Freethought & Rationalism Archive

dog-on · 03-20-2009, 09:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bacht

Quote:

Originally Posted by dog-on

A satire based on the information gleaned from reading Josephus.

This does, in no way, mean that the author was not knowledgeable of other works, such as the LXX.

A fairly comprehensive basis for a Jesus story can actually be derived from certain occurrences described in the works of Josephus.

The incident of the Apocalyptic Preacher in the Jewish temple, being but one easily identifiable example.

Were the gospels written to refute negative public opinion about Christianity? If the average empire-dweller believed that Christians drank blood and set themselves apart as "enemies of mankind" did Mark or the others perceive a need to polish the Christian image?

Perhaps, but somehow I don't think that was their thought process, at all.

dog-on · 03-20-2009, 09:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jayrok

Quote:

Originally Posted by dog-on

A satire based on the information gleaned from reading Josephus.

This does, in no way, mean that the author was not knowledgeable of other works, such as the LXX.

A fairly comprehensive basis for a Jesus story can actually be derived from certain occurrences described in the works of Josephus.

The incident of the Apocalyptic Preacher in the Jewish temple, being but one easily identifiable example.

I think it's possible Mark got the idea of Jesus making a ruckus by crying woes to Jerusalem in the city, warning of the kingdom of God coming, being arrested and flogged, all the while remaining silent is based on Jesus bar Ananus from Josephus.

But I think Mark had knowledge of and used the Hebrew Scriptures as well.

I don't dispute that, as of course, the LXX would have served nicely in that regard.

dog-on · 03-20-2009, 09:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DCHindley

And don't forget Philo:

Flaccus, VI. (36) There was a certain madman named Carabbas, afflicted not with a wild, savage, and dangerous madness (for that comes on in fits without being expected either by the patient or by bystanders), but with an intermittent and more gentle kind; this man spent all this days and nights naked in the roads, minding neither cold nor heat, the sport of idle children and wanton youths; (37) and they, driving the poor wretch as far as the public gymnasium, and setting him up there on high that he might be seen by everybody, flattened out a leaf of papyrus and put it on his head instead of a diadem, and clothed the rest of his body with a common door mat instead of a cloak and instead of a sceptre they put in his hand a small stick of the native papyrus which they found lying by the way side and gave to him; (38) and when, like actors in theatrical spectacles, he had received all the insignia of royal authority, and had been dressed and adorned like a king, the young men bearing sticks on their shoulders stood on each side of him instead of spear-bearers, in imitation of the bodyguards of the king, and then others came up, some as if to salute him, and others making as though they wished to plead their causes before him, and others pretending to wish to consult with him about the affairs of the state.

Mark 15:7-20 7 And among the rebels in prison, who had committed murder in the insurrection, there was a man called Barabbas. 8 And the crowd came up and began to ask Pilate to do as he was wont to do for them. 9 And he answered them, "Do you want me to release for you the King of the Jews?" 10 For he perceived that it was out of envy that the chief priests had delivered him up. 11 But the chief priests stirred up the crowd to have him release for them Barabbas instead. 12 And Pilate again said to them, "Then what shall I do with the man whom you call the King of the Jews?" 13 And they cried out again, "Crucify him." 14 And Pilate said to them, "Why, what evil has he done?" But they shouted all the more, "Crucify him." 15 So Pilate, wishing to satisfy the crowd, released for them Barabbas; and having scourged Jesus, he delivered him to be crucified. 16 And the soldiers led him away inside the palace (that is, the praetorium); and they called together the whole battalion. 17 And they clothed him in a purple cloak, and plaiting a crown of thorns they put it on him. 18 And they began to salute him, "Hail, King of the Jews!" 19 And they struck his head with a reed, and spat upon him, and they knelt down in homage to him. 20 And when they had mocked him, they stripped him of the purple cloak, and put his own clothes on him. And they led him out to crucify him.

Mark 15:29 29 And those who passed by derided him, wagging their heads

Mark 15:31 So also the chief priests mocked him to one another with the scribes

Luke 8:27 27 And as he stepped out on land, there met him a man from the city who had demons; for a long time he had worn no clothes, and he lived not in a house but among the tombs.

Luke 23:7-9 7 And when he learned that he belonged to Herod's jurisdiction, he sent him over to Herod, who was himself in Jerusalem at that time. 8 When Herod saw Jesus, he was very glad, for he had long desired to see him, because he had heard about him, and he was hoping to see some sign done by him. 9 So he questioned him at some length;

DCH (Lunchtime!!)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jayrok

I think it's possible Mark got the idea of Jesus making a ruckus by crying woes to Jerusalem in the city, warning of the kingdom of God coming, being arrested and flogged, all the while remaining silent is based on Jesus bar Ananus from Josephus.

But I think Mark had knowledge of and used the Hebrew Scriptures as well.

Indeed.

Now, where, in antiquity, would one be likely to find all of these possible sources, together, in one area.

Jayrok · 03-20-2009, 10:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DCHindley

And don't forget Philo:

Flaccus, VI. (36) There was a certain madman named Carabbas, afflicted not with a wild, savage, and dangerous madness (for that comes on in fits without being expected either by the patient or by bystanders), but with an intermittent and more gentle kind; this man spent all this days and nights naked in the roads, minding neither cold nor heat, the sport of idle children and wanton youths; (37) and they, driving the poor wretch as far as the public gymnasium, and setting him up there on high that he might be seen by everybody, flattened out a leaf of papyrus and put it on his head instead of a diadem, and clothed the rest of his body with a common door mat instead of a cloak and instead of a sceptre they put in his hand a small stick of the native papyrus which they found lying by the way side and gave to him; (38) and when, like actors in theatrical spectacles, he had received all the insignia of royal authority, and had been dressed and adorned like a king, the young men bearing sticks on their shoulders stood on each side of him instead of spear-bearers, in imitation of the bodyguards of the king, and then others came up, some as if to salute him, and others making as though they wished to plead their causes before him, and others pretending to wish to consult with him about the affairs of the state.

Mark 15:7-20 7 And among the rebels in prison, who had committed murder in the insurrection, there was a man called Barabbas. 8 And the crowd came up and began to ask Pilate to do as he was wont to do for them. 9 And he answered them, "Do you want me to release for you the King of the Jews?" 10 For he perceived that it was out of envy that the chief priests had delivered him up. 11 But the chief priests stirred up the crowd to have him release for them Barabbas instead. 12 And Pilate again said to them, "Then what shall I do with the man whom you call the King of the Jews?" 13 And they cried out again, "Crucify him." 14 And Pilate said to them, "Why, what evil has he done?" But they shouted all the more, "Crucify him." 15 So Pilate, wishing to satisfy the crowd, released for them Barabbas; and having scourged Jesus, he delivered him to be crucified. 16 And the soldiers led him away inside the palace (that is, the praetorium); and they called together the whole battalion. 17 And they clothed him in a purple cloak, and plaiting a crown of thorns they put it on him. 18 And they began to salute him, "Hail, King of the Jews!" 19 And they struck his head with a reed, and spat upon him, and they knelt down in homage to him. 20 And when they had mocked him, they stripped him of the purple cloak, and put his own clothes on him. And they led him out to crucify him.

Mark 15:29 29 And those who passed by derided him, wagging their heads

Mark 15:31 So also the chief priests mocked him to one another with the scribes

Luke 8:27 27 And as he stepped out on land, there met him a man from the city who had demons; for a long time he had worn no clothes, and he lived not in a house but among the tombs.

Luke 23:7-9 7 And when he learned that he belonged to Herod's jurisdiction, he sent him over to Herod, who was himself in Jerusalem at that time. 8 When Herod saw Jesus, he was very glad, for he had long desired to see him, because he had heard about him, and he was hoping to see some sign done by him. 9 So he questioned him at some length;

DCH (Lunchtime!!)

There always seems to be precendent associated with stories that are, at least in part, fabricated. Retelling of known tales, if you will.

Quote:

Originally Posted by dog-on

Indeed.

Now, where, in antiquity, would one be likely to find all of these possible sources, together, in one area.

It's a good question. I wonder has anyone taken on the task of researching volumes in antiquity for possible sources for the gospel writers and published the parallels one after another in a sort of reconstruction of those tales resembling our gospel narrative.

Dennis R. MacDonald did a similar task with his The Homeric Epics and the Gospel of Mark. I wonder would it work out if someone did this with the works of people like Josephus and Philo. It seems such a product would be significant.

candyfloss · 03-20-2009, 11:55 AM

This might be a naive question. But might it not be the case that the dates (of J's alleged life/ministry) were not yet established/set in stone yet when the gospels were written, regardless of when that was? Perhaps someone writing in say, 130 c.e., wouldn't have been thinking, "this doesn't add up, that was over a hundred years ago!" Since he would have been reporting events as he believed them, he may have believed they were more recent than later tradition would dictate...

In other words, when did the second century become the second century? Surely this happened retroactively much later when it was decided to begin a "new era" starting with Jesus birth.

show_no_mercy · 03-20-2009, 12:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by candyfloss

In other words, when did the second century become the second century? Surely this happened retroactively much later when it was decided to begin a "new era" starting with Jesus birth.

Probably at the birth of Christendom. It was established 300 or so years after the birth of Jesus (the reign of Tiberius), so they re-did their calendar to reflect this.

During the 2nd century, no one referred to it as "the 2nd century".

candyfloss · 03-20-2009, 01:07 PM

That's exactly my point. That is to say, if a biographer (not an eye-witness, obviously) was writing in the second century, since the tradition wasn't set yet--he may not have believed he was referring to events 100+ years prior, but simply some time in the recent past.

Even if you you allow for the sacking of the temple as an historical marker for such a biographer, the events he was refering to need only, for his purposes, to have been just prior to the temple destuction. In which case there could still have been people from that generation alive even if the author is writing in 120 or 130 (50-60 years later)--he could have thought the second coming was still immanent.

dog-on · 03-23-2009, 03:29 AM

Sometimes it seems like the early writings are actually waiting for a "first coming" and not, in my view a later understanding, a "second coming".

Jayrok · 03-23-2009, 04:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dog-on

Sometimes it seems like the early writings are actually waiting for a "first coming" and not, in my view a later understanding, a "second coming".

Agree. Paul sounds like he is awaiting the coming of Jesus, not the return of Jesus.

Jayrok · 03-23-2009, 04:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by candyfloss

That's exactly my point. That is to say, if a biographer (not an eye-witness, obviously) was writing in the second century, since the tradition wasn't set yet--he may not have believed he was referring to events 100+ years prior, but simply some time in the recent past.

Even if you you allow for the sacking of the temple as an historical marker for such a biographer, the events he was refering to need only, for his purposes, to have been just prior to the temple destuction. In which case there could still have been people from that generation alive even if the author is writing in 120 or 130 (50-60 years later)--he could have thought the second coming was still immanent.

If it is assumed that the author had this in mind that's fine for his writing and audience. But it doesn't answer why this type of language wasn't edited out in the century when they decided to bundle the selected books of the NT as have them today. Phrases were added such as the end of Mark about handling snakes, drinking poision, etc. Why not amend Jesus' false claim of the kingdom of God coming on a specific generation?

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

03-20-2009, 11:55 AM	#45
candyfloss Regular Member Join Date: Feb 2006 Location: fayetteville, Arkansas Posts: 282	This might be a naive question. But might it not be the case that the dates (of J's alleged life/ministry) were not yet established/set in stone yet when the gospels were written, regardless of when that was? Perhaps someone writing in say, 130 c.e., wouldn't have been thinking, "this doesn't add up, that was over a hundred years ago!" Since he would have been reporting events as he believed them, he may have believed they were more recent than later tradition would dictate... In other words, when did the second century become the second century? Surely this happened retroactively much later when it was decided to begin a "new era" starting with Jesus birth.

03-20-2009, 01:07 PM	#47
candyfloss Regular Member Join Date: Feb 2006 Location: fayetteville, Arkansas Posts: 282	That's exactly my point. That is to say, if a biographer (not an eye-witness, obviously) was writing in the second century, since the tradition wasn't set yet--he may not have believed he was referring to events 100+ years prior, but simply some time in the recent past. Even if you you allow for the sacking of the temple as an historical marker for such a biographer, the events he was refering to need only, for his purposes, to have been just prior to the temple destuction. In which case there could still have been people from that generation alive even if the author is writing in 120 or 130 (50-60 years later)--he could have thought the second coming was still immanent.

03-23-2009, 03:29 AM	#48
dog-on Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: The Netherlands Posts: 3,397	Sometimes it seems like the early writings are actually waiting for a "first coming" and not, in my view a later understanding, a "second coming".

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.