John The Baptist According To Josephus

[pippo buono]

Flavius Josephus who the Jewish historian who lived during the 1st century. In his [i]Antiquities of the Jews[/i], he makes a reference to St. John the Baptist (and also Jesus, but He's not the concern here). This is a great reinforcement for Scripture in that it confirms that John did, in fact, exist. However, a possible dilemma manifests when Josephus attempts to describe the purpose of baptism. He writes:
[quote]... For that the washing would be acceptable to him [John], if they made use of it, [b]not in order to the putting away of some sins[/b], but for the purification of the body, supposing still that the soul was thoroughly purified beforehand by righteousness. (5:117)[/quote]
This seems to conflict a great deal with the John the Baptist revealed in the Gospels who proclaimed "a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins" (Mark 1:4). What i am wondering is if these two are irreconcilable or if there is a detail within history, scripture, or Church teaching that i am missing which would confirm both accounts. Thank you to all who contribute.

In Him

[kafka]

I am not sure what point Josephus was trying to make there.

But I will say this. Sacred Scripture is Infallible. The Bible contains no errors on faith, morals, salvation, or any other subject about which the Bible makes an assertion (including science). Any truth asserted in Sacred Scripture that seems to contradict human knowledge is not a contradiction at all, but a weakness and limited understanding in the human mind attempting to interpret that verse of Scriptue.

So it is possible that Josephus is making a human error or a limited assertion by describing Saint John the Baptist. He may have heard these things second or third hand.

[CatherineM]

Josephus was a historian. He made the same mistake that we do when we try to think of the bible as a history book or a science book rather than what it is: a theology book. I don't get my theology from historians, and I don't get my history from theology books.

[pippo buono]

i agree, kafka. i have no inclination to adopt Josephus' account over the Word of God.

Nonetheless, Josephus' writings are a marvelous verification of Christianity's historical context while he was never a Christian himself. If there is something i am missing that would confirm both Josephus' account of John the Baptist's death as well as the Biblical understanding of baptism, that would be another great testament to the Bible's authenticity in the historical sense.

In Him

Edited September 20, 2007 by pippo buono

[kafka]

[quote name='pippo buono' post='1389348' date='Sep 20 2007, 06:18 PM']i agree, kafka. i have no inclination to adopt Josephus' account over the Word of God.[/quote]

I didnt think you did have any inclination. Looking at that quote of Josephus again, I think he misinterpreted John's baptism. He probably didnt have a good understanding of it from his sources.

[abercius24]

I don't believe the Church teaches that John's baptism was sacramental. Jesus and the Apostles performed the first sacramental baptisms. I believe this is what Josephus is trying to explain in John's case; that it was a symbol of the heart being cleansed through obedience and devotion to the Lord -- a calling of the Jewish people to a return to righteousness in preparation for the coming of the Messiah. The Jews shared, in small measure, in the grace we now abundantly receive through Christ in the sacraments. It was this small taste of grace by John's guidance that lead the disciples to recognize and seek the abundant grace they were meant to receive from Jesus. John's baptism, as did all Jewish rituals, was an imperfect, anticipatory "borrowing" of grace that would not be fully communicated until Christ began His ministry with the sacraments. So, in John's case, the water was merely a symbol for the repentence that had already occured in the heart of the sinner; whereas in Christian Baptism, the Holy Spirit Himself enters the soul of the believer thereby perfecting that relationship of grace (what we term as "sacramental").

Matthew 21:32 (to the Scribes and Pharisees) -- "When John came to you in the way of righteousness, you did not believe him; but tax collectors and prostitutes did. Yet even when you saw that, you did not later change your minds and believe him."

Mark 1:1-8 -- "The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ (the Son of God). As it is written in Isaiah the prophet: 'Behold, I am sending my messenger ahead of you; he will prepare your way. A voice of one crying out in the desert: 'Prepare the way of the Lord, make straight his paths.'' John (the) Baptist appeared in the desert proclaiming a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins. People of the whole Judean countryside and all the inhabitants of Jerusalem were going out to him and were being baptized by him in the Jordan River as they acknowledged their sins. John was clothed in camel's hair, with a leather belt around his waist. He fed on locusts and wild honey. And this is what he proclaimed: 'One mightier than I is coming after me. I am not worthy to stoop and loosen the thongs of his sandals. I have baptized you with water; he will baptize you with the holy Spirit.'"

Edited September 21, 2007 by abercius24

[pippo buono]

[quote name='abercius24' post='1389448' date='Sep 20 2007, 07:49 PM']I don't believe the Church teaches that John's baptism was sacramental. Jesus and the Apostles performed the first sacramental baptisms. I believe this is what Josephus is trying to explain in John's case; that it was a symbol of the heart being cleansed through obedience and devotion to the Lord -- a calling of the Jewish people to a return to righteousness in preparation for the coming of the Messiah... So, in John's case, the water was merely a symbol for the repentence that had already occured in the heart of the sinner; whereas in Christian Baptism, the Holy Spirit Himself enters the soul of the believer thereby perfecting that relationship of grace (what we term as "sacramental").[/quote]

i'm quite inclined to this thinking as well. After posting this, i found that St. Thomas Aquinas also shared this view in his [i]Summa Theologica[/i] ([url="http://www.newadvent.org/summa/4038.htm"]III:38:3[/url]).

As you so eloquently put it, abercius, John the Baptist himself explained that the baptism he preached could not compare to Christ's baptism that is empowered by the Holy Spirit . When it comes down to it, the theology of the Sacraments teaches us that Christ Himself instituted them (CCC #1114). So while John did indeed preach a sacramental "baptism of repentence for the forgiveness of sins", it was Christ who instituted the Sacrament of baptism with the grace to forgive sins.

[kafka]

Yes, Christ institued the Sacrament of Baptism when He was baptised by John

[pippo buono]

i'm not sure why it took me so long to find this verse. This, i think, illustrates the point quite well:
[quote]While Apollos was in Corinth, Paul traveled through the interior of the country and came [down] to Ephesus where he found some disciples. He said to them, "Did you receive the holy Spirit when you became believers?" They answered him, "We have never even heard that there is a holy Spirit." He said, "How were you baptized?" They replied, "With the baptism of John." Paul then said, "John baptized with a baptism of repentance, telling the people to believe in the one who was to come after him, that is, in Jesus." When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus (Acts 19:1-5).[/quote]