How could "Josephus" learn about John's death, or "Mark" about Jesus's?

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
User avatar
mlinssen
Posts: 3431
Joined: Tue Aug 06, 2019 11:01 am
Location: The Netherlands
Contact:

Re: How could "Josephus" learn about John's death, or "Mark" about Jesus's?

Post by mlinssen »

neilgodfrey wrote: Tue Apr 05, 2022 2:44 pm Parents and Sons

For anyone who cannot resist the yawns and wonder why on earth Simon, father of Alexander and Rufus, can’t just be accepted as historical figures, well that’s another story for another place. One might simply give but one hint here: it was not the done thing to identify individuals by their offspring, but rather by their parents. The unusualness of Simon being identified by his sons is taken by theologians as evidence for their genuineness – if something is the same it proves it is true, if it is different it proves it is even truer, type arguments.
LOL!

You're forgoing the obvious "if something fits my flimsy Hasmonian theory then it must be true"
User avatar
maryhelena
Posts: 2878
Joined: Tue Oct 08, 2013 11:22 pm
Location: England

Re: How could "Josephus" learn about John's death, or "Mark" about Jesus's?

Post by maryhelena »

mlinssen wrote: Tue Apr 05, 2022 4:54 pm
neilgodfrey wrote: Tue Apr 05, 2022 2:44 pm Parents and Sons

For anyone who cannot resist the yawns and wonder why on earth Simon, father of Alexander and Rufus, can’t just be accepted as historical figures, well that’s another story for another place. One might simply give but one hint here: it was not the done thing to identify individuals by their offspring, but rather by their parents. The unusualness of Simon being identified by his sons is taken by theologians as evidence for their genuineness – if something is the same it proves it is true, if it is different it proves it is even truer, type arguments.
LOL!

You're forgoing the obvious "if something fits my flimsy Hasmonian theory then it must be true"
🙄

Strange is it not that in a forum with the title Christian Texts and History that Jewish history.... which includes Hasmonean history........is somehow beyond the pale as a tool for understanding those Christian text. Let's not forget those Christian Texts deal with a Jewish story. As such Jewish history is a primary tool for research into that story. To loose sight of Jewish history would be to work blindfolded, to work in the dark.

By all means view the Hasmonean theory I have outlined as flimsy...... Present another history related theory... I'm all ears.... Any gospel theory without a foothold on terra firma, without a historically grounded explanation would fall at its first hurdle. Ideas are two for a penny. It's grounding ones ideas in physical reality that demonstrate their value.
Paul the Uncertain
Posts: 994
Joined: Fri Apr 21, 2017 6:25 am
Contact:

Re: How could "Josephus" learn about John's death, or "Mark" about Jesus's?

Post by Paul the Uncertain »

@maryhelena
Any gospel theory without a foothold on terra firma, without a historically grounded explanation would fall at its first hurdle.
Yes, but Josephus's Antiquities, taken as a whole, appears to grounded in the history of the Jewish people. And yet at this specific point in the exposition, the John the Baptist "sandwich," we find the same anomaly as we find at a specific point in one of the gospels: characters who appear from nowhere, do nothing overtly to advance the story, and promptly disappear without any further comment.

I don't see any reason to rule out the possibility that one explanation, whatever it turns out to be, might defang both anomalies. I also don't see how accepting that explanation would necessarily imperil your overall Hasmonean theory of the gospels.
User avatar
maryhelena
Posts: 2878
Joined: Tue Oct 08, 2013 11:22 pm
Location: England

Re: How could "Josephus" learn about John's death, or "Mark" about Jesus's?

Post by maryhelena »

Paul the Uncertain wrote: Tue Apr 05, 2022 10:46 pm @maryhelena
Any gospel theory without a foothold on terra firma, without a historically grounded explanation would fall at its first hurdle.
Yes, but Josephus's Antiquities, taken as a whole, appears to grounded in the history of the Jewish people. And yet at this specific point in the exposition, the John the Baptist "sandwich," we find the same anomaly as we find at a specific point in one of the gospels: characters who appear from nowhere, do nothing overtly to advance the story, and promptly disappear without any further comment.

I don't see any reason to rule out the possibility that one explanation, whatever it turns out to be, might defang both anomalies. I also don't see how accepting that explanation would necessarily imperil your overall Hasmonean theory of the gospels.
👍
User avatar
mlinssen
Posts: 3431
Joined: Tue Aug 06, 2019 11:01 am
Location: The Netherlands
Contact:

Re: How could "Josephus" learn about John's death, or "Mark" about Jesus's?

Post by mlinssen »

maryhelena wrote: Tue Apr 05, 2022 9:42 pm
🙄

Strange is it not that in a forum with the title Christian Texts and History that Jewish history.... which includes Hasmonean history........is somehow beyond the pale as a tool for understanding those Christian text. Let's not forget those Christian Texts deal with a Jewish story. As such Jewish history is a primary tool for research into that story. To loose sight of Jewish history would be to work blindfolded, to work in the dark.

By all means view the Hasmonean theory I have outlined as flimsy...... Present another history related theory... I'm all ears.... Any gospel theory without a foothold on terra firma, without a historically grounded explanation would fall at its first hurdle. Ideas are two for a penny. It's grounding ones ideas in physical reality that demonstrate their value.
There is nothing Jewish or Judaic to Christianity, maryhelena.
It is entirely a Roman product, and evidently so because of its poor Greek with many Roman loanwords, the utter absence of any Aramic, Hebrew or any other text found - even Coptic texts are littered all over the place (for extremely good reasons) yet not a single "Jewish one"
Let's not forget those Christian Texts deal with a Jewish story
That is really hilarious. Have you read Mark? Matthew and his prophecies? Luke? John? Paul? Justin Martyr's Dialogue with Trypho?
Where is the Judaic history Maryhelena? It is nothing but grave disrespect for any and all history of anything and anyone Judaic

It is lying, cheating, falsifying, misappropriating, repurposing, and nobody gives a damn about what falls over when they do. Matthew 19:5's "and said" even puts words in the mouth of your beloved YHWH in order to fix Mark 10:6-9 - Matthew commits blasphemy, that's how much he cares about "Jewish history", maryhelena

There are no history related theories exactly because it is all one great hoax, a Giant Lie. Thomas' text sourced Chrestianity for Lawd knows what reasons, and that became such a disruptive movement that the Roman rulers had no other choice but to rewrite Chrestianity into a Judaism-bound religion
Any gospel theory without a foothold on terra firma, without a historically grounded explanation would fall at its first hurdle
It is so painfully plain that you leave that sentence unfinished, maryhelena. Let me fix that for you:
Any gospel theory without a foothold on terra firma, without a historically grounded explanation would fall at its first hurdle, because ...???
User avatar
maryhelena
Posts: 2878
Joined: Tue Oct 08, 2013 11:22 pm
Location: England

Re: How could "Josephus" learn about John's death, or "Mark" about Jesus's?

Post by maryhelena »

mlinssen wrote: Tue Apr 05, 2022 11:48 pm
maryhelena wrote: Tue Apr 05, 2022 9:42 pm
🙄

Strange is it not that in a forum with the title Christian Texts and History that Jewish history.... which includes Hasmonean history........is somehow beyond the pale as a tool for understanding those Christian text. Let's not forget those Christian Texts deal with a Jewish story. As such Jewish history is a primary tool for research into that story. To loose sight of Jewish history would be to work blindfolded, to work in the dark.

By all means view the Hasmonean theory I have outlined as flimsy...... Present another history related theory... I'm all ears.... Any gospel theory without a foothold on terra firma, without a historically grounded explanation would fall at its first hurdle. Ideas are two for a penny. It's grounding ones ideas in physical reality that demonstrate their value.
There is nothing Jewish or Judaic to Christianity, maryhelena.
It is entirely a Roman product, and evidently so because of its poor Greek with many Roman loanwords, the utter absence of any Aramic, Hebrew or any other text found - even Coptic texts are littered all over the place (for extremely good reasons) yet not a single "Jewish one"
Let's not forget those Christian Texts deal with a Jewish story
That is really hilarious. Have you read Mark? Matthew and his prophecies? Luke? John? Paul? Justin Martyr's Dialogue with Trypho?
Where is the Judaic history Maryhelena? It is nothing but grave disrespect for any and all history of anything and anyone Judaic

It is lying, cheating, falsifying, misappropriating, repurposing, and nobody gives a damn about what falls over when they do. Matthew 19:5's "and said" even puts words in the mouth of your beloved YHWH in order to fix Mark 10:6-9 - Matthew commits blasphemy, that's how much he cares about "Jewish history", maryhelena

There are no history related theories exactly because it is all one great hoax, a Giant Lie. Thomas' text sourced Chrestianity for Lawd knows what reasons, and that became such a disruptive movement that the Roman rulers had no other choice but to rewrite Chrestianity into a Judaism-bound religion
Any gospel theory without a foothold on terra firma, without a historically grounded explanation would fall at its first hurdle
It is so painfully plain that you leave that sentence unfinished, maryhelena. Let me fix that for you:
Any gospel theory without a foothold on terra firma, without a historically grounded explanation would fall at its first hurdle, because ...???
How very sad an appraisal of the gospel story....
Paul the Uncertain
Posts: 994
Joined: Fri Apr 21, 2017 6:25 am
Contact:

Re: How could "Josephus" learn about John's death, or "Mark" about Jesus's?

Post by Paul the Uncertain »

Kunigunde Kreuzerin wrote: Tue Apr 05, 2022 11:47 am Mark may fairly be read that way
Your remarks got me thinking that Mark doesn't often identify women by their fathers, the obvious exception being Jairus's daughter. I decided to check whether I'd misremembered something.

I canvassed Mark for mentions or portrayals of individual women, and noted with whom they are identified or otherwise associated: by their father, by son(s), by reference to another man, as part of a mother-daughter pair, by an impersonal epithet, or only by what they say or do ("business"). I may have missed some, but I think this is a nearly complete census. Verse references are for first appearance, some characters recur (and some relationships may appear in later verses).

1:30 Simon's wife: other man, mother-daughter
1:30 her mother: mother-daughter
3:31 Mary: by son(s), mother-daughter
3:32 Jesus's sisters: mother-daughter (some texts omit 3:32 reference)
5:23 Jairus's daughter: by father, also mother-daughter
5:40 her mother: mother-daughter

5:24 Hemorraghing woman: busness
6:17 Herodias: other men, mother-daughter
6:22 Herodias's daughter: mother-daughter
7:25 Syrophoenician woman: epithet, mother-daughter
7:26 her daugher: mother-daughter

12:43 generous widow: business
14:3 woman with perfume: business
14:66 maid of the high priest: other man
15:40 Mary Magdalene: epithet
15:40 Mary: by son(s), mother-daughter
16:1 Salome: mother-daughter

Indeed, Mark typically doesn't associate women with their fathers, even though membership in a mother-daughter pairing is common (6 pairs; 12/17 women), as are associations with sons, husbands, or male employer (5/17 women, not "double-counting" associations implied by a mother-daughter relation). Although it is a small sample (6 women), the patterns of association offered for women characters introduced in Jersualem are not remarkably different from those for women introduced earlier.

Although not directly related to anything you claimed, when compiling the list, I was reminded that there is a pre-Jerusalem male character who is identified solely as the father of his son, the man who petitions Jesus to perform the "difficult exorcism" of his son (9:17 ff). Coincidentally, I was reading a recent blog post somewhere that claimed that that sort of thing is remarkable. So, I remark on it. 8-)
Kunigunde Kreuzerin
Posts: 2110
Joined: Sat Nov 16, 2013 2:19 pm
Location: Leipzig, Germany
Contact:

Re: How could "Josephus" learn about John's death, or "Mark" about Jesus's?

Post by Kunigunde Kreuzerin »

maryhelena wrote: Tue Apr 05, 2022 12:45 pm So........Literary Criticism does not prove anything regarding Simon and his two sons...

Maybe time to consider the Markan story about Simon from Cyrene and his two sons, Alexander and Rufus, as an allegory - and pick up a history book..... or Wikipedia..... and consider both Cyrene and Hasmonean history. Perhaps that approach can shine a bit of light on the Simon from Cyrene story. No need to give up an attempt to understand the story just because a Literary Criticism approach has failed to offer a satisfactory explanation. Literary Criticism is not the only available tool for investigating the gospel story.
I remember your great interpretation from earlier discussions, but I'm not quite sure how your interpretation could be helpful to me. It does not fit my own understanding of the text.

imho the verses 15:16-22 are to be read primarily against the background of the royal entry. It is, so to speak, the royal exit.

The royal entry Mark 11:1-11 The royal exit Mark 15:16-22
1 Now when they drew near to Jerusalem, to Bethphage and Bethany, at the Mount of Olives, Jesus sent two of his disciples 2 and said to them, “Go into the village in front of you, and immediately as you enter it you will find a colt tied, on which no one has ever sat. Untie it and bring it. 3 If anyone says to you, ‘Why are you doing this?’ say, ‘The Lord has need of it and will send it back here immediately.’” 4 And they went away and found a colt tied at a door outside in the street, and they untied it. 5 And some of those standing there said to them, “What are you doing, untying the colt?” 6 And they told them what Jesus had said, and they let them go. 7 And they brought the colt to Jesus and threw their cloaks on it, and he sat on it. 8 And many spread their cloaks on the road, and others spread leafy branches that they had cut from the fields. 9 And those who went before and those who followed were shouting, “Hosanna! Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord! 10 Blessed is the coming kingdom of our father David! Hosanna in the highest!” 11 And he entered Jerusalem and went into the temple. And when he had looked around at everything, as it was already late, he went out to Bethany with the twelve. 16 And the soldiers led him away inside the palace (that is, the governor’s headquarters), and they called together the whole battalion. 17 And they clothed him in a purple cloak, and twisting together a crown of thorns, they put it on him. 18 And they began to salute him, “Hail, King of the Jews!” 19 And they were striking his head with a reed and spitting on him and kneeling down in homage to him. 20 And when they had mocked him, they stripped him of the purple cloak and put his own clothes on him. And they led him out to crucify him. 21 And they compelled a passerby, Simon of Cyrene, who was coming in from the country, the father of Alexander and Rufus, to carry his cross. 22 And they brought him to the place called Golgotha (which means Place of a Skull).

I believe that the most relevant verses of the entry to interpret the figure of Simon are Mark 11:9-10.

Mark 11:9-10 Mark 15:21
9 And those who went before and those who followed were shouting, “Hosanna! Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord (Κυρίου)! 10 Blessed is the coming kingdom of our father David! Hosanna in the highest!” 21 And they compelled a passerby, Simon of Cyrene (Κυρηναῖον), who was coming in from the country, the father of Alexander and Rufus, to carry his cross.

It seems to me that Simon is an ironic incarnation of the blessed one mentioned in 11:9. He does not come in the name of the Lord ("Κυρίου"), but is named after the Lord ("Κυρηναῖον"). His family point of reference is no longer "our father David" but his two sons. (In a certain sense he takes on the role of the required colt and is commandeered by the Romans.) I find that funny and great. :ugeek:
User avatar
maryhelena
Posts: 2878
Joined: Tue Oct 08, 2013 11:22 pm
Location: England

Re: How could "Josephus" learn about John's death, or "Mark" about Jesus's?

Post by maryhelena »

Kunigunde Kreuzerin wrote: Thu Apr 07, 2022 11:34 am
maryhelena wrote: Tue Apr 05, 2022 12:45 pm So........Literary Criticism does not prove anything regarding Simon and his two sons...

Maybe time to consider the Markan story about Simon from Cyrene and his two sons, Alexander and Rufus, as an allegory - and pick up a history book..... or Wikipedia..... and consider both Cyrene and Hasmonean history. Perhaps that approach can shine a bit of light on the Simon from Cyrene story. No need to give up an attempt to understand the story just because a Literary Criticism approach has failed to offer a satisfactory explanation. Literary Criticism is not the only available tool for investigating the gospel story.
I remember your great interpretation from earlier discussions, but I'm not quite sure how your interpretation could be helpful to me. It does not fit my own understanding of the text.

imho the verses 15:16-22 are to be read primarily against the background of the royal entry. It is, so to speak, the royal exit.

The royal entry Mark 11:1-11 The royal exit Mark 15:16-22
1 Now when they drew near to Jerusalem, to Bethphage and Bethany, at the Mount of Olives, Jesus sent two of his disciples 2 and said to them, “Go into the village in front of you, and immediately as you enter it you will find a colt tied, on which no one has ever sat. Untie it and bring it. 3 If anyone says to you, ‘Why are you doing this?’ say, ‘The Lord has need of it and will send it back here immediately.’” 4 And they went away and found a colt tied at a door outside in the street, and they untied it. 5 And some of those standing there said to them, “What are you doing, untying the colt?” 6 And they told them what Jesus had said, and they let them go. 7 And they brought the colt to Jesus and threw their cloaks on it, and he sat on it. 8 And many spread their cloaks on the road, and others spread leafy branches that they had cut from the fields. 9 And those who went before and those who followed were shouting, “Hosanna! Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord! 10 Blessed is the coming kingdom of our father David! Hosanna in the highest!” 11 And he entered Jerusalem and went into the temple. And when he had looked around at everything, as it was already late, he went out to Bethany with the twelve. 16 And the soldiers led him away inside the palace (that is, the governor’s headquarters), and they called together the whole battalion. 17 And they clothed him in a purple cloak, and twisting together a crown of thorns, they put it on him. 18 And they began to salute him, “Hail, King of the Jews!” 19 And they were striking his head with a reed and spitting on him and kneeling down in homage to him. 20 And when they had mocked him, they stripped him of the purple cloak and put his own clothes on him. And they led him out to crucify him. 21 And they compelled a passerby, Simon of Cyrene, who was coming in from the country, the father of Alexander and Rufus, to carry his cross. 22 And they brought him to the place called Golgotha (which means Place of a Skull).



Lovely.... I like that connection to royalty.. 👍


I believe that the most relevant verses of the entry to interpret the figure of Simon are Mark 11:9-10.

Mark 11:9-10 Mark 15:21
9 And those who went before and those who followed were shouting, “Hosanna! Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord (Κυρίου)! 10 Blessed is the coming kingdom of our father David! Hosanna in the highest!” 21 And they compelled a passerby, Simon of Cyrene (Κυρηναῖον), who was coming in from the country, the father of Alexander and Rufus, to carry his cross.

It seems to me that Simon is an ironic incarnation of the blessed one mentioned in 11:9. He does not come in the name of the Lord ("Κυρίου"), but is named after the Lord ("Κυρηναῖον"). His family point of reference is no longer "our father David" but his two sons. (In a certain sense he takes on the role of the required colt and is commandeered by the Romans.) I find that funny and great. :ugeek:
My point is simply that interpreting the texts as texts, sort of rubbing one text against another text, is insufficient as a means of gaining insight to the gospel story. A literary exercise is still a literary exercise even when it results in understanding the composition of the story. Yes, one can interpret the words to mean such and such. All well and good. But within those words are words making a historical claim. That's the core of the gospel story. A Roman agent was involved with the execution/crucifixion of a Jewish man. A man that was not only asked if he was a King of the Jews but this was also the notice placed above the instrument of execution.

Consequently, Jewish history under Roman occupation has to be utilized alongside a literary approach to the gospel story. The literary approach has achieved much in moving forward our understanding of how the gospel story was composed. But it can't handle the historical claim the gospels make.

======
And that is the ninety ninety dollar question is it not...... the historicity or not of the gospel Jesus figure. Theology, philosophy, mythology, parables and symbolism - all interesting - but it's the central figure in that gospel story that continues to hold the Christian world in his grasp. Greek words spell out the story but history can colour the words and thus paint the historical picture from which the story arose.
User avatar
neilgodfrey
Posts: 6161
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 4:08 pm

Re: How could "Josephus" learn about John's death, or "Mark" about Jesus's?

Post by neilgodfrey »

Kunigunde Kreuzerin wrote: Thu Apr 07, 2022 11:34 am
imho the verses 15:16-22 are to be read primarily against the background of the royal entry. It is, so to speak, the royal exit.

The royal entry Mark 11:1-11 The royal exit Mark 15:16-22
1 Now when they drew near to Jerusalem, to Bethphage and Bethany, at the Mount of Olives, Jesus sent two of his disciples 2 and said to them, “Go into the village in front of you, and immediately as you enter it you will find a colt tied, on which no one has ever sat. Untie it and bring it. 3 If anyone says to you, ‘Why are you doing this?’ say, ‘The Lord has need of it and will send it back here immediately.’” 4 And they went away and found a colt tied at a door outside in the street, and they untied it. 5 And some of those standing there said to them, “What are you doing, untying the colt?” 6 And they told them what Jesus had said, and they let them go. 7 And they brought the colt to Jesus and threw their cloaks on it, and he sat on it. 8 And many spread their cloaks on the road, and others spread leafy branches that they had cut from the fields. 9 And those who went before and those who followed were shouting, “Hosanna! Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord! 10 Blessed is the coming kingdom of our father David! Hosanna in the highest!” 11 And he entered Jerusalem and went into the temple. And when he had looked around at everything, as it was already late, he went out to Bethany with the twelve. 16 And the soldiers led him away inside the palace (that is, the governor’s headquarters), and they called together the whole battalion. 17 And they clothed him in a purple cloak, and twisting together a crown of thorns, they put it on him. 18 And they began to salute him, “Hail, King of the Jews!” 19 And they were striking his head with a reed and spitting on him and kneeling down in homage to him. 20 And when they had mocked him, they stripped him of the purple cloak and put his own clothes on him. And they led him out to crucify him. 21 And they compelled a passerby, Simon of Cyrene, who was coming in from the country, the father of Alexander and Rufus, to carry his cross. 22 And they brought him to the place called Golgotha (which means Place of a Skull).

I believe that the most relevant verses of the entry to interpret the figure of Simon are Mark 11:9-10.

Mark 11:9-10 Mark 15:21
9 And those who went before and those who followed were shouting, “Hosanna! Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord (Κυρίου)! 10 Blessed is the coming kingdom of our father David! Hosanna in the highest!” 21 And they compelled a passerby, Simon of Cyrene (Κυρηναῖον), who was coming in from the country, the father of Alexander and Rufus, to carry his cross.

It seems to me that Simon is an ironic incarnation of the blessed one mentioned in 11:9. He does not come in the name of the Lord ("Κυρίου"), but is named after the Lord ("Κυρηναῖον"). His family point of reference is no longer "our father David" but his two sons. (In a certain sense he takes on the role of the required colt and is commandeered by the Romans.) I find that funny and great. :ugeek:
A most intriguing interpretation! Is this from Bedenbender's discussion of the Cyrenian vis a vis the son of David in a book you mentioned some years ago: viewtopic.php?p=4806#p4806 ?
Post Reply