andrewcriddle

I'm not sure but I think Hoffmann's argument is that sicarius in this sense originates after 50 CE and it would be blatantly anachronistic in a story set in the time of Tiberius.

Opinions may differ as to whether or not Mark was likely to perpetrate such an anachronism.

Andrew Criddle

Diogenes the Cynic

Right, the Sicarii were anachronistic relative to Pilate's prefecture, not to the composition of Mark.

That doesn't mean it can't be what Mark meant, though. There are some interesting parallels between Mark's Gospel and the activities of the sicarii in the 50's. According to Josephus, the Sicarii were used by the then Governor, Felix, to carry out dirty deeds for him, including the assassination of a High Priest (an "Annointed"). Felix also put down a rebellion from a Messianic aspirant who Josephus calls only "the Egyptian." Josephus writes about the Egyptian in both Antiquities and Wars.

From Antiquities:

From Wars:

The Mount of Olives is the same place the Gospels say Jesus was arrested. The Egyptian also made threats about making walls fall (though he said Jerusalem rather than the temple), and he was trying to reenact the conquest of Joshua (i.e. Yeshua, i.e, Jesus). Intriguingly, Josephus also implies that this dude disappeared when the Romans showed up and starting busting heads.

Any or all of those things could have been on Mark's mind. In any case, he could have thought of the sicarii as basically a class of scumbags who did dirty work for the Romans, and so devised a generic one (if sicarii was intended, then Judas' name would be literally "Cutthroat Jew") to serve as his Jewish betrayer of Jesus.

I'm not arguing for that, necessarily, just showing how the anachronism could be hypothetically explained, and Mark could still have intended to call Judas a sicarus.

Grog

Sure opinions would vary on that point. But the question is Hoffmann's use of this argument. The author of gMark may or may not have been likely to invent the term, but Hoffmann's argument does not rule it out in anyway. gMark was written after the 50's (a point agreed upon by most scholars) and so the argument that it is too late for "Iscariot" to be a corruption of "sicarius" is not valid. Does Hoffmann believe that there was really a "Judas, a man from Kerioth" in the company of Jesus? Is this a datum that we can rely on when constructing our HJ?

Grog

You are mostly missing my point. Most of what you say confirms what I attempted to argue. My point though was that Hoffmann says that the term "sicarius" came into being too late for it to be incorporated in a corrupt form in the name "Judas Iscariot." Your response is a pretty good rebuttal to RJH, along the lines of what I attempted.

I certainly agree that the anachronism can be explained.

Chaucer

The fourth line limps. Use your ear.

Chaucer

spin

But where the fuck does Josephus say this. There is no point in citing the crap if its source is unstated. I wish people would learn to fucking cite their sources properly. To find this quote I had to use the index of my Josephus and worked my way through every reference to Quirinius until I got to 7.253.

Grog

It took me all of 5 minutes to find this. And I was multi-tasking at the same time. Here are the steps:

1. Google "josephus in Greek."
2. Find the best link (I found this: http://www.josephus.org/#works)
3. See The works of Josephus in Greek, click that link.
4. Select "Flavius Josephus, De bello Judaico libri vii (Greek) (ed. B. Niese)"
5. Access prior knowledge about Wars and GUESS. I guessed pretty well.
6. Since my Greek isn't that good [ED: by "isn't that good," I mean seriously bad, I can make out most letters really], I scanned for Μασάδα, found it, and knew that σικαρίων would be in the vicinity. Found that.

Seriously, not difficult. Here is the direct link:

7.253

Sounds like you found it though. :wave:

I didn't know what I would find in the Greek, but I knew what was in Whiston's translation, so I thought it would be there.

spin

ο δε βασιλευς ταυθ ως επυθετο διδωσιν την αρχιερωσυνην Ιωσηπω τω Σιμωνος παιδι αρχιερεως επικαλουμενω Καβι

Perhaps you can tell me where this piece of Josephus comes from in all of 5 minutes?

Why assume Masada?? Lucky guess? What happens if the passage citing the sicarii was from BJ 2.254ff? Nothing about Masada there. What about BJ 2.425? Nope. AJ 20.186? Nada. AJ 20.204. Zippo. You were lucky.

You give people the common courtesy of citing your sources so that they don't have to fuck around. It is the only responsible approach. People who can't bring themselves to cite sources eventually get written off as no-hopers. You leave them to natter amongst themselves not knowing what each other is talking about, because they don't try to communicate.

Grog

Take a chill pill, bro. Go for a walk. Get a beer at the local pub. Catch a Thunder-Heat game. Do something, you need a break.

spin

That sort of putdown arseholery is I'm sure not the sort of thing you would appreciate. The issue is a simple one: quote your sources and don't make it difficult for other people to check your sources. There are a number of people on this forum presently who don't pay this courtesy. And your post just brought out the reaction. If you don't want people to ignore you, behave.