Originally Posted by PhilosopherJay

Hi Rick,

This is interesting. Are the last 10 parallel to all the synoptics or just Mark? It might also be that some one was trying to make the John text closer to the synoptics and/or Mark.

Warmly,

Philosopher Jay

Originally Posted by maryhelena

Philosopher Jay, have you considered the ‘wonder-doer’, Jesus storyline, in Slavonic Josephus?

Could it be that the time difference between gJohn and gMark is an echo of the Jesus storyboard in Slavonic Josephus? A storyboard in which the ‘wonder-doer’ appears before Pilate - and is set free. Later the Jews bribe Pilate with the 30 talents and Pilate then gives permission for the Jews to crucify Jesus. Hence perhaps a second arrest. Thus the appearance of two days between GJohn and GMark i.e. the 6th hour and back to the 3rd hour - could be an indication of two separate storylines that have been combined in the gospels. Interestingly, the basic storyboard in Slavonic Josephus has, like GJohn, no curtain ripping or other ‘signs’ at the crucifixion.

The ‘extras’ are added later in Slavonic Josephus. Page 262 being the crucifixion story and page 487 the ‘extra’s are added. Page numbers from the following book - “Josephus' Jewish war and its Slavonic version: a synoptic comparison. ( By Flavius Josephus, Henry Leeming, Lyubov V. Osinkina) http://books.google.co.za/books?id=g...qhm73v&sig=oOH That the 'extras' and the resurrection are part of a later storyboard in Slavonic Josephus - interesting! After all, if one thinks a bit about it - the dying and rising god storyline is 'pagan' mythology and is rather a questionable addition to a basic Jewish storyboard....

No google view of these two pages unfortunately - other pages available for viewing.

The relevant passages below are from another website. .

http://www.gnosis.org/library/grs-me...tist/gjb-3.htm

Gnostic John the Baptizer:
by G. R. S. Mead


THE MINISTRY, TRIAL AND CRUCIFIXION OF JESUS.

(Follows on B. J. II. ix. 3.)

1. At that time also a man came forward,—if even it is fitting to call him a man [simply].
2. His nature as well as his form were a man's; but his showing forth was more than [that] of a man.
3. His works, that is to say, were godly, and he wrought wonder-deeds amazing and full of power.
4. Therefore it is not possible for me to call him a man [simply].
5. But again, looking at the existence he shared with all, I would also not call him an angel.
6. And all that he wrought through some kind of invisible power, he wrought by word and command.
7. Some said of him, that our first Lawgiver has risen from the dead and shows forth many cures and arts.
8. But others supposed [less definitely] that he is sent by God.
9. Now he opposed himself in much to the Law and did not observe the Sabbath according to ancestral custom.
10. Yet, on the other hand, he did nothing reprehensible nor any crime; but by word solely he effected everything.
11. And many from the folk followed him and received his teachings.
12. And many souls became wavering, supposing that thereby the Jewish tribes would set themselves free from the Roman hands.
13. Now it was his custom often to stop on the Mount of Olives facing the city.
14. And there also he avouched his cures p. 107 to the people.
15. And there gathered themselves to him of servants (Knechten) a hundred and fifty, but of the folk a multitude.
16. But when they saw his power, that he accomplished everything that he would by word, they urged him that he should enter the city and cut down the Roman soldiers and Pilate and rule over us.
17. But that one scorned it.
18. And thereafter, when knowledge of it came to the Jewish leaders, they gathered together with the High-priest and spake: "We are powerless and weak to withstand the Romans.
19. But as withal the bow is bent, we will go and tell Pilate what we have heard, and we will be without distress, lest if he hear it from others, we be robbed of our substance and ourselves be put to the sword and our children ruined."
20. And they went and told it to Pilate.
21. And he sent and had many of the people cut down.
22. And he had that wonder-doer brought up. And when he had instituted a trial concerning him, he perceived that he is a doer of good, but not an evildoer, nor a revolutionary, nor one who aimed at power, and set him free.
23. He had, you should know, healed his dying wife.
24. And he went to his accustomed place and wrought his accustomed works.
25. And as again more folk gathered themselves together round him, then did he win glory through his works more than all.
26. The teachers of the Law were [therefore] envenomed with envy and gave thirty talents to Pilate, in order that he should put him to death.
27. And he, after he had taken [the money], gave them consent that they should themselves carry out their purpose.
28. And they took him and crucified him according to the ancestral law.

PORTENTS AT THE DEATH OF JESUS AND RUMOURS OF HIS RESURRECTION.

(Follows on B. J. V. v. 4, at the end of the description of the Temple-curtain.)

1. This curtain (katapetasma) was prior to this generation entire, because the people were pious; but now it was lamentable to look at.
2. It had, you should know, been suddenly rent from the top to the ground, when they delivered over to death through bribery the doer of good, the man—yea, him who through his doing was no man.
3. And of many other signs they tell which came to pass at that time.
4. And it was said that after he was put to death, yea after burial in the grave, he was not found.
5. Some then assert that he is risen; but others, that he has been stolen by his friends.
6. I, however, do not know which speak more correctly.
7. For a dead man cannot rise of himself—though possibly with the help of another righteous man; unless it (lit. he) will be an angel or another of the heavenly authorities, or God himself appears as a man and accomplishes what he will,—both walks with men and falls, and lies down and rises up, as it is according to his will.
8. But others said that it was not possible to steal him, because they had put guards all round his grave,—thirty Romans, but a thousand Jews.
9. Such [is narrated] as to that curtain (katapetasma). Moreover [as to] the cause of its tearing there are [? various statements].

Originally Posted by PhilosopherJay

Hi maryhelena,

I think this is quite fascinating that the life and death of the wonder worker is separated from events after his death in Slavonic Josephus.

The fact that there is no Judas in the story and it is Pilate who is bribed does seem to indicate an earlier pre-gospel version of the story.

On the other hand, the writer of Slavonic Josephus may have been wildly inventive and not well versed in Church dogma. It may be just a coincidence that he divided up the life and death story from the resurrection story this way. However, it is quite a coincidence if it is.

One can readily imagine that this carries the outline of three real historical dabates that precede the gospel stories.

The first debate seems to be if he is a man or angel due to his magical healing powers. The second debate seems to be if he is a Jewish Messiah sent by God to free the Jews from the Romans or not. The third and separate debate seems to be if his body was stolen or he had come back to life.

It is quite interesting that there is nothing at all about him being a son of God, a Greko-Roman concept, in this. This could be explained by the fact that the material actually does come from the Jew Josephus, or from the fact that the Medieval Slavonic translator/editor was Jewish.

Warmly,

Philosopher Jay

Originally Posted by maryhelena

Yes, fascinating indeed! Preceding the gospel storyline - perhaps what we have with Slavonic Josephus is the missing ‘Q’ - not so much as a ‘sayings’ source but as a historical record of , as you wrote, three historical debates. Debates that involved a theological/spiritual appraisal of the relevant historical timeframe. Theology, prophecy and mythology. Mix it all up - and, abracadabra - the gospel Jesus storyboard.

G.R.S. Mead, after going through the possible scenarios re Slavonic Josephus, makes this far reaching comment:

So, because biblical historians and scholars are unable to come up with some plausible argument re the contradictions between Slavonic Josephus and War and Antiquities - Slavonic Josephus gets short-shift.....

My own position, re Philip the Tetrarch, finds much in Slavonic Josephus that plays very nicely with that particular take on things...

I’ve long been ‘after’ Josephus - and can quite easily pin the whole Jesus storyline on his shoulders....

Originally Posted by PhilosopherJay

Hi maryhelena,

Here is something else that seems to point towards Slavonic Josephus representing a Josephian original text. In Antiquities 18:3, Josephus tells two stories about Pilate. The structure of those two tales about Pilate match very closely the structure of the Slavonic text about Jesus and Pilate. Here's a breakdown:

1. a) The Jews come to Pilate and ask him to remove the ensigns with the images of Caesar from the Temple.
b) Pilate refuses them
c) The Jews persist
d) Pilate threatens to kill them and prepares to do it
e) The Jews offer themselves as sacrifice
f) Pilate contradicts himself and relents and removes the ensigns from the Temple.

2. a) Jews demand the end to an aqueduct project
b) Pilate refuses them. He brings men to threaten them
c) He asks the Jews to go away
d) The Jews refuse and continue their protests
d) Pilate sends his men to disperse them.
e) Pilate’s men get out of hand and seem to contradict his order to disperse the crowd and they kill both violent and innocent protesters.


3. a) Jews tell Pilate about Jesus and his rebellious followers
b) Pilate kills many of the rebellious followers
c) Pilate puts the wonder-doer on trial and finds him innocent and Jesus persists in teaching
d) The Jewish teachers of the law bribe Pilate and he contradicts his own trial by giving permission to allow them to kill the wonder-doer
e) The Jews crucify the wonder-doer.

In all three cases, the Jewish leaders come to Pilate and ask him to solve a problem, involving the breaking of their laws. In all three cases, he refuses. In all three cases, the Jews refuse Pilate's decision and persist in getting their way. In all three cases the Jewish persistence leads to Pilate taking an unexpected and contradictory action that ends the incident.

In contrast to Slavonic Josephus, the Testimonium Flavianum does not match the form of the first two stories about Pilate. In the TF, there is nothing about Pilate refusing the Jews, nothing about the Jews persisting and refusing to accept Pilate's orders, and no sudden contradictory action by Pilate.

This, in my opinion, is the best evidence for an historical Jesus figure.

Originally Posted by Aquila Pacis

The instances where the divine father is mentioned, plus Jesus as Son of God, being of the Holy Ghost, plus the co-eternal light—which all doesn't seem Arian to me—are only found in the later Latin/Western addition (Jesus' descent into hell). But that doesn't mean that the original Greek/Eastern Acta Pilati (the first part of the Gospel) somehow relate to an Anti-Trinitarian ideology. At first glance I don't see anything in this direction.

[SIZE="1"]Of course this all doesn't change that Arius was essentially correct, when interpreted according to the Caesarian approach: the father [Divus Iulius] did come before the son [Divi filius], i.e. Caesar before Octavian. The declaration of co-eternity was after the fact; it was the Augustan view after Actium superimposed onto the original Antonian view. It's all politics, West against East. For Mark Antony Caesar was to be only an hêrôs, because Octavian had accepted the adoption and began to call himself "Son of God". That's why Antony destroyed the early cult of Caesar and had Amatius executed, that's why at first he didn't inaugurate as highpriest of Divus Iulius, as the senate had originally decreed. These actions would have meant that Caesar is in fact god, it would have acknowledged Octavian's "son of god"-propaganda and sealed his divine (and therefore political) superiority. By delaying his inauguration as flamen, i.e. the final step of Caesar's deification, Antony retained power and influence, especially over the soldiers and veterans of Caesar. And those 1 1/2 decades of Antonian influence until Actium/Alexandria anchored the non-trinitarian view in some places in the East, and it's still there today, fully preserved in Islam.

Originally Posted by PhilosopherJay

Hi maryhelena,

Here is something else that seems to point towards Slavonic Josephus representing a Josephian original text. In Antiquities 18:3, Josephus tells two stories about Pilate. The structure of those two tales about Pilate match very closely the structure of the Slavonic text about Jesus and Pilate. Here's a breakdown:

1. a) The Jews come to Pilate and ask him to remove the ensigns with the images of Caesar from the Temple.
b) Pilate refuses them
c) The Jews persist
d) Pilate threatens to kill them and prepares to do it
e) The Jews offer themselves as sacrifice
f) Pilate contradicts himself and relents and removes the ensigns from the Temple.

2. a) Jews demand the end to an aqueduct project
b) Pilate refuses them. He brings men to threaten them
c) He asks the Jews to go away
d) The Jews refuse and continue their protests
d) Pilate sends his men to disperse them.
e) Pilate’s men get out of hand and seem to contradict his order to disperse the crowd and they kill both violent and innocent protesters.


3. a) Jews tell Pilate about Jesus and his rebellious followers
b) Pilate kills many of the rebellious followers
c) Pilate puts the wonder-doer on trial and finds him innocent and Jesus persists in teaching
d) The Jewish teachers of the law bribe Pilate and he contradicts his own trial by giving permission to allow them to kill the wonder-doer
e) The Jews crucify the wonder-doer.

In all three cases, the Jewish leaders come to Pilate and ask him to solve a problem, involving the breaking of their laws. In all three cases, he refuses. In all three cases, the Jews refuse Pilate's decision and persist in getting their way. In all three cases the Jewish persistence leads to Pilate taking an unexpected and contradictory action that ends the incident.

In contrast to Slavonic Josephus, the Testimonium Flavianum does not match the form of the first two stories about Pilate. In the TF, there is nothing about Pilate refusing the Jews, nothing about the Jews persisting and refusing to accept Pilate's orders, and no sudden contradictory action by Pilate.

This, in my opinion, is the best evidence for an historical Jesus figure.

Warmly,

Philosopher Jay