ChandraRama

I started reading Josephus mainly because of Doherty's convincing argument that Paul did not know about Jesus' historical narrative. If that is the case, christ cult preceeded Jesus cult. So, certainly, Mark would not been beleived that these two are the same persons (as the Jesus historical narrative is missing in Paul).

Mark created Jesus christ narrative as a historical record of John G's Military messianic work.

It is a possibility that this narrative merged with the Christ cult to produce the christianity.

Didymus

So far so good.

No such certainty exists.

The question of whether Mark read Paul is an open one. Conservative Christians and some mythicists, including the estimable Michael Turton, believe that Mark knew every word that Paul wrote. And, contrary to what you seem to be saying, it doesn't follow that the absence of a narrative in Paul would have led Mark to believe that Jesus and Christ were different persons. It is entirely possible that Mark concluded from reading Paul that Jesus (to whom he refers on several occasions as Jesus Christ) did exist, albeit at a time and under circumstances unknown to Paul. Mark fixed that problem by filling the gap and himself writing a narrative based on the LXX and other sources.

Mark might have included variations on incidents from Gishala's story, but the notion that Mark substituted the name of a earlier and real Roman prefect, Pilate, for that of Titus, seems like the wildest sort of speculation. I would like to see some evidence for the Hellenistic use of that style of writing.

In 70, Rome brought Judea to its knees. Titus returned to Rome. Under those conditions, why would Mark even bother to engage in such an elaborate deception? Why would go to the effort of turning a story of defeat in war into a story of messianic redemption? And why merge it with a carefully crafted set of pericopes based on scriptural precedents?

And, most of all, what evidence is there that anyone actually bought into that elaborate metaphor and thought of Mark's gospel as the story of John of Gishala?

For me, the theory is WAY too much to swallow. Perhaps some facts would help it go down easier.

I think we mythicists have to be very cautious about basing hypotheses on partial or biased information. And about stretching our hypotheses into realms of "blue sky" speculation. Being in a small minority, we are often regarded as fringy and even more credulous than many Christians. We should bend over backwards to make sure we have our facts straight and our syllogisms in good order.

(In my last post, I said tentatively that, given the parallels, Mark may have used John of Gishala to date Jesus. But I didn't know Gishala's dates. Obviously, my speculation doesn't hold up.)

I don't understand that statement. Mark, not "the christianity," merged an account of Jesus' earthly ministry with the crucifixion and resurrection of Paul's Messiah.

Didymus

ChandraRama

That is one way of looking at it. It is possible the Jesus is inserted later into Paul's writing (If paul indeed is later than jewish war, then the need for insertion is not there.)

The strength of Mark may be just that. That it does not have a precedence for it.

It is true that Titus returned to Rome, but the defeat is cathartic for the Jewish people and the intellectuals. Some how the people wanted to make sense of this defeat. And there is a large contigent of the supporters of John dispersed all over the Roman empire after the war. Zealots ran away from Jerusalem after the burning down of the temple. They cluster all over the Roman empire ruing their defeat and coming to a conclusion that the Jewish people did not support the John of Gischala fully. So they have to repent for their unfaithfulness to John. It is the Pharisees, saduccess and Herodians who opposed the John of Gischala and hence brought the ruin upon themselves.

I am looking for that myself.

Me too :-)

I will come to that in the later posts.

I agree.

open question.

ChandraRama

Jesus N & John G and Gadara (Garesenes)

Jesus drove the demons (named Legion for they are many) out of one man ( or two men) in Garesenes into pigs

John G defeated the combined forces of Garesenes army (who are not jews and thus who do pig husbandry) and rebuilt his home town Gischala
From Josephus . (Bio 10. for the neighboring people of Gadara, Gabara, and Sogana, wth the Tyrians, got together a great army, and fell upon Gischala, and took Gischala by force, and set it on fire; and when they had entirely demolished it, they returned home. Upon which John was so enraged, that he armed all his men, and joined battle with the people forementioned; and rebuilt Gischala after a manner better than before, and fortified it with walls for its future security. )
Note: the Gadara, Gabara, Sogana and Tyre together is called country of Geresenes)

ChandraRama

Jesus denied that the Messiah would be from Davidic lineage.

MK 12:35 And as Jesus taught in the temple, he said, "How can the scribes say that the Christ is the son of David? David himself, inspired by the Holy Spirit, declared, `The Lord said to my Lord, Sit at my right hand, till I put thy enemies under thy feet.' David himself calls him Lord; so how is he his son?"

John G faught against the leaders of Davidic lineage for the leadership of the Jewish insurrectionMultiple attestations in Josephus. The descendants of Judas of Galilee (who created the anti-tax rebellion) claimed themselves as the lineage of David. His descendants like Meneham, Eleazar etc were fighting against the John of Gischala.