Help: Did Jesus start his ministry before or after John's death?

  • Thread starter Thread starter minichibi
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I haven’t seen any serious scholar so far hypothesizing that John was a zealot, except from Hagan… oh, wait, Hagan isn’t a scholar… ok. I know it doesn’t mean anything, often an amateur can see things scholars with high credentials can’t, but hey you can’t infer that from Josephus. All “historical jesus” hypothesis fall in the same trap: none of them are agnostic enough. Hagan is biased and unilateral, not agnostic. He doesn’t consider the church fathers for one because he didn’t consider them “serious enough”. Scholars give too much credit to Josephus while we all know his work has several inaccuracies. He is an important source of historical study, if I may, but that doesn’t make him accurate. Not only he didn’t consider the church fathers, as well as he didn’t consider the apocryphal gospels, or even the parallel sects traditions, such as the mandeans. Why? Because they aren’t “academically serious” to him. Cross Josephus with the fathers, parallel sects, apocriphal gospels, etc. and Hagan’s theory is all torn apart. IMHO, if you want to trace the historical John, studying the evolution of the mandean sect is far more accurate than if one infers from a couple of lines from Josephus that may have several unknown interpolations. So far, there’s no historical Jesus, historical John theory that can’t be refuted - “secular” or “conservative”, although it’s been much easier to refute the secular.
Why would you think that the Mandaeans are valuable for studying the historical John the Baptizer or his teachings just because they revere him?

I know and agree that you can’t take what Josephus writes entirely on face value (that’s what higher criticism is for), but the fact is, Josephus is our only contemporary literary source for the period in question.
 
I scanned a few pages from Hagan but the upload failed. PDF file?

Hagan is not a catholic. He limits his sources to the best and most reliable. It is far more of a Roman history book, with early Christian history weaved into it using secondary and tertiary NT characters.

Hagan doesn’t call JB a Zealot, but certainly one has to wonder. And, in those days, you can bet that all the Zealot-minded rabble would have attached themselves to JB. In Jesus’ own ministry there was Simon, a self-proclaimed Zealot.

Josephus doesn’t mention Herodias at all, but writes that JB was arrested as being a disruptive force to Antipas’ military ambitions. Hagan argues, based on the camp of JB and where he was executed, that Antipas was ambitiously planning an invasion of Nabotea.
 
If it can be proved with absolute certainty that Jesus died on April 3, 33 A.D. (which most scholars believe) Hagan’s theory is all worthless. Actually, there are several things that if proved otherwise can dismantle his book. But I can’t prove, at least for now, I’m not a Historian. Ah, ok, I forgot… to Hagan Jesus was supposedly born on 12 B.C., but it’s really funny that the “Star of Bethlehem”(as the Halley Comet) would be considered credible by a secular scholar. 🤷
The whole point of Hagan’s first book Passover is to start at square one and use the best and most contemporaneous sources and derive a date of crucifixion, which he concludes is A.D. 36.

The second book, Rome, uses the same methods to derive dating through Paul to the Jewish revolt.
 
the PDF was too large. Here is a single page, if it helps. I suppose I could supply more, but it is a 500 page book.
 
Well, I’m afraid there’s no such thing as ‘an agnostic (or atheist or Christian) method to find the historical Jesus’. There are historical Jesus scholars who are Christian, Jewish, atheist or what have you (I think it’s really good that historical Jesus and New Testament studies in general are no longer specifically a ‘Christians-only’ thing), who each have their own way of approaching and analyzing the available data.

And let me get something straight: I have the impression based on your last post that unless you are an agnostic scholar you will be biased. Why would you think that?
Because Christians will try to find the historical Jesus as God, and atheists will try to find a rabbi, and haters will try to find a zealot, cynic, whatever Jesus. Maybe it’s healthy to find different Jesuses, but… who is the REAL Jesus? I know the “historic” conception of Jesus differs from the concept of the “real” Jesus, but when they contradict each other so much, which of the views is the right one? Isn’t it better to try to find Jesus without a preconceived model in your mind? I’m an example of this because I’m biased as I try to find the divine Jesus.
 
I know that April 3, 33 is currently a popular candidate but I would be wary about using words like ‘many’ or ‘most’ or ‘the majority of’ without further clarification.
True. I take that back.
 
Why would you think that the Mandaeans are valuable for studying the historical John the Baptizer or his teachings just because they revere him?

I know and agree that you can’t take what Josephus writes entirely on face value (that’s what higher criticism is for), but the fact is, Josephus is our only contemporary literary source for the period in question.
I disagree that it can be concluded John was a zealot based on Josephus, on the other hand, it puts a much later date to the death of John than the New Testament Gospels.
The memories of who the person of John was, in my opinion, is more vivid in a sect that used to emerge from his followers than from second hand material. But that’s my opinion.
 
Because Christians will try to find the historical Jesus as God, and atheists will try to find a rabbi, and haters will try to find a zealot, cynic, whatever Jesus. Maybe it’s healthy to find different Jesuses, but… who is the REAL Jesus? I know the “historic” conception of Jesus differs from the concept of the “real” Jesus, but when they contradict each other so much, which of the views is the right one? Isn’t it better to try to find Jesus without a preconceived model in your mind? I’m an example of this because I’m biased as I try to find the divine Jesus.
Okay. I know there are a lot of people with a lot of ideas as to what the historical Jesus exactly was, but their theories doesn’t exactly have anything to do with personal beliefs - allowing one’s own biases to take over is just sloppy scholarship after all. I’m not saying that there aren’t people out there who are doing exactly that (and are thus being bad scholars), but to overgeneralize the situation as “Christian scholars = Jesus as God, atheists = Jesus as whatever,” as if there are only two sides to it, is highly misleading and incorrect.

For example, Rudolf Bultmann was a Lutheran of a liberal streak, and I believe the same goes for Marcus Borg. Geza Vermes is a Jewish revert and a former priest (his family became Catholics during the Holocaust). Rabbi Jacob Neusner is also Jewish, if his title is of any indication, and Hyam Maccoby and Jodi Magness. E.P. ‘Ed’ Sanders is United Methodist by origin. James D.G. ‘Jimmy’ Dunn is also Methodist, and so is Ben Witherington III. N.T. ‘Tom’ Wright is an Anglican (the former bishop of Durham); same goes for Richard Bauckham and the late R.T. France. Fr. John P. Meier and Fr. Raymond Brown are of course Catholics. Kenzo Tagawa is a self-proclaimed ‘Christian atheist’, along with Robert M. Price. F.F. Bruce was a conservative Evangelical, as is Craig Blomberg. John Dominic Crossan is as everyone knows a former Catholic priest. Bruce Metzger was Presbyterian. Bart Ehrman is a former Evangelical and currently an agnostic. James Tabor is raised in the Churches of Christ. And so on and so forth.
 
Okay. I know there are a lot of people with a lot of ideas as to what the historical Jesus exactly was, but their theories doesn’t exactly have anything to do with personal beliefs - allowing one’s own biases to take over is just sloppy scholarship after all. I’m not saying that there aren’t people out there who are doing exactly that (and are thus being bad scholars), but to overgeneralize the situation as “Christian scholars = Jesus as God, atheists = Jesus as whatever,” as if there are only two sides to it, is highly misleading and incorrect.

For example, Rudolf Bultmann was a Lutheran of a liberal streak, and I believe the same goes for Marcus Borg. Geza Vermes is a Jewish revert and a former priest (his family became Catholics during the Holocaust). Rabbi Jacob Neusner is also Jewish, if his title is of any indication, and Hyam Maccoby and Jodi Magness. E.P. ‘Ed’ Sanders is United Methodist by origin. James D.G. ‘Jimmy’ Dunn is also Methodist, and so is Ben Witherington III. N.T. ‘Tom’ Wright is an Anglican (the former bishop of Durham); same goes for Richard Bauckham and the late R.T. France. Fr. John P. Meier and Fr. Raymond Brown are of course Catholics. Kenzo Tagawa is a self-proclaimed ‘Christian atheist’, along with Robert M. Price. F.F. Bruce was a conservative Evangelical, as is Craig Blomberg. John Dominic Crossan is as everyone knows a former Catholic priest. Bruce Metzger was Presbyterian. Bart Ehrman is a former Evangelical and currently an agnostic. James Tabor is raised in the Churches of Christ. And so on and so forth.
So this brings us to how these people think the historical Jesus would have been. Some of these views are:

Jesus as egalitarian peasant-wandering cynic: Crossan, Robert Funk, Borg, Burton Mack, Stephen J. Patterson, Jesus Seminar
Jesus as apocalyptic prophet: Albert Schweitzer, Sanders, Ehrman, Meier, Paula Fredriksen, Gerd Theissen, Vermes
Jesus as Jewish holy man (hasid): Vermes
Jesus as Pharisee: Maccoby
Jesus as myth: Price
Jesus as Savior (traditional view): Wright, Luke Timothy Johnson, Robert Stein
Jesus as Qumran sectarian-revolutionary: Robert Eisenman

Of course this is just an arbitrary categorization and is not totally accurate: take the first one (Jesus as wandering peasant sage) for example. John Dominic Crossan generally focuses more on what Jesus said, while Marcus Borg looks more at what He did. So while they both agree in classifying Jesus as a wandering sage who was non-eschatological (contrary to the idea of Jesus as apocalyptic prophet held by Sanders et al.), Crossan’s portrait is more of a wisdom teacher while Borg’s is more of an active “spirit person,” as he calls it. In this Borg has some overlap with Geza Vermes, who thinks of Jesus as a charismatic Jewish ‘holy man’ in line with other contemporary ‘holy men’ like Hanina ben Dosa, and Stevan Davies. Unlike Borg though, Vermes also thinks of Jesus contra Borg as being an eschatological prophet (again, like Sanders), while Davies does not think that Jesus was a teacher at all but a full-time spirit-possessed healer.
 
So this brings us to how these people think the historical Jesus would have been. Some of these views are:

Jesus as egalitarian peasant-wandering cynic: Crossan, Robert Funk, Borg, Burton Mack, Stephen J. Patterson, Jesus Seminar
Jesus as apocalyptic prophet: Albert Schweitzer, Sanders, Ehrman, Meier, Paula Fredriksen, Gerd Theissen, Vermes
Jesus as Jewish holy man (hasid): Vermes
Jesus as Pharisee: Maccoby
Jesus as myth: Price
Jesus as Savior (traditional view): Wright, Luke Timothy Johnson, Robert Stein
Jesus as Qumran sectarian-revolutionary: Robert Eisenman

Of course this is just an arbitrary categorization and is not totally accurate: take the first one (Jesus as wandering peasant sage) for example. John Dominic Crossan generally focuses more on what Jesus said, while Marcus Borg looks more at what He did. So while they both agree in classifying Jesus as a wandering sage who was non-eschatological (contrary to the idea of Jesus as apocalyptic prophet held by Sanders et al.), Crossan’s portrait is more of a wisdom teacher while Borg’s is more of an active “spirit person,” as he calls it. In this Borg has some overlap with Geza Vermes, who thinks of Jesus as a charismatic Jewish ‘holy man’ in line with other contemporary ‘holy men’ like Hanina ben Dosa, and Stevan Davies. Unlike Borg though, Vermes also thinks of Jesus contra Borg as being an eschatological prophet (again, like Sanders), while Davies does not think that Jesus was a teacher at all but a full-time spirit-possessed healer.
That’s quite interesting… and what would the intersection of all these views be? Is there something they all DO indisputably agree with? Jesus was a jew doesn’t count 😃 , and probably all of them might agree Jesus was baptized and crucified, but other than that?
 
I think Jesus preached before and after his death. I remember reading somewhere one of the early church fathers talked about how the gospel of john focuses on Jesus early ministries his first year or so before John was arrested also could be why alot of the stories are different in John’s gospel.
 
That’s quite interesting… and what would the intersection of all these views be? Is there something they all DO indisputably agree with? Jesus was a jew doesn’t count 😃 , and probably all of them might agree Jesus was baptized and crucified, but other than that?
They all (or at least, a good deal of them) agree in that Jesus talked about the kingdom of God, and many would not dispute that it is this message which gets Him killed. Now it is really over this issue that historical Jesus scholars disagree with each other, thereby leading to different portraits: what exactly did Jesus mean by “the kingdom of God”?

Sanders and other “Jesus as eschatological prophet” scholars take this to mean that Jesus was talking about an imminent cataclysmic divine intervention in human affairs (perhaps even envisioning Himself as its harbinger) in line with Jewish apocalyptic thinking. Crossan and others of the “Jesus as non-apocalyptic egalitarian sage” idea believe that Jesus conceived of the kingdom as a radical, social justice-oriented program for the outcasts of society, which is not something that is yet to come but is already here (realized eschatology). Others, like Wright, espouse a hybrid of the core of the two ideas: they are of the opinion that the “kingdom” that Jesus spoke of will be fully realized in the future but it is also in a process of “in-breaking” into the present (inaugurated eschatology). And so on and so forth.

And many would also accept that Jesus is said to have healed people and performed miracles, although of course some people emphasize (or overemphasize) them, while others don’t. Stevan Davies, as mentioned, thinks that Jesus was a spirit-possessed healer-exorcist and not a teacher, while Morton Smith had the idea of Jesus being a magician with roots from Semitic paganism. Conversely, Sanders does not lay much emphasis on the miracles: he argues that since contemporary Jews expected holy men close to God to be able perform amazing feats anyway (cf. Hanina ben Dosa, Honi aka Onias the circle-drawer), According to him, Jesus’ miracles are, on the broader picture, not too exceptional nor would it have proved to people anything beyond the fact that He was a man on intimate terms with God.
 
But I dont think these can be compared: there are at least 52 <> miracles attributed to Jesus, while all Onias did was draw a circle and stay there until it rained… (afaik)
 
But I dont think these can be compared: there are at least 52 <> miracles attributed to Jesus, while all Onias did was draw a circle and stay there until it rained… (afaik)
Well, the legend (I’m using this term in a broad sense mind you) as preserved in the Mishnah goes like this: once, when it did not rain well into the winter (something unnatural in Israel), Honi drew a circle in the dust, stood inside it, and informed God that he would not move until He sent rain: “O Lord of the world, your children have turned their faces to me, because I am like a son of the house before you. I swear by your great name that I will not stir hence until you have pity on your children.” When it began to drizzle, Honi told God that he was not satisfied and expected “a rain of goodwill, blessing and righteousness.” It then began to pour heavily, so much that some people in Jerusalem evacuated to the higher ground of the Temple mount. He explained that he wanted a calm rain, at which point the rain calmed to a normal rain.

This attitude towards God, which was so impertinent as to be almost blasphemous, was controversial. However, Shimon ben Shetach (the leading Pharisee at the time) excused him: “Were you not Honi I would have pronounced a ban against you! But what I shall I do to you - you importune God and he performs your will, like a son who importunes his father and he performs his will.”

Honi’s fame was such that Josephus (who also makes a passing reference to the drought story), who often did not think highly of the rebels, prophets and messiahs he was talking about, wrote somewhat positively of him.

After these promises had been given to Aretas, he made an expedition against Aristobulus with an army of fifty thousand horse and foot, and beat him in the battle. And when after that victory many went over to Hyrcanus as deserters, Aristobulus was left desolate, and fled to Jerusalem; upon which the king of Arabia took all his army, and made an assault upon the temple, and besieged Aristobulus therein, the people still supporting Hyrcanus, and assisting him in the siege, while none but the priests continued with Aristobulus. So Aretas united the forces of the Arabians and of the Jews together, and pressed on the siege vigorously. As this happened at the time when the feast of unleavened bread was celebrated, which we call the passover, the principal men among the Jews left the country, and fled into Egypt. Now there was one, whose name was Onias. A righteous man he was, and beloved of God, who, in a certain drought, had prayed to God to put an end to the intense heat, and whose prayers God had heard, and had sent them rain. This man had hid himself, because he saw that this sedition would last a great while. However, they brought him to the Jewish camp, and desired, that as by his prayers he had once put an end to the drought, so he would in like manner make imprecations on Aristobulus and those of his faction. And when, upon his refusal, and the excuses that he made, he was still by the multitude compelled to speak, he stood up in the midst of them, and said, “O God, the King of the whole world! since those that stand now with me are thy people, and those that are besieged are also thy priests, I beseech thee, that thou wilt neither hearken to the prayers of those against these, nor bring to effect what these pray against those.” Whereupon such wicked Jews as stood about him, as soon as he had made this prayer, stoned him to death.

I think Hanina ben Dosa is a bit closer.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top