Biblical Criticism & History Forum - earlywritings.com

In the same section the comet is mentioned:

http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/tex ... ection%3D3

Thus there was a star1 resembling a sword, which stood over the city, and a comet, that continued a whole year.

1 Whether Josephus means that this star was different from that comet which lasted a whole year, I cannot certainly determine. His words most favor their being different one from another.

And in the next section the Vespasian prediction:

http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/tex ... ection%3D4

But now, what did the most elevate them in undertaking this war, was an ambiguous oracle that was also found in their sacred writings, how," about that time, one from their country should become governor of the habitable earth." The Jews took this prediction to belong to themselves in particular, and many of the wise men were thereby deceived in their determination. Now this oracle certainly denoted the government of Vespasian, who was appointed emperor in Judea.

"A voice from the east, a voice from the west, a voice from the four winds, a voice against Jerusalem and the holy house, a voice against the bridegrooms and the brides, and a voice against the whole people."

– Josephus, Wars 6.3.

Was not this Ananius flogged by the Romans? He was released as being nothing more than a mad man. Didn't he die during the siege of Jerusalem from a rock by a catapult? I don't see the connection?

The Crow wrote:"A voice from the east, a voice from the west, a voice from the four winds, a voice against Jerusalem and the holy house, a voice against the bridegrooms and the brides, and a voice against the whole people."

– Josephus, Wars 6.3.

Was not this Ananius flogged by the Romans? He was released as being nothing more than a mad man. Didn't he die during the siege of Jerusalem from a rock by a catapult? I don't see the connection?

There's obviously no crucifixion there; so the crucifixion must come from somewhere else.

The objections raised here to Weeden's/Carrier's argument that something other than coincidence is involved here are all overlooking the central point Weeden makes by way of explanation. Literary practice of the day placed high value on "mimesis". Mimesis does not copy slavishly. The differences are as important as the similarities. I don't think there is much doubt or misunderstanding of this practice among the other writers of the day. I see no reason to treat biblical authors any differently in this sort of analysis.

But if Celsus tells us everyone in the region thought they were prophets, sons of God etc. why is it necessarily a literary construct? Its like obesity in America. It isn't dependant on the popularity of Bill Cosby's Fat Albert.

so what was the basis for the popularity of this particular narrative (pre council of Nicea)?

I don't know how do explain the popularity of the ALS ice bucket challenge? Boredom? Distraction from the impending implosion of western civilization?

Stephan Huller wrote:But if Celsus tells us everyone in the region thought they were prophets, sons of God etc. why is it necessarily a literary construct? Its like obesity in America. It isn't dependant on the popularity of Bill Cosby's Fat Albert.

Everything composed in text is by definition a literary construct. The point is to understand and explain different types of literary constructs.

Many ideas can be swept aside with rhetorical questions but that still leaves the detailed evidence and questions on the other side for someone else to explore. The colourful analogies also simply bypass the literary habits and values we know ancient authors were immersed in.

I have addressed the question of mimesis because that was the explanation originally raised by Ted Weeden and that was being overlooked in subsequent comments here.

But it should also be noted that Carrier is quite open to another explanation apart from the possibility of Mark drawing upon Josephus.

With mimesis the differences are as important as the similarities and the hypothesis of mimesis actually provides explanatory power for those differences. For example, Aeneas bypasses without any incident the area where Scylla and Charybdis threaten ships. Contrast the enormous differences in the Odyssey where engagement with these two leaves readers with all sorts of horror scenarios. Given the larger views of the two works readers quickly recognize that the differences are demonstrating how much more in favour with the gods is Aeneas.

I don't know if anyone has done a serious examination of the argument for Mark's mimesis of Josephus here. Carrier doesn't do that. He looks at the evidence and suggests two possible explanations for that evidence without (from my own perusal) coming down on the side of either one.

Further, he is saying that the Jesus ben Ananias event (whether via Josephus or independently of Josephus) appears to point to the way Mark constructed a narrative sequence (p. 428). He certainly does not suggest it is "the source" for the events or theme of the Passover narrative in Mark.

It's easy to take a detail like this from Carrier's work and slightly bend it out of context and proceed to demolish what we think it's all about and then proclaim we've demolished one of Carrier's arguments.

I'm surprising myself to find I'm defending Carrier here. I suppose I will begin to get the reputation for being an apologist for Carrier as I have in the past for Doherty. In truth, I do try to be fair to arguments as they are presented. I have also found myself in disagreement with significant points made by both Doherty and Carrier.

What is the main contrast between these two Jesuses?