ApostateAbe

In Dave31's thread that I shamelessly hijacked into a rhetorical war over John the Baptist, maryhelena said:
I don't think that maryhelena represents the mythicists nor the normalskeptics on the matter of whether or not John the Baptist (JtB) existed. Almost all of us seem to accept that JtB very probably existed as a historical human person. So, it led me to wonder why JtB is accepted as a human, but not Jesus, and I have tentatively concluded that it is primarily because Josephus describes JtB as much like an entirely normal and expected founder of a normal and expected cult. Josephus does not mention miracles being associated with JtB, unlike the gospels, Pauline epistles and the Testimonium Flavianum (the Christian-interpolated passage in Josephus about Jesus), which are all of the earliest "witnesses" to Jesus. So, skepticism about the existence of JtB would have to accompany skepticism about almost anyone in history.

To review, here is Josephus's description of JtB:

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.

Josephus wrote in 90 CE, and JtB supposedly lived much earlier in the century, so Josephus could have sourced his information only from either the followers of JtB or from Christians. Since the Christian doctrine is that JtB baptized for the remission of sins (Mark 1:4 and elsewhere), and Josephus directly denies that purpose ("...not in order to the putting away [or the remission] of some sins [only]..."), it is more likely that Josephus got his information from the followers of JtB, who would be close rivals with Christians, so the difference in doctrines between the two rival religious groups was highlighted by Josephus, and Josephus understandably preferred the perspective of the JtB camp on the matter of JtB.

So here is the thought experiment: What if Josephus mentioned that the followers of JtB believed that JtB performed miracles? If that were so, would that lead you to think that JtB was probably not historical? I am not saying that there was or there wasn't such a belief among followers of JtB--we just don't know. But, if Josephus mentioned that the the followers of JtB believed that JtB performed miracles--a hypothetical that I take to be entirely plausible regardless of whether or not JtB was historical--then JtB would be on the same level of historical evidence as Jesus. The gospels portray JtB as associated with miracles, and so would the evidence given in the writing of Josephus.

I think the problem is compounded when considering the evidence that indicates that Josephus probably wrote about Jesus with the same ambivalent outsider perspective as he did with JtB, which would mean that Jesus and JtB really are on the same level of historical attestation regardless. Origen wrote in the early third century:

Flavius Josephus, who wrote the "Antiquities of the Jews" in twenty books, when wishing to exhibit the cause why the people suffered so great misfortunes that even the temple was razed to the ground, said, that these things happened to them in accordance with the wrath of God in consequence of the things which they had dared to do against James the brother of Jesus who is called Christ. And the wonderful thing is, that, though he did not accept Jesus as Christ, he yet gave testimony that the righteousness of James was so great; and he says that the people thought that they had suffered these things because of James.

Since Origen attested that Josephus both wrote about Jesus and that Josephus believed that Jesus was not the Christ, we can be certain that the original Testimonium Flavianum stated something more germane about Jesus, including Josephus's opinion that he was not the Christ. If Josephus could ignore the miracle stories of Christians, then he could likewise ignore the miracle stories of JtB, regardless of whether or not the followers of JtB had miracle stories.

The purpose of my thought experiment is to challenge the idea that miracle stories from religious adherents about a historical someone significantly undercut the likelihood that such a someone existed as a historical human being. It seems to be more a matter of anti-religious reactionism than about finding the best explanations. Am I wrong? Why?

By the way, I am not so interested in any of the theories that Josephus's passage about JtB was interpolated by God-knows-who. Sorry. I guess I do have a closed mind on that point.

dog-on

I think JtB was historical and I think that the JtB reference was used by Mark to formulate the Elijah character in his gospel.

It's not a question of miracle stories, it is the question of what is left once you remove them.

ApostateAbe

OK, cool, so what is your answer to the thought experiment? If our only testimony to the existence of JtB involves miracles, does that mean there is nothing left when you remove the miracles?

dog-on

That would be the case. What that means is that any non-miracle version would be invention on our part.

ApostateAbe

Thanks, yeah, that does seem to be a familiar argument. Do you happen to think such an argument or outlook closely resembles what we may find in the study of history generally?

dog-on

Yes. You could look to personalities that have had things like miracles attributed to them and, for the most part, the ones that are actually viewed as historical have other evidence for their existence and the distiction between the actual person and the mythical embellishments are in the historical record itself. Roman emperors, for instance. Whereas, for characters like Jesus, there is no such distinction.

Of course, this could be due to the actual Jesus being insignificant, but this does not change the fact that one still has to invent a person not actually attested to by the evidence itself.

ApostateAbe

Sounds reasonable, and I am happy to have your feedback. Thank you. I certainly wouldn't deny that the historical Jesuses of critical scholarship are "invented." I would excuse that sort of invention primarily because such models are intended (and at least one of them seems to succeed) to be the best explanation for the evidence, and just about any explanatory model of history is "invented." To me, and maybe I am somewhat unique in this perspective, the miracle stories do not play an especially relevant role in the best explanation for the beginning of Christianity, though I know that the miracle stories are a vital consideration for others in this forum.

dog-on

I would not disagree with your position that the miracle stories did not play an especially relevant role in the formation of Christianity.

The miracle stories came later, but so did the biography which revovled around them.

The best explanation of the evidence is that Jesus Christ was grokked from the OT and, subsequently, midrashic stories were created about this character.

This is the mystery hidden for long ages past, but revealed through the scriptures.

See, I didn't need to make up anything!

ApostateAbe

Cool. I think that model may be similar to the one favored by Toto. You say you didn't need to make up anything. Maybe you ought to claim that you don't need to make up as much as the other competing models. Even your model requires at least some sort of invention of historical phenomena--inventive writers and myth-makers and myths at the source of Christianity. Any model requires invention of some sort, even the Biblicist Christian model.

dog-on

No, I really don't need to add anything at all to the evidence we have. Texts require writers, kinda by default.

The OT and other available literature and philosophies provide all the necessary bits and pieces in order for some pious fellows to craft their theological allegories. This, especially considering the most likely possibility that Jesus Christ was grokked from the scriptures in the first place.

What, in Mark for instance, leads you to believe that the author meant his story to be read as history and not as allegory?

In my view, considering the nature of Mark's story, it would seem more likely that the intent was in fact religious allegory and not history, if you wish to go with the most likely probability based on the actual evidence.