aa5874

I have come across two passages in 'Antiquities of the Jews' written by Josephus in the late 1st century that makes me think that the Gospel of Mark was written after this work by Josephus.

These passages concern the character John the Baptist. If the all the works of Josephus is read, it will be noticed he makes no mention of any of the Gospels, he does not quote any scripture from these Gospels.

On the other hand, we have the Gospels, Mark included, with events that are recorded in the works of Josephus, concerning John the Baptist.

Josephus wrote that Herod, who had 9 wives, and Aretas went to battle over a marital affair and Herod after being defeated vowed to have the head of Aretas sent to him after Aretas was killed.
In the very next section of the same chapter, Josephus claimed that the people believed Herod lost the battle because he had executed John the Baptist, who was a just man and only baptisted people as a purification ritual. Herod's reason for executuing John was that he John was very popular and Herod feared there would be an uprising against him.

There is no mention whatsoever of Jesus in relation to John the Baptist by Josephus.

Now in Mark 6:16-30, the author of Mark names the same character but gives another reason for his execution.

Now, it is claimed that the author of Mark was not a Jew and is not familiar with the geography of the area, therefore he must have used some source for the geography of the area and the history of John the Baptist. The author of Mark basically does not provide any more information about John the Baptist than Josephus.

See 'Antiquities of the Jews' book XVIII chapter 5.1-2
at http://wesley.nnu.edu/biblical_studi...hus/ant-18.htm

Could it be that the works of Josephus was 'Q'?

Riverwind

No, because 'Q' is the material common to Matthew and Luke but absent from Mark.

Claimed by whom?

aa5874

I think some have claimed 'Q' is pre-Markan.

See http://religioustolerance.org/chr_ntb1.htm#gosp_q



Claimed by whom?[/QUOTE]

See http://www.vexen.co.uk/religion/mark.html

Riverwind

Pre-Markan...sure. Proto-Markan (which I think is your claim), no.

Oh...the "Bane of Monotheism".

spin

The important issue was that the materials that made up Q were mainly saying that the other gospels attributed to Jesus. This material isn't in Josephus. Whether Q was pre-Marcan or not is irrelevant, though possible.


spin

spamandham

In Mark, Jesus 'predicts' his own death via the symbolic language about the fall of the temple. This story seems to be integral rather than a later add-on, so I think it proves that Mark was written after 70 CE.

I also think this passage...

...is proof that the story was written as a mystical work of fiction. I see this as the author telling insiders the truth via the words of Jesus. From this perspective then, when Jesus proclaims "it is finished", the author is alluding to the end of the old violent ways, and the dawn of a new age (which ties in mystically with the new age of Pisces). I don't think it makes sense to proclaim that unless the Jewish uprising was near an end - around the middle of the 2nd century.

neilgodfrey

Some narrative material in Q, such as that relating to John the Baptist, is found in Mark, and on this basis it is sometimes suggested that the author of Mark may have heard of Q's contents. (But Q is meant to be essentially a "sayings" document.)

As for the the author of Mark knowing of the John the Baptist episode in Josephus, I like to keep in mind Zindler's 5 points (some stronger than others) for suspecting JB to be an interpolation in Josephus:

1. Antiquities 18.5.2, the JB passage, reads like an intrusion between paragraphs 1 and 3 which, together, are discussing the dispute between Aretas and Herod. (Contra Zindler it may be said that without footnote options digressions were the only option for including "footnote" material -- so the question may be to ask if this is the more likely place for such a "digression".);
2. Just 2 sentences before the JB passage Josephus expressed his understanding that Macherus (the place of JB's imprisonment) was not under the jurisdiction of Herod -- contra the statement in the JB passage;
3. While the JB passage in Josephus (Ant.18.5.2) gives the death of JB as the reason for Herod's divine punishment, elsewhere (18.7.2) Josephus gives a different reason for divine punishment - his listening to a woman seeking greater ambition through an appeal to the emperor;
4. JB is not mentioned in Josephus's discussions of Herod in his other work, Wars;
5. The ancient Greek table of contents for Josephus's Antiquities lacks reference to JB but JB is included in the later index for the Latin version.

Zindler, pp.98-99

So IF the JB passage was a subsequent interpolation in Josephus (albeit not by a "proto-orthodox" christian -- and there were man IF Mark was indebted to Josephus), then this is another support for a very late date for Mark, and given Markan priority, the rest of the gospels.

Your observation that the Josephus passage singles out the corpseless head of the enemy of Herod is an interesting shadow in the dark suggestive of Mark's story. I have discussed elsewhere another set of "shadows in the dark" flitting between Josephus and Mark.

It might be too soon to conclude that Mark knew Josephus, but it's worth keeping in mind these little possible clues in the meantime.

Neil Godfrey

http://vridar.wordpress.com

JoeWallack

JW:
My own Jewrassic Pork Thread here is moving to the conclusion that "Mark" was written by a Jewish/Christian in Rome c. 70's as a Reaction to and heavily influenced by Josephus' classics published in Rome shortly before (allah Hengel).

The steps:

1) The Jewrassic Pork story consists primarily of the Impossible so it can not be Historical.

2) Regarding Mark's intent, the use of Gerasenes as the setting does not fit the geographical requirements of the story so "Mark" did not intend a Historical story.

3) Prominent Fictional pieces of "Mark's" story can be found in Josephus' Historical account of the battles of Gerasa/Gadara:

1) Gerasa - An especially noteworthy town as it was built by Rome, was populated mainly by Gentiles, was temporarily controlled by the Jewish rebels and was an important conquest on the way to Jerusalem. Also, a major rebel leader, Simon, was from Gerasa.

2) Legion - This name for the Demon is especially telling as it is also the primary name for units of Roman soldiers.

3) Pigs - Using pigs is telling as this would be the primary animal Jews associated with Gentiles. Also, one of the conquering Legions had a Boar as it's standard.

4) Two thousand - This is close to a casualty figure from the Historical Gadara conquest (twenty-two hundred).

5) Drowned - In the Historical Gadara campaign the most horrific method of suffering and execution was drowning.

By an Act of Providence the Theme here goes reMarkably well with Petrnoy's Complaint about abuse of Historical Methodology. We can go through Christian commentary after commentary Ad Nazorean for the Jewrassic Pork story with a one Way effort to find History. But going the other Way, allah Hengel, to find not History is rarer than Gordon Gecko's interest in Annacott Steal.

Since we can be certain that any Impossible story is not History and since the use of "Gerasenes" is evidence that "Mark" did not intend history, we should be looking for a non Historical explanation. Step 4, the Peace de Jewish Resistance:

4) Josephus may have been the most famous Jew of his time and the most famous Jew in Rome shortly after 70 as well as possibly the most interesting Jew in Rome to a Jewish Christian at that time. Whatever Josephus wrote in Rome at that time regarding the Jewish War probably would have been fascinating to a Jewish Christian in Rome at the time.

For a Jewish Christian in Rome at the time looking for material for a non Historical story set in 1st century Israel that would be of interest to fellow Jewish Christians in Rome at the time, Josephus would be a valuable source.

"Mark" than is a Commentary on the Jewish Rebellion and Roman Conquest. Israel made a mistake by choosing the rebellion of BarAbbas over the Peace of Jesus. The Jews of "Mark" (including the Disciples) do not see this but the Roman centurion (understand Dear Reader?) at the end does.

And in an Irony that I think the author of "Mark" would really appreciate, "Mark's" Jesus did end up peacefully conquering Rome.

Note how much better we can explain the W's of "Mark" with this theory than that "Mark" was written by Peter's Interpreter:

1) Who - Latin Jewish/Christian.

2) What - Commentary and Spin on the Historical Roman conquest of Israel.

3) Where - Rome.

4) When - c. 70s

5) Why - Promotion of peaceful Jewish conquest of Rome through Jesus as opposed to historically failed Rebellion.



Josephus

STORY, n.
A narrative, commonly untrue. The truth of the stories here following has, however, not been successfully impeached.

http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php/Main_Page

spamandham

I have to say, I really enjoyed reading this post. Are you always this witty?

At any rate, I find this idea intriguing. I've managed to just about convince myself that Mark is a symbolic story, set to passages of the Old Testament, with Jesus representing Israel. But it isn't completely cohesive. There are bits and pieces of pagan symbolism thrown in that make me think it's an attempt to syncretize paganism and Judaism, but a political commentary is much more compelling I think. I wonder how much of the rest of Mark falls in line with your idea.

aa5874

But this implies that John the Baptist was executed before the feud between Aretas and Herod. In book18:5.1, it is claimed that Aretas had jurisdiction over Macherus, so if Herod had John the Baptist executed in Macherus, it would mean that Herod and Aretas were not foes then.

And even if it is claimed that passage on John the Baptist was an interpolation in Josephus, Herod, in Josephus wanted the head of Aretas, head of the father of one of his wives, the king of Arabia at the time.

This interpolation in Josephus, if it was one at all, still contradicts the story of the execution of John the Baptist in Mark.

It appears to me that that John the Baptist may have been executed before Herod went to Rome and before he met Herodias. Perhaps the author of Mark did err in his chronology of John the Baptist.