aa5874

Your post is just laughable. We have gMark and we have the writings of Josephus.

It is the evidence that determines when gMark was written. You seem to think that gMark must, must be assumed to be written in the 1st century no matter what the evidence shows.

That is NOT how investigations are carried out.

If you want to maintain your assumptions regardless of evidence then it does NOT make any sense for anyone to examine the writings of Josephus.

We are engaged in a serious discussion.

Whether or NOT you think gMark used Josephus we still see that Josephus did NOT acknowledge any Jesus story up to the END of the 1st century.

We still see that Suetonius, Tacitus and Pliny did NOT mention that Christians used gMark and those very writers did NOT claim that they knew of gMark or any Gospel.

No Gospel story called gMark has been found and DATED by Paleography or by scientific means to the 1st century.

We can no longer accept imagination as evidence so you MUST provide DATED sources by Paleography or scientific means.

There was NO gMark in the 1st century, NONE, based on the Abundance of evidence.

We are done with IMAGINATION evidence.

It is completely unheard of and quite illogical to assume gMark was written in the 1st century and then only use evidence that matches your assumption.

maryhelena

And talking of fiction - what historical evidence is there that Jesus son of Ananias is a historical figure? None that I know of...The only historical record of a prophetic figure around 70 c.e. is Josephus (or whoever it is writing under that name...). Why think that creating fictional characters for a storyline is something reserved only for the gospel writers?

my bolding

Grog

Could you elaborate on why find it unlikely? If you could, please consider Wheedon's case authoritive here, not my musings on something I noticed while reading Josephus.

I agree that Mark's use of Josephus would not upset the traditional timeline, too much. 80's would be reasonable, 90's perhaps more so. AA did make a case for use of Antiquities, though I think it is a weaker case.

Grog

Jesus be Ananias need not be an historical figure to serve Mark's purpose. Also, Josephus' reliability is irrelevant. For this, all one has to do is demonstrate that there is literary dependence. unless one wants to argue that josephus used Mark.

maryhelena

Well, methinks the literary dependence has been shown - what now?

The gospel writers used Josephus' War (75 c.e.) re Jesus ben Ananias but backdated their JC storyline to pre-70 c.e.? Whether Jesus ben Ananias is, as you say, historical or ahistorical, is irrelevant to the literary dependence. However, the backdating from 75 c.e. (if this figure in War is ahistorical) to 30 c.e. begs the question of Why?

Surely, the more interesting question is - if gMark and gJohn were written pre-70 c.e. - why has the Josephan writer used the gospel JC model - or to be charitable - used the apocalyptic element of that gospel JC figure, for his own Jesus apocalyptic figure. Particularly is this question of interest because of the apocalyptic language put into the mouth of that gospel JC. One could well see the Josephan Jesus figure as gospel JC's prophecy fulfilled.....Back dating the Jesus ben Ananias model makes no sense - updating the gospel JC model makes sense...

The relationship between the gospel writers and the writing of Josephus should not be underestimated...:constern01:

aa5874

When one does an investigation into the time period when gMark was written the traditional timeline cannot be maintained or else there is NO need for any probe.

What is the point in doing an investigation hoping NEVER to upset the traditional view??

We cannot assume some date for gMark and then ONLY look for evidence that satisfies that assumption.

It is the evidence from antiquity that will ultimately determine the time period gMark was likely written NOT tradition.

Now, all non-apologetic sources like Tacitus, Suetonius, Josephus and Pliny the younger did NOT mention gMark and there is NO dated text of gMark, by paleography or scientific means, to the 1st century.

The traditional view CANNOT be accepted. It is based on Faith.

The writings of Josephus do contain clues that suggest the author of gMark used the works of Josephus.

1. Josephus lived in Galilee and Jerusalem.

2. There are characters in Josephus called Jesus.

3. A Character called Jesus son of Ananus ONLY in Antiquities c 93 CE acted in similar manner to Jesus in gMark when he was on trial.

4. Another character Jesus son of Sapphias was the leader of mariners and poor people ONLY in Life of Josephus c 96 CE and in gMark the disciples of Jesus were fishermen and the poor.

5. In Life of Josephus c 96 CE, ALONE, three men were crucified and one survived and this is also found in gMark.

6. John the Baptist is found ONLY in Antiquities c 93 CE and in gMark.

The names of the main characters, similar events and geographical location of the gMark story are ONLY found together in Josephus.

What is the evidence for the traditional view--NOTHING but Faith.

We cannot continue to maintain FAITH on BC&H.

It would seem this forum has been taken over by those who do NOT want to UPSET the traditional FAITH values and are NO longer interested in evidence.

Grog

ok. well, you have to let me think about this. Or you could, anyway.

maryhelena

Try this idea: The apocalyptic was a later addition to the JC storyboard. An addition post 70 c.e. So, in that case, yes, the Jesus ben Ananias apocalyptic model was backdated on to the gospel JC story. However, consider a Jesus story without the apocalyptic element. Remove what is, to some NT scholars, the defining characteristic of the gospel JC figure - that he was an apocalyptic prophet - and maybe we have cleared the search field, for early christian origins, of some 'rubble'....

Keep in mind that the wonder-doer story in Slavonic Josephus does not have this figure as an apocalyptic prophet....

In other words: The Jesus story had an update after 70 c.e. Thus, dating that gospel JC story via the update is to shortchange ones search for early christian origins.

outhouse

well its obvious there was oral tradition and it starts out small and grows exponetially in mythical content.


I had a little epiphany tonight regarding the spreading of this legend.


the temple incident in which a man fights the oppressive roman taxation infected in the temple, standing up for 400,000 witnessed hard working peasant jews, martyred for his attempt to fight against the roman infection in gods very house!

would have exploded the oral tradition in which mythology attracted to the legend faster then the reality of the matter.


It could be all we have thats original, less a few of his close followers [inner circle] versions that wasnt wiped out by paul persecuting the movement, and what literature didnt find a roman fire, and then a few strands that made it to about 400 ad when the movement strickly in judaism died and was burned by Constantine

MrMacSon

Yes, a tradition of telling stories; many of the most popular ones based on the old testament prophecies eg. Isiah

Now its Paul's fault there is not enough "originals"?? :constern01:

"One time, at band-camp ..."