most of the mythological elements seem to be missing from the portrait in Josephus.

Cretinist · 12-22-2003, 12:11 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Toto
Slavonic Josephus is generally considered to be a medieval forgery.

I would agree with this. I was reading it one day, and sure enough, a passage had described him just like the NT does, as a returned Elijah figure.

Amaleq13 · 12-22-2003, 02:37 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Toto
There is some material in old threads on this from before the index crashed, in particular a post by Peter Kirby on Zindler, rejecting his conclusions.

Did he offer an explanation for the problematic Macherus references?

Did he offer an explanation for why Herod would think Jesus could be JBap reborn?

Both of these are perplexing.

Toto · 12-22-2003, 03:44 PM

I think he had a credible explanation for the Macherus reference. I think it was that Macherus changed hands often. The first reference

Quote:

his wife having discovered the agreement he had made with Herodias, and having learned it before he had notice of her knowledge of the whole design, she desired him to send her to Macherus, which is a place in the borders of the dominions of Aretas and Herod, without informing him of any of her intentions. Accordingly Herod sent her thither, as thinking his wife had not perceived any thing; now she had sent a good while before to Macherus, which was subject to her father and so all things necessary for her journey were made ready for her by the general of Aretas's army;

and the second

Quote:

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.

do not clearly refer to the same time frame.

The difficulty is described here as

Quote:

Herod the Great restored [Macherus] and, building a city here, made it one of his residences (BJ, VII, vi, 1, 2). It lay within the tetrarchy assigned to Antipas at the death of Herod. The wife of Antipas, daughter of Aretas, privately aware of his infidelity, asked to be sent hither (Ant., XVIII, v, 1). Here Josephus has fallen into confusion if he meant by the phrase "a place in the borders of the dominions of Aretas and Herod" that it was still in Herod's hands, since immediately he tells us that it was "subject to her father." It was natural enough, however, that a border fortress should be held now by one and now by the other. It may have passed to Aretas by some agreement of which we have no record; and Herod, unaware that his wife knew of his guilt, would have no suspicion of her design in wishing to visit her father. If this is true, then the Baptist could not have been imprisoned and beheaded at Macherus (ibid., 2). The feast given to the lords of Galilee would most probably be held at Tiberias;

Zindler is not the only one who thinks that the passage is off somehow. Falsification of the Classical Texts points out:

Quote:

. . .

The phrase �Macherus, the fortress I before mentioned� is atypical of Josephus. Indeed, he mentions many places but he did not refer to them in this fashion. However, the forger has one place in mind, and he accentuates that it is not some imagined location but the one he took from Josephus� narration.

Why does Josephus mention an insignificant detail, �sent a prisoner�? This action was injurious, bringing with it the strong possibility of unrest aimed at releasing John. By the custom of the time, Herod would have been better off killing John, for example, while breaking up his followers� gathering. Josephus attributes such tactics to Romans. It seems that �sent a prisoner�and�put to death� are divided in time, specifically to create pause for the Gospel�s events of Herodias� intrigue against John.

The factual side of the narrative does not hold, at least not when compared to Matthew�s version. Thus, Herod Antipas� first wife ran away shortly before his second marriage or immediately afterwards. As soon as she did, her father, an Arab ruler, drew Antipas into a war over an old land dispute. John was executed before the end of the war; otherwise, there is no connection between his death and Antipas� defeat. There is no time otherwise for John to criticize Antipas for his unlawful marriage and spend some time in prison.

As a matter of fact, Herodias�s plot is totally irrelevant to the execution of John the Baptist and not mentioned in Josephus, although it occupies central place in the Gospels. Now, consider that in Josephus, the accounts of Herod�s marriage and John�s execution are placed together. Though I believe this is evidence that John�s story in Josephus is an interpolation, it is possible that evangelist mistook two independent accounts for a single story.

The problem of John�s execution for no apparent reason was clear, and the editor of Slavonic Josephus attributes to him political ambitions: as a kind of proto-anarchist he urged people to reject any authority other than God�s just like Judas the Galilean . On the other hand, it is asserted in the same Slavonic text that John was popular only in Judea near Jerusalem, which is incompatible with his persecution by the Galilean tetrarch. To be sure, John later moved �beyond Jordan,� but even then, probably moving west, he wouldn�t have come into Herod�s domain.

The war story is very doubtful. This territory was included in the pax Romanica, so that dependant rulers wouldn�t fight each other. Josephus asserts that the Romans sent a punitive expedition against that Arab ruler, Aretas for waging the war. However, he wrote, �they [Herod and Aretas] raised armies on both sides, and prepared for war, and sent their generals to fight instead of themselves,� and so both sides were guilty. The last phrase is probably interpolated to align Josephus with Matthew, who places Herod in the palace at the time of John�s execution. Of course, the evangelist does not mention this war and his Herod naturally attends the banquet in palace. But in Josephus� story, it is inconceivable that a ruler would send his whole army under the command of a general and not participate in the operations himself.

The defeat in the war is depicted by the interpolation as divine punishment of Herod for the execution of John, which is inconsistent with the context, where Herod in fact triumphed over the Arab with the help of the Romans.
. . .

Herod thinking that Jesus was John returned from the dead would only require John to be dead by the time Jesus started preaching - unless you assume that Herod would think that Jesus was John reincarnated, requiring a new birth and all.

Amaleq13 · 12-22-2003, 05:47 PM

Thanks for the references even though I'm still not sure what to think about the two references to Macherus.

It does seem possible that the first reference is to a different time.

Quote:

Originally posted by Toto
Herod thinking that Jesus was John returned from the dead would only require John to be dead by the time Jesus started preaching - unless you assume that Herod would think that Jesus was John reincarnated, requiring a new birth and all.

"And the king Herod heard [of Jesus], (for his name became public,) and he said -- `John the Baptist out of the dead was raised, and because of this the mighty powers are working in him.' (Mk 6:14, YLT, my brackets)

I think it does require this to be interpreted more in the sense of reincarnation but I'm not sure how valid that is. It is still a strange belief but not the problematic one Zindler portrays it to be, I think.

rlogan · 12-22-2003, 08:13 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Toto
Slavonic Josephus is generally considered to be a medieval forgery.

The dating of JBap is examined here.

There is some material in old threads on this from before the index crashed, in particular a post by Peter Kirby on Zindler, rejecting his conclusions. Doherty's favorable review is here.

Zindler is very polemical, and appears to be trying to push the envelop as much as possible. I think that the portrait of John in the gospels is loaded with mythology, but most of the mythological elements seem to be missing from the portrait in Josephus.

Thank you, Toto. Polemical? I think just giving credit where credit is due:

"Then, a close examination of the Antiquities 18 passage on John suggests that it is in fact a forgery, inserted not by a Christian but a Baptist follower."

For my buddy Spin:

"It may be difficult for us to get our minds around the extent of falsification, apocryphal invention, and doctoring of established writings which Christians have been guilty of through the ages, but it is an expression of that distinguishing feature which they alone of the ancient savior religions adopted: the conviction of exclusivity and possession of sole absolute truth, which legitimized forgery and deception without limit or scruple in the service of that truth. There has never been another literary phenomenon quite like it. It is folly of the blindest sort to imagine, in the face of all the fraud which is clearly present and acknowledged throughout the centuries of Christian writing and transmission, that the canonical documents are somehow pristine and historically reliable."

That was like drinking a cup of the finest broth - nourishing, sweet, and imparting a warm glow to the very core.

:notworthy :notworthy :notworthy :notworthy :notworthy

spin · 12-22-2003, 08:34 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by rlogan
Zindler:
"It may be difficult for us to get our minds around the extent of falsification, apocryphal invention, and doctoring of established writings which Christians have been guilty of through the ages, but it is an expression of that distinguishing feature which they alone of the ancient savior religions adopted: the conviction of exclusivity and possession of sole absolute truth, which legitimized forgery and deception without limit or scruple in the service of that truth. There has never been another literary phenomenon quite like it. It is folly of the blindest sort to imagine, in the face of all the fraud which is clearly present and acknowledged throughout the centuries of Christian writing and transmission, that the canonical documents are somehow pristine and historically reliable."

Hey, Zindler is welcome to his opinion.

spin

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

12-22-2003, 08:13 AM	#12
Amaleq13 Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2003 Location: Eagle River, Alaska Posts: 7,816	Zindler also asks if JBap and Jesus were contemporaries, why would Herod think that Jesus could be John reborn? "And king Herod heard of him [Jesus]; (for his name was spread abroad: ) and he said, That John the Baptist was risen from the dead, and therefore mighty works do shew forth themselves in him." "But when Herod heard thereof, he said, It is John, whom I beheaded: he is risen from the dead." (Mk 6:14, 16, KJV) The author of Mark also seems to attribute a similar notion to others besides Herod: "And Jesus went out, and his disciples, into the towns of Caesarea Philippi: and by the way he asked his disciples, saying unto them, Whom do men say that I am? And they answered, John the Baptist; but some say, Elias; and others, One of the prophets." (8:27-28)

12-22-2003, 11:03 AM	#14
Toto Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Los Angeles area Posts: 40,549	Slavonic Josephus is generally considered to be a medieval forgery. The dating of JBap is examined here. There is some material in old threads on this from before the index crashed, in particular a post by Peter Kirby on Zindler, rejecting his conclusions. Doherty's favorable review is here. Zindler is very polemical, and appears to be trying to push the envelop as much as possible. I think that the portrait of John in the gospels is loaded with mythology, but most of the mythological elements seem to be missing from the portrait in Josephus.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.