brenmcg said
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 think you are overlooking how he was received. We know that Josephus took him (with the benefit of hindsight) as a genuine divine oracle, not a just some random, mentally disturbed beggar. That’s why Josephus goes to the effort of recording his story. One may reasonable suspect that others at the time thought him similarly noteworthy (even if Josephus happened to have heard him in life, one presumes Josephus got the full story of his life and trials and death from someone else).
Yes, he was dismissed during his life by various factions: the governor thought him insane and the Jewish leadership thought he was possessed (much as Mark’s Jesus was accused of having an unclean spirit or of being out of his mind). But by the time Josephus was writing, at least some people thought he was rather more than either of those things–in fact those prior appraisals only added to his tragedy.
Porphyry said
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.)
There are twelve signs in astrology. Most folks think of them as representing, roughly, the months of the year. But they also represent ages. Each age lasts a little more than 2000 years. Even though astrology is total nonsense, in my estimation, there is a scientific reason for the duration of an age. I won’t go into detail, but it relates to the precession of the equinoxes: ** you do not have permission to see this link **
Some folks here may be, as I am, old enough to remember The Temptations singing about the dawning of the Age of Aquarius:
** you do not have permission to see this link **
And, indeed, that age is now dawning. It is represented by a man carrying a jug of water, which becomes relevant a little further on. But 2000 years ago, it was the dawning of the Age of Pisces, which is represented by two fish. This did not go unnoticed in Jesus’ time, a time when Greek astrology was all the rage, even infecting the 2nd Temple with its symbolism according to Josephus, if I recall correctly.
And so, in Mark, Jesus starts his mission by calling his first disciples — he twice calls a set of two brothers who were fishers by trade. I don’t think the Piscean imagery in those callings is accidental. Note that such imagery is completely absent in John. There, none of Jesus’ disciples are depicted as fishers, and Jesus doesn’t call them; his first disciples ask to follow him. Of course this is not so obvious as it might otherwise be were it not for the addition of John’s second ending, John 21, where all the disciples are depicted as fishing and hauling in a fantastic catch by following Jesus’ instructions to them.
Yet Mark’s Piscean imagery does not end with the calling of the two sets of brother fishermen. Jesus is portrayed as the master of the age. He calms the sea. He walks on water. And he miraculously turns two fish into a feast for a multitude.
And when it’s time for Jesus to fulfill his mission, he sends his disciples to find a place for his last supper by following a man carrying a jug of water, the sign of Aquarius, the next age. I think this is intended to foreshadow the end of the then-current age with the coming of the new kingdom.
I also think such imagery would have been much more obvious to a 1st century reader’s eye than to a modern reader’s. A modern reader usually misses such stuff entirely. But Mark’s author wasn’t writing for folks today; he was writing for his contemporaries and their sensibilities. I doubt any of stories with such imagery actually happened; rather, I hold that Mark’s author invented them to serve his novella, not history.
CEJ said
But 2000 years ago, it was the dawning of the Age of Pisces, which is represented by two fish. This did not go unnoticed in Jesus’ time, a time when Greek astrology was all the rage, even infecting the 2nd Temple with its symbolism according to Josephus, if I recall correctly.
And so, in Mark, Jesus starts his mission by calling his first disciples — he twice calls a set of two brothers who were fishers by trade. I don’t think the Piscean imagery in those callings is accidental. Note that such imagery is completely absent in John. There, none of Jesus’ disciples are depicted as fishers, and Jesus doesn’t call them; his first disciples ask to follow him. Of course this is not so obvious as it might otherwise be were it not for the addition of John’s second ending, John 21, where all the disciples are depicted as fishing and hauling in a fantastic catch by following Jesus’ instructions to them.
Yet Mark’s Piscean imagery does not end with the calling of the two sets of brother fishermen. Jesus is portrayed as the master of the age. He calms the sea. He walks on water. And he miraculously turns two fish into a feast for a multitude.
And when it’s time for Jesus to fulfill his mission, he sends his disciples to find a place for his last supper by following a man carrying a jug of water, the sign of Aquarius, the next age. I think this is intended to foreshadow the end of the then-current age with the coming of the new kingdom.
I also think such imagery would have been much more obvious to a 1st century reader’s eye than to a modern reader’s. A modern reader usually misses such stuff entirely. But Mark’s author wasn’t writing for folks today; he was writing for his contemporaries and their sensibilities. I doubt any of stories with such imagery actually happened; rather, I hold that Mark’s author invented them to serve his novella, not history.
Okay, that’s a fascinating idea. Do you know where Josephus talks about the Jews buying into Greek astrology?
So your thinking is that Jesus is portrayed as master of the age of Pisces–which began approximately when he was born–but that he is ushering in the age of Aquarius? I guess my hesitation would be that everyone seemed to be thinking of the next age as imminent, but the Age of Aquarius still isn’t here. Presumably the ancients would have known that they would be in the age of Pisces for centuries.
Porphyry said
Okay, that’s a fascinating idea. Do you know where Josephus talks about the Jews buying into Greek astrology?
So your thinking is that Jesus is portrayed as master of the age of Pisces–which began approximately when he was born–but that he is ushering in the age of Aquarius? I guess my hesitation would be that everyone seemed to be thinking of the next age as imminent, but the Age of Aquarius still isn’t here. Presumably the ancients would have known that they would be in the age of Pisces for centuries.
Well, I think I overstated Josephus. In discussing priestly garments he mentions the zodiac. Here’s someone else’s take on what he says:
Josephus explains that his reader could understand the twelve engraved
gemstones on the breastplate as a portrayal of the lunar months of the year, as
well the twelve signs of the zodiac: “whether someone would want to understand
the months or the same number of the stars, which the Greeks call the
circle of the zodiac, he would not err in his interpretation” (Ant. 3.186).
But there have been ancient synagogues unearthed with the zodiac imbedded in the floor:
** you do not have permission to see this link **
That doesn’t mean they practiced astrology, of course, merely that astrological symbolism was part of their culture.
As to ushering in Aquarius, I doubt the use of the man with a jug of water was intended to mean that per se, but perhaps merely to symbolize the coming of a new age, a new time.
Porphyry said
I think you are overlooking how he was received. We know that Josephus took him (with the benefit of hindsight) as a genuine divine oracle, not a just some random, mentally disturbed beggar. That’s why Josephus goes to the effort of recording his story. One may reasonable suspect that others at the time thought him similarly noteworthy (even if Josephus happened to have heard him in life, one presumes Josephus got the full story of his life and trials and death from someone else).Yes, he was dismissed during his life by various factions: the governor thought him insane and the Jewish leadership thought he was possessed (much as Mark’s Jesus was accused of having an unclean spirit or of being out of his mind). But by the time Josephus was writing, at least some people thought he was rather more than either of those things–in fact those prior appraisals only added to his tragedy.
Yes the man had been taken over by a ‘divine fury’, but he was still a madman. One of the ‘denunciations’ God had given to the people. The man himself was not someone to be admired or emulated. He’s not acting rationally or self-sacrificing to warn his fellow citizens. There’s nothing about him that would lead a gospel writer to want to base Jesus’s passion narrative on. The Jesus of the gospels is nothing like him. Whatever coincidences there are, are coincidences. The Jewish leaders handed over trouble-makers to the Roman authorities. That’s the real take away.
Or, in a first century Galilean milieu, with the importance to the economy of the Sea of Galilee, what more natural than that a Jewish apocalyptic prophet would number fishermen among his followers? As Sigmund Freud never said but should have, sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.
Robert said
CEJ said
Porphyry said
Okay, that’s a fascinating idea. Do you know where Josephus talks about the Jews buying into Greek astrology?
So your thinking is that Jesus is portrayed as master of the age of Pisces–which began approximately when he was born–but that he is ushering in the age of Aquarius? I guess my hesitation would be that everyone seemed to be thinking of the next age as imminent, but the Age of Aquarius still isn’t here. Presumably the ancients would have known that they would be in the age of Pisces for centuries.
Well, I think I overstated Josephus. In discussing priestly garments he mentions the zodiac. Here’s someone else’s take on what he says:
Josephus explains that his reader could understand the twelve engraved
gemstones on the breastplate as a portrayal of the lunar months of the year, as
well the twelve signs of the zodiac: “whether someone would want to understand
the months or the same number of the stars, which the Greeks call the
circle of the zodiac, he would not err in his interpretation” (Ant. 3.186).
But there have been ancient synagogues unearthed with the zodiac imbedded in the floor:
** you do not have permission to see this link **
That doesn’t mean they practiced astrology, of course, merely that astrological symbolism was part of their culture.
As to ushering in Aquarius, I doubt the use of the man with a jug of water was intended to mean that per se, but perhaps merely to symbolize the coming of a new age, a new time.
There’s another passage in Josephus (War 5,216-217) where he attributes astronomical and zodiac significance to items in the temple, namely the menorah and shew bread that were just outside the Holy of Holies:
… three things that were very wonderful and famous among all mankind; the candlestick, the table [of shew bread], and the altar of incense. Now, the seven lamps signified the seven planets; for so many there were springing out of the candlestick. Now, the twelve loaves that were upon the table signified the circle of the zodiac and the year.
Thanks, Robert.
Robert said
Porphyry said
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.
It’s possible that this story in Josephus originated as a Jewish response to the real preaching of Jesus that the Temple was to replaced by a divine temple not made by human hands in the Kingdom of God on earth. No, it was simply destroyed; Jesus was no more than a madman. Or it could even be an early Jewish response to the gospel of Mark, which greatly exaggerated Jesus’ prediction of the destruction of the temple. There’s not much time for that to have taken place by the time Josephus wrote his Judean War, but we don’t really know in which direction(s) the influence(s) may have traveled. Or, if we assume some historical core to the story of Jesus of Ananias, we are left with Weeden’s hypothesis. But, as much as I would like to maintain my minimalist position, I am persuaded that Jesus may very well have expressed some historical opposition to the temple. Mk 14,57-59 can be read as an attempt to discredit an earlier tradition about Jesus’ or other early Christian beliefs about the temple:
Some stood up and gave false testimony against him, saying, “We heard him say, ‘I will destroy this temple that is made with hands, and in three days I will build another, not made with hands.’” But even on this point their testimony did not agree.
Contrary to these now discredited reports or beliefs, Mark has presented his own view of the timing and ultimate significance of the temple’s destruction in Jesus’ longest and climactic discourse of Mk 13, which previously had only been known by a very small, select group of disciples (Peter, Andrew, James, John of Mk 13,3) and which has only now been made more widely known by Mark.
A very small, select group of disciples (Peter, Andrew, James, John of Mk 13,3) is in Matthew unselected.This is one of the arguments of Detering and Lourie giving priority to Matthew’s version of the Synoptic Apocalypse.
Lourie is in favor of Mark’s primacy as a rest of gospel but not for this part of the text. Supporters of Matthew’s primacy also use this argument to justify their position
Robert said
An argument without any merit. If the discourse were already (widely) known, Mark would have no reason and nothing to gain by presenting it as less widely known.
How can you say something is or isn’t profitable for someone who is a ghost writer? He copied the dialogue and completed it in his own interest and following his own intuition to have a better product
Porphyry said
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 **
This (the OP opening post) and all the posts in this thread are quite interesting.
Right about the same time I discovered this topic and thread I saw this Bart Ehrman video where Bart talks about Josephus, and how he, Josephus, had had 3 people taken down from crosses of crucifixion, and that one of them survived. The part where Bart talks about it is at 29:20 in the video.
Can all of these things just be coincidences?
Could Jesus actually have lived and preached a lot longer that we have thought he had? If like John Shelby Spong says that the gospels were written as liturgy, to step people/the congregation through the year, the same way that the Jewish Torah is used, could that be the reason why be believe or understand Jesus to have only preached for one to three years?
It’s an interesting thought anyways
list=PL0wHJQagE9V3zeG34th2QVe95829BYteN&index=1
Robert said
Most critical exegesis have little difficulty judging clear instances of Markan priority and later redaction by Matthew or Luke. No need to flip coins. That’s not scholarship.
Most 99% of critical biblical scholars bet heads on the coin toss first, rejecting the “ghost writer” motivation in favor of the “temple obsessed sincere author” motivation. Then biblical scholars try to read the order of the gospels from the text, while the most natural interpretation of the Venn diagram is working in parallel at the same time with transmission in different directions. And most biblical scholars ignore Marcion’s gospel because that’s what Adolf von Harnack said 100 years ago, representing an earlier version of the consensus (dating the Acts to 65 CE). And that’s how biblical scholars rolled 3 dice instead of 4. It turned out that no matter how you throw 4 dice, it turns out that the problems resulting from throwing 3 dice disappear.
Consensus dice dating ignores the first serious player at the table.
BDEhrman
FreedomBen
evgendob
Robert
1 Guest(s)