maryhelena

Doug, here is the wording from the gospel of James. I don't find any wording that would indicate that the writer of the gospel of James thinks Herod was mistaken re John being "destined to be king over Israel".

my bolding

maryhelena

Hi, Philosopher Jay

I have for a long time been of the opinion that the gospel Jesus is a composite figure. The two king stories, in the gospel of James, has simply added more fuel to the fire.

Here are a few more thoughts on the matter: When discussing the birth narrative in gMatthew I’ve always made mention of the fact that the details re Herod the Great and the slaughter of boy children two years old and younger, makes more sense as a re-telling of the historical siege of Jerusalem in 37 bc. There being no historical record, as far as I’m aware, that Herod had young boys killed at any other time in his reign. In other words, an older historical event is being used, in gMatthew for it’s later, fictional, birth of Jesus storyline.

However, now, with the gospel of James in mind, with it’s story of two boys born to be kings, and the suggestion, made in an earlier post, that in the canonical gospels, these two stories have been conflated into one story of one boy born to be king - do we not have, in the birth account in gMatthew, an actual account of a birth narrative that can be read as though referencing not one birth but two? A composite birth narrative.

Josephus relates the terrible slaughter at the siege of Jerusalem in 37 bc - when even young children were slaughtered. Adding two years to this date - and it’s back to 39/40 bc. Thus, a ‘birth’ that can take place between these years, 40 bc to 37 bc. A ‘birth’ prior to Herodian rule, ie during a time of Hasmonean rule. Slavonic Josephus supports this idea - it’s messianic speculation resolves around Herod’s siege of Jerusalem in 37 bc. The astrologers and the star being connected to that time period.

On an initial literal reading, for the sake of argument, of the birth narrative in gMatthew, a child born between 40 bc and 37 bc would be quite old by the time of crucifixion under Pilate. Dating Pilate is not without it’s own problems. There is some suggestion that Josephus has left the issue ambiguous - and that Pilate could be dated as early as 19 ce. - which would make a child born between 40 bc and 37 bc to be close to 60 years old at the time of crucifixion. (gJohn indicating an older Jesus figure and Irenaeus running with this idea re his “He was an old man for old men”. Against Heresies ) The High Priest Caiaphas is dated to 18 ce. (with a 26 ce date for Pilate - one is just dealing with an even older Jesus figure crucified under Pilate...)

On a secondary literal reading, for the sake of argument, of the birth narrative in gMatthew, a child born prior to the death of Herod the Great, could be born somewhere between 6 bc and 4 bc. Such a child would be younger at the crucifixion. Dating Pilate at 19 ce or 26 ce makes little difference here. The crucified man is still a young man.

Matthew has the child Jesus going of to Egypt and returning from Egypt while Archelaus was ruling Judea. Archelaus ruled from 4 bc to 6 ce. No indication is given re the length of time the child Jesus was in Egypt, only that he returned while Archelaus was ruling. The latest date would be 6 ce - the year that Archelaus was removed by Rome. And 6 ce is the new date given by gLuke for it’s Jesus nativity storyline. A new ‘birth’ date for a new beginning with no Herodian ruler in Judea. And with this new birth narrative, it’s Jesus figure, born in 6 ce would be 30 years old in 36 ce - the last dating for Pilate.

And most interestingly, the gospel of Luke, with it’s 6 ce birth narrative, is, whatever other reasons Luke might have had in mind, set to cause much confusion with Matthew’s 6/4 bc story. Matthew’s birth narrative can be read dualistically, two king stories accommodated. Perhaps, for Luke, Matthew is just too close to real history with his interpretations. Easy, in his birth narrative, to see a historical reflection. However, if the gospel Jesus storyline is ever to free itself from history, to have a pseudo-historical life of it’s own - then real history needs a little more cover than Matthew has provided in his birth narrative. Luke decides to upset the apple-cart. His Jesus story is based upon 6 ce. Discerning any history from the gospel storyline is now, well, history...( at least from a historicists position with having to harmonize everything to fit it’s one assumed historical man...)

Bottom line in all of this is that there is a considerable degree of conflating history in the gospel salvation interpretation, its retelling of it. A conflation of history involving two historical figures - both born destined to be king....just not at the same time.

(Luke has, of course, complicated his own storyline re his Jesus figure being about 30 years old in the 15th year of Tiberius - thus appearing to cancel out his 6 ce birth date. Luke also has two birth stories for 6 ce - John the Baptist and Jesus - but only one king story; dropping the John king story from the gospel of James. Luke’s six months, and his 6 years if his Jesus figure is 30 years old in 36 ce, between JtB and JC, indicates an attempt to combine two stories, or two traditions, traditions that are not themselves chronological compatible. In other words, a condensing, or conflating, of history within it’s salvation gospel interpretation.

This conflating of history is also indicated with the strange mention of the two high priests somehow operating together; Ananus/Annas and Caiaphas. 6-15 ce and 18 -36 ce respectively. But could it go back further? Perhaps. Back in 37/36 bc the high priest was Ananelus. Removed but re-instated the same year after Herod had the new high priest, the brother of Mariamne, Aristobulus III, killed. Ananelus, twice high priest in one year...)

footnote: Just to be very clear: These gospel ‘birth’ stories of Jesus and John are not, in my opinion, related to literal, physical, births of these two figures, ie these gospel figures of John and Jesus are not historical figures.

PhilosopherJay

Hi MaryHelena,

I agree that we are dealing with a conflation of events and characters in the service of a fictional story line.

I would compare the gospel tales to the novel and two movie versions of the "True Grit" story.

There is one character who is definitely real in the story. That is the judge at Fort Hood who appears briefly in the early trial scene where Cogburn tesitfies. Judge Isaac C. Parker was a real judge at Ft. Hood. He is credited with sentencing more men to be hanged than any other judge in American history. He is really the equivalent to Herod and Pontius Pilate in the story

As for the other characters and events, they are fictional composites. Note from exploresouthernhistory.com:


Warmly,

Philosopher Jay

Doug Shaver

Why does such wording have to be present before we can justifiably believe that the writer did not agree with what Herod said?

Are you actually under the impression that all storytellers agree with all statements they put into the mouths of their characters except when they explicitly include in their narrative some disclaimer to the effect of "but he was wrong"?

maryhelena

Doug, sure, it's easy to disregard any wording, in any piece of literature, that the author puts into the mouth of their characters - whether historical or literary characters. Obviously, in the case of the words put in the mouth of Herod, in the gospel of James, regarding John, the son of Elizabeth and Zacharias, that he was "destined to be king of Israel" - these are the author's words. It's the author's words that are relevant - not that these words are put in the mouth of Herod. Thus, the question becomes, as it does with the wording in the canonical gospels - why these words. What was the author endeavoring to convey with them. OK, it's a story - like the story in the canonical gospels. The relevance of the words is that they can contribute towards understanding how the gospel storyline developed.

If, as I think is the case, the gospel storyline is an interpretation of history, a salvation interpretation; then how that storyline developed, it's twists and turns, it's new insights and it's letting go of older ideas, should be of interest. If the storyline can itself be clearly seen to be a developing storyline - then that insight can become a useful tool when one moves from the gospel interpretation to the historical realities from which it has sprung.

PhilosopherJay

Hi maryhelena and Doug Shaver,

I think the text from Chapter one of Luke is setting us up for a John-the-next-king story:

It is kind of ridiculous to think that Zacharias (possessed by the Holy Spirit, no less) is announcing that his son will save Israel by announcing that someone else will save Israel. It only makes sense if he is announcing that his son John is going to be the new savior and King of Israel.

A Father (possessed by the Holy Spirit) announcing the birth of his son who will announce the birth of another son who will save Israel might happen in a comedy set in Freedonia, but not in Judea.

Warmly,

Philosopher Jay

Doug Shaver

I've given my answer, and you've given yours. The thread's readers can decide which is more credible.

maryhelena

Yes, it’s interesting what Luke is doing with the John storyline - he wants to retain a high profile for John but does not want to be too conspicuous about it - inferences instead of a clear intent as in the gospel of James.

But that is all Luke can do. Once the main element of the John character, “destined to be king”, has been removed from that character, in order to have just one king story, the canonical gospel Jesus story -then there is no going back from that position. And, of course, if the two king scenario was a reflection, an interpretation, of specific historical realities, then the new gospel development, a one king story, has, in effect, hidden the earlier king history. However, the one king gospel Jesus story still wants a forerunner in the drama. So, John comes back into the story as JtB - the son of Elizabeth and Zechariah - with his wings clipped.

I think the earlier John king story, in the gospel of James, is based upon Antigonus - the Hasmonean son of the High Priest and King, Aristobulus II. Antigonus was crucified and beheaded by Mark Antony.

Cassius Dio

The developing gospel JtB storyline uses this historical beheading. The crucifixion of Antigonus being retained for the Jesus storyboard, ie the Jesus character, in it’s crucifixion context, is reflecting Antigonus.

Slavonic Josephus has retained a political interest for its JtB figure.

Slavonic Josephus has a very different picture of it’s wonder-worker. However much the people wanted him to overturn the Romans - the wonder-worker scorned such ideas.
Slavonic Josephus has JtB interested in political power, in setting people free. The wonder-worker scorns ideas of over throwing the Romans. JtB, still with a reflection, however dim, of political interests. (which is, of course, something that Josephus indicates about JtB and a possible rebellion in Ant.)

Slavonic Josephus keeps JtB and the wonder-worker separate, they do not meet. The family connection of John to Jesus, in the gospel of James has been lost. (what has been lost is John’s “destined to be king” identity).

The gospels of John, Mark and Matthew have JC and JtB connect. But it is only in gLuke that the circle closes - JtB and JC are back in a family relationship via Elizabeth and Mary - albeit with the son of Elizabeth without his “destined to be king” political interests. Luke’s birth narrative, of both JC and JtB is 6 ce. This is also the dating given in Slavonic Josephus - JtB is preaching in the reign of Archelaus (4 bc – 6 ce).

Josephus, in Antiquities, has JtB ‘alive’ until around 36 ce (the last dating for Pilate) Seeing that the canonical gospel storyline re dating the crucifixion of JC can be read various ways - both JtB and JC are, as it were, finished of by 36 ce.

I’m beginning to think that the two king story in the gospel of James is maybe the earliest Jesus and John storyline. If these two literary creations are modelled upon historical people, then, logically, the two historical figures are not contemporaries. A new king follows on from an earlier king. If a storyline is wanting to develop a condensed interpretation of history, then a contemporary linkage between the two kings storyline would be necessary. In this case the two pregnancies between two related woman.

Bottom line in all of this - or to sum up - the literary gospel character of JC is based upon two historical, non contemporary figures, two kings. The JtB forerunner figure, while contemporary in the gospel’s conflated pseudo-history, is, in part, based upon a king from a much earlier historical context than the time of Pilate.

That’s about how I see things as of now - always open to review of course...

aa5874

But, that is the story. It cannot be changed because it is ridiculous or because you think it is ridiculous.

People wrote stories about Jesus and all of those in the NT Canon are ridiculous but they can't be ALTERED just as we can't ALTER the ridiculous stories about Romulus and Remus, Achilles and Marcion's Phantom.

It would appear to me that the mention of John the Baptist in the Gospels is merely to HISTORICISE Jesus and may also be a clue that the authors of the Gospels USED the writings Josephus to FABRICATE their Jesus story.

Why would a writer make John the Baptist a prophesied KING when Josephus did NOT make any such claim about JtB?

The authors of the Gospels appear to have wanted their "historical figures", like John the Baptist, Herod, Pilate, Tiberius to MATCH those very historical figures in the writings of Josephus.

maryhelena

John the Baptist a historical figure just because Josephus mentions him? The other figures in your list, Herod (Antipas) Tiberius and Pilate, do have some confirmation of their historicity outside the pages of Josephus. (taking the Pilate Stone as supporting the historical existence of Pilate). With regard to John the Baptist, Josephus could have been recording hearsay. Or?

Josephus is a prophetic historian. Consequently, his words should not, automatically, be taken at face value.

A prophetic historian deals with historical interpretations as much as historical realities ie. a mix of the the historical and the assumed meaning or interpretation of such.

my bolding

Josephus needs to be taken to court, put on the stand. The charge: Obstructing the free flow of historical information.
The verdict on Josephus? Guilty as charged! Exposed as the prophetic historian he is, an interpreter of dreams and a dreamer of dreams.