"Mark's" Fourth Source(After Imagination,Paul &Tanakh) = Joe

[JoeWallack]

"Mark's" Fourth Philosophy Source (After Imagination, Paul & Jewish Bible) = Josephus

JW:
The purpose of this Thread will be to Inventory evidence that "Mark" used Josephus as a Source.

Inventory so far:

1) "Mark's" Jesus predicts the destruction of the Temple. So does Josephus' Jesus:

Correspondent: Neal Godfree

Link: http://vridar.info/xorigins/josephus/2jesus.htm

Smoking gun excerpt:

Hereupon our rulers, supposing, as the case proved to be, that this was a sort of divine fury in the man, brought him to the Roman procurator, where he was whipped till his bones were laid bare; yet he did not make any supplication for himself, nor shed any tears, but turning his voice to the most lamentable tone possible, at every stroke of the whip his answer was, "Woe, woe to Jerusalem!" And when Albinus (for he was then our procurator) asked him, Who he was? and whence he came? and why he uttered such words? he made no manner of reply to what he said, but still did not leave off his melancholy ditty, till Albinus took him to be a madman, and dismissed him.

2) "Mark's" Jesus has a Mission to conquer Jerusalem and destroy the Temple. So does Josephus' Romans:

Correspondent: JoeWallack

Link: Jewrassic Pork. Evidence (More) Of Fiction In The Original Gospel

Smoking gun excerpt:

Note the following reMarkable common words/ideas with the Historical Roman campaign:

1) Gerasa - An especially noteworthy town as it was built by Rome, was populated mainly by Gentiles, was temporarily controlled by the Jewish rebels and was an important conquest on the way to Jerusalem. Also, a major rebel leader, Simon, was from Gerasa.

2) Legion - This name for the Demon is especially telling as it is also the primary name for units of Roman soldiers.

3) Pigs - Using pigs is telling as this would be the primary animal Jews associated with Gentiles. Also, one of the conquering Legions had a Boar as it's standard.

4) Two thousand - This is close to a casualty figure from the Historical Gadara conquest (twenty-two hundred).

5) Drowned - In the Historical Gadara campaign the most horrific method of suffering and execution was drowning.

3) "Mark's" Jesus advises not to cheat on your taxes. So does Josephus:

Correspondent: Gary Goldberg

Link: New Testament Parallels to the Works of Josephus

Smoking gun excerpt:

Comment
It was seen above that an important part of the political background in Jesus' time was the Fourth Philosophy of Judas the Galilean. In the present passage is the clearest indication that Jesus was seen by some of his contemporaries as involved with that group. The originating tenet of the Fourth Philosophy was that one should not pay taxes to Rome, as this was interpreted as a turning away from God. When the people in the cited passage ask Jesus if it is "lawful to pay taxes to the Emperor, or not," they are referring to the Fourth Philosophy's reading of the Law of Moses. The questioners, even if they were hostile to them, can't be seen as setting a devious trap -- they were trying to pin Jesus' philosophy down by asking him his opinion on the central question of the times.

4) "Mark's" Joseph apo Arimathias asks for and receives one of three crucified who recovers: Josephus' Josephus apo Matthias asks for and receives three crucified, one of which recovers.

Correspondent: Paul Tobin

Link: The Burial

Smoking gun excerpt:

The similarity in the names of the main protagonist is also considerable. In the same work, Josephus elucidated his distinguished ancestry. His grandfather, also named Joseph, begot Matthias his father in the tenth year of the reign of Archelaus (AD6). In the Greek text (the language Josephus wrote in) Joseph begot Matthias is rendered as Josepou Matthias. In Mark's gospel, Joseph of Arimathea is written in Greek as Joseph apo Arimathias, the similarity is curious. To quote Schonfield:

It is certainly curious that we have Josephus, himself a Josepou Matthias, begging the Roman commander for the bodies of three crucified friends, one of whom is brought back to life. [11]

5) "Mark's" Jesus' brothers are James, Joses, Judas and Simon. Josephus' Judas the Galilean's sons were James and Simon, (crucified) and Joseph was the High Priest (removed).:

Correspondent: JoeWallack

Link: Mark "I Am IronyMan". How Much Ironic Contrast, Transfer and Reversal Did He kraM? - The Mark's Brothers

Smoking gun excerpt:

And besides this, the sons of Judas of Galilee were now slain; I mean of that Judas who caused the people to revolt, when Cyrenius came to take an account of the estates of the Jews, as we have showed in a foregoing book. The names of those sons were James and Simon], whom Alexander commanded to be crucified. But now Herod, king of Chalcis, removed Joseph, the son of Camydus, from the high priesthood, and made Ananias, the son of Nebedeu, his successor.

6) "Mark's" Evangelist brother "Luke" clearly used Josephus as a source.

Correspondent: Richard Carrier

Link: Luke and Josephus

Smoking gun excerpt:

# The same three rebel leaders: Judas the Galilean--even specifically connected with the census (Acts 5:37; JW 2.117-8, JA 18.1-8); Theudas (Acts 5:36; JA 20.97); and "The Egyptian" (Acts 21:38; JW 2.261-3, JA 20.171).

It seems quite a remarkable coincidence that Luke should even mention these men at all (no other Christian author does), and that he names only three rebel leaders, and that all three are the very same men named by Josephus--even though Josephus says there were numerous such men (JW 2.259-264; JA 20.160-9, 20.188) and he only singled out these three especially for particular reasons of his own. In fact, to use only the rather generic nick-name "The Egyptian," instead of, or without, an actual name of any kind (there were millions of Egyptians, and certainly thousands in Judaea at any given time), though explicable as an affectation of one author, seems a little strange when two authors repeat the same idiom.

7) The External evidence indicates "Mark" is early second century and at this time Josephus would have been the recent and authoritative source for the history of the background to "Mark's" story.

Correspondent: Joe Wallack

Link: The Papias Smear, Changes in sell Structure. Evidence for an Original Second Century Gospel.

Smoking gun excerpt:

7) Papias c. 125

Aware of written Sayings of Jesus by Peter/"Mark" and "Matthew"

No Evidence of "The Passion"

No Evidence of "The Simontic
Problem"

No Evidence of Infancy Narrative

No Evidence of Paul

...
We may be creating an Intersection here for the creation of "Mark". Papias testifies that c. 125 he is not aware of any written Gospel Narrative and this is Confirmed by Eusebius who Reviews all available Church writings looking for the earliest evidence for the Canonical Gospels. Clement c. 110 shows the first evidence of an increasing Church hierarchy. Thus, the Motivation for "Mark" to write an anti-hierarchal Gospel exists starting c. 110. The earliest reference to use of a Canonical Gospel is Marcion c. 135. This suggests a dating range for "Mark" of 110 - 135.

8) Josephus' Hyrcanus has his ear cut off to disqualify him from the High Priesthood. "Mark's" servant of the High Priest has his ear cut off trying to disqualify Jesus from the High Priesthood

Correspondent: Dave Hindley

Link: http://www.freeratio.org/showpost.ph...3&postcount=15

Smoking gun excerpt:

Antiquities of the Jews 14:365-366 365 And thus was Antigonus brought back into Judea by the king of the Parthians [and reinstalled in his office], and received [from the Parthians] Hyrcanus and Phasaelus for his prisoners ... 366 but being afraid that Hyrcanus, who was [still at that point] under the guard of the Parthians, might have his kingdom restored to him by the multitude [once the Parthians left], he cut off his [i.e., Hyrcanus'] ears, and thereby took care that the high priesthood should never come to him any more, because he was maimed, while the law required that this dignity should belong to none but such as had all their members entire.

...

Mark 14:47 But a certain one of them that stood by drew his sword, and smote the servant of the high priest, and struck off his ear.

9) Josephus says the cause of the destruction of Jerusalem was the High Priest and Jesus. "Mark" says the cause of the destruction of Jerusalem was the High Priest and Jesus:

Correspondent: Joe Wallack

Smoking gun excerpt:

http://www.earlyjewishwritings.com/t...phus/war4.html

2. But the rage of the Idumeans was not satiated by these slaughters; but they now betook themselves to the city, and plundered every house, and slew every one they met; and for the other multitude, they esteemed it needless to go on with killing them, but they sought for the high priests, and the generality went with the greatest zeal against them; and as soon as they caught them they slew them, and then standing upon their dead bodies, in way of jest, upbraided Ananus with his kindness to the people, and Jesus with his speech made to them from the wall. Nay, they proceeded to that degree of impiety, as to cast away their dead bodies without burial, although the Jews used to take so much care of the burial of men, that they took down those that were condemned and crucified, and buried them before the going down of the sun. I should not mistake if I said that the death of Ananus was the beginning of the destruction of the city, and that from this very day may be dated the overthrow of her wall, and the ruin of her affairs, whereon they saw their high priest, and the procurer of their preservation, slain in the midst of their city. He was on other accounts also a venerable, and a very just man; and besides the grandeur of that nobility, and dignity, and honor of which he was possessed, he had been a lover of a kind of parity, even with regard to the meanest of the people; he was a prodigious lover of liberty, and an admirer of a democracy in government; and did ever prefer the public welfare before his own advantage, and preferred peace above all things; for he was thoroughly sensible that the Romans were not to be conquered. He also foresaw that of necessity a war would follow, and that unless the Jews made up matters with them very dexterously, they would be destroyed; to say all in a word, if Ananus had survived, they had certainly compounded matters; for he was a shrewd man in speaking and persuading the people, and had already gotten the mastery of those that opposed his designs, or were for the war. And the Jews had then put abundance of delays in the way of the Romans, if they had had such a general as he was. Jesus was also joined with him; and although he was inferior to him upon the comparison, he was superior to the rest; and I cannot but think that it was because God had doomed this city to destruction, as a polluted city, and was resolved to purge his sanctuary by fire, that he cut off these their great defenders and well-wishers, while those that a little before had worn the sacred garments, and had presided over the public worship; and had been esteemed venerable by those that dwelt on the whole habitable earth when they came into our city, were cast out naked, and seen to be the food of dogs and wild beasts. And I cannot but imagine that virtue itself groaned at these men's case, and lamented that she was here so terribly conquered by wickedness. And this at last was the end of Ananus and Jesus.

As my ancestor Caiphas used to say, "what more evidence do we need" (that "Mark" used Josephus). Thus we have it on good authority that Josephus was a major source for "Mark" and that "Mark" is securely dated to 2nd century.



Josephus

HISTORIAN, n.
A broad-gauge gossip.

ErrancyWiki

[neilgodfrey]

Inventory so far:

1) "Mark's" Jesus predicts the destruction of the Temple. So does Josephus' Jesus:

Correspondent: Neal Godfree

Link: http://members.dodo.com.au/~neilgodfrey/2jesus.htm

That's a very ancient link from way back in the last century. Try http://vridar.info for where I store some of that info now. The specific one you are referring to I think is at http://vridar.info/xorigins/josephus/2jesus.htm

[neilgodfrey]

I have raised a question about the possible overlaps involving the ending of Mark and the Masada ending in Josephus in the past:


http://vridar.org/2007/03/29/marks-endi ... a-elishah/

http://vridar.org/2010/04/01/the-myth-a ... s-passion/

[Blood]

9) Josephus says the cause of the destruction of Jerusalem was the High Priest and Jesus. "Mark" says the cause of the destruction of Jerusalem was the High Priest and Jesus:

Correspondent: Joe Wallack

Smoking gun excerpt:

http://www.earlyjewishwritings.com/t...phus/war4.html

2. But the rage of the Idumeans was not satiated by these slaughters; but they now betook themselves to the city, and plundered every house, and slew every one they met; and for the other multitude, they esteemed it needless to go on with killing them, but they sought for the high priests, and the generality went with the greatest zeal against them; and as soon as they caught them they slew them, and then standing upon their dead bodies, in way of jest, upbraided Ananus with his kindness to the people, and Jesus with his speech made to them from the wall. Nay, they proceeded to that degree of impiety, as to cast away their dead bodies without burial, although the Jews used to take so much care of the burial of men, that they took down those that were condemned and crucified, and buried them before the going down of the sun. I should not mistake if I said that the death of Ananus was the beginning of the destruction of the city, and that from this very day may be dated the overthrow of her wall, and the ruin of her affairs, whereon they saw their high priest, and the procurer of their preservation, slain in the midst of their city. He was on other accounts also a venerable, and a very just man; and besides the grandeur of that nobility, and dignity, and honor of which he was possessed, he had been a lover of a kind of parity, even with regard to the meanest of the people; he was a prodigious lover of liberty, and an admirer of a democracy in government; and did ever prefer the public welfare before his own advantage, and preferred peace above all things; for he was thoroughly sensible that the Romans were not to be conquered. He also foresaw that of necessity a war would follow, and that unless the Jews made up matters with them very dexterously, they would be destroyed; to say all in a word, if Ananus had survived, they had certainly compounded matters; for he was a shrewd man in speaking and persuading the people, and had already gotten the mastery of those that opposed his designs, or were for the war. And the Jews had then put abundance of delays in the way of the Romans, if they had had such a general as he was. Jesus was also joined with him; and although he was inferior to him upon the comparison, he was superior to the rest; and I cannot but think that it was because God had doomed this city to destruction, as a polluted city, and was resolved to purge his sanctuary by fire, that he cut off these their great defenders and well-wishers, while those that a little before had worn the sacred garments, and had presided over the public worship; and had been esteemed venerable by those that dwelt on the whole habitable earth when they came into our city, were cast out naked, and seen to be the food of dogs and wild beasts. And I cannot but imagine that virtue itself groaned at these men's case, and lamented that she was here so terribly conquered by wickedness. And this at last was the end of Ananus and Jesus.

As my ancestor Caiphas used to say, "what more evidence do we need" (that "Mark" used Josephus). Thus we have it on good authority that Josephus was a major source for "Mark" and that "Mark" is securely dated to 2nd century.

Here's the link to that page

http://www.earlyjewishwritings.com/text ... /war4.html#

Jewish War 4.5.2

A couple of paragraphs later "Zacharias, the son of Baruch" in slain by zealots in the Temple. Possible inspiration for Matthew 23:35?

4. And now these zealots and Idumeans were quite weary of barely killing men, so they had the impudence of setting up fictitious tribunals and judicatures for that purpose; and as they intended to have Zacharias (9) the son of Baruch, one of the most eminent of the citizens, slain, - so what provoked them against him was, that hatred of wickedness and love of liberty which were so eminent in him: he was also a rich man, so that by taking him off, they did not only hope to seize his effects, but also to get rid of a mall that had great power to destroy them. So they called together, by a public proclamation, seventy of the principal men of the populace, for a show, as if they were real judges, while they had no proper authority. Before these was Zacharias accused of a design to betray their polity to the Romans, and having traitorously sent to Vespasian for that purpose. Now there appeared no proof or sign of what he was accused; but they affirmed themselves that they were well persuaded that so it was, and desired that such their affirmation might he taken for sufficient evidence. Now when Zacharias clearly saw that there was no way remaining for his escape from them, as having been treacherously called before them, and then put in prison, but not with any intention of a legal trial, he took great liberty of speech in that despair of his life he was under. Accordingly he stood up, and laughed at their pretended accusation, and in a few words confuted the crimes laid to his charge; after which he turned his speech to his accusers, and went over distinctly all their transgressions of the law, and made heavy lamentation upon the confusion they had brought public affairs to: in the mean time, the zealots grew tumultuous, and had much ado to abstain from drawing their swords, although they designed to preserve the appearance and show of judicature to the end. They were also desirous, on other accounts, to try the judges, whether they would be mindful of what was just at their own peril. Now the seventy judges brought in their verdict that the person accused was not guilty, as choosing rather to die themselves with him, than to have his death laid at their doors; hereupon there arose a great clamor of the zealots upon his acquittal, and they all had indignation at the judges for not understanding that the authority that was given them was but in jest. So two of the boldest of them fell upon Zacharias in the middle of the temple, and slew him; and as he fell down dead, they bantered him, and said, "Thou hast also our verdict, and this will prove a more sure acquittal to thee than the other." They also threw him down from the temple immediately into the valley beneath it. Moreover, they struck the judges with the backs of their swords, by way of abuse, and thrust them out of the court of the temple, and spared their lives with no other design than that, when they were dispersed among the people in the city, they might become their messengers, to let them know they were no better than slaves.

Matthew 23:35: "that upon you may come all the righteous blood shed on the earth, from the blood of Abel the righteous unto the blood of Zachariah son of Barachiah, whom ye slew between the sanctuary and the altar."

[Tenorikuma]

In Wars of the Jews, an apocalyptic prophet named Jesus ben Ananias goes around preaching the coming destruction of Jerusalem. The Sanhedrin has him arrested and brought before the Roman procurator, whereupon he is interrogated and severely whipped. Yet he does not defend himself against the charges. The procurator decides he is mad and releases him. Some years later, Jesus' prediction is proven correct.

In Mark, an apocalyptic prophet named Jesus the Nazarene goes around preaching the coming destruction of Jerusalem. The Sanhedrin has him arrested and brought before the Roman procurator, whereupon he is interrogated and whipped. Yet he does not defend himself against the charges. The procurator decides he is innocent and wants to release him, but the Jews refuse. Some years later, Jesus' prediction is proven correct.

Edit: Sorry, for some reason, I didn't notice that this example was included in JW's list.

[Ejoelwatts]

This is my first time on the forum, so give me time to reply, etc...

But I do argue Mark knew and used Joe and used it for a purpose

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/ ... fjesch-20/

I think Mark is using Joe to counter Joe.

[stephan happy huller]

I don't see any of the evidence brought forward hitherto as proving or even suggesting that Mark wrote after Antiquities was published. I think Josephan corpus is extremely complicated. I lean toward Shaye Cohen's suggestion that there is an Aramaic hypomnema at the heart of Life and Jewish Wars. I think this makes Mark having anything resembling Antiquities highly unlikely. What's the strongest piece of evidence that Mark borrowed from Josephus? Can't the parallels being explained better by someone editing Mark by incorporating Josephus or ideas found in Josephus in the second century?

[stephan happy huller]

And please everyone by nice to Joel. At least he's informed and educated. If we make more people like him welcomed here, it will improve our discussions immensely. Personally I like having all sorts of different acquaintances. I'd like to hear what he has to say in his book without having to buy it first. Let's follow the French axiom - tout comprendre c'est tout pardonner

[Kunigunde Kreuzerin]

1) "Mark's" Jesus predicts the destruction of the Temple. So does Josephus' Jesus:

Correspondent: Neal Godfree

Link: http://vridar.info/xorigins/josephus/2jesus.htm

Smoking gun excerpt:

Hereupon our rulers, supposing, as the case proved to be, that this was a sort of divine fury in the man, brought him to the Roman procurator, where he was whipped till his bones were laid bare; yet he did not make any supplication for himself, nor shed any tears, but turning his voice to the most lamentable tone possible, at every stroke of the whip his answer was, "Woe, woe to Jerusalem!" And when Albinus (for he was then our procurator) asked him, Who he was? and whence he came? and why he uttered such words? he made no manner of reply to what he said, but still did not leave off his melancholy ditty, till Albinus took him to be a madman, and dismissed him.

I think there is a great problem, but please do not interpret this as critic. I share the impression/opinion from Neil. His overall view about Jesus/Jesus (son of Ananias) is really great.

But a few interested readers (and at least I too) would maybe think: Why to hell should Mark doing this? I think therefore that it is necessary to explain why and how Mark made use of Josephus.

This is my first time on the forum, so give me time to reply, etc...

But I do argue Mark knew and used Joe and used it for a purpose
...
I think Mark is using Joe to counter Joe.

That`s a good step to do this necessary interpretation. Thanks and welcome.

[neilgodfrey]

But a few interested readers (and at least I too) would maybe think: Why to hell should Mark doing this? I think therefore that it is necessary to explain why and how Mark made use of Josephus.

My little piece was based on a lecture given by Theodore Weeden. He did not believe Mark was using Josephus at all. His view was the both Mark and Josephus were referring back to that "real Jesus" active during the siege of Jerusalem.

That is one point to keep in mind. To establish whether Mark were drawing from Josephus we need more than raw content of names and events. We need intertextual evidence.

It is also a good rule of thumb that independent sources would be expected to supply information that is to some extent different from one another.