maryhelena

What I'm interested in doing is tracing the gospel storyline back as far as it can go - back to the minimum core elements of the storyline. And, as far as I can see, that backward tracing leads to the material regarding JtB and the wonder-worker in Slavonic Josephus.

Consider these points made by Joseph Hofffmann:

aa5874

Are you not the one who claimed the door is wide open for Slavonic Josephus with respect to the Gospel story line?

And are you not the one who said I should pick what scholars have presented?

Well scholars have claimed that Slavonic Josephus is likely to be a MEDIEVAL writing, that is, from around the 5th century or later and parts may be even interpolated.

The DOOR has been closed on "Slavonic Josephus" as a source for the Gospel storyline.

maryhelena

" ..likely to be a MEDIEVAL writing.."

Great word that - likely

Methinks one needs far more as argument than likely for something to be discarded in the endeavor to trace back the gospel storyline. Lots of things are likely - but that's never the issue - it's exploring all possibilities - not just the ones we might think are likely. Come now, aa5874, the likely argument is the bedrock of the historicists position - and you surely don't want to be blowing their horn...:huh:

maryhelena

Just to get this thread back on topic....

Perhaps your right. The point though would be why? OK, the general scholarly dating structures put the gospel writing after Paul. Hence, Paul would be unaware of, at that time, of the later developments regarding the gospel storyline re baptism of JC by JtB. However, as aa5874 is often remarking upon - Paul knows something, others were prior to Paul. Question is what does Paul know at the time he is writing. Slavonic Josephus could provide some suggestions.

All Paul needs for his Jesus story, ie a story about a death that could be viewed in some sense as having some redemptive significance, is contained with the material that is now within Slavonic Josephus: One man ‘sacrificed’ to save the rest.

A scenario, of course, that is later taken up in the gospel of John.

As to the baptism issue re Paul. aa5874 has pointed out re 2 Kings 5 and Elisha and Naaman. Water was believed to contain some healing power. Spiritualizing this as ‘living water’, for instance, would raise the bar re baptism - from a purely literal to a spiritual/psychological type activity. A development found in the gospel of John - and also, of course, the miracle of turning water into wine - water taking on a whole new significance or identity. JtB, in Slavonic Josephus, is simply updating, developing, this OT storyline re the waters of the Jordan and their healing properties.

The Slavonic Josephus storyline re JtB and the wonder-worker keeps these two characters separate. A scenario that could go some way in discerning just where Paul is coming from re his own storyline having no reference to JtB. Only in the gospels are these two figures connected. So, while Paul could well know the Slavonic Josephus storyline re the crucified wonder-worker - he has not indicated, in his own writing, that, at that time he wrote, the gospel storyline connecting JtB and the crucified wonder-worker had been made. Hence, Paul is able to use baptism any which way he wanted, without being confined by the JtB and JC connection of the gospel storyline.

Storyline wise, it seems to make more sense to see developments from Slavonic Josephus to Paul and then to the gospels and their big connection re JtB and JC. Rather a developing storyline than the historicists starting point of JtB baptizing JC - and Paul showing no interest in this major event. An event that the gospels themselves seem to want to indicate some theological embarrassment about...

Chili

Bolding is mine

Good catch maryhelena wherefore I hold that Jesus died for the sins of his forefathers to wipe the slate clean with regard to Jewish tradition out of which Christ was born in effort to lay the foundation for a new religion that is severed from the Jewish lineage to make it like a grafted branch on Judaism . . . wherefore I hold that there was no water to baptise with because there was no lineage to lean on in the new religion.

You do not realize that it is better for you that one man die for the people than that the whole nation perish.”

The above line is significant as it shows that Judiasm was in trouble in that too many people were stuck in Galilee and were actually happy to be there instead of Jerusalem-on-hign simply because they did not know any better. It was like a great charismatic revival 'there' as we recently have known with Billy Graham in charge in that he made nothing but empty promises wherein one must die before anything good will happen to us (and sing 'patient endurance songs' when our patience runs thin like water instead of blood).

This then is why I wrote that 'there was no water' (read lineage) to baptize with for those new NT people with no OT allegiance other than its root in Genesis where we come 'full circle' in Christ who's onw lineage went right back to God instead of Matthews forefathers.

PhilosopherJay

Hi Maryhelena,

I'm not convinced at all that any of the letters of Paul suggest any knowledge of anything in Josephus.

In Slavonic Josephus there is the implication that Jesus is plotting revolution and that the high priests will be killed themselves if Jesus isn't turned over. In John 11.46-50, the implication is that Jesus is practicing magic and the whole Jewish nation will be destroyed if it is not stopped. It seems apparent that the author of one copied the idea from the other.

Paul's idea of Jesus dying to redeem souls seems more connected to a story of Jesus going to Hades to bring back souls of the dead with him. It seems to follow more gnostic or Marcionic principles than anything in either version of Josephus.

The Eusebean insertions into Josephus do not mention John's baptism of Jesus because Eusebeus is simply interested in proving that Josephus thought they were good, innocent men and they died by conspiracy of the top government officials. His whole Church History is about top government officials putting good, innocent men to death. One suspects that he was in fear for his life when writing the book and expected to become another good, innocent man killed by top government officials.

Warmly,

Philosopher Jay

stephan huller

We always have to be careful to avoid falling into the trap of establishing history solely through the surviving textual evidence. The pious do this with regards to the New Testament canon obviously to the detriment of their understanding of the reality of historical situation at the beginning of Christianity. Yet speculative scholars and non-believers often fall into the same trap with regards to Josephus especially. Josephus is a minefield. Once you hear that synergoi were brought into 'help' with the manufacture of history - buyer beware. It is curious that the same terminology is used in the Pastoral Epistles and related pseudo-historical testimonies of early Christianity possibly opening the door to a common author or authors.

Chili

But one must be careful in evaluating the mind of Paul who was omnisient as gnostic in that he had noetic vision instead of lyric vision (with its foot in the mouth) like Marcion and so these two are not equal and Paul would never lean on Marcion to make his point.

In Paul's version of the netherworld visit is to set free the lineage of John that was said to be barren in Luke and did show patronage in John's Cana event as the efficient cause and material cause respectively that Paul here now presents in motion. Remember here that after [Judeah] spilled its guts there was no longer anything conceiled inside Judaism and therefore not even a single fish caugth on 'that' side of Peter's mind on that post resurrection fishing trip.

So the destruction of Judaism was not magic and was real in the mind of Jesus but may have be perceived as magic by the Jews that so caused the crucifixion of Jesus from which the liberation of Christian(ity) followed with the liberation of Jesus' bosom buddy' called John who emerged from the [old] 'water' first in Luke and later is juxtaposed with Paul's image in Rev.13 1-10 and Marcion's image of Rev.1:11-17).

maryhelena

Or anything from the gospel story either? What is fundamental to both the writing of Paul, the gospels and the wonder-worker story in Slavonic Josephus, is the crucifixion element. Is there a connection between these three stories? Sure, details may vary - but that is only to be expected, a basic template allows for developments of the storyline. Paul has taken a spiritual or intellectualizing interpretation. The gospels developed the story with connecting JtB with JC. And possibly, in the gospel of Mark conflated two Slavonic Josephus stories of JtB.

Mark ch.6

14 King Herod heard about this, for Jesus’ name had become well known. Some were saying, “John the Baptist has been raised from the dead, and that is why miraculous powers are at work in him.”
15 Others said, “He is Elijah.”
And still others claimed, “He is a prophet, like one of the prophets of long ago.”
16 But when Herod heard this, he said, “John, whom I beheaded, has been raised from the dead!”
17 For Herod himself had given orders to have John arrested, and he had him bound and put in prison.

Hearing this, Herod was enraged and ordered
him to be beaten and thrown out. He, however,
did not cease but wherever he encountered
Herod spoke thus (and) accused him
until he put him in a dungeon.

17 He did this because of Herodias, his brother Philip’s wife, whom he had married. 18 For John had been saying to Herod, “It is not lawful for you to have your brother’s wife.”19 So Herodias nursed a grudge against John and wanted to kill him. But she was not able to,
20 because Herod feared John and protected him, knowing him to be a righteous and holy man. When Herod heard John, he was greatly puzzled; yet he liked to listen to him.

And when he was brought before
Archelaus and the experts of the Law were
assembled, they asked him who he was and
where he had been up till then...
Thus he spoke and left for the other side of the
Jordan. And as no one dared to prevent him,
he was doing what he had done before”

The gospel of Matthew (ch.14) makes no mention of Herod the tetrarch (Antipas) having a favourable impression of JtB, indicating that this account is not endeavouring to conflate the two accounts from Slavonic Josephus as is the gospel of Mark.

Yes, as Stephan Huller says, Josephus is a minefield - so one does need 'protective' headgear around his writing - sometimes it's just necessary to talk to ones enemy...

aa5874

There are only "minefields" in Josephus when John the Baptist, Jesus called Christ and James whose brother was called Christ were mentioned.

It is NOT coincidence that the so-called "minefields" are about NT characters.