Incident of Tiberias remembered in Mark 12:13-17

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
Post Reply
User avatar
Giuseppe
Posts: 8993
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Incident of Tiberias remembered in Mark 12:13-17

Post by Giuseppe »

I had written:
Giuseppe wrote: Wed Apr 07, 2021 11:51 am There is a curious episode reported by Josephus about Jesus b. Sapphat that, I suspect, ended in the Gospel of Mark under a different form.


Josephus' Vita 57 Mark 12:13-17Commentary

Now Jesus, who was the ruler, commanded that they should exclude all that came with me: for he kept the door himself, and suffered none but his friends to go in.

And while we were engaged in the duties of the day, and had betaken our selves to our prayers, Jesus got up, and enquired of me what was become of the vessels that were taken out of the King’s palace, when it was burnt down; [and] of that uncoined silver; and in whose possession they now were? This he said, in order to drive away time, till John should come.

I said that Capellus, and the ten principal men of Tiberias, had them all: and I told him that they might ask them whether I told a lie or not.

And when they said they had them, he asked me, what is become of those twenty pieces of gold which thou didst receive upon the sale of a certain weight of uncoined money? I replyed, that I had given them to those ambassadors of theirs, as a maintenance for them, when they were sent by them to Jerusalem. So Jonathan, and his colleagues, said, that I had not done well to pay the ambassadors out of the publick money.


Later they sent some of the Pharisees and Herodians to Jesus to catch him in his words. 14 They came to him and said, “Teacher, we know that you are a man of integrity. You aren’t swayed by others, because you pay no attention to who they are; but you teach the way of God in accordance with the truth

in both the episodes, a group of pharisees/a pharisee (=Josephus) know that a Jesus preaches a form of absolute theocracy.


And when the multitude were very angry at them for this; for they perceived the wickednes of the men; I understood that a tumult was going to arise: and being desirous to provoke the people to a greater rage against the men, I said, “But if I have not done well in paying our ambassadors out of the publick stock, leave off your anger at me; for I will repay the twenty pieces of gold my self.”

58. When I had said this, Jonathan, and his colleagues, held their peace: but the people were still more irritated against them, upon their openly shewing their unjust ill will to me.


Is it right to pay the imperial tax to Caesar or not? 15 Should we pay or shouldn’t we?” But Jesus knew their hypocrisy. “Why are you trying to trap me?”

in both the episodes, the pharisees/a pharisee (=Josephus) want to provoke someone with greater power against a Jesus, by trying to use his desire of a theocracy as act of accusation against him.


When Jesus saw this change in the people, he ordered them to depart; but desired the senate to stay: for that they could not examine things of such a nature in a tumult.
And as the people were crying out, that they would not leave me alone, there came one, and told Jesus, and his friends, privately, that John, and his armed men were at hand


he asked. “Bring me a denarius and let me look at it.” 16 They brought the coin, and he asked them, “Whose image is this? And whose inscription?”

“Caesar’s,” they replied.

17 Then Jesus said to them, “Give back to Caesar what is Caesar’s and to God what is God’s.”

And they were amazed at him.

in both the episodes, a Jesus saves himself by a temporary compromise.

Note also the continue references by Josephus, to Jesus b. Sapphat appealing (more or less openly) to the coming authority of John of Gischala, itself a historical fact that could be behind Mark 11:27-33.

What is remarkable is what "Mark" (author) did. For it is clear that the words (Mark 12:14)

"Teacher, we know that you are a man of integrity. You aren’t swayed by others, because you pay no attention to who they are"

...are a paulinism based also on Galatians 2:6:

"As for those who were held in high esteem—whatever they were makes no difference to me; God does not show favoritism—they added nothing to my message",

...hence the historical episode (about Jesus b. Sapphat versus Josephus) has been surely paulinized (with Paul in the place of Jesus, docet Adamczewski) in order to "explain" it (= an item of the oral tradition otherwise left enigmatic) for late Christian readers.

My point would be that, despite of this partial eclipse of the historical nucleus by having Jesus eclipsed as Paul, "Mark" (author) had remembered the original tenor of the episode, since also the sense of Galatians 2:6 is that only God has to be adored, as opposed to any other earthly authority: isn't it "theocracy" sic et simpliciter ?
Post Reply