Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

RE: [XTalk] Re: Jesus rescued by Josephus?

Expand Messages
  • Geoff Hudson
    ... From: Emmanuelle Main [mailto:emmanuellemain@yahoo.fr] Sent: 02 August 2003 12:58 To: crosstalk2@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [XTalk] Re: Jesus rescued by
    Message 1 of 30 , Aug 2, 2003
    • 0 Attachment
      -----Original Message-----
      From: Emmanuelle Main [mailto:emmanuellemain@...]
      Sent: 02 August 2003 12:58
      To: crosstalk2@yahoogroups.com
      Subject: Re: [XTalk] Re: Jesus rescued by Josephus?

      Karel Hanhart wrote:

      > According to Krijbolder, chances that the parallels
      > hail from different
      > sources are reduced to nil, as if one were
      > theorizing on the existence of "a
      > second earth with the tower of Pisa standing
      > straight".

      In a paper published in 1994 (in hebrew), Tal Ilan
      surveyed a group of 1986 men bearing 397 names and by
      this means, she has shown which names were most
      popular during Second Temple period. She pointed up a
      group of 9 names, each of us borne by more than 40
      people : Mattathias, Hananiah, Yonathan, Yehoshua
      (Jesus), Yohanan, Eleazar, Yehuda, Joseph and Shimon.
      888 people bore these names, that means that 44.7 % of
      the male population used 2.3% of the names at
      disposal.
      Joseph is the most popular name just after Simon :
      Simon was borne by 173 people and Joseph by 150.
      Yehoshua (Jesus) appears at the sixth place whith 71
      men bearing this name.

      In other words, such similarities as men bearing the
      same name “Joseph” — a very common name —, as
      crucifixion — a very common death penalty in those
      times — and taking the bodies from the cross — a
      necessity imposed by the Jewish Law —, such
      similarities are barely significant of the same story
      embodied in different accounts.

      Sincerely yours

      Emmanuelle Main
      Visiting Scholar
      Wolfson College
      Oxford

      But what about Karel's statement:
      "Moreover, there is a remarkable parallel between the names of the two
      Josephs. One is Josephus'Aramaic name, Joseph bar Mathea, the other Joseph
      Arimathea."

      The two names together would not be so common.

      Geoff




      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • Emmanuelle Main
      Geoff, ... names of the two Josephs. One is Josephus Aramaic name, Joseph bar Mathea, the other Joseph Arimathea. Was Josephus’ name Joseph bar
      Message 2 of 30 , Aug 3, 2003
      • 0 Attachment
        Geoff,

        You asked:
        >But what about Karel's statement:
        >"Moreover, there is a remarkable parallel between the
        names of the two Josephs. One is Josephus'Aramaic
        name, >Joseph bar Mathea, the other Joseph Arimathea."

        Was Josephus’ name "Joseph bar <i>Mathea</i>" or
        "Matti" or "Mattaï" or "Mattithyaou"? I really don’t
        know.

        For the man mentioned in the Gospels, he is called
        "Iosèph ho apo Arimathaias", "Joseph from Ramathaïm".
        Of course, it is possible to surmise that the Greek
        phrase is an inaccurate transliteration of the Aramaic
        phrase "Bar Matthaï", assuming that instead of
        "<b>B</b>ar Matthaï" the author read or heard
        "<b>A</b>rmathaï" and then wrote "Arimathaia", a name
        which was later understood as a geographical name.

        It is yet to be proved.

        Sincerely,
        Emmanuelle Main
      • Karel Hanhart
        ... From: Emmanuelle Main To: Sent: Monday, August 04, 2003 6:09 AM Subject: RE: [XTalk] Re: Jesus
        Message 3 of 30 , Aug 11, 2003
        • 0 Attachment
          ----- Original Message -----
          From: Emmanuelle Main <emmanuellemain@...>
          To: <crosstalk2@yahoogroups.com>
          Sent: Monday, August 04, 2003 6:09 AM
          Subject: RE: [XTalk] Re: Jesus rescued by Josephus?


          > Geoff,
          >
          > You asked:
          > >But what about Karel's statement:
          > >"Moreover, there is a remarkable parallel between the
          > names of the two Josephs. One is Josephus'Aramaic
          > name, >Joseph bar Mathea, the other Joseph Arimathea."
          >
          > Was Josephus' name "Joseph bar <i>Mathea</i>" or
          > "Matti" or "Mattaï" or "Mattithyaou"? I really don't
          > know....

          L.S.
          Sorry, for responding with a clarification at this late date.
          The opening phrase in which Joseph is introduced
          (Mk 15,43) is arresting. The word order and its
          content are odd: 'ELTHON Joseph apo Harimathaias....EISELTHEN
          pros ton Pilaton'. The translation Joseph, who came from
          Ramathaim or Joseph of Arimathea, does not do justice
          to the Greek. Hence the name by which this Joseph is commonly
          known: Joseph Arimathea, as if it were a proper name, is incorrect.
          Grammatically the phrase indicates that Joseph WENT to
          (the residence of) Pilate, having COME from Rama. Our English translation
          suggests erroneously that Joseph hailed from Rama.
          In Judean writings, moreover, a person is normally identified
          with the name of his/her father or mother - ben David, and not by the
          name of their hometown.

          It is this oddity that should have kindled the midrashic
          mind to wonder why the author introduces Joseph
          in this manner. Now Ramathaim is associated with
          the visionary Samuel who was to anoint David
          as king (1 Sm 1,29) and with Jer 31,15,
          where Rama is the place from where the captured
          elite from Judea was transported toward exile. Rachel
          "wept" for her children.

          We may be sure that Mark's readers knew at once or could
          know at least with the help of the presbuteros of the ecclesia
          who the author had
          in mind while we moderns are still groping in the dark.
          Emmanuelle Main (see below) is right questioning
          whether my own hunch can be proven. I have no proof
          beyond what I proposed at length elsewhere through
          cumulative reasoning: Mark wrote a bitterly ironic pun
          to point his readers at Josephus as the prime enemy
          of his own people and of the Jesus' movement in particular.
          Of all possible known opponents to Mark in the Roman
          context, insiders in his ecclesia would, I believe, come
          to think readily of Joseph bar Matthai (= Josephus)
          because of the above mentioned strange wordorder,
          and the association with biblical Ramah. For Josephus
          was indeed associated with the fall of Jerusalem
          (cmp the context of the destruction of the first temple
          and the subsequent exile from Ramah referred to
          in Jeremiah); he also was a foremost Judean,
          favored by the emperor in Rome as if he were
          a Judean prince (a possible snide remark associating him
          with the anointing of king David. Moreover, Mark calls
          this Joseph ambiguously a 'plotter' (- the Gr bouleutes
          has the double meaning here of councilor and plotter,
          cf Mk 3,6; 15,1). Finally, Josephus, a priest, chose for
          himself the Pharisaic party and his actions (- trying
          in vain to silence the voice of Jesus for good - ) takes
          place on Nisan 16, the Pharisaic date of the first day
          of the Pentecostal harvest, officially introduced for
          the Temple sacrifices by king Herod Agrippa I (41-44 CE)
          who bitterly persecuted the Christian community
          in Jerusalem. Mark on the other hand dates his opened
          tomb story (Jesus lives forever!) on the First Day of the
          Pentecostal harvest, a Sunday, according to the former
          priestly calendar (Lv 23,11.15), on which the early
          Christians celebrated the God had raised Jesus from the
          dead who was 'seen' by Peter and the others. Jesus was
          "the first fruit" of those who had fallen sleep, the first
          fruit of the Messianic age that had arrived.
          There are more arguments in favor of what in the end
          must remain circumstantial evidence, Joseph = Josephus.

          cordially

          Karel









          >
          > For the man mentioned in the Gospels, he is called
          > "Iosèph ho apo Arimathaias", "Joseph from Ramathaïm".
          > Of course, it is possible to surmise that the Greek
          > phrase is an inaccurate transliteration of the Aramaic
          > phrase "Bar Matthaï", assuming that instead of
          > "<b>B</b>ar Matthaï" the author read or heard
          > "<b>A</b>rmathaï" and then wrote "Arimathaia", a name
          > which was later understood as a geographical name.
          >
          > It is yet to be proved.
          >
          > Sincerely,
          > Emmanuelle Main
          >
          >
          >
          >
          > The XTalk Home Page is http://ntgateway.com/xtalk/
          >
          > To subscribe to Xtalk, send an e-mail to:
          crosstalk2-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
          >
          > To unsubscribe, send an e-mail to: crosstalk2-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
          >
          > List managers may be contacted directly at:
          crosstalk2-owners@yahoogroups.com
          >
          >
          >
          > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
          >
          >
        • Emmanuelle Main
          Karel, Thank you for this detailed answer. Just a few remarks. ... identified with the name of his/her father or mother - ben David, and not by the name of
          Message 4 of 30 , Aug 11, 2003
          • 0 Attachment
            Karel,

            Thank you for this detailed answer.
            Just a few remarks.

            >In Judean writings, moreover, a person is normally
            identified with the name of his/her father or mother -
            ben David, and not by the name of their hometown.

            This is right. However a person may be named after
            his/her native town. Judas Iscarioth is understood as
            meaning Judas *ish Qarioth*, Judas a man from Qarioth,
            so far as I remember. A Rabbi is called “ish Gamzo”, a
            man from Gamzo.


            >Mark wrote a bitterly ironic pun to point his readers
            at Josephus as the prime enemy of his own people and
            of the Jesus' movement in particular.

            “A bitterly ironic pun”? What do you mean? Portraying
            Josephus Flavius as Joseph coming from Ramathaim?
            What do you think of Joseph from Ramathaim? Is he
            portrayed as a “bad guy” or as a “good guy” according
            to you?


            >Mark calls this Joseph ambiguously a 'plotter' (- the
            Gr bouleutes has the double meaning here of councilor
            and plotter, cf Mk 3,6; 15,1)

            Mk 3, 6: no “bouleutes” but “hoi Pharisaioi...
            sumboulion”. The same word in 15, 1.

            >Finally, Josephus, a priest, chose for himself the
            Pharisaic party

            Steve Mason wrote a convincing paper about the
            paragraph in Vita where Josephus supposedly claims his
            choice for Pharisaism. I don’t remember the details of
            his demonstration but he pointed out a rather
            different meaning, merely that Josephus was not a
            Pharisee.

            For my part, I am dealing every day with Josephus’
            writings and I didn’t happen to find any decisive
            proof of his Pharisaism.

            Yours sincerely
            Emmanuelle Main
          • Karel Hanhart
            ... From: Emmanuelle Main To: Sent: Saturday, August 02, 2003 1:57 PM Subject: Re: [XTalk] Re: Jesus
            Message 5 of 30 , Aug 12, 2003
            • 0 Attachment
              ----- Original Message -----
              From: Emmanuelle Main <emmanuellemain@...>
              To: <crosstalk2@yahoogroups.com>
              Sent: Saturday, August 02, 2003 1:57 PM
              Subject: Re: [XTalk] Re: Jesus rescued by Josephus?


              > Karel Hanhart wrote:
              >
              > > According to Krijbolder, chances that the parallels
              > > hail from different
              > > sources are reduced to nil, as if one were
              > > theorizing on the existence of "a
              > > second earth with the tower of Pisa standing
              > > straight".

              Emmanuelle Main wrote
              >
              > In a paper published in 1994 (in hebrew), Tal Ilan
              > surveyed a group of 1986 men bearing 397 names and by
              > this means, she has shown which names were most
              > popular during Second Temple period. She pointed up a
              > group of 9 names, each of us borne by more than 40
              > people : Mattathias, Hananiah, Yonathan, Yehoshua
              > (Jesus), Yohanan, Eleazar, Yehuda, Joseph and Shimon.
              > 888 people bore these names, that means that 44.7 % of
              > the male population used 2.3% of the names at
              > disposal.
              > Joseph is the most popular name just after Simon :
              > Simon was borne by 173 people and Joseph by 150.
              > Yehoshua (Jesus) appears at the sixth place whith 71
              > men bearing this name.

              Karel responded:
              My knowledge may be underestimated, but not to the extent
              that I never read Josephus and that I had not realized that
              Joseph was a very common name. The same is true
              of Matthias or Maththias or Mattathias or however the
              Aramaic name of these persons was transliterated into Greek.

              Emmanuelle continued:
              > In other words, such similarities as men bearing the
              > same name "Joseph" - a very common name -, as
              > crucifixion - a very common death penalty in those
              > times - and taking the bodies from the cross - a
              > necessity imposed by the Jewish Law -, such
              > similarities are barely significant of the same story
              > embodied in different accounts.

              <snip>

              > I don't find any "Tower of Pisa" - any specific detail
              > - shared by both accounts.

              I didnot make this comparison; Krijbolder did. In fact
              in my book I cited him to illustrate the phenomenon
              we, exegetes, all have at times: an AHA Erlebnis!
              which may be paraphrased as a 'light-bulb' experience.
              I find it, however, quite likely that if indeed Mark
              wrote for or to the Roman community in the
              Judean section Trastevere, Josephus surely would have
              been informed and read its content

              May I refer to my post of August 11 on this topic?
              I took up Krijbolder's hunch, only at the end of my
              analysis of the entire open tomb story taking the
              Synoptics and John into account. According to
              Mark, a certain Joseph, having come from Rama, a
              'conspirer' or 'plotter' in his eyes, was an evil
              man, like Shebna in Isa 22,16, worthy of prophetic
              denunciation. What notorious person Mark
              could have meant?
              Now I stressed in my book my own hesitation
              to propose a candidate for 'Arimathea' at all.
              But if I were pressed, with the very limited knowledge
              we have, I would vote for Josephus. What tipped the
              balance - as I recall - was the very odd opening story
              in Acts 1,15ff re. the election of someone who was
              to take up the predestined roll of Judas Iscariot,
              of all persons. According to Luke, Matthias
              (as I see it, who served as highpriest during
              Agrippa's bloody persecution (Acts 12,1ff) was
              historically the real culprit. Joseph (Latin 'Josephus'
              who was indicted by Mark 15,42ff) , was guardedly
              called 'Barsabbas' (Aramaic) and ironically 'the righteous
              one' (Latin 'Justus' - note the sneering use of the
              two languages, for Josephus had been a turncoat, who
              walked off scotfree in Mark's eyes while Jesus bore
              so to speak the brunt for Israel).
              But Josephus had not persecuted the Jerusalem
              community, as Matthias had.
              In this way Luke, I think, set the record straight.
              As I reconstruct Acts 1, like the rebel leader
              Barabbas, Josephus went off scotfree, while
              his father, Matthias, died in Jerusalem while
              being run over by the Romans.
              Our problem is that we know Luke wanted to write
              about the era between the crucifixion and the temple
              destruction in the light of the Messianic faith. Having
              allied himself with the defeated Judean people, he
              had to be cautious in indicting Josephus publicly, just as
              the Poles and the Czechs etc. had to be cautious pointing
              at a traitor under the Sovjets and the Poles, and the Czechs,
              the Norwegians and the Dutch under the Nazi regime had
              to be cautious using the 'language of the persecuted'.
              It is a lesson from history we should take into account.
              Again Emmannuelle, mine is but a reconstruction. Have
              you a better explanation of the 'election' in Acts 1
              and of Judas' suicide? By all means!

              Cordially

              Karel
            • Mike Grondin
              ... The word used by Mark at 3.6 and 15.1 (SUMBOULION) does not mean a plotting session . Nor does BOULEUTHS mean plotter , although certainly counsellors
              Message 6 of 30 , Aug 12, 2003
              • 0 Attachment
                --- Karel Hanhart wrote:
                > According to Mark, a certain Joseph, having come from Rama, a
                > 'conspirer' or 'plotter' in his eyes, was an evil man, like
                > Shebna in Isa 22,16, worthy of prophetic denunciation.

                And in an earlier note:
                > ... Mark calls this Joseph ambiguously a 'plotter' (- the Gr
                > bouleutes has the double meaning here of councilor and plotter,
                > cf Mk 3,6; 15,1).

                The word used by Mark at 3.6 and 15.1 (SUMBOULION) does not mean
                'a plotting session'. Nor does BOULEUTHS mean 'plotter', although
                certainly counsellors can plot and council sessions can become
                plotting sessions. But that there is no negative implication with
                respect to this Joseph is made clear in Mark's description of him
                as a man who was "expecting the kingdom of God", and hence had
                to "take courage" to request the body from Pilate. Doesn't sound
                much like an evil "conspirer" to me.

                Regards,
                Mike Grondin
                Mt. Clemens, MI
              • Richard Anderson
                Have you a better explanation of the election in Acts 1 Although this question is directed by Karel Hanhart to Emmanuelle Main, I do have a suggestion of a
                Message 7 of 30 , Aug 12, 2003
                • 0 Attachment
                  Have
                  you a better explanation of the 'election' in Acts 1

                  Although this question is directed by Karel Hanhart to Emmanuelle Main, I do
                  have a suggestion of a better explanation:

                  Luke considers the high priests to be wicked tenants and he wants to
                  contrasts the election of the replacement of Judas with the selection of the
                  high priests by the Romans. Matthias was chosen by God to replace Judas
                  while the other Matthias was chosen by a Roman official. Of greater
                  significance to Theophilus, the other Matthias was the son of Theophilus who
                  became high priest in the sixties. Only Luke tells the story of the first
                  high priest who made a golden calf and this is told to yet another high
                  priest named Jonathan who along with the temple establishment proceed to
                  stone Stephen. This story is linked to the parable of the wicked tenants
                  where Luke identifies the high priests as the wicked tenants.

                  > In a paper published in 1994 (in Hebrew), Tal Ilan
                  > surveyed a group of 1986 men bearing 397 names and by
                  > this means, she has shown which names were most
                  > popular during Second Temple period.

                  In Tal Ilan's study published in 1994 (in Hebrew), Theophilus is shown to be
                  a rare first century Jewish name. It also happens to be the name of the high
                  priest who served 37-42 CE and followed the abbreviated (3-5 month) high
                  priesthood of Jonathan. Of even greater significance is the connection of
                  this name with the Johanna on an ossuary wherein Johanna is the
                  granddaughter of Theophilus the high priest (see posting by John Lupia for
                  details of the ossuary). Only Luke includes Johanna as one of the women and
                  does so in 8:3 and 24:10. The second occurrence is in the midst of a
                  chiastic structure with Johanna as the center thereof. One of the purpose
                  of a chiastic structure is to highlight a relatively unknown person.

                  Richard H. Anderson
                • Geoff Hudson
                  ... From: Richard Anderson [mailto:randerson58@comcast.net] Sent: 12 August 2003 13:15 To: crosstalk2@yahoogroups.com Subject: [XTalk] Re: Matthias was Jesus
                  Message 8 of 30 , Aug 12, 2003
                  • 0 Attachment
                    -----Original Message-----
                    From: Richard Anderson [mailto:randerson58@...]
                    Sent: 12 August 2003 13:15
                    To: crosstalk2@yahoogroups.com
                    Subject: [XTalk] Re: Matthias was Jesus rescued by Josephus?


                    Have
                    you a better explanation of the 'election' in Acts 1

                    Although this question is directed by Karel Hanhart to Emmanuelle Main, I
                    do
                    have a suggestion of a better explanation:

                    Richard:
                    Luke considers the high priests to be wicked tenants and he wants to
                    contrasts the election of the replacement of Judas with the selection of
                    the
                    high priests by the Romans. Matthias was chosen by God to replace Judas
                    while the other Matthias was chosen by a Roman official.

                    Geoff:
                    Richard, where does it imply or say that "the other Matthias was chosen by
                    a Roman official" to be a high priest?

                    The election strikes me more as one to replace HJ in "his place of
                    leadership" (Acts 1:20) after his death. This of course would make Judas
                    spurious.

                    If there was one betrayer who committed suicide, it could have been Pilate
                    unwilling to confront Tiberias or Vitellius (Ant.18:4:2). I have to suspect
                    that the command given by Tiberias to Vitellius to bring "Aretas" in bonds
                    or his head (Ant.18:5:1) was in fact a command to do just that to Pilate.


                    I also have to suspect that the person elected in Acts 1 was not Matthias
                    (who may have been the father of Josephus - Josephus may not have been born
                    at the time of this election, 36-37CE?), and not a Joseph, but a James who
                    did have a reputation as a leader of the church. Barsabbas may have been a
                    corruption of son of Rechab, and Justus of Just.

                    It is possible that only one man was proposed and he was elected by a
                    majority vote. In this case, the election of Matthias from "two men" would
                    be dissimulation.

                    And it is Summer.

                    Geoff










                    [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                  • lee dahn
                    Richard, You said: The second occurrence [of Johanna in Luke s Gospel] is in the midst of a chiastic structure with Johanna as the center thereof. One of the
                    Message 9 of 30 , Aug 12, 2003
                    • 0 Attachment
                      Richard,

                      You said: "The second occurrence [of Johanna in Luke's Gospel] is in the midst of a chiastic structure with Johanna as the center thereof. One of the purpose of a chiastic structure is to highlight a relatively unknown person."

                      This is true, as we have discussed before. But the significance in this case would not be to highlight a relatively unknown person (as Johanna would have been well-known to Theolphilus, her grandfather), but rather to demonstrate to Theophilus that these events (namely, the resurrection) actually happened. This demonstration only works for Luke because Johanna is significant for Theophilus. Otherwise, focus on Johanna makes no sense. Luke is trying to convince Theophilus that these events actually happened (cf Lk1.1-4).

                      Lee Dahn


                      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                    • Richard Anderson
                      Geoff: Richard, where does it imply or say that the other Matthias was chosen by a Roman official to be a high priest? All of the high priests who served in
                      Message 10 of 30 , Aug 12, 2003
                      • 0 Attachment
                        Geoff:
                        Richard, where does it imply or say that "the other Matthias was chosen by
                        a Roman official" to be a high priest?

                        All of the high priests who served in the last 100 years before the
                        destruction of the Temple where selected from a designated Roman official.
                        See Josephus.

                        Richard H. Anderson
                      • Richard Anderson
                        correction: were selected by instead of where selected from Richard H. Anderson Geoff: Richard, where does it imply or say that the other Matthias was
                        Message 11 of 30 , Aug 12, 2003
                        • 0 Attachment
                          correction: "were selected by" instead of "where selected from"
                          Richard H. Anderson


                          Geoff:
                          Richard, where does it imply or say that "the other Matthias was chosen by
                          a Roman official" to be a high priest?

                          All of the high priests who served in the last 100 years before the
                          destruction of the Temple where selected from a designated Roman official.
                          See Josephus.

                          Richard H. Anderson
                        • Geoff Hudson
                          ... From: Richard Anderson [mailto:randerson58@comcast.net] Sent: 12 August 2003 16:52 To: crosstalk2@yahoogroups.com Subject: RE: [XTalk] Re: Matthias was
                          Message 12 of 30 , Aug 12, 2003
                          • 0 Attachment
                            -----Original Message-----
                            From: Richard Anderson [mailto:randerson58@...]
                            Sent: 12 August 2003 16:52
                            To: crosstalk2@yahoogroups.com
                            Subject: RE: [XTalk] Re: Matthias was Jesus rescued by Josephus?


                            Geoff:
                            Richard, where does it imply or say that "the other Matthias was chosen
                            by
                            a Roman official" to be a high priest?

                            Richard:
                            All of the high priests who served in the last 100 years before the
                            destruction of the Temple where selected from a designated Roman official.
                            See Josephus.

                            Geoff:
                            I assume by a Roman official you mean a Jewish king for at least some of
                            the time.

                            What is puzzling me is where I read in Ant.20:1:3 that Herod king of
                            Chalcis acquired the responsibility for choosing the high priest after the
                            death of his brother Agrippa 1. Was this a sudden change in policy on the
                            part of Claudius who was a close friend of Herod of Chalcis? If so, who
                            actually appointed the high priests before? Was it the emperor himself? Or,
                            was it Agrippa 1?

                            The apparent mistake made by the writer has the descendants of Herod of
                            Chalcis responsible for choosing the high priests until the end of the war.
                            But later, Agrippa 2 appears to appoint high priests. There appears to be
                            some chicanery.



                            Geoff




                            [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                          • Karel Hanhart
                            ... From: Mike Grondin To: Sent: Tuesday, August 12, 2003 2:03 PM Subject: [XTalk] Re: Jesus rescued by
                            Message 13 of 30 , Aug 12, 2003
                            • 0 Attachment
                              ----- Original Message -----
                              From: Mike Grondin <mwgrondin@...>
                              To: <crosstalk2@yahoogroups.com>
                              Sent: Tuesday, August 12, 2003 2:03 PM
                              Subject: [XTalk] Re: Jesus rescued by Josephus?


                              > --- Karel Hanhart wrote:
                              > > According to Mark, a certain Joseph, having come from Rama, a
                              > > 'conspirer' or 'plotter' in his eyes, was an evil man, like
                              > > Shebna in Isa 22,16, worthy of prophetic denunciation.
                              >
                              > And in an earlier note:
                              > > ... Mark calls this Joseph ambiguously a 'plotter' (- the Gr
                              > > bouleutes has the double meaning here of councilor and plotter,
                              > > cf Mk 3,6; 15,1).
                              >
                              > The word used by Mark at 3.6 and 15.1 (SUMBOULION) does not mean
                              > 'a plotting session'.

                              Karel:
                              It is generally recognized that SUMBOULION in this case is a Latinism.
                              In Latin is does have this double measning. Are you saying that in 3,6
                              SUMBOULION does not mean 'conspiracy'?

                              Mike:
                              Nor does BOULEUTHS mean 'plotter', although
                              > certainly counsellors can plot and council sessions can become
                              > plotting sessions. But that there is no negative implication with
                              > respect to this Joseph is made clear in Mark's description of him
                              > as a man who was "expecting the kingdom of God",

                              Karel:
                              Mark's remark was ironic, I think: Joseph "was ALSO expecting the kingdom".
                              Were not all Judeans praying that the "kingdom would be restored to
                              Israel" (cmp Acts 1,6)? The debate that the apostles had with persons
                              like this Joseph was: in what way the kingdom should be restored -
                              not through a violent uprising!
                              By citing explicitly lxx Isa 22,16 Mark leaves his readers in no doubt
                              that Joseph, who came from Rama, was to be denounced on a par
                              with Shebna.

                              cordially,

                              Karel
                            • Karel Hanhart
                              ... From: Richard Anderson To: Sent: Tuesday, August 12, 2003 2:14 PM Subject: [XTalk] Re: Matthias was
                              Message 14 of 30 , Aug 13, 2003
                              • 0 Attachment
                                ----- Original Message -----
                                From: Richard Anderson <randerson58@...>
                                To: <crosstalk2@yahoogroups.com>
                                Sent: Tuesday, August 12, 2003 2:14 PM
                                Subject: [XTalk] Re: Matthias was Jesus rescued by Josephus?


                                > Have
                                > you a better explanation of the 'election' in Acts 1
                                >
                                > Although this question is directed by Karel Hanhart to Emmanuelle Main, I
                                do
                                > have a suggestion of a better explanation:
                                >
                                > Luke considers the high priests to be wicked tenants and he wants to
                                > contrasts the election of the replacement of Judas with the selection of
                                the
                                > high priests by the Romans. Matthias was chosen by God to replace Judas
                                > while the other Matthias was chosen by a Roman official.

                                Karel's response to Richard:
                                Am I right that you consider Luke's account of Jesus' ascemsion into heaven,
                                and of
                                Judas' suicide and the election for his replacement to be historical events?
                                For in that case you are introducing a "Matthias chosen by God" to replace a
                                "Matthias chosen by a Roman official". However, Luke doesnot say so - he
                                wrote Matthias replaces Judas Iscariot. Moreobver, through the citation of
                                Psalm 69,26 his Acts 1,20 the suicide
                                is told in the context of the fall of Jerusalem. Moreover, as many on this
                                list have argued, Iscariot is in all Gospels a fictive person. Mark
                                introduced him and his "kiss" (his only deed) to symbolize the role of
                                certain high priests of the house of Annas, such as Caiaphas, Matthias in ±
                                41 CE). He introduced
                                their combined hostile acts because, as Mark put it, they handed over "the
                                huios tou anthropou to the nations" (Mk 10,33f.).
                                Mark wrote a 'Passover' drama of God's Messiah and of God's people who had
                                to go once again into exile. In this passover drama Judas' role and kiss (on
                                behalf of Caiaphas) is symbolically indispensable for the plot of the story.

                                Richard continued:
                                > significance to Theophilus, the other Matthias was the son of Theophilus
                                who
                                > became high priest in the sixties. Only Luke tells the story of the first
                                > high priest who made a golden calf and this is told to yet another high
                                > priest named Jonathan who along with the temple establishment proceed to
                                > stone Stephen. This story is linked to the parable of the wicked tenants
                                > where Luke identifies the high priests as the wicked tenants.

                                I would agree with you that certain highpriests were guilty in the eyes of
                                God according to the Gospel authors. 2000 years later we are debating which
                                highhpriests they were, for unfortuately we are left completely in the
                                dark - deliberately, I think - by Josephus of what happened to the sizable
                                early Jesus' movement and to the Jerusalem community before 70.

                                Richard:
                                > > In a paper published in 1994 (in Hebrew), Tal Ilan
                                > > surveyed a group of 1986 men bearing 397 names and by
                                > > this means, she has shown which names were most
                                > > popular during Second Temple period.
                                >
                                > In Tal Ilan's study published in 1994 (in Hebrew), Theophilus is shown to
                                be
                                > a rare first century Jewish name. It also happens to be the name of the
                                high
                                > priest who served 37-42 CE and followed the abbreviated (3-5 month) high
                                > priesthood of Jonathan. Of even greater significance is the connection of
                                > this name with the Johanna on an ossuary wherein Johanna is the
                                > granddaughter of Theophilus the high priest (see posting by John Lupia for
                                > details of the ossuary). Only Luke includes Johanna as one of the women
                                and
                                > does so in 8:3 and 24:10. The second occurrence is in the midst of a
                                > chiastic structure with Johanna as the center thereof. One of the purpose
                                > of a chiastic structure is to highlight a relatively unknown person.

                                Karel:
                                I am not sure how you want to relate Theophilus and Joanna to the election
                                of Matthias. Luke doesnot mention them here. Moreover, you have not
                                explained why Luke in Acts 1,23 describes the other candidate Joseph in this
                                'election ?' oddly as "Joseph": as 'Barsabbas' and 'also called 'Justus'.
                                Whence the emphasis on Joseph? One asks oneself, why Matthias in stead has
                                no bynames at all? That's the question I tried to address.

                                cordially

                                Karel


                                > Richard H. Anderson
                                >
                                >
                                >
                                >
                                >
                                > The XTalk Home Page is http://ntgateway.com/xtalk/
                                >
                                > To subscribe to Xtalk, send an e-mail to:
                                crosstalk2-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
                                >
                                > To unsubscribe, send an e-mail to: crosstalk2-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
                                >
                                > List managers may be contacted directly at:
                                crosstalk2-owners@yahoogroups.com
                                >
                                >
                                >
                                > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
                                >
                                >
                              • Geoff Hudson
                                ... From: Karel Hanhart [mailto:K.Hanhart@net.HCC.nl] Sent: 13 August 2003 04:38 To: crosstalk2@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [XTalk] Re: Jesus rescued by
                                Message 15 of 30 , Aug 13, 2003
                                • 0 Attachment
                                  -----Original Message-----
                                  From: Karel Hanhart [mailto:K.Hanhart@...]
                                  Sent: 13 August 2003 04:38
                                  To: crosstalk2@yahoogroups.com
                                  Subject: Re: [XTalk] Re: Jesus rescued by Josephus?



                                  Were not all Judeans praying that the "kingdom would be restored to
                                  Israel" (cmp Acts 1,6)?

                                  cordially,

                                  Karel


                                  Acts 1:5 is concerned with the Spirit for the disciples only. So in the
                                  original of Acts 1:6, may be it was the Spirit that was yet to be restored
                                  to Israel as a nation, not the kingdom. Some Judeans thought that the
                                  restoration of the Spirit was more important than the restoration of the
                                  kingdom, but the editor gave the opposite impression.

                                  Geoff
                                • Karel Hanhart
                                  ... From: Emmanuelle Main To: Sent: Tuesday, August 12, 2003 4:09 AM Subject: Re: [XTalk] Re: Jesus
                                  Message 16 of 30 , Aug 13, 2003
                                  • 0 Attachment
                                    ----- Original Message -----
                                    From: Emmanuelle Main <emmanuellemain@...>
                                    To: <crosstalk2@yahoogroups.com>
                                    Sent: Tuesday, August 12, 2003 4:09 AM
                                    Subject: Re: [XTalk] Re: Jesus rescued by Josephus?


                                    > Karel,
                                    >
                                    > Thank you for this detailed answer.
                                    > Just a few remarks.
                                    >
                                    > >In Judean writings, moreover, a person is normally
                                    > identified with the name of his/her father or mother -
                                    > ben David, and not by the name of their hometown.
                                    >
                                    > This is right. However a person may be named after
                                    > his/her native town. Judas Iscarioth is understood as
                                    > meaning Judas *ish Qarioth*, Judas a man from Qarioth,
                                    > so far as I remember. A Rabbi is called "ish Gamzo", a
                                    > man from Gamzo.

                                    Karel's response:

                                    Yes, I was aware that there are exceptions

                                    Emmanuelle continued:

                                    > >Mark wrote a bitterly ironic pun to point his readers
                                    > at Josephus as the prime enemy of his own people and
                                    > of the Jesus' movement in particular.
                                    >
                                    > "A bitterly ironic pun"? What do you mean? Portraying
                                    > Josephus Flavius as Joseph coming from Ramathaim?
                                    > What do you think of Joseph from Ramathaim? Is he
                                    > portrayed as a "bad guy" or as a "good guy" according
                                    > to you?

                                    > >Mark calls this Joseph ambiguously a 'plotter' (- the
                                    > Gr bouleutes has the double meaning here of councilor
                                    > and plotter, cf Mk 3,6; 15,1)
                                    >
                                    > Mk 3, 6: no "bouleutes" but "hoi Pharisaioi...
                                    > sumboulion". The same word in 15, 1.

                                    Karel's response:

                                    Emmanuelle, You probably entered this list at a late date.
                                    I dare not repeat them here risking to annoy our readers.
                                    May I refer you to the last posts. beginning from the
                                    post in which I proposed 15 theses summarizing a rather
                                    large book.

                                    > >Finally, Josephus, a priest, chose for himself the
                                    > Pharisaic party
                                    >
                                    > Steve Mason wrote a convincing paper about the
                                    > paragraph in Vita where Josephus supposedly claims his
                                    > choice for Pharisaism. I don't remember the details of
                                    > his demonstration but he pointed out a rather
                                    > different meaning, merely that Josephus was not a
                                    > Pharisee.

                                    This may be interesting. Thus far, as I recall, he chose
                                    the Pharisaic party.

                                    cordially,

                                    Karel
                                  • lee dahn
                                    Karel, I realize you are responding to Richard. But I couldn t help but jump in for a moment. Please forgive me if I m out of line. With Richard, I think, I
                                    Message 17 of 30 , Aug 13, 2003
                                    • 0 Attachment
                                      Karel,

                                      I realize you are responding to Richard. But I couldn't help but jump in for a moment. Please forgive me if I'm out of line.

                                      With Richard, I think, I believe that Luke's mention (fictitious or not) of the 'election' of Matthias in Acts1 is a tool for Luke to 'get to' Theophilus (the HP from 37-41CE). Theophilus had a son, I believe, named Matthias (see Josephus). This Matthias was elected HP, and was the second-to-last HP (the last being Phannaeus, I think) before the destruction of the Temple in 70. Phannaeus, the last HP, was elected by the casting of lot (again, Josephus says this). It might be a leap, but so might have Matthias. If so (and that is a relatively big if), the Luke is saying to Theophilus, "What the priesthood says they do with GOd's approval is wicked. Here, with [this] Matthias, we are reconstituting the 12 with God's intervention and approval." So says the Acts account. So, the mention of the electing of Matthias parallels the priestly saga, though with God's hand in it, thus legitimizing it. That is why Luke does not give any further name information about this Matthias in
                                      Acts 1. He often does give bynames for his characters (i.e. john mark, the joseph of Acts 1, titius justus). But, if Luke were to give his Matthias a byname, this would dissociate him with Theophilus' son Matthias and thus not 'hit home' with his point to Theophilus: the point being, "This is a legitimate movement, approved by God in the Spirit and various other ways (such as in the instance of electing Matthias with God's intervention). Theophilus, the priesthood is corrupt. Please consider the legitimacy of this Jesus-movement." That is how Theophilus and Johanna are related to Matthias: Annus (HP from 8-15CE) had 5 children who were HP (Theophilus, Annanus, Jonathan, Matthias, and one other whose name escapes me); also, there was one son-in-law (Theophilus' brother-in-law), Chaiaphas; Theophilus had a granddaughter, Johanna, and a son, Matthias (HP in the 60s). Thus the relation.


                                      Lee Dahn
                                      ldahn@...

                                      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                    • Richard Anderson
                                      ... heaven, ... events? Luke considers these events to be historical and he recounts them showing Theophilus that his own granddaughter is one of the people
                                      Message 18 of 30 , Aug 13, 2003
                                      • 0 Attachment
                                        Karel, greetings:
                                        >Am I right that you consider Luke's account of Jesus' ascemsion into
                                        heaven,
                                        >and of
                                        >Judas' suicide and the election for his replacement to be historical
                                        events?

                                        Luke considers these events to be historical and he recounts them showing
                                        Theophilus that his own granddaughter is one of the people proclaiming the
                                        truth of the resurrection. Luke does so to demonstrate to Theophilus "the
                                        things accomplished among us."

                                        Recounting the election of Matthias is an attention getting device because
                                        Theophilus also knows a man named Matthias who is his own son. The election
                                        also serves the purposes of having the story of the replacement of Judas
                                        reaffirm the authority granted to the apostles in Lk. 22 and demonstrating
                                        the restoration of the 12, that according to Isa. 49:1-14 and Ezek.
                                        47:13-48:29, has to happen before the outpouring of the Spirit "upon the
                                        house of Israel." Thus we subsequently find Peter literally serving as
                                        judge over Ananias and Sapphira thus confirming Lk. 22:30.

                                        The election of Matthias is the only event that is recounted by Luke that
                                        happens between the ascension and the outpouring of the Spirit further
                                        emphasizing its significance.

                                        I said Luke . . . wants to > contrasts the election of the replacement of
                                        Judas with the >selection of the > high priests by the Romans. Matthias was
                                        chosen by God to replace Judas
                                        > while the other Matthias was chosen by a Roman official. I did not say
                                        "Matthias chosen by God" to replace a "Matthias chosen by a Roman official".
                                        I agree that Matthias replaces Judas Iscariot.

                                        I responded initially because I have a better explanation of the first
                                        chapter of Acts. However that explanation needs to recognize who Theophilus
                                        is and why Luke addresses this to him using Johanna as one of the witnesses.


                                        Richard H. Anderson
                                      • Mike Grondin
                                        ... Well, if so, you couldn t prove it by Acts 1.6, cuz there Jesus is talking to the Apostles alone. Unless you want to claim that the apostles were
                                        Message 19 of 30 , Aug 13, 2003
                                        • 0 Attachment
                                          --- Karel Hanhart wrote:
                                          > Mark's remark was ironic, I think: Joseph "was ALSO expecting
                                          > the kingdom". Were not all Judeans praying that the "kingdom
                                          > would be restored to Israel" (cmp Acts 1,6)?

                                          Well, if so, you couldn't prove it by Acts 1.6, cuz there Jesus
                                          is talking to the Apostles alone. Unless you want to claim that
                                          the apostles were representative of "all Judeans"?

                                          > The debate that the apostles had with persons like this Joseph
                                          > was: in what way the kingdom should be restored - not through a
                                          > violent uprising!

                                          Who said the apostles had some debate with "persons like this
                                          Joseph" with respect to the nature of the kingdom? Acts 1.6 didn't.
                                          Mark didn't. In fact, if Mark was familiar with the details of the
                                          uprising, he would have known that the HP and most of the temple
                                          leadership were opposed to it. Many of them were killed because
                                          they either tried to stop it or weren't properly sympathetic to it.
                                          And yet here you suppose that "persons like this Joseph" - a man
                                          that Mark describes as "a prominent (perhaps 'honorable') member
                                          of the Council" - were in FAVOR of a violent uprising! The mind
                                          boggles.

                                          So what reason do we have for supposing that Mark was engaging in
                                          irony, other than that the words he used don't fit the theory?

                                          > By citing explicitly lxx Isa 22,16 Mark leaves his readers in no
                                          > doubt that Joseph, who came from Rama, was to be denounced on a
                                          > par with Shebna.

                                          I'm afraid that I'm with those who see only a minimal, incidental
                                          connection with Isa 22.16. ANY mention of a tomb hewn from rock
                                          would have some incidental connection with another mention of
                                          a tomb hewn from rock. What is there to indicate that Mark regarded
                                          Joseph as a Shebna-type character? If Mark thought that Joseph was
                                          to be denounced, why didn't he do it? - or at least make it clearer
                                          that he should be denounced? Surely, having a rock-hewn tomb was no
                                          sign of being a Shebna - unless every wealthy man was a Shebna.
                                          Evidently, Mark's "irony" was so subtle that everybody - even his
                                          his closest readers - missed it. Far from having "no doubt that
                                          Joseph ... was to be denounced", ISTM that they had no doubt of
                                          the very opposite - that Joseph was a sort of incidental hero who
                                          rescued the body of Jesus from desecration and/or ignoble burial.

                                          Regards,
                                          Mike Grondin
                                        • Karel Hanhart
                                          ... From: Mike Grondin To: Sent: Thursday, August 14, 2003 6:27 AM Subject: [XTalk] Re: Jesus rescued by
                                          Message 20 of 30 , Aug 14, 2003
                                          • 0 Attachment
                                            ----- Original Message -----
                                            From: Mike Grondin <mwgrondin@...>
                                            To: <crosstalk2@yahoogroups.com>
                                            Sent: Thursday, August 14, 2003 6:27 AM
                                            Subject: [XTalk] Re: Jesus rescued by Josephus?


                                            > --- Karel Hanhart wrote:
                                            > > Mark's remark was ironic, I think: Joseph "was ALSO expecting
                                            > > the kingdom". Were not all Judeans praying that the "kingdom
                                            > > would be restored to Israel" (cmp Acts 1,6)?
                                            >
                                            > Well, if so, you couldn't prove it by Acts 1.6, cuz there Jesus
                                            > is talking to the Apostles alone. Unless you want to claim that
                                            > the apostles were representative of "all Judeans"?

                                            Some of the reasons that many if not most Judeans longed for restoration
                                            of the kingdom are:
                                            a) the victory after the war of liberation under Judas Maccabaeus
                                            was (and still is) deeply ingrained in Jewish memory.
                                            The brutal
                                            regime of the Roman governor Pilate must have kindled the
                                            hope of liberation;
                                            b) the very concept 'huios tou anthropou' is taken from the
                                            vision of Daniel as has the phrase 'coming on the clouds of
                                            heaven'. The 'parousia expectation' certasinly was not exclusively a
                                            christian one;
                                            c) the crowds at the entry into the tample (Mk 11) believed
                                            the kingdom of David would be restored;

                                            > > The debate that the apostles had with persons like this Joseph
                                            > > was: in what way the kingdom should be restored - not through a
                                            > > violent uprising!

                                            'Love even of an enemy' appears to be typical for the Jesus' movement;
                                            They apparently didnot participate in the defence of Jerusalem but
                                            left the city (for Pella?). It may well be that other Judeans would
                                            have regarded the christtians to be cowards for their stand vis a vis
                                            the Romans.

                                            > Who said the apostles had some debate with "persons like this
                                            > Joseph" with respect to the nature of the kingdom? Acts 1.6 didn't.

                                            Luke was not 'recording' history like a modern day interviewer, as
                                            you well know. No, apostles "did not debate" with Joseph.
                                            However, if indeed (it is a surmise) Joseph stands for Josephus
                                            in Mark, Acts 1,6 and the enigmatic text of Acts 1,23 re. Joseph,
                                            would both make perfect sense. Josephus was a general in the
                                            war of liberation or in the rebellion, if you will.

                                            > Mark didn't. In fact, if Mark was familiar with the details of the
                                            > uprising, he would have known that the HP and most of the temple
                                            > leadership were opposed to it.

                                            It was not I but Martin Goodman, a Jewish scholar, who concluded
                                            this. Moreover, Josephus was proud to be a prominent member
                                            in the priestly class, as we know from his Vita. Some scholars even think he
                                            secretly hope he would be appointed high priest by the emperor.

                                            <snip>

                                            > > By citing explicitly lxx Isa 22,16 Mark leaves his readers in no
                                            > > doubt that Joseph, who came from Rama, was to be denounced on a
                                            > > par with Shebna.
                                            >
                                            > I'm afraid that I'm with those who see only a minimal, incidental
                                            > connection with Isa 22.16.

                                            Sorry, Mike, I have listed in my post to Brian some of the
                                            reasons why I believe Mark wrote a midrash. If that does
                                            not convince you - in fact, you wrote "your mind boggles"-,
                                            shall we then agree to disagree because of our premises?
                                            With this I am not trying to cut off further debate. With all due
                                            respect, however, I may expect to debate with opponents having
                                            some knowledge of Jewish literature, who nevertheless disagree
                                            with my interpretation. Speaking of 'common ground' I find it
                                            difficult to debate with an opponent who simply has no inkling
                                            of what is meant by midrash and therefore are baffled when I
                                            have reached certain conclusions with respect to the passages
                                            from Tenach that Mark refered to.
                                            Mark was (a) either a Judean, familiar with Judean methods of
                                            communication and culture when it comes to matters of faith
                                            in the God of Abraham and Moses
                                            or
                                            (b) he was a Greek or Roman who only half understood what
                                            the early Judean tradition had handed him.
                                            If you vote for the latter, our premises clash.

                                            cordially,

                                            Karel
                                          • Karel Hanhart
                                            ... From: lee dahn To: Sent: Wednesday, August 13, 2003 6:39 PM Subject: Re: [XTalk] Re: Matthias was Jesus
                                            Message 21 of 30 , Oct 14, 2003
                                            • 0 Attachment
                                              ----- Original Message -----
                                              From: lee dahn <lee_dahn@...>
                                              To: <crosstalk2@yahoogroups.com>
                                              Sent: Wednesday, August 13, 2003 6:39 PM
                                              Subject: Re: [XTalk] Re: Matthias was Jesus rescued by Josephus?


                                              > Karel,
                                              >
                                              > I realize you are responding to Richard. But I couldn't help but jump in
                                              for a moment. Please forgive me if I'm out of line.
                                              >
                                              > With Richard, I think, I believe that Luke's mention (fictitious or not)
                                              of the 'election' of Matthias in Acts1 is a tool for Luke to 'get to'
                                              Theophilus (the HP from 37-41CE).

                                              My interpretation is rather that Luke in his arresting opening story in Acts
                                              1 re. an 'election' of someone to replace Judas, declares that the high
                                              priest Matthias shoiuld be regarded as the 'Judas' of the apostolic period
                                              after the crucifixion. Under his regime it appearfs the persecution of the
                                              ecclesia took place (Acts 12).

                                              with cordial greetings.

                                              Karel
                                            • Karel Hanhart
                                              ... From: Geoff Hudson To: Sent: Saturday, August 02, 2003 5:14 PM Subject: RE: [XTalk] Re: Jesus
                                              Message 22 of 30 , Oct 21, 2003
                                              • 0 Attachment
                                                ----- Original Message -----
                                                From: Geoff Hudson <geoff.hudson@...>
                                                To: <crosstalk2@yahoogroups.com>
                                                Sent: Saturday, August 02, 2003 5:14 PM
                                                Subject: RE: [XTalk] Re: Jesus rescued by Josephus?


                                                -----Original Message-----
                                                From: Emmanuelle Main [mailto:emmanuellemain@...]
                                                Sent: 02 August 2003 12:58
                                                To: crosstalk2@yahoogroups.com
                                                Subject: Re: [XTalk] Re: Jesus rescued by Josephus?

                                                Karel Hanhart wrote:

                                                > According to Krijbolder, chances that the parallels
                                                > hail from different
                                                > sources are reduced to nil, as if one were
                                                > theorizing on the existence of "a
                                                > second earth with the tower of Pisa standing
                                                > straight".

                                                In a paper published in 1994 (in hebrew), Tal Ilan
                                                surveyed a group of 1986 men bearing 397 names and by
                                                this means, she has shown which names were most
                                                popular during Second Temple period. She pointed up a
                                                group of 9 names, each of us borne by more than 40
                                                people : Mattathias, Hananiah, Yonathan, Yehoshua
                                                (Jesus), Yohanan, Eleazar, Yehuda, Joseph and Shimon.
                                                888 people bore these names, that means that 44.7 % of
                                                the male population used 2.3% of the names at
                                                disposal.
                                                Joseph is the most popular name just after Simon :
                                                Simon was borne by 173 people and Joseph by 150.
                                                Yehoshua (Jesus) appears at the sixth place whith 71
                                                men bearing this name.

                                                In other words, such similarities as men bearing the
                                                same name "Joseph" - a very common name -, as
                                                crucifixion - a very common death penalty in those
                                                times - and taking the bodies from the cross - a
                                                necessity imposed by the Jewish Law -, such
                                                similarities are barely significant of the same story
                                                embodied in different accounts.

                                                Sincerely yours

                                                Emmanuelle Main
                                                Visiting Scholar
                                                Wolfson College
                                                Oxford

                                                Geoff Hudson replied:

                                                But what about Karel's statement:
                                                "Moreover, there is a remarkable parallel between the names of the two
                                                Josephs. One is Josephus'Aramaic name, Joseph bar Mathea, the other Joseph
                                                Arimathea."

                                                The two names together would not be so common.

                                                Karel's response:

                                                My curiosity concerning Joseph's identity is the fact that Mark's midrash on
                                                LXX Isa 22,16 in 15, 46 requires looking for a person whose behavior is
                                                similar to Sebna (hence condemned by the prophet Isaiah).

                                                To put this remark in context, I had written:
                                                My interpretation is rather that Luke in his arresting opening story in Acts
                                                1 re. an 'election' of someone to REPLACE Judas, declares that the high
                                                priest Matthias should be regarded as the 'Judas' of the apostolic period
                                                after the crucifixion. Under his regime it appears the persecution of the
                                                ecclesia took place (Acts 12)....Luke was not 'recording' history like a
                                                modern day interviewer, as you well know...If indeed ..Joseph bar Matthias -
                                                who ALSO (Gr. kai) expected the kingdom of God (cmp Acts 1,6) stands for
                                                Josephus in Mark 15,43, the enigmatic text of Acts 1,23 re. Joseph, would
                                                ...make perfect sense. Josephus was a general in the war of liberation or in
                                                the rebellion, if you will. Mark calls this Joseph ambiguously a 'plotter'
                                                (- the Gr bouleutes has the double meaning here of councilor and plotter-).
                                                ...

                                                In the eyes of Mark's Roman persecuted community, Joseph bar Matthias, alias
                                                Flavius Josephus, in favor with the emperor and residing in luxury in Rome,
                                                could well be considered to be the very opposite of Peter (last named in
                                                the gospel, 16,7). Had not Simon Peter lost his life under Nero? In the
                                                structure of the epilogue Joseph bar Mathea is first named in Mark's
                                                epilogue (15,43). It cannot be more than a hypothesis. But if Josephus'
                                                father was indeed the Matthias. - under whose high priestly reign the mother
                                                ecclesia had been bitterly persecuted (12,1) -, Josephus' near absolute
                                                silence on the rapid expansion of the apostolic movement in the period of
                                                30 - 70 CE is readily explained. He WANTED to ignore it and put it to rest.

                                                cordially,

                                                Karel

                                                [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]




                                                The XTalk Home Page is http://ntgateway.com/xtalk/

                                                To subscribe to Xtalk, send an e-mail to:
                                                crosstalk2-subscribe@yahoogroups.com

                                                To unsubscribe, send an e-mail to: crosstalk2-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

                                                List managers may be contacted directly at:
                                                crosstalk2-owners@yahoogroups.com



                                                Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
                                              Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.