andrewcriddle

We have a reference in Origen Contra Celsum Book 1 I wouldn't expect an earlier reference.

Andrew Criddle

tanya

But, as noted at Neil's web site:
Do William Walker's criteria cover the situation where there had been no interpolation, just apparent forgery, because of a misunderstanding that Josephus was writing not history, but fiction...?

aa5874

There was NO benefit to Josephus to write Fiction since there were people like APION who would have ridiculed Josephus as a Fiction writer.

It was to the best interest of Josephus to make sure that his statements about Jewish History was credible.

After all, Josephus was at one time a prisoner of War in Rome.

Fenris_Wulf

I voted likely fiction for several reasons.
The Elisha/Elijah connection mentioned earlier is important, but as asked earlier "Why use JtB in this position?" I feel the reason is trifold.

First; he (JtB) was known to do his baptisms in the Jordan, and it was important to the setting of the story for the modern Joshua to enter the holy land via the Jordan.
Second; it provides a temporal marker if JtB was at all well known.
Third; it answers the question of why the well known prophet didn't know my main character by having them meet, and John acknowledging Joshua as the one to come.
Taken all together, it is just too perfect an opening scene for it to be anything other than an excellent piece of literature.

The embarrassment would have been minimal since even accepting the earliest date for Mark would make any original followers of JtB dead or doddering and no one would be able to nay-say the story even if they heard it.

aa5874

The story of John the Baptist and the Baptism of Jesus is NOT an excellent piece of literature at all.

In gMark The author claimed John was ALREADY baptizing for the Remission of Sins and that one MIGHTIER than him would come and Baptize WITH the Holy Ghost.

The Baptism of the Holy Ghost by the MIGHTY-ONE never happened.

The Sole purpose of John the Baptist was to be the fore-runner of the MIGHTY ONE WHO BAPTIZES with the HOLY GHOST.

The author SIMPLY FORGOT his story line.

Mark 1:8 - NEVER HAPPENED. COULDN'T HAPPEN. Isn't it embarrassing?

In gMark, There would be NO remission of Sins for the Jews AFTER JtB was dead except by sacrifice according to the Laws of Moses.

The MIGHTY ONE did NOT carry out his PROPHESIED role at all to baptize with the Holy Ghost.

Doug Shaver

I don't know, partly because I cannot figure out what you might mean by a "situation where there had been no interpolation, just apparent forgery."

As for the Josephan reference to John, I have yet to see an argument against its authenticity that does not seem to rest on anti-Christian presuppositions.

tanya

How about this:

We assume interpolation (forgery) of Josephus' original text, by Christians, one, two or even three centuries after the initial publication in the last third of the first century.

What if, however, with regard to his mention of John the Baptist, Josephus, himself, had been deliberately describing a fictional character?

Is there any characteristic of the JtB passage in Josephus' text that would suggest, instead, much later interpolation?

dog-on

My problem with the passage has more to do with the digression itself and the question that arises regarding who, exactly, Josephus is responding to when he clarifies the purpose of the baptism.

maryhelena

Great and obvious question........:thumbs:

aa5874

"What IFS" are RHETORICAL questions. They have really NO answer.

What if Josephus wrote NOTHING in "Antiquities of the Jews"?

All we know is that a character called John the Baptist is mentioned in "Antiquities of the Jews" and there are no contradictory claims about John the Baptist in any other writings of Josephus.