Did GMark Intend Joseph of Arimathea to be Josephus?

[FransJVermeiren]

A minor event??

The end of the Hasmonean dynasty, the loss of sovereignty, country occupied by a foreign force - and you would call all that a minor event.....

Daniel Schwartz: ‘I refer to those many who write as if 70 meant the demise of a Jewish state—which is simply not true. The end of the Jewish state had come already in 63 bce, (Was 70 c.e. a Watershed in Jewish History)

Maybe I was a little bit provocative when I called the end of the Hasmonean dynasty a minor event. Was the Franco-Prussian war a minor event? No it wasn't. But compared to the two World War's of the 20th century maybe it was. Do we speak about the wars of 1870-1871, 1914-1918 and 1939-1945 as of equal importance? No we don't, and the same applies for 63 BCE, 37 BCE and 70 CE.

It's a bit strange also that you quote Daniel Schwartz to highlight the 37 BCE event, when he mentions the first capture of Jerusalem in 63 BCE. So Schwartz considers Pompey's capture of Jerusalem more important than the end of the Hasmonean dynasty. All in all 37 BCE is a symbolic date in the first place, because real Hasmonean power had vanished long before.

In his review of Steve Mason's A History of the Jewish War Daniel Schwartz calls the war of the Jews against the Romans 'an axial event of the first century'. And the book description of Mason's book on Amazon.com says 'The first war between Jews and Romans (A.D. 66 to 74), which saw the fall of Jerusalem's temple (A.D. 70), is among the West's most consequential conflicts.'

Finally, in your quote Schwartz only says that the Jewish state came to an end in 63 BCE and not in 70 CE. He does not say that the war against the Romans was a minor event.

[maryhelena]

A minor event??

The end of the Hasmonean dynasty, the loss of sovereignty, country occupied by a foreign force - and you would call all that a minor event.....

Daniel Schwartz: ‘I refer to those many who write as if 70 meant the demise of a Jewish state—which is simply not true. The end of the Jewish state had come already in 63 bce, (Was 70 c.e. a Watershed in Jewish History)

Maybe I was a little bit provocative when I called the end of the Hasmonean dynasty a minor event. Was the Franco-Prussian war a minor event? No it wasn't. But compared to the two World War's of the 20th century maybe it was. Do we speak about the wars of 1870-1871, 1914-1918 and 1939-1945 as of equal importance? No we don't, and the same applies for 63 BCE, 37 BCE and 70 CE.

All wars are tragic. The point about referencing 63 b.c.e. and 37 b.c.e. was not only that these years had fundamental consequences for the Jewish state - but that these years are often overshadowed by the events of 70 c.e. The purpose of the articles in Was 70 c.e. a Watershed in Jewish History was to bring back into focus these earlier years. Concentrating on 70 c.e. at the expense of neglecting earlier Hasmonean history is to short change a search for early christian origins. A study of World War 2 would be negligent if the history of World War 1 was not part of it's research....

It's a bit strange also that you quote Daniel Schwartz to highlight the 37 BCE event, when he mentions the first capture of Jerusalem in 63 BCE. So Schwartz considers Pompey's capture of Jerusalem more important than the end of the Hasmonean dynasty. All in all 37 BCE is a symbolic date in the first place, because real Hasmonean power had vanished long before.

The quote from Schwartz referenced 63 b.c.e. The quote from Sharon referenced 67-37 b.c.e. 37 b.c.e. was the year in which ended the Hasmonean dynasty. i.e. the year in which a Jewish King was executed by Rome.

In his review of Steve Mason's A History of the Jewish War Daniel Schwartz calls the war of the Jews against the Romans 'an axial event of the first century'. And the book description of Mason's book on Amazon.com says 'The first war between Jews and Romans (A.D. 66 to 74), which saw the fall of Jerusalem's temple (A.D. 70), is among the West's most consequential conflicts.'

The importance and consequences of 70 c.e. do not override or cancel out the importance of events of 63 b.c.e. and 37 b.c.e. That is the issue raised in Was 70 c.e. a Watershed in Jewish History

Finally, in your quote Schwartz only says that the Jewish state came to an end in 63 BCE and not in 70 CE. He does not say that the war against the Romans was a minor event.

And neither did I say the event of 70 c.e. was a minor event...
------------------------

Wikipedia: Siege of Jerusalem:

Siege of Jerusalem (63 BC) by Pompey the Great, intervening in the Hasmonean civil war on behalf of the Roman Republic.

Siege of Jerusalem (37 BC) by Herod the Great, ending Hasmonean rule over Judea.

Siege of Jerusalem (AD 70) by Titus, ending the major phase of the Great Jewish Revolt. It ended in the destruction of Herod's Temple.

----------------------------
Herod's siege of Jerusalem in 37 b.c.e.

Indeed, though they had so great an army lying round about them, they bore a siege of five months, till some of Herod's chosen men ventured to get upon the wall, and fell into the city, as did Sosius's centurions after them; and now they first of all seized upon what was about the temple; and upon the pouring in of the army, there was slaughter of vast multitudes every where, by reason of the rage the Romans were in at the length of this siege, and by reason that the Jews who were about Herod earnestly endeavored that none of their adversaries might remain; so they were cut to pieces by great multitudes, as they were crowded together in narrow streets, and in houses, or were running away to the temple; nor was there any mercy showed either to infants, or to the aged, or to the weaker sex; insomuch that although the king sent about and desired them to spare the people, nobody could be persuaded to withhold their right hand from slaughter, but they slew people of all ages, like madmen. War of the Jews Book 1 ch.18.

http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/tex ... tion%3D349

[rakovsky]

In short, the relation between the account of Josephus and the Passion narrative in the Gospels is as follows:

Josephus:
Three men – are crucified – in a levelled area – and Joseph bar Matthea – begs Titus – for premature deposition – after which one of them survives.

Gospels:
Three men – are crucified – in a bald area – and Joseph Arimathaias – begs Pilate – for premature deposition – after which one of them rises.

There is only one difference between the two accounts: Titus versus Pilate. In other words: the problem is a chronological one. I believe Josephus’s account to be historical; Mark has antedated this historical account by 40 years to obscure the real course of events for the Romans.

Good summary. Other coincidences are:
Josephus
1.A. Josephus' friendship with the three convicts .
1 B. Josephus' writings containing two sympathetic passages on Jesus or Christians (the second being the one about James the brother of Jesus
2. Josephus' literary skills

Gospels
1. references to Jesus' contacts with politically influential persons.

2. High quality literary aspect of the gospels. They were written by skilled writers, considering the literary features like chiasms.

The problem is, like you said, chronological. One rational explanation (eg. "There is a rational explanation for everything.") is that Josephus did have sympathies for Christianity, and then in his lifetime he did request three friends from their crosses, one survived, and the coincidence made an impression on him, so he noted it in his writings.

[FransJVermeiren]

A minor event??

The end of the Hasmonean dynasty, the loss of sovereignty, country occupied by a foreign force - and you would call all that a minor event.....

Daniel Schwartz: ‘I refer to those many who write as if 70 meant the demise of a Jewish state—which is simply not true. The end of the Jewish state had come already in 63 bce, (Was 70 c.e. a Watershed in Jewish History)

Maybe I was a little bit provocative when I called the end of the Hasmonean dynasty a minor event. Was the Franco-Prussian war a minor event? No it wasn't. But compared to the two World War's of the 20th century maybe it was. Do we speak about the wars of 1870-1871, 1914-1918 and 1939-1945 as of equal importance? No we don't, and the same applies for 63 BCE, 37 BCE and 70 CE.

All wars are tragic. The point about referencing 63 b.c.e. and 37 b.c.e. was not only that these years had fundamental consequences for the Jewish state - but that these years are often overshadowed by the events of 70 c.e. The purpose of the articles in Was 70 c.e. a Watershed in Jewish History was to bring back into focus these earlier years. Concentrating on 70 c.e. at the expense of neglecting earlier Hasmonean history is to short change a search for early christian origins. A study of World War 2 would be negligent if the history of World War 1 was not part of it's research....

It's a bit strange also that you quote Daniel Schwartz to highlight the 37 BCE event, when he mentions the first capture of Jerusalem in 63 BCE. So Schwartz considers Pompey's capture of Jerusalem more important than the end of the Hasmonean dynasty. All in all 37 BCE is a symbolic date in the first place, because real Hasmonean power had vanished long before.

The quote from Schwartz referenced 63 b.c.e. The quote from Sharon referenced 67-37 b.c.e. 37 b.c.e. was the year in which ended the Hasmonean dynasty. i.e. the year in which a Jewish King was executed by Rome.

In his review of Steve Mason's A History of the Jewish War Daniel Schwartz calls the war of the Jews against the Romans 'an axial event of the first century'. And the book description of Mason's book on Amazon.com says 'The first war between Jews and Romans (A.D. 66 to 74), which saw the fall of Jerusalem's temple (A.D. 70), is among the West's most consequential conflicts.'

The importance and consequences of 70 c.e. do not override or cancel out the importance of events of 63 b.c.e. and 37 b.c.e. That is the issue raised in Was 70 c.e. a Watershed in Jewish History

Finally, in your quote Schwartz only says that the Jewish state came to an end in 63 BCE and not in 70 CE. He does not say that the war against the Romans was a minor event.

And neither did I say the event of 70 c.e. was a minor event...
------------------------

Wikipedia: Siege of Jerusalem:

Siege of Jerusalem (63 BC) by Pompey the Great, intervening in the Hasmonean civil war on behalf of the Roman Republic.

Siege of Jerusalem (37 BC) by Herod the Great, ending Hasmonean rule over Judea.

Siege of Jerusalem (AD 70) by Titus, ending the major phase of the Great Jewish Revolt. It ended in the destruction of Herod's Temple.

----------------------------
Herod's siege of Jerusalem in 37 b.c.e.

Indeed, though they had so great an army lying round about them, they bore a siege of five months, till some of Herod's chosen men ventured to get upon the wall, and fell into the city, as did Sosius's centurions after them; and now they first of all seized upon what was about the temple; and upon the pouring in of the army, there was slaughter of vast multitudes every where, by reason of the rage the Romans were in at the length of this siege, and by reason that the Jews who were about Herod earnestly endeavored that none of their adversaries might remain; so they were cut to pieces by great multitudes, as they were crowded together in narrow streets, and in houses, or were running away to the temple; nor was there any mercy showed either to infants, or to the aged, or to the weaker sex; insomuch that although the king sent about and desired them to spare the people, nobody could be persuaded to withhold their right hand from slaughter, but they slew people of all ages, like madmen. War of the Jews Book 1 ch.18.

http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/tex ... tion%3D349

MH, thank you for your extensive reply.

In my opinion the issue of urgency or priority remains an important one. If Jerusalem was besieged in 63 BCE, in 37 BCE and in 70 CE, to what war would an author in the 70's of the first century CE refer in the first place?

In his introduction to The Jewish War Josephus writes (I:15): Indeed, a historian who writes of events that have not previously been recorded, and about events of his own time, should serve as a model and is worthy of the highest praise.

As Josephus and Mark both wrote shortly after the end of the war, could their leitmotiv not have been the same? Was Mark referring to events of more than a century before, or even of 4 decades before? Maybe, just like Josephus, he wrote an account of the overwhelming events of his own time, of the war against the Romans. But the aspect of the war he wanted to highlight - a rebellion leader who became their messiah by spectacularly surviving his Roman execution - was way too dangerous to be published in a Rome-dominated world. So Mark veiled the real course of events by antedating the events by 4 decades and by staging Pilate and the depraved Jewish establishment. On careful reading Mark and Josephus are two sides of the same war coin.

[Charles Wilson]

In his introduction to The Jewish War Josephus writes (I:15): Indeed, a historian who writes of events that have not previously been recorded, and about events of his own time, should serve as a model and is worthy of the highest praise.

Continuing...

Josephus, War..., Preface:

"But for some of our own principal men, their mouths are wide open, and their tongues loosed presently, for gain and law-suits, but quite muzzled up when they are to write history, where they must speak truth and gather facts together with a great deal of pains; and so they leave the writing such histories to weaker people, and to such as are not acquainted with the actions of princes. Yet shall the real truth of historical facts be preferred by us, how much soever it be neglected among the Greek historians..."

Mark 3: 1 - 6 (RSV):

[1] Again he entered the synagogue, and a man was there who had a withered hand.
[2] And they watched him, to see whether he would heal him on the sabbath, so that they might accuse him.
[3] And he said to the man who had the withered hand, "Come here."
[4] And he said to them, "Is it lawful on the sabbath to do good or to do harm, to save life or to kill?" But they were silent.
[5] And he looked around at them with anger, grieved at their hardness of heart, and said to the man, "Stretch out your hand." He stretched it out, and his hand was restored.
[6] The Pharisees went out, and immediately held counsel with the Hero'di-ans against him, how to destroy him.

The hand restored, the weak can write - again.

CW

[maryhelena]

MH, thank you for your extensive reply.

In my opinion the issue of urgency or priority remains an important one. If Jerusalem was besieged in 63 BCE, in 37 BCE and in 70 CE, to what war would an author in the 70's of the first century CE refer in the first place?

In his introduction to The Jewish War Josephus writes (I:15): Indeed, a historian who writes of events that have not previously been recorded, and about events of his own time, should serve as a model and is worthy of the highest praise.

As Josephus and Mark both wrote shortly after the end of the war, could their leitmotiv not have been the same? Was Mark referring to events of more than a century before, or even of 4 decades before? Maybe, just like Josephus, he wrote an account of the overwhelming events of his own time, of the war against the Romans. But the aspect of the war he wanted to highlight - a rebellion leader who became their messiah by spectacularly surviving his Roman execution - was way too dangerous to be published in a Rome-dominated world. So Mark veiled the real course of events by antedating the events by 4 decades and by staging Pilate myand the depraved Jewish establishment. On careful reading Mark and Josephus are two sides of the same war coin.

One can't pick and choose with history......any historian worth that name has to take cognizance of the wider political canvas. In this case Roman intervention and occupatio of Judaea. The thrust of the gospel story is a Roman execution of a man on whose shoulders it is perceived to stand Western Civilization....Thus....all of Roman history within Judaea is relevant.

As for remembering past conflicts - consider the Irish
Unlike the Jews who wrote prophecy/theology and mythological/spiritual stuff - the Irish wrote songs about their land's occupation by the English. Here is one such song remembering events of a rebellion in 1798.

[wiki]Boolavogue (song)[/wiki]

Boolavogue is an Irish ballad commemorating the campaign of Father John Murphy and his army in County Wexford during the Irish Rebellion of 1798. It was composed by Patrick Joseph McCall in 1898, the centenary of the Rebellion

[outhouse]

It goes without the Saying that The Legendary Vorkosigan's related commentary is required reading for this Thread:

I only see imagination and parallel mania required Joe.

You always forget the prose used to create these text purposely over sell the context important here to the authors.

There is almost no textual evidence for either character, and a tekton in context is not a rich tomb owning wealthy man of education.

It is obvious JoA was an authority building fictional man. We cannot have a gods body being thrown in a pit of rotting corpses. So we NOW have a burial fit for nobility. INRI

[outhouse]

a rebellion leader who became their messiah by spectacularly surviving his Roman execution

.

No sir.


He did not survive in Marks tale, he died a gruesome death of the worst kind in Mark. And mark originally makes very little mention of resurrection. It was factually not the valued part of his tale.

The suffering servant and sacrifice of a living man who died to pay for your sins is part of the real context. To have a sacrifice you had to have death and suffering.

When we look at the traditions involved here, the authors were building divinity in the rhetorical prose, but they were also answering to other opposite traditions making Jesus greater then competing traditions. Before jesus death, Hellenist were already claiming John was resurrected because his message lived on in Jesus teachings. The text not only spell this out for the blind and admit the tradition because it was already well known, but then sidetrack the context of John and invent a more divine and true resurrection with jesus. Context was reactionary.

But not so important that it was central to the theology, nor was it widespread early on. Had everyone early on actually believed what you posit, Mark would have gushed out his guts selling this crap, but we don't see it at all.

[outhouse]

FransJVermeiren wrote:
a rebellion leader who became their messiah by spectacularly surviving his Roman execution

What we really have is a martyred Galilean who generated theology found valuable ONLY Diaspora in Hellenism by people that could worship the Emperor as "son of god"

Or worship the "son of god" by a Galilean who sacrificed himself for the good of the people.

Cultural Context is important and ignored here that the Temple was bringing monotheism to the Roman Empire in the Diaspora, and you had a bunch of lunatic Emperors who were corrupt politicians and demanded your worship.

Many here fail to grasp reality here simply by the fact of how fast this theology factually spread across the empire.

All this tinfoil hat wearing crap going on here needs to stop.

[FransJVermeiren]

One can't pick and choose with history......any historian worth that name has to take cognizance of the wider political canvas. In this case Roman intervention and occupatio of Judaea. The thrust of the gospel story is a Roman execution of a man on whose shoulders it is perceived to stand Western Civilization....Thus....all of Roman history within Judaea is relevant.

As the events in 1st century CE Palestine are pivotal for Western civilization, we should do all we can to grasp a clear understanding of what happened then historically. To say it with the words of the Dutch diplomat Peter Van Walsum: “There is something absolute, something sacred in the simple question what really happened”.

It is clear that the writers of the New Testament text were well aware of the history of their country. They had an excellent knowledge of the Tanakh, several prophets are staged, they saw king David as the model for their expected messiah, etcetera. So if we try to understand what happened then and what spurred the writers of the NT texts, we should look at the whole ancient history of the Jews, not only at the Roman occupation. But I believe we should start from the NT texts themselves, and not enforce our views on them. The apocalyptic texts (Synoptic Apocalypse, Revelation, Didache chapter XVI) are of particular interest, because they contain sensitive historical information, information that was too subversive to commit to the enemy.

An interesting example is the great city of Babylon in Revelation. The writer of Revelation was well aware of the destruction of the first Temple by the Babylonians in 586 BCE. When the Herodian Temple was destroyed in 70 CE, the Romans became the new Babylonians, so John used the enemy of more than 6 centuries before to name the enemy of his own time. This way he showed what he considered to be the crucial crime the Romans committed: the destruction of the Temple. In this context the earlier conflicts with the Romans (63 CE, 37 CE) were of no importance.

Thank you for Boolavogue.