In the Synoptic Gospels, John is said to be resurrected. No one refutes it. The resurrection of Jesus is what defined his divinity. Does John’s resurrection undercut Jesus’s resurrection?
At face value, John’s resurrection seems to lessen the uniqueness of Jesus’s resurrection. I do understand that the word “resurrection” is a complicated story. Even so, this is about two prophets claiming the end is near, and both are resurrected.
It does not seem in the Gospel writer’s interest to confer this special status to John. Of course, the cause of the resurrection is minimized with the famous story of Herod’s daughter asking for his head, minimizing its macro meaning. Josephus says the real reason for his death was that Herod saw him as a threat who could destabilize his rule. Destabilization was the same threat Jesus was killed. It was not that either would take over sovereignty, just that they could create instability.
The story that John was resurrected was real, but the story behind why he was killed was likely a broader reason, as Josephus states. Luke adds a more problematic aspect by saying that some thought John had risen as Elijah or a prophet.
“Now Herod the tetrarch heard about all that was happening; and he was greatly perplexed because some said that John had risen from the dead, 8 and by some that Elijah had appeared, and others that one of the prophets of old had risen.” Lk):7-8
The Gospel writer went to pains to keep John as less powerful than Jesus, so why did they include stories which placed Jesus and John on equal footing. Prophets who were killed for how and what they preached, and both deified by resurrection?
Sam
John the Baptist’s rhetoric was far more inflammatory than Jesus’s.
Josephus says that
That was really because he saw John and his followers as a threat. Luke tones down
The
, then why it is amplified?
9,7 But when King Herod heard about what happened, he became perplexed because some said, “John has been raised from the dead”, 8 and others, “Elijah has appeared”, and yet others said, “One of the ancient prophets has arisen”. 9 But Herod said, “I beheaded John. Who is this man about whom I hear such things?” And he sought to meet him.
*9,7-9: A well-known ‘minor agreement’, instructive for the ‘medial position’ of Matthew, is found in Herod’s judgement over Jesus: ̔Ηρῴδης ὁ τετραάρχης Luke 9,7 || Matt 14,1 ≠ ὁ βασιλεὺς ̔Ηρῴδης Mark 6,14. While *9,7 is not attested for *Ev, it can be reconstructed with arguments pertaining to the tradition history. Common to all three Synoptic versions is the mentioning not only of Herod’s name, but also of his title; it was thus presumably already in pre-canonical *Ev. It can be assumed that *Ev included the king (ὁ βασιλεύς; attested also by Mark 6,14) but not the tetrarch (ὁ τετραάρχης) attested by Matthew and Luke. The argument for this assumption lies less in the fact that Herod Antipas was ‘only’ a tetrarch, making ὁ τετραάρχης historically accurate and correcting the vague (if not mistaken) Markan reference to the title of king. Mark could have had good reasons for his ‘historical’ mistake. However, in the following report on the decapitation of John the Baptist (Mark 6,17-29 || Matt 14,3-12; as so often deflated by Matthew compared to Mark), Matthew lost sight of the need to make this correction. He inadvertently follows the Markan ὁ βασιλεύς (Mark 6,26 || Matt 14,9). Luke, on the other hand, describes Herod Antipas consistently as the tetrarch (Luke 3,1.19; 9,7) and never as king. The Matthean-Lukan ‘agreement’ thus emerged from the Matthean correction to (*Ev and) Mark, which Luke adopted more resolutely than Matthew. (M. Klinhardt)
Yes having the Powers That Be speculate that Jesus is John reborn is not quite the same as claiming that John himself was resurrected. John is a ceaselessly fascinating figure. He hovers over the gospels. The writers hold John at arms’ length but no matter how they attempt to marginalize him they can’t ever truly push him away. You can’t help but wonder just how much of Jesus’ message was lifted from John. You might even wonder if any of the sayings attributed to Jesus originated with John! Even if we accept Josephus’ testimony about Jesus to be authentic Josephus still considers John the more important figure. Is the exaggeration by the gospels of Jesus’ impact during his own ministry a response to the popularity of John, even after his death? We know John still had disciples in the second century. Further on if the traditions of the Mandaeans is to be trusted.
Stephen said
Yes having the Powers That Be speculate that Jesus is John reborn is not quite the same as claiming that John himself was resurrected. John is a ceaselessly fascinating figure. He hovers over the gospels. The writers hold John at arms’ length but no matter how they attempt to marginalize him they can’t ever truly push him away. You can’t help but wonder just how much of Jesus’ message was lifted from John. You might even wonder if any of the sayings attributed to Jesus originated with John! Even if we accept Josephus’ testimony about Jesus to be authentic Josephus still considers John the more important figure. Is the exaggeration by the gospels of Jesus’ impact during his own ministry a response to the popularity of John, even after his death? We know John still had disciples in the second century. Further on if the traditions of the Mandaeans is to be trusted.
” First, his writings provided extraordinary background information for the reader of early Christian writings, especially the gospels.” (Steve Mason Josephus and The NT).
“First, his writings provided extraordinary source information for the writers of early Christian writings, especially the gospels.” (after JS redaction)
just reading a Mason book, someone posted on the group after the FBI shut down Z-lib.org in recent days. Amazing experience, because after adding one sentence, I completely agree with the Author. Whether or not Jesus existed .. It doesn’t matter. It is important that, without knowing his biography, the Christians invented his CV
just reading a Mason book, someone posted on the group after the FBI shut down Z-lib.org in recent days. Amazing experience, because after adding one sentence, I completely agree with the Author. Whether or not Jesus existed .. It doesn’t matter. It is important that, without knowing his biography, the Christians invented his CV
I guess information doesn’t want to be free after all.
It matters whether or not Jesus existed if you’re actually interested in history and the probable origins of Christianity.
There was nothing premeditated about Christianity. A finer improvisation, a better example of “making it up as you go”, we’ll never see.
Stephen said
just reading a Mason book, someone posted on the group after the FBI shut down Z-lib.org in recent days. Amazing experience, because after adding one sentence, I completely agree with the Author. Whether or not Jesus existed .. It doesn’t matter. It is important that, without knowing his biography, the Christians invented his CVI guess information doesn’t want to be free after all.
It matters whether or not Jesus existed if you’re actually interested in history and the probable origins of Christianity.
There was nothing premeditated about Christianity. A finer improvisation, a better example of “making it up as you go”, we’ll never see.
People come into the world in two ways. Born by women or by the authors’ imaginations. Without evidence, we cannot decide how it was in any particular case. Historical methods are helpless, as Bart simply explained, using the example of his colleague. In the case of Jesus, where there is no evidence besides religious literature, all we can study is the process of his biography from Paul to the evangelists who finished their work at the end of the second century. Jesus’ CV is made up by ghost writers and redactors.
This is the same situation as with the Medjugorje apparition. I am a bishop – someone has brought a book that people like. They say a real book. I doubt it or support it?
Someone says he had a revelation, people come and support. Doubt or support?
Jarek said
However, in the following report on the decapitation of John the Baptist (Mark 6,17-29 || Matt 14,3-12; as so often deflated by Matthew compared to Mark), Matthew lost sight of the need to make this correction. He inadvertently follows the Markan ὁ βασιλεύς (Mark 6,26 || Matt 14,9). Luke, on the other hand, describes Herod Antipas consistently as the tetrarch (Luke 3,1.19; 9,7) and never as king. The Matthean-Lukan ‘agreement’ thus emerged from the Matthean correction to (*Ev and) Mark, which Luke adopted more resolutely than Matthew. (M. Klinhardt)
Luke also calls Herod King (βασιλεύς)
Acts 4:25-27
“Why did the Gentiles rage and the peoples imagine vain things? The kings of the earth took their stand and the rulers have gathered together against the Lord and against his anointed. For in this city in fact both Herod and Pontius Pilate with the Gentiles and the peoples of Israel, gathered together against your holy servant Jesus whom you anointed“
I asked Bart if he thought Luke invented the story of Herod and Pilate becoming friends in order to fulfill this prophecy. He said he thought so.
βασιλεύς need not mean “king”. It can mean chief/master/lord/ruler/king/emperor
Here Luke understands Herod as fulfilling the βασιλεύς part of the prophecy despite knowing he was officially styled a tetrarch. So it’s safe to conclude Matthew was also happy to refer to Herod as a βασιλεύς despite knowing he was officially a tetrarch.
Jarek the problem with your binary is that it is not born out in reality. It is seldom “all or nothing”. Much more frequently it is “some but not all”. Take your example of the Medjugorje apparition. It is not necessary to believe that anyone actually saw the Virgin Mary to accept that they probably saw something. And only a very few need have seen anything. The contagion of belief will do the rest. I have shown due diligence and done the work and I am convinced there was a historical Jesus while being fully aware of the historical problems. While I am happy to respond to (very) specific issues I have no interest in trying to convince anybody else of anything.
What mythicists don’t seem to understand is that it is the same historical method applied towards the study of the New Testament as is applied towards any ancient literary source. We are occasionally fortunate to have archeological evidence but the vast bulk of evidence from the ancient world is literary. We know of the ancients primarily through their own writings and/or writings about them. If you’re going to dismiss literary evidence for the NT, fine but be consistent. You are either going to do ancient history or not. If you are then you use the material available to you, not the material you wish was available.
Stephen said
Jarek the problem with your binary is that it is not born out in reality. It is seldom “all or nothing”. Much more frequently it is “some but not all”. Take your example of the Medjugorje apparition. It is not necessary to believe that anyone actually saw the Virgin Mary to accept that they probably saw something. And only a very few need have seen anything. The contagion of belief will do the rest. I have shown due diligence and done the work and I am convinced there was a historical Jesus while being fully aware of the historical problems. While I am happy to respond to (very) specific issues I have no interest in trying to convince anybody else of anything.What mythicists don’t seem to understand is that it is the same historical method applied towards the study of the New Testament as is applied towards any ancient literary source. We are occasionally fortunate to have archeological evidence but the vast bulk of evidence from the ancient world is literary. We know of the ancients primarily through their own writings and/or writings about them. If you’re going to dismiss literary evidence for the NT, fine but be consistent. You are either going to do ancient history or not. If you are then you use the material available to you, not the material you wish was available.
Jesus is in a state of superposition in the present state of research. He is historical and mythical at the same time. The biblical scholars want to break him out of this duality, and this is not possible. For even if all the literature on Jesus turns out to be untrue, Jesus will remain in this state of superposition. Therefore it is irrelevant to me. What is important is to what extent his biography was created and to what extent is it a true message. And I am starting from the artificial minimalist assumption that the whole thing is an imaginary tradition. The minimalists did the same and it turned out to be an excellent starting point. My method is nothing else. I am going to do ancient history
Jesus is in a state of superposition in the present state of research. He is historical and mythical at the same time. The biblical scholars want to break him out of this duality, and this is not possible. For even if all the literature on Jesus turns out to be untrue, Jesus will remain in this state of superposition. Therefore it is irrelevant to me. What is important is to what extent his biography was created and to what extent is it a true message. And I am starting from the artificial minimalist assumption that the whole thing is an imaginary tradition. The minimalists did the same and it turned out to be an excellent starting point. My method is nothing else. I am going to do ancient history.
Scholars first created the duality, although “duality” is much too simple. For most of Christian history the Jesus of faith and the Jesus of history were one and the same. Scholars are not trying to “break” anything. They are pointing out discontinuities that give us a fleeting glimpse of the historical situation behind the formation of the Christian tradition. “True message” is a romantic concept. Scholars build models that try to best account for the available data.
Stephen said
Jesus is in a state of superposition in the present state of research. He is historical and mythical at the same time. The biblical scholars want to break him out of this duality, and this is not possible. For even if all the literature on Jesus turns out to be untrue, Jesus will remain in this state of superposition. Therefore it is irrelevant to me. What is important is to what extent his biography was created and to what extent is it a true message. And I am starting from the artificial minimalist assumption that the whole thing is an imaginary tradition. The minimalists did the same and it turned out to be an excellent starting point. My method is nothing else. I am going to do ancient history.Scholars first created the duality, although “duality” is much too simple. For most of Christian history the Jesus of faith and the Jesus of history were one and the same. Scholars are not trying to “break” anything. They are pointing out discontinuities that give us a fleeting glimpse of the historical situation behind the formation of the Christian tradition. “True message” is a romantic concept. Scholars build models that try to best account for the available data.
So do I.
Duality is not the result of biblical scholarship. This is an effect of the historical policies of the early Christians. They got caught up in the fact that most of Jesus’ life story is based on the LXX, Josephus, and writing creativity. The original church was content poor and still managed to create a magnetic culture attractive to others. Someone has sacrificed himself, we honor and follow him. There was a strong demand for revelations, for stories, and they were made.
There is a slight quantitative difference between me and, for example, Ludemann. He says 95% is a creation. I say 100%. There is, however, a huge methodological difference between us. I analyze a much larger disciplinary spectrum and am open to all biblical studies. Ludemann is only interested in biblical studies, trying to answer questions without going into other disciplines.
My suggestions simplify many problems. If Josephus was the source for the evangelists, TF originality issues are irrelevant. Venn Diagram for Synoptic Gospels can be drawn for any entertainment content. All it says is that the three versions were created in parallel and that the authors knew each other perfectly for most of the process. What’s more – they created these gospels in such a way that customers wanted to buy them all. It is not theology, but the interests of editors and scribes.
Jarek said
My suggestions simplify many problems. If Josephus was the source for the evangelists, TF originality issues are irrelevant.
You think Josephus was a source for all four gospels, including Mark?
Venn Diagram for Synoptic Gospels can be drawn for any entertainment content. All it says is that the three versions were created in parallel and that the authors knew each other perfectly for most of the process.
You think the synoptics all knew each other? So Mark, for example, wrote at the same time as Luke and was acquainted with his theology?
What’s more – they created these gospels in such a way that customers wanted to buy them all. It is not theology, but the interests of editors and scribes.
There is certainly something to this idea. We know that ancient authors were conscious of the problem of textual survival and tried to write things that people would want to copy.
…most of Jesus’ life story is based on the LXX, Josephus, and writing creativity.
One of the most amusing confluences between mythicists and fundamentalist Christians is their insistence that the career of Jesus was derived from the Hebrew Bible. The fundies believe that Jesus was predicted by it and the mythicists believe his career was created from it. But one of the fundamental (pardon the pun) insights of critical scholarship reveals how the career of Jesus doesn’t mirror Hebrew messianic expectations at all! Paul himself notes what a problem this is for evangelism among Jews.
Some scholars think that Acts alone reflects knowledge of the writings of Josephus. This is disputed.
I agree that the gospel writers, especially Mark, were creative.
My suggestions simplify many problems.
Your “suggestions” simplify pseudo-problems perhaps. The real problems, resistant to simplification, are simply not addressed.
Porphyry said
Jarek said
My suggestions simplify many problems. If Josephus was the source for the evangelists, TF originality issues are irrelevant.
You think Josephus was a source for all four gospels, including Mark?
Venn Diagram for Synoptic Gospels can be drawn for any entertainment content. All it says is that the three versions were created in parallel and that the authors knew each other perfectly for most of the process.
You think the synoptics all knew each other? So Mark, for example, wrote at the same time as Luke and was acquainted with his theology?
What’s more – they created these gospels in such a way that customers wanted to buy them all. It is not theology, but the interests of editors and scribes.
There is certainly something to this idea. We know that ancient authors were conscious of the problem of textual survival and tried to write things that people would want to copy.
Someone wrote the first gospel, and it was further developed by him and other centers as a living document. In this way, 3 synoptic Gospels were created. The first gospel was based on information from the writings of Josephus. Mark’s Gospel as well.
Successive versions of this or that gospel inspired and supplemented all editors and ghost writers working on them. How long it took? The Gospel of Luke had no Preface and no genealogy in 175 CE, 90 years after it was said to have been written.
Ancient ghost writers and editors followed the same rules as today. If not for copyright protection, such Harry Potter would be written by thousands of ghost writers.
Stephen said
…most of Jesus’ life story is based on the LXX, Josephus, and writing creativity.One of the most amusing confluences between mythicists and fundamentalist Christians is their insistence that the career of Jesus was derived from the Hebrew Bible. The fundies believe that Jesus was predicted by it and the mythicists believe his career was created from it. But one of the fundamental (pardon the pun) insights of critical scholarship reveals how the career of Jesus doesn’t mirror Hebrew messianic expectations at all! Paul himself notes what a problem this is for evangelism among Jews.
Some scholars think that Acts alone reflects knowledge of the writings of Josephus. This is disputed.
I agree that the gospel writers, especially Mark, were creative.
My suggestions simplify many problems.
Your “suggestions” simplify pseudo-problems perhaps. The real problems, resistant to simplification, are simply not addressed.
LXX is not a Hebrew Bible. The religious imagination of the LXX readers was not based on the Jewish tradition but on their own interpretations of the Greek book. Matthew tries to dress Jesus in Jewish tradition (new Moses, new David) and in Jewish prophecies, but he fails. John is much better at portraying Jesus as neos-Dionysos, making him join Hadrian and Caligula.
What is a real problem/s?
BDEhrman
FreedomBen
evgendob
Robert
1 Guest(s)