mike_decock

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Vinnie
Well, we can but perhaps we shouldn't.

In the sense of the perfect, sinless sacrifice Christ is presented as by many Christians, I think that impatience is a human, imperfect characteristic.

-Mike...

Geoff Hudson

Amongst the references to John, the "constructions" are to do with Jesus. For example, the baptism of Jesus is a fabricated insertion. Once Jesus is introduced, John is written out and Jesus into the story that was about John. Josephus makes no connection between John and Jesus because the latter is a pseudonym.

I agree about the passion of Jesus. But I think Pilate was involved in the death of John. The account of Antipas' involvment in the death of John in both the NT and Josephus is a fabrication and is a clue that the same people edited both the gospels and Josephus.

For my money, there is plenty in the gospels to indicate there is a real story about a Jewish prophet who came preaching about the Spirit of God.

Geoff

Atticus_Finch

I think my OP has been hijacked!

Still looking for useful information on the ancient library. Anyone?

Regards,

Finch

Vinnie

What claims? Isn't it recognized that Josephus downplays eschatological features?

"It is indeed remarkable that Josephus uses the surname [i]baptisties[/i, which otherwise occurs in first-century Greek only in the Synoptic Gospels (Matt 3:1; 11:11-12; 14:2,8; 16:14; 17:13; Mark 6:25; 8:28; Luke 7:20,33; 9:19). it does not occur in Acts. The noun is presumably a special Jewish-Greek formation, apparently coined solely for the purpose of describing the strange figure of John." A note in Marginal vII

If you are referring to "baptism of repentance for the remission of sins see Meier, VII p. 53-55.

Mark's baptismal account is enshrined with a lot of apologetics or "theological-dmaage control". It would seemingly be hard to explain why Mark would invent the notion of John baptizing for the remission of sin and then have Jesus not only subjected to John in baptism, but being baptized through repentance for the remission of sin. That Jesus was believed to be sinless is well attested in an earlier period. I could cite the evidence if you want? Not to mention that Gmark has Jesus forgiving sin in his Gospel.

Essentially, Josephus' description is very apologetic and should not be trusted at face value. (see Meier vII 60-61) We have reason to suspect Josephus is downplaying John. Don't forget we have several sources on JBap (Mark, Q, Josephus and maybe several others). Whereas we see that baptism in mark has created theological damage. The baptism must be preceeded by John preparing the way for Jesus and immediately followed by the heavenly voice. It doesn't seem accurate to pit Mark vs josephus like this. If Josephus knew about John's baptism then he surpressed certain elements.

The first 100 pages of VII of marginal offer a decent discussion of JBap. If you have time. Skim through some of it. You can't understand JBap's baptism in isolation though. We need to understand it in a larger context.

I think you've been reading too much Crossan and not enough Brown

Mark, John 1 Timothy all mention Pilate. I don't remember the extrabiblical sources off the top of my head though. I would call these three independent sources on this though Crossan would disagree. I think he has Gjohn dependent on Mark's PN and maybe that of Matthew and Luke as well. Anyways, this shows me that Mark did not invent crucifixion by Pilate.

But I believe we can establish when Pilate ruled and we can also establish that Jesus died some time during this period as well. All the evidence points towards the same general timeframe. All the details in the Gospel can remain unproven but since Jesus' death by cricifixion is axiomatic, I do not think crucifixion by Pilate is unreasonable or even a stretch at all.

I think most scholars accept Josephus' reference as we and this gives them further evidence of crucifixion by Pilate.

Vinine

Vinnie

I've never seen a Josephan list of all those baptized by JBap? Have you? Josephus not mentioning Jesus' baptism by John does nothing to rule that out.

Also, the Christian connection of JBap preparing the way for Jesus was created. JBap probably did speak of one stronger than him who was to come but this wasn't Jesus. We have no good reason to suppose Jbap identified his mission in relation to the person of Jesus. He did not pronounce Jesus as the Lamb of God as GJohn says he did. No one is arguing that all the details in the account are accurate, just that at some point Jbap baptized Jesus. This means Jesus must have shared a view similar to John's at one point of his life at least.

And Josephus not mentioning the connection does not rule it out anyways. Josephus is recognized as watering down and blotting out eschatological features.

Vinnie

Vinnie

Geoff Hudson

Vinnie
I've never seen a Josephan list of all those baptized by JBap? Have you? Josephus not mentioning Jesus' baptism by John does nothing to rule that out.

Geoff
When I wrote "Josephus makes no connection between John and Jesus because the latter is a pseudonym", I meant that the name Jesus was substituted for John's in the stories. Mostly, for Jesus, read John. Jesus as a person distinct from John never existed.

Vinnie
Also, the Christian connection of JBap preparing the way for Jesus was created.

Geoff
I agree. But I go further and say that John never baptised at all. He preached the Spirit which gave purification without the need for any form of physical purification such as baptism, circumcision or animal sacrifice. Just read what a mess the editor of Josephus makes of John's so-called "baptism" (Ant.18.5.2). John's baptism was created in both the NT and Josephus to give the impression that his work was secondary to that of the created character Jesus.