Is Jesus ben Ananias the Person Upon Which Mark Bases His Gospel? (crucifixion, tradition)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Many Christians are not aware of the actual turmoil that was going on in and around Israel circa 50-100 AD. The new sect that later called itself Christianity was trying to get a foothold, competing against a dozen other pagan religions whose gods had almost identical "markers" as the Jesus of the gospels i.e. a man born of a virgin, who performed miracles, walked on water, had 12 disciples (12 zodiacs?), was crucified, rose from the dead, ascended into heaven; Israel was in continuous revolt against the Romans, culminating in the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD and were desperate for a savior figure to make sense to them why their kingdom was slowly being decimated.
Against this dramatic backdrop that makes the 60's in America during the Vietnam War look like a Sunday walk in the park comes a man well documented by Flavius Josephus in his The Wars of the Jews or History of the Destruction of Jerusalem Book 6, Chapter 5, Section 3 named Jesus ben Ananias who went around Israel around 66 AD--four years before the actual destruction of Jerusalem--prophesizing the city's destruction.
Mark may have been looking for a figure upon which to model Jesus the Savior. Mark never was an eyewitness to Jesus, writing 40 years after Jesus' alleged crucifixion and hearing all these stories of miracles but not having any historical accounts of Jesus upon which to draw. His Jesus is not so nearly as complex as the later Jesus that Matthew, Luke and finally John wrote about--each gospel account growing in size and complexity in their descriptions of Jesus' character and divinity. Could this Jesus ben Ananias been the perfect person upon which to build his gospel.
Wikipedia describes him this way:
Quote:
Jesus ben Ananias ("the son of Ananias") was a plebeian and a husbandman, who, four years before the First Jewish-Roman War began in 66 AD, went around Jerusalem prophesying the city's destruction. The Jewish leaders of Jerusalem turned him over to the Romans, who tortured him. The procurator Albinus took him to be a madman and released him. He continued his prophecy for more than seven years until he was killed by a stone from a catapult during the Roman siege of Jerusalem during the war. His name is rendered ישוע בן חנניה (Yeshua ben Hananiah) in modern Hebrew histories
Look at what Josephus writes about Jesus:
Quote:
But, what is still more terrible, there was one Jesus, the son of Ananus, a plebeian and a husbandman, who, four years before the war began, and at a time when the city was in very great peace and prosperity, came to that feast whereon it is our custom for every one to make tabernacles to God in the temple, 23 began on a sudden to cry aloud, "A voice from the east, a voice from the west, a voice from the four winds, a voice against Jerusalem and the holy house, a voice against the bridegrooms and the brides, and a voice against this whole people! Woe, woe to Jerusalem!" " The Wars of the Jews or History of the Destruction of Jerusalem Book 6, Chapter 5, Section 3
Any of this sound familiar?
Again, I am only presenting historical data for consideration. It's odd that we have a historical man named Jesus who went around prophesized the destruction of Jerusalem and was killed saying, "Woe to you, Jerusalem." Interesting that these same facts turn up a few years later in Mark's account, the first gospel trying to put a human face on a person who was believed by many of His followers to be the Son of God whose appearance on earth was first as a spirit, in conformity to many other sons of gods (Horus, Dionysius, Mithras) who later took on human form as required by other pagan mystic religions of the times.
Mark may have been looking for a figure upon which to model Jesus the Savior. Mark never was an eyewitness to Jesus, writing 40 years after Jesus' alleged crucifixion and hearing all these stories of miracles but not having any historical accounts of Jesus upon which to draw.
Historians agree that Mark or whoever wrote Mark was not an eyewitness to Jesus.
Quote:
It is rational to conclude that Mark was not an eyewitness to the life, death and resurrection of Jesus. But we learn a very interesting thing about him from a few quotes from some early Church Fathers[2]:
“Having become the interpreter of Peter, Mark wrote down accurately whatever he remembered. However, he did not relate the sayings of deeds of Christ in exact order. For he neither heard the Lord nor accompanied Him. But afterwards, as I said, he accompanied Peter. Now, Peter accommodated his instructions to the necessities [of his hearers], but with no intention of giving a regular narrative of the Lord’s saying.
Historians agree that Mark or whoever wrote Mark was not an eyewitness to Jesus.
Who are these historians you refer to? What are their credentials? Why do you believe them? Why do you believe his account is not correct?
I believe that Mark was likely writing from Peter's account. You stated that he had no historical accounts to draw from. While he may not have been an eyewitness, he was definitely under the direct supervision of one that was. For all intents, Mark might as well have been written by Peter.
Who are these historians you refer to? What are their credentials? Why do you believe them? Why do you believe his account is not correct?
I believe that Mark was likely writing from Peter's account. You stated that he had no historical accounts to draw from. While he may not have been an eyewitness, he was definitely under the direct supervision of one that was. For all intents, Mark might as well have been written by Peter.
Maybe Peter did write Mark. Maybe Mark did write the Gospel of Mark. Maybe Mark was under the direct supervision of Peter. Maybe this. Maybe that. Maybe Jesus ben Ananias was the inspiration for Jesus of Nazareth, which historians have found was just an old graveyard littered with stone markers for graves at the time of Jesus. Maybe Jesus ben Ananias wasn't the inspiration for Mark's account.
I'm just mentioning coincidences that, taken together with thousands of other odd circumstances going on at the time, raise questions as to how Christianity actually came to be.
I think it's odd, and I may do a separate thread on this, that God gave the atheists and Jesus doubtersSO much evidence to doubt the existence of Jesus. Their arsenal of historic proof is breathtaking. I've been reading it and I can see why people are leaving Christianity by the millions as they discover the shaky ground upon which Christianity was built.
Why would God have not given us anything besides some gospel accounts written decades to nearly half a century after the fact? Why didn't He give the world indisputable proof that Jesus lived, died, arose and ascended? You can say, "He did. In the gospels" all you want but given the gospel's checkered origins this does not constitute indisputable empirical proof. Frankly, the atheists are winning the war. One small sampling if anyone is interested in investing the time:
I don't necessarily agree with much of what is said. I only say the evidence against Jesus' historicity is compelling. At this point, a Christian has to live solely by faith because he has absolutely no historical proof for Jesus' existence outside of the Bible .
In short . . . No. Mark did not base his gospel on Jesus Ben Ananias.
Mark was a disciple of the apostle Peter who was an eyewitness of Jesus and one of the inner circle of apostles, and got his information from him. As Papias stated,
For information on these points, we can merely refer our readers to the books themselves; but now, to the extracts already made, we shall add, as being a matter of primary importance, a tradition regarding Mark who wrote the Gospel, which he [Papias] has given in the following words]: And the presbyter said this. Mark having become the interpreter of Peter, wrote down accurately whatsoever he remembered. It was not, however, in exact order that he related the sayings or deeds of Christ. For he neither heard the Lord nor accompanied Him. But afterwards, as I said, he accompanied Peter, who accommodated his instructions to the necessities [of his hearers], but with no intention of giving a regular narrative of the Lord's sayings. Wherefore Mark made no mistake in thus writing some things as he remembered them. For of one thing he took especial care, not to omit anything he had heard, and not to put anything fictitious into the statements. [This is what is related by Papias regarding Mark; [Fragments of Papias VI. Papias (Roberts-Donaldson)
Eusebius records Papas' statement regarding Mark in Ecs. Hist. Eccl.[indent] 15. “This also the presbyter960 said: Mark, having become the interpreter of Peter, wrote down accurately, though not in order, whatsoever he remembered of the things said or done by Christ.961
For he neither heard the Lord nor followed him, but afterward, as I said, he followed Peter, who adapted his teaching to the needs of his hearers, but with no intention of giving a connected account of the Lord’s discourses,962 so that Mark committed no error while he thus wrote some things as he remembered them. For he was careful of one thing, not to omit any of the things which he had heard, and not to state any of them falsely.” These things are related by Papias concerning Mark. [Ecs. Hist. Eccl. 3. 39. 15] [NPNF2-01. Eusebius Pamphilius: Church History, Life of Constantine, Oration in Praise of Constantine - Christian Classics Ethereal Library
Maybe Peter did write Mark. Maybe Mark did write the Gospel of Mark. Maybe Mark was under the direct supervision of Peter. Maybe this. Maybe that. Maybe Jesus ben Ananias was the inspiration for Jesus of Nazareth, which historians have found was just an old graveyard littered with stone markers for graves at the time of Jesus. Maybe Jesus ben Ananias wasn't the inspiration for Mark's account.
I'm just mentioning coincidences that, taken together with thousands of other odd circumstances going on at the time, raise questions as to how Christianity actually came to be.
I think it's odd, and I may do a separate thread on this, that God gave the atheists and Jesus doubtersSO much evidence to doubt the existence of Jesus. Their arsenal of historic proof is breathtaking. I've been reading it and I can see why people are leaving Christianity by the millions as they discover the shaky ground upon which Christianity was built.
Why would God have not given us anything besides some gospel accounts written decades to nearly half a century after the fact? Why didn't He give the world indisputable proof that Jesus lived, died, arose and ascended? You can say, "He did. In the gospels" all you want but given the gospel's checkered origins this does not constitute indisputable empirical proof. Frankly, the atheists are winning the war. One small sampling if anyone is interested in investing the time:
I don't necessarily agree with much of what is said. I only say the evidence against Jesus' historicity is compelling. At this point, a Christian has to live solely by faith because he has absolutely no historical proof for Jesus' existence outside of the Bible .
I'm just curious why you believe the source you believe? What makes these "historians" you refer to any more correct than anyone else?
Maybe Peter did write Mark. Maybe Mark did write the Gospel of Mark. Maybe Mark was under the direct supervision of Peter. Maybe this. Maybe that. Maybe Jesus ben Ananias was the inspiration for Jesus of Nazareth, which historians have found was just an old graveyard littered with stone markers for graves at the time of Jesus. Maybe Jesus ben Ananias wasn't the inspiration for Mark's account.
I'm just mentioning coincidences that, taken together with thousands of other odd circumstances going on at the time, raise questions as to how Christianity actually came to be.
I think it's odd, and I may do a separate thread on this, that God gave the atheists and Jesus doubtersSO much evidence to doubt the existence of Jesus. Their arsenal of historic proof is breathtaking. I've been reading it and I can see why people are leaving Christianity by the millions as they discover the shaky ground upon which Christianity was built.
Why would God have not given us anything besides some gospel accounts written decades to nearly half a century after the fact? Why didn't He give the world indisputable proof that Jesus lived, died, arose and ascended? You can say, "He did. In the gospels" all you want but given the gospel's checkered origins this does not constitute indisputable empirical proof. Frankly, the atheists are winning the war. One small sampling if anyone is interested in investing the time:
I don't necessarily agree with much of what is said. I only say the evidence against Jesus' historicity is compelling. At this point, a Christian has to live solely by faith because he has absolutely no historical proof for Jesus' existence outside of the Bible .
Excerpt:
Jesus’ life and death
Secular historians, whether christian or not, broadly agree on the basic facts of Jesus’ life (see Jesus in history). EP Sanders, just about the most respected NT scholar of the past 30 years, and cautiously sceptical, wrote in The Historical Figure of Jesus, p10-11: Read more:What do the leading secular historians say about Jesus?
Excerpt:
Scholars have a solid basis for believing that Jesus existed. Regarding the references made by first- and second-century historians to Jesus and the early Christians, the Encyclopædia Britannica, 2002 Edition, says: “These independent accounts prove that in ancient times even the opponents of Christianity never doubted the historicity of Jesus, which was disputed for the first time and on inadequate grounds at the end of the 18th, during the 19th, and at the beginning of the 20th centuries.”
In 2006, the book Jesus and Archaeology said: “No reputable scholar today questions that a Jew named Jesus son of Joseph lived; most readily admit that we now know a considerable amount about his actions and his basic teachings.” Do Scholars Believe That Jesus Existed? | Bible Questions
There is no evidence against the historicity of Jesus.
Many Christians are not aware of the actual turmoil that was going on in and around Israel circa 50-100 AD. The new sect that later called itself Christianity was trying to get a foothold, competing against a dozen other pagan religions whose gods had almost identical "markers" as the Jesus of the gospels i.e. a man born of a virgin, who performed miracles, walked on water, had 12 disciples (12 zodiacs?), was crucified, rose from the dead, ascended into heaven; Israel was in continuous revolt against the Romans, culminating in the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD and were desperate for a savior figure to make sense to them why their kingdom was slowly being decimated.
Against this dramatic backdrop that makes the 60's in America during the Vietnam War look like a Sunday walk in the park comes a man well documented by Flavius Josephus in his The Wars of the Jews or History of the Destruction of Jerusalem Book 6, Chapter 5, Section 3 named Jesus ben Ananias who went around Israel around 66 AD--four years before the actual destruction of Jerusalem--prophesizing the city's destruction.
Mark may have been looking for a figure upon which to model Jesus the Savior. Mark never was an eyewitness to Jesus, writing 40 years after Jesus' alleged crucifixion and hearing all these stories of miracles but not having any historical accounts of Jesus upon which to draw. His Jesus is not so nearly as complex as the later Jesus that Matthew, Luke and finally John wrote about--each gospel account growing in size and complexity in their descriptions of Jesus' character and divinity. Could this Jesus ben Ananias been the perfect person upon which to build his gospel.
Wikipedia describes him this way:
Look at what Josephus writes about Jesus:
Any of this sound familiar?
Again, I am only presenting historical data for consideration. It's odd that we have a historical man named Jesus who went around prophesized the destruction of Jerusalem and was killed saying, "Woe to you, Jerusalem." Interesting that these same facts turn up a few years later in Mark's account, the first gospel trying to put a human face on a person who was believed by many of His followers to be the Son of God whose appearance on earth was first as a spirit, in conformity to many other sons of gods (Horus, Dionysius, Mithras) who later took on human form as required by other pagan mystic religions of the times.
The parallels seem to be striking.
Unlikely based on dates alone. Even a late Mark date of 70 CE is prior to Josephus' Jewish Wars 74 CE.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
