aa5874

Josephus is NOT ambiguous in dating Pilate. See "Antiquities of the Jews" 18.

maryhelena

Daniel Schwartz has a chapter on Pilate’s appointment in his book: “Studies in the Jewish background of Christianity: Pontius Pilate’s Appointment to Office (or via: amazon.co.uk)”.

Unfortunately, no book view on amazon but Google Books view allows a considerable reading. Some pages missing though. It looks to me that Schwartz might be going with an earlier date for Pilate - or at least leaves the issue open.....


http://books.google.com/books?id=rd5...page&q&f=false

aa5874

You claimed JOSEPHUS was ambiguous about the dating of Pilate and I made reference to "Antiquities of the Jews" 18 and NOW you tell me about some guy named Schwartz.

Let us DEAL with "Antiquities of the Jews 18. which is ATTRIBUTED to JOSEPHUS.

"Antiquities of the Jews" 18.4.2 PILATE was in Judea for 10 years by the time Tiberius had died based on Josephus.

Tell me about Josephus NOT Schwartz.

You seem to want to turn everything UPSIDE DOWN and BACK to FRONT just to get your theories to work.

The Jesus story was NOT initiated by some human Jesus but by the Fall of the Temple and an UNKNOWN apocalyptic WRITER.

In the Gospel story, the Fall of the Temple is most likely the ONLY event that actually happened.

maryhelena

I referenced Schwartz for his open-minded view on Josephus re dating Pilate. I also referenced Eusebius re the 'forgery' on an earlier dating, the 7th year of Tiberius, 21 c.e, for the crucifixion of JC and hence Pilate. I referenced Tertullian's mention that Christians were first going by that name in the time of Augustus. That is enough indication, to my mind, that dating Pilate is not a closed case. Your opinion might differ - be my guest.... Indeed - it's pretty obvious that the present state of play is not producing anything of value. And just where does that line of argument get you? Nowhere as far as I can see.....as I have said many times - that the gospel JC was not a historical figure is not the end but the beginning of an investigation into early christian origins....

JonA

I voted that he was likely historical, but that is only because I thought that 'likely fiction' was too drastic in the other direction.

I think the evidence for John the Baptist is alright evidence; as far as nobody religious figures in the obscure outreaches of the Roman Empire are concerned, the evidence for him is actually pretty impressive. (Imagine the others that never got named!)

Nevertheless, for drawing strong conclusions, the evidence is still pretty lacking. But, I still accept as fact, with a low degree of confidence, mind you, that there was a John the Baptist, for the reasons mostly already mentioned: He was an embarrassment to the early Christian movement, and an unlikely figure to be inserted into a story; the description of him is fitting with an apocalyptic preacher; Josephus.

On the first two, I think that John the Baptist is a clear embarrassment for the Christians, who began to place great importance on Jesus very shortly after they believed him to have been resurrected. Given this importance placed on Jesus, it seems odd that he would be described—were the stories a pure fiction—as having had his sins washed away by a madman in the desert.

Jesus' association with John the Baptist is strong, so strong that even those gospel writers who would have liked to have gotten rid of the whole thing can do little more than 'fail to mention' the baptism itself.

The things John the Baptist is reported having said make sense in the time period and fit perfectly both with the description of Jesus as an apocalyptic prophet and disciple of John. I think it probable that John the Baptist ran around shouting about the 'one who comes behind me' and other such stuff. I think it unlikely that he was talking about Jesus, as John most certainly (along with Jesus himself) would have held to the traditional views of the Messiah as a king who would drive out the Romans, etc.

These things make John the Baptist a probable historical figure, probable enough that I can see no sound reasons for doubting his historicity. Without a better explanation, I think we're left accepting the reality of John the Baptist.

Now to the matter of whether he baptized Jesus or not. This is the harder part to untangle. John the Baptist baptizing Jesus certainly provides for some embarrassment, as I mentioned above. Likewise, though, if Jesus was just a nobody preacher running around the countryside who got executed, linking him to an important religious figure would help solidify his own importance. Yet, there are many ways to create that link (look at the Gospel of John, for example, as well as the claims in the others about Jesus being thought of as a resurrected John the Baptist). Thus, I say that given the embarrassment of the link that exists, and the fact that many less-embarrassing links could have been easily created (and were), the probability of John the Baptist having baptized Jesus is, in my mind, greater than the probability of any other explanation for the existence of the legend that he did. Any other explanation that I've seen so far, that is.

Jon

maryhelena

Josephus is not *just* a historian. Josephus is a prophetic historian. Consequently, what he writes cannot always be taken at face value. Did the OT writers, the prophets of old, always write history? Or did they mix up history with their own interpretations, their own ‘salvation’ interpretations, giving history their own spin, their own meaning. Was Moses historical, was Joshua, did the walls of Jericho fall in 7 days; were the Jews 70 years in Babylon? That is the OT legacy to which Josephus, as a prophetic historian, is heir.

Regarding John the Baptist: As far as I’m aware, there is no historical evidence that he existed. It’s more likely that JtB is a figure that Josephus has used as a marker, a place holder, for his historical interpretations, his re-telling of history, his remembering, his memorial to past historical figures. His prophetic interests, ideas such as history repeating itself, what goes around comes around etc, should not be ignored.

The Josephan storyline is that prior to the war between Antipas and Aretas, JtB is held captive at Macherus and then killed. The dating for this war is shortly prior to the death of Tiberius in 37 c.e. 100 years earlier, in 63 b.c., there was a historical figure taken captive, to Rome - Antigonus.

Later, in the account of James in 63 ce. Josephus has again marked a 100 year period. Back to 37 b.c. and the death, by crucifixion and beheading, of Antigonus, by Marc Antony.

Josephus is not some impartial, objective, historian. Josephus is a prophetic historian, carrying a Hasmonean bloodline, on a mission to mark important events in Hasmonean history - and doing so while living at a time when Rome was the ruling power.

Juststeve

Maryhelena:

If appearing in Josephus and being described as a real first century figure isn't at least some evidence of the existence of John The Baptist, what would constitute evidence? We can pretty much rule out video tape of photographs. What would satisfy you?

Steve.

aa5874

You may have made an error. The question is about the likelyhood that the baptism of Jesus by John did occur.

Josephus' "Antiquities of the Jews" is the ONLY or primary EXTERNAL source that mention John the Baptist and Jesus called Christ.

The human nature of John the Baptist was NOT questioned and when John was EXECUTED we hear nothing else of John, but the story of Jesus is completely different, it was NOT certain if it was lawful to call Jesus Christ a man and he was SEEN alive three days AFTER he was supposed to be dead.

And further, John SIMPLY baptized people but Jesus did TEN THOUSAND wonderful things.

See "Antiquities of the Jews" 18.3 and 18.5

It is the character called Jesus Christ whose existence is NOT certain. Once the existence of Jesus called Christ is NOT certain then the baptism MUST ALSO BE UNCERTAIN.

It is just not true that the baptism story was embarrassing to Christians because there was NO baptism quite like the story of the baptism of Jesus. It is the only baptism in EXTANT sources of antiquity where it was claimed God PUBLICLY was PLEASED.

In any event, in the NT Baptism story Jesus LEVITATED out of the RIVER and the Holy Ghost ENTERED Jesus like a dove and the VOICE from a cloud was WELL-PLEASED with Jesus.

Now, in the Synoptics, Jesus was NOT a man but a Child of a Ghost.

The Baptism story of Jesus in the NT is TOTAL FICTION and did NOT occur as described.

JonA

Well let's stop right there: No unbiased historical sources exist. We cannot take anything at face value, and I am not suggesting that we do.

The prophetic books were written after the events they describe. I think it can be reasonably certain that anything written in them that may be true has been written as history—as events of the past.

Nah. Josephus had his own motives, such as keeping his head.

I haven't read a lot of Josephus' stuff, but what you quoted above doesn't seem too unusual; he is just giving his story some setting. We do not expect sheer journalism-esque documentation from anyone in the past. And that's where this stands.

Then we're left wondering how two traditions managed to invent the same individual with such strikingly similar characteristics. I find the explanations for this that do not involve a real person on whom the stories are based to be much more convoluted (and thus less probable) than the explanation that there was a single figure as the inspiration of each tradition.

And this is what it really comes down to. Can we justify all this mental finagling just to avoid having to admit to an historical John the Baptist? I hardly think so.

And no one from the past was; so desiring an historical source of such impartiality is unreasonable.

Jon

blastula

That wasn't the poll question.

And that wasn't the only other choice.

Fictional things also get named.

Unproven assumption as far as early storytellers of Jesus.

Since when does "importance" equal "not baptized?"

The association is strong, but so is the association of Achilles and Patroclus.

What things? (Though this would fail the criterion of dissimilarity.)

No, you're left accepting it.

Curiously, you left out establishing the reality of Jesus before moving on to the baptism.

Only for certain theologies.

Many ways? But by your expertise of the psychology and motivations of those storytellers, you know to a high enough probability nobody would have fictionally imagined it that way? Hm.

Probable enough to rise above being too uncertain to know?

"Happened" or "didn't happen" aren't the only answers.

By your reasoning, which Biblical characters and events wouldn't be historical? For example, why is or isn't Moses historical (someone Josephus also wrote about)?