Truth Seeking Atheist

☰

List of Pages:

In chapter 5 of book 6 of his work 'The Jewish War', Josephus tells us of a character named Jesus ben Ananias (often translated as 'Ananus').
This Jesus was a commoner who walked around prophesying the destruction of Jerusalem. The similarities between Jesus ben Ananius and the Jesus as depicted specifically here in the Gospel of Mark are, in the words of Dr. Richard Carrier in his book, 'On the Historicity of Jesus' - “too numerous to be at all probable as a coincidence”. I tend to agree - when you have one or two similarities, they could certainly be coincidental; but when dealing with a whole slew of similarities – someone copied from someone.

Both Jesus of Nazareth and Jesus ben Ananias:

were believed by the leaders of Jerusalem to be demon possessed
(Mark 3:22 & JW 6.301)
were in the Temple during the holy festival
(Mark 14:2 & JW 6.300)
cite Jeremiah 7 to denounce Temple practices
(Mark 11:17 & JW 6.301)
pronounce doom on the Temple
(Mark 13:2 & JW 6.300, 309)
were arrested by leaders of Jerusalem
(Mark 14:43 & JW 6.302)
accused of speaking against the Temple
(Mark 14:58 & JW 6.302)
offered no defence against accusations
(Mark 14:60-61 & JW 6.302)
were physically abused at the Jewish hearing
(Mark 14:65 & JW 6.302)
were delivered to the Roman procurator following the Jewish hearing
(Mark 15:1 & JW 6.303)
were interrogated by the Roman governor
(Mark 15:2-4 & JW 6.305)
are asked to disclose their identity
(Mark 15:2 & JW 6.305)
are silent before the governor
(Mark 15:3-5 & JW 6.305)
were scourged after the hearing
(Mark 15:15 & JW 6.304)
were killed by Roman soldiers
(Mark 16:20-24 & JW 309)
uttered a personal cry of woe before death
(Mark 15:34 & JW 6.309)
died with a loud cry
(Mark 15:27 & JW 6.309)

Who copied from whom?
This is actually an interesting question.

Josephus competed his 'Jewish War' around 75AD.
The Gospel of Mark is believed to be written around 70AD.
These two facts alone don't necessarily imply that Josephus copied from Mark; the gospel would not have been in wide circulation within a few years, there could have been earlier draft copies of Mark and, although the consensus is Mark was written around 70AD, this date is by no means absolute. Mark could conceivably have been written after 'Jewish War'. This however is purely academic.

If Mark had copied from Josephus, then the Jesus as portrayed in the Gospel is at minimum a rehashing of another pre-existent figure and at worst entirely fictional.
If Josephus had copied from Mark, why bother changing the name of the character? Why not simply tell a historic account of Jesus of Nazareth?

Could it be because the person Jesus of Nazareth, an itinerant preacher who died an entirely unmemorable dishonourable death was later exalted by followers and memorialised as such in the ensuing gospels?

* I am constantly seeking the truth. If I am in error somewhere on this page I would be very grateful if you would point it out; I will gladly alter both the website and my worldview accordingly.

PLEASE LEAVE A COMMENT

I'm sure we can all benefit from your ideas, suggestions, thoughts and musings.