Freethought & Rationalism Archive

maryhelena · 12-27-2010, 09:53 AM

Slavonic Josephus and the Synoptic problem:

Mark verse Matthew - which is earlier? Most scholars go with Mark with lots of arguments - arguments that are complex. Here is an idea for a much simpler way to handle the problem: Slavonic Josephus. Starting from the idea that the gospel of John has made an interesting omission re John the Baptist - no mention of his death. All that seems to be there is the statement in John 3:24 - and it’s been put in brackets...(“This was before John was put in prison”). A strange omission if John is the very last gospel. Seeing that JB played such a big role re the baptism of JC and the drama of the beheading storyline in Mark and Matthew. (Luke has Herod(Antipas) admitting to the beheading but without the Herodias/Antipas/Philip story).

However, if the Johannine tradition is placed at ground zero, this omission does not look so strange. The source for the Johannine tradition re JB is most likely Slavonic Josephus. In that account John is put in a dungeon - but no mention is made of his death. (at least a search on google books does not show up any death for JB in Slavonic Josephus).

Mark and Matthew also turn to Slavonic Josephus - with a very interesting take on things. Mark and Matthew have two different stories re JB - or more correctly, they seem to be referencing not just Herod (Antipas) but also Archelaus. The tetrarch, Antipas, and the ethnarch, Archelaus, ie the Herod with the higher status.

With two Herods in view - Slavonic Josephus comes up with two stories re John the Baptist:

Archelaus, the ethnarch

And when he was brought before
Archelaus and the experts of the Law were
assembled, they asked him who he was and
where he had been up till then. In answer
he said, “I am a man. Where the divine
spirit leads me, I feed on the roots of
reed and the shoots of trees.”. When those
(men) threatened him with torture if he did
not cease those words and deeds, he said
“It is you who should cease from your foul
deeds and adhere to the Lord, your God”.
And arising in fury, Simon, an Essene by
origin (and) a scribe, said, “We read the
divine scriptures every day, and you who
have (just) now come in like a beast from
the woods dare teach us and to lead
people astray with your impious words.”
And he rushed forward to tear his body apart.
But he, reproaching them, said, “I am not
revealing to you the mystery which is
(here) among you, because you have not
wished for it. Therefore, there – will come -
(down) on you an unutterable calamity,
because of you (and all the people>” Thus
he spoke and left for the other side of the
Jordan. And as no one dared to prevent him,
he was doing what he had done before”.

Mark on King Herod (Archelaus) the ethnarch

“Herod feared John and protected him, knowing him to be a righteous and holy man. When Herod heard John, he was greatly puzzled; yet he liked to listen to him.” Mark ch.6

Slavonic Josephus on Herod (Antipas) the tetrarch

Hearing this, Herod was enraged and ordered
him to be beaten and thrown out. He, however,
did not cease but wherever he encountered
Herod spoke thus (and) accused him
until he put him in a dungeon.

Matthew: on Herod (Antipas) the tetrarch

“Herod wanted to kill John, but he was afraid of the people, because they considered John a prophet.” Matthew ch.14

The gospel of Mark is going with the earlier Archelaus picture of ‘Herod’. Matthew is going with the Herod (Antipas) picture of ‘Herod’.

Slavonic Josephus does of course have JB doing the round in 6 ce. What is most likely going on here with the Mark and Matthew storylines is a pseudo-historical puzzle. In other words; a ball of wax that needs to be separated out: Archelaus took his dead brothers wife (from a second husband). Herod (Antipas) is assumed to have taken his brother’s wife Herodias. Herod the Great divorced, got rid of, his first wife to take the Hasmonean, Mariamne, as wife - and had Antigonus beheaded in the meantime. Thus, lots of historical intrigue that makes up a nice ball of wax for anyone interested in developing a pseudo-historical puzzle.

Mark has King Herod offering the daughter of Herodias half his kingdom - Matthew drops this - embarrassment? - but keeps the beheading request. The half a kingdom possibly referencing the Hasmonean/Herodian bloodline that Herod the Great established with his marriage with Marriamne.

So, looks to me that Mark is earlier than Matthew - well, at least the indications of it’s storyline. Antiquities was published around 93 ce. Thus, sometime between the earlier Slavonic edition of Josephus, probably an earlier version of War, soon after 70 ce - (which has Herodias married to Philip) the three gospels, John, Mark and Matthew, were probably around in their early forms. After 93 ce - the Herodias/Philip storyline was denied by Josephus - ie he changed his tune (he is a prophetic historian after all....)- and Luke followed suit by not referencing the marriage of Herodias to Philip in his storyline, nor the pseudo-historical ball of wax re JB and the Herodian marriage affair...

Why would the gospel of John not use the Herodias/Herod (Antipas)/Philip/JB storyline from Slavonic Josephus? Different agenda than Mark. Mark is aiming at a pseudo-history - and John is seeking to spiritualize his storyline.

Slavonic Josephus is of course a bone of contention - whatever the issues that it involves, something is very clear: Josephus is the roadblock to understanding early Christian history. While some people might think they can use his work to support their HJ - the real issue is that Josephus is much more a roadblock than an enabler in the search for Christian origins...

(John ch.1 and the questioning of JB - sounds a bit similar to the Archelaus of Slavonic Josephus storyline...

19 Now this was John’s testimony when the Jewish leaders in Jerusalem sent priests and Levites to ask him who he was. 20 He did not fail to confess, but confessed freely, “I am not the Messiah.” 21 They asked him, “Then who are you? Are you Elijah?” He said, “I am not.” “Are you the Prophet?” He answered, “No.” 22 Finally they said, “Who are you? Give us an answer to take back to those who sent us. What do you say about yourself?”)

Comments welcome.....

ApostateAbe · 12-27-2010, 10:13 PM

Do you have an explanation for why Slavonic Josephus should be taken seriously? Do you claim that the Slavonic Josephus is a roughly accurate translation of the original Josephus? Yeah, that would be probably the biggest bone of contention, not that I know much about it.

maryhelena · 12-27-2010, 11:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

Do you have an explanation for why Slavonic Josephus should be taken seriously? Do you claim that the Slavonic Josephus is a roughly accurate translation of the original Josephus? Yeah, that would be probably the biggest bone of contention, not that I know much about it.

Why should Slavonic Josephus be taken seriously? Why not? It’s there after all. The issue is not that the relevant, for the NT, passages are not in present copies of War (a work that was seemingly a re-write or re-composition anyway) - the issue is not only that they are not in Antiquities, published some 20 or so years later, but that Antiquities contradicts Slavonic Josephus re Herodias being married to Philip. And of course, we have Luke contradicting Slavonic Josephus as well, with John the Baptist being born around the time of the gospel Jesus (Luke’s dating around 6 ce - whereas Slavonic Josephus has John the Baptist already up and running with his preaching/baptizing in that year...). At the very least the change in tune of Josephus (if he did write the Slavonic Josephus passages related to the NT) should be ringing loud the alarm bells.

Quote:

Do you claim that Slavonic Josephus is a roughly accurate translation of the original Josephus?

An original Josephus? I suppose there must have been an original - but writers, especially prophetic writers, would be going along with new insights etc - so nothing cast in stone. Looking backwards to earlier work is to see development not ‘gospel truth’...

Quote:

War Book 111 ch.V111 sect. 3

"...he called to mind the dreams which he had dreamed in the night-time, whereby God had signified to him beforehand both the future calamities of the Jews, and the event that concerned the Roman Emperors. Now Josephus was able to give shrewd conjectures about the interpretations of such dreams as have been ambiguously delivered by God. Moreover, he was not unacquainted with the prophecies contained in the sacred books, as being a priest himself, and of the posterity of priests; and just then he is in ecstasy; and setting before him the tremendous images of the dreams he had lately had, ......he put up a secret prayer to God..........And I protest openly, that I do not go over to the Romans as a deserter of the Jews, but as a minister from thee".

Quote:

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

The War was first of all composed in Aramaic and circulated among the Jews of Palestine and Babylonia, doubtless to convince them of the futility of resisting the might of the Roman arms. Of this original edition, however, no trace has so far been discovered. The work known to us is in Greek. It is not a translation so much as a re-composition very carefully prepared on the models of Greek history; and in this Josephus sought the help of Greek stylists.

Nevertheless the subject may be said to have recently entered on a new phase: certain hitherto unknown material has been brought forward, which has forced the problem once more into the arena of controversy; and it may very well be that in the future this new material will have always, directly or indirectly, to be taken into consideration whenever the familiar Josephean passages are reviewed or rediscussed.

There is extant in a number of MSS. a Slavonic or Old Russian translation of the War. In this version there are no less than eight pieces referring to John the Baptist (3), Jesus (4) and the first Christians (1). These remarkable passages, of which the Greek text shows no trace, have been excerpted and the Slavonic text of them critically established by the collation of four MSS.

In the first place it is agreed on all hands by the German scholars who have investigated them, that p. 100 these pieces were not originally composed in Slavonic and interpolated into the translation. Not only is the style foreign to correct Slavonic idiom, but the peculiar nature of the contents is so alien to Slavonic mentality, that to suppose so late a writer as a Slavonic translator, who could at the very earliest be assigned only to the 10th century, is out of the question. They are indubitably translations, and moreover clearly rendered from Greek. This is shown not only by the construction of the sentences in general, but also by the clumsiness and uncertainty of the translator in his rendering of particles and conjunctions; moreover the Greek original for the veil or curtain of the temple (katapetasma) is retained.

There remains only one other possible conjecture—from which everybody has so far instinctively shrunk: Can the writer after all have been Josephus himself? But if so, why does he contradict himself so flatly,—to say nothing of the difficulty of conjecturing his motive for cutting out the passages?

It thus appears that, whatever hypothesis of authorship we make—whether Christian, Jew or Josephus, we are left floundering in a welter of inconsistencies; all that can be said is that the Jew alternative is the least improbable.

And there we must leave this baffling problem, in the hope that our readers will at any rate be interested in having it brought to their notice; for in any case these passages must be considered striking curiosities, even perhaps the greatest to be found, in the ancient literature that is generally classed under the caption—'Christian forgeries.'

my bolding

As I have shown in the OP, if one looks at the gospel storyline as containing a measure of pseudo-history, ie it contains a strong dose of ‘prophetic’ interpretations of historical realities, then, as we see developments within the creation of the NT storyboard - we should also expect to see developments from the Josephan pen, ie as a prophetic historian Josephus is playing a running game, a moving game...

Amazon link for the Slavonic Josephus book:

Josephus' Jewish War and Its Slavonic Version: A Synoptic Comparison (Arbeiten Zur Geschichte Des Antiken Judentums Und Des Urchristentums, Bd. 46.) (or via: amazon.co.uk)

12-27-2010, 09:53 AM	#1
maryhelena Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: England Posts: 2,527	Slavonic Josephus and the Synoptic problem: Slavonic Josephus and the Synoptic problem: Mark verse Matthew - which is earlier? Most scholars go with Mark with lots of arguments - arguments that are complex. Here is an idea for a much simpler way to handle the problem: Slavonic Josephus. Starting from the idea that the gospel of John has made an interesting omission re John the Baptist - no mention of his death. All that seems to be there is the statement in John 3:24 - and it’s been put in brackets...(“This was before John was put in prison”). A strange omission if John is the very last gospel. Seeing that JB played such a big role re the baptism of JC and the drama of the beheading storyline in Mark and Matthew. (Luke has Herod(Antipas) admitting to the beheading but without the Herodias/Antipas/Philip story). However, if the Johannine tradition is placed at ground zero, this omission does not look so strange. The source for the Johannine tradition re JB is most likely Slavonic Josephus. In that account John is put in a dungeon - but no mention is made of his death. (at least a search on google books does not show up any death for JB in Slavonic Josephus). Mark and Matthew also turn to Slavonic Josephus - with a very interesting take on things. Mark and Matthew have two different stories re JB - or more correctly, they seem to be referencing not just Herod (Antipas) but also Archelaus. The tetrarch, Antipas, and the ethnarch, Archelaus, ie the Herod with the higher status. With two Herods in view - Slavonic Josephus comes up with two stories re John the Baptist: Archelaus, the ethnarch And when he was brought before Archelaus and the experts of the Law were assembled, they asked him who he was and where he had been up till then. In answer he said, “I am a man. Where the divine spirit leads me, I feed on the roots of reed and the shoots of trees.”. When those (men) threatened him with torture if he did not cease those words and deeds, he said “It is you who should cease from your foul deeds and adhere to the Lord, your God”. And arising in fury, Simon, an Essene by origin (and) a scribe, said, “We read the divine scriptures every day, and you who have (just) now come in like a beast from the woods dare teach us and to lead people astray with your impious words.” And he rushed forward to tear his body apart. But he, reproaching them, said, “I am not revealing to you the mystery which is (here) among you, because you have not wished for it. Therefore, there – will come - (down) on you an unutterable calamity, because of you (and all the people>” Thus he spoke and left for the other side of the Jordan. And as no one dared to prevent him, he was doing what he had done before”. Mark on King Herod (Archelaus) the ethnarch “Herod feared John and protected him, knowing him to be a righteous and holy man. When Herod heard John, he was greatly puzzled; yet he liked to listen to him.” Mark ch.6 Slavonic Josephus on Herod (Antipas) the tetrarch Hearing this, Herod was enraged and ordered him to be beaten and thrown out. He, however, did not cease but wherever he encountered Herod spoke thus (and) accused him until he put him in a dungeon. Matthew: on Herod (Antipas) the tetrarch “Herod wanted to kill John, but he was afraid of the people, because they considered John a prophet.” Matthew ch.14 The gospel of Mark is going with the earlier Archelaus picture of ‘Herod’. Matthew is going with the Herod (Antipas) picture of ‘Herod’. Slavonic Josephus does of course have JB doing the round in 6 ce. What is most likely going on here with the Mark and Matthew storylines is a pseudo-historical puzzle. In other words; a ball of wax that needs to be separated out: Archelaus took his dead brothers wife (from a second husband). Herod (Antipas) is assumed to have taken his brother’s wife Herodias. Herod the Great divorced, got rid of, his first wife to take the Hasmonean, Mariamne, as wife - and had Antigonus beheaded in the meantime. Thus, lots of historical intrigue that makes up a nice ball of wax for anyone interested in developing a pseudo-historical puzzle. Mark has King Herod offering the daughter of Herodias half his kingdom - Matthew drops this - embarrassment? - but keeps the beheading request. The half a kingdom possibly referencing the Hasmonean/Herodian bloodline that Herod the Great established with his marriage with Marriamne. So, looks to me that Mark is earlier than Matthew - well, at least the indications of it’s storyline. Antiquities was published around 93 ce. Thus, sometime between the earlier Slavonic edition of Josephus, probably an earlier version of War, soon after 70 ce - (which has Herodias married to Philip) the three gospels, John, Mark and Matthew, were probably around in their early forms. After 93 ce - the Herodias/Philip storyline was denied by Josephus - ie he changed his tune (he is a prophetic historian after all....)- and Luke followed suit by not referencing the marriage of Herodias to Philip in his storyline, nor the pseudo-historical ball of wax re JB and the Herodian marriage affair... Why would the gospel of John not use the Herodias/Herod (Antipas)/Philip/JB storyline from Slavonic Josephus? Different agenda than Mark. Mark is aiming at a pseudo-history - and John is seeking to spiritualize his storyline. Slavonic Josephus is of course a bone of contention - whatever the issues that it involves, something is very clear: Josephus is the roadblock to understanding early Christian history. While some people might think they can use his work to support their HJ - the real issue is that Josephus is much more a roadblock than an enabler in the search for Christian origins... (John ch.1 and the questioning of JB - sounds a bit similar to the Archelaus of Slavonic Josephus storyline... 19 Now this was John’s testimony when the Jewish leaders in Jerusalem sent priests and Levites to ask him who he was. 20 He did not fail to confess, but confessed freely, “I am not the Messiah.” 21 They asked him, “Then who are you? Are you Elijah?” He said, “I am not.” “Are you the Prophet?” He answered, “No.” 22 Finally they said, “Who are you? Give us an answer to take back to those who sent us. What do you say about yourself?”) Comments welcome.....

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

12-27-2010, 10:13 PM	#2
ApostateAbe Contributor Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: MT Posts: 10,656	Do you have an explanation for why Slavonic Josephus should be taken seriously? Do you claim that the Slavonic Josephus is a roughly accurate translation of the original Josephus? Yeah, that would be probably the biggest bone of contention, not that I know much about it.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.