Toto

Zindler argues that there was a movement around "John", but that this did not necessitate an actual founder, and does not make the description of him accurate. Mythicists have shown astrological significance to all of the details about John.

See this archived thread where I posted this quote from Jospeh Campbell, p. 349 of the trade paperback edition of Occidental Mythology:

Doctor X

Oye!

All you need for a founding figure is a name and a place

to requote a mentor.

That some guy existed that bathed people does not mean any of the descriptions about him are "true." I am not convinced that J the B is an interpolation inserted in Mk--if that is Zindler's argument--for why not interpolate the missing birth narrative, among other things. On the other hand, did Mk have a copy of Boy's Own Lives of the Saints? Probably not. He probably did make up the details, and the demonstration that the details have mythic quality only adds to the argument.

It is a bit like claiming L. Ron Hubbard had an impressive military career . . . the followers like it and they can rationalize it even though it does not exist.

--J.D.

the_cave

Mark 1:14 begins "After John had been arrested..." What's going on here? It would appear that the author assumed the intended readership knew all about John and that he had been arrested. If there was any mythologizing going on about John, it had to have been significantly prior to the writing of Mark.

Again, I'd really have to read Zindler's book before commenting on his arguments.

Toto

Zindler argues that the first part of Mark 1:14, referring to John, is part of the interpolation. He assumes that there was a movement around John that rivaled the Jesus movement, and the interpolations in Mark were done to subordinate their (possibly mythological) John to the Jesus figure.

the_cave

If you've read it, I'm interested to know why he thinks it was an interpolation. What are his grounds/evidence? Is it textual? Linguistic? Codex-based? Or is it just a hypothesis?

Toto

I've started to read it, but other things keep coming up. I think you should get the book yourself - click on the link in the second post.

Basically, Zindler starts off saying that the early Christian church was one giant forgery mill, and any document that has passed through Christian hands should be presumed to be forged until proven innocent. But that's just to soften you up - he does have reasons for alleging that the beginning of Mark is an interpolation.

He does assume that the reference to JtB in Mark 8:27-28 is based on something genuine. [Who do men say that I am? And they answered, John the Baptist; but some say, Elias, and others, one of the prophets.] He infers from this that JtB must have been a figure like Elijah, existing in the past since Jesus could be a reincarnation of John, and that Jesus and John could not be contemporaries.

As for Mark 1:1-14, he thinks that sticks out like a sore thumb. Mark originally read:

The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God:

Jesus came into Galilee, preaching the gospel of the kingdom of God, and saying, The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand; reprent ye and believe the gospel.

A later interpolator stuck the Baptism scene in there, forgetting to reconcile v.9 "Jesus came from Nazareth of Galilee" with v. 14b, "Jesus came into Galilee," forcing apologists to argue that the wilderness was not in Galilee, and leaving us to wonder why Jesus did not "return" to Galilee.

He notes that in verse 9 "Jesus" is not preceded by the definite article in the earliest Greek manuscripts. All other mentions of Jesus have the definite article O IhsouV I am not sure about that argument - I thought that the definite article was usually used with proper names.

Zindler has fairly good reasons for seeing most of the other mentions of JtB in the Gospels and Josephus as interpolations.

I recommend getting the book if you are that interested.

Toto

I notice on another thread that Peter Kirby has read this book.

Peter - do you have any reaction to Zindler's arguments on John the Baptist? Or other parts?

Peter Kirby

I haven't read the book yet. I just looked up a few passages in the index.

best,
Peter Kirby

Roger Pearse

<personal opion>
The Slavonic Josephus is not really a version of Josephus, it turns out. Knowledge of the work has been hampered pretty substantially by the fact that the critical edition by Meshchersky was in Russian. However an English translation, with parallel English translation of the normal Greek text has just been published.

The Slavonic Josephus is really part 3 of a medieval Russian history book, "The Three Captures of Jerusalem". The author worked from whatever texts he had. For part 3, he based himself on the normal Greek text of the Jewish War, abbreviating freely, but also adding material from Antiquities and sources such as the Byzantine historian John Malalas. This becomes most obvious when you read the work with both columns, and see the differences at every point.

Attractive as the theory that the SJ. was based on the Aramaic first edition is, I don't think it can be right.</personal opinion>

I did translate chunks of Meshchersky's introduction, which are accessible at my manuscripts notes

But these are now superceded by the real version. Meshchersky did time in a concentration camp under Stalin, which makes his work the more remarkable.

All the best,

Roger Pearse