Toto

Read the second thread from the archives from 2003 that lays out the parallels between the Passion and Philo's Contra Flaccus before you try to dismiss the possible literary parallels.

davidstarlingm

That's what I did before my past post. Like I said, the "similar" events are generic, and they do not match the order from Philo. Unless there is something extraordinarily uncommon about these events, then the case for literary borrowing is an awfully weak one.

Another thing to keep in mind: although Mark may have been penned after Philo, the events in Mark (ostensibly) predate Philo. So there is as much reason to suppose Philo borrowed from third-hand accounts of the Passion as there is to think Mark co-opted Philo's account yet sloppily incorporated a misspelled name that happens to look remarkably like a common Hebrew surname.

stephan huller

I have actually written about this somewhere. Philo is clearly reporting something related to the gospel but also disguising and deflecting what was going on with respect to Agrippa. Carabbas is likely a disguise for something else that was being said by friendly crowds in favor of Agrippa (Philo contradicts himself a number of times). My suspicion is that Bar Abba is not 'son of the Father' (a meaningless term) but bar Abraham where Abba is a known diminutive of the longer name. There are a number of rabbis named Abba whose name was Abraham.

aa5874

Of course Jesus was NOT executed for claiming to be a king. Pilate FOUND NO FAULT with Jesus.

I simply cannot understand why people REFUSE to write EXACTLY what is in the Jesus stories.

Lu 23:4 - It was AFTER Pilate found NO fault with Jesus that the Jews INSISTED that Jesus be crucified. This is MOST SIGNIFICANT. The Roman representaive FOUND no fault with Jesus but the JEWS wanted him dead.

And, the story IMPLIES that the Jews wanted Jesus dead so much that they RELEASED a CRIMINAL "BARABBAS" just to have Jesus EXECUTED.

There is NO canonized Gospel story where Jesus was crucified because he was king. Jesus was CLEARED of ALL CHARGES when he went before Pilate.

davidstarlingm

The first name of Barabbas was, interestingly enough, Yeshua. Just like JC. So we have Jesus, Son of Man, and Jesus, Son of Abba. Jesus King of the Jews and Jesus Barabbas -- who, of course, had led an insurrection against Rome and had angled for the title of King of the Jews.

I hardly think this literary gem is the accidental consequence of borrowing a name from a plagiarized account.

davidstarlingm

Funny, then, that the account has Pilate insisting that the placard "King of the Jews" be used rather than one that said "He who claimed to be King of the Jews".

aa5874

You just have to read the story for yourself. It is not funny anymore how people just blatantly re-write the Jesus story.

Examine gJohn.

Joh 18:38 - Joh 19:4 - Joh 19:6 - The VERDICT was given THREE times in gJohn. Jesus was EXONERATED of all Charges.

It was the Jews that wanted Jesus dead not the Roman Governor.

yalla

That logic does not follow.

I have two favourite novels.
Heller's "Catch 22" was written before Ecco's "The Name of the Rose".
The fact that Ecco sets his "ostensible" story in a period 7 centuries before that of Heller's story bears no resemblance to the historicity of either story.

The relevance of the date of writing of Philo's work as compared to the work of "Mark" is that the literary dependence, if any, can only work in one direction.
Philo cannot have borrowed from "Mark" because Philo died decades before "Mark" wrote his story.

Nor can we presume that Philo borrowed his story from the 'ostensible' dating of the alleged events described by "Mark".
It is the very credibility of "Mark's" story that we are questioning here, the OP was [hopefully still is] about what, if any, external historical evidence there is for "Mark's" story.
To presume its validity whilst arguing for its validity is in itself an invalid methodology.

davidstarlingm

Literary dependence can only work one way, yes. But we have absolutely no evidence of literary dependence. There are no shared phrases or anything else to suggest textual derivation.

What we do have nominal evidence for, however, is possible account dependence: the two accounts share a few generic but oddly similar details.

If the Markan account is based on actual events (which is one of the possibilities we are considering), then it is entirely plausible that Philo gleaned details from retellings of the Passion account. That, of course, is still unlikely; the two accounts still seem too generic to be definitely related. However, even if they definitely were related, we would still need to show the absolute historicity of the Philo account before we could rule out the possibility that Philo was just incorporating gossip that carried bits and pieces of the Passion, and that Mark was a later record of the original event.

yalla

"But we have absolutely no evidence of literary dependence"

Yes we do.
The shared elements as outlined originally are possibly, among other possibilities, evidence of literary dependence.
You can't disappear them just by wishing such and using words like 'absolutely' or 'no'.
Down grade them, explain them away, dispose of them somehow with argument but don't just try to make them disappear by assertion.

"There are no shared phrases or anything else to suggest textual derivation"

Yes there is.
The Carabbas/Barabbas word.

It is different to the generic feast of the fools theme that may be at the root of "Mark's" account.
And/or Philo's.
It is an idiosyncratic name that isnot an element of the generic story it is unique.
The fact that it may occur elswewhere outside feast of the fools stories or accounts is not relevant.
Which is why the discussion about its meaning was entertaining but irrelevant.
Someome above suggested a meaning that may show how it fits into the theme and suggested that some scholars seem to suggest that it fits into the scheme.
But until specific examples are given that becomes valueless as mere speculation.

As it is it stands out like dogs' ... as common to both Philo and "Mark" and thus suspicious.

And once again, you can't presume historicity of "Mark's" account to substantiate such.

We know that Philo wrote "Flaccus" c38 CE.
Or at least I'm making that assumption, I assume it has been accepted as a known dated written account of a real event by a known historical person albeit, as Stephan Huller implied, not completely veracious.
That is a verdict that could be checked.
Do we, in fact, know that PHilo was the author [if not who?] of the Flaccus account c 38 CE and is it reliable?

The key factor however is whether or not the account existed decades pre "Mark".

If so then we have a story describing an event in what may be a generic manner.

Then decades later another author writes a similar account.

That can be accounted for in many ways:
-both are fiction simply being based on the feast of fools motif, no literary dependence just a commonality of the motif
-both are fact, the events occurred more or less in that manner in different places and times, not an in-credible occurrence.
-one is fact the other fiction
-the latter copied the former.

But the presence of "Carabbas/Barabbas" which must come from the former account and which is not part of the feast of fools motif is suspicious and suggests that "Mark" based his account on a knowledge of Philo.

Its the possibility of that knowledge that I am calling literary dependence here.