Ratel

For the learned scholars on this board:

Was there an historical John the Baptist?

If so, did he have a following of disciples that persisted for some time after his death?

What relation, if any, did they have to early Christianity?

What is the relevance, if there is any, of the existence or non-existence of John the Baptist to the Jesus question?

Thanx!

Doug Shaver

Probably. Josephus talks about him, and what he says doesn't do Christians any favor. I would not assume that he got all the details right, but there is nothing to suggest that he was just passing on unsubstantiated legends.

It's possible, but we really don't know.

I suspect none. Outside of the gospels, he doesn't show up at all in any early Christian writings, and the gospels are probably fiction.

I think the early Christian silence about John is difficult to reconcile with historicity. If that were the only problem with historicity, it might not count for much, but it picks up additional significance as part of a pattern.

neilgodfrey

He doesn't do "orthodox" Christians any favours but as Zindler reminds us, christianity was far more diverse in its first couple of centuries than at any time since, and from that perspective the whole question of interpolation in Josephus is still wide open. See my earlier post re this.

Not to forget Joseph Campbell who raised the question re a baptizing figure carrying the same name, and water-location, and animal clothing or untamed appearance, and subordinate status to a soon-to-appear-hero, as we find in Babylonian myth.

But this needs to be balanced in the conext of the current Mandean Christians who believe they can be traced back to such a figure, and to other scholarhip that hints that John the Baptist may have been the initiator/precursor of either Jesus himself, and/or of Simon Peter and Simon-Saul=Small (Paul).

In other words, I don't really know.

Neil Godfrey

http://vridar.wordpress.com

Clouseau

John the Baptist is mentioned directly in five ancient works, four of them accounts of Jesus' ministry, the fifth being Josephus' Antiquities (xviii 5:2). In one account, John's Jewish and priestly ancestry is noted- his father was a Temple priest in the lineage of Abijah (see Luke 1:5, 1 Chron 24:10); his mother was the daughter of a priest. His father reportedly attended the Jerusalem Temple, as per rota. These statements were easily checkable by contemporaries.

All five sources are agreed that John was a good man who baptised with water, three of them indicate that this baptism was carried out in the Jordan river, all agree that John had many followers. John's following is twice mentioned in Luke's Acts of the Apostles. All accounts and Josephus virtually agree that Herod had John imprisoned and/or killed, though there is some disagreement about Herod's reason for John's execution, though not an irreconcilable difference, imv.

As mentioned, a following of John, about 25 years after his death, is noted in Luke's Acts (18:25, 19:1-3).

Acts 19:4 has this:

'Paul said, "John's baptism was a baptism of repentance. He told the people to believe in the one coming after him, that is, in Jesus."

Also, John wrote this:

'There came a man who was sent from God; his name was John. He came as a witness to testify concerning that light, so that through him all men might believe. He himself was not the light; he came only as a witness to the light. The true light that gives light to every man was coming into the world.' John 1:6-9 NIV

In John 3:28, 30, John the Baptist said: "You yourselves bear me witness, that I said, I am not the Christ, but I have been sent before him... He must increase, but I must decrease."

So it appears that John's following was intended to become Jesus' following, though some of his disciples evidently did not hear about Jesus for some time, having travelled out of Judaea.

John is recorded as being Jesus' distant relation through his mother, who was related to Jesus' mother. He is recorded as having baptised Jesus, of describing him as the promised Messiah ("Look, the Lamb of God"), as regarding his own ministry as only preparation for that of Jesus, and as sending disciples to enquire of Jesus. Jesus is recorded as weeping after John's death. John's genealogy adds to that of Jesus as added validation of Jesus; his father's Temple service, John's mention by Josephus, these tend to confirm the existence of Jesus.

Doug Shaver

I'm well aware of early Christianity's diversity. As for who might have tampered with Josephus, the only sect whose fingerprints are on his work is the one that became orthodox.

Assuming a historical John, that would nicely explain why Christians wrote him into the fiction about their origins. It is hardly evidence against John's historicity.

Toto

Those are probably only two sources - Mark, who was copied directly by Matt and Luke, and Josephus, who gives a variant account

These statements appear only in Luke, written well after the death of John and the destruction of the Temple. How could contemporaries check them, even if they wanted to?

John was probably a historical person. But the gospels do not appear to be a reliable source of information about him.

Clouseau

Taken as a whole, no account is even similar to any other. Even if the accounts were verbatim, it would not mean that the authors did not take their own steps to verify events to their complete satisfaction.

Josephus' account is very similar, and cannot be certainly said to conflict on any point.

The date of Luke's account is unknown- some believe that it was before 70 CE- but it hardly matters, because these things would have been the subject of much interest from the (putative) resurrection onwards, if not before. Luke no doubt gathered much information from eye-witnesses and other reliable sources, and well before the destruction of the Temple, whose existence by that time was of no necessary importance. As Luke himself wrote:

'Everyone who heard this wondered about it, asking, "What then is this child going to be?"' Luke 1:65-66 NIV

That was about John, not Jesus.

aa5874

I am now getting the impression that the information, in the NT, about John the Baptist may have come from Josephus' wrtings. The reason being that Josephus did not appear to be aware of the Gospel of Mark, he never quoted any scripture from Mark and the reason given for John's beheading contradicts Mark's account.

jeffevnz

Are you kidding? The three Gospels agree on word choice and order of content even when that order does not convey chronology, to a highly improbable extent. If the they were consistent in their accounting of the facts, that would be an indication of accuracy. However, consistency in word choice and order of non-chronological content is evidence of plagiarism.
Sure it's possible, but you can't assume they did. Even if the writers of the Gospels tried to verify their claims (which was rare in the ancient world), it's doubtful that they could have with any rigor.
I think he called Josephus a variant account just to imply it was indepedent of the Gospels.

No doubt, huh? Do you have any justification for these huge assumptions?

Clouseau

Can you provide evidence of this?

It cannot be assumed that they did not, even if it is true that the accounts are verbatim.

We know this how?

The reason being...?

But its very independence tends to confirm validity because it is in basic agreement.

Ok, so there is doubt. Maybe Luke lied in his teeth, when writing a book intended to promote honesty, when he wrote the following passage.

But why the 'huh'?

'Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us, just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word. Therefore, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, it seemed good also to me to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught.' Luke 1:1-4 NIV

Luke was involved with the church at a comparatively early stage. He accompanied Paul c. 57/58, and there is no reason to believe that a highly educated man such as he obviously was would have joined forces with the Christians without first taking the same forensic interest as Theophilus exercised. There is no reason to suppose that Luke did not gather his evidence in the earliest years of Christianity, travelling around Judaea quizzing eye-witnesses, perhaps even while Paul was persecuting the church. One early commentator suggested he was the Lucius of the Antiochan church (Acts 13:1). While this cannot be proved, neither can it be disproved. Iow, there is no reason to suppose that Luke's account of the origins of John the B. could not have been authenticated from his close relatives or even from official records.