stephan huller

I think we have had a number of platforms for the so-called 'mythicist position' at this site. I have to admit I have some discomfort with the rationale behind this argument even though I accept probably more firmly than most here that the oldest traditions in Christianity all held that Jesus came down from heaven like a angelic 747 airliner. He had no humanity at all. He was wholly divine.

The heavenly Ἰησοῦς or Isu of the Marcionites and the Manichaean tradition is in my estimation the original Jesus. The man Jesus who had a mother Mary was again invented in a later period. How this was done and for what purpose is anyone's guess. Even though you'd think that my belief in this part of the 'mythicist' equation would make me a card carrying member I personally happen to dislike any argument attached to a greater polemic.

Jesus was originally conceived as a divine hypostasis - so what?

I don't know how you can 'disprove' this wholly divine Jesus any more than you can Zeus, Shiva, Yahweh or any of the other gods venerated by groups of human beings in organized religion. The truth that was associated with Jesus was mathematical, spiritual, theological and eschatological. I don't know how and why anyone would want to ridicule them. I think they're beautiful, just like I think Church music is beautiful. But that's just me, I guess.

In any event, there is one character in the gospel who is surely a 'fiction,' a made up historical figure who almost never gets any attention in these forums and that is - John the Baptist.

It has always struck me as odd that someone who alleged "all of Judea, including all the people of Jerusalem, went out to see and hear" [Mark 1:5] is completely unknown to the rabbinic literature. It is even stranger that despite the fact that this John the Baptist is claimed to have baptized people in or near Samaritan territory and that his body was originally buried in the capital of Sebaste, the Samaritan tradition knows nothing about 'John the Baptist.'

Jews and Samaritans of the medieval period couldn't help but run into Christian claims about this figure. Yet they had nothing to add to the discussion because quite frankly they didn't know anything about him.

The references in Josephus are of course problematic because the material was edited and preserved originally exclusively within Christian libraries. In many Christian traditions the writings of Josephus have a canonical status equal to the earliest Church Fathers, in other words just below that of the New Testament scriptures. There are also the unmistakable signs that the editor of the Luke-Acts corpus knew or was involved with the final redaction of the Josephan corpus. Certain passages in Josephus and Luke resemble one another so closely that a statistical analysis can be used to suggest that they were written by the same person.

Indeed we shouldn't claim that John the Baptist is witnessed by 'all' Christians as the Marcionite gospel did not have any of the early parts of our narrative where John is introduced and goes on to baptize Jesus. I find it highly unlikely therefore that there ever was a 'John the Baptist' in the Marcionite tradition. Nothing that survives from the writings of Irenaeus, Hippolytus, Tertullian, Origen or any of the other references to the Marcionites in later Church Fathers demonstrates that they ever accepted the mythical figure of 'John the Baptist.'

And then lastly there is the oft recycled claim that the Mandaeans are the 'tradition of John the Baptist.' I think this argument is utterly incorrect. I think that the claim that the Mandaeans witness our 'John the Baptist' is entirely inaccurate. They certainly know a baptizing John who has a mother named Elizabeth and a father named Zechariah. But the situation is more complicated than it might first appear.

It has been argued that the Mandaeans merely identified themselves as 'the tradition of John the Baptist' as a means of self-protection while they were ruled by Christian and Muslim overlords. The journey of Mandaeans from Palestine to the marshes of Iraq happened over a long period.

The manuscript of the Haran Gawaitha was purchased by Drower in the last century. The text tells of a time when the Nasurai (the HG never refers to the community as 'Mandaeans' or employs the Persian loan word 'manda') lived in what is now northern Iraq, in Haran (in what was ancient Osrhoene). Most of the experts I have ever read understand that the text preserve a more ancient version of the Mandaean belief system.

In the Haran Gawaitha and the John Book, John is above all else a figure who prophesied the destruction of the temple of Jerusalem. So the Haran Gawaitha:

And in the great Jordan a pure seed was formed... and came and was sown in the womb of 'Nisbai, so that from it a child might come into being, a prophet of the great Father of Glory, praised be His name! in order to destroy the building of Ruha and Adonai.

This even becomes clearer in what follows in the Haran Gawaitha where I have always felt it describes both the events surrounding the destruction of the temple AND the attempted bar Kochba revolt. John is clearly described according to my understanding as living until the destruction of the temple. The narrative makes clear that his life mission is to destroy the 'house of Ruha (Spirit) and Adonai (Lord). The narrative of his life that follows seems to me to be more reminiscent of John the disciple than John the Baptist. This is especially true if we identify Anus-Uthra (Enos of Light) as a recasting of Jesus after the two communities split apart:

I can't help but see possible parallels to the Christian interest in John the disciple. But most telling of all is the number 'forty two years' until the destruction of the temple. This is recited by both Clement and Origen (and thus the whole Alexandrian tradition) as the number of years from Jesus's ministry (and the discipleship of John/Mark) to the end of the temple.

In Book 1 of his Stromateis, at 145, 5 (ed. O. Stählin), Clement states that forty-two years and three months separate the fall of Jerusalem (which happened in the summer of 70 C.E.) from the Passion. Origen mentions the same forty-two years, but with some reservation, in Against Celsus, at IV.22. In his Homily on Jeremiah, at XIV.13, Origen refers to the same forty-two years more assertively as the time separating year 15 of Tiberius from the fall of Jerusalem. Apparently, the assumption is that Jesus died in year 15 of Tiberius. This year date is mentioned in Luke 3:1, but not in direct connection with the event.

I see the reference to the Bar Kochba war cited in what follows when a number of 'sixty years' is cited to mark the beginning of a second attempt by the Jews to reestablish their temple (72 + 60 = 132 CE):

and a time arrived, sixty years after Yahia-Yuhana had departed the body ... the Jews, just as their former strength (returned?) to Ruha and Adonai, who became arrogant...Hence, after sixty years, Ruha and Adonai planned to erect... the fallen House (Temple?) and spoke to Moses the prophet and the children of Israel who had built the House (Temple)... Then they raised an idle cry against the tribes of Anus'-'Uthra, the Head of the Age, and shed their blood so that not a man of the disciples and Nasoraeans were left...

The point is clearly that John dies at the very time the temple was destroyed. Sixty years later it is understood that the Bar Kochba revolt occurred. The understanding of a slaughter of Nazarenes in Judea is paralleled in Christian sources of a mass slaughter of members of their religion in Palestine during the revolt. I think this is worth someone looking into more seriously.

My point is that since John is identified as having lived right until the destruction, he can't be John the Baptist. I think a better argument can be made that he is John the disciple. He might also be some other John connected with the destruction of the temple. But the bottom line is that there is no evidence for John the Baptist outside of sources preserved by the Christian tradition.

http://www.gnosis.org/library/haran.htm

mountainman

The myth/fiction hypothesis utilises the extreme lack of ancient historical evidence (admissable to the field of ancient history, not apologetics) to defend the claim that any form of "Jesus" appears very late in the record. The archaeologists have no problem in finding evidence for the belief in the god Zeus (in whom we live and move and take our being according to the BCE Greek poet) or Shiva or Yahweh.

Shrines and temples and trinkets and devotional inscriptions related to the "Jesus Cult" have not been found on the far side of the 4th century. This fact alone supports all variants of the mythical and/or myth/fiction hypotheses.


You forgot to add Imperial and Political. And you appear to be seeking mathematical truth, or spiritual truth, or theological truth or eschatological truth based upon a hypothesis of there being ancient historical truth associated with these variant Jesi.

The only truth relevant to ancient history is the ancient historical truth.


Birds of a feather flock together.


How would the wretched Eusebius "feel" about your claim for a mythical John the Baptist? What does our one and only "Early Church Historian" say about this "fiction character"?

aa5874

Your claim is bogus. There are no "unmistakable" signs that the editor of the Luke-Acts corpus knew or was involved in the in the final redaction of the Josephan corpus.

What Statistical analysis has shown the writings of Josephus were written by the same author of gLuke and Acts?

Your claims appear to be bogus.

It may be able to show that the author of gLuke and Acts may have used or copied certain information from the writings of Josephus.

Doug Shaver

I must be missing something. You're arguing that, since he was not as famous as the gospel authors claimed he was, he must have not actually existed?

spin

I don't feel like getting into another round of you defending ideas that I can see no basis for, but I will say this:
There have in fact been a number of discussions here on John the Baptist, whenever someone stumbles on the notion that there ain't that much in favor of the existence of John so he must be fictional, mythical or whatever shallow analysis one likes.

It's called exaggeration -- and an argument from silence isn't of any weight here as you have no reason to believe that the rabbinical literature must be exhaustive.

This is based on your opinions of the Samaritans.

The same argument from silence as before.

An argument from silence doesn't trump evidence which conflicts with the gospel version. You must deal with the statements of Josephus which tie John to the divorce of Herod Antipas from the daughter of Aretas IV and to the loss of Antipas's forces against Aretas in circa 36 CE, making the death of John a few years after the time when Jesus was supposed to have died. There is plain evidence here which doesn't come from the christians and the easiest place for it to have come from is events of the period. Josephus was living through the time, the rabbinical literature was compiled much later. You must give Josephus a good hearing. He usually proves to be a better witness to his times than many give him credit for.

Given that the Johannine tradition was obviously separate in from the christian tradition it's not too strange that it's not in all christian literature.

Baptism has nothing to do with the christian savior-messiah religion. It's been grafted on. Water purification is a purely Jewish notion, not christian and the gospel has been patched up a few times to include, tentatively, baptism by Jesus, well not by Jesus, but baptism (Jn 4:2). The adaption of John is for apocalyptic purposes, a once for all times purification as against the Jewish regular bathing. It is the once only ablution talked about in Yeb 46b for bringing the proselyte into the children of Israel.

(Whatever the exact connection of the Mandaeans to the baptist religion of old they maintain traditions that are from the early times, the central position of baptism, the use of the name "Nasoraean", the lack of christian adherence, along with the claimed origin back at the ("pure") Jordan. But these traditions now seem to be heavily garbled.)


spin

stephan huller

Hi spin

I enjoy hearing what you have to say even when we don't necessarily agree. In this case I am just pointing to the curious lack of evidence about John outside of sources preserved by Christians.

I don't know if that proves that John didn't exist. What is strange is that so many people deny the existence of a historical Jesus even though Jewish sources provide us with independent witnesses to his historical existence. You'd think if they thought he was imaginary they'd say so.

There is another line of reasoning for this argument and that is the confusion in Christian sources about which John is meant in a given passage or tradition.

My first post was just laying the groundwork for the next step.

I have very strong suspicions that no one ever knew anything about John the Baptist outside of late second Christian sources. Actually let me clarify that a little further.

No one knew about a baptizing John other than John the disciple.

maryhelena

For those interested in the question of the historicity of John the Baptist - here is a link to a recent thread.

[John the Baptist]


Within this thread are more links to other threads on this subject.

aa5874

You have provided another bogus claim. There are no extant Jewish sources that are independent witnesses of an historical Jesus BEFORE the Fall of the Temple.

No extant source of antiquity external of apologetics can account for a Messiah called Jesus who was baptized by John the Baptist and then was worshiped as a God first by Jews then by people all over the Roman Empire.

The John the Baptist in Josephus may have existed but the John the Baptist in the NT Canon is most likely the result of fiction.

popgoestheweasel

aa5874, I don't understand this statement at all. Either John the Baptist is fictitious (i.e. he didn't have a historical existence) or he had a historical existence. How can one 'John the Baptist' be historical and the other a 'fiction'? This doesn't make any sense, unless I am missing something.

stephan huller

Maryhelena

I wasn't aware of the other thread. My threads always have bad titles. If I could turn back time I would have named this "was John the Baptist a mythical creation developed from a baptizing John the disciple" but the one I chose seemed to be catchier