Freethought & Rationalism Archive

spin · 11-09-2008, 04:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Clivedurdle

Using Occam, does Q become an unnecessary complication if Josephus and Roman political objectives are factored in to the process that led to the creation of the gospels?

Josephus has nothing directly to do with the gospel. It is merely a source that has preserved a form of a story, of which we may be seeing another form in the gospels.

spin

mountainman · 11-09-2008, 04:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Quote:

Originally Posted by Clivedurdle

Using Occam, does Q become an unnecessary complication if Josephus and Roman political objectives are factored in to the process that led to the creation of the gospels?

Josephus has nothing directly to do with the gospel. It is merely a source that has preserved a form of a story, of which we may be seeing another form in the gospels.

Dear spin,

Doesn't this simply add more weight to the notion that the gospels were written (some time) after Josephus? Also that whoever wrote the gospels had reasonable access to, and performed some detailed analysis of the greek works of Josephus, somewhere in the empire, for purposes unknown?

Best wishes,

Pete

neilgodfrey · 11-10-2008, 05:14 AM

Why would Mark refer to a "river" as a "sea"?

Neil Godfrey

the_cave · 11-10-2008, 07:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by neilgodfrey

Why would Mark refer to a "river" as a "sea"?

Neil Godfrey

That's a very interesting question, and to me strongly suggests that Mark at least was not using this passage directly--and hence had no reason to use "Gadara". The river was surely the Yarmuk river (as from what I can tell Gadara was in fact much closer to the Yarmuk than the Sea of Galilee). Mark is well-known for not having a very coherent sense of geography, and I see no reason to assume this is not just another example. There are other passages in Josephus, btw, that this has been compared to, so I am guessing that if there is any relationship between this story and some Roman assault or other--direct, indirect, symbolic, or otherwise--it is very non-specific. That is, Mark had no interest in speaking of Gadara specifically--he probably picked "the country of Gerasa" (assuming that is even the correct reading, which is probable but not certain) arbitrarily to talk about the location of the exorcism. The rest of it was hearsay. Matthew, on the other hand, may have had an interest in "correcting" Mark, and moving the location to somewhere more plausibly near the sea. (Though if Matthew were reading from Josephus, he again didn't do a very good job of correcting, since--as Neil points out--the Gadarenes run into the river, not the sea. My sense is just that Matthew is familiar with Gadara, whether from Josephus or elsewhere, and made the change to "improve" Mark.)

Diogenes the Cynic · 11-10-2008, 03:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Quote:

Originally Posted by andrewcriddle

One problem is that Mark (probably) has the incident occur at Gerasa not Gadara. The location in Mark is (probably) the original one for the story.

You're back to your "probably" opinions again! The Josephus material might tip the Marcan evidence away from Gerasa. You can understand Gadara being corrected to Gerasa due to the difficulties of location. The sea is a lot further from Gadara, so Gadara may be a lectio difficilior. Josephus could explain why Gadara in the first place. The hypothesis would be: the Marcan writing with Gadara was used by Matt, then it was changed to the more "reasonable" Gerasa, used by Luke.

spin

You have this backwards. As you can see from the map, Gedara is much closer to the sea than Gerasa, which is probably why Matthew changed it.

The oldest manuscripts of Mark say Gerasa, and the argument for Gerasa being the Marcan original is further bolstered by its retention in Luke.

I think that your question is interesting, but not really supported by the earliest MS evidence. If you're looking for evidence of Josephan influence on Mark, I think the Jesus ben Aananias (Jewish Wars 6:5:3) is much more intriguing.

spin · 11-10-2008, 04:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Diogenes the Cynic

You have this backwards.

Yup. You're right. My mistake.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Diogenes the Cynic

I think that your question is interesting, but not really supported by the earliest MS evidence. If you're looking for evidence of Josephan influence on Mark, I think the Jesus ben Aananias (Jewish Wars 6:5:3) is much more intriguing.

I am not looking for Josephan influence on Mark at all. In my mind there obviously wasn't any. Josephus merely preserves an event, probably via Nicolaos, that seems to lie behind the Gadarene swine, a tradition preserved by Mark.

Code:

                 |
                 | -->  Nicolaos of Damascus (before the death of Herod)
                 |      --> Josephus c.100CE
Historical event |
                 | -->  word-of-mouth preservation
                 |      -->  tradition
                 |           -->  enters christian tradition and re-elaborated
                 |                --> presented in Mark

spin

Ben C Smith · 11-10-2008, 04:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

I am not looking for Josephan influence on Mark at all. In my mind there obviously wasn't any. Josephus merely preserves an event, probably via Nicolaos, that seems to lie behind the Gadarene swine, a tradition preserved my Mark.

I think you keep running into the same problem on this board, spin; a lot of posters seem to be, for whatever reason, rootedly opposed to the idea of an oral tradition of some kind lying behind the gospel records. Any and all similarities, no matter what stripe, tend to be attributed to direct literary influence.

Ben.

Diogenes the Cynic · 11-10-2008, 05:39 PM

I'm not opposed to it. I just misunderstood.

Ben C Smith · 11-10-2008, 05:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Diogenes the Cynic

I'm not opposed to it. I just misunderstood.

Actually, I did not even have you in mind (I frankly do not know enough about your views to read you one way or another on this matter), despite the proximity of your remarks to what I said to spin. Reading back, I can certainly see how my remark seemed aimed at you, and for that I apologize.

Ben.

neilgodfrey · 11-10-2008, 11:31 PM

If Josephus is of interest in this context, so also (especially given the hypothesis that there was a non-Deuteronomist strand of Judaism the Baal/Yahweh-El relationships through to the second temple period, or even a possibility of exorcist practices not changing much over time?) is a Ugaritic incantation for exorcism:

Quote:

I will recite an incantation against the suspect ones;
alone I will overpower . . . .
And may the Sons of Disease turn around,
may the Sons of Disease fly away . . . .
may they beat themselves like the ill of mind!
Go back . . .
The Legion to the Legions,
The Flies to the Flies,
those of the Flood to the Flood

From Incantations I lines 25-30 (p. 179 of An Anthology of Religious Texts from Ugarit by Johannes de Moor, 1987)

The same text notes that Baal was the preferred god for exorcism because of his mastery over the sea and the monsters therein:

Quote:

Baal is the champion of exorcists because he had defeated Sea and Death with their monsters. (p.183)

Neil Godfrey

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

11-10-2008, 05:14 AM	#13
neilgodfrey Senior Member Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: Darwin, Australia Posts: 874	Why would Mark refer to a "river" as a "sea"? Neil Godfrey

11-10-2008, 05:39 PM	#18
Diogenes the Cynic Moderator - Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: Twin Cities, Minnesota Posts: 4,639	I'm not opposed to it. I just misunderstood.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.