Minor agreements against gMark

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 8643
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: Minor agreements against gMark

Post by Ben C. Smith » Thu Oct 22, 2020 3:32 pm

Bernard Muller wrote:
Thu Oct 22, 2020 3:15 pm
to Ben,
Jonathan succeeded Caiaphas as High Priest; but he did not succeed Ananus, who is also called High Priest here; the simplest reading is that there are at least two high priests at the same time here. (That is, it can easily be read in the same basic manner of one US Senator succeeding another in office: there is a replacement, one for one, but there are still other Senators out there who did not get replaced. To make the analogy even more perfect, each US State seats exactly two Senators; it happens all the time that one of the two will be replaced while the other retains office.)
But Ant., XVIII, II, 2 "This man [Gratus the prefect] deprived Ananus of the high priesthood
How could Ananus be a high priest with Caiaphas at the same time. And that would be missed by "Luke".
Because Ananus was still high priest by honor, just as Josephus treats him still, even later, when Caiaphas is replaced by Jonathan. Luke would not be missing anything; Luke would be following Josephus' practice of calling former high priests "high priest" still.
Antiquities 18.4.3 §95 mentions two high priests as if they served as such at the same time. And they are the same two high priests.
I did not see anything here about that? Where are these two high priests?
"Vitellius also deprived Joseph, who was also called Caiaphas, of the high priesthood, and appointed Jonathan, the son of Ananus the high priest, to succeed him." Both Caiaphas and Ananus are called high priests in this sentence, even though Ananus is actually a former high priest.

"In the time of Annas the high priest and Caiaphas." Annas is called a high priest in this sentence, even though Ananus is actually a former high priest.

What exactly are you missing here? This is rather clear. Luke could very well be following the exact same procedure as Josephus in calling somebody a high priest who is actually a former high priest.
Annas by honor
Josephus never wrote that, just that the elder Ananus had sons who became high priests (one at the time).
No, I wrote "by honor" to clarify matters for you, since you do not seem to be understanding the issue. You are in a loop of some kind, and I am trying to help you out of it.
As I wrote before "I agree that in Antiquities Josephus, at times, call the ex-high priests still alive and the current high priest: "high priests".
As I have demonstrated, he can also call an individual a high priest who is no longer, at that point of the narrative, a high priest.

User avatar
MrMacSon
Posts: 6683
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 3:45 pm

Re: Minor agreements against gMark

Post by MrMacSon » Thu Oct 22, 2020 3:47 pm

Ken Olson wrote:
Thu Oct 22, 2020 8:03 am

As you probably remember, I called Klinghardt's outline of his solution to the synoptic problem a methodological nightmare some years ago, as his Marcion-based solution postulates that canonical Luke is dependent on Matthew, which contradicts the premises he uses to postulate his Marcion-based solution in the first place

viewtopic.php?f=3&t=2159&p=48235&#p48234 =>>
Ken Olson wrote:
Thu Feb 25, 2016 7:37 am

Klinghardt's 2008 article is a methodological nightmare (Parenthetically, I think Beduhn is much stronger).

On page 3, Klinghardt says ...
Hi,

Klinghardt has shifted his positions / propositions / arguments quite a lot since his 2008 paper eg.

2017

The attachment Klinghardt 2017 Fig. 1.PNG is no longer available

[see next post, I can't seem to load two images in one post] -
Attachments
Klinghardt 2017 Fig. 1.PNG
Klinghardt 2017 Fig. 1.PNG (120.92 KiB) Viewed 5715 times
Last edited by MrMacSon on Thu Oct 22, 2020 4:19 pm, edited 4 times in total.

User avatar
MrMacSon
Posts: 6683
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 3:45 pm

Re: Minor agreements against gMark

Post by MrMacSon » Thu Oct 22, 2020 3:49 pm

my view of something Roth (in 2018) said Klinghardt was proposing (which may not be that different to what K proposed in 2017)

Klinghardt post-Marcion schema.PNG
Klinghardt post-Marcion schema.PNG (59.34 KiB) Viewed 5715 times
Last edited by MrMacSon on Thu Oct 22, 2020 4:21 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 8643
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: Minor agreements against gMark

Post by Ben C. Smith » Thu Oct 22, 2020 4:07 pm

Bernard Muller wrote:
Thu Oct 22, 2020 9:24 am
B) In 'Acts' (23:3,24:1), the high priest during Paul's last visit to Jerusalem is "Ananias". At this time, the governor of Judea is Felix, two years before he was replaced (Ac24:27). But according to Josephus' Ant., XX, VIII, 5 & 8, it is very clear that during Felix' years as governor (52-60), there were only two successive high priests, "Jonathan", then "Ismael". "Ananias" is also recorded in 'Antiquities', but his tenure ended during the rule of Cumanus, the predecessor of Felix (Ant., XX, VI, 2). Once again, if "Luke" had 'Antiquities', this mistake would not have occurred.
And here is another argument of yours that Luke knew the Wars but not the Antiquities. It sounds logical.

In the Antiquities, Cumanus has Ananus and another guy carted off in 20.6.2 §131 "in bonds to Rome..., to Claudius Caesar." Then, in 20.7.1 §137, Felix arrives on the scene. During Felix' tenure, the high priest Jonathan is slain in 20.8.5 §164; Ismael is appointed high priest in 20.8.8 §179. Ananus is nowhere discussed while Felix is in charge. If Luke had known the Antiquities, we conclude, Luke would not have painted Ananus as high priest, or even in Palestine, while Felix was governor.

In the Wars, Cumanus has "both Jonathan and Ananias, the high priests," and a few others carted off in 2.12.6 §243 "to Caesar." Then, in 2.12.8 §247, Felix arrives on the scene. During Felix' tenure, the high priest Jonathan is slain in 2.13.3 §256. Ananus is nowhere discussed while Felix is in charge. If Luke had known the Wars, we conclude, Luke would not have painted Ananus as high priest, or even in Palestine, while Felix was governor.

Is that correct? Luke knew neither the Antiquities nor the Wars, because both the Antiquities and the Wars would have informed Luke that Ananus was sent to Rome before Felix arrived?

Bernard Muller
Posts: 3755
Joined: Tue Oct 15, 2013 6:02 pm
Contact:

Re: Minor agreements against gMark

Post by Bernard Muller » Thu Oct 22, 2020 4:31 pm

to Ben,
Both Caiaphas and Ananus are called high priests in this sentence, even though Ananus is actually a former high priest
Yes, right, but Josephus did put Ananus as the high priest well before Caiaphas' time as high priest. Josephus probably thought that was enough to avoid any confusion such as Ananus being high priest at the same time than Caiaphas.
"Matthew" had it right: he had Caiaphas as the only high priest during Pilate's rule: 26:3, 26:57. And "Matthew" probably never read Josephus' works but was well positioned (as a well-educated Jew) to know who was the (only one) high priest at the time of Pilate's rule.

Cordially, Bernard

User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 8643
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: Minor agreements against gMark

Post by Ben C. Smith » Thu Oct 22, 2020 4:33 pm

I do not want to give the impression that the idea of Luke using both the Antiquities and the Wars is an easy deal, problem(s) solved. I still have lots of questions that need to be answered, some of which you have pointed out, Bernard. (Like, what is going on with the Egyptian??) I have wildly, blindly speculated before that perhaps Luke used neither the Antiquities nor the Wars, but rather used the Chronicle of Justus of Tiberias or some other lost history. Obviously I have no chance of proving such a speculation. But, again, the issue of Luke's sources is not necessarily an uncomplicated one.
Bernard Muller wrote:
Thu Oct 22, 2020 4:31 pm
to Ben,
Both Caiaphas and Ananus are called high priests in this sentence, even though Ananus is actually a former high priest
Yes, right, but Josephus did put Ananus as the high priest well before Caiaphas' time as high priest. Josephus probably thought that was enough to avoid any confusion such as Ananus being high priest at the same time than Caiaphas.
Do you not understand the point I am making?

Bernard Muller
Posts: 3755
Joined: Tue Oct 15, 2013 6:02 pm
Contact:

Re: Minor agreements against gMark

Post by Bernard Muller » Fri Oct 23, 2020 11:46 am

to Ben,
Bernard Muller wrote: ↑Thu Oct 22, 2020 10:24 am
B) In 'Acts' (23:3,24:1), the high priest during Paul's last visit to Jerusalem is "Ananias". At this time, the governor of Judea is Felix, two years before he was replaced (Ac24:27). But according to Josephus' Ant., XX, VIII, 5 & 8, it is very clear that during Felix' years as governor (52-60), there were only two successive high priests, "Jonathan", then "Ismael". "Ananias" is also recorded in 'Antiquities', but his tenure ended during the rule of Cumanus, the predecessor of Felix (Ant., XX, VI, 2). Once again, if "Luke" had 'Antiquities', this mistake would not have occurred.
And here is another argument of yours that Luke knew the Wars but not the Antiquities. It sounds logical.

In the Antiquities, Cumanus has Ananus and another guy carted off in 20.6.2 §131 "in bonds to Rome..., to Claudius Caesar." Then, in 20.7.1 §137, Felix arrives on the scene. During Felix' tenure, the high priest Jonathan is slain in 20.8.5 §164; Ismael is appointed high priest in 20.8.8 §179. Ananus is nowhere discussed while Felix is in charge. If Luke had known the Antiquities, we conclude, Luke would not have painted Ananus as high priest, or even in Palestine, while Felix was governor.
If "Luke" had read Antiquities, she would know that Ananus was not in office during Felix' tenure, so she could not have put Paul in Jerusalem and Ananus at the same time during Felix' rule.[/quote]
In the Wars, Cumanus has "both Jonathan and Ananias, the high priests," and a few others carted off in 2.12.6 §243 "to Caesar." Then, in 2.12.8 §247, Felix arrives on the scene. During Felix' tenure, the high priest Jonathan is slain in 2.13.3 §256. Ananus is nowhere discussed while Felix is in charge. If Luke had known the Wars, we conclude, Luke would not have painted Ananus as high priest, or even in Palestine, while Felix was governor.
Even if Ananus is not discussed, that does not mean "Luke" thought that Ananus was not a high priest anymore. And few high priests are "discussed' in Wars: "Ismael" is not even mentioned.
Is that correct? Luke knew neither the Antiquities nor the Wars, because both the Antiquities and the Wars would have informed Luke that Ananus was sent to Rome before Felix arrived?
Not correct, because Jonathan did come back because he was murdered in Judea. If Jonathan is implied to have come back from Rome, "Luke" would have thought the same for Ananus.

Cordially, Bernard

User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 8643
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: Minor agreements against gMark

Post by Ben C. Smith » Fri Oct 23, 2020 12:27 pm

Bernard Muller wrote:
Fri Oct 23, 2020 11:46 am
Is that correct? Luke knew neither the Antiquities nor the Wars, because both the Antiquities and the Wars would have informed Luke that Ananus was sent to Rome before Felix arrived?
Not correct, because Jonathan did come back because he was murdered in Judea. If Jonathan is implied to have come back from Rome, "Luke" would have thought the same for Ananus.
Your argument is still unclear. A High Priest named Jonathan is slain in Jerusalem both in Antiquities and in Wars. I hypothetically agree with you that Luke would have known, from Wars, that this Jonathan was sent to Rome before later being slain in Jerusalem.

Your argument, though, is that Luke would have assumed, from Jonathan's cycle in Wars (Jerusalem to Rome and back to Jerusalem), that Ananus, too, despite having been sent to Rome with Jonathan, was also back in Jerusalem and still High Priest. Right? Hence Annas' appearance as High Priest in Acts.

My hypothetical viewpoint is that Luke may have known, not only the Wars, but also the Antiquities: both, not one or the other. Yours is that Luke knew only the Wars, not the Antiquities. So the question is obvious. Given how you describe what Luke would have understood from the text of the Wars, what exactly would Luke have found in the text of the Antiquities to contradict that understanding? What in the Antiquities would have suggested to Luke that Ananus never returned from Rome like Jonathan did?

Bernard Muller
Posts: 3755
Joined: Tue Oct 15, 2013 6:02 pm
Contact:

Re: Minor agreements against gMark

Post by Bernard Muller » Fri Oct 23, 2020 3:02 pm

to Ben,
Your argument, though, is that Luke would have assumed, from Jonathan's cycle in Wars (Jerusalem to Rome and back to Jerusalem), that Ananus, too, despite having been sent to Rome with Jonathan, was also back in Jerusalem and still High Priest. Right? Hence Annas' appearance as High Priest in Acts.
Exactly.
My hypothetical viewpoint is that Luke may have known, not only the Wars, but also the Antiquities: both, not one or the other. Yours is that Luke knew only the Wars, not the Antiquities. So the question is obvious. Given how you describe what Luke would have understood from the text of the Wars, what exactly would Luke have found in the text of the Antiquities to contradict that understanding?
What in the Antiquities would have suggested to Luke that Ananus never returned from Rome like Jonathan did?

Jonathan was the high priest during (at least the last part of) the tenure of of Cumanus (the predecessor of Felix). During the tenure of Felix, Jonathan was killed and replaced by Ismael as the new high priest.
If Ananus returned from Rome, that would not be as the high priest (as he is described in Acts two years before Felix' rule is completed).

Cordially, Bernard

User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 8643
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: Minor agreements against gMark

Post by Ben C. Smith » Fri Oct 23, 2020 3:24 pm

Bernard Muller wrote:
Fri Oct 23, 2020 3:02 pm
What in the Antiquities would have suggested to Luke that Ananus never returned from Rome like Jonathan did?

Jonathan was the high priest during (at least the last part of) the tenure of of Cumanus (the predecessor of Felix). During the tenure of Felix, Jonathan was killed and replaced by Ismael as the new high priest.
If Ananus returned from Rome, that would not be as the high priest (as he is described in Acts two years before Felix' rule is completed).
So this evidence of yours depends completely upon your prior idea that Wars presents the priesthood as possibly multiple whereas Antiquities presents it as singular, one at a time. It does not stand on its own.

Post Reply