John Hyrcanus, not John the Baptist, in Luke 16:16

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
User avatar
Giuseppe
Posts: 9655
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

John Hyrcanus, not John the Baptist, in Luke 16:16

Post by Giuseppe »


“The Law and the Prophets were proclaimed until John. Since that time, the good news of the kingdom of God is being preached, and everyone is forcing their way into it.

John Hyrcanus is meant here, proving that Doudna's view of a confusion between the Baptist and Hyrcanus is probably correct.

If we follow the gospel chronology, John the Baptist has been dead for a few days, what change could have occurred for the violent to suddenly take over the kingdom?

On the other hand, it becomes quite clear that the John in question is not John the Baptist, but John Hyrcanus II, and indeed, Josephus also considers that it is only after the death of John Hyrcan and Jannaeus that the prophecy stopped.


As for the "violent ones who want to take over the kingdom", this alludes to the rivalry between John of Gischala and Simon bar Giora that will open the doors to the Roman conquest of 70 CE.
andrewcriddle
Posts: 2038
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 12:36 am

Re: John Hyrcanus, not John the Baptist, in Luke 16:16

Post by andrewcriddle »

Giuseppe wrote: Sun Sep 19, 2021 2:30 am
“The Law and the Prophets were proclaimed until John. Since that time, the good news of the kingdom of God is being preached, and everyone is forcing their way into it.

John Hyrcanus is meant here, proving that Doudna's view of a confusion between the Baptist and Hyrcanus is probably correct.

If we follow the gospel chronology, John the Baptist has been dead for a few days, what change could have occurred for the violent to suddenly take over the kingdom?

On the other hand, it becomes quite clear that the John in question is not John the Baptist, but John Hyrcanus II, and indeed, Josephus also considers that it is only after the death of John Hyrcan and Jannaeus that the prophecy stopped.

Could you give a source in Josephus for this please ?

Andrew Criddle
User avatar
Giuseppe
Posts: 9655
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: John Hyrcanus, not John the Baptist, in Luke 16:16

Post by Giuseppe »

andrewcriddle wrote: Sun Sep 19, 2021 9:56 am
Could you give a source in Josephus for this please ?

Andrew Criddle
two facts:
  • FACT 1: In his description of John Hyrcanus Josephus writes:

    “He was the only man to unite in his person three of the highest privileges: the supreme command of the nation, the high priesthood, and the gift of prophecy. For so closely was he in touch with the deity, that he was never ignorant of the future..

    The Jewish War 1, ii, 8.
  • FACT 2: Josephus had said distinctly in his book Against Apion that no prophets were in existence among the Jews after the Persian period.
hence, the implicit corollary from 1 and 2 above is that John Hyrcanus was the last prophet in the eyes of Josephus.

Read also this:
John Hyrcanus as a Prophetic Messiah: The Evidence from the Dead Sea Scrolls, Josephus, and Numismatics
andrewcriddle
Posts: 2038
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 12:36 am

Re: John Hyrcanus, not John the Baptist, in Luke 16:16

Post by andrewcriddle »

Giuseppe wrote: Sun Sep 19, 2021 10:33 am
andrewcriddle wrote: Sun Sep 19, 2021 9:56 am
Could you give a source in Josephus for this please ?

Andrew Criddle
two facts:
  • FACT 1: In his description of John Hyrcanus Josephus writes:

    “He was the only man to unite in his person three of the highest privileges: the supreme command of the nation, the high priesthood, and the gift of prophecy. For so closely was he in touch with the deity, that he was never ignorant of the future..

    The Jewish War 1, ii, 8.
  • FACT 2: Josephus had said distinctly in his book Against Apion that no prophets were in existence among the Jews after the Persian period.
hence, the implicit corollary from 1 and 2 above is that John Hyrcanus was the last prophet in the eyes of Josephus.

Read also this:
John Hyrcanus as a Prophetic Messiah: The Evidence from the Dead Sea Scrolls, Josephus, and Numismatics
Thank you

Andrew Criddle
User avatar
Giuseppe
Posts: 9655
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: John Hyrcanus, not John the Baptist, in Luke 16:16

Post by Giuseppe »

More precisely, the Hyrcanus I refer is John Hyrcanus I, not II.
User avatar
Giuseppe
Posts: 9655
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: John Hyrcanus, not John the Baptist, in Luke 16:16

Post by Giuseppe »

Curiously, Secret Alias had already reached the conclusion that John was already dead much time before Jesus started his preaching, only he didn't mention Luke 16:16 in support of the same claim:
Secret Alias wrote: Fri Apr 29, 2016 11:55 am
Now my point about the Marcionite gospel stands and it is important.

1. There was no baptism of Jesus by John
2. When John is introduced he is already (already) dead, dead before the beginning of the gospel or at least the circumstances of his death are never discussed. He is above all else John who is dead.
3. Jesus is 'mistaken' as the risen John by numerous people.
perseusomega9
Posts: 905
Joined: Tue Feb 04, 2014 7:19 am

Re: John Hyrcanus, not John the Baptist, in Luke 16:16

Post by perseusomega9 »

This does make some sense.
yakovzutolmai
Posts: 160
Joined: Mon May 17, 2021 6:03 am

Re: John Hyrcanus, not John the Baptist, in Luke 16:16

Post by yakovzutolmai »

Giuseppe wrote: Sun Sep 19, 2021 2:30 am
“The Law and the Prophets were proclaimed until John. Since that time, the good news of the kingdom of God is being preached, and everyone is forcing their way into it.

John Hyrcanus is meant here, proving that Doudna's view of a confusion between the Baptist and Hyrcanus is probably correct.

If we follow the gospel chronology, John the Baptist has been dead for a few days, what change could have occurred for the violent to suddenly take over the kingdom?

On the other hand, it becomes quite clear that the John in question is not John the Baptist, but John Hyrcanus II, and indeed, Josephus also considers that it is only after the death of John Hyrcan and Jannaeus that the prophecy stopped.


As for the "violent ones who want to take over the kingdom", this alludes to the rivalry between John of Gischala and Simon bar Giora that will open the doors to the Roman conquest of 70 CE.
Menahem is explicitly identified as the son of Judas of the 6AD rebellion, by Josephus. Making him brother of James and Simon. If Simon bar Giora is this same Simon, then the family of Judas are the Sicarii. Judas Iscariot.

I've explained it before, but not in the following way.

There was a mythical Jesus, which inspired a historical Jesus. The orthodox writers are trying to reclaim the mythical and philosophical Jesus from the historical sect. It's the sect of Judas Iscariot which betrayed the mythical Jesus, but consequently it is among the sect of Judas Iscariot where one finds the idea and perhaps example of the historical Jesus.

The brothers of Jesus more or less correspond to the the sons of Judas of Gamala.
User avatar
Giuseppe
Posts: 9655
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: John Hyrcanus, not John the Baptist, in Luke 16:16

Post by Giuseppe »

yakovzutolmai wrote: Sun Sep 19, 2021 3:19 pm the sons of Judas of Gamala.
Are you sure that Judas of Gamala existed ?

A case has been made for Judas being a pure Flavian invention.

This study shows that we can no longer assume that this Judas presented by Josephus is an historical figure who engaged in some activity in 6 CE.

My figures of interest in Josephus are, in the order:
  • Jesus b. Sapphat
  • The Samaritan false prophet
  • Bannus
  • The "Egyptian"
  • Theudas
I have given up from much time to concern about Judas of Gamala & sons.
yakovzutolmai
Posts: 160
Joined: Mon May 17, 2021 6:03 am

Re: John Hyrcanus, not John the Baptist, in Luke 16:16

Post by yakovzutolmai »

Giuseppe wrote: Mon Sep 20, 2021 4:51 am
yakovzutolmai wrote: Sun Sep 19, 2021 3:19 pm the sons of Judas of Gamala.
Are you sure that Judas of Gamala existed ?

A case has been made for Judas being a pure Flavian invention.

This study shows that we can no longer assume that this Judas presented by Josephus is an historical figure who engaged in some activity in 6 CE.

My figures of interest in Josephus are, in the order:
  • Jesus b. Sapphat
  • The Samaritan false prophet
  • Bannus
  • The "Egyptian"
  • Theudas
I have given up from much time to concern about Judas of Gamala & sons.
It is a good theory that Judas in invented. However, his role would be to serve as the leader of the Sicarii. What I have noticed is that the "brothers of Jesus" overlap with the sons of Judas. However, none of these people have to be blood relations. That's a good point.

In this case, Judas Iscariot and Judas of Gamala are meant to represent the Sicarii faction as it is. We see that Josephus is identifying the New Testament brethren of the church as Sicarii. In Mark's Gospel, I believe we have Jesus as an allegorical figure for the theologically correct Christ, who is betrayed or overlooked by his own disciples (the Sicarii).

I have read Neil Godfrey's post above, and I'm not completely convinced. Maybe Josephus is trying to distance the Sicarii from conventional Jewish, or even Christian, thought. Maybe there is less distance than Josephus proposes.

However, even if they aren't family, there seems to be that the prominent Sicarii (as Josephus calls them) are later identified as the brethren of the church.

Returning to your original post, I am proposing that the "good news of the kingdom of God" was always a project of "violent ones who want to take over the kingdom", and that the collapse of Hasmonean power in the context of your theory, is what provokes the rise of this alternative political-religious movement.
Post Reply