A real strong argument to doubt about the Baptist Passage in Josephus by Jean Magne

[Peter Kirby]

Which means that when Peter or Ken insist on the simplicity of the John's baptism as a mere ritual without no magical power as presumed evidence of authenticity of the Baptist Passage in Josephus

I don't know where you are getting this from "Peter or Ken" here. Can you provide a quote please?

[Giuseppe]

Which means that when Peter or Ken insist on the simplicity of the John's baptism as a mere ritual without no magical power as presumed evidence of authenticity of the Baptist Passage in Josephus

I don't know where you are getting this from "Peter or Ken" here. Can you provide a quote please?

The quote is the following, provided with the imprimatur by Ken:

However, the text of Ant. 18 has statements that stand in contradiction (or, at least, tension) to Christian teaching about the effects of baptism by John. Origen does not emphasize the contradiction, as could be expected from the apologetical nature of his work. Those who were reading Origen would easily be misled into thinking that Josephus viewed the baptism of John in very similar terms to the way Christians interpreted it.

Your argument is clearly there that, since in the Baptist Passage in Josephus the John's baptism is a mere ritual without the power of remission of the sins, contra Origen's tendentious description of it, then its character of mere ritual despoiled of magical effects makes it virtually a not-Christian baptism therefore, as the argument goes, something that Josephus could have written about.

But what Acts 18:23-25 proves is that there was an extreme Christian tendency, at least in some circles, to despoil the John's baptism of all the possible magical effects (included the power of remission of the sins), and that only in order to make it a mere ritual in comparison of which the baptism "in the name of Jesus" can be exalted even more as provided, by contrast, of all the magical powers.

The conclusion is therefore that the proponents of the authenticity of the Baptist Passage in Josephus cannot use the argument that "the character of mere ritual despoiled of magical effects makes the John's baptism in Josephus virtually a not-Christian baptism therefore, as the argument goes, something that Josephus could have written about".

[Peter Kirby]

Which means that when Peter or Ken insist on the simplicity of the John's baptism as a mere ritual without no magical power as presumed evidence of authenticity of the Baptist Passage in Josephus

I don't know where you are getting this from "Peter or Ken" here. Can you provide a quote please?

The quote is the following, provided with the imprimatur by Ken:

However, the text of Ant. 18 has statements that stand in contradiction (or, at least, tension) to Christian teaching about the effects of baptism by John. Origen does not emphasize the contradiction, as could be expected from the apologetical nature of his work. Those who were reading Origen would easily be misled into thinking that Josephus viewed the baptism of John in very similar terms to the way Christians interpreted it.

This was not employed as an argument for the authenticity of the passage here. It was part of a discussion of whether Origen read the passage on John in the text of the Antiquities.

Your argument is clearly there that, since in the Baptist Passage in Josephus the John's baptism is a mere ritual without the power of remission of the sins, contra Origen's tendentious description of it, then its character of mere ritual despoiled of magical effects makes it virtually a not-Christian baptism

I wasn't trying to argue that the description of John's baptism in the Antiquities was necessarily not something any Christian could agree to. That could be wrong and would require an additional discussion to consider (as this thread has started, for example). The relevant Christian in the previous discussion was Origen and his ideas.

therefore, as the argument goes, something that Josephus could have written about.

This phrasing I do agree with, of course ("something that Josephus could have written about"), but it doesn't prove authenticity.

But what Acts 18:23-25 proves is that there was an extreme Christian tendency, at least in some circles, to despoil the John's baptism of all the possible magical effects (included the power of remission of the sins), and that only in order to make it a mere ritual in comparison of which the baptism "in the name of Jesus" can be exalted even more as provided, by contrast, of all the magical powers.

The conclusion is therefore that the proponents of the authenticity of the Baptist Passage in Josephus cannot use the argument that "the character of mere ritual despoiled of magical effects makes the John's baptism in Josephus virtually a not-Christian baptism therefore, as the argument goes, something that Josephus could have written about".

That is not an argument that I was using, though. I guess I can understand the part about "the character of mere ritual despoiled of magical effects makes the John's baptism in Josephus." And I find no valid way to argue against "something that Josephus could have written about." There's just no need for the middle term here. And I don't present this as an argument for authenticity, so this characterization of what I had written is incorrect.

Are you saying that if some Christians would have described John's baptism as having such-and-such characteristics, then Josephus could not have described John's baptism as having such-and-such characteristics? Because that would not be a valid, truth-preserving inference.

[Giuseppe]

Are you saying that if some Christians would have described John's baptism as having such-and-such characteristics, then Josephus could not have described John's baptism as having such-and-such characteristics? Because that would not be a valid, truth-preserving inference.

Surely he could, but we can't more know the difference and therefore the question is undecidable: fifty-fifty.

Given the subject in question, you can't deny that this is a good result (from my POV of one who would like the passage be not genuine).

[Peter Kirby]

Are you saying that if some Christians would have described John's baptism as having such-and-such characteristics, then Josephus could not have described John's baptism as having such-and-such characteristics? Because that would not be a valid, truth-preserving inference.

Surely he could, but we can't more know the difference and therefore the question is undecidable: fifty-fifty.

Given the subject in question, you can't deny that this is a good result (from my POV of one who would like the passage be not genuine).

It's not a very meaningful point. An argument that I didn't make is shown by you to be an invalid argument. For any given question, there are millions of invalid arguments. Finding an invalid argument does not mean that "the question is undecidable: fifty-fifty" overall. You would be making a gross error of logic.

[Giuseppe]

An argument that I didn't make is shown by you to be an invalid argument.

well, it happens that that argument had persuaded me before that I read Magne's argument against it. Now not more.

[Peter Kirby]

An argument that I didn't make is shown by you to be an invalid argument.

well, it happens that that argument had persuaded me before that I read Magne's argument against it. Now not more.

Alright, that makes sense.

[Peter Kirby]

This post is quoted partially here because of the forum rule against direct insults.

PREMISE: I don't refer in this thread to Jean Magne's view that:

that John is the Euhemerization and Judaization of the preacher (keryx) of the baptise in the crater, described in CH IV as the means of the acquisition of the intellect (nous).

...even if that is the reason why Magne is a John the Baptist mythicist.

I want to limit myself to consider the probable reason why Magne considered the Baptist Passage as an interpolation. I say 'probable' because, even if he has devoted an entire essay on the question of the Baptism, he didn't deal directly with the Baptist Passage in Josephus, probably because he wanted that the reader derived 'socratically' the right inference.

The precise thing I have done.

The following is the photo of page 122 of the book Logique des sacrements (the reader is invited to ignore the second paragraph and to focus only on the first).

BAPTÊME DE JEAN ET BAPTÊME AU NOM DE JÉSUS
Ces remarques étaient nécessaires pour nous permettre de bien comprendre à quelle religion la tradition primitive rattachait la prédication de Jean. L'épisode le plus caractéristique est celui d'Apollos et de ses disciples. Ce Juif venu d'Alexandrie à Éphèse, "versé dans les Écritures" mais tout autant "instruit dans la voie du Seigneur", "disait et enseignait avec exactitude ce qui concerne Jésus, bien qu'il ne connût que le baptême de Jean" (Act 18,23-25). L'auteur de ce texte des Actes a tort de s'étonner de cette appa- rente contradiction car les paroles prêtées à Paul dans la suite de ab son récit en donnent l'explication: "Jean a baptisé d'un baptême de conversion, disant au peuple de croire en celui qui venait après lui, c'est-à-dire en Jésus" (Act 19,4). Il était bien inutile de rebaptiser au nom de Jésus ces croyants en Jésus puisque le baptême de Jean comportait déjà la foi en Jésus. Une telle réitération du baptême ne se conçoit qu'à partir du moment où l'on a fait du baptême de Jean un simple rite de purification, et de sa prédication un simple appel à la pénitence, ceci afin de l'opposer de façon factice au baptême au nom de Jésus, lequel en tant qu'ayant à être complété par le don du saint esprit, n'était plus considéré lui-même que comme un rite de purification.

PASSAGE DE LA CONVERSION À LA RÉMISSION DES PÉCHÉS
Le passage de la conception gnostique de la conversion à la conception juive de la rémission des péchés est particulièrement sensible dans les paroles que Jésus aurait adressées à Paul selon le troisième récit de sa conversion: "Je t'ai tiré du milieu du peuple (juif) et du milieu des païens, vers qui je t'envoie, afin que tu leur "ouvres les yeux", afin qu'ils se détournent (ici epistrepsai) des ténèbres vers la lumière et du pouvoir de Satan (le dieu juif) vers Dieu (le véritable, le Père, pour qu'ils recoinvent le pardon des pes péchés et un "lot" avec les sanctifiés, par la foi en moi" (Act 26,17-18). Laissant de coté la question de savoir si Paul est à la fois d'origine juive et paienne, et s'il a été envoyé vers les paiens, lui qui commence toujours par precher dans les synagogues et dont les epitres visent avant tout à détacher les juifs de la Loi, ...

My translation of the quote of interest:

These remarks were necessary to give us a clear understanding of the religion to which early tradition connected the John's preaching. The most characteristic episode is that of Apollos and his disciples. This Jew who had come to Ephesus from Alexandria, "versed in the Scriptures" but equally "instructed in the way of the Lord", "spoke and taught accurately about Jesus, although he knew only John's baptism" (Acts 18:23-25). The author of this text from Acts is wrong to be surprised by this apparent contradiction, for the words attributed to Paul in the rest of his account explain it: "John baptized with a baptism of conversion, telling the people to believe in the one who was coming after him, that is, in Jesus" (Acts 19:4). There was no need to re-baptise these believers in Jesus in the name of Jesus, since John's baptism already included faith in Jesus. Such a reiteration of baptism is only conceivable from the moment that John's baptism was made into a simple rite of purification, and his preaching into a simple call to penance, in order to contrast it factiously with baptism in the name of Jesus, which, as it had to be completed by the gift of the Holy Spirit, was no longer considered to be anything more than a rite of purification.

(my bold)

Why is this quote important, among all the words of Jean Magne? Because it gives a simple solution able to explain in the same time:

1) why the Baptism of John had to be reduced to a 'mere' thing, a mere ritual (the emphasis here is on the word 'mere'): to exalt by contrast the power and the magic of the baptism "in the name of Jesus";

2) when this reduction of the John's Baptism to a 'mere' thing was made: very early, to judge from the presence in Acts of a such need.


Note that this solution is infinitely more simple than the Rivka Nir's solution.

• Rivka Nir assumes the presence of an ebionite sect who was interested to interpolate in Josephus an "anti-baptism" for John the Baptist: a baptism that was deliberately in contrast with the baptism found in the gospels. Magne doesn't need to assume a such sect.

• Rivka Nir assumes that the John's baptism was a "mere" thing because the ebionites had a mere low Christology. Not because the John's baptism had to be minimized in comparison with the baptism "in the name of Jesus". Magne doesn't need to assume a such low theological need by a phantomatic ebionite sect.

• Rivka Nir is obliged to postulate a post-Origen's interpolation (with disastrous results), while Acts 18,23-25 is sufficient evidence of the need, very soon (i.e. before Origen) by ordinary Christians of applying a reductio ad simplicitatem on the John's baptism. Make it a mere ritual, in order to exalt the baptism in the name of Jesus. Because John has to decrease, while Jesus has to increase.

CONCLUSION:
Now, since the Baptist Passage in Josephus makes the John's Baptism a mere ritual, then it fits well with the particular needs exposed in Acts 18,23-25: John is a mere ritualist, while the real divine power is in action in the baptism 'in the name of Jesus'.

Too good divine coincidence, here.