I searched the forums, but didn’t find anything on this.
How do you all assess Weeden’s theory that Mark’s passion narrative was partly modeled on Josephus’s account of the life of Jesus Ananias?
Seems like a big deal if true–for one thing it would push the date of Mark back to the 80’s; for another, having one of Mark’s written sources would shed a lot of light on Mark as an author. But it also feels just a little bit out there.
There are some striking parallels, but do they get us to a common source or direct literary dependence?
One example:
** you do not have permission to see this link **
brenmcg said
The only thing the account serves to do is confirm the historic possibility of the sanhedrin handing of a Jew to the Romans for integration who have the man whipped but show no interest in executing him and want him released.
The parallels go a bit deeper than that–both preaching the destruction of the temple for example and being arrested for said preaching–but even what you mention isn’t an insignificant parallel. The idea that Pilate would have hesitated to execute one who did what Mark says Jesus did is already difficult to swallow.
Porphyry said
The parallels go a bit deeper than that–both preaching the destruction of the temple for example and being arrested for said preaching–but even what you mention isn’t an insignificant parallel. The idea that Pilate would have hesitated to execute one who did what Mark says Jesus did is already difficult to swallow.
But Jesus wasn’t arrested for preaching the destruction of the temple. And there’s nothing Mark’s Jesus did that would make Pilate want to kill him. Pilate in Josephus liked antagonizing and Jews and disliked giving in to their religious sensibilities. The Pilate of the gospels fits in well with Josephus’s description of him.
Jesus ben Ananias was a mad man who said nothing to anyone except to wail about the destruction of Jerusalem, before eventually being hit on the head and killed by wayward projectile. Why would any gospel writer want to base their passion narrative on that?
brenmcg said
Porphyry said
The parallels go a bit deeper than that–both preaching the destruction of the temple for example and being arrested for said preaching–but even what you mention isn’t an insignificant parallel. The idea that Pilate would have hesitated to execute one who did what Mark says Jesus did is already difficult to swallow.
But Jesus wasn’t arrested for preaching the destruction of the temple.
Well, it was a charge brought against him; mk 14:58
And there’s nothing Mark’s Jesus did that would make Pilate want to kill him.
Triumphal entry?
Jesus ben Ananias was a mad man who said nothing to anyone except to wail about the destruction of Jerusalem, before eventually being hit on the head and killed by wayward projectile. Why would any gospel writer want to base their passion narrative on that?
Whatever he was in fact, at least Josephus took him to be a prophet–his story is told in Josephus as one of several divine signs that the temple would be destroyed. That is powerful stuff.
And it is made more powerful by the details of his life: his refusal to defend himself when on trial and his stoic demeanor while he was flogged to the bone.
Porphyry said
brenmcg said
Porphyry said
The parallels go a bit deeper than that–both preaching the destruction of the temple for example and being arrested for said preaching–but even what you mention isn’t an insignificant parallel. The idea that Pilate would have hesitated to execute one who did what Mark says Jesus did is already difficult to swallow.
But Jesus wasn’t arrested for preaching the destruction of the temple.
Well, it was a charge brought against him; mk 14:58
And there’s nothing Mark’s Jesus did that would make Pilate want to kill him.
Triumphal entry?
Jesus ben Ananias was a mad man who said nothing to anyone except to wail about the destruction of Jerusalem, before eventually being hit on the head and killed by wayward projectile. Why would any gospel writer want to base their passion narrative on that?
Whatever he was in fact, at least Josephus took him to be a prophet–his story is told in Josephus as one of several divine signs that the temple would be destroyed. That is powerful stuff.
And it is made more powerful by the details of his life: his refusal to defend himself when on trial and his stoic demeanor while he was flogged to the bone.
Oh, and add to the above–mark’s Jesus was also dismissed as a madman.
Robert said
I’m more inclined to see a common source than Marcan dependence upon Josephus.
The only thing I see that might weigh in favor of a documentary dependence (or at least a shared written rather than oral source) is their common use of naos for temple, rather than heiros. That’s what Josephus says Jesus ben Ananias declared woe against, while Mark only uses the word three times: when Jesus is accused during his trial of saying he would destroy and rebuild the temple (Mk 14:58), when Jesus is mocked on the cross for saying he would destroy and rebuild the temple (Mk 15:29), and then a few verses later when the temple veil is rent at his death (Mk 15:38).
It seems like there is something going on there, but I’m not sure it gets us to direct dependence.
Robert said
ναός (naos) is much more commonly used for the temple throughout the New Testament (and in Josephus) than ἱερός (hieros).
Sorry, that was my mistake. I meant heiron. Mk uses heiron 9 times, and only uses naos in the places I mentioned. Though, as I think about it, this may not be all that significant, given that there was a semantic distinction between them.
Edit: actually it wasn’t just my mistake. I slavishly followed Weeden–who also confused the noun and adjective.
Robert saidBut I do not know that the historical Jesus predicted the destruction of the temple. Believing the gospel of John to be dependent upon synoptic gospels or post-synoptic tradition, I don’t think there is necessarily a pre-Markan tradition that Jesus preached against the temple or predicted its destruction. . . . As a historical minimalist, I’m also willing to entertain Weeden’s and others’ reconstruction of a relatively militant Jesus. . . . How are we able to create a more certain reconstruction so many centuries later?
Just adding more generally, the more I look at Mark, the more I become an historical minimalist. His is the original biography, and it seems, from various vantage points, to have only the most tenuous connection to history.
I mean, just consider something like Jesus’ being considered mad by his own family. That is the sort of thing people will latch onto as likely historically accurate, since it seems to fail dissimilarity, and looks like an early record of some embarrassing fact subsequently edited out of the story.
But, if Mark was looking to the story of Jesus Ananias as a model (which seems to me to make a whole lot of sense, whether he knew the story from Josephus or from elsewhere) it isn’t particularly embarrassing; in fact it is thematic: no one understood this guy, everyone thought he was nuts; but he accurately predicted the most significant event for the Jewish people since the Babylonian exile.
Porphyry said
Just adding more generally, the more I look at Mark, the more I become an historical minimalist. His is the original biography, and it seems, from various vantage points, to have only the most tenuous connection to history.
I think you and Robert are on the right track. I’ve written before about Mark being a polemic against Jesus’ inner circle and about a key Markan motif being a Piscean one. Take away the stories of Jesus controlling the sea and dealing with folks around him who are nonbelievers or dolts, and there ain’t a whole lot left of Mark.
Did Mark’s author take existing traditions and put those spins on them or invent these stories from whole cloth or a little of both?
I don’t recommend my answer for anyone else. But for me, the answer is the stories have little historicity in them that one can successfully mine.
Let’s look at this issue another way. Set Josephus aside–if Mark took any sort of inspiration from the story of Jesus Ananias, that puts the first draft of his gospel after the destruction of the temple–he was just a random nutter until his prophecy came true. In fact, it probably puts the composition of Mark considerably after the destruction of the temple (several years at least), because it would have taken some time for the story of Jesus Ananias to circulate. That’s assuming it is basically true, if it was fabricated by Jews as a way of making sense of the catastrophe (the function it plays in Josephus who looks to the story as proof that the destruction of the temple was providential), it would have taken even longer, because it needs to be first invented and then spread.
If there is a connection here, then we don’t have Mark writing while the temple’s ashes were still warm, we certainly don’t have him writing in the late 60’s.
Hey, while I’m here disparaging the canon: Happy Thanksgiving to everyone! Yes, even Stefen.
Have a good turkey day, be kind to your in-laws, and be thankful for your riches — I’m talking of your loved ones, not your Sony Play Station.
Oh. And be thankful for OSU beating Michigan come this Saturday, for them boys from Ann Arbor truly is heathens.
CEJ said
Porphyry said
Just adding more generally, the more I look at Mark, the more I become an historical minimalist. His is the original biography, and it seems, from various vantage points, to have only the most tenuous connection to history.
I think you and Robert are on the right track. I’ve written before about Mark being a polemic against Jesus’ inner circle
and about a key Markan motif being a Piscean one.
I think I know what ‘Piscean’ means, but I have no idea what you mean by it in this context–do you just mean that Jesus’ most intimate disciples were fisherman, so fish, and fishing, and boats show up a lot in the stories?
Take away the stories of Jesus controlling the sea and dealing with folks around him who are nonbelievers or dolts, and there ain’t a whole lot left of Mark.
Did Mark’s author take existing traditions and put those spins on them or invent these stories from whole cloth or a little of both?
I don’t recommend my answer for anyone else. But for me, the answer is the stories have little historicity in them that one can successfully mine.
Yeah, plus the fact that the purported facts (both major and minor) reported in the narrative just fit Mark’s literary purposes too perfectly. (Of course, were I still a believer, I’d reply that that is just proof that Jesus was who Christians confess him to be . . . the events of his life were carefully scripted from eternity, so Mark was handed a perfect narrative just by looking at the facts of Jesus life. But that is another issue.)
Robert
I’m more inclined to see a common source than Marcan dependence upon Josephus.
Steefen
I agree. Josephus was not the only one who knew about Jesus ben Ananias.
How many hundreds of people heard the screams of Jesus ben Ananias.
He was wipped for disturbing the peace because he wouldn’t keep quiet.
Porphyry said
Whatever he was in fact, at least Josephus took him to be a prophet–his story is told in Josephus as one of several divine signs that the temple would be destroyed. That is powerful stuff.
It might be powerful stuff but it doesn’t explain why the gospel writers would want to base the passion narrative on Josephus’s account of a madman.
Why would the read that story and say I must base the trial of Jesus on this?
And it is made more powerful by the details of his life: his refusal to defend himself when on trial and his stoic demeanor while he was flogged to the bone.
Jesus’s refusal to defend himself is taken straight from Isaiah 53, not Josephus.
“he was led like a lamb to the slaughter and as a sheep before its shearers is silent so he did not open his mouth.”
Oh, and add to the above–mark’s Jesus was also dismissed as a madman.
Jesus ben ananias in Josephus is a madman who says nothing but “woe to Jerusalem” for seven years.
Mark doesn’t believe Jesus is a madman – why would he want to base his account of Jesus on a madman? Why would Mark read about a madman who gets arrested and flogged and later killed by a stray projectile and think to himself ‘I must use this as a basis for my story of Jesus’? Why would that make sense to you?
I suspect in the decades leading up to the First Revolt if you shook a tree in Palestine any number of Jewish apocalyptic prophets pronouncing woe on the Temple system would fall out. It’s useful to remember that the Temple system as instituted was the very image of collaboration with the Romans. I suspect his disturbance in the Temple, perhaps pronouncing his own “woe”, was precisely why Jesus was arrested and executed.
Mk uses heiron 9 times…
If one was predisposed to extremely bad puns you could say Mark was a heiron addict…
BDEhrman
FreedomBen
evgendob
Robert