Was John the Baptist invented?

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
Giuseppe
Posts: 13732
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Was John the Baptist invented?

Post by Giuseppe »

Reasons in support of historicity:

1) Josephus seems genuine about him, afterall.

2) utility of a historical figure as witness to a mythical "human" Jesus distinct from the spiritual Christ

Reasons against historicity:

1) utility of a mass baptism by the Jewish John against the mass exorcism by the marcionite Jesus in the incipit of the Gospel. The mass baptism serves to unite. The mass exorcism serves to divide.

2) Allen: John was interpolated in Josephus by Origen against Celsus's downsizing of the his witness of Jesus and of the his presumed virtue.
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.
User avatar
MrMacSon
Posts: 8798
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 3:45 pm

Re: Was John the Baptist invented?

Post by MrMacSon »


Anne-Marie
2017-12-10 08:35:47 UTC

Hi Neil, I have thouroughly studied this topic and have written a book about it: John the Baptist was Jesus! There were clues left in the gospels that confirm this: Apparently this has been known throughout the centuries, as I have found many paintings (from the renaissance and after) with symbolism that John was Jesus. I have put up a gallery on my website with 50 examples:
You are welcome for a web-visit and I look forward to hearing your comments! 🙂

http://vridar.org/2012/02/21/was-jesus- ... ment-83443
User avatar
MrMacSon
Posts: 8798
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 3:45 pm

Re: Was John the Baptist invented?

Post by MrMacSon »

.
The passage about John the Baptist in Antiquities 18.116-119 (Whiston's chapter 18.5.2) interrupts the flow of the texts either side of it. It's as if it has been inserted.


Frank Zindler's five reason to suspect an interpolation (The Jesus the Jews Never Knew)

(1) The Baptist material intrudes into its context quite roughly. The paragraphs on either side of it follow perfectly if the Baptist section is removed.

(2) The passage about John the Baptist says Herod sent John to the castle of Macherus to be killed. Yet only two sentences before the Paragraph [1] summarized above, Josephus had written that the castle of Macherus did not belong to Herod, but to the king who soon afterwards attacked him.

(3) In the John the Baptist paragraph the author writes that the reason Herod’s army was defeated by Aretas was because God was punishing him for his unjust treatment of John.

(4) Josephus makes no mention of John the Baptist when discussing Herod in his other book, The Wars of the Jews.

(5) John the Baptist is not mentioned in the early Greek table of contents to the Antiquities of Josephus, but he is found in the later Latin version.

http://historum.com/ancient-history/771 ... ostcount=2

A response http://historum.com/ancient-history/771 ... ostcount=3 -
Point (1) - there are several passages that could be removed from such a large work as the Antiquities (as well as from the Wars) and still allow the flow of narrative to continue. It might be argued that all such passages are later interpolations, but it is nothing unique to the John the Baptist passage, and would suggest this is just the way that Josephus wrote, or edited, his works [or, the way others edited his works].

Point (2) - Macherus in the Antiquities is elsewhere clearly stated as being part of the Judean king's property, both before and after Aretas.

Antiquities, Book XIV, Ch.5
However, Alexander [prince of Judaea] went over all the country round about, and armed many of the Jews, and suddenly got together ten thousand armed footmen, and fifteen hundred horsemen, and fortified Alexandrium, a fortress near to Corem, and Macherus, near the mountains of Arabia. [This was in 57 BC]

In the Wars of the Jews the same place is called Machaerus;

Wars, Book I, Ch.8
But as for Alexander...he got together a large army, composed of ten thousand armed footmen, and fifteen hundred horsemen. He also built walls about proper places; Alexandrium, and Hyrcanium, and Machaerus, that lay upon the mountains of Arabia.

Elsewhere Josephus tells us

Wars, Book VII, Ch.6
But when Herod came to be king, he thought the place [Machaerus] to be worthy of the utmost regard, and of being built upon in the firmest manner, and this especially because it lay so near to Arabia; for it is seated in a convenient place on that account, and hath a prospect toward that country; he therefore surrounded a large space of ground with walls and towers, and built a city there, out of which city there was a way that led up to the very citadel itself on the top of the mountain; nay, more than this, he built a wall round that top of the hill, and erected towers at the corners, of a hundred and sixty cubits high; in the middle of which place he built a palace, after a magnificent manner, wherein were large and beautiful edifices. [30 BC]

Wars, Book IV, Ch.9
...Vespasian removed from Cesarea, on the fifth day of the month Desius, and marched against those places of Judea which were not yet overthrown...so that as now all the places were taken, excepting Herodlum, and Masada, and Machaerus...[70 AD]

So its not so much that the John the Baptist reference to Macharus contradicts the earlier passage, but that the earlier passage contradicts all other references in the work of Josephus. Maybe Aretas had control of Macherus for a brief period as father-in-law of Herod? But Josephus also tells us that Aretas had "some quarrel with him [Herod] about their limits at the country of Gamalitis" this being an area that might have stretched as far as Macherus. [Antiquities Book XVIII, Ch.5]. This could well explain why Herod and Aretas both had control of Macherus, either separately or shared.


Point (3) - the defeat of Herod's army is separate from the punishment to Herodias and Herod. Josephus is talking about different events at different times, and is not linking those events as having a single cause. The defeat of Herod's army in 36 AD is due to the death of John the Baptist, and the banishment of Herod and Herodias by Caligula in 39 AD is due to envy and bad advice. There is no contradiction.

Point(4) - IDK. He doesn't mention Aretas either. How relevant was this particular war and defeat to the body of the Wars of the Jews?

Point (5) - is this a single Greek table of contents? Is it complete? What date is it? The passage about John the Baptist in Josephus' Antiquities is mentioned by Origen in c.248 AD, so how does the Greek table sit with that reference?



I have no idea what the critical response to Frank Zindler is, either. These are just points in response to the post and links.


User avatar
MrMacSon
Posts: 8798
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 3:45 pm

Re: Was John the Baptist invented?

Post by MrMacSon »

.
Lena Einhorn has also noted there are arguments against Josephus’ reference to John being authentic -
  • John the Baptist is not at all mentioned in De bello Judaico, although when it was written in the 70s, John had been dead for several decades.
  • The appearance of John the Baptist is very sudden, considering his implied importance. He is mentioned in one single paragraph, where it is stated that some Jews hold the opinion that God’s displeasure with the killing of John the Baptist is the cause of Herod Antipas losing a war.
  • The paragraph disturbs the flow of the narrative. It is fitted in between the description of how Tiberius orders Vitellius to punish Aretas (A.J. 18.115), and that of how Vitellius prepares this punishment (A.J. 18.120). In other words, the text would flow considerably better if the paragraph on John the Baptist was not in the middle.
  • In the paragraph on John the Baptist, it says that Herod Antipas sent John to the castle of Macherus to have him put to death. But in the previous paragraph, Josephus writes that Macherus is controlled not by Herod Antipas, but by Aretas, the man with whom Herod Antipas is at war.
  • In this paragraph, Josephus shows an atypical reverence toward John the Baptist, considering the contempt with which he treats other messianic leaders.
  • If we were to rely on the information supplied in this paragraph, John the Baptist would have been killed later than Jesus is assumed to have been killed.
On the other hand, there are undoubtedly elements in the gospel texts themselves which strengthen the conclusion that John the Baptist was an authentic, and important, person. He is one of the best examples of the so called “criterion of embarrassment” for authenticity.

John’s presence is in the gospel narratives a complication; he must be deferred to, and at the same time he must be diminished (“I am not worthy to stoop down and untie the thong of his sandals.”) He obviously can not be ignored. This, in fact, increases the likelihood that John has existed, and been of great importance.

http://lenaeinhorn.se/wp-content/upload ... .11.25.pdf

Einhorm also noted that "The last major messianic leader to be named by Josephus before the emergence of the Egyptian [who Einhorn thinks is the basis for the NT Jesus] was Theudas."

She noted that "Theudas (A.J. 20.97-99), shares distinct characteristics with John the Baptist: like John, Theudas gathered his followers by the river Jordan; like John, he was arrested by the authorities; and they “cut off his head, and carried it to Jerusalem”. "
Theudas display significant similarities with John the Baptist, again, about fifteen to twenty years too late:
  • Just like John the Baptist, Theudas is a spiritual leader who brings his followers to the Jordan river.
  • Just like John the Baptist, Theudas is killed by the authorities, and in the same manner: they sever his head.
  • The New Testament describes John the Baptist as the forerunner of Jesus. Similarly, Theudas is the last major messianic claimant to be named by Josephus before the emergence of ”the Egyptian”.
  • Just as the New Testament describes John the Baptist and Jesus in similar terms, so does Josephus describe Theudas and the Egyptian in similar terms. Josephus, however, uses negative terms: he talks about them as aspiring prophets (in the case of the Egyptian, “false prophet”), and he calls them both “magician” or “sorcerer” (γόης). This negative portrayal is something to factor in when evaluating the logic behind a possible time shift in the writing of the Gospels.
If John the Baptist of the New Testament is identical to the messianic leader called Theudas in Antiquitates Judaicae, then, of course, A.J 18.116-119 would be a later Christian interpolation. And the mentioning of Theudas in Acts would be part of what one might call the Lukan subtext,

http://lenaeinhorn.se/wp-content/upload ... .11.25.pdf
Last edited by MrMacSon on Sun Dec 10, 2017 1:51 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Peter Kirby
Site Admin
Posts: 8048
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 2:13 pm
Location: Santa Clara
Contact:

Re: Was John the Baptist invented?

Post by Peter Kirby »

Giuseppe wrote: Sat Dec 09, 2017 9:49 am Reasons in support of historicity:

1) Josephus seems genuine about him, afterall.

2) utility of a historical figure as witness to a mythical "human" Jesus distinct from the spiritual Christ
3) There are references (e.g., in Mark, John, in Acts) that suggest a competing sect that acknowledged only the baptism of John.

"He spoke and taught accurately about Jesus, though he knew only the baptism of John." -- Acts 18:25

4) GMark mentions that his disciples put him in a tomb. He didn't move, unlike Jesus. This may indicate that there was such a tomb.

"On hearing of this, John’s disciples came and took his body and laid it in a tomb." -- Mark 6:29
"... almost every critical biblical position was earlier advanced by skeptics." - Raymond Brown
Giuseppe
Posts: 13732
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: Was John the Baptist invented?

Post by Giuseppe »

Peter Kirby wrote: Sun Dec 10, 2017 1:42 am
Giuseppe wrote: Sat Dec 09, 2017 9:49 am Reasons in support of historicity:

1) Josephus seems genuine about him, afterall.

2) utility of a historical figure as witness to a mythical "human" Jesus distinct from the spiritual Christ
3) There are references (e.g., in Mark, John, in Acts) that suggest a competing sect that acknowledged only the baptism of John.

"He spoke and taught accurately about Jesus, though he knew only the baptism of John." -- Acts 18:25

4) GMark mentions that his disciples put him in a tomb. He didn't move, unlike Jesus. This may indicate that there was such a tomb.

"On hearing of this, John’s disciples came and took his body and laid it in a tomb." -- Mark 6:29
5) John was called Christ according to a common trend who identifies the Christ with a known human being.
For this reason, they loved him [John the Baptist] quite justly, but they did not keep their love within bounds; for they kept wondering ''whether perhaps he was the Christ''. The apostle Paul warns against inordinate and irrational love when he says of himself, ''I fear that someone might have an opinion of me above what he sees or hears from me, and that the greatness of the revelations might exalt me'', and so on. Paul feared that even he might fall into this error. So he was unwilling to state everything about himself that he knew. He wanted no one to think more of him than he saw or, going beyond the limits of honor, to say what had been said about John, that ''he was the Christ''. Some people said this even about Dosithesus, the heresiarch of the Samaritans; others said it also about Judas the Galilean. Finally, some people burst forth into such great audacity of love that they invented new and unheard of exaggerations about Paul.
For, some say this, that the passage in Scripture that speaks of ''sitting at the Savior's right and left'' applies to Paul and Marcion: Paul sits at his right hand and Marcion at his left.
(Origen, Hom. in Luc., 25)
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.
Giuseppe
Posts: 13732
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: Was John the Baptist invented?

Post by Giuseppe »

Even so, I would have some questions about the Josephus's account on John the Baptist.

How much probable is that the "people" could explain the defeat of Herod by the his assassination of John?


Were there other cases where the defeat of x is explained by the people as the God's punishment for an action done by x against some y?
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.
User avatar
Peter Kirby
Site Admin
Posts: 8048
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 2:13 pm
Location: Santa Clara
Contact:

Re: Was John the Baptist invented?

Post by Peter Kirby »

Giuseppe wrote: Sun Dec 10, 2017 4:18 am Were there other cases where the defeat of x is explained by the people as the God's punishment for an action done by x against some y?
It's not strange, from a Jewish perspective.
2 Kings 24

24 During Jehoiakim’s reign, Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon invaded the land, and Jehoiakim became his vassal for three years. But then he turned against Nebuchadnezzar and rebelled. 2 The Lord sent Babylonian, Aramean, Moabite and Ammonite raiders against him to destroy Judah, in accordance with the word of the Lord proclaimed by his servants the prophets. 3 Surely these things happened to Judah according to the Lord’s command, in order to remove them from his presence because of the sins of Manasseh and all he had done, 4 including the shedding of innocent blood. For he had filled Jerusalem with innocent blood, and the Lord was not willing to forgive.
2 Kings 21
21 Manasseh was twelve years old when he became king, and he reigned in Jerusalem fifty-five years. His mother’s name was Hephzibah. 2 He did evil in the eyes of the Lord, following the detestable practices of the nations the Lord had driven out before the Israelites. 3 He rebuilt the high places his father Hezekiah had destroyed; he also erected altars to Baal and made an Asherah pole, as Ahab king of Israel had done. He bowed down to all the starry hosts and worshiped them. 4 He built altars in the temple of the Lord, of which the Lord had said, “In Jerusalem I will put my Name.” 5 In the two courts of the temple of the Lord, he built altars to all the starry hosts. 6 He sacrificed his own son in the fire, practiced divination, sought omens, and consulted mediums and spiritists. He did much evil in the eyes of the Lord, arousing his anger.

7 He took the carved Asherah pole he had made and put it in the temple, of which the Lord had said to David and to his son Solomon, “In this temple and in Jerusalem, which I have chosen out of all the tribes of Israel, I will put my Name forever. 8 I will not again make the feet of the Israelites wander from the land I gave their ancestors, if only they will be careful to do everything I commanded them and will keep the whole Law that my servant Moses gave them.” 9 But the people did not listen. Manasseh led them astray, so that they did more evil than the nations the Lord had destroyed before the Israelites.

10 The Lord said through his servants the prophets: 11 “Manasseh king of Judah has committed these detestable sins. He has done more evil than the Amorites who preceded him and has led Judah into sin with his idols. 12 Therefore this is what the Lord, the God of Israel, says: I am going to bring such disaster on Jerusalem and Judah that the ears of everyone who hears of it will tingle. 13 I will stretch out over Jerusalem the measuring line used against Samaria and the plumb line used against the house of Ahab. I will wipe out Jerusalem as one wipes a dish, wiping it and turning it upside down. 14 I will forsake the remnant of my inheritance and give them into the hands of enemies. They will be looted and plundered by all their enemies; 15 they have done evil in my eyes and have aroused my anger from the day their ancestors came out of Egypt until this day.”

16 Moreover, Manasseh also shed so much innocent blood that he filled Jerusalem from end to end—besides the sin that he had caused Judah to commit, so that they did evil in the eyes of the Lord.

17 As for the other events of Manasseh’s reign, and all he did, including the sin he committed, are they not written in the book of the annals of the kings of Judah?
The punishment was not just for shedding blood, but innocent blood. Similarly, JtB was a "good man," and that made killing him evil.
"... almost every critical biblical position was earlier advanced by skeptics." - Raymond Brown
Giuseppe
Posts: 13732
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: Was John the Baptist invented?

Post by Giuseppe »

But you have cited a biblical story. I mean: in the real History, how much is probable that the entire "people" could have thought something of similar?

In the Roman history, for example, I know that the consul Flaminius was considered guilty of blasphemy against the gods and as such was defeated by Hannibal near the Lake Trasimene.

But I don't know a case where the "fault" of the loser, in the eyes of the people, was the assassination of only a man.
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.
User avatar
Peter Kirby
Site Admin
Posts: 8048
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 2:13 pm
Location: Santa Clara
Contact:

Re: Was John the Baptist invented?

Post by Peter Kirby »

Giuseppe wrote: Sun Dec 10, 2017 5:20 am But you have cited a biblical story. I mean: in the real History, how much is probable that the entire "people" could have thought something of similar?

In the Roman history, for example, I know that the consul Flaminius was considered guilty of blasphemy against the gods and as such was defeated by Hannibal near the Lake Trasimene.

But I don't know a case where the "fault" of the loser, in the eyes of the people, was the assassination of only a man.
This line of thought is neither cogent nor very interesting, at its current level of attenuation.
"... almost every critical biblical position was earlier advanced by skeptics." - Raymond Brown
Post Reply