The Real Testimonium

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
User avatar
Peter Kirby
Site Admin
Posts: 8020
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 2:13 pm
Location: Santa Clara
Contact:

Re: The Real Testimonium

Post by Peter Kirby »

I appreciate the reply, Andrew. As usual, you identify some important points.
andrewcriddle wrote: Tue Jan 18, 2022 11:26 am i.e. Lord of the earth in Revelation is God (definitely)
I would say possibly. There are many elements in Revelation that are different from Zechariah, so pointing out the interpretation of Zechariah does not prove the interpretation in Revelation. While I don't prefer this interpretation, it is consistent with either location of the two witnesses.
andrewcriddle wrote: Tue Jan 18, 2022 11:26 am probably IMO God as dwelling in Jerusalem
Even if it were God meant, that alone wouldn't establish where God was "dwelling" or where the witnesses serving God were. If the reference is to God, then it's not clear to me that the "standing before" is even meant to be literal, instead of representing who the witnesses testify for.
IMO unlikely that Acts is influenced by Suetonius
I'm not sure how to evaluate whether Acts used Suetonius, but I agree it's unlikely a priori (assuming that Suetonius wrote in Latin and for a limited audience that didn't have a large overlap with early Christians).

It's quite possible that the action of Claudius was enforced by expelling those who didn't comply with the mandate against meetings (as Dio Cassius described it), which would make both Suetonius and Acts half-right and obviate the need to say that one depended on the other.

As for the Jews, who had again increased so greatly that by reason of their multitude it would have been hard without raising a tumult to bar them from the city, he [Claudius] did not drive them out, but ordered them, while continuing their traditional mode of life, not to hold meetings.

User avatar
Peter Kirby
Site Admin
Posts: 8020
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 2:13 pm
Location: Santa Clara
Contact:

Re: The Real Testimonium

Post by Peter Kirby »

Mark 14:43-50 has this story:

43 Just as he was speaking, Judas, one of the Twelve, appeared. With him was a crowd armed with swords and clubs, sent from the chief priests, the teachers of the law, and the elders.

44 Now the betrayer had arranged a signal with them: “The one I kiss is the man; arrest him and lead him away under guard.” 45 Going at once to Jesus, Judas said, “Rabbi!” and kissed him. 46 The men seized Jesus and arrested him. 47 Then one of those standing near drew his sword and struck the servant of the high priest, cutting off his ear.

48 “Am I leading a rebellion,” said Jesus, “that you have come out with swords and clubs to capture me? 49 Every day I was with you, teaching in the temple courts, and you did not arrest me. But the Scriptures must be fulfilled.” 50 Then everyone deserted him and fled.

Three elements are interesting here:

(1) There is a scuffle, and blood was drawn. One of Jesus' followers had a sword and used it to attack the servant of the high priest.

(2) Jesus denies that he is leading a rebellion and refuses to fight. Did somebody claim that the fight was bigger than Mark portrays? Mark puts a heavy emphasis on Jesus' willingness to be captured. Per (1), Mark allows that some of his followers didn't want him to be captured.

(3) Everyone else flees. If Jesus wasn't willing to be captured (as Mark stresses), he would have wanted to flee with them.

I doubt that it represents anything more than an inference of the kind just outlined, but the Toledoth Yeshu portrays such a scuffle:

Yeshu was seized. His head was covered with a garment and he was smitten with pomegranate staves; but he could do nothing, for he no longer had the Ineffable Name.

Yeshu was taken prisoner to the synagogue of Tiberias, and they bound him to a pillar. To allay his thirst they gave him vinegar to drink. On his head they set a crown of thorns. There was strife and wrangling between the elders and the unrestrained followers of Yeshu, as a result of which the followers escaped with Yeshu to the region of Antioch; there Yeshu remained until the eve of the Passover.

Here the followers escaped, with Yeshu, to the region of Antioch.

It's possible that behind the story of the Gospel of Mark there was the story told by Josephus, of a Jew who escaped out of his country after professing to teach the laws of Moses and being accused by his countrymen. Josephus says that the escape was to go to Rome. The escape happened under the emperor Tiberius, the same time as when Jesus supposedly lived. The name given for the one responsible for the expulsion of Jews from Rome was Chrestus, as given by Suetonius (who places it under Claudius). The one who escaped had gathered three close associates, like in the New Testament, who took up a collection for Jerusalem among proselytes to Judaism, while not remitting it to the temple. And it would explain Mark's stories of the disciples fleeing and Mark's emphasis that Jesus went willingly to his death under Pilate, denying that there was a struggle or that Jesus sought to escape, when otherwise the Gospel of Mark would be continuing with the less inspiring and meaningful tale of Jesus fleeing to Rome.
User avatar
MrMacSon
Posts: 8798
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 3:45 pm

Re: The Real Testimonium

Post by MrMacSon »

Peter Kirby wrote: Tue Jan 18, 2022 10:06 pm
It's possible that behind the story of the Gospel of Mark...was the story told by Josephus, of a Jew who escaped out of his country after professing to teach the laws of Moses and being accused by his countrymen. Josephus says that the escape was to go to Rome. The escape happened under the emperor Tiberius, the same time as when Jesus supposedly lived ...
Are you referring to Antiquities 18.3.5 ?

If so, "professing to teach the laws of Moses" might be more *transgressing the law* [in 'his [own] 'country']

It was in Rome where he "professed to instruct men in the wisdom of the laws of Moses"

(not that it matters much for the propositions you've put)
User avatar
Peter Kirby
Site Admin
Posts: 8020
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 2:13 pm
Location: Santa Clara
Contact:

Re: The Real Testimonium

Post by Peter Kirby »

MrMacSon wrote: Tue Jan 18, 2022 11:52 pm
Peter Kirby wrote: Tue Jan 18, 2022 10:06 pm
It's possible that behind the story of the Gospel of Mark...was the story told by Josephus, of a Jew who escaped out of his country after professing to teach the laws of Moses and being accused by his countrymen. Josephus says that the escape was to go to Rome. The escape happened under the emperor Tiberius, the same time as when Jesus supposedly lived ...
Are you referring to Antiquities 18.3.5 ?

If so, "professing to teach the laws of Moses" might be more *transgressing the law* [in 'his [own] 'country']

It was in Rome where he "professed to instruct men in the wisdom of the laws of Moses"

(not that it matters much for the propositions you've put)
Good point.
User avatar
MrMacSon
Posts: 8798
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 3:45 pm

Re: The Real Testimonium

Post by MrMacSon »

Though, there's still a bit of contradiction in this man being "driven away from his own country by an accusation laid against him for transgressing their laws" yet then him "instruct[ing] men in the wisdom of the laws of Moses" in Rome -
Peter Kirby wrote: Fri Jan 14, 2022 11:24 pm
Antiquities 18.3.5 is sandwiched between the stories about Pilate and another story of impropriety in Rome.

http://penelope.uchicago.edu/josephus/ant-18.html
5. There was a man who was a Jew; but had been driven away from his own country by an accusation laid against him for transgressing their laws, and by the fear he was under of punishment for the same: but in all respects a wicked man. He then living at Rome, professed to instruct men in the wisdom of the laws of Moses. He procured also three other men, entirely of the same character with himself, to be his partners. These men persuaded Fulvia, a woman of great dignity; and one that had embraced the Jewish religion, to send purple and gold to the temple at Jerusalem. And when they had gotten them, they employed them for their own uses, and spent the money themselves: on which account it was that they at first required it of her. Whereupon Tiberius, who had been informed of the thing by Saturninus, the husband of Fulvia, who desired inquiry might be made about it; ordered all the Jews to be banished out of Rome. At which time the consuls listed four thousand men out of them, and sent them to the island Sardinia: but punished a greater number of them, who were unwilling to become soldiers: on account of keeping the laws of their forefathers. Thus were these Jews banished out of the city by the wickedness of four men.
And it seems over-reaction to 'banish all Jews out of Rome' on the basis of what four men did and to punish many of the many banished Jews on account of 'keeping the laws" [of their forefathers].There's a lot of reference to The Law/s there, all in different ways
John2
Posts: 4309
Joined: Fri May 16, 2014 4:42 pm

Re: The Real Testimonium

Post by John2 »

Sinouhe wrote: Sat Jan 15, 2022 4:22 pm But the Jesus of Mark grants little importance to the law. It is a Pauline gospel whose main interest, (in addition
to show that Jesus is the messiah), is to show that the new alliance is also intended for pagans.


But even Jewish Christian leaders intended Christianity for pagans. This is why they agreed that Paul should preach his gospel to them in Gal. 2:9.

It is almost universally recognized that Mark 7 begins with a dispute over rabbinical traditions but concludes more globally against dietary laws.

In this case I see the dispute as being over washing hands before eating, which is required by the oral Torah but not the written Torah, and Jesus is saying here that not washing your hands doesn't defile food. And given that these are Jews discussing this issue, I assume the food they are discussing is kosher. So the issue is whether or not eating kosher food with unwashed hands defiles it, as per the beginning of the chapter.

Then the Pharisees and some of the scribes who had come from Jerusalem gathered around Jesus, and they saw some of his disciples eating with hands that were defiled—that is, unwashed. Now in holding to the tradition of the elders, the Pharisees and all the Jews do not eat until they wash their hands ceremonially.


As for the parenthetical remark in 7:19 ("Thus he declared all foods are clean"), I don't see that in the Greek.


https://biblehub.com/interlinear/mark/7-19.htm


Mark uses Genesis to contradict a mosaic law. Genesis does not legislate about divorce, Moses does. So Jesus goes against the law of Moses which authorizes divorce with a letter of repudiation. Invoking Genesis does not prevent it from contradicting a mosaic law.

Moses was regarded as having written Genesis, so in that respect all five books of the Torah were "Mosaic" law. But in any event, while Jesus sees it as ideal for spouses to stay together, he does not actually forbid divorce in Mark either, only remarriage after divorce, as he explains in 10:10-12.

When they were back inside the house, the disciples asked Jesus about this matter. So he told them, “Whoever divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery against her. And if a woman divorces her husband and marries another man, she commits adultery.”

In this respect Paul is in line with Jesus, since he says in 1 Cor. 7:10-11:

To the married I give this command (not I, but the Lord): A wife must not separate from her husband. But if she does, she must remain unmarried or else be reconciled to her husband.

And we still have the same thing with the ears of wheat. Invoking an episode from the Old Testament (besides he makes a mistake with the high priest) does not prevent Jesus' followers from breaking the Sabbath.

But this is only a debate about what constitutes working on the Sabbath and not about observing or not observing the Sabbath, with the Pharisees taking a stringent position and Jesus taking one that was less so (even if he bungles the OT citation). From Jesus' point of view he was not breaking the Sabbath.


It should also be noted that Jesus is pro-sacrifice in Mk. 1:40-44
Because the leper is a jew. Which is again very Pauline. Jews can practice law, Gentiles cannot. Jesus is found in pagan territory many times in Mark (the decapolis) but we never see him refer them to the law, which is obviously no coincidence.

But Paul preached that Torah observance was not necessary for Jews, e.g., Gal. 2:15-16 and 3:23-25.

We who are Jews by birth and not Gentile “sinners” know that a man is not justified by works of the law, but by faith in Jesus Christ. So we, too, have believed in Christ Jesus, that we may be justified by faith in Christ and not by works of the law, because by works of the law no one will be justified.
Before this faith came, we were held in custody under the law, locked up until faith should be revealed. So the law became our guardian to lead us to Christ, that we might be justified by faith. Now that faith has come, we are no longer under a guardian.
Last edited by John2 on Wed Jan 19, 2022 2:02 pm, edited 5 times in total.
John2
Posts: 4309
Joined: Fri May 16, 2014 4:42 pm

Re: The Real Testimonium

Post by John2 »

Peter,

You've given me much to chew on in your responses above, though (like Andrew) I'm still leaning towards Jerusalem. If there was one (other) Christian writing that puts Jesus (and all three pillars) in Rome I would find the idea that he is the unnamed person in Ant. 18.3.5 more persuasive, but I will keep the idea in mind.
John2
Posts: 4309
Joined: Fri May 16, 2014 4:42 pm

Re: The Real Testimonium

Post by John2 »

I've always assumed that the references to Babylon in Revelation refer to Rome, but I hadn't paid any attention to the question of the identity of the "great city" in chapter 11 until now. And while I'm still leaning towards that great city being Jerusalem and pondering Perter's points above, I came across what seems like a good argument (excerpted from a book called Bamboozled Believers by Michael Biehler) that the references to Babylon in the rest of Revelation refer to Jerusalem too.

I can't vouch for the rest of the book or the author (who at first glance seems offbeat but his argument seems fairly sound) since I'm otherwise unfamiliar with them, but I thought I'd post the excerpt here for consideration since I'm curious to see what flaws can be found in it. I have an issue with his dating of Revelation (which is earlier than mine), but it doesn't really affect his argument for me, and if someone can take it apart to my satisfaction, then great.


http://bamboozledbelievers.com/essays/u ... jerusalem/
User avatar
Peter Kirby
Site Admin
Posts: 8020
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 2:13 pm
Location: Santa Clara
Contact:

Re: The Real Testimonium

Post by Peter Kirby »

John2 wrote: Thu Jan 20, 2022 5:57 pm I have an issue with his dating of Revelation (which is earlier than mine), but it doesn't really affect his argument for me, and if someone can take it apart to my satisfaction, then great.
I already took it apart in my first, lengthy argument in my first post on the second page. In arguing that Babylon=Rome, I'm arguing against Babylon=Jerusalem and Babylon=Babylon. Specific factors against both are mentioned, in addition to specific factors for the Rome identification.

This isn't a new idea by any means. It's one of the three ideas generally suggested for specific locations. It's not a good idea based on the evidence. Starting here:
Okay, I will review some of the evidence regarding Revelation.

We can start with the identification of Babylon in Revelation, which is clear. ...
John2
Posts: 4309
Joined: Fri May 16, 2014 4:42 pm

Re: The Real Testimonium

Post by John2 »

Peter Kirby wrote: Thu Jan 20, 2022 10:21 pm
John2 wrote: Thu Jan 20, 2022 5:57 pm I have an issue with his dating of Revelation (which is earlier than mine), but it doesn't really affect his argument for me, and if someone can take it apart to my satisfaction, then great.
I already took it apart in my first, lengthy argument in my first post on the second page. In arguing that Babylon=Rome, I'm arguing against Babylon=Jerusalem and Babylon=Babylon. Specific factors against both are mentioned, in addition to specific factors for the Rome identification.

I was thinking of points in Biehler's argument that you don't appear to address. For example:

In Chapter 16 we see that armies assemble at Armageddon before they destroy the “great city” (Rev. 16:16,19) Now, Armageddon is just a few miles away from Jerusalem. If Babylon is Rome ... why would the armies be gathering near Jerusalem? This is strong evidence that the “great city” called “Babylon” in chapter 16 is actually Jerusalem ...

16:19 says: “the great city was split into three parts.” According to Josephus, most casualties were caused by the fighting between three Jewish factions inside of the city. The great city was indeed “split in three parts.”
16:21 says: “great hail stones, about a hundred pounds each, fell from heaven on the people.” Josephus tells us that Roman catapults launched hundred-pound stones that fell from heaven on the city. Why assume that Rome ... must endure a spectacular hailstorm and be split into three parts? These things happened to Babylon/Jerusalem in AD 70.

Rev. 16:16-21:

And they assembled the kings in the place that in Hebrew is called Armageddon.Then the seventh angel poured out his bowl into the air, and a loud voice came from the throne in the temple, saying, “It is done!”

And there were flashes of lightning, and rumblings, and peals of thunder, and a great earthquake the likes of which had not occurred since men were upon the earth—so mighty was the great quake. The great city was split into three parts, and the cities of the nations collapsed. And God remembered Babylon the great and gave her the cup of the wine of the fury of His wrath.

Then every island fled, and no mountain could be found. And great hailstones weighing almost a hundred pounds each rained down on them from above. And men cursed God for the plague of hail, because it was so horrendous.


And this ties in to something you wrote about chapter 11.

One really decisive piece of evidence, moreover, is that the “holy city” of Jerusalem on earth had been already destroyed and trampled under foot, something the author understood in his historical situation and explicitly mentions as belonging to a prior event in this passage (Revelation 11:2). It hardly merits a description later in the same passage, presumably still regarding the city in which the two witnesses were lying dead in the street, that “the tenth part of the city fell” after the entire holy city had been sacked and trampled under foot (unless, of course, we read “the great city” in this passage as being distinct from “the holy city” Jerusalem).

I don't know Greek, but from translations it appears to say that "they will" trample the holy city for 42 months, not that it has happened yet. And are the 1260 days that the two witnesses prophesy concurrent with these 42 months or do they happen after that? I suppose wearing sackcloth could be an indication of the latter, but could it also be because of what will happen to Jerusalem?
Post Reply