Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Steven Carr · 05-19-2009, 01:00 AM

Michael Barber points out parallels between Jesus in the Temple and stories in Josephus.

But somehow concludes that it must be historical?

I wonder where the anonymous author of Mark got his details from....

http://singinginthereign.blogspot.co...ricity-of.html

The historical plausibility of the episode is especially reinforced by the fact that Josephus tells us of another Jew from the first-century―another “Jesus” in fact, Jesus ben Ananias―who announced the coming the destruction of the temple. Strikingly, in doing so he also cited from Jeremiah 7! And the similarities do not end there. Evans points out a number of parallels between Jesus and Jesus ben Ananias:
―both entered the Temple (τὸ ἱερὸν; Mark 11:11, 15, 27; 12:35; 13:1; 14:49; B.J. 6.301)
―both issued condemnations linked with festivals (Mark 14:2; 15:6; John 2:23; B.J. 6.300)
―both are said to have foretold the destruction of the city (Luke 19:41-44; 21:20-24; B. J. 6.301) and the Temple (ναός; Mark 14:58; B.J. 6.301)
―both cite from Jeremiah 7 (Mark 11:17 and par. = Jer 7:11; B.J. 6.301=Jer 7:34)
―both are arrested by Jewish authorities (συλλαμβάνειν; Mark 14:48; John 18:12; B. J. 6.302), beaten (παίειν; Matt 26:68; Mark 14:65; B. J. 6.302)
―both were handed over to the Roman governor (ἤγαγον αὐτὸν ἐπὶ τὸν Πιλᾶτον: Luke 23:1; ἀναγουσιν. . . ἐπὶ τὸν. . . ἔπαρχον: B. J. 6.303), who interrogated them (ἐπηρώτα: Mark 15:4; B. J. 6.305)
―both were scourged (μαστιγοῦν /μάστιξ:John 19:1; B. J. 6.304)
―Pilate had the option of releasing Jesus, Albinus did in fact release Jesus ben Ananias (ἀπολύειν: Mark 15:9; B. J. 6.305)[11]
The similarities here are truly remarkable.....

Toto · 05-19-2009, 02:14 AM

Barber argues that since Josephus recounted those details, that there are therefore not historically implausible, and therefore the argument that they were too implausible to be true must fail. This seems to be enough to make the story historical in his eyes.

Besides, a historical document, the Gospel according to John, has a similar story that is different enough to count as independent attestation.

This is from a professor of theology. He's paid to think like this.

No wonder this country is a mess.

For reference, here are the previous threads on how Mark copied the details of this story from Josephus' account of Jesus ben Ananais:

Josephus and Jesus - Wars of the Jews

Mark Copied from Josephus?

The source for Jesus' biography

Ted Weedon's post on Crosstalk2

dog-on · 05-19-2009, 02:25 AM

This is a smoking gun for a second century authorship of Mark and evidence of Mark's reliance on the writings of Josephus.

Oh well...

maryhelena · 05-19-2009, 04:13 AM

Interesting reference to Josephus - once again the historical camp is using Josephus as its backup.....

However, there is one big give away in the Josephan account, a give away that immediately questions the historicity of this Jesus, son of Ananus. Josephus is using a 7 year time period in which this Jesus is doing his condemnation of Jerusalem. From a prophetic standpoint, a perspective that Josephus has written that he is well versed in, a catastrophic event such as 70 CE would be interpreted from that perspective. Thus, the 7 years prior to 70 CE would need to be marked by some sort of prophetic event - in this case, Jesus, son of Ananus. The 7 years prior to 70 CE go back to 63 CE - which is itself 100 years from the 37 BC siege of Jerusalem by Herod the Great.

Consequently, what the historical camp is doing here is seeking to backup a claimed historical event regarding Jesus of Nazareth with an ‘event’, in Josephus, that is connected to a number symbolism i.e. a seven year symbolic time period and hence an indication that interpretation/application rather than just historicity could be involved.

Since Rachel Elior has questioned the historical existence of the Essenes, that Josephus invented them when he dated, and backdated them - other figures in Josephus, figures that relate or are close to the gospel storyline, need also to be questioned. Indeed, Josephus can be viewed as the backup for the gospel storyline - question is - what is the storyline that Josephus is backing up?

And further, of course, is his backup purely accidental, that he provided ‘historical’ elements upon which the gospel writers could draw - or is there evidence for complicity? If everything re the claimed historicity of Jesus of Nazareth, in the gospel storyline, comes down to what Josephus wrote - then, rather than leaving the historical camp to thank its lucky stars - would it not be more sensible, for the mythicist camp, to question his intent....

Josephus, whether a Jew who remained a Jew, whether a Jew who became a secret Christian, whether he was historical or not, whether he wrote the works attributed to him or someone else wrote under that name - the gospel storyline and Josephus are close companions.....

dog-on · 05-19-2009, 05:07 AM

Though a much simpler explanation would be that the author of Mark used the writings of Josephus as scaffolding upon which to hang a bit of flesh.

This historicists are purposefully putting the cart before the horse, as it were...

show_no_mercy · 05-19-2009, 06:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dog-on

Though a much simpler explanation would be that the author of Mark used the writings of Josephus as scaffolding upon which to hang a bit of flesh.

This historicists are purposefully putting the cart before the horse, as it were...

And there are more parallels with other "Jesuses" in Josephus.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Josephus, Life 12

So Jesus the son of Sapphias, one of those whom we have already mentioned as the leader of a seditious tumult of mariners and poor people, prevented us, and took with him certain Galileans, and set the entire palace on fire, and thought he should get a great deal of money thereby, because he saw some of the roofs gilt with gold. They also plundered a great deal of the furniture, which was done without our approbation; for after we had discoursed with Capellus and the principal men of the city, we departed from Bethmaus, and went into the Upper Galilee. But Jesus and his party slew all the Greeks that were inhabitants of Tiberias, and as many others as were their enemies before the war began.

show_no_mercy · 05-19-2009, 09:45 AM

I forgot to add more about this Jesus (son of Sapphias)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Josephus, Life 22

Yet did not this his knavery succeed well at last; for as he was already nearly approaching, one of those with him deserted him, and came to me, and told me what he had undertaken to do. When I was informed of this, I went into the market-place, and pretended to know nothing of his treacherous purpose. I took with me many Galileans that were armed, as also some of those of Tiberias; and, when I had given orders that all the roads should be carefully guarded, I charged the keepers of the gates to give admittance to none but Jesus, when he came, with the principal of his men, and to exclude the rest; and in case they aimed to force themselves in, to use stripes [in order to repel them]. Accordingly, those that had received such a charge did as they were bidden, and Jesus came in with a few others; and when I had ordered him to throw down his arms immediately, and told him, that if he refused so to do, he was a dead man, he seeing armed men standing all round about him, was terrified, and complied; and as for those of his followers that were excluded, when they were informed that he was seized, they ran away.

Jayrok · 05-19-2009, 12:31 PM

Both of them (Jesus) were scouraged and beaten until their bones were laid bare and both of them remained silent.

AtheistGamer · 05-19-2009, 09:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dog-on

Though a much simpler explanation would be that the author of Mark used the writings of Josephus as scaffolding upon which to hang a bit of flesh.

This historicists are purposefully putting the cart before the horse, as it were...

That's the same idea I got from reading this thread.

IamJoseph · 05-19-2009, 10:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Besides, a historical document, the Gospel according to John, has a similar story that is different enough to count as independent attestation.

Strange that you site Johns as historical as opposed Josephus! There is NOTHING whatsoever historical in a single verse of the NT outside of what previously and adjacently appears in the Hebrew, except that John called Jews as sons of devils and the Quran sites sons of apes - historical only in the irony both these scriptures are hell bent on negating everything Hebrew and Jewish - and have never proven anything aside from a guilt factor held by a robber caught with stolen property in his hand.

Josephus is backed by 100s of other Roman, Greek and Hebrew archives, historical relics and scrolls - what about the Gospels? :wave:

05-19-2009, 01:00 AM	#1
Steven Carr Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: England Posts: 5,629	Jesus in the Temple Michael Barber points out parallels between Jesus in the Temple and stories in Josephus. But somehow concludes that it must be historical? I wonder where the anonymous author of Mark got his details from.... http://singinginthereign.blogspot.co...ricity-of.html The historical plausibility of the episode is especially reinforced by the fact that Josephus tells us of another Jew from the first-century―another “Jesus” in fact, Jesus ben Ananias―who announced the coming the destruction of the temple. Strikingly, in doing so he also cited from Jeremiah 7! And the similarities do not end there. Evans points out a number of parallels between Jesus and Jesus ben Ananias: ―both entered the Temple (τὸ ἱερὸν; Mark 11:11, 15, 27; 12:35; 13:1; 14:49; B.J. 6.301) ―both issued condemnations linked with festivals (Mark 14:2; 15:6; John 2:23; B.J. 6.300) ―both are said to have foretold the destruction of the city (Luke 19:41-44; 21:20-24; B. J. 6.301) and the Temple (ναός; Mark 14:58; B.J. 6.301) ―both cite from Jeremiah 7 (Mark 11:17 and par. = Jer 7:11; B.J. 6.301=Jer 7:34) ―both are arrested by Jewish authorities (συλλαμβάνειν; Mark 14:48; John 18:12; B. J. 6.302), beaten (παίειν; Matt 26:68; Mark 14:65; B. J. 6.302) ―both were handed over to the Roman governor (ἤγαγον αὐτὸν ἐπὶ τὸν Πιλᾶτον: Luke 23:1; ἀναγουσιν. . . ἐπὶ τὸν. . . ἔπαρχον: B. J. 6.303), who interrogated them (ἐπηρώτα: Mark 15:4; B. J. 6.305) ―both were scourged (μαστιγοῦν /μάστιξ:John 19:1; B. J. 6.304) ―Pilate had the option of releasing Jesus, Albinus did in fact release Jesus ben Ananias (ἀπολύειν: Mark 15:9; B. J. 6.305)[11] The similarities here are truly remarkable.....

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

05-19-2009, 02:14 AM	#2
Toto Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Los Angeles area Posts: 40,549	Barber argues that since Josephus recounted those details, that there are therefore not historically implausible, and therefore the argument that they were too implausible to be true must fail. This seems to be enough to make the story historical in his eyes. Besides, a historical document, the Gospel according to John, has a similar story that is different enough to count as independent attestation. This is from a professor of theology. He's paid to think like this. No wonder this country is a mess. For reference, here are the previous threads on how Mark copied the details of this story from Josephus' account of Jesus ben Ananais: Josephus and Jesus - Wars of the Jews Mark Copied from Josephus? The source for Jesus' biography Ted Weedon's post on Crosstalk2

05-19-2009, 02:25 AM	#3
dog-on Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: The Netherlands Posts: 3,397	This is a smoking gun for a second century authorship of Mark and evidence of Mark's reliance on the writings of Josephus. Oh well...

05-19-2009, 04:13 AM	#4
maryhelena Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: England Posts: 2,527	Interesting reference to Josephus - once again the historical camp is using Josephus as its backup..... However, there is one big give away in the Josephan account, a give away that immediately questions the historicity of this Jesus, son of Ananus. Josephus is using a 7 year time period in which this Jesus is doing his condemnation of Jerusalem. From a prophetic standpoint, a perspective that Josephus has written that he is well versed in, a catastrophic event such as 70 CE would be interpreted from that perspective. Thus, the 7 years prior to 70 CE would need to be marked by some sort of prophetic event - in this case, Jesus, son of Ananus. The 7 years prior to 70 CE go back to 63 CE - which is itself 100 years from the 37 BC siege of Jerusalem by Herod the Great. Consequently, what the historical camp is doing here is seeking to backup a claimed historical event regarding Jesus of Nazareth with an ‘event’, in Josephus, that is connected to a number symbolism i.e. a seven year symbolic time period and hence an indication that interpretation/application rather than just historicity could be involved. Since Rachel Elior has questioned the historical existence of the Essenes, that Josephus invented them when he dated, and backdated them - other figures in Josephus, figures that relate or are close to the gospel storyline, need also to be questioned. Indeed, Josephus can be viewed as the backup for the gospel storyline - question is - what is the storyline that Josephus is backing up? And further, of course, is his backup purely accidental, that he provided ‘historical’ elements upon which the gospel writers could draw - or is there evidence for complicity? If everything re the claimed historicity of Jesus of Nazareth, in the gospel storyline, comes down to what Josephus wrote - then, rather than leaving the historical camp to thank its lucky stars - would it not be more sensible, for the mythicist camp, to question his intent.... Josephus, whether a Jew who remained a Jew, whether a Jew who became a secret Christian, whether he was historical or not, whether he wrote the works attributed to him or someone else wrote under that name - the gospel storyline and Josephus are close companions.....

05-19-2009, 05:07 AM	#5
dog-on Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: The Netherlands Posts: 3,397	Though a much simpler explanation would be that the author of Mark used the writings of Josephus as scaffolding upon which to hang a bit of flesh. This historicists are purposefully putting the cart before the horse, as it were...

05-19-2009, 12:31 PM	#8
Jayrok Regular Member Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: USA Posts: 471	Both of them (Jesus) were scouraged and beaten until their bones were laid bare and both of them remained silent.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.