outhouse

what about josephas being dependant on mark? did a historian just start writing theology all of a sudden?

Grog

Here is what Wheeden says about literary dependence in this case:

This conclusion can be challenged on these grounds:

a) gMark could have been produced in the 80's so the author of gMark would not know Antiquities.

b) The author gMark did know Antiquities and also borrowed for the John the Baptist story (this is what aa argues, but I find a more convincing than b)

c) The author of gMark was also not slavish about borrowing from the OT Psalms:

Psalm 22:16Dogs surround me,
a pack of villains encircles me;
they pierce[e] my hands and my feet.
17 All my bones are on display;
people stare and gloat over me.
18 They divide my clothes among them
and cast lots for my garment.

diemerisanto ta imatia mou eautois kai epi ton imatismon mou ebalon klēron

διεμερίσαντο τὰ ἱμάτιά μου ἑαυτοῖς καὶ ἐπὶ τὸν ἱματισμόν μου ἔβαλον κλῆρον


Dividing up his clothes, they cast lots to see what each would get.

και σταυρωσαντες αυτον διεμεριζον τα ιματια αυτου βαλλοντες κληρον επ αυτα τις τι αρη

Though there are similarities here, there is not slavish dependence. Why, then, would we expect it if the author of gMark used Josephus?


It is commonly held that Mark uses passages like this in his Passion Narrative. But Mark here also does not slavishly copy these passages.

Another example:

But I am a worm and not a man,
scorned by everyone, despised by the people.
7 All who see me mock me;
they hurl insults, shaking their heads.
8 “He trusts in the Lord,” they say,
“let the Lord rescue him.
Let him deliver him,
since he delights in him.”

Those who passed by hurled insults at him, shaking their heads and saying, “So! You who are going to destroy the temple and build it in three days, 30 come down from the cross and save yourself!” 31 In the same way the chief priests and the teachers of the law mocked him among themselves. “He saved others,” they said, “but he can’t save himself! 32 Let this Messiah, this king of Israel, come down now from the cross, that we may see and believe.” Those crucified with him also heaped insults on him.

Again, in these passages we see similarities, and again, it is widely held in scholarship that Mark is dependent on Psalms 22 for this passage. Yet, again, we don't find slavish copying. We find that Mark has adapted Psalms 22 for his purposes.

I think we have sufficient grounds to say the same of gMark's use of Wars 6.5.3.

Grog

What reason does Josephus have to make up a story about Jesus ben Ananias? We can fathom a motive for the author of gMark: he wanted to write a story about Jesus of Nazareth but had no biography to base it on, so he borrowed from sources he did find available. Josephus, on the other hand, did not set out to write the story of Jesus ben Ananias, it is a side issue in his overall narrative about the Jewish War.

I am not saying that it is impossible. I do find probable that Josephus' source for the Jesus ben Ananias story was an oral telling (tradition when it is contemporaneous with Josephus seems a stretch). Josephus had heard this story about Jesus ben Ananias. I do not think that the author of gMark was reliant on similar oral tellings and here is why I think that:

--Oral tradition in the absence of a literary authority (a written source available for consultation) is fluid and imprecise. The high level of agreement in structure, sequence and specific details is not, in my opinion, probable in this case. The fact that the event is recent actually hurts the case because there is no time for a "tradition" to develop. At this point, the tendency would be for the story to be told in many different ways. Also, there would really be no authority to maintain a uniform, precise story. The story itself serves little authoritative purpose so the likelihood that it would be preserved in oral tellings with any kind of precision is low (in my humble opinion and based on my readings of oral tradition scholarship).

I am not saying that it is not possible that Josephus and gMark were both reliant on oral tellings of the Jesus ben Ananias story. I am saying that I believe this is less likely than gMark being dependent on Josephus due to the similarities is structure, sequence, and specific details.

aa5874

What an odd question!!! There is NO theology about Jesus or the Jesus movement in the works of Josephus. You are imagining things again.

Josephus wrote the History of the Jews and gMark is a Myth Fable about the Son of God, that WALKED on water, Transfigured, was crucified and resurrected.

It is illogical that Josephus would write history from myth fables from unknown sources like HJers attempt to do.

dog-on

Just wondering, do you think that Josephus had sole accesses to some kind of secret historical information?

maryhelena

One reason would be that Josephus was doing a Jeremiah replay - Jerusalem going to fall - necessitates a prophet on hand to do the 'Woe'...

A second reason could be that Josephus was doing a Daniel interpretation: The 7 weeks puzzle....

Four years before the war = 66 c.e.
7 years and 5 months of "Woe, woe to Jerusalem!" = 73 c.e. (Masada) Jesus ben Ananias being killed off in the middle of the week = 70 c.e.

Thus, a time period of around 7 years. 66 c.e. 70 c.e. 73 c.e.

Enough there, methinks, to suggest caution in reading this Josephan story as being in any sense an historical account. Particularly as recent research is suggesting that Josephus was a prophetic historian.

Quotes below from the earlier thread where you brought up the Josephus and gMark question.


http://www.freeratio.org/showthread....31#post7150231


my bolding

Duvduv

Foretelling the future after the fact when writing memoirs is easy and not such a big deal, and even warning people doesn't make him a prophet which hadn't existed since Malachi.

spin

(But then it was all vaticinium ex eventu. The original idea of a prophet had nothing to do with fortune telling, but social criticism.)

dog-on

A poet and didn't know it.

spin

:constern01: