Richard Carrier on gMark parallel with Jesus ben Ananias

[Stephan Huller]

But against most mythicists while the experience of Christianity for most Protestants is textual for Catholics it is the opposite. My wife is Catholic never once read the Bible, no Bibles in Catholic churches etc. The mythical basis for Jesus can't have been developed as literature. The believers already knew who Jesus was before they became Christians.

I think many people misjudge and misrepresent Christianity based on their own experiences. Yes certainly the gospel writer was influenced by other texts and writers. But the identity of Jesus was established before the gospel was written. Encounters with angels exist independently of written accounts of those same angels.

I remember Tim Schmidt in high school did mushrooms and saw Jesus beckoning him to jump off the Scarborough Bluffs. He hadn't read any early religious literature for his experience

[neilgodfrey]

But against most mythicists while the experience of Christianity for most Protestants is textual for Catholics it is the opposite. My wife is Catholic never once read the Bible, no Bibles in Catholic churches etc. The mythical basis for Jesus can't have been developed as literature. The believers already knew who Jesus was before they became Christians.

I think many people misjudge and misrepresent Christianity based on their own experiences. Yes certainly the gospel writer was influenced by other texts and writers. But the identity of Jesus was established before the gospel was written. Encounters with angels exist independently of written accounts of those same angels.

I remember Tim Schmidt in high school did mushrooms and saw Jesus beckoning him to jump off the Scarborough Bluffs. He hadn't read any early religious literature for his experience

This is just idle speculation (and ad hominem at that) without any basis in any evidence. We are not talking about Christianity or the popular or any modern notion of Jesus but about historical enquiry.

Casey tried this same character assumption in his book but one only had to look at the evidence he himself provided (but ignored) to see how empty the claim is:

http://vridar.org/2014/03/09/whos-who-a ... pathizers/

The most likely "predictor" (it's not really, of course, given the small sample, but it illustrates the point) of one being a mythicist is to come from either a Catholic or Liberal or No Church background at all.

[neilgodfrey]

One should also add that I had two types of religious background: one was liberal protestant (liberal Methodist/Anglican and such) and the other cultic. The views of Jesus were totally opposite. I challenge anyone to identify the influence of either preconception of Jesus on any point I have raised since that is related to historical inquiry. To bracket anyone by background into some sort of presumption that they must have a set view of Jesus that influences their reading of the historical evidence is nonsense.

[neilgodfrey]

Its like obesity in America. It isn't dependant on the popularity of Bill Cosby's Fat Albert.

That's why Carrier and Weeden make no simplistic comparison based on a single stereotype. This is all just blanket dismissal and excuses to bother with an argument.

[Stephan Huller]

It wasn't a personal attack. It couldn't have been a personal attack because I like you. I just think that we forget sometimes that religion is more than books. Most people believe or live their faith without having recourse to written material. The Montanists were principally about being moved by the Spirit. So too the followers of Mark (Marcus). I think our collective over-emphasis on written material leads to circular arguments about the significance of texts on the Jesus myth. I don't think the written page was necessarily the origin of the gospel narrative or Jesus. Jesus was likely a pre-existent Jewish angel and the gospel narrative may have been shaped as much by "real" contemporary claims about angel encounters and/or a historical crucifixion of an individual named Judas or even Jesus. I don't pretend to know all the answers.

[Stephan Huller]

Also, Justin says that this or that Patriarch met Jesus the angel. But the idea of meeting Jesus the angel surely wasn't limited to literary examples. People really were meeting "Jesus the angel" before and after the gospel. The scholar, the student of books, makes up only one small part of the spectrum of religious experience. The philologist as Nietzsche once said is like a taxidermist. He kills and stuffs what he studies. But religion develops from the artist's imagination

[neilgodfrey]

Religion is certainly more than books, yes, but for historical inquiry all we have are texts. So all we can do is analyse them in order to make the best assessment of the realities they point to. We both understand that but perhaps differ on validity of the steps we take from there.

No thought that anything you said was an "attack" -- but what you expressed is broadcast more generally among those who disagree with mythicism.

[MrMacSon]

.
I think Stephan makes some good points here (I have mixed quotes from three of his posts, on this current p3 of this thread, in this post) -

... Jesus was likely a pre-existent Jewish angel and the gospel narrative may have been shaped as much by "real" contemporary claims about angel encounters and/or a historical crucifixion of an individual named Judas or even Jesus.

... People really were meeting "Jesus the angel" before and after the gospel ... Justin says that this or that Patriarch met Jesus the angel.

The mythical basis for Jesus can't have been developed as literature. The believers already knew who Jesus was before they became Christians.

... But the identity of Jesus was established before the gospel was written. Encounters with angels exist independently of written accounts of those same angels.

I think our collective over-emphasis on written material leads to circular arguments about the significance of texts on the Jesus myth. I don't think the written page was necessarily the origin of the gospel narrative or Jesus.

It seems likely there were several or lots of references to Christs or [a] Jesus in increasingly diversifying theological-folkore [wrong term?] in diverse communities.

A key question is - when did these references start being written down, and how did the texts develop or coalesce?

[The Crow]

"A voice from the east, a voice from the west, a voice from the four winds, a voice against Jerusalem and the holy house, a voice against the bridegrooms and the brides, and a voice against the whole people."

– Josephus, Wars 6.3.

Was not this Ananius flogged by the Romans? He was released as being nothing more than a mad man. Didn't he die during the siege of Jerusalem from a rock by a catapult? I don't see the connection?

There's obviously no crucifixion there; so the crucifixion must come from somewhere else.

Primary difference being is that Jesus of Nazareth was executed and Jesus ben Ananias was not. Ananias was simply released back into society as nothing more than a mad man.

[maryhelena]

In a post, some years ago, on Xtalk, Ted Weeden laid out another part of his Jesus ben Ananias theory - this time in connection with the gospel of John. The different sequence and wording in gJohn (from gMark) seems to me that it might come from the stories in Slavonic Josephus regarding the 'wild man' and the 'wonder-doer. (Yes, the Jesus ben Ananias story has echoes of Jeremiah - but, methinks, the two Slavonic Josephus stories also provide the Jesus ben Ananias story, in War, with some literary connections.) There is a chart at the end of this post.

Ted Weeden: "John's Dependence on the Story of Jesus of Jerusalem"

"I turn now to what I propose is John's use of the story of Jesus of
Jerusalem. To make my case for that it is important for me first to draw
attention to the differences between the Johannine Roman trial of Jesus of
Nazareth and the Markan and Matthean Roman trials of Jesus of Nazareth.
And the differences are both striking and strange."

"Unlike the Markan and Matthean one-stage Roman trial of Jesus, consisting
of three episodes --- namely, (1) Pilate's interrogation of Jesus (Mk. 15:2-4;
Mt. 27:11-14), (2) the crowd's request for the release of Barabbas and its
demand for Jesus' crucifixion (Mk. 5:6-11; Mt. 27:15-21), and (3) Pilate's
release of Barabbas, his scourging of Jesus and deliverance of Jesus to be
crucified (15:12-15; Mt. 27:22-26) --- John creates two stages in the
Johannine Jesus' trial before Pilate (18:28-19:16), two stages, each with an
episode in which Pilate moves from outside and disputative exchanges with
the Jewish authorities who are insistent that Jesus be crucified to inside
the praetorium where in privacy Pilate interrogates Jesus. That is
strikingly different from the Synoptic versions of the Roman trial of Jesus.
And the strange thing about the Johannine Roman trial of Jesus is that John
has, as C. K. Barrett declares (_John_, 443), incomprehensibly and "oddly
inserted" Pilate's scourging of Jesus and the soldiers' mockery between
Pilate's two private interrogatory sessions, rather than having Pilate
scourge him and the soldiers mock him at the end of the trial when Pilate
had acquiesced to the demands of the Jews and delivered Jesus over to be
crucified."

"The "incomprehensible" fact that John has "oddly inserted" the scourging
and mockery of the Johannine Jesus in the middle of the Roman trial, as well as
John's structure of a two-stage trial can be explained in part by John's
appropriation of elements of the Roman trial of Jesus son of Ananias and his
incorporation of those elements in the creation of his Roman trial. How can
I support such a position?"

"It is clear that for John the two most important episodes in his Roman
trial of Jesus are the two private sessions of the interrogation of Jesus by
Pilate. It is there in those sessions that John frames certain questions
for Pilate to ask the Johannine Jesus that allows Jesus then to expound
theologically and christologically on two issues John wants addressed to his
own readers. Those issues are, as I see them, (1) the issue concerning
the nature of Jesus' kingship, and (2) the issue regarding the origin and
source of ultimate power. The two questions that John places upon Pilate's
lips to prompt Jesus' discourse on kingship and power are two of the same
questions posed by the Roman governor Albinus to Jesus-Ananias. In the
Jesus-Ananias story Albinus wanted to know from Jesus-Ananias
(1) who he was and (2) where he was from. I stated earlier that what Albinus was
interested in, when he queried Ananias' son about who he was, was the
socio-political identity that Jesus-Ananias claimed for himself. I also
presented a case for Mark picking up on Albinus' socio-political-identity
question and reformulating it as a socio-political identity question with a
messianic/christological role-specific orientation and placing it upon the
lips of the high priest as a question posed to Jesus."

"John, I propose, observing what Mark has done followed Mark's suit and used
Mark's framing of the question placed upon the lips of Pilate, namely, his
question to Jesus, "Are you the king of the Jews." By scripting that
socio-political identity question for Pilate to pose to Jesus in the first
session of his interrogation of Jesus, John enabled his persona Jesus to
address John's kingship issue in response to Pilate's question and thus have
Jesus emphatically underscore that his kingdom was not from or of the world.
In this manner, the identity question made it possible for John to deal with
the nature of Jesus' kingship in the first session of Pilate's questioning
of Jesus."

"In the second session, the issue which John wants Jesus to address for
the benefit of his readers is the issue of the source and origin of ultimate
power, i.e., the power manifested in Jesus, the power in John's cosmology
which is from above, the only power that controls Jesus' destiny. To
introduce that issue John appropriated the second question Albinus demanded
that Jesus-Ananias answer the question concerning "where he was from."
Thus, John formulates that question borrowed from Albinus the Roman
governor in direct discourse and with it placed on Pilate's lips has Pilate
ask Jesus then, "Where are you from?" But John did not stop their in his borrowing
from the Roman trial of Jesus-Ananias. He followed up Pilate's question
with the same response that Jesus-Ananias had to Albinus' question. The
Jesus-Ananias story depicts Jesus-Ananias as not replying to Albinus'
questions. So likewise, John depicts Jesus as not replying to Pilate's
question."

"That tandem of motifs, the 'Where you from?'-question motif and the Jesus
non-reply motif, which John derived from the Jesus-Ananias story and
scripted into his Roman trial at this point provides the segue for John to
have Jesus speak to the issue of ultimate power, the issue of the moment
that John wants addressed. Thus, when Pilate asks the question of Jesus,
'Where are you from?' and Jesus does not answer, John is able to advance the
exchange to the issue of power he wants addressed by scripting the following
dialogue between Pilate and Jesus at the dramatic moment when Jesus fails to
reply to Pilate's 'Where are you from?' question. I quote the Johannine
text: 'Pilate therefore said to him, "Do you refuse to speak to me? Do you not
know that I have power to release you, and power to crucify you?" Jesus
answered him, "You would have no power over me unless it had been given you
from above."' Once again, it is in this manner, via two motifs drawn from
the Jesus-Ananias story of the motif of a Roman governor asking a Jesus
where he was from and the motif of a Jesus not replying to the governor's
question, that John was able to introduce the issue of origin and source of
ultimate power in the second session of Pilate's interrogation of Jesus."

"Besides the motif of the identity question, 'Where are you from?' and the
motif of Jesus' non-reply to that question, it is important to draw
attention at this point to two other motifs in the Jesus-Ananias story that also
appear in the Johannine Roman trial of Jesus. They are the Jesus scourging motif
and the Jesus release motif. In both of the respective trials a Jesus is
scourged and a Roman governor moves to release a Jesus. Of course only one
of the two Jesuses does get released. Nevertheless, the release motif is
present in both stories. To push the parallels in motifs further, what is
interesting to me is that the four motifs, which have been in the immediate
focus of attention, appear in exactly the same sequence in the narrative
patterns of both stories. If you turn to [the text of the Jesus-Ananias
story set off by astericks] in section 304-305 the following pattern in
which the four motifs are introduced. Jesus-Ananias is brought
to the Roman governor Albinus, he is scourged (the Jesus-scourging motif),
following the scourging he is asked by Albinus, among other things, where he
is from (the 'Where-you-from?'-question motif), to which question
Jesus-Ananias does not reply (the Jesus-non-reply motif, and after the
interrogation, Albinus releases Jesus (the Jesus-relief motif). In the
Johannine schema, as the trial progresses from the first stage to the
second, the Johannine Jesus is scourged (the Jesus-scourging motif); then in his
interrogation he is asked where he is from (the 'Where-you-from?'-question
motif), to which question he makes no reply (the Jesus non-reply motif).
Then after his interrogation, Pilate is prepared to release him (the Jesus-
release motif). Thus, there is a parallelism between the two narratives in
the order of those four motifs."

"What is striking about this parallelism in the narrative order of these
four motifs in the two stories is how radically different that pattern of
narrative ordering is from some of the same motifs in the Synoptic trial
narratives, in particular the Markan and Matthean versions, and the pattern
of order in which they are arranged. Both the Markan and Matthean trial
versions have a Jesus-scourging motif, a Jesus-non-reply motif and a
Jesus-release motif. But they do not have the 'Where you from?'-question
motif. Instead they have a 'charges-question' motif. That is, in their
one stage, Roman trial of Jesus, Pilate, upon hearing the charges the chief
priests have levied against Jesus, asks him, 'Have you no answer to make?
See how many charges they bring against you?' (Mk. 15:4; Mt. 27:13). It is
in response to Pilate's 'charges question' that Mark and Matthew both tell
us, that 'Jesus made no . . . answer' (Mk. 15:4). It is, then, to the
'charges question' that Jesus in the Markan and Matthean versions of the
Roman trial makes no answer in contrast to the Johannine Jesus and
Jesus-Ananias who make no answer to the 'Where are you from?' question.
Consequently, the order of Mark and Matthew's four motifs is: a 'charges-
question' motif, followed by a Jesus-non-reply motif, followed by a
Jesus-release motif and then a Jesus-scourging motif, in contrast to the
Johnnanine and Jesus-Ananias story order of a Jesus-scourging motif, a
'Where are you from?'-question motif, a Jesus-non-reply motif and a
Jesus-release motif. It is clear from the comparisons of the Markan and
Matthean pattern with John juxtaposed with the Jesus-Ananias narrative
pattern of the motifs, that John constructed his narrative from the final
episode of the first stage of his Roman trial through the end of the second
stage, using as a narrative template the Roman trial of Jesus-Ananias and
not the Markan and Matthean Roman trial accounts. Luke is another matter.
He only narrates the Jesus release motif."

"Furthermore, it needs to be noted that the 'Where are you from?'-question
motif plays a prominent role in John's Gospel prior to the Roman trial.
Earlier, in the Gospel at various points in the Johannine Jesus' disputes
with his Jewish adversaries the 'Where are you from?'-question motif is
often used to address the issue of Jesus' spiritual origin and his
messianic/christological status. Thus, for example, in 7:27-28, people
who encounter Jesus in Jerusalem state with respect to Jesus: "'Can it be
that the authorities really know that this is the Messiah? Yet we know
where this man is from; but when the Messiah comes, no one will know where
he is from.' Then Jesus cried out as he was teaching in the temple, 'You
know me, and you know where I am from? But I have not come of my own
accord; he who sent me is true, and him you do not know. I know him, for I
come from him.'"

"It is quite striking, in my view, that none of the synoptic accounts of the
Roman trial of Jesus has the 'Where are you from?'-question motif, nor is
the 'Where are you from?'-question motif utilized with respect to Jesus
anywhere in the Synoptics. Consequently, I posit that John appropriated
this motif from the story of Jesus-Ananias and used it not only in the Roman trial of
Jesus but also elsewhere in his Gospel to address theological and
christological issues central to John's interest."

"Finally, with respect to the 'incomprehensible fact that John has 'oddly
inserted' the scourging and mockery of the Johannine Jesus in the middle of
the Roman trial, I am convinced that the thesis I have been articulating
makes the incomprehensive quite comprehensible. How do I see that?
John, in working with his two sources, Mark and the story of Jesus son of
Ananias, to create his own unique Roman trial of Jesus, saw that the best
way to connect the material he derived from the template of his two sources
--- material which he transformed, transvalued and reconsituted --- was
to connect the two respective templates by attaching the beginning of his
transformed and transvalued Jesus-Ananias Roman trial account to the
end of his revision of his Markan source Roman trial account. Since in
John's Markan source Jesus' scourging took place after his trial before
Pilate and in his Jesus-Ananias source the scourging of Ananias' son
took place before his interrogation by Albinus, John saw, I reason,
that the natural place to suture his two newly created two stages of
the Johannine Roman trial together was at the point where the original
source texts depicted the scourging incident. Thus, narratively, the
scourging of the Johannine Jesus, by necessity of John's
compositional procedure, occurs in the middle between two stages
of the Roman trial, rather than at the end of the Roman trial, as is the
case in the Markan and Matthean accounts of Jesus' Roman trial.
This narrative splicing of his two sources, also, explains John's
decision to ignore the Greek term for scourging which Mark used in his
account and choose instead a cognate of the Greek term he found for
scourging in the story of Jesus-Ananias."

https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/cro ... pics/18075

	Slavonic Josephus 1	Slavonic Josephus 2	Jesus ben Ananias	Gospel of John
1	Wild man brought before Archelaus.	Wonder-doer brought before Pilate.	'madman' Jesus brought to Roman Governor Albinus.	Jesus brought before Pilate
2	Threatened with torture.	Jewish leaders fear they will be robbed, put to the sword and their children ruined.	He is scourged	He is scourged
3	He is asked who he is and where he has been. He replied: I am pure; the Spirit of God has led me on.	Pilate has trial concerning him,	He is asked: Where are you from. No reply	He is asked: Where are you from. No reply
4	Interrogation by Simon, an Essene  - attempts at bodily violence  -  but wild man goes forth.	Pilate perceived that he is a doer of good, but not an evildoer, nor a revolutionary, nor one who aimed at power, and set him free.	Jesus released	Interrogation and Pilate wants to release him.
	Antiquities: book . 18. Some of the Jews thought that that Herod's army was destroyed as a just punishment from God, for what he did to John, who was called the Baptist.  For Herod killed this good man who was telling the Jews to practice virtue,	The teachers of the Law were [therefore] envenomed with envy and gave thirty talents to Pilate, in order that he should put him to death.  And he, after he had taken [the money], gave them consent that they should themselves carry out their purpose. And they took him and crucified him according to the ancestral law	"Woe, woe to the city, and to the people and to the sanctuary!" just as he finally added, "Woe, woe to myself also!" a stone came from one of the machines and struck him and killed him and he gave up his life with the same ominous words.	Pilate says to them, "Shall I crucify your king?" The chief priests responded, "We have no king but Caesar." At that time therefore he handed him over to them, to be crucified

What the chart does suggest is that maybe the passion story in gJohn is earlier than the passion story in gMark. i.e. gJohn having to contend with a source in which a Jesus figure is released - and decides on a two pronged, two stage, Jesus/Pilate passion narrative.