Josphus: Jesus and John the Baptist

[gnostic]

I was exchanging replies with OldBadger about the historical Jesus in the thread - Star of Bethlehem, but I would like to start a new thread on the 3 Js: Jesus, John the Baptist and the 1st century Jewish historian (Flavius) Josephus.

The thread is actually more about John the Baptist than Jesus.

John the Baptist appeared in all 4 gospels, and only 3 of them (Matthew, Mark and Luke) narrated baptism of Jesus. Only Mark (6:14-29) speak of John's captured and execution. And only the gospel of Luke (Luke 1) speak of John's nativity and John being Jesus' cousin, on Jesus' mother's side.

As to the historical record, only Flavius Josephus wrote of both biblical figures.

Jesus is referred to in Flavius Josephus as being the "James, brother of Jesus", and known by his other name Christ:

...and brought before them the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James, and some others...

And John the Baptist is mentioned an earlier book, the one who was killed by Herod (Herod Antipas), who called on Jews to live virtuous lives, cleansing their sin through baptism in water:

2. Now some of the Jews thought that the destruction of Herod's army came from God, and that very justly, as a punishment of what he did against John, that was called the Baptist: for Herod slew him, who was a good man, and commanded the Jews to exercise virtue, both as to righteousness towards one another, and piety towards God, and so to come to baptism; for that the washing [with water] would be acceptable to him, if they made use of it, not in order to the putting away [or the remission] of some sins [only], but for the purification of the body; supposing still that the soul was thoroughly purified beforehand by righteousness. Now when [many] others came in crowds about him, for they were very greatly moved [or pleased] by hearing his words, 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,) thought it best, by putting him to death, to prevent any mischief he might cause, and not bring himself into difficulties, by sparing a man who might make him repent of it when it would be too late. Accordingly he was sent a prisoner, out of Herod's suspicious temper, to Macherus, the castle I before mentioned, and was there put to death. Now the Jews had an opinion that the destruction of this army was sent as a punishment upon Herod, and a mark of God's displeasure to him.

(Oop! Wrong quote, wrong chapter. Thanks, OldBadger.)

Apparently in the Antiquities of the Jews, Herod fearing rebellion, and John had such large gathering of followers, Herod had John arrested and executed. Herod was defeated in battle, and Josephus referred to this defeat as a sign of God's wrath (at Herod) for executing a pious and wise man. Josephus make no mention of Herodias or Herodias' daughter Salome(?) dancing, and asking for John's head.

Anyway, both references to different men in Josephus' Antiquities of the Jews, indicated that Jesus and John are historical figures.

What I noticed that in Book 18:5:2 is that there seemed to be no indications that John the Baptist is related to Jesus or to the Jesus' movement (or Christian movement).

It would seem that John and Jesus was unrelated, historically and religiously, before the gospels combined the two men in one mythos.

And the baptism looks like remission of sin, a ritual cleansing, judging by Josephus' brief description. Baptism here, in Antiquities of the Jews, seemed to have nothing to with conversion to a new religion, because Christian teaching of baptism seemed to be that of conversion or initiation.

Could it be, historically, that Jesus and John the Baptist were 2 leaders of their respective movements, with no connection to each other?

That Jesus and John never knew each other?

Does baptism means "conversion" or not?

 

[oldbadger]

The thread is actually more about John the Baptist than Jesus.

Hi..! Good thread!

John the Baptist appeared in all 4 gospels, .................................And only the gospel of Luke (Luke 1) speak of John's nativity and John being Jesus' cousin, on Jesus' mother's side.

Yes....... I don't trust John much.....

As to the historical record, only Flavius Josephus wrote of both biblical figures.

Yes

Apparently in the Antiquities of the Jews, Herod fearing rebellion, and John had such large gathering of followers, Herod had John arrested and executed.

I think that this is the part you refer to, but I don't know which book, chapter,verse it's from:-
Now some of the Jews thought that the destruction of Herod's army came from God, and that very justly, as a punishment of what he did against John, that was called the Baptist: for Herod slew him, who was a good man, and commanded the Jews to exercise virtue, both as to righteousness towards one another, and piety towards God, and so to come to baptism; for that the washing [with water] would be acceptable to him, if they made use of it, not in order to the putting away [or the remission] of some sins [only], but for the purification of the body; supposing still that the soul was thoroughly purified beforehand by righteousness. Now when [many] others came in crowds about him, for they were very greatly moved [or pleased] by hearing his words, 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,) thought it best, by putting him to death, to prevent any mischief he might cause, and not bring himself into difficulties, by sparing a man who might make him repent of it when it would be too late. Accordingly he was sent a prisoner, out of Herod's suspicious temper, to Macherus, the castle I before mentioned, and was there put to death. Now the Jews had an opinion that the destruction of this army was sent as a punishment upon Herod, and a mark of God's displeasure to him.

It would seem that John and Jesus was unrelated, historically and religiously, before the gospels combined the two men in one mythos.

Yes...... I agree. Spin doctors'work....?

And the baptism looks like remission of sin, a ritual cleansing, judging by Josephus' brief description.

I've copied above. ........ so...... yes

Could it be, historically, that Jesus and John the Baptist were 2 leaders of their respective movements, with no connection to each other?

Yes

That Jesus and John never knew each other?

I think that they did meet..... when Jesus was baptised.

I think that I agree with most of the above. I think that both references to Jesus (by Josephus) could have been tampered with. It's possible to edit both passages and end up with a more 'flowing' report, imo.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

As to the historical record, only Flavius Josephus wrote of both biblical figures.

The gospels are part of the historical record. They are less politically biased than Josephus, but lack both his skill as a historian, are clearly far more oriented around religious notions (and thus further from historical accuracy), and are of a different genre of ancient history. They are, however, part of the historical record.

What I noticed that in Book 18:3:3 is that there seemed to be no indications that John the Baptist is related to Jesus or to the Jesus' movement (or Christian movement).

It would seem that John and Jesus was unrelated, historically and religiously, before the gospels combined the two men in one mythos.

It is highly unlikely that the two are unrelated. The general view is that Jesus was actually a disciple of John at one point. Our only sources for John the Baptist are the gospels and Josephus, and while the gospels have more information, Josephus has less reason to alter or distort history. However, the reason that John the Baptist figures so largely in the Jesus tradition is almost certainly because not only did the two have a connection, but both were known of and both had followers who retained and transmitted information about their respective leaders. There is even an exchange between the followers of John the Baptist and those of Jesus in the gospels. Whether the relationship was ever one of "master/teacher" and disciple, or turned into some kind of rivalry (whether between the two or between the followers) is hard to tell. However, there is no good way of explaining the prominent position John the Baptist plays in the gospels apart from a historical connection between the two.

And the baptism looks like remission of sin, a ritual cleansing, judging by Josephus' brief description. Baptism here, in Antiquities of the Jews, seemed to have nothing to with conversion to a new religion, because Christian teaching of baptism seemed to be that of conversion or initiation.

It's a greek word which refers to cleansing and washing in water. However, as many religions (including those in the Greco-Roman and near East) incorporated ritual cleansings into their religious practice, it's likely that John's use of baptism was similar to a conversion, though not to a new religion. However, the early Christians (including Paul) would not have considered their conversions to be conversions to another religion.

Does baptism means "conversion" or not?

No.

 

[gnostic]

I think that this is the part you refer to, but I don't know which book, chapter,verse it's from:-

Sorry, oldbadger. Thanks, for pointing out that had quoted from the wrong chapter. I have removed the old quote with the right one. Again, thanks.

I think that they did meet..... when Jesus was baptised.

That's a possibly.

But I don't think historical John the Baptist was heralding the messiah. Nothing in Josephus' Antiquities that John know of Jesus or following Jesus' movement.

I think the gospel authors melded the lost (and separate) John's tradition and Jesus' tradition together.

 

[gnostic]

The gospels are part of the historical record. They are less politically biased than Josephus, but lack both his skill as a historian, are clearly far more oriented around religious notions (and thus further from historical accuracy), and are of a different genre of ancient history. They are, however, part of the historical record.

It is highly unlikely that the two are unrelated. The general view is that Jesus was actually a disciple of John at one point. Our only sources for John the Baptist are the gospels and Josephus, and while the gospels have more information, Josephus has less reason to alter or distort history.

Now that, I can understand; it make (almost) perfect sense.

(Sorry, for the "almost"; I don't believe in perfection, and hate using the word "perfect", because it is often misused. Hence-wise, I had used the word "almost" to denote my rebellion to perfection.)

It is only the gospels that they know each other, but in Josephus' Antiquities, it doesn't show the connection to Jesus or to the Christians. All Josephus say is that Herod thought there might be rebellion, so that John was arrested and executed.

The whole dance for a favor (in Mark 6), sounds more like an invented story and highly unlikely than a purely political motive (in Antiquities) for having John executed.

 

[InformedIgnorance]

Although this is in General Religious Debates, I take it this is more of a DIR?

(i.e. you dont want to discuss similarities with the myth of Anup the baptist as a potential precursor or progenitor for John the baptist)

 

[gnostic]

Although this is in General Religious Debates, I take it this is more of a DIR?

There are bound to people who would disagree with my view, and that often leads to debate. So, I think it is best to leave where it is.

(i.e. you dont want to discuss similarities with the myth of Anup the baptist as a potential precursor or progenitor for John the baptist)

I don't know anything of Anup. So you can briefly summarise who he was, what he has done, and how Anup would fit in to this topic?

 

[InformedIgnorance]

Anup (also called Aan, Anup was the manifestation of Sut - note that Sut is tied to the moon and Horus the sun, they are brothers) is the alleged baptist of Horus when he was baptised in the river Eridanus at aged thirty. While baptising horus, in his narration of the event Anup is said to have proclaimed a coming day of judgement "I am Anup in the day of judgment. I am Horus, the Preferred, on the day of rising." (MASSEYS LECTURES - true hardly an authoritative reference, I apologize, I simply do not have the resources at hand - the site does list his references though) and that he was a witness but rather that his brother would be the one. Anup was later beheaded - I believe (but cannot find the link for it) by Herut who had also sought to kill Horus duing his childhood.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Now that, I can understand; it make (almost) perfect sense.

(Sorry, for the "almost"; I don't believe in perfection, and hate using the word "perfect", because it is often misused. Hence-wise, I had used the word "almost" to denote my rebellion to perfection.)

I am wary of absolutes myself, and would certainly not use "perfect" to describe the general view here. It makes sense, but it could be wrong.

It is only the gospels that they know each other, but in Josephus' Antiquities, it doesn't show the connection to Jesus or to the Christians. All Josephus say is that Herod thought there might be rebellion, so that John was arrested and executed.

One has to keep in mind Josephus' goals. First, he was writing to a Roman audience and indeed sponsered by them (technically, the term is "patronage", but the point remains the same). He wanted to convey to the non-Jewish audience which had recently defeated not just his people, but he himself (as he was a general), the history of his people, their side of the story (suitably altered to make his patrons happy), and who they were as a people (a sort of biography of a people). Neither Jesus nor John the Baptist were all that important when one takes into account the scope of his works. Neither one featured in the wars, and as for the history of the Jewish people, both were (at least then) among a number of fairly well known individuals who had gained a following but were nothing compared to Moses and other figures Josephus covered. As far as contemporary history was concerned, Josephus concentrated on the elite. For one thing, the elite were not only in his social circle, but were also the people his audience would be more interested in. The Roman elite would not be particularly inclined to hear stories about peasant prophets and preachers.

That is why the reference to Jesus in Josephus which wasn't altered is not actually about Jesus at all. It refers to James, but it isn't really about him either. It is about the social elite; in particular, a high priest who condemned James. Jesus doesn't even figure secondary here. James is secondary, and Jesus is merely there to identify which James it is that Josephus is referring to. Kinship identification was the standard way to distinguish one person from another, as there wasn't much variation when it came to names.

The whole dance for a favor (in Mark 6), sounds more like an invented story and highly unlikely than a purely political motive (in Antiquities) for having John executed.

I'm still rather unsure about the origin behind John's death in the NT, but regardless of where it came from and why, I think it is pretty clear that Josephus' version is correct (or at least more accurate).

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

What I noticed that in Book 18:5:2 is that there seemed to be no indications that John the Baptist is related to Jesus or to the Jesus' movement (or Christian movement).

It would seem that John and Jesus was unrelated, historically and religiously, before the gospels combined the two men in one mythos.

No. It would seem that the author felt that John the Baptist required no disambiguation.

 

[Fingy]

I see Jesus as inheriting John's movement and his goals. But it seems that not all of John's followers went over to Jesus as their is evidence that a "John the Baptist splinter group" broke off and regarded John as the Messiah. Beleifs inherited by the modern day mandaeans.

 

[Hitchey]

I see Jesus as inheriting John's movement and his goals. But it seems that not all of John's followers went over to Jesus as their is evidence that a "John the Baptist splinter group" broke off and regarded John as the Messiah. Beleifs inherited by the modern day mandaeans.

I suspect that the Gospel account of Jesus sending his disciples to visit the imprisoned John was really a propaganda ploy on the part of the writer to undermine the claim of John's followers that he was the messiah.

 

[Fingy]

I suspect that the Gospel account of Jesus sending his disciples to visit the imprisoned John was really a propaganda ploy on the part of the writer to undermine the claim of John's followers that he was the messiah.

I would agree with your statement but I would take the argument a little further. This may suggest that the synoptics were written at a time when John the baptist's movement was still going strong and was messianic in nature and thus presented a threatening rival to the early church. It is also possible that Jesus believed John was the messiah (I don't necessarily take this position, I only suggest it as speculation), later this embarrassing episode may have been white washed from the traditions regarding Jesus and thus we receive the demoted John the Baptist - now merely the "forerunner" that is predicted in Malachi 3:1-4
‘Look, I am going to send my messenger to prepare a way before me. And the Lord you are seeking will suddenly enter his temple; and the angel of the covenant whom you are longing for, yes, he is coming, says Yahweh Sabaoth. Who will be able to resist the day of his coming? Who will remain standing when he appears? For he is like the refiner's fire and the fullers' alkali. He will take his seat as refiner and purifier; he will purify the sons of Levi and refine them like gold and silver, and then they will make the offering to Yahweh as it should be made. The offering of Judah and Jerusalem will then be welcomed by Yahweh as in former days, as in the years of old."

In John's gospel, the baptist role is severely diminished. John's gospel seeks to sideline John the baptist. His role is reduced to three episodes, his imprisonment is mentioned only in passing and by chapter three he disappears from the narrative entirely. In the first episode John is questioned by the priests sent by the Pharisees. We learn that he is not the Christ, not Elijah and not even a prophet! John tells us, in his final appearance, "He (Jesus) must grow greater, I must grow smaller'. We will see this "smaller" language again later. John 1:6-8 says: A man came, sent by God. His name was John. He came as a witness, as a witness to speak for the light, so that everyone might believe through him. He was not the light, only a witness to speak for the light.
John emphasizes that the baptist was not the light, only a messenger for the light. There are a few more marginalizing elements in John's presentation of the baptist.

John:3:30 He must grow greater, I must grow smaller.
John 4:1 Jesus is making more disciples than John
John 5:36 Jesus' testimony is greater than John's.

In contrast to this disparaging presentation given in the gospel of John we have a glowing - near messianic portrayal of John presented in Matthew. Jesus tells his disciples in Matt 11:11-15 ‘I tell you solemnly, of all the children born of women, one greater than John the Baptist has never been seen.(What incredibly high praise!) Since John the Baptist came, up to this present time, the kingdom of heaven has been subjected to violence and the violent are taking it by storm. Because it was towards John that all the prophecies of the prophets and law were leading; and he, if you believe me, is the Elijah who was to return.(Now Jesus is speaking of John in near Messianic terms!)If anyone has ears to hear, let him listen!"

If Jesus was the messiah why does he say that "it was towards John that all the prophecies of the prophets and law were leading"? I thought all of the prophecies of the prophets and law were leading up to Jesus! I suspect that John the Baptist was much more influential and more highly regarded than he is given credit for in the Greek Pauline gospels.

I believe that Matt 11:11 is an anti-John insertion "Yet the one who is least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he." It is interesting to note that the 14th century Hebrew manuscript of Matthew as preserved by Shem-Tob ben-Isaac ben-Shaprut does not include Matt 11:11, thus restoring John's preeminence.

 

[outhouse]

I see Jesus as inheriting John's movement and his goals. But it seems that not all of John's followers went over to Jesus as their is evidence that a "John the Baptist splinter group" broke off and regarded John as the Messiah. Beleifs inherited by the modern day mandaeans.

OR

Maybe the Mandaeans focussed on JtB long after the gospel authors wrote their version.

Because I dont think your statement has any historicity other then opinion.

 

[outhouse]

Now that, I can understand; it make (almost) perfect sense.

(Sorry, for the "almost"; I don't believe in perfection, and hate using the word "perfect", because it is often misused. Hence-wise, I had used the word "almost" to denote my rebellion to perfection.)

It is only the gospels that they know each other, but in Josephus' Antiquities, it doesn't show the connection to Jesus or to the Christians. All Josephus say is that Herod thought there might be rebellion, so that John was arrested and executed.

The whole dance for a favor (in Mark 6), sounds more like an invented story and highly unlikely than a purely political motive (in Antiquities) for having John executed.

The real teachings of JtB and Jesus will remain unknown. Its safe to say they were both politically motivated and each died because of this.

I dont think they were related in any sense at all. Jesus in my opinion was influenced by JtB teachings and after JtB death, fine tuned the movement for success trying to get the poor to take care of themselves and not feed the Roman machine with tax revenue.

Both wanted to bring god right down into the hearts of followers with no need for the temple or corrupt jewish governement.

Galilee was known to be heavily influenced by Zealots and its my opinion both JtB and Jesus both carried this at the core of their message. Jesus learned from JtB mistakes and went another route applying what JtB taught everyone.

 

[Fingy]

OR

Maybe the Mandaeans focussed on JtB long after the gospel authors wrote their version.

Because I dont think your statement has any historicity other then opinion.

That may be. The Mandaean book was written during the early Islamic period (7th or 8th century) so it is quite far removed. Still, it may hold some earlier traditions that are useful to the historian, especially because it is a gnostic, not a Pauline document. As far as my thoughts on the John the Baptist, it's an educated guess not a fact.

 

[outhouse]

That may be. The Mandaean book was written during the early Islamic period (7th or 8th century) so it is quite far removed. Still, it may hold some earlier traditions that are useful to the historian, especially because it is a gnostic, not a Pauline document. As far as my thoughts on the John the Baptist, it's an educated guess not a fact.

The only traditions the Mandaean's ever knew of JtB, was what they found important in the NT.

Which is a Hellenistic gentile legend, of what I believe was Jewish Zealot teacher. The legend was built on cross cultural oral tradition.

How much influence the Essenes had on JtB is unknown.

Gnostic or Paul doesnt matter in this case due to the silence on the topic.


Is their anyone else that makes that same educated guess? Not picking on you as much as trying to get the right information put forth.

 

[Fingy]

The only traditions the Mandaean's ever knew of JtB, was what they found important in the NT.

Which is a Hellenistic gentile legend, of what I believe was Jewish Zealot teacher. The legend was built on cross cultural oral tradition.

How much influence the Essenes had on JtB is unknown.

Gnostic or Paul doesnt matter in this case due to the silence on the topic.


Is their anyone else that makes that same educated guess? Not picking on you as much as trying to get the right information put forth.

The Mandaean book of John is a Gnostic text. Of coarse John was not a Gnostic, but an apocalyptic messianic nazirite, like Jesus. This is just another case of a sect hijacking a historical figure and remodeling him in their own image, as we see Paul and his Antioch church remake the Galilean messiah claimant Yeshua into the Greek God Christ Jesus.


Scholar G. R. S. Mead from his essay Gnostic John the Baptizer
The Mandæans (lit. Gnostics—mandā = gnōsis) of the lower Euphrates are the only known surviving community of the ancient Gnosis. That they have survived to our own day is a remarkable testimony to the strength of their convictions and of loyalty to a tradition which they claim to go back to pre-Christian days, The documents call them Nāzōræans.The Arabs generally refer to them as Sūbbā's or Baptists, while the first Portuguese Jesuit missionaries of the Inquisition erroneously introduced them to Europe in the early part of the 17th century as the 'Christians of St. John.' But Christians they certainly are not; on the contrary they have ever been strenuously opposed to Christianity, though they may have sometimes so camouflaged themselves to avoid Moslim persecution in the first place and the Inquisitional methods of the missionaries in the second.
The Mandæan religious literature (for of secular literature there is none) supplies us with the richest direct sources of any phase of ancient Gnosticism which we possess; these documents are also all the more valuable because they are purely Oriental without any Hellenistic immixture.

 

[outhouse]

Of coarse John was not a Gnostic, but an apocalyptic messianic nazirite, like Jesus.

False.

Gjohn was written by multiple unknown author/s over quite a period of time by a Johannine community, location unknown.

as we see Paul and his Antioch church remake the Galilean messiah claimant Yeshua into the Greek God Christ Jesus.

False.

Paul had founded many houses early on, but much of the message had already spread into the roman Empire before Paul even got to these cities.

Early on their were many different views in the movement, Paul was trying to correct what he thought were corrupt views.

While Jesus legend was Hellenized, so was Judaismm and had been Hellenized for hundreds of years. Jesus legend found a home in Hellenized communities but he was never a Greek deity. He was a Jewish man deified by a Hellenistic culture who wanted to worship the Abrahamic deity as the "one all powerful deity" under monotheism.

Crosss cultural oral tradition, Jewish to Hellenistic Jewish Proselytes who worshipped Judaism are the people who started the movement due to the oral traditions generated after passover when the 400,000 ish attendants went back to their homes all through the roman Empire taking with them many different versions of Jesus.

Scholar G. R. S. Mead from his essay Gnostic John the Baptizer

Holds no credibility with anyone.
I wouldnt use him for anything.

He was a very strange man with a ancient scholarship. [relic] he was a sick man.

G. R. S. Mead - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

George Robert Stowe Mead was born at Nuneaton, Warwickshire, England on the 22nd of March 1863.

he was accused in 1906 of teaching masturbation to the sons of some American Theosophists under the guise of occult training

 

[oldbadger]

Crosss cultural oral tradition, Jewish to Hellenistic Jewish Proselytes who worshipped Judaism are the people who started the movement due to the oral traditions generated after passover when the 400,000 ish attendants went back to their homes all through the roman Empire taking with them many different versions of Jesus.

Hi.....
Questions.....

How did 400,000 ish people take note of a person just because he caused a breach of peace in the temple? What was so outstanding about this?

How many of these 400,000 people bothered to watch a trio of convicts getting hung on crosses?

Why take home stories about a blokle who caused a rumpus? Why not take home stories about the bandits either side of him?

This does not sound right, yet.