Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Dean Anderson · 03-20-2007, 05:48 AM

Reading the Atwill's Caesar's Messiah thread, I came across this post, where Robert Price is quoted as follows:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robert Price

Unaware of the work of Theodore J. Weeden, Atwill traces out the numerous striking parallels between the Passion story of Jesus Christ and the Josephus story of Jesus ben-Ananias, his interrogation by the Sanhedrin and the Roman procurator, his predictions of Jerusalem’s destruction, and his flogging and eventual death, suggesting the two Jesuses are one and the same. (It is too bad the rest of Atwill’s parallels are not similarly compelling, even plausible.) But surely, as Weeden argues, the explanation is that Mark simply borrowed the story from Josephus.

Not wanting to touch the Atwill thread with a barge-pole, I thought I'd start a new thread to inquire about this...

Can anyone tell me more about Weeden's hypothesis?

Is it that the author of Mark got many of his biographical details from Josephus, or merely bits of the Passion story?

Is this a mainstream hypothesis, or is it on the fringes?

hatsoff · 03-20-2007, 06:43 AM

This is the first I've heard of Weeden's hypothesis, so my reasoning here will definitely be simplistic, but perhaps it will give you something to think about. Jesus ben-Ananias died shortly before the Jewish War, apparently in 62 AD (how accurate the date is I have no idea). Mark probably wrote some time between 66 and 75 AD. If his Gospel has parallels to Jesus ben-Ananias' life, the likely explanation is that he knew of it through channels other than Josephus. To show a reliance on Josephus, it would be best if not necessary to find a documentary connection--IE, borrowed language.

Toto · 03-20-2007, 08:08 AM

Weeden is credentialled at least. He proposed his parallels between the Passion and the Josephus story in some posts to Crosstalk, which he later gave as a talk to a Westar meeting. His thesis was that the author of the Passion got some details of the Passion from Josephus, but I don't think that it was extended to any other biographical details.

I can't seem to find a reference to the talk, but there is this summary from Neil Godfrey:

http://members.dodo.com.au/~neilgodfrey/2jesus.htm

gstafleu · 03-20-2007, 08:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

I can't seem to find a reference to the talk, but there is this summary from Neil Godfrey:

http://members.dodo.com.au/~neilgodfrey/2jesus.htm

That's an interesting page. When looking for an HJ, Jesus ben Ananias seems like a good candidate. Any ideas anyone why he is not incessantly presented thus by committed HJers?

Gerard Stafleu

Ben C Smith · 03-20-2007, 09:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gstafleu

That's an interesting page. When looking for an HJ, Jesus ben Ananias seems like a good candidate. Any ideas anyone why he is not incessantly presented thus by committed HJers?

Because the date is too late. The genuine writings of the apostle Paul predate Jesus ben Ananias by a decade or two and already tell of a Jesus who inaugurated a ritual meal, was crucified, and was raised from the dead. If anything from the Jesus ben Ananias story has crept into Christian tradition, it is on the level of details. This account cannot be the constituting story of the Christian faith.

Ben.

MortalWombat · 03-20-2007, 09:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ben C Smith

If anything from the Jesus ben Ananias story has crept into Christian tradition, it is on the level of details.

Perhaps this is how the mythical Christ and the historical Jesus ended up merging into one person.

gstafleu · 03-20-2007, 09:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ben C Smith

Because the date is too late. The genuine writings of the apostle Paul predate Jesus ben Ananias by a decade or two

Is the dating of the genuine epistles really that precise?

Gerard Stafleu

Malachi151 · 03-20-2007, 09:21 AM

I said something similar in my book.

Quote:

What I argue for is position 6, with perhaps minor influences from positions 5 and 7, though I would say that any anecdotes that may have been applied to Jesus are completely secondary to the mythical character and that they had no influence on the existence of the story itself, perhaps only adding to an already existing character that originated in the mythical realm. In other words, perhaps some anecdotes were attached to the myth, but not the other way around. An example of this might be the possible use of anecdotes about Jesus son of Ananias by the Gospel writers, though this would have had no bearing on the Jesus Christ of Paul. Jesus son of Ananias was mentioned by the Jewish historian Josephus as a raving maniac who predicted impending doom shortly prior to the outbreak of the Jewish War with Rome that ended with the destruction of Judea in 70 CE. Josephus' description of this Jesus has many similarities with the "Signs of the End of the Age".

The author of Mark wouldn't have had to have used Josephus, he only needed to have heard something about ben Ananias.

Niall Armstrong · 03-20-2007, 11:28 AM

So are we to imagine that Mark (and perhaps some or all of a Q-community) remembering this Jeshua son of Ananias and his prophesies (oracles?), and among themselves saying “He was right about the Temple!” Somehow this was conflated with Paul’s mythological Jesus, and we got GMark.
Or is Q really the work of this Jesus, and his followers? And AMark one of these that saw the chance to make a good story? This still grates against the "Jews don't make Gods of men" problem....

Malachi151 · 03-20-2007, 11:39 AM

No, I wouldn't think that the author of Mark would have confused anything like that, it was perhaps just an inspiration for his story line. I'm pretty darn certain that "Mark" was purposefully writing fiction.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

03-20-2007, 06:43 AM	#2
hatsoff Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: Rockford, IL Posts: 740	This is the first I've heard of Weeden's hypothesis, so my reasoning here will definitely be simplistic, but perhaps it will give you something to think about. Jesus ben-Ananias died shortly before the Jewish War, apparently in 62 AD (how accurate the date is I have no idea). Mark probably wrote some time between 66 and 75 AD. If his Gospel has parallels to Jesus ben-Ananias' life, the likely explanation is that he knew of it through channels other than Josephus. To show a reliance on Josephus, it would be best if not necessary to find a documentary connection--IE, borrowed language.

03-20-2007, 08:08 AM	#3
Toto Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Los Angeles area Posts: 40,549	Weeden is credentialled at least. He proposed his parallels between the Passion and the Josephus story in some posts to Crosstalk, which he later gave as a talk to a Westar meeting. His thesis was that the author of the Passion got some details of the Passion from Josephus, but I don't think that it was extended to any other biographical details. I can't seem to find a reference to the talk, but there is this summary from Neil Godfrey: http://members.dodo.com.au/~neilgodfrey/2jesus.htm

03-20-2007, 11:28 AM	#9
Niall Armstrong Junior Member Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: Norway's Bible Belt Posts: 85	So are we to imagine that Mark (and perhaps some or all of a Q-community) remembering this Jeshua son of Ananias and his prophesies (oracles?), and among themselves saying “He was right about the Temple!” Somehow this was conflated with Paul’s mythological Jesus, and we got GMark. Or is Q really the work of this Jesus, and his followers? And AMark one of these that saw the chance to make a good story? This still grates against the "Jews don't make Gods of men" problem....

03-20-2007, 11:39 AM	#10
Malachi151 Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: Colorado Posts: 8,674	No, I wouldn't think that the author of Mark would have confused anything like that, it was perhaps just an inspiration for his story line. I'm pretty darn certain that "Mark" was purposefully writing fiction.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.