Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Vinnie · 04-29-2003, 10:28 AM

Did JBap exist as a historical person?

Yes or no?

Then Why or why not?

Vinnie

Toto · 04-29-2003, 12:15 PM

I guess I've been hanging around here too long. Two years ago I posted this (in this archived thread titled John the Baptist - is he also a myth?):

Quote:

I picked up Joseph Campbell's Occidental Mythology to see what he said about Jesus. He doesn't say anything explicit, but he treats every aspect of Jesus as myth. (But then that's his thing, and when your only tool is a hammer. . .)

However, this caught my eye, on p. 349 of the trade paperback edition:

"John, however, was no Essene, as we know both from his garb and from his diet. He was in the line, rather, of Elijah, who is described in the Book of Kings as a man who wore 'a garment of haircloth, with a girdle of leather about his loins.' And the rite of baptism that he preached, whatever its meaning at that time may have been, was an ancient rite coming down from the old Sumerian temple city Eridu, of the water god Ea, 'God of the House of Water,' whose symbol is the tenth sign of the zodiac, Capricorn (a composit beast with the foreparts of a goat and the body of a fish), which is the sign into which the sun enters at the winter solstice for his rebirth. In the Hellenistic period, Ea was called Oannes, which is Greek Ioannes, Latin Johannes, Hebrew Yohanan, English John. Several scholars have suggested, therefore, that there was never either a John or Jesus, but only a water-god and a sun-god. The chronicle of Josephus seems to guarantee John, however, and I shall leave it to the reader to imagine how he came both by the god's name and his rite."

(footnote refers to a bibliography contained in Charles Guignebert, Jesus, translated from the French by S.H.Hooke, 1956.)

Well, I can imagine that Josephus was merely passing along a story that he had heard about John the Baptist, and that there are mythic elements in the story, or that the entire story is fictional. I don't know if this passage in Josephus has received the attention that the reference to Jesus has. And it is interesting that Campbell says that scholars have labeled both John and Jesus as myths, then sticks up for the historicity of John only.

My post at the time was only half serious, and did not get a very serious response. I don't know anyone who really cares if John the Baptizer was mythic or merely a mythologized human.

Josephus, of course, is usually but not always reliable. But there seem to be enough differences between his John the Baptist and the gospels' version (in particular was his baptism of repentance or of purification?) that we can assume that his passage was not inserted by a Christian scribe.

There is a small religion (the Mandeans) that still thinks of John the Baptizer as a prophet, but I recall reading that they adopted him as their prophet in reaction to Islam, and no historical continuity with the followers of JtB can be proven.

Jospehus's passage on JtB can be found here, with the relevant gospel passages and commentary:

John the Baptist and Josephus by G.J. Goldberg

Vinnie · 04-29-2003, 12:26 PM

Quote:

Josephus, of course, is usually but not always reliable. But there seem to be enough differences between his John the Baptist and the gospels' version (in particular was his baptism of repentance or of purification?) that we can assume that his passage was not inserted by a Christian scribe.

So would you say that the Josephus reference is evidence for the historicity of JBap?

Vinnie

Toto · 04-29-2003, 02:00 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Vinnie
So would you say that the Josephus reference is evidence for the historicity of JBap?

Vinnie

Of course it is evidence. It is even somewhat reliable evidence, since there is no clear indication of Christian tampering, unlike the longer mention of Jesus in Josephus.

Vinnie · 04-29-2003, 09:06 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Toto
Of course it is evidence. It is even somewhat reliable evidence, since there is no clear indication of Christian tampering, unlike the longer mention of Jesus in Josephus.

This doesn't follow. It seems to argue that Josephus' reference is reliable because there is no Christian tampering here. Surely there is a better way to sift through Josephus. All material without Christian tampering certainly is not reliable.

So what argumentation do you have in regards to why I should accept this datum from Josephus? Was Josephus an eyewitness of this detail? Did he claim to know any? Are there any demonstrable lines of transmission, or is he simply repeating what everyoine thought at the time about John (e.g. what Tacitus did in regard to Jesus)?

Further, are you sayign that attestation from Josephus is an argument for historicty? If so wouldn't multiple independent attestation be more solid? Why or why not?

if you think so what do you make of all Vork's dismissals of this criteria. It is obviously flawed in that it would make fictional characters historical. Frodo Baggins or Achilles or Zeus would be historical if we worked solely from attestation or "independent attestation".

Also, if the shorter reference to Jesus in Josephus was not interpolated would this constitute "reliable evidence" for the historicity of Jesus?

Finally, why is the Josephus reference reliable evidence?

Vinnie

Goliath · 04-29-2003, 09:39 PM

Vinnie,

Quote:

Did JBap exist as a historical person?

I don't know, and I don't care. However, since no one here is asserting that John the Baptist was a supernatural entity, it follows that evidence suffices to determine whether or not he existed.

Sincerely,

Goliath

Vinnie · 04-29-2003, 09:49 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Goliath
Vinnie,

I don't know, and I don't care. However, since no one here is asserting that John the Baptist was a supernatural entity, it follows that evidence suffices to determine whether or not he existed.

Sincerely,

Goliath

Mr. Osmium, I do not understand what you are tryin to say? All historians reconstruct "normal humans". It is impossible to do otherwise. That is how history works. What then, is the point of this red herring?

Vinnie

Peter Kirby · 04-29-2003, 10:28 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Goliath
no one here is asserting that John the Baptist was a supernatural entity

Some people make the assertion that John the Baptist was a supernatural entity, and that assertion can be traced back to the Bible. According to Matthew 11:14 and Matthew 17:11-13, John the Baptist was somehow the OT prophet Elijah back to life on earth. That is not natural.

best,
Peter Kirby

Goliath · 04-29-2003, 10:34 PM

Peter Kirby,

Quote:

Originally posted by Peter Kirby
Some people make the assertion that John the Baptist was a supernatural entity, and that assertion can be traced back to the Bible. According to Matthew 11:14 and Matthew 17:11-13, John the Baptist was somehow the OT prophet Elijah back to life on earth. That is not natural.

best,
Peter Kirby

Ah, that I didn't know. In that case, I do not believe that John the Baptist existed (NOTE: I do not believe that he did not exist, either).

Sincerely,

Goliath

Peter Kirby · 04-29-2003, 10:41 PM

Goliath, I claim that you are a supernatural entity. :notworthy

best,
Peter Kirby

04-29-2003, 10:28 AM	#1
Vinnie Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2001 Location: Waterbury, Ct, Usa Posts: 6,523	JBap Did JBap exist as a historical person? Yes or no? Then Why or why not? Vinnie

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

04-29-2003, 10:41 PM	#10
Peter Kirby Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: the reliquary of Ockham's razor Posts: 4,035	Goliath, I claim that you are a supernatural entity. :notworthy best, Peter Kirby

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.