maryhelena

But Cassius Dio did not copy Josephus i.e. he does not have Antigonus go under the axe - beheaded - and he mentions the flogging and the cross/stake, which Josephus does not. That aside, we have the Antigonus Hasmonean coins that support his historicity. We don't have that for the 6 Josephan figures mentioned by aa5874.

The relevance of all this to the OP re it's argument that gMark might have used Josephus re Jesus ben Ananus? Oral telling, or oral tradition, is what lies behind both stories, the gospel JC story and the Josephan story. There is no need to develop an argument that gMark worked from the Josephan story. The death of the historical figure of Antigonus, the last king and high priest of the Jews, was an event that would have been of considerable significance. To assume that that event would be easily forgotten would be a very unrealistic position to take. Sure, under the Roman rule any mention of Antigonus would be bound to have consequences. Thus, any 'remembrance', any significant social/political position taken on his death, would lead to trouble with Rome.

Consider for a moment if Hitler and the Germans managed to capture George VI during the last war. Imagine the continuing anti-German feeling if George VI had been executed in a horrible, dramatic, demeaning and inhumane manner........It would be an affront to all British people. That was the position the Hasmoneans found themselves in. Fighting Rome was out of the question - but to expect the Hasmoneans to forget their last king and high priest and what Rome had done to him....

That is the oral telling, the oral tradition, that lies behind the JC passion/crucifixion story. An oral telling or tradition that was available for gMark, and for Josephus, to utilize in their fictional characters when writing pseudo-history. The JC story, the JC pseudo-history, resonated because it had a historical core.

(...and no, Antigonus is not the historical gospel JC - it's his dramatic killing that is the model for the gospel JC passion/crucifixion story).

The question is not did gMark use Josephus - the question is: What involvement did 'Josephus' have with early christian origins???

andrewcriddle

IIUC this is about how material was transmitted in a culture over a long time period. (Centuries.)

I'm not sure whether it applies to transmission over a few decades.

Andrew Criddle

Grog

This was a response to outhouse's comments regarding the transmission of OT materials.

Grog

I am arguing specifically that it is unlikely for an 'oral tradition' to exist that early that preserves the structure, sequence and detail in both stories. I do believe that the only source that would be available to Josephus is oral tradition, assuming Josephus didn't just make it all up (wasn't this your earlier claim?).

In the end, it does not matter if the author of gMark actually used Josephus or not. It only matters that we recognize these stories have the same structure, sequence, and specific details. If they both used oral tellings of this story (I think the second most likely situation), then that still places gMark at least in the mid-70's. It helps us narrow the range of acceptable dates for gMark. It also helps us identify the sources gMark used, which were not sources about a real Jesus.

I thought earlier your position on this was that Josephus made the story up? I responded that it didn't matter, now you are arguing that it is based on the same circulating story. I don't think that matters much either, but I also don't think you can show that gMark knew another circulating story. We can know that the author of gMark knew the structure, sequence, and specific details of the Jesus ben Ananus story, as recorded by Josephus.

Memories of Antigonus could well have played a role in the evolution of the Jesus myth. I agree with that. Does that make Antigonus Jesus from Nazareth? No. Neither is Jesus ben Ananus. The creators of this syncretic belief grabbed from many different sources.


I am not sure that Antigonus played a role in the Jesus ben Ananus story. I have no reason to oppose that other than to say I don't see it.

Sure, I think it is likely. However, we have to admit the weakness of this proposal. We have no Christian ever mentioning Antigonus. There is no specific evidence that I know of to support this conclusion. We only have intuition...one I happen to agree with.

It is an interesting question. This thread was intended to explore one small aspect of that question.

maryhelena

My earlier claim? Basically, that Josephus created the figure of Jesus ben Ananus. His contradictory story re the 4 years and the 7 years and 5 months indicates that more is at issue here than a straightforward reading.

Or that whoever wrote gMark and the Josephan story worked from a similar source.

If both gMark and the Josephan writer are using the same source - then one cannot date gMark via War. It could have been written prior to War. The JC story is probably older than even Pilate. The Toldot Yeshu has no story about Pilate. Thus indicating a very early origin. It makes no sense to compose such a story after the Pilate version of the JC story was available.

Yes, my position is that Josephus, or whoever is writing under than name, made up the character of Jesus ben Ananus. All the similar structure of gMark and the Josephan story indicates is that both writers are aware of and used a source material - not that one copies from the other. Alternatively - the same hand might have played a part in both writings.

Agreed - and I've made this clear on many posts..

Sure, it's not an easy thing to 'see'. One way to get there is to view the Josephan story as a follow on from the gospel JC story - the apocalyptic prophet element of the gospel JC being the Josephan figure of Jesus ben Ananas. The gospel JC is not historical. JC is a moving symbol - place him here there and anywhere to serve the writers purpose. Additionally, the Josephan placing of Jesus ben Ananus; his death 7 years after the death of James - itself a death placed 100 years from the death of Antigonus, indicates that historical milestones are being marked out. Follow it all backwards - and it leads back to Antigonus.
Antigonus is Jewish history, Hasmonean history. If, for the sake of argument, the history of Antigonus was plainly identified as being relevant to early christian origins, what would be the consequences? Jewish interests would be paramount. That is not the Christian focus. It's neither Jew nor Greek, for Paul. For Paul's theology/philosophy to take off - Jewish/Hasmonean history would have to be sidelined, put on the back-burner. It's only us today, looking for the early origin of christianity, that the history of Antigonus is relevant.
We want to know the history - we are not satisfied with Paul's theological speculations or his philosophical musings. We want the reality that produced it all - and that reality is not Paul's, or anyones, visions - the reality is flesh and blood, history.

It's the most interesting question of all

aa5874

Strawman, Strawman, Strawman!!! The TF is EXPOSED as a forgery because of the CORROBORATIVE CREDIBILTY of Josephus.

Tacitus in "Histories" and Suetonius in "Life of Vespasian" wrote NOTHING about any character called Jesus the Christ and claimed that it was VESPASIAN that was the Messianic ruler according to Hebrew Scripture as stated by Josephus in Wars of the Jews 6.5.3.

Cassius Dio, Suetonius, and Tacitus CORROBORATE Josephus writings.

Grog

Funny, I agree with both of you somehow.

Grog

Ok, got it. So where is this common source?

maryhelena

The only common source is Jewish/Hasmonean history. What else could it possibly be? How each writer used that history in the creation of their fictional figures is up to their individual imagination.

Visions and stories are easily overturned by the next big thing. Historical events are grounded; they can't be wished away. Why do you thing the mythicist ideas have not entered mainstream thinking? The JC historicists don't have evidence for their claims re a historical gospel JC. And yet - mythicists ideas are not able to capitalize on this weakness in the historicist position. Why? Intellectual arguments are proving inadequate. Why? Surely it's because ideas are only of value if they can be seen to have relevance for the physical reality we live in. Building a house of spiritual 'cards', intellectual theories, is a house without a foundation. The mythicists are not building a foundation for the intellectual house they are seeking to build. It's all pie in the sky.

The JC historicists are upholding the necessity for a foundation for the JC story. A foundation laid in reality, in historical realities. Indeed, they are unable to dig that foundation themselves - being, as it were, blinded by the notion of a historical gospel JC. In other words; they believe their assumed historical JC is that foundation. Mythicists say this gospel JC figure is not historical. So, who should be laying that foundation upon which to build the theological/spiritual or intellectual superstructure? Offering the JC historicists a spiritual JC is to offer them a theory; a spiritual, an intellectual construct; a theory. They want a solid foundation not an intellectual theory. They want apples - and the mythicists are offering oranges...They are talking past one another.

It is people that motivate people; it is people that inspire others to greatness. Ideas blow in the wind. Yes, philosophy is necessary - but more important is a hand to hold. It's reality, flesh and blood, historical reality, social/political reality that grounds our experiences. To produce an account of early christian origins that rests upon theories; an account that has no connection to historical realities - that's a theory that will not sell - it will not overturn the historicists position.

Yes, as the historicists so often have said, a flesh and blood gospel JC is the most parsimonious reading of the JC story - all the related problems notwithstanding. Why? Because it provides an historical foundation. So, the gospel JC does not exist - but that fact does not remove the necessity for a historical foundation for early christianity. And that's the mythicist blind spot....

Grog

Can you reconstruct what that hypothetical source might have looked like?

I am not sure if you can find the same structure, sequence, and specific detail that we find in both Wars 6.5.3 and gMark. That is my proposition here. So if there was a source, a story that related to Antigonus that included:

1. Disruption in the Temple
2. Arrest by Jewish officials
3. Handing over to Roman Governor
4. Questioning/flogging by Roman Governor
5. Killed accidentally/unwillingly by Rome


And within that sequence, the same details (struck by Jewish officials, did not respond to accusations, the name Jesus, etc), then I would have to agree that there was a commons source. I do not think there is such a source existing relating to Antigonus, or anybody else. Therefore, at least to me, it seems like gMark used Josephus to provide his structure, sequence, and even some details to his Jesus passion narrative.

I do not believe, with Crossan, and based on this proposition, (if one accepts it) that a Passion Narrative pre-existed the time of Josephus.