rlogan

Vork, I'm not sure where you stand on dating mark. But do you think this casts considerable doubt on mark being dated in the first century?

Magdlyn

I find Price's theories make a lot of common sense. There was a cult that believed baptism and repentance forgave sins.

Later, there was a cult in which you needed a dying messiah to effect the same result.

The dying messiah cult had more excitement and sensationalism which the masses liked. (Price doesn't say this but I am extrapolating.)

So both cults were syncretized, with Jesus being made to be superior and even later, imagined to be a cousin of the older cult's legendary leader.

The prologue opening GJn shows the extreme tension between the 2 cults.

Chili

Nah, HS is from Mary. She's the queen of angels and mediatrix of all graces until the Father and the Son become one in Godmanship.

skepticismskeptic

Actually, Flavius Josephus does discuss John the Baptist in his Antiquities of the Jews XVIII Chapter 5:

“HEROD THE TETRARCH MAKES WAR WITH ARETAS, THE KING OF ARABIA, AND IS BEATEN BY HIM AS ALSO CONCERNING THE DEATH OF JOHN THE BAPTIST. HOW VITELLIUS WENT UP TO JERUSALEM; TOGETHER WITH SOME ACCOUNT OF AGRIPPA AND OF THE POSTERITY OF HEROD THE GREAT.


1. ABOUT this time Aretas (the king of Arabia Petres) and Herod had a quarrel on the account following: Herod the tetrarch had, married the daughter of Aretas, and had lived with her a great while; but when he was once at Rome, he lodged with Herod, (15) who was his brother indeed, but not by the same mother; for this Herod was the son of the high priest Sireoh's daughter. However, he fell in love with Herodias, this last Herod's wife, who was the daughter of Aristobulus their brother, and the sister of Agrippa the Great. This man ventured to talk to her about a marriage between them; which address, when she admitted, an agreement was made for her to change her habitation, and come to him as soon as he should return from Rome: one article of this marriage also was this, that he should divorce Aretas's daughter. So Antipus, when he had made this agreement, sailed to Rome; but when he had done there the business he went about, and was returned again, his wife having discovered the agreement he had made with Herodias, and having learned it before he had notice of her knowledge of the whole design, she desired him to send her to Macherus, which is a place in the borders of the dominions of Aretas and Herod, without informing him of any of her intentions. Accordingly Herod sent her thither, as thinking his wife had not perceived any thing; now she had sent a good while before to Macherus, which was subject to her father and so all things necessary for her journey were made ready for her by the general of Aretas's army; and by that means she soon came into Arabia, under the conduct of the several generals, who carried her from one to another successively; and she soon came to her father, and told him of Herod's intentions. So Aretas made this the first occasion of his enmity between him and Herod, who had also some quarrel with him about their limits at the country of Gamalitis. So they raised armies on both sides, and prepared for war, and sent their generals to fight instead of themselves; and when they had joined battle, all Herod's army was destroyed by the treachery of some fugitives, who, though they were of the tetrarchy of Philip, joined with Aretas's army.. So Herod wrote about these affairs to Tiberius, who being very angry at the attempt made by Aretas, wrote to Vitellius to make war upon him, and either to take him alive, and bring him to him in bonds, or to kill him, and send him his head. This was the charge that Tiberius gave to the president of Syria.


2. 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.


3. So Vitellius prepared to make war with Aretas, having with him two legions of armed men; he also took with him all those of light armature, and of the horsemen which belonged to them, and were drawn out of those kingdoms which were under the Romans, and made haste for Petra, and came to Ptolemais. But as he was marching very busily, and leading his army through Judea, the principal men met him, and desired that he would not thus march through their land; for that the laws of their country would not permit them to overlook those images which were brought into it, of which there were a great many in their ensigns; so he was persuaded by what they said, and changed that resolution of his which he had before taken in this matter. Whereupon he ordered the army to march along the great plain, while he himself, with Herod the tetrarch and his friends, went up to Jerusalem to offer sacrifice to God, an ancient festival of the Jews being then just approaching; and when he had been there, and been honorably entertained by the multitude of the Jews, he made a stay there for three days, within which time he deprived Jonathan of the high priesthood, and gave it to his brother Theophilus. But when on the fourth day letters came to him, which informed him of the death of Tiberius, he obliged the multitude to take an oath of fidelity to Caius; he also recalled his army, and made them every one go home, and take their winter quarters there, since, upon the devolution of the empire upon Caius, he had not the like authority of making this war which he had before. It was also reported, that when Aretas heard of the coming of Vitellius to fight him, he said, upon his consulting the diviners, that it was impossible that this army of Vitellius's could enter Petra; for that one of the rulers would die, either he that gave orders for the war, or he that was marching at the other's desire, in order to be subservient to his will, or else he against whom this army is prepared. So Vitellius truly retired to Antioch; but Agrippa, the son of Aristobulus, went up to Rome, a year before the death of Tiberius, in order to treat of some affairs with the emperor, if he might be permitted so to do. I have now a mind to describe Herod and his family, how it fared with them, partly because it is suitable to this history to speak of that matter, and partly because this thing is a demonstration of the interposition of Providence, how a multitude of children is of no advantage, no more than any other strength that mankind set their hearts upon, besides those acts of piety which are done towards God; for it happened, that, within the revolution of a hundred years, the posterity of Herod, which were a great many in number, were, excepting a few, utterly destroyed. (16) One may well apply this for the instruction of mankind, and learn thence how unhappy they were: it will also show us the history of Agrippa, who, as he was a person most worthy of admiration, so was he from a private man, beyond all the expectation of those that knew him, advanced to great power and authority. I have said something of them formerly, but I shall now also speak accurately about them.


4. Herod the Great had two daughters by Mariamne, the [grand] daughter of Hyrcanus; the one was Salampsio, who was married to Phasaelus, her first cousin, who was himself the son of Phasaelus, Herod's brother, her father making the match; the other was Cypros, who was herself married also to her first cousin Antipater, the son of Salome, Herod's sister. Phasaelus had five children by Salampsio; Antipater, Herod, and Alexander, and two daughters, Alexandra and Cypros; which last Agrippa, the son of Aristobulus, married; and Timius of Cyprus married Alexandra; he was a man of note, but had by her no children. Agrippa had by Cypros two sons and three daughters, which daughters were named Bernice, Mariarune, and Drusius; but the names of the sons were Agrippa and Drusus, of which Drusus died before he came to the years of puberty; but their father, Agrippa, was brought up with his other brethren, Herod and Aristobulus, for these were also the sons of the son of Herod the Great by Bernice; but Bernice was the daughter of Costobarus and of Salome, who was Herod's sister. Aristobulus left these infants when he was slain by his father, together with his brother Alexander, as we have already related. But when they were arrived at years of puberty, this Herod, the brother of Agrippa, married Mariamne, the daughter of Olympias, who was the daughter of Herod the king, and of Joseph, the son of Joseph, who was brother to Herod the king, and had by her a son, Aristobulus; but Aristobulus, the third brother of Agrippa, married Jotape, the daughter of Sampsigeramus, king of Emesa; they had a daughter who was deaf, whose name also was Jotape; and these hitherto were the children of the male line. But Herodias, their sister, was married to Herod [Philip], the son of Herod the Great, who was born of Mariamne, the daughter of Simon the high priest, who had a daughter, Salome; after whose birth Herodias took upon her to confound the laws of our country, and divorced herself from her husband while he was alive, and was married to Herod [Antipas], her husband's brother by the father's side, he was tetrarch of Galilee; but her daughter Salome was married to Philip, the son of Herod, and tetrarch of Trachonitis; and as he died childless, Aristobulus, the son of Herod, the brother of Agrippa, married her; they had three sons, Herod, Agrippa, and Aristobulus; and this was the posterity of Phasaelus and Salampsio. But the daughter of Antipater by Cypros was Cypros, whom Alexas Selcias, the son of Alexas, married; they had a daughter, Cypros; but Herod and Alexander, who, as we told you, were the brothers of Antipater, died childless. As to Alexander, the son of Herod the king, who was slain by his father, he had two sons, Alexander and Tigranes, by the daughter of Archelaus, king of Cappadocia. Tigranes, who was king of Armenia, was accused at Rome, and died childless; Alexander had ason of the same name with his brother Tigranes, and was sent to take possession of the kingdom of Armenia by Nero; he had a son, Alexander, who married Jotape, (17) the daughter of Antiochus, the king of Commagena; Vespasian made him king of an island in Cilicia. But these descendants of Alexander, soon after their birth, deserted the Jewish religion, and went over to that of the Greeks. But for the rest of the daughters of Herod the king, it happened that they died childless. And as these descendants of Herod, whom we have enumerated, were in being at the same time that Agrippa the Great took the kingdom, and I have now given an account of them, it now remains that I relate the several hard fortunes which befell Agrippa, and how he got clear of them, and was advanced to the greatest height of dignity and power.�

Source of above quote:

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

I hope the above information is helpful.

-Skepticismskeptic

rlogan

Actually, no skepticismskeptic. I am quite familiar with Josephus, thank you.

There is no link in Josephus between Jesus and John the Baptist. That is a rather strange thing if John was heralding Jesus, and John was not even worthy of latching his sandals.


This is a later creation of the gospels, and lends weight to the gospels being post-josephus.

skepticismskeptic

I am sorry you didn’t find that information helpful.


Except for the section in which Flavius Josephus records events about John the Baptist, right?

I never said there was.


Why is it strange for John not even being worthy of latching His sandals if John was heralding Jesus? If John truly perceived Jesus to be greater than him it is quite logical for John to consider himself unworthy to untie Jesus’ sandals. However, this is irrelevant to whether or not Flavius Josephus wrote about John the Baptist.






You are certainly entitled to this belief.





How so? Do you believe that the gospels must necessarily be written after the time of Josephus simply because Josephus did indeed mention John the Baptist in his Antiquities of the Jews?

spin

Most people here have been through the Josephus passages in detail. It's not that they are unhelpful. It's that they are nothing new. Besides you seem not to have understood what the poster you were responding to was talking about.

rlogan: " I am quite familiar with Josephus, thank you."
Wrong. Don't jump to false conclusions.

Unfortunately the link that you never said was there was the topic discussed by Herr rlogan.


spin

rlogan

Well, first I guess I should welcome you here Skepticismskeptic.

You misunderstood me here, champ. Purportedly, in the Gospels, JBapt is heralding the arrival of someone much greater: Jesus.

Well, it is pretty darned curious why Josephus doesn't mention that relationship if it is John's enterprise to herald him. As most here already know where I stand on the Testimonium Flavianum and the James passage (interpolations), I simply did not bother to bring them into the picture specifically.

The Doherty reference would have subsumed a lot of individual arguments and I did not feel it necessary to list them either. I was merely buttressing the general form of the Doherty thesis with this detail about JBapt being absent in Paul's writing, and also utilize the missing link between JBapt and Jesus in Josephus as a means of assisting in gospel dating.


We have had many a discussion here, and this is one piece that augments others. The search function can be used to see discussions of Doherty, the TF, the James passage, Gospel dating, etc.

I am utilizing the argument from best explanation. But you have not seen any of the other pieces because you just arrived here. Take my word just that this is not the only evidence so that the thread does not dissemble into a discussion of all of these other topics.

Welcome, and enjoy your stay.

gregor

And one reason for the gospel creation - why would there by a large group of people in 90 CE following JtB, if JtB actually preached "I'm really just a lowly prophet, the real deal is Jesus."

People today don't worship Paul in lieu of Jesus.

Chili

It was introduced in the NT to be the forerunner of salvation to make our purgation period easier to deal with. Water and fire are both needed. Water to appease the subconscious mind and fire to refine the conscious mind.