maryhelena

Thought so - you have no historical evidence for the Josephan John the baptizer figure.

Man up aa - tell it like it is: There is no historical evidence for the Josephan John the baptizer figure. :devil1:

Diogenes the Cynic

The evidence for John the Baptist is the triple independent attestation by Mark, Q and Josephus. That is evidence, and there is no reason to suppose Josephus made him up any more than there is reason to suppose he made up any of the the other peripheral figures he writes about, and even if you want to argue that Mark was dependent on Josephus (for which an argument can be made), that still doesn't explain how Q knew about him before either Mark or Josephus was written.

It takes more work to explain the Baptizer away than it does to assume he was a real person, or at least was a name attached to a real sect. There were certainly wilderness groups in the Trans-Jordan very similar to how he is described by Mark.

Littlejohn

John the baptizer was a REAL historical figure, but the passage of Jewish Antiquities, where Josephus there seems speak about John, is a resounding false, no less 'hallucinating' of the Testimonium Flavianum! ..(*)


______________________________

(*) - it is very probable, if not certain - given the similarity of style, - that the two false passages were composed by the same 'scribal' hand.


Littlejohn S

.

maryhelena

Mark is a literary account not a historical account. One cannot take characters in a literary work as being historical figures without evidence from outside that literary source. There is no historical evidence for the gospel John the Baptist nor for the Josephan John the baptizer. That is fact. Anything else is purely assumption and interpretation of a literary source. Or in the case of the Josephan writer, an interpretation of the work of a prophetic historian.

Trying to understand early christian origins on the basis of ones assumptions is futile. One has to get a clear historical picture of the relevant Hasmonean and Herodian history. Methinks it's long past the time when one can plead a case for assumptions. If the JC historicist/ahistoricist debate is going to ever move forward, assumptions have to be sidelined and historical evidence allowed to take center stage. That means the Josephan writer has to be challenged.

Diogenes the Cynic

Of course Mark is a literary account, but two other sources besides Mark also know about John. Mark did not invent him. John the Baptist was in Q before either Mark or Josephus was written and neither Mark or Josephus knew about Q, Josephus sure as hell did not.

A bare minimum of two sources speak about John the Baptist without any knowledge of each other. How did they separately invent the same character?

maryhelena

The number of sources that mention a John the baptizer figure would not establish historicity. We are not, surely, using numbers as some sort of guarantee of historicity. How many people believe JC was a historical figure - millions upon millions. Proves nothing.

Who invented the JtB figure - and the JC figure for that matter - is a question for history not speculation. Maybe we will never know for sure. But that one creative mind produced an original template, a master copy, is a natural development for literary creations. Obviously, once a master copy was in existence, developments could take place - as well as spin-offs....But the core story remains - a Jewish messiah figure executed, crucified, by a Roman agent. And that basic core story, however embellished by later writers, is a story that has a footprint, a reflection, in Jewish history. i.e. the gospel story is a pseudo-historical reflection upon Jewish history.

The relevant question, for early christian origins, is not simply who wrote what - but why someone wrote what they did. A story about a Jewish messianic figure. And it's that why question that a clear historical picture might have a chance of answering. And that is why it is important to challenge our primary source of Hasmonean and Herodian history - the Josephan writer.

aa5874

Again, "Q" is NOT an actual document. You cannot use PRESUMPTIONS to reconstruct the past.

The Gospels are Myth Fables or sources of Fiction. Hypothetical "Q" is based on COMMON material found in gMatthew and gLuke so is EXPECTED to also be a COMMON source of fiction.

In gMatthew and gLuke, Jesus was the Son of a Ghost when he was BAPTIZED by John, this COMMON material is supposed to be in hypothetical "Q".

aa5874

Come on, maryhelena. You have NO historical source for your claims about Josephus. You cannot show that John the Baptist did NOT exist as stated by Josephus.

You cannot show that any character mentioned by Josephus during the supposed time of John the Baptist did NOT exist.

maryhelena

And neither do you have any historical evidence that the Josephan John the baptizer was a historical figure ...

Don't change the subject - it's the Josephan John the baptizer that is in question here - and you have failed to provide any historical evidence for this Josephan figure...:Cheeky:

aa5874

Well, surprise, surprise, I am NOT arguing that John the Baptist did or did not exist. I am ARGUING that your claims about Josephus are UNSUBSTANTIATED and BASELESS.

You have ZERO evidence that Josephus invented John the Baptist and yet continuously repeat the same propaganda day after day.

Now, that you have ADMITTED that you have NO evidence that John the Baptist did NOT exist then I hope your baseless assertions about Josephus will end.