Malachi151

What is the full extent of our knowledge of John the Baptist? Was there a grave for this person, and did people attend it? Was this person "really real", or he is also a legend? Who, besides Josephus and the Christians wrote about him? Are there any good books on this subject?

Peter Kirby

(1) You probably have reached that extent already.
(2) Our only clue is Mark 6:29.
(3) Too sticky an ontological and epistemic question to rapid fire this one.
(4) Nobody who is preserved. (Mandaeans don't count.)
(5) There are some books, I think I have one of them, not sure if they're any good.

There are some phony baloney sites associated with the Baptist.

--
Peter Kirby

Toto

The full extent of our knowledge is the passage in Josephus and the somewhat contradictory passages in the gospels. Nevertheless, various Biblical scholars have contructed involved theories about him.

Frank Zindler thinks that he is a complete legend. Start with this previous thread: http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=97270

An archeologist will announce periodically the discovery of something related to John the Baptist. (e.g. a cave). It is best to remain a bit skeptical and realize that archeologists have to make a living.

Doug Shaver

Josephus has a brief reference to him. I would not trust every word of the account, but I am aware of no reason to think it is entirely fictional.

http://www.religiousstudies.uncc.edu/jdtabor/john.html

I don't think he is mentioned anywhere else outside the gospels.

spin

Given the Josephus account and its differences with the gospel material, one couldn't have generated the former from the latter or vice versa, so we must be dealing with two independent voices for John. Fair chance for a real figure, otherwise one would have to postulate that someone before the gospels and Josephus made him up for some unknown reason and then got picked up on by the gospel traditions and Josephus.


spin

offa

John the Baptist and Simon Magus are the same person.

thanks,
offa

Doug Shaver

I believe Josephus was passing on information from sources he considered reliable, and in this particular instance he probably had good reason for considering them so.

I consider the gospels to be works of fiction that incorporated some historical personages among their dramatis personae. Herod and Pilate were among them. John the Baptist was another. Jesus of Nazareth was not.

driver8

Apparently in this case as well: http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.p...07#post3974607

It is interesting to note how even a worldly person such as Josephus was prone to believing superstition. Its quite a commentary on the culture of the times. It does not detract directly from a John the Baptist reference, but it helps establish the perspective of the author.

Ben C Smith

LOL. Quite true, and well put.

Ben.

spin

I tend to keep biting on the notion of fiction. Fiction for me is where someone sits down to write an account not intended to be based on reality.

You have seen scores of more inerrantist christians who come here in attempts to deal with the "problems" that are discussed here and you've seen the means with which they attempt to resolve those problems. They will swear blind that their solutions represent the way it was. Such conviction has notion necessarily to do with reality, but they are certainly not proffering accounts that intentionally not based on reality.

Plugging the fiction notion simplifies the range of possibilities. There are three basic positions: 1) based on reality, 2) based on intended fiction, and 3) the rest (including delusions, misinterpretations, errors of understanding or transmission, plausible explanations, etc.). Most people think of intentional fabrication, when they think of fiction and I think there is very little of this in the development of the traditions we are analysing.

From what you've said, I'd guess you would argue that it was fiction as I delineate the choices, for you see a construction including historical personages and non-historical, seemingly implying fabrication which deliberately unites the two. But I think that traditions can easily accommodate real figures. I see them a little like giant snowballs as they roll downwards growing as they gather whatever is in their paths. Or an even better analogy would be a SF heuristic machine which can incorporate new tools into its structure. The tools depend on what is necessary and what is available.

There will have been some fictionalizing I think, as I accept the notion of itinerant preachers as can be seen in the Didache and perhaps Lucian's Passing of Peregrinus. People who went around living off christian communities and the better their christian stories the better they are treated (and fed). The people who listened though had no way of checking the information and as believers they would have taken the information as fact and it became part of the local traditions. Lucian is not very flattering of these communities, but I think his indications are reasonable. The communities would not have been a party to any fictionalizing.


spin