Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Toto · 04-24-2012, 06:57 AM

Grog - this is Theodore Weeden's thesis. Weeden is so distinguished and has such credentials that no one goes off screaming about parallelomania. But What conclusion can you draw from this other than that Mark used Josephus' story for his own literary purposes?

There is an outline of the theory on Xtalk

PhilosopherJay · 04-24-2012, 07:08 AM

Hi Grog,

I think there is enough of a match to suggest that some of the Jesus, son of Ananus, tale has influenced a bit of the early Jesus gospel tale/tales.

I think it is also important to consider the differences.

In the Jesus, son of Ananus tale, Jesus is a real prophet predicting a real event that happens seven years and five months after he starts predicting it.

In the gospels, it is hard to see what Jesus is predicting - the coming of the Son of Man from the clouds? the coming of the Kingdom of God? the destruction of the Temple in the Jewish-Roman War? the coming of himself
as Messiah? A social revolution where the first will be last and the last will be first? a Judgment day where everybody gets what they deserve? or just Resurrection for the dead? What we get is a hodge-podge of predictions. Its a little bit of this and a little bit of that. It adds up to a sort of apocalypticism for apocalypticism sake.

This attempt to say everything which ends up as saying nothing is exactly what distinguishes the gospel myth of Jesus from the historical story of Josephus about Jesus, son of Ananus. There is no specificity in Jesus' prophetic apocalypticism. It is overloaded with hints of apocalypticisms without insisting on anyone of them.

We find the same type of thing in Paul where he rants and reels against this enemy and that enemy and this mistake and that mistakes and never tells us who the enemy actually is or what the mistake really is.

This is what fiction is made of. Take a police procedural television show. It'll be a little about this real crime and a little about that crime, but it'll be so mashed up that it won't be about any real historical crime at all.

It is a little like the old fashioned strip tease, the old fashioned 1930's vaudeville kind, where you expected to see the strip tease performer naked because she kept slowly taking off each individual article of clothing, but at the end, she was just covered with a fan or balloon or curtain, so you didn't see the actual breast nipples or vagina. The performer leads you on and teases you that she will show herself nude. It is the teasing that is the act, not the act of being nude.

In the same way the fictional accounts of the NT never show the historical Jesus, but only tease us that there was an historical Jesus. That is what they were meant to do.

Imagine the person who goes backstage to the manager after a strip tease performance and says, "I want my money back. I was promised that I would see a nude woman and I did not." The manager can only say, "You are mistaken, we promised you only to show a woman stripping off her clothes and that is what we have given you."

Imagine the reader of a gospel saying to the gospel writer, "I want my money back, you promised me a story of the messiah (savior) and there was only messianic-like activity, but no historical messiah." The writer would answer, "I was writing to show you what an historical messiah might have been like, I never promised you an actual historical messiah. I only promised you a possible historical messiah and that is what I have given you."

Warmly,

Jay Raskin

Quote:

Originally Posted by Grog

Quote:

Originally Posted by outhouse

Thoughts???

it most certainly if anything never happened that way. It has no historicity at all. even the temple incident has historicity issues as a simular story is in the OT

upon jesus arrest, the apostles fled for fear of their life, with that said, who witnessed these exact details that knew jesus??

No one.

every thing you posted was built on cross cultural oral tradition. oral tradition can be accurate, but when we cross cultures all bets are off.

That wasn't my question.

My question was whether the Passion story is based in part on the story from Josephus, reliant on it. This would be an important clue in the dating of Mark, since Wars was not written until the 70's of the first century. You can find it here. Chapter 5, Section 3 [Wars, 6.5.3]

But, what is still more terrible, there was one Jesus, the son of Ananus, a plebeian and a husbandman, who, four years before the war began, and at a time when the city was in very great peace and prosperity, came to that feast whereon it is our custom for every one to make tabernacles to God in the temple, began on a sudden to cry aloud, "A voice from the east, a voice from the west, a voice from the four winds, a voice against Jerusalem and the holy house, a voice against the bridegrooms and the brides, and a voice against this whole people!" This was his cry, as he went about by day and by night, in all the lanes of the city. However, certain of the most eminent among the populace had great indignation at this dire cry of his, and took up the man, and gave him a great number of severe stripes; yet did not he either say any thing for himself, or any thing peculiar to those that chastised him, but still went on with the same words which he cried before. Hereupon our rulers, supposing, as the case proved to be, that this was a sort of divine fury in the man, brought him to the Roman procurator, where he was whipped till his bones were laid bare; yet he did not make any supplication for himself, nor shed any tears, but turning his voice to the most lamentable tone possible, at every stroke of the whip his answer was, "Woe, woe to Jerusalem!" And when Albinus [for he was then our procurator] asked him, Who he was? and whence he came? and why he uttered such words? he made no manner of reply to what he said, but still did not leave off his melancholy ditty, till Albinus took him to be a madman, and dismissed him. Now, during all the time that passed before the war began, this man did not go near any of the citizens, nor was seen by them while he said so; but he every day uttered these lamentable words, as if it were his premeditated vow, "Woe, woe to Jerusalem!" Nor did he give ill words to any of those that beat him every day, nor good words to those that gave him food; but this was his reply to all men, and indeed no other than a melancholy presage of what was to come. This cry of his was the loudest at the festivals; and he continued this ditty for seven years and five months, without growing hoarse, or being tired therewith, until the very time that he saw his presage in earnest fulfilled in our siege, when it ceased; for as he was going round upon the wall, he cried out with his utmost force, "Woe, woe to the city again, and to the people, and to the holy house!" And just as he added at the last, "Woe, woe to myself also!" there came a stone out of one of the engines, and smote him, and killed him immediately; and as he was uttering the very same presages he gave up the ghost

Now, obviously there are details that differ in these stories. But the outline and order of the story is the same:

Jesus comes to the Temple during an important holiday, one of the three most important.

Jesus causes an uproar in the Temple.

Jesus' actions in the Temple disturb the Jewish officials who take him up.

Jewish officials then take Jesus to the Roman Procurator.

The Roman procurator whips/flogs Jesus.

Jesus refuses to answer questions from the Roman procurator.

The Roman procurator believes Jesus innocent.

Jesus is killed by the Romans.

Jesus gives up the ghost.

What are the chances that this outline could exist in both stories by chance? The order is even the same.

maryhelena · 04-24-2012, 07:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Grog

Quote:

Originally Posted by outhouse

Quote:

Originally Posted by Grog

jay,

Do you see any reason to think the jesus ananias story was mined for material for the passion story? Here's part that is paticularly interesting fromMark (I'm using an ipad and so I' limited in what I can do now):

1 Very early in the morning, the chief priests, with the elders, the teachers of the law and the whole Sanhedrin, made their plans. So they bound Jesus, led him away and handed him over to Pilate.
2 “Are you the king of the Jews?” asked Pilate.

“You have said so,” Jesus replied.

3 The chief priests accused him of many things. 4 So again Pilate asked him, “Aren’t you going to answer? See how many things they are accusing you of.”

5 But Jesus still made no reply, and Pilate was amazed.

6 Now it was the custom at the festival to release a prisoner whom the people requested. 7 A man called Barabbas was in prison with the insurrectionists who had committed murder in the uprising. 8 The crowd came up and asked Pilate to do for them what he usually did.

9 “Do you want me to release to you the king of the Jews?” asked Pilate, 10 knowing it was out of self-interest that the chief priests had handed Jesus over to him. 11 But the chief priests stirred up the crowd to have Pilate release Barabbas instead.

12 “What shall I do, then, with the one you call the king of the Jews?” Pilate asked them.

13 “Crucify him!” they shouted.

14 “Why? What crime has he committed?” asked Pilate.

But they shouted all the louder, “Crucify him!”

15 Wanting to satisfy the crowd, Pilate released Barabbas to them. He had Jesus flogged, and handed him over to be crucified.

Like the Jesus in Josephus' history, Jesus of Nazareth creates a disturbence in the temple, is taken first to Jewish authorities, then to Roman authrities where he is whipped, then killed by Romans (true in one case by chance). It seems too close to be coincidental. Also in both stories, the author states that Jesus does not reply...though curiously, even though Mark says "jesus still made no reply" he previously had Jesus answer withthe enigmatic "you have so".

Any thoughts?

EDiT: i can see where "still" here could be and probably is "no further" or "yet". Thisbis from the NIV. There is at least one otherntranslations that agrees, but mosr do not.

Thoughts???

it most certainly if anything never happened that way. It has no historicity at all. even the temple incident has historicity issues as a simular story is in the OT

upon jesus arrest, the apostles fled for fear of their life, with that said, who witnessed these exact details that knew jesus??

No one.

every thing you posted was built on cross cultural oral tradition. oral tradition can be accurate, but when we cross cultures all bets are off.

That wasn't my question.

My question was whether the Passion story is based in part on the story from Josephus, reliant on it. This would be an important clue in the dating of Mark, since Wars was not written until the 70's of the first century. You can find it here. Chapter 5, Section 3 [Wars, 6.5.3]

But, what is still more terrible, there was one Jesus, the son of Ananus, a plebeian and a husbandman, who, four years before the war began, and at a time when the city was in very great peace and prosperity, came to that feast whereon it is our custom for every one to make tabernacles to God in the temple, began on a sudden to cry aloud, "A voice from the east, a voice from the west, a voice from the four winds, a voice against Jerusalem and the holy house, a voice against the bridegrooms and the brides, and a voice against this whole people!" This was his cry, as he went about by day and by night, in all the lanes of the city. However, certain of the most eminent among the populace had great indignation at this dire cry of his, and took up the man, and gave him a great number of severe stripes; yet did not he either say any thing for himself, or any thing peculiar to those that chastised him, but still went on with the same words which he cried before. Hereupon our rulers, supposing, as the case proved to be, that this was a sort of divine fury in the man, brought him to the Roman procurator, where he was whipped till his bones were laid bare; yet he did not make any supplication for himself, nor shed any tears, but turning his voice to the most lamentable tone possible, at every stroke of the whip his answer was, "Woe, woe to Jerusalem!" And when Albinus [for he was then our procurator] asked him, Who he was? and whence he came? and why he uttered such words? he made no manner of reply to what he said, but still did not leave off his melancholy ditty, till Albinus took him to be a madman, and dismissed him. Now, during all the time that passed before the war began, this man did not go near any of the citizens, nor was seen by them while he said so; but he every day uttered these lamentable words, as if it were his premeditated vow, "Woe, woe to Jerusalem!" Nor did he give ill words to any of those that beat him every day, nor good words to those that gave him food; but this was his reply to all men, and indeed no other than a melancholy presage of what was to come. This cry of his was the loudest at the festivals; and he continued this ditty for seven years and five months, without growing hoarse, or being tired therewith, until the very time that he saw his presage in earnest fulfilled in our siege, when it ceased; for as he was going round upon the wall, he cried out with his utmost force, "Woe, woe to the city again, and to the people, and to the holy house!" And just as he added at the last, "Woe, woe to myself also!" there came a stone out of one of the engines, and smote him, and killed him immediately; and as he was uttering the very same presages he gave up the ghost

Now, obviously there are details that differ in these stories. But the outline and order of the story is the same:

Jesus comes to the Temple during an important holiday, one of the three most important.

Jesus causes an uproar in the Temple.

Jesus' actions in the Temple disturb the Jewish officials who take him up.

Jewish officials then take Jesus to the Roman Procurator.

The Roman procurator whips/flogs Jesus.

Jesus refuses to answer questions from the Roman procurator.

The Roman procurator believes Jesus innocent.

Jesus is killed by the Romans.

Jesus gives up the ghost.

What are the chances that this outline could exist in both stories by chance? The order is even the same.

My money would be on Josephan involvement with early christian writings.

aa5874 · 04-24-2012, 07:29 AM

A close examination of the writings of Josephus tends to show that the Jesus story in gMark is based on Multiple characters and multiple events which happened well AFTER the time period for the Jesus story.

The trial of Jesus in gMark where he was first before the Sanhedrin and then tried by Pilate tend to show that the author of gMark was AWARE of Antiquities of the Jews 20.9.1 where it was claimed that a character called James was tried Only by the Sanhedrin without the authority and knowledge of the Governor and that the Jews were very disturbed by that and eventually the high priest was removed after the Jews wrote letters to the king and also discuss the matter with the Governor.

sotto voce · 04-24-2012, 08:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Switch89

I've written a review of a new book called "Proving History" which is about the philosophical/logical justification of historical knowledge and about how New Testament studies seem to have gotten away from using logic.

Here's an excerpt from the blog:

[I]Is it true that Jesus scholars have been using bankrupt methods in their historical studies? Several leading biblical scholars (Stanley Porter, for example) have already reached similar conclusions. I'm not sure if they agree that *all* such "criteria" and methodology employed in Jesus studies are bankrupt, but it is beyond doubt that they believe all/most of the criteria have one or more shortcomings. After reading Carrier's analysis of the criteria, I am very much inclined to agree with him, with only one caveat. While Carrier seems to think that all of the criteria are bankrupt no matter what, I believe that if we *assume* that there was a historical Jesus then we can validly reach some conclusions about the life of Jesus. For example: Was Jesus an apocalyptic prophet? That is, did he teach that the end of the world was near?

No, though some parts of the gospels may appear to indicate this. Jesus taught that anyone who said he knew when the end would be is a false prophet. He said that even he (in his earthly manifestation) did not know when the end would come; "the Father alone" knew that. One of his apostles taught this:

'With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day. The Lord is not slow in keeping his promise, as some understand slowness. He is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance. But the day of the Lord will come like a thief.' 2 Pe 3:8-10 NIV

Which latter remark presupposes a long duration until a second coming. One might say that Jesus and his followers understood a divine principle of permitting people to do as their basic natures determined they would do, without looking around to see who is watching; while not neglecting to teach need for alertness, the lesson of Jesus' parable of the wise and unwise maidens and their lamps.

spin · 04-24-2012, 12:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sotto voce

Quote:

Originally Posted by Switch89

I've written a review of a new book called "Proving History" which is about the philosophical/logical justification of historical knowledge and about how New Testament studies seem to have gotten away from using logic.

Here's an excerpt from the blog:

[I]Is it true that Jesus scholars have been using bankrupt methods in their historical studies? Several leading biblical scholars (Stanley Porter, for example) have already reached similar conclusions. I'm not sure if they agree that *all* such "criteria" and methodology employed in Jesus studies are bankrupt, but it is beyond doubt that they believe all/most of the criteria have one or more shortcomings. After reading Carrier's analysis of the criteria, I am very much inclined to agree with him, with only one caveat. While Carrier seems to think that all of the criteria are bankrupt no matter what, I believe that if we *assume* that there was a historical Jesus then we can validly reach some conclusions about the life of Jesus. For example: Was Jesus an apocalyptic prophet? That is, did he teach that the end of the world was near?

No, though some parts of the gospels may appear to indicate this. Jesus taught that anyone who said he knew when the end would be is a false prophet. He said that even he (in his earthly manifestation) did not know when the end would come; "the Father alone" knew that. One of his apostles taught this:

'With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day. The Lord is not slow in keeping his promise, as some understand slowness. He is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance. But the day of the Lord will come like a thief.' 2 Pe 3:8-10 NIV

This is called damage control. 2 Peter, one of the latest christian works to be included as scripture, has already had to deal with the rhetoric of the coming that didn't arrive. The old bait-and-switch from individuals still alive to the theoretical notion by the writer who has no meaningful way to know what he is talking about that time is different for god. It obviously still gets'em in.

Quote:

Which latter remark presupposes a long duration until a second coming. One might say that Jesus and his followers understood a divine principle of permitting people to do as their basic natures determined they would do, without looking around to see who is watching; while not neglecting to teach need for alertness, the lesson of Jesus' parable of the wise and unwise maidens and their lamps.

sotto voce · 04-24-2012, 12:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sotto voce

Quote:

Originally Posted by Switch89

I've written a review of a new book called "Proving History" which is about the philosophical/logical justification of historical knowledge and about how New Testament studies seem to have gotten away from using logic.

Here's an excerpt from the blog:

[I]Is it true that Jesus scholars have been using bankrupt methods in their historical studies? Several leading biblical scholars (Stanley Porter, for example) have already reached similar conclusions. I'm not sure if they agree that *all* such "criteria" and methodology employed in Jesus studies are bankrupt, but it is beyond doubt that they believe all/most of the criteria have one or more shortcomings. After reading Carrier's analysis of the criteria, I am very much inclined to agree with him, with only one caveat. While Carrier seems to think that all of the criteria are bankrupt no matter what, I believe that if we *assume* that there was a historical Jesus then we can validly reach some conclusions about the life of Jesus. For example: Was Jesus an apocalyptic prophet? That is, did he teach that the end of the world was near?

No, though some parts of the gospels may appear to indicate this. Jesus taught that anyone who said he knew when the end would be is a false prophet. He said that even he (in his earthly manifestation) did not know when the end would come; "the Father alone" knew that. One of his apostles taught this:

'With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day. The Lord is not slow in keeping his promise, as some understand slowness. He is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance. But the day of the Lord will come like a thief.' 2 Pe 3:8-10 NIV

Which latter remark presupposes a long duration until a second coming. One might say that Jesus and his followers understood a divine principle of permitting people to do as their basic natures determined they would do, without looking around to see who is watching; while not neglecting to teach need for alertness, the lesson of Jesus' parable of the wise and unwise maidens and their lamps.

So, if a historical Jesus existed, he did not teach that the end of the world was near, and was not an apocalyptic prophet. Is it true that Jesus scholars have been using bankrupt methods in their studies? Apparently they have, because they have not even bothered to read standard, basic exegesis, on the basis of this example. It's mind-boggling.

Quote:

For example: Was Jesus an apocalyptic prophet?

For example? There is more? Something substantial to support the hypothesis that there is absence of honest logic in historical studies? The second coming of Jesus was predicated on his crucifixion and resurrection. Is there evidence that his apostles were in doubt about those events?

Grog · 04-24-2012, 01:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Grog - this is Theodore Weedon's thesis. Weedon is so distinguished and has such credentials that no one goes off screaming about parallelomania. But What conclusion can you draw from this other than that Mark used Josephus' story for his own literary purposes?

There is an outline of the theory on Xtalk

thanks, Toto, that is helpful. As to your question, I am interested in how these stories came about. Reliance on Josephus, or even both Mark and Josephus relint upon oral stories of jesus ben ananias, help us locate this material, in time at least. Weedon has developed it far more than I knew nyone had.

Diogenes the Cynic · 04-24-2012, 05:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sotto voce

For example? There is more? Something substantial to support the hypothesis that there is absence of honest logic in historical studies? The second coming of Jesus was predicated on his crucifixion and resurrection. Is there evidence that his apostles were in doubt about those events?

Is there any evidence that any direct follower of Jesus ever claimed he'd been resurrected?

aa5874 · 04-24-2012, 05:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Diogenes the Cynic

Quote:

Originally Posted by sotto voce

For example? There is more? Something substantial to support the hypothesis that there is absence of honest logic in historical studies? The second coming of Jesus was predicated on his crucifixion and resurrection. Is there evidence that his apostles were in doubt about those events?

Is there any evidence that any direct follower of Jesus ever claimed he'd been resurrected?

You asked a leading question??? First there is NO evidence of Jesus or direct followers of Jesus.

ALL we have are the stories.

The Gospels are NOT even considered direct evidence--they are considered hearsay.

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

04-24-2012, 06:57 AM	#11
Toto Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Los Angeles area Posts: 40,549	Grog - this is Theodore Weeden's thesis. Weeden is so distinguished and has such credentials that no one goes off screaming about parallelomania. But What conclusion can you draw from this other than that Mark used Josephus' story for his own literary purposes? There is an outline of the theory on Xtalk

04-24-2012, 07:29 AM	#14
aa5874 Contributor Join Date: Feb 2006 Location: the fringe of the caribbean Posts: 18,988	A close examination of the writings of Josephus tends to show that the Jesus story in gMark is based on Multiple characters and multiple events which happened well AFTER the time period for the Jesus story. The trial of Jesus in gMark where he was first before the Sanhedrin and then tried by Pilate tend to show that the author of gMark was AWARE of Antiquities of the Jews 20.9.1 where it was claimed that a character called James was tried Only by the Sanhedrin without the authority and knowledge of the Governor and that the Jews were very disturbed by that and eventually the high priest was removed after the Jews wrote letters to the king and also discuss the matter with the Governor.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.