Re: Does anyone have On the Historicity of Jesus yet?
Posted: Mon Sep 01, 2014 2:21 pm
Thanks Neil.
Investigating the roots of western civilization (ye olde BC&H forum of IIDB lives on...)
https://earlywritings.com/forum/
It's a Julian tomb, and it's under the center of the altar of Saint Peter's basilica.Leucius Charinus wrote:Christ-Helios in the Vatican tombs.
http://www.roger-pearse.com/weblog/2011 ... an-tomb-m/
There's a range of possibilities: a development of a combination of previous narratives, or theological responses to previous narratives.maryhelena wrote:Hi, KapyongKapyong wrote:Gday maryhelena,
Carrier identifies a certain Jesus ben Ananias as one model for G.Mark's Jesus :maryhelena wrote:If historical figures are relevant to the creation of the gospel Jesus - then, 1) identify them, 2) ask questions of 'why' these figures were of interest to the gospel writers. If it's early christian origins that we are seeking, then such questions have to be asked. As it stands, the Carrier/Doherty mythicist theory is of no use in that search.
Carrier, OHJ, pp428-430, on Jesus ben Ananias
"Indeed, even how Mark decides to construct the sequence of the Passover narrative appears to be based on the tale of another Jesus: Jesus ben Ananias, the 'Jesus of Jerusalem', an insane prophet active in the 60s ce who is then killed in the siege of Jerusalem (roughly in the year 70).84 His story is told by Josephus in the Jewish War, and unless Josephus invented him, his narrative must have been famous, famous enough for Josephus to know of it, and thus famous enough for Mark to know of it, too, and make use of it to model the tale of his own Jesus. Or if Josephus invented the tale, then Mark evidently used Josephus as a source.85 Because the parallels are too numerous to be at all probable as a coincidence.86 Some Mark does derive from elsewhere (or matches from elsewhere to a double purpose), but the overall scheme of the story in Josephus matches Mark too closely to believe that Mark just came up with the exact same scheme independently. And since it's not believable that Josephus invented a new story using Mark, we must conclude Mark invented his story using Josephus—or the same tale known to Josephus.
"It would appear this story inspired the general outline of Mark's entire Passover Narrative. There are at least twenty significant parallels (and one reversal):
"Given that Mark is essentially a Christian response to the Jewish War and the destruction of the Jewish temple, it is more than a little significant that he chose this Jesus to model his own Jesus after. This also tells us, yet again, how much Mark is making everything up. (It also confirms that Mark wrote after the Jewish War.)
- "Both are named Jesus.
- Both come to Jerusalem during a major religious festival.
- Both entered the temple area to rant against the temple.
- During which both quote the same chapter of Jeremiah.
- Both then preach daily in the temple.
- Both declared "woe' unto Judea or the Jews.
- Both predict the temple will be destroyed.
- Both are for this reason arrested by the Jews.
- Both are accused of speaking against the temple.
- Neither makes any defense of himself against the charges
- Both are beaten by the Jews.
- Then both are taken to the Roman governor.
- Both are interrogated by the Roman governor.
- During which both are asked to identity themselves.
- And yet again neither says anything in his defense.
- Both are then beaten by the Romans.
- In both cases the Roman governor decides he should release him.
- ... but doesn't (Mark):... but does (JW).
- Both are finally killed by the Romans (in Mark, by execution: in the JW. by artillery).
- Both utter a lament for themselves immediately before they die.
"84. According to Josephus his arrest and trial take place between 62 and 64 ce, as that was the term of office of Lucceius Albinus. the prefect overseeing his trial.
85. The Jewish War of Josephus was written between 74 and 79 ce, as it was written after Masada was destroyed in 74, and was dedicated to Vespasian, who died in 79.
86. Theodore Weeden. Two Jesuses. Jesus of Jerusalem and Jesus of Nazareth: Provocative Parallels and Imaginative Imitation". Forum N.S. 6.2 (Fall 2003), pp. 137-341: Craig Evans, 'Jesus in Non-Christian Sources', in Studying the Historical Jesus led. Chilton and Evans), pp. 443-78 (475-77). "
There is no historical evidence for the Josephan figure of Jesus ben Ananias. If one is prepared to grant artistic licence to the gospel writers - then, likewise, lets not deny this same ability to the Josephan writer. Carrier, interestingly, seems willing to consider that Josephus invented this figure.
As to gMark using this Josephan story for his Passion story - he had no need to do so. Hasmonean history was right in front of him. Antigonus, the last Hasmonean King and High Priest, was executed by Roman in 37 b.c.e. - hung on a cross, scourged and later beheaded - no parallel with the Josephan figure. 100 years after this historical event, the Josephan writer has a story about Jesus ben Ananias, in 63 c.e. (7 years prior to 70 c.e.) 7 years after the execution of Antigonus, Herod had Hycranus II executed in 30 b.c.e. No need, for the Markan writer, to wait until 70 c.e. to develop his Jesus story. The Josephan story - well now, that could be interesting if that writer had a look at gMark's story.....and borrowed a few ideas.....
If we seek to look for historical models for the gospel Jesus figure - then historicity is the name of the game. No point in proposing figures, from wherever, that can't be historically verified.
My copy of Carrier's book has yet to arrive - so thanks for this quote. My, but your doing a lot of typing.....
No, that is no issue at all, as the synoptic apocalypse and the Apo of Peter (not the text of the same name found in NH) just shares sources with the syn apo, but does not depend on any synoptic gospel.andrewcriddle wrote: ↑Tue Jul 15, 2014 10:01 pm
One issue with a Bar Kokhba date of the Gospels is that the Apocalypse of Peter is very likely dated to the Bar Kokhba period but seems to clearly know the Mark 13/Matthew 24 passage.
Andrew Criddle
Some of the resemblances are specifically to the version in Matthew 24 (as distinct from the version in Mark 13) see Fate of the Dead Assuming Marcan priority it is likely that the author of the Apocalypse of Peter knew Matthew.schillingklaus wrote: ↑Fri Dec 24, 2021 3:02 amNo, that is no issue at all, as the synoptic apocalypse and the Apo of Peter (not the text of the same name found in NH) just shares sources with the syn apo, but does not depend on any synoptic gospel.andrewcriddle wrote: ↑Tue Jul 15, 2014 10:01 pm
One issue with a Bar Kokhba date of the Gospels is that the Apocalypse of Peter is very likely dated to the Bar Kokhba period but seems to clearly know the Mark 13/Matthew 24 passage.
Andrew Criddle