Goliath

Peter Kirby,

LOL. In that case, I command you to clean my apartment and give me all of your money!

Hey, this whole "being a supernatural entity" thing may not be bad after all!

Sincerely,

Goliath (who is really going to go to bed this time...yep...I can go to bed any time I want!)

Goliath

Vinnie,

....huh? Who is Mr. Osmium? You must have me confused with someone else.

Edited to say: Oh, real cute:

(from www.webster.com)

So, in the kooky place where you're from, does a third grade level insult with a $5 word count as an argument?

It's simple: When asserting that someone existed who was not a supernatural entity (eg Napoleon, Abraham Lincoln, Carl Friedrich Gauss, etc), then evidence suffices. However, evidence alone does not suffice to show the existence of a person who is assumed by the claimant to be a supernatural entity (eg you claiming that Jesus existed).

I'm not sure that it's impossible to do otherwise (although it seems damn unlikely...) However, if the historian in question claims that someone existed and also believes that said person was a supernatural entity (<church lady> like...oh...I don't know....maybe JESUS? </church lady>), then the historian has a severe problem.

Sincerely,

Goliath

Toto

True. Josephus did have his own biases. But there is no readily apparent reason why he should have invented John the Baptist.

But that is why I said it was evidence, not proof.

I really don't care if you accept this datum from Josephus. I originally speculated that John was mythological.

Josephus gives the appearance of trying to write history, and had access to official documents and his own experience. But I think that the reason he is respected as an accurate source is that there is no other real source of history of this era.

Multiple attestation would be preferable.

I haven't followed this part of the debate, but I can imagine reasons for an author to invent the character of Frodo Baggins or Achilles or Zeus. I can't think of a reason for Josephus to invent John the Baptist. But this may just be my lack of imagination or knowledge.

Several historians, including Steve Joseph, think that the shorter reference is the only reliable evidence for the historicity of Jesus.

This makes the historicity of Jesus hang by a very flimsy thread indeed - one phrase that could have been interpolated, that you can't prove wasn't interpolated.

Maybe it's not. If I had to bet my life or any sum of money on whether John the B. was a historical figure, I would not want to rely on the sort of evidence we have for John.

If you go by the preponderance of evidence, I would say that John probably existed. But if someone had a new argument that John was a myth, I would be interested to hear it.

Vorkosigan

I don't quite agree that the JBap haven't been worked over. For one thing, the account in the Slavonic Josephus is longer and more detailed, and contains the kind of details one might expect. It also locates JBap much earlier, in the reign of Archeleus. For another, the account in Josephus specifically denies that JBap's baptism was for sins. Since that seems aimed at Christian history to me, I cannot accept that the account is as Josephus wrote it. I believe it has been both pared down and moved. What I do not understand is how that conflicting sentence remained in there all this time, and was not edited out.

Vorkosigan

Vinnie

I'm glad you liked it. You learned a new word (or element rather) and should be thanking me.

At any rate, it is quite obvious how JBap died. He took Jesus command to gouge out ones eye and chop off ones hand to literally and died as a result.

Vork, I think there is some agreement that Josephus purposefully played down Jbap. I have seen Meier and others other this. I think he did the same for the Essenes?

Toto, you said: "Multiple attestation would be preferable."

Try Q. I think it containts whole segments of baptist material that don't show later Christian influence. At least that is what Meier argued.

Vinnie

Vinnie

And would't GMark constitute independent evidence for Jbap? Yes or no? Why or why not?

Vinnie

Vorkosigan

Well, it's hard to say. It depends how you think the writer of Mark regarded JBap. Was he thinking of a character he knew as a figure from history, or as a stock figure he could weave into his story, or the head of a rival messianic cult that needed suppressing, or what? If Mark is later than you think -- and I think it is -- and he got JBap out of Josephus....

I have often thought about Josephus' writing on the Essenes, and all I can say is that they seem to follow Philo pretty closely. Is there some problem you see?

Vorkosigan

Goliath

I wonder how many xians believe that sarcasm is a myth? There seems to be at least one xian posting here that holds such a belief.

Oh, and Vinnie, you never answered my question:

It was asked sincerely.

Sincerely,

Goliath

Vinnie

Your sincerity knows no bounds! If I sincerely ask you to stop typing will you?

Sincerely,
A Sincere Individual Who Aspires to your Sincerity :notworthy