Table 6. Parallels of Jesus ‘Christ” with Jesus ben Ananias. Page 429-430
1 | Both are named Jesus | |
2 | Both come to Jerusalem during a major religious festival. | Mk 14.2 = JW 6.301 |
3 | Both entered the temple area to rant against the temple. | Mk 11.15-17 = JW 6.301 |
4 | During which both quote the same chapter of Jeremah. | Jer. 7-11 in Mk; Jer. 7.34 in JW |
5 | Both then preach daily in the temple. | Mk 14.49 = JW 6.306 |
6 | Both declared 'woe' unto Judea or the Jews. | Mk 13.17 = JW 6.304, 306, 309 |
7 | Both predict the temple will be destroyed. | Mk 13.2 = JW 6.300, 309 |
8 | Both are for this reason arrested by the Jews. | Mk 14.43 = 6.302 |
9 | Both are accused of speaking against the temple. | Mk 14.58 = JW 6.302 |
10 | Neither makes any defense of himself against the charges | Mk 14.60 = JW 6.302 |
11 | Both are beaten by the Jews | Mk 14.65 = JW 6.302 |
12 | Then both are taken to the Roman governor. | Pilate in Mk 15.1 = Albinus in JW 6.302 |
13 | Both are interrogated by the Roman governor. | Mk 15.2-4 = JW 6.305 |
14 | During which both are asked to identify themselves. | Mk 15. 2 = JW 6.305 |
15 | And yet again neither says anything in his defense. | Mk 15 3-5 = JW 6.305 |
16 | Both are then beaten by the Romans. | Mk 15.15 = JW 6.304 |
17 | In both cases the Roman governor decides he should release him. | |
18 | ....but doesn't (Mark)....but does (JW) | Mk 15 6-15 vs. JW 6.305 |
19 | Both are finally killed by the Romans (in Mark, by execution; in the JW, by artillery). | Mk 15.34 = JW 6.308-309 |
20 | Both utter a lament for themselves immediately before they die. | Mk 15.34 = JW 6.309 |
21 | Both die with a loud cry. | Mk 15.37 = JW 6.309 |
Carrier's comments on the gMark and Josephan Jesus ben Ananias parallels:
Page 428/429. "Indeed, even how Mark decides to construct the sequence of the Passion narrative appears to be based on the tale of another Jesus: Jesus ben Ananias, the 'Jesus of Jerusalem', an insane prophet active in the 60s ce who is then killed in the siege of Jerusalem (roughly in the year 70). His story is told by Josephus in the Jewish War, and unless Josephus invented him, his narrative must have been famous, famous enough for Josephus to know of it, and thus famous enough for Mark to know of it, too, and make use of it to model the tale of his own Jesus. Or if Josephus invented the tale, then Mark evidently used Josephus as a source. Because the parallels are too numerous to be at all probable as a coincidence. Some Mark does derive from elsewhere (or matches from elsewhere to a double purpose), but the overall scheme of the story in Josephus matches Mark too closely to believe that Mark just came up with the exact same scheme independently. And since it's not believable that Josephus invented a new story using Mark, we must conclude Mark invented his story using Josephus—or the same tale known to Josephus.
It would appear this story inspired the general outline of Mark's entire Passover Narrative. There are at least twenty significant parallels (and one reversal):
Page 430.
Given that Mark is essentially a Christian response to the Jewish War and the destruction of the Jewish temple, it is more than a little significant that he chose this Jesus to model his own Jesus after. This also tells us, yet again, how much Mark is making everything up. (It also confirms that Mark wrote after the Jewish War.)
Footnote: 86. Theodore Weeden, ‘Two Jesuses, Jesus of Jerusalem and Jesus of Nazareth: Provocative Parallels and Imaginative Imitation’, Forum N.S. 6.2 (Fall 203), pp 137-341
Ted Weeden:
Consequently, unusual parallelism, commonality and similarities between
literary works may suggest to us in the post-modern world mere accident or
coincidence. But in the Grec-Roman world a skilled reader would suspect
imitation before coincidence, and likely be right, that what was at hand was
the respected and expected imitation of one author by another, the text of
the former serving as the hypotext for the development of the hypertext of
the latter. In view of the appearance, at least, of the practice of
*MIMESIS* behind the parallelism of the two Jesus stories, I do not think
one, then, should chalk up the similarities between the two Jesus stories to
mere coincidence. I do not think that explaining the parallelism which
exists between the two stories as a matter of coincidence adequately
accounts for the narrative features that stories share in common. Rather
imitation, in my judgement, appears to be what drives the parallelism which
exists between the two "Jesus" stories.
https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/cro ... pics/13040