Grog

I searched for a similar existing thread before posting this, but did not find one.

Proposition: The author of gMark’s Passion Narrative is dependent on Josephus’ Jewish Wars

Criteria for determining literary dependence is from Neil Godfrey’s summary of Adam Winn’s Mark and the Elijah-Elisha Narrative.

Plausibility of Imitation

It is traditionally thought that gMark was written in the 60’s or 70’s which is contemporaneous with publication of Jewish Wars, around 75 CE. It is thought, however, that this work was first published in Aramaic and later translated into Greek. Presumably, if the author of gMark used Wars he would either have translated it from Aramaic or used the later Greek translation.

Similarities in Narrative Structure/Order of Events

From Vridar’s site: “Winn believes that ‘as long as discernible similarities exist between the two narrative structures, literary dependence is probable.”

Here is the structure of both narratives:

1. Disturbance in the Temple during a religious holiday

2. Arrested by Jewish Officials

3. Handed over to Roman Governor

4. Trial before Roman Governor

5. Death at the hands of Rome

Similarites in Specific Narrative Details and Actions

Godfrey: “Sometimes a similar narrative structure can be almost guaranteed to borrowed from a particular source text if there is, in addition to the structure, a salient common detail.”

Observed similarities in details:

1. Both characters are named ‘Jesus.’

2. Both characters create a disturbance in the Temple during a religious festival:

Wars—“There was one Jesus…who…came to that feast whereon it is our custom for every one to make tabernacles to God in the temple, 23 began on a sudden to cry aloud…”

GMark--15 On reaching Jerusalem, Jesus entered the temple courts and began driving out those who were buying and selling there. He overturned the tables of the money changers and the benches of those selling doves,

16 and would not allow anyone to carry merchandise through the temple courts.

3. Both upset Jewish leaders due to the disturbance in the Temple.

Wars--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

GMark--The chief priests and the teachers of the law heard this and began looking for a way to kill him, for they feared him, because the whole crowd was amazed at his teaching.

4. Both are first arrested by Jewish officials.

Wars-- and took up the man,

GMark-- They took Jesus to the high priest, and all the chief priests, the elders and the teachers of the law came together.

5. Both are physically abused by the Jewish officials.

Wars-- and gave him a great number of severe stripes

GMark-- Then some began to spit at him; they blindfolded him, struck him with their fists… And the guards took him and beat him.

6. Neither defend themselves against the charges leveled against them.

Wars-- yet did not he either say any thing for himself, or any thing peculiar to those that chastised him

GMark-- Then the high priest stood up before them and asked Jesus, “Are you not going to answer? What is this testimony that these men are bringing against you?” 61 But Jesus remained silent and gave no answer.

7. Both are then brought before the Roman procurator (or prefect as the case may be with Pilate)

Wars-- 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,

GMark-- So they bound Jesus, led him away and handed him over to Pilate.

8. Both are flogged by the Roman governor.

Wars-- where he was whipped till his bones were laid bare

GMark-- He had Jesus flogged…

9. Again, Neither defend themselves against the charges leveled against them.

Wars-- yet he did not make any supplication for himself

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

10. Both are viewed as innocent by the Roman governor.

Wars-- till Albinus took him to be a madman, and dismissed him.

GMark- “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. Both die, killed by Rome, with a last loud cry.

Wars-- 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,

GMark-- With a loud cry, Jesus breathed his last.

[I am going to add this interesting bit as well, even though it is in GMatt, which I think extends the awareness of GMark’s source:

12. Both, in the end, give up the spirit.

Wars-- and as he was uttering the very same presages he gave up the ghost.

GMatt-- And when Jesus had cried out again in a loud voice, he gave up his spirit.]

Observations:

There is near identical sequence of events. In only two places is the sequence out of order. In Wars, Jesus is beaten first, then is silent to accusers. In Mark, this sequence is turned around. That happens in the sequences with both the Jewish officials and the Roman Governor. Other than that, the sequence follows exactly.

Verbal Agreement

I do not have Wars in Greek, but Winn observes (again quoted at Vridar):
“But clearly this lack of verbal agreement does not undermine literary dependence.”

Weight of Combined Criteria

“If two narratives share a number of specific details and also share narrative structures, literary dependence is highly probable and perhaps undeniable. The weight of combined criteria, therefore, is the most convincing evidence of literary dependence.”
We see above that the Passion Narrative of gMark shares both specific details and also narrative structures with the story of Jesus ben Ananias in Jewish Wars by Josephus.

Do Differences Matter?

Differences do matter. But the agreement of sequence and specific details in this case, I believe, weigh this example toward literary dependence.

Conclusion

There is literary dependence between the Passion Narrative of GMark and Wars of the Jews by Josephus. This has implications for the dating of gMark, if we assume its dependence on Wars.

Since Wars was not written until 75 and probably not available until later, we have to assume a date of, at the earliest, 80 CE for gMark. In addition to a modestly later date for gMark, literary dependence of gMark on details from an unrelated story in Josephus, undermines arguments that the author of gMark is recounting what he believes to be an historic event.

Another implication is that Jewish Wars is thought to have been first written in Aramaic. It is possible that an Aramaic Wars is a source for the gMark's passion story. If not, we would have to push the writing of gMark closer to the turn of the century.

Adam

Interesting. Regarding gMark, anyway.
However, the Passion Narrative goes back to an underlying source. Compare the version in gJohn in which over half these characteristics drop out. Examine the shared details. It's at the end in my OP in

Gospel Eyewitnesses

Toto

Didn't you bring this up in this thread?

dog-on

So, we have at least the following possibilities:

1. Coincidence, as in this series of events happened often.
2. A shared, no longer extant, source
3. Mark used Josephus
4. Josephus used Mark
or,
5. You have just identified the Ehrman's apocalyptic prophet, the actual HJ himself.

aa5874

This is precisely what I find very disturbing. If one finds that there is literary dependence of gMark and Wars of the Jews then it is most basic that one should EXAMINE the other writings of Josephus BEFORE any attempt is made to date gMark on Wars of the Jews alone.

This is most fundamental in any serious inquiry. One cannot be Myopic.

Amazingly,the stories in gMark about John the Baptist, the execution of John the Baptist, the marriage of Herod to Herodias his brother's wife, the daughter of Herodias, the request for a head on a platter are ALL from the same 18th book of Antiquities written c 93 C3.

1.The only known 1st century source which mentions a character called John the Baptist is Antiquities of the Jews 18.3.5 by Josephus written c 93 CE.

2.The only known 1st century source to claim John the Baptist was executed by Herod is Antiquities of the Jews 18.3.5 written c 93 CE.

3.The only known 1st century source to mention that Herod married his brother's wife is Antiquities of the Jews 18.5 written c 93 CE.

4.A known source which claimed someone head was to be cut off is the very same Antiquities of the Jews 18.5. written 93 CE

5.The only known 1st century source which claimed Herodias had a Daughter is the saem Antiquities of the Jews 18.5. WRITTEN 93 CE.

6.The Only source which claimed a character called Jesus had a brother called James is Antiquities of the Jews 20.9.1 by Josephus written c 93 CE.

7. A 1st century source which mentions a trial by the Sanhedrin is Antiquities of the Jews 20.9.1 by Josephus written c 93 CE.

8. The Only known source in the 1st century to claim a character called Jesus was the leader of band of mariners and poor people is found in the Life of Flavius Josephus written sometime AFTER 93 CE.

9. The only known 1st century source to mention THREE CRUCIFIED and One survived is found in the Life of Flavius Josephus written sometime AFTER 93 CE.

There appears to be a literary dependence on all the writings of Josephus by the author of gMark.

The Preponderance of evidence do suggest gMark was written sometime AFTER all the writings of Josephus or AFTER C 93 CE.

Duvduv

Given the fact that Philo discusses the Logos and also recounts the provocations against the Jews by Pontius Pilate, his works would have been even more suitable for forged Jesus testimonium by Christians.
On the other hand, I wonder about the authenticity of the story of Pilate simply because Philo is supposed to have died so close to the time of Pilate's tenure as an old man that it's hard to imagine that Philo would have written about it in his works that he probably authored much earlier.
In any event a testimonium should have been added by the same people who added it to Josephus.

Vorkosigan

Grog, both Craig Evans and Ted Weeden have elaborated this at some length already. It's also on my Mark commentary. I originally read about it in one of the mythicist books but have forgotten which one.

Evans, Craig. 1995. Jesus and His Contemporaries (or via: amazon.co.uk). Boston: Brill Academic Publishers. See the discussion on page 108. Weeden's is much more detailed -- I think he had a total of 24 points of overlap. But I never saw where he published it. He gave a talk at one of the conferences several years ago.

Vorkosigan

Sheshbazzar

It is nice to see the case laid out in this thread so succinctly by Grog, and aa's additional commentary is icing on the cake.

I don't recall ever reading a HJ explanation for these similarities that was a logically persuasive.
Usually, all the HJers want from the entire body of Josephus's works is the TF and a few proof texts that can be used to prop up their HJ arguments.
But when so many similarities of structure and of sequence are pointed out, along with the the fact that Josephus tells us right up front in his introduction to 'Wars of The Jews' that he first composed his books in 'the language of (his) country'*
It puts the shoe on the other foot with regards to the Christian claims of having Josephus as supporting evidence.
As it is hardly likely that Josephus would have carefully assembled his body of writing so as to follow or emulate any earlier existing Christian structure and sequence while treating the entire subject of their very existence as a unknown or nonexistent factor.
Certainly if he were engaged in such a nefarious enterprise, there would be plenty of subtle pointed barbs against their cult and its teachings, and little that would have been so easily usable to support their contentions.
To me it is quite evident that Josephus's writings came first.


Many believe that by the phrase 'the language of our country' Josephus was alluding to Aramaic, but it is my persuasion given Josephus's priestly background and ties to the Temple, and strong self-identity as a Hebrew and as a representative of the Hebrew people, that in his view, the traditional and native language of his country would be considered to be the Hebrew, regardless of what other languages or dialects may have been prevalent.
And for thousands of years it has been those exacting details of the Hebrew language as preserved within the Hebrew texts of the Tanaka, that regardless of whatever other languages may have socially prevailed, was the glue, the standard 'holy tongue' which preserved their Hebrew and Jewish identity intact.
Millions of Jews may speak Yiddish or English or other languages daily, but The TORAH, to be THE authorative Torah, has at all times, and in all places on earth been Hebrew by standard.

And which ancient Hebrew linguistic details it is, that still serve as witness against any translations, versions, or interpretations that deviate in any significant manner. 'till heaven and earth pass away, not one yod or keraia shall pass from The Law.'
Heaven and earth have not passed away, and every yod and smallest part of a HEBREW letter still stand as the STANDARD by which all else is to be compared and measured.



.

outhouse

good take on it.


#5 is self evident lol

Duvduv

Even if there are similarities about Jesus son of Ananus and the NT Jesus, AND even if Josephus wrote about the Baptist, WHY would a gospel writer use these stories to create a backdrop for his gospel story unless he also had an idea about this time period and about the Baptist, which apparently GMark didn't know about?

IF GMark did know of the Josephus stories, WHY didn't GMark use more of that material rather than give such short shrift to the Baptist? Did the gospel author have to dig up a story of one particular rebel to design a tale of an iconoclastic Jesus for his gospel? Besides, it could be assumed that ANY rebel would be punished in a way similar to how ben Ananus was punished.