ApostateAbe

So, John the Baptist was not historical, and Josephus gets his information from Christians. An examination of the passage leads me to doubt that. Here is that passage:

Now some of the Jews thought that the destruction of Herod's army came from God, and that very justly, as a punishment of what he did against John, that was called the Baptist: for Herod slew him, who was a good man, and commanded the Jews to exercise virtue, both as to righteousness towards one another, and piety towards God, and so to come to baptism; for that the washing [with water] would be acceptable to him, if they made use of it, not in order to the putting away [or the remission] of some sins [only], but for the purification of the body; supposing still that the soul was thoroughly purified beforehand by righteousness. Now when [many] others came in crowds about him, for they were very greatly moved [or pleased] by hearing his words, Herod, who feared lest the great influence John had over the people might put it into his power and inclination to raise a rebellion, (for they seemed ready to do any thing he should advise,) thought it best, by putting him to death, to prevent any mischief he might cause, and not bring himself into difficulties, by sparing a man who might make him repent of it when it would be too late. 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. Now the Jews had an opinion that the destruction of this army was sent as a punishment upon Herod, and a mark of God's displeasure to him.

The single potential hint that this passage has a connection to Christianity or Jesus is the statement: "...for that the washing [with water] would be acceptable to him, if they made use of it, not in order to the putting away [or the remission] of some sins [only], but for the purification of the body..." The proto-orthodox Christian doctrine of baptism was that it was about the washing away of sins, not about the purification of the body, which they would see as a shallow perspective. So, the description seems intended to draw a picture of John the Baptist that is distinct from Christians. Josephus was certainly aware of Jesus and Christianity, and he seemed to want to paint a picture that was a little different from the John the Baptist accepted by Christians. In addition, Josephus contains a few extra details that are not included in the Christian accounts, such as the place of death in the castle Macherus. Therefore, it seems more likely to me that Josephus gained at least some of his information from non-Christian sources, perhaps a small cult surrounding the personality of John the Baptist.

spamandham

The word you are looking for is either 'plausibility' or 'persuasiveness'. 'Probability' implies measurable and numerically predictable likelihoods. There is nothing that even remotely approaches that level of rigor in these discussions.

spamandham

Bizarrely, this has been used by the mainstream to argue that Mark is earlier than 70....dating to just before the fall of the temple. :constern02:

When I read the description of the utter destruction of the temple found in Mark 13, it's clear to me that the temple must already have been not merely ruined (70CE), but razed (135+ CE). Mark can not reasonably have been written in the form we know it prior to the Bar Kochba revolt.

ApostateAbe

Nor would that be practical. I use the term to refer to judgments of relative probability, as in one explanation is more likely than a competing explanation. I take that to be a normal historical way of thinking. Is it more likely that "Jerusalem" refers to the city in Palestine, or is it more likely that it is a mix-up with the city of Alexandria? We can't really quantify the respective probabilities, but we can still effectively make the judgment that one explanation is more likely than another.

spamandham

It wouldn't work anyway. That's such an outrageous idea to most Christians that you can not possibly hope to persuade them of it.

Those who are wishing to undermine Christianity would instead start with the assumption Jesus actually existed, and attack the flaws in the system that believers normally grapple with, in the hope of persuading them he was not god incarnate, but something less.

ApostateAbe

You got that right.

spamandham

You are still misusing it. Without some objective way of measuring likelihood, you are still simply referring to parsimony.

That's what words such as 'plausibility', 'parsimony', etc. mean. 'Probability' implies measurable ranges of error, and has a tendency to give an unwarranted scientific flair to the inherently subjective statements you are attaching it to.

ApostateAbe

In New Testament scholarship, the word "probability" is used all the time, and it is taken for granted that there are no absolute measures of likelihood. I can understand how that would chaff someone with a scientific background of objectively measurable data, but different fields have different languages.

maryhelena

[B]And just what is Josephus' mode of operation - take something and make something else out of it....

Consider Philo's philosophical Essenes. A peaceful community of celibate men. "They avoid cities for fear of the contagion of vice, and live in villages".

Now consider how Josephus enlarged, embellished, that account.

Josephus' Essenes.

"They have no one certain city, but many of them dwell in every city".

Prophets

“There are also among them who undertake to foretell things to come, by reading the holy books, and using several sorts of purifications, and being perpetually conversant in the discourses of the prophets; and it is but seldom that they miss in their predictions”.


Judas, ‘who never missed the truth in his predictions”, predicted the death of Antigonus

Menahem, “who had the foreknowledge of future events given him by God”, made a prophecy concerning Herod the Great,

Simon “a man of the sect of the Essenes, desired to speak his mind freely, and said, that the vision denoted a change in the affairs of Archelaus, and that not for the better...”

An Essene general

John, a general appointed to “the toparchy of Thamma, Lydda was also added to his portion, and Joppa and Emmaus”.

Essenes who marry.

“Moreover, there is another order of Essens, who agree with the rest as to their way of living, and customs, and laws, but differ from them in the point of marriage,

Live very long lives..
"are long-lived.....many of them live above a hundred years".

Looks to me Josephus had a field day with Philo's Essenes - and should we expect any less with the gospel John the Baptist?

spamandham

...one might use this as an argument to demonstrate that the field is unscientific...were one so inclined to do so. Of course, no pretense is made that a BA is a BS anyway, so I suppose we should expect such misuses of otherwise rigorous terms.

I suppose, but it also happens that sometimes people misuse language with intent to bolster their arguments. I'm not accusing you of that.