Did GMark Intend Joseph of Arimathea to be Josephus?

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
User avatar
maryhelena
Posts: 2900
Joined: Tue Oct 08, 2013 11:22 pm
Location: England

Re: Did GMark Intend Joseph of Arimathea to be Josephus?

Post by maryhelena »

JoeWallack wrote:JW:

For those who need points sharply explained the Joseph of Arimathea/Josephus parallel in GMark may have reflected/started Christian propaganda that the historical Josephus was sympathetic to/admired/believed the Gospel Jesus and contributed to the TF (forgery).
At best it's an open question whether or not the Josephan writer had anything to do with early christian origins....His work can be taken as if it is historical evidence for the gospel Jesus - that view is based on the assumption of historicity for the JC figure. For those who reject historicity for the gospel Jesus figure - then the writing of Josephus can be viewed as supporting the gospel narrative. That way, supporting the gospel narrative rather than supporting historicity for the gospel Jesus figure - raises the question of what role did the Josephan writer play in early christian history...Were his references to NT figures accidental or were they the result of Josephus being involved with a school of NT writers....Was he simply aware of such a school or was he in some way affiliated with it....
  • Thomas Brodie: Conclusion: Christianity, insofar as it was a new religion, was founded by a school of writers, or more likely by a religious community many of whose members were writers.' The process of writing was probably interwoven with specific events and/or religious experiences-a matter that needs urgent research. (Beyond the Quest for the Historical Jesus)
Tread softly because you tread on my dreams.
W.B. Yeats
User avatar
toejam
Posts: 754
Joined: Sun Apr 06, 2014 1:35 am
Location: Brisbane, Australia

Re: Did GMark Intend Joseph of Arimathea to be Josephus?

Post by toejam »

I doubt it. I suspect their small similarities are just coincidence. Though it is a fascinating idea, and I wouldn't rule it out.
My study list: https://www.facebook.com/notes/scott-bignell/judeo-christian-origins-bibliography/851830651507208
Charles Wilson
Posts: 2100
Joined: Thu Apr 03, 2014 8:13 am

Re: Did GMark Intend Joseph of Arimathea to be Josephus?

Post by Charles Wilson »

maryhelena wrote:At best it's an open question whether or not the Josephan writer had anything to do with early christian origins
MH, I'm not raggin' on you here. You've been pretty good lately. 8-)

1. Will someone, anyone, look at these 2 entries and tell me that they carry the feeling of Objective Truth? - "Well, yeah, Charlie, this all sounds good to me...Yeah...Sure...Um Hmmm...":

Josephus, Ant..., 13, 1 and 2, in Part:

"1. SO Demetrius came with an army, and took those that invited him, and pitched his camp near the city Shechem; upon which Alexander, with his six thousand two hundred mercenaries, and about twenty thousand Jews, who were of his party, went against Demetrius, who had three thousand horsemen, and forty thousand footmen. Now there were great endeavors used on both sides, - Demetrius trying to bring off the mercenaries that were with Alexander, because they were Greeks, and Alexander trying to bring off the Jews that were with Demetrius. However, when neither of them could persuade them so to do, they came to a battle, and Demetrius was the conqueror; in which all Alexander's mercenaries were killed, when they had given demonstration of their fidelity and courage. A great number of Demetrius's soldiers were slain also..."

Drumroll, please:

"2. Now as Alexander fled to the mountains, six thousand of the Jews hereupon came together [from Demetrius] to him out of pity at the change of his fortune; upon which Demetrius was afraid, and retired out of the country; after which the Jews fought against Alexander, and being beaten, were slain in great numbers in the several battles which they had..."

Will someone tell me in what Universe this makes any kind of sense? ANY?

The Greek General Demetrius Eucerus camps out at a place near what Temple? Oh! Right! I forgot! Josephus is writing HISTORY here. Temples don't enter in to the discussion (Until they do...) He decimates Jannaeus - which is what he was hired to do - and THEN, the Jews take PITY on Jannaeus and drive a scared Eucerus OUT OF THE COUNTRY!!!

Following this, Jannaeus triumphs and turns to Jerusalem and, Oh-By-The-Way, crucifies his enemies while killing the wives and the children in front of them:

"...he ordered about eight hundred of them to be crucified; and while they were living, he ordered the throats of their children and wives to be cut before their eyes..."

Wait a minute...Don't tell me...Oh, Yeah!:

Mark 13: 17 (RSV):

[17] And alas for those who are with child and for those who give suck in those days!

"Oh, that Charlie...Always - You know - findin' things."

2. The curious Case of Salome-Not-Alexandra:

Josephus, Ant..., 13, 12, 1:

"WHEN Aristobulus was dead, his wife Salome, who, by the Greeks, was called Alexandra, let his brethren out of prison, (for Aristobulus had kept them in bonds, as we have said already,) and made Alexander Janneus king, who was the superior in age and in moderation...."

http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/artic ... -alexandra :

"That Alexandra, the widow of Aristobulus I., was identical with her who married his brother Alexander Jannæus, is nowhere explicitly stated by Josephus, who no doubt took it for granted that the latter performed the levirate marriage prescribed by the law for the widow of a childless brother deceased. Josephus' statement ("Ant." xv. 6, § 3), that Hyrcanus, Jannæus' eldest son, was eighty years old when he was put to death by Herod, in 31 B.C., must be erroneous, for that would set the year of his birth as 111 B.C., and Jannæus himself was born in 125, so that he could have been but fourteen when Hyrcanus was born to him. It is difficult to understand how a thirteen-year-old boy married a widow of thirty..."

"Nothing to see here, folks...Just keep movin' along..." To this day, "Queen Salome" is known as "Queen Salome Alexandra", no doubt because the Chapter Heading was written in ink by the Great Historian Josephus. BTW, this continues a Racial Smear against the Hasmoneans, started at a dnner hosted by Hyrcanus 1. The whole thing stinks.

Can we blame this on Evil Redactors? Editorial Fatigue of Josephus himself? Of course Antiquities and Wars have evidence of the Transvaluation from the New Religion. It was written that way!

Josephus, Antiquities..., `7, 9, 3:

"But those that were seditious on account of those teachers of the law, irritated the people by the noise and clamors they used to encourage the people in their designs; so they made an assault upon the soldiers, and came up to them, and stoned the greatest part of them, although some of them ran away wounded, and their captain among them; and when they had thus done, they returned to the sacrifices which were already in their hands..."

I forgot. Someone remind me. Who performs sacrifices in the Temple?

CW
User avatar
maryhelena
Posts: 2900
Joined: Tue Oct 08, 2013 11:22 pm
Location: England

Re: Did GMark Intend Joseph of Arimathea to be Josephus?

Post by maryhelena »

toejam wrote:I doubt it. I suspect their small similarities are just coincidence. Though it is a fascinating idea, and I wouldn't rule it out.
Fascinating indeed ;)

The relationship of the Josephan writings to the NT writings is a field of research that could well gain more insight into early christian origins.
  • Thomas Brodie: Beyond the Quest for the Historical Jesus.

    Furthermore, Josephus and the evangelists were both engaged not only in writings and publishing, but essentially in the same field of writing-in diverse modifications and updatings of the Jewish scriptures. Thus while Antiquities uses many sources, it particularly builds on the traditional Jewish scriptures. And Luke-Acts is written as a continuation of the ancient Jewish scriptures (Sterling I 992: 363). And like Josephus, Luke too was a form of wide-ranging historian who went back to the beginning of things. Curiously, the Testimonium has affinities to some of the speeches concerning Jesus in the first half of Acts. In fact, the overall affinities between Josephus and Luke-Acts are so strong that researchers claim that one depends on the other, and, while the direction of dependence is debated, the two literary works do seem somehow intertwined. Luke in tum had access to Mark, and Mark also was in continuity with the ancient scriptures (see esp. Winn 2010). In others words, given the link of older scriptures with New Testament narrative, it makes sense that the Antiquities that built so carefully on the older scriptures should also acknowledge New Testament narrative.

    What is important in the present context is the availability of a relatively simple working hypothesis: Josephus the writer, in accord with his general practice of adapting sources, especially scripture and scripture-related sources, knew enough about the writings of at least two specific New Testament authors, authors to whom in various ways he seems to have been close, that he could adapt and summarize what they had said, and so could make reference to Jesus.

    What is certain is that it is extremely risky to conclude that Josephus did not have access, direct or indirect, either to serious discussion with some Christians or to some of the work of the evangelists, so it is not possible, in any reliable way, to invoke Josephus as an independent witness to Jesus. Unreliable witness cannot be used to condemn someone to death. And neither can it be used to assert that someone lived.
---------------
Brodie on the gospel narrative: ''.... it makes sense that the Antiquities that built so carefully on the older scriptures should also acknowledge New Testament narrative.''
  • The conclusion that accounts for the data is literary: the portrait of Jesus is modelled ultimately on that of the Creator. To claim an individual history behind the text goes beyond the data.

    Explaining the data does not require invoking the historical existence of Jesus. The explanation that suffices without invoking Jesus' historical existence is the simplest, therefore, in respect for a basic rule of method, it is to be preferred.

    In essence: once the literary connection is seen, the historical explanation is unnecessary; it goes beyond what is needed to explain the data.

    The same phenomenon of dependence on the Old Testament pervades all the Gospels and Acts. It will take decades to spell out all the details, but sufficient evidence is already in place that it is no longer plausible to base claims to the historical Jesus on the Gospels or Acts.
Tread softly because you tread on my dreams.
W.B. Yeats
User avatar
JoeWallack
Posts: 1595
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 8:22 pm
Contact:

Re: Did GMark Intend Joseph of Arimathea to be Josephus?

Post by JoeWallack »

JW:

Strong's Transliteration Greek English Morphology
2064 [e] elthōn ἐλθὼν having come V-APA-NMS
2501 [e] Iōsēph Ἰωσὴφ Joseph N-NMS
3588 [e] ho - Art-NMS
575 [e] apo ἀπὸ from Prep
707 [e] Harimathaias Ἁριμαθαίας*, Arimathaea, N-GFS

JW:
Note that the "ὁ" here is the Greek definite article (the). "The Joseph" (Joseph the).

Textual support:

http://www.laparola.net/greco/index.php

For =
ὁ ἀπὸ] ‭א A C L W* Θ Ψ f1 f13 Byz ς
Against =
ἀπὸ] B D Wc 083 28 al it vg syrs copbo(mss)
As everyone here knows by now the Greek definite article is definitely less definite then the English. You also have a number of placement issues with "the", "from" and "Ari". The definite article here is sometimes taken as distinguishing which Joseph, the one from Arimathea, even though there is no other Joseph in GMark. It's possible though that the definite article here was intended either as a clue to help identify the Joseph, Josephus, or was part of an original clear identification of Josephus.


Josephus

Figures Don't Lie But Liars Figure. A Proportionate Response to the Disproportionate Response Claim (Gaza)
FransJVermeiren
Posts: 253
Joined: Thu Jul 14, 2016 1:14 am
Contact:

Re: Did GMark Intend Joseph of Arimathea to be Josephus?

Post by FransJVermeiren »

maryhelena wrote:
At best it's an open question whether or not the Josephan writer had anything to do with early christian origins....
If Josephus had not hurried to Titus and begged him to take down three of his friends from the cross, Christianity would not have come into being.
The Dutch author Pierre Krijbolder drew my attention to the parallels between Josephus’s Life 76 and the Passion narrative, and I elaborated them further.
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.
www.waroriginsofchristianity.com

The practical modes of concealment are limited only by the imaginative capacity of subordinates. James C. Scott, Domination and the Arts of Resistance.
User avatar
maryhelena
Posts: 2900
Joined: Tue Oct 08, 2013 11:22 pm
Location: England

Re: Did GMark Intend Joseph of Arimathea to be Josephus?

Post by maryhelena »

FransJVermeiren wrote:
maryhelena wrote:
At best it's an open question whether or not the Josephan writer had anything to do with early christian origins....
If Josephus had not hurried to Titus and begged him to take down three of his friends from the cross, Christianity would not have come into being.
The Dutch author Pierre Krijbolder drew my attention to the parallels between Josephus’s Life 76 and the Passion narrative, and I elaborated them further.
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.
If one takes the Josephan account as somehow a parallel with the gospel account one is facing one big problem - and its not chronological. The gospel crucifixion account under Pilate is not history. In which case, if one is taking the Josephus account as a parallel - then the Josephus account, likewise, is not history. And of course, the man in the Josephus account was alive when taken from the cross - the gospel Jesus was dead when taken from the cross...

The gospel crucifixion story set around 30/33 c.e. is an echo, a reflection, of a Roman execution/hanging on a stake, of the last King and High Priest of the Jews, Antigonus in 37 b.c.e. Around 70 years earlier. Thus, if Josephus is making any allusion to a historical Roman execution/crucifixion he is, as the gospel writers, referencing Antigonus.

According to Daniel Schwartz (Studies in the Jewish Background of Christianity) Jerusalem fell in July of 37 b.c.e. Antigonus was beheaded by Marc Antony in Antioch. According to Schwartz, Marc Antony only came to Antioch around the autumn of 37 b.c.e. or early 36 b.c.e.
  • Although Josephus {Ant.14.487) dates it to the Day of Atonement (10 Tishri), all these scholars, as others, agree that the conquest was in fact completed in ca. July 37."'
    .....
    But Antigonus was executed in Antioch by Mark Anthony {Ant. 14.488-490; Strabo, apud Ant.15.9),"and, as is shown by the latter's movements, that occurred in the late autumn of 37, or perhaps early in 36. Anthony was still in Tarentum in September—October 37.
Thus, the possibility is that Antigonus was hung on a stake/cross prior to his later beheading by Marc Antony i.e. Antigonus was a Roman prisoner for some months prior to his execution. If this is so - Antigonus was taken down alive from the stake/cross - thus a better fit if one is looking for a historical allusion within the Josephus story.

In contrast to the gospel crucifixion story, a story set around 70 years from the Roman execution of Antigonus, the Josephan story, set in 70 c.e. is 100 years from 30 b.c.e. i.e. the date Josephus gives for when Herod executed Hyrancus II.

The last 7 years of the Hasmonean dynasty ran from 37 b.c.e. to 30 b.c.e. It began with a Roman execution and ends with Herod killing Hyrancus. If it's parallels one is interested in, consider the last 7 years prior to the fall of Jerusalem in 70 c.e. That gives one 63 c.e. to 70 c.e. Around 63 c.e. Josephus places the death of James and in 70 c.e. places his crucifixion story. A reversal of the order of things from the earlier time period.

Attempts to find parallels between a story in Josephus and the gospel story, while interesting in and of themselves, fail to move forward a search for early christian origins. For forward movement in that search one has to deal with history, Hasmonean history. One looks for historical reflections, allusions, in both the stories told by the gospel writers - and the stories told by Josephus.
Tread softly because you tread on my dreams.
W.B. Yeats
FransJVermeiren
Posts: 253
Joined: Thu Jul 14, 2016 1:14 am
Contact:

Re: Did GMark Intend Joseph of Arimathea to be Josephus?

Post by FransJVermeiren »

maryhelena wrote:
If one takes the Josephan account as somehow a parallel with the gospel account one is facing one big problem - and its not chronological. The gospel crucifixion account under Pilate is not history. In which case, if one is taking the Josephus account as a parallel - then the Josephus account, likewise, is not history. And of course, the man in the Josephus account was alive when taken from the cross - the gospel Jesus was dead when taken from the cross...

The gospel crucifixion story set around 30/33 c.e. is an echo, a reflection, of a Roman execution/hanging on a stake, of the last King and High Priest of the Jews, Antigonus in 37 b.c.e. Around 70 years earlier. Thus, if Josephus is making any allusion to a historical Roman execution/crucifixion he is, as the gospel writers, referencing Antigonus.
Maryhelena, if neither the Gospel account nor Josephus's are historical, what then does it matter if the victim died and rose again, or survived? Is there something like non-historical death or survival?

I don't believe Josephus is making an 'allusion' to a historical event when he describes the mass crucifixions during the siege of Jerusalem: 'The soldiers, out of rage and hatred, amused themselves by nailing prisoners in various attitudes until no space could be found for the crosses due to their vast number, nor crosses for the bodies.' If Josephus describes one specific crucifixion during the same period, this also cannot be considered an 'allusion'. So I would turn things the other way around: Josephus's account describes a historical event, and as the Gospel account looks very similar, it is the veiled description of the same event. On careful reading, there are numerous references to the war against the Romans in the Gospels.

And about the Hasmoneans: why would Josephus and the Gospel writers describe a minor event of a century before, when they were witnessing the collapse of their universe? Is it a coincidence that the first Gospel was written shortly after the catastrophic end of the war against the Romans?
www.waroriginsofchristianity.com

The practical modes of concealment are limited only by the imaginative capacity of subordinates. James C. Scott, Domination and the Arts of Resistance.
User avatar
maryhelena
Posts: 2900
Joined: Tue Oct 08, 2013 11:22 pm
Location: England

Re: Did GMark Intend Joseph of Arimathea to be Josephus?

Post by maryhelena »

FransJVermeiren wrote:
And about the Hasmoneans: why would Josephus and the Gospel writers describe a minor event of a century before, when they were witnessing the collapse of their universe? Is it a coincidence that the first Gospel was written shortly after the catastrophic end of the war against the Romans?
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)

Setting the Stage: The Effects of the Roman Conquest and the Loss of Sovereignty

Nadav Sharon: ‘Despite the enormous amount of scholarly work on the Second Temple Period it seems to me that the period of 67–37 bce, and the dramatic change it brought upon Judea, have been somewhat neglected in modern historical study’

It seems to me safe to assume that a change such as the loss of sovereignty must have had a tremendous impact on Judean religion and society. However, as already observed, historical study has relatively neglected this period, and has focused on the destruction of the Temple, not on the loss of independence, when reflecting upon the evolution of ancient Judaism.

However, it seems that in addition to the neglect of that period, this picture in turn has also made it seem all the more natural for scholars to emphasize the Destruction as the basis for understanding later Judaism and to overlooking the impact of the loss of independence and the beginning of Roman dominion of Judea.

It is, therefore, my contention here that some conceptual and institutional developments which were crucial for the development of post-Destruction Judaism are to be understood more appropriately against the background of the loss of independence and the beginning of Roman rule in Judea.
(Was 70 c.e. a Watershed in Jewish History)

https://www.academia.edu/2501352/Settin ... overeignty

Methinks perhaps it's time to take a Jewish perspective on Jewish history...
Tread softly because you tread on my dreams.
W.B. Yeats
User avatar
maryhelena
Posts: 2900
Joined: Tue Oct 08, 2013 11:22 pm
Location: England

Re: Did GMark Intend Joseph of Arimathea to be Josephus?

Post by maryhelena »

FransJVermeiren wrote:
maryhelena wrote:
If one takes the Josephan account as somehow a parallel with the gospel account one is facing one big problem - and its not chronological. The gospel crucifixion account under Pilate is not history. In which case, if one is taking the Josephus account as a parallel - then the Josephus account, likewise, is not history. And of course, the man in the Josephus account was alive when taken from the cross - the gospel Jesus was dead when taken from the cross...

The gospel crucifixion story set around 30/33 c.e. is an echo, a reflection, of a Roman execution/hanging on a stake, of the last King and High Priest of the Jews, Antigonus in 37 b.c.e. Around 70 years earlier. Thus, if Josephus is making any allusion to a historical Roman execution/crucifixion he is, as the gospel writers, referencing Antigonus.
Maryhelena, if neither the Gospel account nor Josephus's are historical, what then does it matter if the victim died and rose again, or survived? Is there something like non-historical death or survival?

I don't believe Josephus is making an 'allusion' to a historical event when he describes the mass crucifixions during the siege of Jerusalem: 'The soldiers, out of rage and hatred, amused themselves by nailing prisoners in various attitudes until no space could be found for the crosses due to their vast number, nor crosses for the bodies.' If Josephus describes one specific crucifixion during the same period, this also cannot be considered an 'allusion'. So I would turn things the other way around: Josephus's account describes a historical event, and as the Gospel account looks very similar, it is the veiled description of the same event. On careful reading, there are numerous references to the war against the Romans in the Gospels.
The point here is not what the gospel writers were or were not doing - the point is what was Josephus doing with his story, set in 70 c.e., about taking a friend down alive from a cross....It is not relevant how many people the Romans crucified - the point is the Josephan story about taking a friend down alive from a cross...Keeping in mind that an earlier siege of Jerusalem resulted in a Jewish King and High Priest being executed/hung on a stake/cross....
Tread softly because you tread on my dreams.
W.B. Yeats
Post Reply