PhilosopherJay

Hi Aquila Pacis,

Interesting points. Thanks.

I'm not sure about #4, specifically that there were any original events to be known. For example, with the "Superman" story, we have numerous similar retellings of the origin of Superman story without any actual events.

Warmly,

Philosopher Jay

Aquila Pacis

Please elaborate; what do you mean by "Superman story"?

Rick Van Vliet

There are virtually no John sayings parallels/Cf's in Mark, never more than 2 in a row, then, all of a sudden, the last 10 sayings in Mark are also in John.

One copied the ending from the other, or they both got it from the same common source. A different source than the rest of the narrative.

PhilosopherJay

Hi Aquila Pacis,

A baby sent from the exploding scientifically advanced planet Krypton lands on Earth and is adopted by a farm family. He soon learns that he has extraordinary superpowers far beyond those of mortals.

The gospels are birth announcements, but I believe they were intended to be merely the birth announcement of the Kingdom of God, not the birth announcement of any person.

What we have in the passion narrative is a death story. If it was based on an actual event or is just a literary construct meant to make a moral point, (or some mixture of the two) is difficult to know.

Warmly,

Philosopher Jay

PhilosopherJay

Hi Rick,

This is interesting. Are the last 10 parallel to all the synoptics or just Mark? It might also be that some one was trying to make the John text closer to the synoptics and/or Mark.

Warmly,

Philosopher Jay

maryhelena

Philosopher Jay, have you considered the ‘wonder-doer’, Jesus storyline, in Slavonic Josephus?

Could it be that the time difference between gJohn and gMark is an echo of the Jesus storyboard in Slavonic Josephus? A storyboard in which the ‘wonder-doer’ appears before Pilate - and is set free. Later the Jews bribe Pilate with the 30 talents and Pilate then gives permission for the Jews to crucify Jesus. Hence perhaps a second arrest. Thus the appearance of two days between GJohn and GMark i.e. the 6th hour and back to the 3rd hour - could be an indication of two separate storylines that have been combined in the gospels. Interestingly, the basic storyboard in Slavonic Josephus has, like GJohn, no curtain ripping or other ‘signs’ at the crucifixion.

The ‘extras’ are added later in Slavonic Josephus. Page 262 being the crucifixion story and page 487 the ‘extra’s are added. Page numbers from the following book - “Josephus' Jewish war and its Slavonic version: a synoptic comparison. ( By Flavius Josephus, Henry Leeming, Lyubov V. Osinkina) http://books.google.co.za/books?id=g...qhm73v&sig=oOH That the 'extras' and the resurrection are part of a later storyboard in Slavonic Josephus - interesting! After all, if one thinks a bit about it - the dying and rising god storyline is 'pagan' mythology and is rather a questionable addition to a basic Jewish storyboard....

No google view of these two pages unfortunately - other pages available for viewing.

The relevant passages below are from another website. .

http://www.gnosis.org/library/grs-me...tist/gjb-3.htm

Gnostic John the Baptizer:
by G. R. S. Mead


THE MINISTRY, TRIAL AND CRUCIFIXION OF JESUS.

(Follows on B. J. II. ix. 3.)

1. At that time also a man came forward,—if even it is fitting to call him a man [simply].
2. His nature as well as his form were a man's; but his showing forth was more than [that] of a man.
3. His works, that is to say, were godly, and he wrought wonder-deeds amazing and full of power.
4. Therefore it is not possible for me to call him a man [simply].
5. But again, looking at the existence he shared with all, I would also not call him an angel.
6. And all that he wrought through some kind of invisible power, he wrought by word and command.
7. Some said of him, that our first Lawgiver has risen from the dead and shows forth many cures and arts.
8. But others supposed [less definitely] that he is sent by God.
9. Now he opposed himself in much to the Law and did not observe the Sabbath according to ancestral custom.
10. Yet, on the other hand, he did nothing reprehensible nor any crime; but by word solely he effected everything.
11. And many from the folk followed him and received his teachings.
12. And many souls became wavering, supposing that thereby the Jewish tribes would set themselves free from the Roman hands.
13. Now it was his custom often to stop on the Mount of Olives facing the city.
14. And there also he avouched his cures p. 107 to the people.
15. And there gathered themselves to him of servants (Knechten) a hundred and fifty, but of the folk a multitude.
16. But when they saw his power, that he accomplished everything that he would by word, they urged him that he should enter the city and cut down the Roman soldiers and Pilate and rule over us.
17. But that one scorned it.
18. And thereafter, when knowledge of it came to the Jewish leaders, they gathered together with the High-priest and spake: "We are powerless and weak to withstand the Romans.
19. But as withal the bow is bent, we will go and tell Pilate what we have heard, and we will be without distress, lest if he hear it from others, we be robbed of our substance and ourselves be put to the sword and our children ruined."
20. And they went and told it to Pilate.
21. And he sent and had many of the people cut down.
22. And he had that wonder-doer brought up. And when he had instituted a trial concerning him, he perceived that he is a doer of good, but not an evildoer, nor a revolutionary, nor one who aimed at power, and set him free.
23. He had, you should know, healed his dying wife.
24. And he went to his accustomed place and wrought his accustomed works.
25. And as again more folk gathered themselves together round him, then did he win glory through his works more than all.
26. The teachers of the Law were [therefore] envenomed with envy and gave thirty talents to Pilate, in order that he should put him to death.
27. And he, after he had taken [the money], gave them consent that they should themselves carry out their purpose.
28. And they took him and crucified him according to the ancestral law.

PORTENTS AT THE DEATH OF JESUS AND RUMOURS OF HIS RESURRECTION.

(Follows on B. J. V. v. 4, at the end of the description of the Temple-curtain.)

1. This curtain (katapetasma) was prior to this generation entire, because the people were pious; but now it was lamentable to look at.
2. It had, you should know, been suddenly rent from the top to the ground, when they delivered over to death through bribery the doer of good, the man—yea, him who through his doing was no man.
3. And of many other signs they tell which came to pass at that time.
4. And it was said that after he was put to death, yea after burial in the grave, he was not found.
5. Some then assert that he is risen; but others, that he has been stolen by his friends.
6. I, however, do not know which speak more correctly.
7. For a dead man cannot rise of himself—though possibly with the help of another righteous man; unless it (lit. he) will be an angel or another of the heavenly authorities, or God himself appears as a man and accomplishes what he will,—both walks with men and falls, and lies down and rises up, as it is according to his will.
8. But others said that it was not possible to steal him, because they had put guards all round his grave,—thirty Romans, but a thousand Jews.
9. Such [is narrated] as to that curtain (katapetasma). Moreover [as to] the cause of its tearing there are [? various statements].

Toto

Your reference is to Josephus' Jewish War and Its Slavonic Version: A Synoptic Comparison (Arbeiten Zur Geschichte Des Antiken Judentums Und Des Urchristentums, Bd. 46.) (or via: amazon.co.uk)


Googlebooks US link

mountainman

Thanks again for the reference AP. Just a question for you on the fly. Elsewhere you posted that reference to Arius (via Anathasius) using the text which directly echoes Mark Antony’s letter (via Josephus) concerning the "Passion" of Caesar.

Do you see --- in any small measure --- the same "Arius-like overtones" in this section of the Gospel of Nicodemus?

Aquila Pacis

The instances where the divine father is mentioned, plus Jesus as Son of God, being of the Holy Ghost, plus the co-eternal light—which all doesn't seem Arian to me—are only found in the later Latin/Western addition (Jesus' descent into hell). But that doesn't mean that the original Greek/Eastern Acta Pilati (the first part of the Gospel) somehow relate to an Anti-Trinitarian ideology. At first glance I don't see anything in this direction.

Of course this all doesn't change that Arius was essentially correct, when interpreted according to the Caesarian approach: the father [Divus Iulius] did come before the son [Divi filius], i.e. Caesar before Octavian. The declaration of co-eternity was after the fact; it was the Augustan view after Actium superimposed onto the original Antonian view. It's all politics, West against East. For Mark Antony Caesar was to be only an hêrôs, because Octavian had accepted the adoption and began to call himself "Son of God". That's why Antony destroyed the early cult of Caesar and had Amatius executed, that's why at first he didn't inaugurate as highpriest of Divus Iulius, as the senate had originally decreed. These actions would have meant that Caesar is in fact god, it would have acknowledged Octavian's "son of god"-propaganda and sealed his divine (and therefore political) superiority. By delaying his inauguration as flamen, i.e. the final step of Caesar's deification, Antony retained power and influence, especially over the soldiers and veterans of Caesar. And those 1 1/2 decades of Antonian influence until Actium/Alexandria anchored the non-trinitarian view in some places in the East, and it's still there today, fully preserved in Islam.

Side note: There is however a Christian matrilineal trinity, which is not official, but very popular in southern countries: mother of god (Mary), son (Jesus), and the holy spirit. Interestingly it correlates to the original Caesarian triad of Venus Genetrix, Divus Iulius and Clementia Caesaris.

Aquila Pacis

Right and wrong at the same time. "Gospel" (ευαγγελιον) originally is the good news of victory, and it's a term from the imperial cult, as are many other allegedly "Christian" terms. E.g. on the Priene inscription it's first and foremost connected to Augustus ending the wars, being victorious. And it is in fact (as you point out) the announcement of the beginning of the "Empire of God" (kingdom & empire is the same word in Greek). But it's also directly connected to the birth of the son of god (υιoς θεου) Augustus, because that date was declared the beginning of the Priene calendar.

Death and resurrection. You're forgetting the most important thing here. At any rate, it's very prominent especially in the gospels of Mark and John, who give it a lot of room in their narrative.

In the Caesarian approach it is based on actual events, namely the passion of Caesar, his triumphant entry, last supper, death, trial, funeral and resurrection. The morals were only developed from the original history.