maryhelena

Actually, while I don't think one should be about denying the Josephan writer the ability to create any figure that takes his fancy - I don't think, in the case of JtB, that this figure is a Josephan creation. I think Josephus is simply making use of, developing, an already created figure. Who created the JtB figure? Who created the JC figure? Well, that is what a search for early christian origins would be about, would it not. Who wrote the master copy of the Jesus story? If JC is ahistorical - then someone, somewhere, created that figure. And like all original creative endeavors - JC is not the product of a committee.

As for what is the Josephan writer doing with the JtB figure - here are a few indications:

1) the water issue is a side issue - it simply ties the Josephan JtB to the gospel storyline.

2) Herod is not concerned with the water baptizing. Herod is concerned about the ability of the JtB figure to raise a rebellion: "Herod, who feared lest the great influence John had over the people might put it into his power and inclination to raise a rebellion, (for they seemed ready to do any thing he should advise,)".

3) Macherus: A castle/fortress built around 90 b.c. by Alexander Jannaeus. Aristobulus II, taken prisoner to Rome in 63 b.c., escaped a few years later and took up a fight against Rome:

"Yet did Aristobulus afford another foundation for new disturbances. He fled away from Rome, and got together again many of the Jews that were desirous of a change, such as had borne an affection to him of old; and when he had taken Alexandrium in the first place, he attempted to build a wall about it; but as soon as Gabinius had sent an army against him under Siscuria, and Antonius, and Servilius, he was aware of it, and retreated to Macherus". War.book 1 ch.8 par.6.

4) the Josephan story of the war between Herod (Antipas) and Aretas took place around 36/37 c.e. - 100 years since Aristobulus was taken prisoner to Rome. Both sons of Aristobulus II were beheaded in Antioch. Alexander around 49 b.c. and Antigonus in 37 b.c.

This history, I would suggest, is what the Josephan writer has in mind when writing a story to place in the time slot of 36/37 c.e. Replaying the earlier historical tape about the war between Rome and the Hasmoneans. A war which saw two sons of Aristobulus II being executed by Rome.

And the historical evidence for the war between Antipas and Aretas in 36/37 c.e. ? Very conveniently, Tiberius dies before Roman armies can get to Petra and punish Aretas for destroying the army of Antipas....

Methinks the Josephan writer was playing footsy with the gospel story while making a far more dangerous political statement...Sure, in the grand scheme of things, appeasement - or at least acceptance of a greater power - was necessary - but historical facts were still historical facts. Jewish history, Hasmonean history, would not be of no consequence.

aa5874

Please, the TF was NOT written by Josephus.

How many times must we go over your errors??

Something has gone radically wrong in your attempt to promote propaganda about Josephus.

proudfootz

I'm open to the idea that the 'baptism tale' was an attempt to co-opt the Baptist sect.

Generally it's thought gMark, as the origin tale, could not be earlier that 70 AD.

OTOH there seems to be evidence that gMark uses material in response to the Bar Kochba revolt well into the 2nd century.

spin

On the Mandean connection, Schaeder, in his article Ναζαρηνος, Ναζωραιος in Kittel's Theological Dictionary, spends a lot of time outlining the Mandeans' Babylonian origin. He argues that the terminology they used came via contact with Christians in Syria.

outhouse

shouldnt we put this in the context that galilean poverty stricken jews who live a life below the common peasant, flat hated the jewish government, and even more so, anyone associated with romans viewed as a serious infection to the governement.


John was a zealot by definition. ate bugs and wild honey because he was so poor, lived outdoors and was anti establishment, exactly as a extreme zealot would live.


and of course with roman scripture, zealots were buried in roman mythology with only clues showing us the light.


any group of poverty stricken peasants would have a leader and as a rule, leaders were normally killed by the powers that be

outhouse

we always will

but that is not a absense of evidence.


independant gospel authors recorded the legends after the fact in mythology, based on what they believed and what was important to them.


its obvious the poor oppressed zealot jews hated by Pilate in the area of Galilee would have had more then the few leader's killed by the powers that be. and we see that. what makes John unique is his baptism which was widespread and known practice. John has historicity despite you personally not liking the evidence from multiple sources.

maryhelena

Recording the TF in a writing does not equate to being the originator of the TF material.

As to your attempt to give the Josephan writer a free pass - wrong way to approach this writing. The Josephus writer has to be given the very same treatment that one accords to the gospel writers. Critical examination. For those of us interested in investigating christian origins, the writing of Josephus has to be tackled with a crowbar not a kid glove. Especially so if one holds to the ahistoricist/mythicist position. Gaining an understanding of early christian origins requires that we have as accurate a picture of the relevant Hasmonean and Herodian history as it is possible to get. And that means that our primary source of that history, the Josephan writer, has to be put in the dock. Everything and anything to do with the history of early christian origins is tied up with the Josephan writer's historical reconstructions - his mixing history with pseudo-history. To give the Josephan writer a free pass is to derail the investigation into early christian origins.

The way forward for the debate over the history or ahistoricity of the gospel JC figure (of whatever variant) is through the Josephan minefield. That 'field' has to be cleared of it's pseudo-history before we can gain a clear historical picture of the relevant Hasmonean and Herodian history.

aa5874

What are you really trying to ARGUE if you don't know who wrote the TF.

Who is the Originator of the TF??

I have not EVER made such attempt. I am arguing that your claims about Josephus are Unsubstantiated and baseless.

What crowbar do you have??? The Myth Fables called Gospels of unknown date of authorship, Fake authors, bogus chronology and filled with Discrepancies and Events that most likely did NOT HAPPEN.

What hopeless illogical assertion.

Josephus claimed VESPASIAN was the Prophesied Messianic ruler found in Hebrew Scripture and Tacitus, Suetonius and Cassius Dio ATTEST the claim of Josephus.

Suetonius claimed VESPASIAN the prophesied Messianic ruler made the BLIND SEE and LAME Walk.

Josephus writings had NOTHING whatsoever to do with the Jesus cult of Christians.

The Jesus cult of Christians most likely STARTED sometime in the 2nd century based on the Recovered Dated Texts of antiquity.

Josephus has been TRIED and EXONERATED by Tacitus, Suetonius, Pliny the Elder, Cassius Dio and because your witnesses, the Gospels, are sources of perjury.

maryhelena

aa - are you claiming that the Josephan John the baptizer figure is a historical figure? A clear yes or no would be appreciated. And if your answer is a 'yes' - please provide the historical evidence.

aa5874

Are you claiming that Antonigus, King Herod the Great, Pontius Pilate, Tiberius the Emperor, Caiaphas the High Priest, Philo, Aretas, Philip the tetrarch, Herod the tertrarch, Gaius the Emperor, Claudius the Emperor, Nero the Emperor, Vespasian and Titus the Emperors, Festus the Procurator and Felix in the WRITINGS Josephus were NOT figures of history???

A clear yes or no would be appreciated.