Archeological evidence for the Flavian Hypothesis?

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
John2
Posts: 4309
Joined: Fri May 16, 2014 4:42 pm

Re: Archeological evidence for the Flavian Hypothesis?

Post by John2 »

You've compared flattery by historians of the Jewish War, criticized by Josephus, to the pro-Roman ideology of the Gospels; but these are very different cases.
I wouldn't say they are very different cases since they are all "pro-Roman" writings written c. 70 CE that are about or pertain to the 66-70 CE war.
A narrative depicting a Jewish messiah who predicts 40 years in advance exactly what the Romans did to Jerusalem, which effectively blames the event on the sins of Jews in Jerusalem, written in Italy in the last third of the 1st century, would have functioned as very useful propaganda for the Flavians. There were very many Jews scattered throughout the empire, and it is entirely plausible that the Flavians would have promoted gMark's story in order to vindicate themselves and thwart any desire for retribution.
Where does Mark blame "the sins of Jews in Jerusalem" for the outcome of the 66-70 CE war?

And I gather that we agree that Mark was written c. 70 CE (I think so in any event), so he is writing with knowledge of the destruction, like Josephus. So in that respect they were both just guys with knowledge of the outcome of the war and used it to promote their particular agendas (how awesome the Romans were and how bad Fourth Philosophers were in Josephus' case, and how awesome Jesus was and how bad Jewish leaders, Romans and other Fourth Philosophers were in Mark's case, though at the same time I don't rule out the possibility that Jesus actually made the prediction). And how does Mark "vindicate" the Romans of anything? The people they supported (the Pharisees and Herodians, as per Mk. 3:6) plotted to and eventually did kill Jesus with the assistance of the Romans, after all.

And even if Jesus predicted the destruction, don't OT prophets do the same thing regarding the destruction of Jerusalem? Were they too thus promoting the foreign powers of their time?
Last edited by John2 on Sat May 04, 2019 5:02 pm, edited 3 times in total.
You know in spite of all you gained, you still have to stand out in the pouring rain.
User avatar
Irish1975
Posts: 1057
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2017 8:01 am

Re: Archeological evidence for the Flavian Hypothesis?

Post by Irish1975 »

John2 wrote: Thu May 02, 2019 7:45 pm Where does Mark blame "the sins of Jews in Jerusalem" for the outcome of the 66-70 CE war?
Well let's see, they hand Jesus, the Messiah, over to Pilate on no specific charge and "out of envy," and Pilate doesn't want to kill him, but the crowds yell "crucify him!", so he does, and when he's dead Yahweh tears the curtain of the temple from top to bottom. And right at that moment...
And how does Mark "vindicate" the Romans of anything?
...the Roman centurion says "surely this man was the Son of God!"
John2
Posts: 4309
Joined: Fri May 16, 2014 4:42 pm

Re: Archeological evidence for the Flavian Hypothesis?

Post by John2 »

Irish1975 wrote: Thu May 02, 2019 8:00 pm
John2 wrote: Thu May 02, 2019 7:45 pm Where does Mark blame "the sins of Jews in Jerusalem" for the outcome of the 66-70 CE war?
Well let's see, they hand Jesus, the Messiah, over to Pilate on no specific charge and "out of envy," and Pilate doesn't want to kill him, but the crowds yell "crucify him!", so he does, and when he's dead Yahweh tears the curtain of the temple from top to bottom. And right at that moment...
And how does Mark "vindicate" the Romans of anything?
...the Roman centurion says "surely this man was the Son of God!"
I'll address these things when I get more time tomorrow.
You know in spite of all you gained, you still have to stand out in the pouring rain.
John2
Posts: 4309
Joined: Fri May 16, 2014 4:42 pm

Re: Archeological evidence for the Flavian Hypothesis?

Post by John2 »

Where does Mark blame "the sins of Jews in Jerusalem" for the outcome of the 66-70 CE war?
Well let's see, they hand Jesus, the Messiah, over to Pilate on no specific charge and "out of envy" ...
And who are "they"? Ruling priests in cahoots with the Pharisees and Herodians, who were toadies of the Romans and ran the Sanhedrin and used the assistance of the Romans to kill Jesus. You mean these people, just to be clear, right?

... and Pilate doesn't want to kill him, but the crowds yell "crucify him!", so he does ...

And let's allow that Pilate had a custom of releasing "to the people a prisoner of their choosing," as per Mk. 15:6.


Mk. 15:6-11:
Now it was Pilate’s custom at the feast to release to the people a prisoner of their choosing. And a man named Barabbas was imprisoned with the rebels who had committed murder during the insurrection. So the crowd went up and began asking Pilate to keep his custom.

“Do you want me to release to you the King of the Jews?” Pilate asked. For he knew it was out of envy that the chief priests had handed Jesus over.

But the chief priests stirred up the crowd to have him release Barabbas to them instead.

All the crowd did was ask Pilate "to keep his custom," and they only chose Barabbas because "the chief priests stirred" them up.

This situation is similar to the one in the Damascus Document, where a group of people (commonly thought to be the Pharisees) who were in cahoots with someone called "the Wicked Priest" are said to have "banded together against the life of the righteous one and loathed all who walk in perfection; they pursued them with the sword and exulted in the strife of the people."

This is what happens to Jesus in Mark too, and is all the more applicable since Jesus is called "the righteous one," just like James (e.g., 1 John 2:1 and Acts 3:14; and cf. James 5:6).


Mk. 14:43:
While Jesus was still speaking, Judas, one of the Twelve, arrived, accompanied by a crowd armed with swords and clubs, sent from the chief priests, scribes, and elders.

Mk. 15:11:
... the chief priests stirred up the crowd to have him release Barabbas to them instead.
Mk. 15:15:
And wishing to satisfy the crowd, Pilate released Barabbas to them. But he had Jesus flogged, and handed him over to be crucified.

And what does Pilate care if they picked Jesus? It says he had a custom, and Jewish leaders who were obsequious to Rome stirred up the crowd to choose Barabbas, so he "had Jesus flogged, and handed him over to be crucified," despite knowing it was only out of envy that the chief priests had handed Jesus over to him. And who crucified him? Roman soldiers.


Mk. 15:16-20:
Then the soldiers led Jesus away into the palace (that is, the Praetorium) and called the whole company together. They dressed him in a purple robe, twisted together a crown of thorns, and set it on His head. And they began to salute him: “Hail, King of the Jews!”

They kept striking His head with a staff and spitting on Him. And they knelt down and bowed before him. After they had mocked him, they removed the purple robe and put His own clothes back on him. Then they led Him out to crucify him.

And then the priests and the crowd they had stirred up mocked Jesus too. And I would suppose that from Mark's perspective they were just as bad as the people in the Damascus Document who had similarly "banded together against the life of the righteous one" and "exulted in the strife of the people."


Mk. 15:29-32:
And those who passed by heaped abuse on him, shaking their heads and saying, “Aha! You who are going to destroy the temple and rebuild it in three days, come down from the cross and save yourself!”

In the same way, the chief priests and scribes mocked him among themselves, saying, “He saved others, but he cannot save Himself! Let the Christ, the King of Israel, come down now from the cross, so that we may see and believe!” And even those who were crucified with him berated him.
Last edited by John2 on Sat May 04, 2019 1:38 pm, edited 22 times in total.
You know in spite of all you gained, you still have to stand out in the pouring rain.
John2
Posts: 4309
Joined: Fri May 16, 2014 4:42 pm

Re: Archeological evidence for the Flavian Hypothesis?

Post by John2 »

And the last part that says, "And even those who were crucified with him berated him" reminds me of the internecine strife that Josephus says was endemic among Fourth Philosophers, who routinely betrayed and murdered one another other (like Judas betrayed Jesus) and was one of the causes that led to the destruction of the Temple.

Ant. 18.1.1:
... whence arose seditions, and from them murders of men, which sometimes fell on those of their own people, by the madness of these men towards one another ... the sedition at last increased so high, that the very temple of God was burnt down by their enemies' fire.

Maybe Mark's reference to the Temple veil tearing is similarly a lamentation of this state of affairs and a foreshadowing of the destruction of the Temple that Josephus says was the end result of it.
And right at that moment ...the Roman centurion says "surely this man was the Son of God!"


Here is Mk. 15:37-39:
But Jesus let out a loud cry and breathed His last. And the veil of the temple was torn in two from top to bottom.

When the centurion standing there in front of Jesus saw how he had breathed His last, he said, “Truly this man was the Son of God!”
MacDonald persuades me that this is more mocking like in the passages above. As he argues in The Homeric Epics and the Gospel of Mark:
The words of the centurion drip with sarcasm. They constitute a gloat, a well-known and ancient speech act mocking the arrogance of a victim and enhancing the stature of the gloater.

https://books.google.com/books?id=8JkFq ... od&f=false

He likens it to the way troops mocked Hector in Iliad 22.371-75:
And not a man stood over him who did not stab his body, looking at a comrade, saying, ""Ah, look here -truly he is softer to handle now than when he gutted our ships with roaring fire!"
Last edited by John2 on Fri May 03, 2019 5:34 pm, edited 1 time in total.
You know in spite of all you gained, you still have to stand out in the pouring rain.
John2
Posts: 4309
Joined: Fri May 16, 2014 4:42 pm

Re: Archeological evidence for the Flavian Hypothesis?

Post by John2 »

So I don't see why the crowd is a factor in the Flavian hypothesis. They only chose Barabbas because they were stirred up by the priests, in accordance with the plot of the Pharisees and Herodians.

Mk. 3:6:
At this, the Pharisees went out and plotted with the Herodians how they might kill Jesus.
Mk. 14:1:
Now the Passover and the Feast of Unleavened Bread were two days away, and the chief priests and scribes were looking for a covert way to arrest Jesus and kill him.

What about the people and crowds who supported Jesus and were powerless to stop him from being killed by these Roman toadies, like in Mk. 11:1-10? How do they factor in to the Flavian hypothesis?

As they approached Jerusalem ... Jesus sent out two of his disciples ... they went and found the colt outside in the street, tied at a doorway. They untied it, and some who were standing there asked, “Why are you untying the colt?”

The disciples answered as Jesus had instructed them, and the people gave them permission. Then they led the colt to Jesus and threw their cloaks over it, and he sat on it.

Many in the crowd spread their cloaks on the road, while others spread branches they had cut from the fields. The ones who went ahead and those who followed were shouting: “Hosanna!” “Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord!” “Blessed is the coming kingdom of our father David!” “Hosanna in the highest!”
Last edited by John2 on Fri May 03, 2019 5:39 pm, edited 6 times in total.
You know in spite of all you gained, you still have to stand out in the pouring rain.
John2
Posts: 4309
Joined: Fri May 16, 2014 4:42 pm

Re: Archeological evidence for the Flavian Hypothesis?

Post by John2 »

It has a curiously lame denouement though.

Mk. 11:11:
Then Jesus entered Jerusalem and went into the temple courts. He looked around at everything, but since it was already late, he went out to Bethany with the Twelve.
You know in spite of all you gained, you still have to stand out in the pouring rain.
User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 8994
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: Archeological evidence for the Flavian Hypothesis?

Post by Ben C. Smith »

John2 wrote: Fri May 03, 2019 4:13 pm It has a curiously lame denouement though.

Mk. 11:11:
Then Jesus entered Jerusalem and went into the temple courts. He looked around at everything, but since it was already late, he went out to Bethany with the Twelve.
This anticlimax might point to an argument for Matthean priority in this case. There is no lame denouement in Matthew: Jesus strides into the temple, fresh from his triumphal entry, and tips over the moneychanging tables. On the next day he curses the fig tree, and it withers immediately. But Mark wants to splice the cursing of the fig tree together with the temple incident in his usual way of creating intercalations; so he cannot have Jesus go immediately from the triumphal entry to the temple, and it would interrupt the entry if he cursed a fig tree at the same time. So a whole new day has to be invented so as to split the fig tree cursing into two separate incidents that can sandwich the temple commotion. This would explain both why Mark's denouement, as you point out, is so lame and why Mark's miracle isn't quite as spectacular: the delay was required in order to create the sandwich effect.
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ
User avatar
Irish1975
Posts: 1057
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2017 8:01 am

Re: Archeological evidence for the Flavian Hypothesis?

Post by Irish1975 »

This is all beside the point, John2.

For the Flavian hypothesis, ex hypothesi, historical details about Jerusalem, its factions, and what "might" have happened there are not relevant. If gMark is imperial propaganda, then of course it isn't accurate history. (Anyone who would have read Josephus or Philo about Pilate could see that the Gospels' depiction of him is pure fantasy.) What is relevant is what the broad stroke, empire wide conceptions were about the temple destruction, what was going on in Rome in the last third of the first century, how imperial cults work, what the millions of diaspora Jews thought and felt (most of whom would never have been to Jerusalem, and certainly not around 30 CE), etc.

Is the passion story too embarrassing to the Romans to serve their imperial purposes? History shows otherwise.
John2
Posts: 4309
Joined: Fri May 16, 2014 4:42 pm

Re: Archeological evidence for the Flavian Hypothesis?

Post by John2 »

Irish1975 wrote: Fri May 03, 2019 6:19 pm This is all beside the point, John2.

For the Flavian hypothesis, ex hypothesi, historical details about Jerusalem, its factions, and what "might" have happened there are not relevant. If gMark is imperial propaganda, then of course it isn't accurate history. (Anyone who would have read Josephus or Philo about Pilate could see that the Gospels' depiction of him is pure fantasy.)


I think what Mark says about Jesus, Jerusalem and its factions is quite in keeping with the Dead Sea Scrolls and what Josephus says about the Fourth Philosophy, so if Mark is "pure fantasy" in these respects then so are the Dead Sea Scrolls and Josephus.
What is relevant is what the broad stroke, empire wide conceptions were about the temple destruction, what was going on in Rome in the last third of the first century, how imperial cults work, what the millions of diaspora Jews thought and felt (most of whom would never have been to Jerusalem, and certainly not around 30 CE), etc.
It's not just the passion story. Jesus consistently opposes the Herodians (who were appointed by Rome) and the Jewish sect and leaders they favored, like in Mk. 8:15:
And he cautioned them, saying, “Watch out; beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and the leaven of Herod.”


And in Mk. 12:12-13 the tables are turned and the Jewish leaders are afraid of the crowd that supported Jesus:
At this, the leaders sought to arrest Jesus, for they knew that he had spoken this parable against them. But fearing the crowd, they left him and went away. Later, they sent some of the Pharisees and Herodians to catch Jesus in his words.
This, coupled with how the Romans are portrayed makes me think that Mark is not pro-Roman in the sense that you think it could be, since all the Romans and these toadies do is oppose and ultimately kill Jesus and all Jesus does is oppose them.

I think a better way of promoting the Flavians is the account of Rabban ben Zakkai in The Fathers According to Rabbi Nathan, who sent a message to Vespasian's camp saying that "Rabban Johanan ben Zakkai is one of the Emperor's friends" before escaping from the siege of Jerusalem and proclaiming Vespasian as king (like Josephus, who was a Pharisee too):
Art thou Rabban Johanan ben Zakkai?" Vespasian inquired; "tell me, what may I give thee?"

"I ask naught of thee," Rabban Johanan replied, "save Jamnia, where I might go and teach my disciples and there establish a prayer [house] and perform all the commandments."

"Go," Vespasian said to him," and whatever thou wishest to do, do" ...

Said Rabban Johanan to him, "Lo, thou art about to be appointed king."

"How dost thou know this," Vespasian asked.

"Rabban Johanan replied, "It has been handed down to us, that the Temple will not be surrendered to a commoner, but to a king; as it is said, "And he shall cut down the thickets of the forest with iron, and Lebanon [i.e., the Temple] shall fall by a mighty one" [Is. 10:34].


Why would the Flavians need Mark when they had guys like this and Josephus?

And if Mark was written for Jews, then why does it explain Jewish customs?

Mk. 7:3-4:
Now in holding to the tradition of the elders, the Pharisees and all the Jews do not eat until they wash their hands ceremonially And on returning from the market, they do not eat unless they wash. And there are many other traditions for them to observe, including the washing of cups, pitchers, kettles, and couches for dining.


Is the passion story too embarrassing to the Romans to serve their imperial purposes? History shows otherwise.

But that took a lot of time and after much Roman persecution of Christians (who thus seem to have been oblivious to Mark's intention all the while), long after the time of the Flavians. And by then Mark was only successful with Gentiles (who had presumably previously been okay with emperor worship, so there is a lot of irony there), because Jewish Christians are said to have only used Matthew.

So if Mark was meant to be Roman propaganda for Jews, it couldn't have been less successful because most Jews did not become Christians and in any event Jewish Christians did not use Mark.

And I find it ironic that post-70 CE Roman-favored Rabbinic Judaism pronounced a curse on Jewish Christians that effectively banned them from synagogues. One would think they would have been more on board with Christianity (or Mark) if it was Roman propaganda, considering accounts like the above.
Last edited by John2 on Thu May 09, 2019 10:38 am, edited 1 time in total.
You know in spite of all you gained, you still have to stand out in the pouring rain.
Post Reply