aa5874

Even in the passage considered as a forgery in AJ 18.3.3, Jesus called the Christ is said to be RESURRECTED after the third day. John the Baptist was not ever claimed to have been RAISED from the dead in the writings of Josephus.

In the writings of Josephus AJ 18.5.2, John the Baptist was executed by Herod and NO resurrection of John is mentioned, however in the fiction stories of Jesus, Herod claimed Jesus was the resurrected John the Baptist.

Matthew 14:1-2 - Only Jesus appeared to have been RAISED from the dead in both AJ 18.3.3 and the NT, no such resurrection confirmation appears to have been found in the writings of Josephus 18.5.2.

AJ 18.5.2 AJ 18.3.3 Jesus was externally and internally corroborated as a RESURRECTED entity but not John the Baptist.

I would say John the Baptist seemed real and Jesus the resurrected one seems fake.

maryhelena

Yes, I'd agree with you here re it being consistent with mythicists arguments that they should seek to reject, or at the very least to question, the proposed historical existence of John the Baptist. The gospel storyline is itself sufficient reason to do that. I don't think arguments about the John the Baptist account, in Josephus, can simply be dismissed as an interpolation. That's just too easy a way out of the problem that this quote is assumed to present - not only to the chronology of the gospel timeline - but as an assumed historical backup for the gospel story regarding John the Baptist.

"what about moving in the opposite direction?", you ask. While there are problems in going the non-historical John the Baptist route - they fade into insignificance compared to the mountain of problems going the historical John and Jesus route. The historical John and Jesus route takes one nowhere as far as attempting to understand early christian origins. The non-historical John the Baptist route takes one face to face with Josephus (or whoever is writing under that name). In other words, that is the route that takes one to the coalface; the place where the real issues can be seen.

As the quotations from the two books referenced above indicate, Josephus sees himself as a prophetic historian. He has worked his own prophetic insights into the history of the time period in which he lived - the time period from which sprung the early christian movement. Just because the written work of Josephus does not seems to be as obviously prophetic as earlier Jewish prophets; he does not fly off to heaven in a chariot of fire or gets saved after three days in the belly of a large fish, or a night in the lions den, is no reason to overlook this element of his character. His writing appears to be 'normal' historical writing. But best, perhaps, to take caution here - this writing is nevertheless the writing of a prophetic prophet. Consequently, wherever it seems to be questionable, alternative explanations need to be considered.

Rachel Elior, as you will know from other threads on this forum, has questioned Josephus regarding the Essenes. She maintains that Josephus had turned Philo's philosophical Essenes into historical Essenes. Josephus has done this by dating them. Josephus has also given the Essenes a prophetic role - which Philo did not. Rachel Elior maintains that no such people lived in the land of Israel - as such a celibate community would be living contrary to Jewish law re procreation.

Steven Huller has questioned Josephus regarding his account re two Kings by the name of Agrippa. Rabbinic literature, seemingly, can be interpreted as only referencing one King Agrippa as the last king of the Jews.

And there is a question mark of the Josephan account of the siege of Gamla.


One could simply write off Josephus as a waste of time, as a bad historian etc. Or one could make an attempt to try and understand his game plan in the light of his role as a prophetic historian. And really, there is no alternative if one wants to seek early christian origins - Josephus has to be tackled on his own terms - prophetic historian. And Josephus, when considered in this light, as a prophetic historian and not simply an impartial historian, then any linkage the writing of Josephus has to the gospel storyline should be reconsidered. Reconsidered as backup for the pseudo-historical gospel storyline - and not as confirmation of the historicity of the gospel storyline. Without Josephus the gospel storyline has no 'historical' legs to stand on.

aa5874

But, that is not really the case. Virtually everything said about John the John the Baptist in AJ 18.5.2 CANNOT be found in the Jesus story.


1. In Josephus, John the Baptist was NOT raised dead, so the storyline that Jesus was the RESURRECTED JtB has NO "historical" legs to stand on.

2. In Josephus, John the Baptist did NOT baptize for the remission of sins, so the gospel story has NO" historical" legs to stand on when it was claimed in the NT that JtB baptized for the remission of sins.

3. In Josephus, it is NOT found that John the Baptist baptized Jesus, so the Gospel story line has NO "historical" legs to stand on.

4. In Josephus, it is NOT written that the daughter of Herodias asked for the head of John the Baptist so the Gospel story line has NO historical legs to stand on.

5. In Josephus, John the Baptist may have been still ALIVE when the Gospel storyline "history" claimed that Jesus was ALREADY crucified.


In gLUKE, Jesus was crucified somewhere around the 15-16th year of the reign of Tiberius but in Josephus, Vitellius was about to attack Aretas in the 22nd year of the reign of Tiberius or the very same year Tiberius DIED.

The Gospel storyline "history" of John the Baptist did NOT require any of the information mentioned in AJ 18.5.2, it is virtually certain that the Gospel storyline "history" of JtB was fabricated using ONLY the name John the Baptist, that he baptised and was executed by Herod as found in AJ 18.5.2.

spamandham

A conspiracy theory? Are you serious Abe? There's no conspiracy in the idea that ancient religions borrowed from eachother and evolved from pre-existing religions. These are well established *facts*. The idea that Egyptian funerary rites could become part of Christian ritual is neither outlandish, novel, nor even an unusual idea. It's borderline nuts to think this didn't happen.

Have you never wondered why Matthew's gospel story has Jesus growing up in Egypt? Let me guess, it's because you think that really happened.

ApostateAbe

Yes, conspiracies are also well-established facts (all organizations are conspiracies), but, actually, don't get me wrong, I didn't mean to claim that Acharya S's explanation is a conspiracy theory any more than it is numerology or a Bible code. It was only a comparison meant to illustrate the point that some parallels may not seem so striking when you study them more closely. You may have made a good point about Jesus growing up in Egypt, but the argument is about something else, not about Jesus growing up in Egypt. You can add more parallels and more connections to Egypt, and then maybe it is harder to explain it all except by saying Christianity descended from Egyptian myth. All by itself, the parallel seems mundane. I actually think that Jesus grew up in Nazareth, by the way.

aa5874

Well, you believe Luke's version of the Jesus story. In the Gospel of John Jesus may have been fully grown in heaven or some place as a God.

spamandham

Any parallel can be strained, but in this particular case, evidence of Egyptian influence within early Christianity would be undeniable if not for the existence of modern Christians who will deny it.

maryhelena

I quoted, in my post at the top of this thread, from Wikipedia re Antigonus.


Antigonus II Mattathias

Perhaps this idea can be taken a step further ie that John the Baptist, as a forerunner of the gospel Jesus figure, is not historical but a figurative or symbolic creation - a symbol of the Hasmoneans, perhaps specifically, Antigonus.

Kokkinos maintains, contrary to Josephus, that Herodias was married to Philip the Tetrarch - and that her daughter, Salome, was not married to Philip. Josephus has the storyline of Herodias leaving her husband, with a young child and marrying Herod Antipas - leading shortly thereafter to the war with Aretas.

In regard to Herodian history, the writing of Josephus is suspect. Rather than write a straightforward history, Josephus, has, seemingly, in some cases, engaged in replaying the tape - replaying earlier events as though they were repeating themselves anew. So, if Herodias was not married to Antipas during the gospel timeline (Philip being still alive until considerably later....) what is Josephus - and the gospel storyline - on about?

Viewing John the Baptist as a 'stand in' for Antigonus, Antipas would fill the role of Herod and Great and Herodias her own grandmother, Mariamne I. So, it's back to around 37 bc with the siege of Jerusalem, the beheading of Antigonus and the marriage of Mariamne I to Herod the Great - with a young child of her own (a child of her uncle Antigonus?). Josephus replaying the events of 37 bc in a new historical time slot of 37 ce and the war of Antipas with Aretas over the divorce of his daughter...

In the replay, Antipas is so besotted by the dance of the daughter of Herodias that he is prepared to give her half of his kingdom. The Hasmonean bloodline is what Antipas (the stand in for Herod the Great) is after here. With the marriage of Herod the Great to Mariamne I, he went on to create the Herodian/Hasmonean bloodline. A nobody Herod the Great is in love with Mairamne for her great beauty - the Hasmonean Jewish heritage that just might enable his own descendants to be legitimate rulers of Judea.

Thus, the gospel timeline has not simply backdated an assumed marriage of Herodias to Antipas (after the later death of Philip) but indicating a far longer time frame in which to seek the very early origins of the christian story.

(and no, this analogy does not indicate that John the Baptist was historical - the Antipas and Herodias storyline is itself not historical - certainly not at the gospel time frame, if it ever was. The unhistorical John the Baptist character is the indication that the whole gospel scenario is itself not historical but a repeat, a look back, a flash back, on earlier historical events.)

ApostateAbe

Cool, I would love to know what writing or what author you think best represents your general model. About six years ago, I read a book titled, 101 Myths of the Bible: How Ancient Scribes Invented Biblical History (or via: amazon.co.uk), that drew a lot of parallels between Christianity and Egyptian myth. The author believed that the Egyptian connection to Christianity was overlooked by the critical literature in favor of the Jewish and Babylonian connections. You ever read that book? I believed it after doing a little research on the Internet and finding that at least some of the asserted facts were true. I had doubts after reading some critical reviews; I believe they were from apologists. It is difficult to find anti-religious writers critically reviewing anti-religious literature (an unfortunate pattern--Christians tend to be more critical of their own literature), so you have to take what you can get. I found that the criticisms actually held water. I read the book at the same time I believed in conspiracy theories. I am someone who used to believe conspiracy theories, with conspiracist literature and conspiracist friends, and my uncle is still very deeply involved in them, so I don't toss out the insulting comparison out of complete ignorance. Such theories are based on well-established facts, and connections are drawn that reinforce the theories with seeming elegance. I saw the faults in the all of the reasoning only after reviewing the criticisms, finding falsehoods mixed in with the truths, and finding better explanations for the truths.

spin

Let's just say that Kokkinos is disagreeing with our main source about Herodian times. Mary Helena has provided no coherent logic to dismiss Josephus's consistent report about the marriage of Herodias. Josephus is clear in his belief that Herodias was married to the son of Herod the Great and Mariamne (AJ 18.136). He also talks of the trouble derived from Antipas's marriage to Herodias sufficiently after the death of Philip. This latter marriage sent the daughter of Aretas back to Petra to set off a war between the Nabataeans and Antipas in the last year of the reign of Tiberius while Philip died about two years earlier (in the 20th year of Tiberius (AJ 18.106)). Why does Josephus think Salome was married to Philip? And why after the death of Philip that she married Aristobolus son of Agrippa (AJ 18.137)?

Herodias was born circa 15 BCE. That means that by 35 CE she would have been about 50 years old and past the usual age of bearing children.

Now claiming that Josephus is "suspect" regarding Herodian history requires some serious reasoning to support the claim. It cannot be based solely on the opinions of Kokkinos. We need to get our hands dirty with the evidence, but as Josephus is our major source on Herodian history it's very hard to get an evidence based alternative view.

Why people have so much difficulty with the existence of John the Baptist, when he is given a prominent role in Josephus and the gospels are forced to mention him, always makes me wonder. John the Baptist is not a christian development. John is a problem in christianity. He has no real role. He is someone chritsianity has to accommodate. Even his disciples continue after his death as the gospel writers believe and Apollos we are told in Acts doesn't know about Jesus but he proclaims the beliefs of John the Baptist. It's obvious that John had nothing originally to do with christianity and has been appropriated. His religious views lived after him and separately from christianity. John has been co-opted. We don't have any better candidate for the genesis of the baptist movement. So, while John may not have been historical, there is no better explanation for the existence of the beleif system attributed to him than his having engendered it.

If one is going to have a go at Josephus, one should have a modicum of evidence to justify the attack.


spin