la70119

The scrap called Qumran 7Q5 is probably not even from gMark.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/7Q5

You are going to have to do better than that.

la70119

BTW C. Vaticanus is 325-350 CE, C. Sinaiticus 330-360 CE.

I doubt very much that P45, Bobbiensis, Sinaiticus and Vaticanus will demonstrate that gMark was NOT copied after Josephus' Jewish Wars and Antiquities.

After all, you yourself have said,

.

Now if it hasn't changed enough back to P45, what makes you think it's changed enough between P45 and the first (long-lost) copy?

DCHindley

Duv,

Remember that Philo also covered the embassy to Gaius (over the unrest between Jews and gentiles in Alexandria) and the circumstances surrounding his later attempt to erect his statue in the temple at Jerusalem. Since all these things date to no later than 40-41 CE, I do not see why Pilate cannot be mentioned (seeing he was recalled in 36 or 37 CE).

DCH

outhouse

ah cool beans thanks for the correction, I copied from elsewhere



using the oldest Gmark we have still fails to make any connection outside imagination.

la70119

Could that be because the critical passion chapters are missing?

If so, then it appears that it may have followed Slavonic Josephus, or just made it up (and put interpolations into Slavonic Josephus), for the earliest attestations to the crucifixion and who actually did it in the Early Fathers show clearly that:

Justin Martyr, I Apology 35
Lactantius, Divine Institutes IV.18 & 19
Gospel of Peter
Slavonic Josephus Jewish War Bk II

Except it would have to have been done prior to about 175 AD because that's when P75 showed up at the earliest, and it has what is recognizably gLuke's crucifixion account.

Duvduv

David, the fact that Pilate isn't mentioned in the Talmud at all doesn't mean much I guess because it doesn't mention any of the procurators, including the one who served before Pilate when the power of capital punishment was removed by the Romans from the Sanhedrin just over 40 years before the Temple was destroyed as stated in the Jerusalem Talmud, tractate Sanhedrin 41. This does not even mention the names of the Roman leader at the time who would have been Valerius Gratus.

But it does remain a mystery why no one interpolated a sentence or two about Jesus into the writings of Philo as was done in Josephus.

aa5874

Your are a story teller. The oldest complete gMark do show that the author most likely used the Works of Josephus.

Grog

Yes, but that was a musing, I wanted to put it out in a more analytical fashion for discussion.

I would like to see it challenged and I was motivated after reding vridar's blog.

Toto

This theory is most closely associated with Theodore Weeden, who, as I said, is too distinguished to be bashed with charges of parallelomania.

If you search for Weeden in the archives, you will find some prior discussion, such as

Josephus Wars 6 5 3 , with contributions from Neil Godrey and others.

The Source for Jesus' Biography?

Grog

The point of using a criteria is to distinguish between coincidence and dependence.

If you believe that this is a common series of events, please give examples of it occurring in other literature. The point of showing the similarities in structure AND in specific details is to demonstrate exactly that coincidence here is unlikely.

So if you argue coincidence, you have to show that it is a common occurrence.

Remember the sequence:

1. Temple disturbance
2. Arrest by Jewish officials
3. Handed over to Roman Governor
4. Questioned by Roman Governor
5. Killed by Rome

Added to that, note the very clear similarity in detail. When you can come up with examples that are as closely aligned as these two stories are, then I can concede this point.

Pure speculation. You need evidence.

I think this is most likely for the reasons I listed.

If you read the Passion Narrative, you will notice that there are references to OT passages. If Josephus used Mark, he would have to have carefully excised these from his narrative. I think it is more likely that Mark inserted his OT references into the structure that he borrowed from Josephus. Also, if you notice, I added point 12 on Gmatthew, where Jesus gives up the ghost. If we accept 4, we would have to think that Josephus also knew Matthew. OR, Josephus added this to his borrowing of GMark and then GMatt borrowed again from Josephus. The easiest explanation those is that Mark used Josephus. This also fits the pattern, as aa has pointed out, of other occurrences of borrowing from Josephus by GMark, not to mention Acts.

I don't think it likely that the Gospel is based on the character of Jesus ben Ananias. Perhaps part of an amalgam of influences, I would consider more likely. I do believe that this is the second most likely possibility of what you've proposed.

So considering your possibilities, the best explanation as far as I can see is #3, which is the one I proposed.