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

[neilgodfrey]

Thank you.
Did it mean to be taken as acceptance of Casey’s arguments for Aramaic sources used by the evangelists?

I don't know about that. You'd have to ask Joel. I suspect he doesn't since he dates Mark at "about" 75 CE while Casey's Aramaic theory (Casey would probably call it "perfectly established fact") is tied to his argument that the evangelist was reading wax tablets of jottings taken down by eyewitnesses accompanying Jesus. Between Casey and Crossley the gospel of Mark is thus dated -- on the basis of it having Aramaic sources -- to between 35 and 45 CE.

There are many remarks in Joel's book that are left unexplained and many points seem to have been garbled into incomprehensible prose by a semi-literate editor so I hope Joel returns soon to explain all of this stuff.

[JoeWallack]

The Summer of Love

On the exact date foretold by the Prophet Daniel (whatever that date was) Jesus returns to earth like a magnet drawn to the center of love, the intersection of Height and Ashbury Park

JW:
Literary composer Neal Godfree has another candidate for admission to this Thread, Josephus' stone cold Masada ending verses the stone cold "Marcasa" ending:

Mark’s ending and Masada

Josephus War (7)	"Mark" Peace (16)
about 3 years after the destruction of the Temple	about 3 days after the destruction of the metaphorical temple
at dawn	at dawn
romans going to the stony outcrop expecting to find the living	women coming to the tomb hewn out of stone expecting to find the dead
a couple of women came out from an underground stone cavern	women left the tomb
speaking of 2 women and 5 children	speaking of 3 women and 2 named children
the women told them the story	and told no-one
a noble and wellbred woman giving the most lucid account	a finely dressed man gave a detailed account
the romans did not believe them	-
the romans cut their way through massive walls and stone pillars with their siege weapons into the place (palace) of the dead	the women wondered how they would move the massive stone to get inside to the place of the dead
the romans enter the place (palace) of the dead	the women enter the tomb
they see the dead	they see the living
they are amazed	they are alarmed
at the courage that left the place dreadfully silent	their trembling fear compelled them to silence

In the big picture we seem to have similar themes that after the fact, fighting the Romans was not such a good idea but suffering and death, if spun with style, could be presented as victory instead of defeat. Now if we only had some criteria to measure the strength of the parallels.


Joseph

ErrancyWiki

[neilgodfrey]

Has anyone here read Karel Hanhart's The Open Tomb? I have begun to read it and it appears that Hanhart proposes that Joseph of Arimathea was a code name (cf other code names like Legion, Bartimaeus, Jairus) for Josephus son of Matthias. Arimathea is a midrash haggadah pointing to Ramah, place of Samuel the king anointing prophet, and place of gathering of the captives about to be exiled at the first fall of Jerusalem. Josephus came to bury Jesus (or try to) and he stands as the foil to Peter who is to lead the new Israel in the Diaspora. This reminds me of an interpretation I wondered about a long time ago -- though Josephus is often considered a pious man, I wondered if the fact that he was interested in burying Jesus was really a sign of his lack of faith. He sought the kingdom of God like Peter himself once had -- via an overthrow of Roman armies. Was Josephus's father the high priest who was responsible for persecutions on the church just prior to the fall of Jerusalem? The tomb itself is a midrash on the ruined temple in Isaiah 22:16 -- what has been carved out of the rock.

Matthew picked up and continued with the same midrash in chapter 16 with the handing of the keys to Peter. Hanhart appears to suggest Josephus represented the Shebna of Isaiah 22 who had been part of the council of priests opposed to God and who was to lose his authority, while Peter was the Eliakim who was to be the new leader of the new people of God, the Israel of the church.

This is only from what I have gleaned after just beginning to read the book. Others who have read it may have a more certain knowledge of the argument.

[DCHindley]

Just curious, but how could Josephus son of Matthias (Flavius Josephus) come to bury Jesus, when he wasn't born until around 30 CE? At the time of Jesus' death (say 29-30 CE) Josephus would not have been much more than what Popeye would call an "infink." Even if Jesus died in 36 CE (Kokkinos, Schonfeld) he'd be pretty young.

DCH

Has anyone here read Karel Hanhart's The Open Tomb? I have begun to read it and it appears that Hanhart proposes that Joseph of Arimathea was a code name (cf other code names like Legion, Bartimaeus, Jairus) for Josephus son of Matthias. Arimathea is a midrash haggadah pointing to Ramah, place of Samuel the king anointing prophet, and place of gathering of the captives about to be exiled at the first fall of Jerusalem. Josephus came to bury Jesus (or try to) and he stands as the foil to Peter who is to lead the new Israel in the Diaspora. This reminds me of an interpretation I wondered about a long time ago -- though Josephus is often considered a pious man, I wondered if the fact that he was interested in burying Jesus was really a sign of his lack of faith. He sought the kingdom of God like Peter himself once had -- via an overthrow of Roman armies. Was Josephus's father the high priest who was responsible for persecutions on the church just prior to the fall of Jerusalem? The tomb itself is a midrash on the ruined temple in Isaiah 22:16 -- what has been carved out of the rock.

Matthew picked up and continued with the same midrash in chapter 16 with the handing of the keys to Peter. Hanhart appears to suggest Josephus represented the Shebna of Isaiah 22 who had been part of the council of priests opposed to God and who was to lose his authority, while Peter was the Eliakim who was to be the new leader of the new people of God, the Israel of the church.

This is only from what I have gleaned after just beginning to read the book. Others who have read it may have a more certain knowledge of the argument.

[neilgodfrey]

Just curious, but how could Josephus son of Matthias (Flavius Josephus) come to bury Jesus, when he wasn't born until around 30 CE? At the time of Jesus' death (say 29-30 CE) Josephus would not have been much more than what Popeye would call an "infink." Even if Jesus died in 36 CE (Kokkinos, Schonfeld) he'd be pretty young.

DCH

Has anyone here read Karel Hanhart's The Open Tomb? I have begun to read it and it appears that Hanhart proposes that Joseph of Arimathea was a code name (cf other code names like Legion, Bartimaeus, Jairus) for Josephus son of Matthias. Arimathea is a midrash haggadah pointing to Ramah, place of Samuel the king anointing prophet, and place of gathering of the captives about to be exiled at the first fall of Jerusalem. Josephus came to bury Jesus (or try to) and he stands as the foil to Peter who is to lead the new Israel in the Diaspora. This reminds me of an interpretation I wondered about a long time ago -- though Josephus is often considered a pious man, I wondered if the fact that he was interested in burying Jesus was really a sign of his lack of faith. He sought the kingdom of God like Peter himself once had -- via an overthrow of Roman armies. Was Josephus's father the high priest who was responsible for persecutions on the church just prior to the fall of Jerusalem? The tomb itself is a midrash on the ruined temple in Isaiah 22:16 -- what has been carved out of the rock.

Matthew picked up and continued with the same midrash in chapter 16 with the handing of the keys to Peter. Hanhart appears to suggest Josephus represented the Shebna of Isaiah 22 who had been part of the council of priests opposed to God and who was to lose his authority, while Peter was the Eliakim who was to be the new leader of the new people of God, the Israel of the church.

This is only from what I have gleaned after just beginning to read the book. Others who have read it may have a more certain knowledge of the argument.

Hanhart is not arguing that Josephus buried Jesus but that Joseph of Arimathea is based on him -- a code or metaphor of Josephus. The empty tomb story is primarily a midrash on Isaiah 22:16 and as such is a symbol of the destruction of the Temple and the survival of the church as its replacement.

He takes up the view that Joseph of Arimathea, being one of the council who condemned Jesus and who is said, in "typically Markan" sarcasm, to have been waiting for the "judgment/kingdom of God", was represented as in league with Pilate in taking the body of Christ. (The scene is apparently alluding to another where Satan claims the body of Moses.)

Hanhart leans on interpretations of the cause of the Jewish war against Rome being catalyzed by rivalries among the ruling families of Judea, and with certain factions appealing to the masses in dangerous ways as part of their power struggles. One of these leaders was Matthias, father of Josephus. Josephus plays all of this down in his history by portraying the rebels, esp Simon bar Giora (after all was lost, of course) as from the mere riff-raff of society. Josephus made the prophetic (hence from Ramah) announcement that Vespasian was to be the fulfilment of the ancient Jewish prophecy as we know. He was possibly seen as a rival or alternate leader among the Jews at that critical time of the end -- that's speculation of course, but what makes Hanhard suspicious are the apparent coincidences of name-puns and role, esp in the light of the broader source of the midrash at Isaiah 22:16.There are many other reasons to see this as the source of the empty tomb story and if evangelists were seeing Peter as the antitype of Eliakim there, who was the Shebna scribe who was a representative of the destruction of the first temple?

You can tell I've been trying to skim ahead and learn a bit more about Hanhart's argument since my previous post. Still much I don't know.

Part of his argument is tied up with the calendar disputes prior to the fall of the Temple, in particular between the Pharisees and the Temple priesthood (Sadducees) and the specific phrasing of what is translated "first day of the week" and Mark's stress on time sequences.

[Kunigunde Kreuzerin]

Josephus about John the Baptist, AJ 18.5.2

... for Herod slew him, who was a good man, and commanded the Jews to exercise virtue, both as to righteousness towards one another, and piety towards God, and so to come to baptism; for that the washing [with water] would be acceptable to him, if they made use of it, not in order to the putting away [or the remission] of some sins [only], but for the purification of the body; supposing still that the soul was thoroughly purified beforehand by righteousness ...
κτείνει γὰρ δὴ τοῦτον Ἡρώδης ἀγαθὸν ἄνδρα καὶ τοῖς Ἰουδαίοις κελεύοντα ἀρετὴν ἐπασκοῦσιν καὶ τὰ πρὸς ἀλλήλους δικαιοσύνῃ καὶ πρὸς τὸν θεὸν εὐσεβείᾳ χρωμένοις βαπτισμῷ συνιέναι: οὕτω γὰρ δὴ καὶ τὴν βάπτισιν ἀποδεκτὴν αὐτῷ φανεῖσθαι μὴ ἐπί τινων ἁμαρτάδων παραιτήσει χρωμένων, ἀλλ᾽ ἐφ᾽ ἁγνείᾳ τοῦ σώματος, ἅτε δὴ καὶ τῆς ψυχῆς δικαιοσύνῃ προεκκεκαθαρμένης.

Mark 6:20

for Herod feared John, knowing that he was a righteous and holy man
ὁ γὰρ Ἡρῴδης ἐφοβεῖτο τὸν Ἰωάνην, εἰδὼς αὐτὸν ἄνδρα δίκαιον καὶ ἅγιον

[JoeWallack]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BM8zAZaV26M

"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:

...

10) "Mark" says without a previous or current context (the context is given 5 chapters later) that John the Baptist was "delivered up". Josephus gives the context for John the Baptist being delivered up.:

Correspondent: Joe Wallack

Smoking gun excerpt:

https://www.earlyjewishwritings.com/tex ... ant18.html

2. Now some of the Jews thought that the destruction of Herod's army came from God, and that very justly, as a punishment of what he did against John, that was called the Baptist: for Herod slew him, who was a good man, and commanded the Jews to exercise virtue, both as to righteousness towards one another, and piety towards God, and so to come to baptism; for that the washing [with water] would be acceptable to him, if they made use of it, not in order to the putting away [or the remission] of some sins [only], but for the purification of the body; supposing still that the soul was thoroughly purified beforehand by righteousness. Now when [many] others came in crowds about him, for they were very greatly moved [or pleased] by hearing his words, Herod, who feared lest the great influence John had over the people might put it into his power and inclination to raise a rebellion, (for they seemed ready to do any thing he should advise,) thought it best, by putting him to death, to prevent any mischief he might cause, and not bring himself into difficulties, by sparing a man who might make him repent of it when it would be too late. Accordingly he was sent a prisoner, out of Herod's suspicious temper, to Macherus, the castle I before mentioned, and was there put to death. Now the Jews had an opinion that the destruction of this army was sent as a punishment upon Herod, and a mark of God's displeasure to him.

Mark 1

14 Now after John was delivered up, Jesus came into Galilee, preaching the gospel of God,

So how would a Master author such as "Mark's" early second century audience in Rome know the context at this point in GMark? They were familiar with Josephus.

Related interesting observations:

• 1) In the connected John the Baptist story in Josephus, Josephus also starts with the conclusion, Herod had John killed, and follows with the context.
  
  2) In Josephus the purpose of the Baptism is specifically not for repentance. In GMark it is (kind of sounds like contrived contradiction).
  
  3) "sparing a man who might make him repent of it when it would be too late". "Mark" must have loved that irony.
  
  4) Note the contrast regarding "repentance". In Josephus the baptism is specifically not repentance. The offending word is used in connection with Herod, that John the Baptist would make him repent (regret) that he didn't kill John to save himself (understand dear reader). In GMark it's flipped, the Baptism is repentance and John threatens that you will be killed if you accept the textual variant of "fire" at 1:8.

Josephus

Hamas sweeps all 5 candidate positions in North Gaza in 2006 - https://medium.com/progressme-magazine/ ... c0ca2fd444

The New Porphyry

[Paul the Uncertain]

10) "Mark" says without a previous or current context (the context is given 5 chapters later) that John the Baptist was "delivered up". Josephus gives the context for John the Baptist being delivered up.:

Correspondent: Joe Wallack

Smoking gun excerpt: ...

So how would a Master author such as "Mark's" early second century audience in Rome know the context at this point in GMark? They were familiar with Josephus.

Answering the question asked: they don't know the context of John's arrest.

My turn: So what if they don't?

As you say, Mark is an author and seen by many as a master of the storytelling craft. Perhaps, then, Mark was familiar with such elementary craft concepts as "the setup precedes the pay-off."

Set-up: John is arrested.
Pay-off: A racy anecdote in which Herodias pimps her daughter (and Antipas's niece) to maneuver Antipas into killing his prisoner.

Smoking gun? Here, try Chekhov's:
-

[rgprice]

Nice self-resurrection.

I generally agree with the thesis and points of JW in this thread. However, there are a couple points:

#1 I think that in the original version of the story it was John who was baptized by Jesus and was driven into the wilderness to be tempted by Satan. His arrest follows the temptation by Satan, which somehow results in him being taken into custody.

#2 The biggest point in favor of Mark having used Josephus of course remains the foretelling of the destruction of the Temple, which follows very close the text of Josephus.

I think another way that Mark having used Josephus helps explain the writing of this narrative is that the story certainly seems to be about the First Jewish-Roman War, not the Second (with Bar Kokhba), yet it also seems to have been written around the beginning of the 2nd century. So the question is, why would someone be writing about the First Jewish-Roman War around 110? What would inspire them to take up this topic at that time? Well of course the recent "publication" of Josephus' account can explain it.

So I do definitely see the Markan story as having been braided from three fundamental strands, as you say: The Jewish Scriptures, the Pauline letters, and the writings of Josephus.