Peter Kirby

On the JesusMysteries list, we have been discussing the Gospel of Mark and the issue of historicity. I am extending the opportunity for discussion to the users of IIDB. We are working through the Gospel of Mark, section by section, and making remarks on the ostensible origins of the stories. Feel free to make your own comments. The posts will be collated here:

http://www.didjesusexist.com/mark/

Prologue: We would like to figure out how many of the particular stories in
the Gospel of Mark can be shown to be likely invention, whether Mark's or an
earlier tradent's, and how much is there where it seems plausible that it's
based on a historical happening. The idea is that we might show that it's
mostly made up, or that we might clarify which portraits of historical
antecedents for the story make sense, but in any case we will learn more
about the texts and the arguments surrounding them.

I will be using the Revised Standard Version translation. Several more
translations are available here:

http://www.greeknewtestament.com/B41C001.htm

The Beginning of the Galilean Ministry
14: Now after John was arrested, Jesus came into Galilee, preaching the gospel
of God,
15: and saying, "The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand;
repent, and believe in the gospel."

The Call of the First Disciples
16: And passing along by the Sea of Galilee, he saw Simon and Andrew the
brother of Simon casting a net in the sea; for they were fishermen.
17: And Jesus said to them, "Follow me and I will make you become fishers of
men."
18: And immediately they left their nets and followed him.
19: And going on a little farther, he saw James the son of Zeb'edee and John
his brother, who were in their boat mending the nets.
20: And immediately he called them; and they left their father Zeb'edee in the
boat with the hired servants, and followed him.

The Cure of a Demoniac
21: And they went into Caper'na-um; and immediately on the sabbath he entered
the synagogue and taught.
22: And they were astonished at his teaching, for he taught them as one who
had authority, and not as the scribes.
23: And immediately there was in their synagogue a man with an unclean spirit;
24: and he cried out, "What have you to do with us, Jesus of Nazareth? Have
you come to destroy us? I know who you are, the Holy One of God."
25: But Jesus rebuked him, saying, "Be silent, and come out of him!"
26: And the unclean spirit, convulsing him and crying with a loud voice, came
out of him.
27: And they were all amazed, so that they questioned among themselves,
saying, "What is this? A new teaching! With authority he commands even the
unclean spirits, and they obey him."
28: And at once his fame spread everywhere throughout all the surrounding
region of Galilee.

The Cure of Simon's Mother-in-Law
29: And immediately he left the synagogue, and entered the house of Simon and
Andrew, with James and John.
30: Now Simon's mother-in-law lay sick with a fever, and immediately they told
him of her.
31: And he came and took her by the hand and lifted her up, and the fever left
her; and she served them.

Other Healings
32: That evening, at sundown, they brought to him all who were sick or
possessed with demons.
33: And the whole city was gathered together about the door.
34: And he healed many who were sick with various diseases, and cast out many
demons; and he would not permit the demons to speak, because they knew him.

The following tidbits are related in the Gospel of Mark. What we are asking
is this: was the story based on actual events, and if so what might they have
been, and if not where might the story have originated? This is an
open-ended investigation of what brought about the story of Jesus in the
Gospel of Mark.

1. John was arrested. What's the origin?

2. Jesus proclaimed the good news only after John was arrested. What's the
origin?

3. Jesus taught primarily in Galilee. What's the origin?

4. Jesus preaches that "the kingdom of God is at hand" as a central part of
his message (or "gospel"). What's the origin?

5. Simon, Andrew, James, and John were fishermen on the Sea of Galilee.
What's the origin?

6. Jesus called these fishermen first to be his disciples. What's the
origin?

7. Jesus taught in the synagogue at Capernaum. What's the origin?

8. Jesus exorcised a man possessed with an unclean spirit at the synagogue at
Capernaum with the power of his rebuke. What's the origin?

9. The unclean spirit recognizes Jesus as the Holy One of God, and Jesus
commands the demon to be silent. (Also, Jesus later did not permit the
demons to speak, for they knew him.) What's the origin?

10. Jesus was famous throughout Galilee in the area around Capernaum. What's
the origin?

11. Peter had a mother-in-law, who dwelt in Capernaum. What's the origin?

12. The fever left Simon's mother-in-law with the touch of Jesus. What's the
origin?

13. Jesus healed many who were sick and cast out many demons in the city of
Capernaum. What's the origin?

You don't have to answer a clear "yes" or "no" on the question of
historicity--what I am looking for is considerations, indications, evidence,
and knowledge that bear upon the answers. Although discussion of positive
proof of truth is fine, the focus is on what can be shown unlikely.

I have chosen to use a sliding scale of black, gray, pink, and red, with
increasing levels of probability. What does a black mean? It means that the
story was invented, not based on an actual occurence known to the author.
What does a red mean? It means that the tidbit was not invented by the
tradents of the Jesus story but rather was based on an actual event that the
evangelist attributed to his figure of Jesus. What is important to realize
is that a red answer does *not* imply the singular statement "Jesus existed,"
in either sense of the "towering Jesus" or "germinal Jesus." That question
should be broached only when we have gone through a large part of the
synoptic gospels. Rather, it means that the story has high plausibility as
being based on an event in the life of an actual person, who *might* be
called "the historical Jesus" if other conditions also obtain. Once we have
gone through the Gospel of Mark to weed out the inventions stemming from the
imagination of Mark or earlier tradents of the Jesus legends, we can try to
see what various historical figures likely served as the basis of Mark's
story, and whether one of them is rightly termed the historical Jesus.

(The "towering Jesus" definition of the existence of one Jesus, based on posts
by Hoffman, is that according to which a historical Jesus is a man who fits
the attributes given to Jesus much more closely than any other person of the
time period. The "germinal Jesus" definition of the existence of one Jesus,
which is my own formulation, is that according to which a historical Jesus is
a man at the base of the stories about Jesus; stories about other people or
invented stories were piled on top of this person's authentic deeds and
sayings.)

I will not give my own opinions now, but will present some sources. The most
frequently quoted texts are:

Robert Funk et al, _The Five Gospels_ [hereafter 5G].
Robert Funk et al., _The Acts of Jesus_ [hereafter AJ].
Gerd Luedemann, _Jesus After 2000 Years_ [hereafter JA2K].

#2.
"Jesus had been a disciple of John. According to the Gospel of Mark, Jesus
left the Jordan and returned to Galilee at the time John the Baptist was
imprisoned. The Fellows were dubious that this chronology is completely
reliable; some scholars think it possible that the public activities of John
and Jesus overlapped, as represented by the Fourth Gospel (3:22-24)." (AJ, p.
55)

"That Jesus' activity began in Galilee is correct, but not that he began his
preaching only *after* the delivering up, i.e. the imprisonment, of John the
Baptist. This is improbable simply because after John's death there were
still disciples of John among whom Jesus no longer belonged, and because
Jesus had his own message distinct from that of John." (JA2K, p. 11)

#4.
"Except for the phrase 'God's imperial rule,' which Jesus probably used, the
words and phrases employed in this summary of Jesus' message are
characteristic of Mark's language. . . . The popular idea that God was about
to bring the age to a close, so characteristic of more radical movements of
the time, was undoubtedly espoused by John the Baptist, by the apostle Paul,
and by other segments of the emerging Christian movement. But some sayings
and many parables attributed to Jesus do not reflect this common point of
view. The best way to account for the survival of sayings representing a
different view is to attribute them to Jesus, since such sayings and parables
contradict the tendencies of the unfolding tradition." (5G, p. 40)

#6.
"The metaphor of fishing for people may go back to Jesus. The saying in its
present form, however, is not the sort of aphorism to have been repeated
during the oral period. 'Become my followers and I'll have you fishing for
people' is suitable only for the story in which it is now embedded, since
only a few of his followers were originally fishermen. Further, as scholars
have long noted, the story of the call of the first disciples is expressed in
vocabulary typical of Mark, which suggests that Mark created both the story
and the saying." (5G, p. 41)

"It is impossible to doubt that two pairs of brothers actually were followers
of Jesus and that they were fishermen by profession. However, Jesus did not
appoint any missionaries during his lifetime. If he did, they were not
fishers of men in the Easter sense, but messengers of the kingdom of God, who
spread out into the towns of Galilee." (JA2K, p. 11)

"The model for enlisting a successor is the story of Elijah's recruitment of
Elisha (1 Kgs 19:19-21). Elisha was in the field ploughing with twelve yoke
of oxen when Elijah came by and threw his mantle over his potential
successor. Elisha asked permission to kiss his father and mother good-bye
before he became a disciple. . . . No one believes that the call of Simon and
Andrew happened exactly as Mark depicts it. If Jesus enlisted the four
followers formally at all, they became disciples only after a period of time.
Mark has preserved a story from the oral tradition that was designed to
convey the essence of discipleship to all prospective followers: If you want
to become a follower of Jesus, you must abandon your work, your family, give
up all previous attachments and help enlist others. In the anecdote, it is
not the historical Jesus, but Jesus the Master, Jesus the Lord--the Christ of
the later movement who issues the call to one and all to go fishing for
people." (AJ, p. 56)

#7.
"The introduction in vv. 21-22 is the narrative framework Mark has provided
for the nucleus of the story in vv. 23-26. We cannot be certain that this
story was originally set in Capernaum, since Mark is constructing an
artificial sequence of events that extends from the entry into Capernaum in
1:21 to Jesus' departure on a tour in 1:39. Moreover, the characterization
of Jesus in v. 22 is Christian reflection on the style of Jesus' teaching and
goes with part of v. 27: 'What's this?' Jesus' audience asks. 'A new kind of
teaching backed by authority!' they exclaim in response to their own
rhetorical question. Mark has introduced the theme of teaching into the
framework of a story that really has to do with an exorcism." (AJ, p. 57)

"Perhaps the most that can be said about the historicity of this exorcism is
that it does represent in a global way the fact that Jesus probably did
perform one or more exercises at Capernaum. The reason for putting forth
this claim lies not so much in Mark 1:23-28 taken by itself as in various
references throughout all Four Gospels to Jesus' activity--including his
miracle-working activity--in Capernaum. That Jesus was active in Capernaum,
perhaps even making it his 'home base' in Galilee, is supported by multiple
attestation of both sources and forms. Mark has Jesus entering Capernaum in
1:21; 2:1; and 9:33. The first two references introduce miracle stories, and
all three contexts present Jesus teaching, and all three contexts have Jesus
exercising his ministry in someone's house in Capernaum. Both Matthew and
Luke follow Mark's basic view of things, Matthew going so far as to make
Jesus' move to Capernaum an object of prophecy (4:12-17) and to call
Capernaum 'his [Jesus'] own city' (9:1). John's Gospel gives independent
support to this depiction of Capernaum as Jesus' home base in Galilee [[see
John 2:12, 6:59]]. His testimony is all the more important because his
presentation of Jesus' ministry is much more focused on Jerusalem and Judea
than on Galilee, the locale emphasized by the Synoptics." (John P. Meier, _A
Marginal Jew_, vol. 2, p. 649)

#8.
"With the elimination of the elements supplied by Mark, the story becomes a
standard account of an exorcism with four parts: the demon recognizes the
exorcist and struggles against him (vv. 23-24); the exorcist orders the demon
to depart with a loud voice command (v. 25); the demon obeys but makes a
scene in departing (v. 26); bystanders react appropriately to the feat (v.
27a, c). The question is whether this story is the report of a specific
event or a tale of the sort of thing Jesus often did. John P. Meier is
inclined to think that it is a Christian creation. The Fellows of the
Seminar came to the same conclusion, but allowed for the possibility that it
reflected a particular event by coloring it gray. At the same time, the
Fellows endorsed the statement that Jesus practiced exorcism with a red vote.
The stories that report specific examples of his activities as an exorcist
have so many embellishing elements, however, that no story received a
stronger vote than pink. Other stories, such as this one, were colored
gray." (AJ, pp. 57-58)

"The tradition is not the precise description of a miracle in the synagogue of
Capernaum at the beginning of Jesus' public appearance. But it does contain
a general, accurate recollection of Jesus' work as an exorcist in Capernaum.
The activity of Jesus in driving out demons is one of the most certain
historical facts about his life." (JA2K, p. 13)

#9.
"Jesus undoubtedly made remarks during the exorcism of demons. Because they
were not incantations or magical formulae, the disciples did not preserve his
actual words. As a consequence, scholars conclude that words such as those
found in v. 25 represent the storyteller's idea of what Jesus would have said
in expelling a demon." (p. 42)

#11.
"Simon Peter undoubtedly had a mother-in-law since he was married. Paul, who
knew Peter personally, said that Peter had a wife (1 Cor 9:5). Later church
writers (Clement of Alexandria, Eusebius, and the author of the
Pseudo-Clementines) also refer to the wife of Peter and even claim that the
couple had children. As a consequence, the Fellows were all but unanimous
that this bit of narrative information was reliable." (AJ, p. 59)

#12.
"This brief vignette comes as close as any to qualifying as a report of an
actual happening. The version Mark records lacks most of the features that
are characteristic of stereotyped healing stories: there is no comment on the
gravity of the malady; Jesus gives no command; the faith of the recipient is
not remarked; and there is no one present to register amazement and confirm
the cure. Further, there are no precedents in Hebrew scripture of which this
story could be the imitation. And there are no allusions to stories
involving Elijah and Elisha and no reference to cures of this type in
catalogues of eschatological healings, such as we find in Isa 29:18-19,
35:5-6, 42:18. In sum, this simple tale appears to reflect the memory of a
cure worked upon someone close to the inner circle of Jesus' followers; it
does not appear to be fictive. Accordingly, the Fellows designated the gist
of the story pink." (AJ, p. 59)

"The report about healing Peter's mother-in-law in Capernaum may be accurate,
for it is hard to make out a need for constructing such a narrative
(criterion of difference). The healing of fever may be the driving out of a
demon, since in the ancient world fever was attributed to the activity of
demons. The existence of a mother-in-law of Peter corresponds to a note in
the letters of Paul that Peter was married (cf. 1 Cor. 9.5)." (JA2K, p. 13)

#13.
"The Fellows of the Seminar agreed that Jesus healed people and drove away
what were thought to be demons. This much of Mark's report reflects
historical reminiscence. As a possibility, that much of Mark's summary
deserves a gray designation, but no more than that on account of Mark's
tendency to exaggerate (the whole town was there!). The balance of
information has been supplied by Mark's imagination. This is particularly
true of Mark's view that Jesus forbade the demons to speak because they knew
who he was and Jesus wanted ot keep that fact a secret for the time being.
While Mark's summary reflects some vague historical memories, the connection
with events of the first day, the time and the setting, and the number of
patients are undoubtedly fictions." (AJ, p. 60)

We have come upon the miracle traditions in the Gospel of Mark. Several facts
are relevant in considering the global question of whether a first century
Galilean could have worked feats deemed miraculous, such as the exorcism of a
demon or the remission of a fever.

In a world with the electric light and wireless radio, religious healing
continues to be a real phenomenon, attributed with supernatural signifance by
witnesses; though the scientific cause may be the use of drugs or crude
surgery, or the use of deception and slight of hand along with a placebo
effect, as well as psychosomatic effects including charisma, incantation, and
altered states of consciousness. Stevan Davies writes (referring to
_Shamans, Priests and Witches_): "Michael Winkelman has recently analyzed the
techniques of religious healing in forty seven premodern cultures, both
ancient and contemporary [he includes no form of Christian or Jewish or
Palestinian culture]. By his analysis there are five types of healer. The
*shaman* who heals through ASC [Altered States of Consciousness] techniques
particularly involving soul flight and journey into supernatural realms; the
*shaman/healer* who uses physical and empirical medicine, along with charms,
exorcisms and spells and sometimes ASC; the *healer* who uses only charms,
spells, propitiation of spirits but has little or no use of ASC; the *priest*
who acts through propitiation and collective rights with limited or no ASC;
the *sorcerer/witch* who is exclusively immoral, may use ASC, and is normally
credited with the power of flight and animal transformation." (_Jesus the
Healer_, p. 100)

There are several accounts of exorcists in the ancient Mediterranean world.
Here are a few.

"He put to the nose of the possessed man a ring which had under its seal one
of the roots prescribed by Solomon, and then, as the man smelled it, drew out
the demon through his nostrils, and, when the man at once fell down, adjured
the demon never to come back to him, speaking Solomon's name and reciting the
incantations that he had composed." (Josephus, Antiquities 8.47)

"Everyone knows about the Syrian from Palestine, the adept in [exorcism], how
many he takes in hand who fall down in the light of the moon and roll their
eyes and fill their mouths with foam; nevertheless, he restores them to
health and sends them away normal in mind, delivering them from their straits
for a large fee. When he stands beside them as they lie there and says:
Whence came you into his body? The patient himself is silent, but the spirit
answers in Greek or in the language of whatever foreign country he comes
from, telling how and whence he entered into the man; whereupon by adjuring
the spirit and if he does not obey, threatening him, he drives him out."
(Lucian of Samosata [Loeb Classical Library], 16)

"But after this, Celsus, having a suspicion that the great works performed by
Jesus, of which we have named a few out of a great number, would be brought
forward to view, affects to grant that those statements may be true which are
made regarding His cures, or His resurrection, or the feeding of a multitude
with a few loaves, from which many fragments remained over, or those other
stories which Celsus thinks the disciples have recorded as of a marvellous
nature; and he adds: 'Well, let us believe that these were actually wrought
by you.' But then he immediately compares them to the tricks of jugglers, who
profess to do more wonderful things, and to the feats performed by those who
have been taught by Egyptians, who in the middle of the market-place, in
return for a few obols, will impart the knowledge of their most venerated
arts, and will expel demons from men, and dispel diseases, and invoke the
souls of heroes, and exhibit expensive banquets, and tables, and dishes, and
dainties having no real existence, and who will put in motion, as if alive,
what are not really living animals, but which have only the appearance of
life. And he asks, 'Since, then, these persons can perform such feats, shall
we of necessity conclude that they are "sons of God," or must we admit that
they are the proceedings of wicked men under the influence of an evil
spirit?' You see that by these expressions he allows, as it were, the
existence of magic." (Origen, Contra Celsum, 1.68)

There are also accounts of (supposedly divine) healing in the ancient world.

"In the months during which Vespasian was waiting at Alexandria for the
periodical return of the summer gales and settled weather at sea, many
wonders occurred which seemed to point him out as the object of the favour of
heaven and of the partiality of the Gods. One of the common people of
Alexandria, well known for his blindness, threw himself at the Emperor's
knees, and implored him with groans to heal his infirmity. This he did by the
advice of the God Serapis, whom this nation, devoted as it is to many
superstitions, worships more than any other divinity. He begged Vespasian
that he would deign to moisten his cheeks and eye-balls with his spittle.
Another with a diseased hand, at the counsel of the same God, prayed that the
limb might feel the print of a Caesar's foot. At first Vespasian ridiculed
and repulsed them. They persisted; and he, though on the one hand he feared
the scandal of a fruitless attempt, yet, on the other, was induced by the
entreaties of the men and by the language of his flatterers to hope for
success. At last he ordered that the opinion of physicians should be taken,
as to whether such blindness and infirmity were within the reach of human
skill. They discussed the matter from different points of view. "In the one
case," they said, "the faculty of sight was not wholly destroyed, and might
return, if the obstacies were removed; in the other case, the limb, which had
fallen into a diseased condition, might be restored, if a healing influence
were applied; such, perhaps, might be the pleasure of the Gods, and the
Emperor might be chosen to be the minister of the divine will; at any rate,
all the glory of a successful remedy would be Caesar's, while the ridicule of
failure would fall on the sufferers." And so Vespasian, supposing that all
things were possible to his good fortune, and that nothing was any longer
past belief, with a joyful countenance, amid the intense expectation of the
multitude of bystanders, accomplished what was required. The hand was
instantly restored to its use, and the light of day again shone upon the
blind. Persons actually present attest both facts, even now when nothing is
to be gained by falsehood." (Tacitus, Histories 4.81; cf. Suetonius, Life of
Vespasian 7.1)

"Yet Jesus, who won over the least worthy of you, has been known by name for
but little more than three hundred years; and during his lifetime he
accomplished nothing worth hearing of, unless anyone thinks that to heal
crooked and blind men and to exorcize those who were possessed by evil demons
in the villages of Bethsaida and Bethany can be classed as a mighty
achievement." (Julian the Apostate, chapter and verse lost for now)

Concerning Alcetas of Halieis, found chiseled on the wall of a temple of
Asclepius, probably done by one hired by the formerly blind man. "The blind
man saw a dream [while sleeping in Asclepius' temple]. It seemed to him the
god came up to him and with his fingers opened his eyes....At daybreak he
walked out sound." (Inscriptiones Graecae, 4.1.121 - 122, Stele 1.18)

http://www.brynmawr.edu/classics/red...5-CSTS212.html
Incubation at the Asclepius Temple in Epidaurus
"Hagestratus with headaches. He suffered from insomnia on account of
headaches. When he came to the Abaton he fell asleep and saw a dream. It
seemed to him that the god cured him of his headaches and, making him stand
up naked, taught him the lunge used in the pancratium. When day came he
departed well, and not long afterwards he won in the pancratium at the Nemean
games."
"Gorgias of Heracleia with pus. In a battle he had been wounded by an arrow in
the lung and for a year and a half had suppurated so badly that he filled
sixty-seven basins with pus. While sleeping in the temple he saw a vision. It
seemed to him the god extracted the arrow point from his lung. When day came
he walked well, holding the point of the arrow in his hands."
"Andromache of Epeirus, for the sake of offspring. She slept in the temple and
saw a dream. It seemed to her that a handsome boy uncovered her, after that
the god touched her with his hand, whereupon a son was born to Andromache
from Arybbas."
"Asclepius healed Theopompus the Athenian, who was being worn out and drained
from tuberculosis, and he urged him on to produce comedies again, since he
had made him safe and sound. this is proven by the relief of Theopompus in
Parian marble. (The inscription identifies him by his father's name, for he
was the son of Tisamenos.) The appearance of the affliction is very visible.
The bed itself is also of marble. On it, by the artist's operation, lies the
image of him in his sickness. And the god stands nearby and reaches out his
healing hand to him There is also a young boy; he is also smiling."

"There also arrived a man who was lame. He already thirty years old was a keen
hunter of lions; but a lion had sprung upon him and dislocated his hip so
that he limped with one leg. However when they massaged with their hands his
hip, the youth immediately recovered his upright gait. ... Yet another man
had his hand paralysed; but left their presence in full possession of the
limb." (Philostratus, of Apollonius and other sages, found online but site
went down)
http://www.livius.org/ap-ark/apollon...llonius07.html has Jona Lendering
arguing that Apollonius of Tyana was known as a magician: "Independent
confirmation: it is taken for granted by Cassius Dio, Lucian (the latter
referring to a disciple) and Anastasius Sinaitica [note 8]. Fourfold
attestation: to be found in the Reminiscences of Moeragenes, in the memoirs
of Damis, in the Letters of Apollonius, and in the Antiochene tradition.
Embarrassment: Philostratus clearly felt uncomfortable with this, and three
times offers apologies."

In light of all these accounts, it cannot be assumed that every "miracle"
account in antiquity is a fiction, although the attribution to the working of
a god may certainly be false. Rather, with consideration to possible
scientific explanations of the event and the particulars of the story
related, each healing or exorcism must be evaluated in itself as to whether
it is likely based on an actual interaction between a healer and supplicant.

best,
Peter Kirby

judge

Hi Peter,
Why do you say Jesus probably used the phrase 'Gods Imperial Rule'?

Secondly there is a theory that Jesus was alluding to an Aramaic targum of Isaiah here.

" And Jesus' very proclamation of the gospel, namely, that the kingdom of God has come (Mark 1:14–15), probably reflects the Aramaic paraphrasing of passages such as Isaiah 40:9 and 52:7. In these Aramaic paraphrases we find the distinctive words "The kingdom of your God is revealed!"

From...
http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/9t5/9t5098.html

Peter Kirby

That's a quote, not my words and not necessarily my opinion.

Obviously Jesus did not speak English and could not have used the phrase "God's Imperial Rule." That is the Jesus Seminar's translation for what is usually rendered "Kingdom of God."

best,
Peter Kirby

Toto

Peter - this is too much all at once.

Let's start with 1 and 2

The origin of [1] could be Josephus, or could be another historical source, or could be legends passed on by John's followers. Zindler has made a case that John is legendary, and that references to him in Josephus are interpolations from John's followers, but I am not totally persuaded yet.

The description of John in Mark is composed entirely of references to Elijah in the Old Testament and to astrological-mythological themes, as detailed in this thread. There are, moreover, differences between the portrait of John in Josephus and in Mark. From this, I conclude that Mark is not writing history, and that he is constructing a legend for a theological purpose.

[Although - one of the major differences is that in Mark, John practices "baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins," while Josephus states: "For immersion in water, it was clear to him, could not be used for the forgiveness of sins, but as a sanctification of the body, and only if the soul was already thoroughly purified by right actions" (from Antiquities 18.5.2 116-119.) Josephus' version seems more compatible with the Christian picture of Jesus, so I am not sure why Mark did not copy it, if his source were Josephus. Steve Mason, as I recall, has a way of harmonizing these versions.]

There is the argument that the baptism of Jesus by John is embarassing, so it must have happened - but Mark does not appear to be embarrassed by the incident (although later Christains might have been), and appears to use it to construct a story about Jesus receiving the holy spirit, and about Jesus increasing over John.

So there is no reason to assume from this that Jesus either existed, or was at any time a follower of John, or that John existed contemporaneously with Jesus, or that Jesus started preaching after John was arrested. It is only an indication that there was a movement around John that rivaled the Jesus movement, and that Mark wanted to get one up on the John movement, by subordinating their founder to Jesus.

Rick Sumner

My responses can be found at www.didjesusexist.com I welcome any discussion.

Regards,
Rick

premjan

I think the Mandaean (Gnostic) Christians of Iraq are followers of John from way back when.

judge

Hope it's Ok to reply to my own post

The more I think on this the more interesting I find it. According to the above link on three occaisions the gospel of mark reflects an aramaic targum rather than the hebrew which has come down to us (or the LXX).

Does anyone know much about this targum...or which one it is even?

premjan

where did this concept come about?

easy answer: jesus was just borrowing the metaphor of the Roman empire (or the Judaic kingdom) and using it as an illustration.

ethnological answer: the same concept exists in the writings of Zoroaster and was borrowed via the cult of Mithras.

Rick Sumner

What evidence do you see suggesting that Mark may have known Josephus?

Sanders (Jesus and Judaism, The Historical Figure of Jesus), believed we got the best account of JBap by combining both the narratives in Josephus and those in Mark. I think he's probably right.

On this specific issue, how can you role out the possibility that John the Baptist intentionally modeled himself after the prophets of old, rather than Mark creating it? For what it's worth, I agree with you--but I think it's possible that there is incidental history included.

There's a problem with this approach, that I've never seen addressed:

If Mark really viewed JBap as a competitor to Jesus, why doesn't he villify JBap? Indeed, one of the chief problems in attempting to recreate JBap is that everyone who writes about him--the gospels and Josephus--are sympathetic to him. If he's a rival, why is this the case? And why isn't Mark more explicit, a la John?

Regards,
Rick

Toto

No particular evidence, but the possibility is there. Mark is usually dated earlier than Josephus, but the parts of JtB show signs of being a later interpolation.

How does he harmonize the two accounts? Did John baptize for the remission of sins or not?

I can't rule it out, but it seems highly speculative to me. Especially the part about eating locusts.

I don't know. The John movement may not have been a "competitor" in the sense that Jews who refused to convert to Christianity were running a competitive movement. The Jesus movement may have thought there was a better chance to assimilate John's followers by praising him, but saying that he was not worthy to lick the boots of their hero.