Posts by Leolaia

24

The Turning Sword in Genesis

by Ariell in

jw
friends

genesis 3: 24 - and so he drove the man out and posted at the east of the garden of eden the cherubs and the flaming blade of a sword that was turning itself continually to guard the way to the tree of life.

correct me if i'm wrong, but didn't man create the sword?

what was god doing with a blade in heaven?

Leolaia

The cherubim guardians and the flaming sword are indeed motifs from Near Eastern mythology. In Assyria and Babylonia, the karibu were believed to the guardian deities at the entrances of their sanctuaries and were depicted as griffin or sphinx-like beings. Temples and palaces, as an earthly abode of the gods, were designed as representations of the divine abode in heaven or paradise. In Israelite mythology, the cherubim were wind-demons or personifications of the storm wind on which Yahweh (drawing on metereological Baalist imagery) rides in his storm cloud chariot (Psalms 18:11; 2 Samuel 22:11). In other words, the cherubim were the winged wheels of the divine chariot and Yahweh sits enthroned on them and they comprise Yahweh's means of locomotion (cf. 1 Samuel 4:4; Isaiah 37:16; Psalm 18, 65:12; 68:4; 80:1; 99:1; note also 2 Kings 2:11-12 where the "chariot of fire" brings a "whirlwind"). Their wings symbolize the movement of the winds. According to Ezekiel 28:14-16, they serve as the guardians of Eden and we find the same in Assyrian and Babylonian art which depict winged composite beings standing by the side of the Tree of Life; the figures usually have human heads on animal bodies but sometimes have eagle heads on human bodies. They are shown in the act of fertilizing the date-palm (which serves as the Tree of Life in Sumerian and Akkadian myth and occur as the central tree in temples) by transferring the pollen to the flower. Here again they are personifications of the winds, by whose agency fertilization takes place in nature. As winds, they also have the ability to guard the divine garden by blowing away anyone who does not belong. Depictions of such beings were thus placed at the entrances of Assyrian temples and palaces, and similarly colossal cherubim appeared in Solomon's temple (1 Kings 6:23-25; 8:6) and on the ark of the covenant. Note that in the Eden story, the cherubim were placed at the east entrance to the garden; this is exactly like the later Levites posted as guards at the eastern gate of the tabernacle/temple, who were to strike down any person who encroaches upon forbidden ground (Numbers 1:51-53). As for the fiery sword, this is doubtless related to "the avenging sword of God" that appears in Jeremiah 46:10; Isaiah 34:5; Zephaniah 2:12. It is widely thought that such a sword is related to the weapons of lightning that Marduk and Baal use against the Chaos monster in Babylonian and Canaanite myth. A close parallel can be found in an Assyrian inscription of Tiglath-pileser I which describes the king as a "lightning of bronze" that takes the place of a lahmu or other guardian to the temple. Like the bow that Yahweh lodges into a cloud after the Flood, the sword is probably the same that he used to slay the Chaos monster Leviathan/Rahab at creation (cf. also the Tiamat of the Enuma Elish) and has placed at the entrance to his abode.

22

Greatest tribulation upon Judaism?

by peacefulpete in

for jws and other fundementalists the destruction of jerusalem in 70ce is a unquestionably the fullfillment of the words in mark 13.19. however to see the city's leveling as the " tribulation such as has not occurred since the world's beginning until now" as referring to death numbers we must surmise the death toll to have been horrific indeed!

josephus is of course oft quoted for the numbers.

according to him 97,000 were taken prisoner while 1,100,000 were killed.

Leolaia

PP.....I agree that Mark has been reworked but not necessarily to refer to the events of 135. As one of my recent posts suggests (http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/10/65283/1017510/post.ashx#1017510), Luke preserves the more original version of the Markan text which more specifically refers to the events of A.D. 70. This text mentions "Jerusalem surrounded by armies," the fleeing of Judeans to the mountains, with Jerusalemites falling "by the edge of the sword" and survivors being "led captive" as the city is "trodden down by the Gentiles," as well as the razing of the Temple. All these references are missing in the Mark-Matthew version except for the mention of those fleeing into the mountains. The problematic thing about this "prophecy" is that it goes right into the heavenly signs, without any break. This suggests to me that the original version of the Markan Apocalypse was written just after the events of 70, say between 70-75, as it expects (like the Society did for WWI and WWII) these events in Judea to lead right into the end of the world. But it was later revised when the end did not come. The reference to "Jerusalem surrounded by encamped armies" was replaced with the "desolating sacrilege" from Daniel -- which reflects the expectation from the time of Caligula that the Romans would establish a pagan statue or worship the Emperor in the Temple precincts. This same expectation appears in 2 Thessalonians, Revelation, the Ascension of Isaiah, and the Apocalypse of Elijah. This expectation was tied in these apocalyptic works with the belief that Beliar would reveal himself as (or use as his puppet) the "Son of Lawlessness" or Antichrist (cf. also the Didache, Ascension of Isaiah and Apocalypse of Peter). This type of end-times apocalyptic material in Mark and Matthew suggests that the fulfillment of this prophecy was still viewed as future, and the "Great Tribulation" that occurs when the Desolating Abomination appears was also viewed as still future and referred not to a literal event in the past but the myth of how the world would finally end -- taken directly from Daniel. The same theme appears in the Didache apocalypse which is constructed from these traditional apocalyptic notions and has no reference to the events of A.D. 70 or 135:

"Then the Deceiver of the world will appear as a son of God and will perform signs and wonders, and the earth will be delivered into his hands, and he will commit abominations the likes of which have never happened before. Then all humankind will come to the fiery test, and many will fall away and perish, but those who endure in their faith will be saved by the accursed one himself." (Didache 16:1-8)

Revelation also repeatedly refers to the Beast (="Son of Lawlessness") who establishes his image that people worship, performs miracles and signs, makes "war against the saints" and leads the kings of the earth into war, and ushers in the Day of the Lord that brings such "woes on the earth" and a "tribulation" so great "who could survive"? (Revelation 6:17; 7:15; 8:1-9:21; 13:3-18; 19:1-19) The theme of the Great Tribulation also appears throughout the Sibylline Oracles on the end of the world. It is ultimately rooted in the persecution of Antiochus Ephiphanes IV which appears in Daniel 11 as following the installation of the Desolating Abomination:

"Forces of his will come and profane the sanctuary citadel; they will abolish the perpetual sacrifice and instal the disastrous abomination there. Those who break the covenant he will corrupt by his flatteries, but the people who know their God will stand firm and take action. Those of the people who are learned will instruct many; for some days, however, they will be brought down by sword and flame, by captivity and by plundering. And thus brought down, little help will they receive, though many will be plotting on their side. Of the learned, some will be brought down, as a result of which certain of them will be purged, purified and made white -- until the time of the End, for the appointed time is still to come...He will reach out to attack countries: the land of Eygpt will not escape him....reports from the East and the North will worry him, and in great fury he will set out to bring ruin and complete destruction to many.... At that time Michael will stand up, the great prince who mounts guard over your people. There is going to be a time of great distress, unparalleled since nations first came into existence. When that time comes, your own people will be spared." (Daniel 11:31-12:1)

The apocalypse in Mark-Matthew was then reshaped with direct influence from Daniel. It does not refer to an actual historical tribulation but the expectation that an existing crisis (like the persecution of Epiphanes) would escalate eventually into a worldwide conflict. As it develops the themes in a manner similar to Relevation and 2 Thessalonians, I see a date in the 90s or 100s as quite consistent with revising a prophecy relating to a traumatic event receding rapidly into the past to refer to something still in the future. Does this make sense? The changes seem to obliterate the references to Jerusalem and its destruction, which seem to pertain better to a period between destructions than a period right after 135.

14

Okay, so are all babies/children destroyed at Armageddon?

by somebodylovesme in

my inactive jw hubby said he thought that babies/children too young to choose their beliefs would be brought back after armageddon in the jw belief system.

i have read the opposite on this board.

my husband hasn't been to a meeting in quite awhile and i don't think he paid too much attention when he was there ... lol ... so i thought i'd ask.

Leolaia

I just knew that the Org would point to the prophecy in Ezekiel 9, as regards the annihilation of the young generation at the fall of Judea to the Babylonians. In verse 8-10, God is to "destroy the entire remnant of Israel in this outpouring of wrath on Jerusalem." The implication is that those marked for survival, like Noah and his family, Lot and his daughters, and Rahab and her family, are just a tiny number who survive the cataclysm -- and these would survive into the exile in Babylon. But they don't point out this very important detail: it was a failed prophecy. Indeed Nebuchadnezzer did not wipe out the youth of Judea and depopulate the land, and he instead installed local governors to control the population; the land was not depopulated without inhabitant (Jeremiah 40:7-12). Albright estimated the population that remained in Judea after the deportations as around 20,000 (in contrast, around 10,000-16,000 were taken into exile). Ezekiel presents a similar prophecy in ch. 14 where he says that if Danel, Noah, and Job were in the land they could "save neither son nor daughter". This even more exaggerated statement could certainly be used by the Org to claim that baptized parents could not save their children at Armageddon. But again even Ezekiel in a postscript had to admit that his prophecy had been too extreme (v. 22-23). In contrast to the pessimistic attitude of Ezekiel, the Bible and Jewish tradition are full of examples of children being saved by parents -- the least of which were mentioned by Ezekiel himself, Danel saving his son, Noah saving his sons and daughters, and Job having his children brought back from death.

77

Resurrection Appearance to James the Just

by Leolaia in

apostle paul provides an early list of jesus' resurrection appearances in 1 corinthians 15. it is important because this list was written before our canonical gospels were written and thus serves as an independent source of information.

paul writes:"christ died for our since, in accordance with the scriptures; that he was buried and that he was raised to life on the third day, in accordance with the scriptures; that he appeared first to cephas and secondly to the twelve.

next he appeared to more than 500 of the brothers at the same time, most of whom are still alive, though some have died; then he appeared to james, and then to all the apostles; and last of all he appeared to me too; it was as though i was born when no one expected it.

Leolaia

Narkissos....The book I was referring to was not an ICC commentary but a book by David L. Dungan entitled "THE SAYINGS OF JESUS IN THE CHURCHES OF PAUL: THE USE OF THE SYNOPTIC TRADITION IN THE REGULATION OF EARLY CHURCH LIFE". It gives a detailed analysis of two of the "Lord's commands" in Paul: the Support for Apostles command (1 Corinthians 9:4-18) and the Command Concerning Divorce (1 Corinthians 7:1-16). I will not go into his analysis, which compares both against the Synoptic tradition and examines how the gospels interpreted the relevant sayings, but I will quote his conclusions below:

In these two, materially unrelated cases, it has been demonstrated how a saying of Jesus, which had passed into the tradition of the early Church, was used to regulate its life as a command of the Lord. Or, to be more precise, it was showed how the Church tried to use sayings of the Lord in its tradition, despite the fact that new developments in the Church frequently made this difficult. It was one of the major themes of this demonstration that if Paul and the editors of the Synoptic gospels are compared in this respect, that is, if the Synoptic editors' intentions, as to how the older traditional sayings of Jesus were to be interpreted and applied, are comapred with Paul's actual interpretation and application at Corinth and elsewhere, they turn out to resemble each other almost perfectly. Even the degree of divergence and discrepancy is the amount we would expect. As far as these two cases are concerned, Paul stands squarely within the tradition that led to the Synoptic gospels, and is of similar mind with the editors of those gospels in the way he understands what Jesus (the Lord) was commanding in the sayings themselves and also in the way he prefigures the Synoptic editors' use of them.
For example, this was shown in the first case through Paul's accurate paraphrase of the Lord's command that there be an unrestricted scope in the support to which apostles were entitled (I Cor. 9.14). As we saw, this was the intention in Jesus' original instruction. On the other hand, we showed that Paul disregarded this command of the Lord most of the time, defending his course in such a way that we could see the problem was a financial one. This corresponded to Matthew's alteration of the original (i.e. Q) account, in which -- by interpolating a strict injunction that apostles were not to accept "wages" (Matt. 10.8b) -- he limited the original open-endedness of the saying, and it corresponded also to Luke's complex alterations, the eventual outcome of which was to recommend that apostles be given no support whatever.
Furthermore, it seemed to be the case that Paul's whole series of arguments in I Cor. 9.4-14 was little more than a homiletical rehearsing of the two aspects of Matthew's (i.e. Q's) version of the workman-food saying in Jesus' instructions (Matt. 10.10 as opposed to Luke 10.7). On the other hand, Paul stood together with Luke, over against Matthew, in discussing the question of support for apostles in a context dealing with the problem of unclean foods, while Luke introduces a few words of advice from "Jesus" regarding unclean foods in a context dealing with support for apostles. A verbatim correspondence was even found to obtain between Luke 10.8 and I Cor. 10.27: "eat whatever is set before you."
In the second case, Paul's self-contradictory manner of citing and applying the command of the Lord proved to be completely inexplicable on the basis of the evidence in his letters alone. Yet, once we turned to a careful examination of the Synoptic accounts, one riddle after another cleared up, as crucial insights emerged, not only from a series of comparisons with the way the Synoptic editors handled the same saying, but most importantly from a careful inquiry into what the central thrust of Jesus' original statements on remarriage had been, as this was comapred and contrasted with various groups in the contemporary Palestinian milieu.
It turned out that Paul had, again correctly, interpreted Jesus' original saying to forbid remarriage but not divorce, and that the clash between Paul's application and the wording of the command he actually cites simply reflected current practice, as shown by the Synoptic editors' referring to Jesus' saying by means of a rough approximation of the final phrases in Jesus' answer. In this case, Mark and Matthew provided the crucial clues as to how the tradition was operating to produce something like Paul's behavior. In addition, Paul's overall stance regarding the advisibility of (single) marriage for the majority, with celibacy being the higher way for the few, was shown to correspond precisely with the way Matthew took the Lord's advice -- Marik and Luke being rather different at this point. But again, Paul seemed in some ways to be closer to Luke than to Matthew or Mark, as far as sharing Luke's intensely ascetic outlook was concerned....To repeat, Paul's concrete application of these traditional sayings of the Lord in the context of his churches fits almost perfectly into a general pattern of similar interpretation and application of the same sayings in the Church in his day, as typified by the three Synoptic editors....
It has been frequently noted in the past that in these two commands of the Lord, Paul does not directly quote the saying of the Lord but just "produces a halakah based on such a saying." That is, he only alludes to the actual saying; he uses it indirectly. Now we must go further and point out that Paul's indirectness is a major aspect of his use of these two sayings of the Lord in both contexts. For example, we found grounds for suggesting that Paul is alluding to the workman/food saying all through the context of I Cor. 9.4-14. Even when he comes to the actual reference to the Lord's command he does not stop alluding to this saying. As for the other case, we found traces of the original saying (as reconstructed from the Synoptic material) lying beneath several different points in Paul's argument. He derives the proper application regardless of the distorted, short-hand excerpt he mentions as the Lord's command, he uses the same original account again while claiming not to (I Cor. 7.12-16), and it also seems to be beneath the surface when he is discussing the porne (I Cor. 6.15f). The rather surprising result may be formulated as follows: It is precisely when one examines Paul's explicit use of the sayings of the Lord that one most clearly perceives how indirectly and allusively he depends on them.
A further observation should be added. In neither case does Paul give any indication that his interpretation of the saying of the Lord is in any way controversial, and in the second case, the fact that he can give an extraordinarily misleading paraphrase of the saying involved, and practically in mid-breath, apply it in contradictory fashion -- all with no explanation whatever -- these things plainly say that it is a situation filled with signs of mutual understanding and common reliance upon sayings that are well known, including their proper interpretation and application. Paul does not stop to explain because he does not need to. But this means, as far as the allusiveness we described above is concerned, that Paul's use of the command of the Lord everywhere in his remarks would certainly not have been lost on the Corinthians. They would have recognized the source of his views immediately.
In the second place, we have already discussed above how much Paul has in common both with the oral tradition lying behind the Synoptic accounts as well as with the Synoptic editors' own points of view. We should speak here of Paul's intimate relation with this entire tradition, as indicated by these two examples (and a few others). But this raises a very interesting possibility: the great number of admittedly authentic sayings of the Lord contained in the Synoptic gospels suggests that the amount of Synoptic tradition current among the Pauline congregations and known to Paul could have been far higher than the number of times he openly refers to sayings of the Lord. Is this reflected in any way in his letter? How many sayings of the Lord does Paul actually use in his letters?
It is not necessary to repeat here the many familiar arguments which deal with the question of how many sayings of Jesus Paul knew of or used in his work. In general, those urging a high number have had recourse to two types of proof: one which simply claimed that Paul must have desired to know and use such traditions, and another which pointed to the numerous parallels between the ethical teachings in Paul's letters and sayings of Jesus recorded in the canonical gospels. The weaknesses of both arguments have long since been exposed. In more recent times, a third line of argument has been advanced, to the effect that Paul's use of technical tradition-transmission terminology in his letters proves that he had a role in this process, which was to be understood to have taken place in much the same way as the later rabbinic transmission-process was carried out. This hypothesis is still being considered.
On the other side, those contending that Paul had few sayings of Jesus tend to advance two chief arguments. First, the very few times Paul refers to such sayings is pointed out as manifest evidence of the general number in his possession, while on the other hand, it is argued that, regardless of how many may have been available to Paul, he was not interested in what Jesus taught in any case. He was proclaiming faith in Jesus, not the faith of Jesus.
When it is asserted that Paul rarely uses sayings of Jesus, what, precisely, is meant by this? To judge from standard procedure, what is meant is use, scil. use explicitly. Let us hear a typical statement of Bultmann's on this once again: "That Paul considered it valuable to have a word of the Lord for the purposes of discipline, i.e. community order, 1 Cor. 7.25 demonstrates. All the clearer is it, then, when he otherwise cites none where one might be expected, it is because he knows of none." The problem with this view becomes apparent immediately if we ask when did it become customary to refer to the sayings of Jesus explcitly, carefully, and as it were, accurately? The answer to this is well-known. Although a Tertullian and an Irenaeus may have succeeded most of the time in keeping their citations explicit and unscrambled, the same thing cannot be said for Justin Martyr, or II Clement, or I Clement. In them, however, the degree of explicitness is clearly on the rise. But if we go back farther, to someone like Polycarp or Ignatius, or the other Apostolic Fathers, we can see much less explicit citation of traditional material (whether sayings of Jesus or of Paul or of the Old Testament). On the contrary, a general allusiveness covers the dependence we know is there, thanks to our modern critical editions.
In other words, it is not anachronistic to assume that Paul has not referred to a saying of Jesus if he did not do so openly, carefully, and with quotation marks as we do. But we have demonstrated that Paul does not refer to the sayings of the Lord in this way. Perhaps the most revealing example is I Cor. 7.12-16 where Paul uses Jesus' saying to guide his decision precisely in a context where he has expressly claimed he is not! Now if that can happen, what are we to say about those long stretches of theological argument, advice, command, hymn, blessing, and exhortation, where Paul says nothing about his sources?
Therefore, if Paul was part of a larger pattern of Synoptic tradition transmission, and represents an early stage of its interpretation and application, as we have for these two sayings shown to be the case, and if it is precisely Paul's characteristic way to specifically cite sayings of the Lord by doing do allusively, then the argument that Paul knew only a few sayings because he only mentions a few openly and only allusively, falls to the ground, and the numerous verbal correspondences between his text and those of the Synoptic gospels, as well as other more distantly related parallels in ethical exhortation, show that Paul actually used a considerable number of Synoptic sayings in the Jesus tradition (pp. 139-149).

I'm glad I found the book again because it addresses pretty much the same issues we've been discussing at length. The actual analysis of these two dominical commands shows how material elsewhere in Paul's argument other than the specific commands betrays his knowledge of original sayings, and how in the case of Paul's discussion of support for apostles (1 Corinthians 9-10), there is both an allusion to the "Lord's command" and a verbatim citation of the relevant Q saying in the course of the same argument (p. 46-47).

Leolaia

77

Resurrection Appearance to James the Just

by Leolaia in

apostle paul provides an early list of jesus' resurrection appearances in 1 corinthians 15. it is important because this list was written before our canonical gospels were written and thus serves as an independent source of information.

paul writes:"christ died for our since, in accordance with the scriptures; that he was buried and that he was raised to life on the third day, in accordance with the scriptures; that he appeared first to cephas and secondly to the twelve.

next he appeared to more than 500 of the brothers at the same time, most of whom are still alive, though some have died; then he appeared to james, and then to all the apostles; and last of all he appeared to me too; it was as though i was born when no one expected it.

Leolaia

Gumby.....It's weird tho. I don't think I would've gotten so fascinated in the Bible if I hadn't been a Witness. Seriously. When I turned 14, I had read the Aid book cover to cover about three or four times. If all I had was just the Watchtowers and Awakes and the polemical books, I would've never got hooked into this. But the Aid book really was a pretty decent start that revealed to me how much depth there is in studying the Bible and how there are always new things to be discovered. So, again, thank you Ray Franz -- for getting me into the Bible as a kid and then helping me get out of the Tower as an adult :)

36

Jesus gave no signs

by peacefulpete in

according to mark 8:11-13 jesus was grieved even indignant at the request for some "sign".

had he not done many before and would he not do miraculous signs yet?

i propose (not original to me) that some early form of mark (urmark) or q contained no miracles.

Leolaia

That was Justin Martyr's view.

77

Resurrection Appearance to James the Just

by Leolaia in

apostle paul provides an early list of jesus' resurrection appearances in 1 corinthians 15. it is important because this list was written before our canonical gospels were written and thus serves as an independent source of information.

paul writes:"christ died for our since, in accordance with the scriptures; that he was buried and that he was raised to life on the third day, in accordance with the scriptures; that he appeared first to cephas and secondly to the twelve.

next he appeared to more than 500 of the brothers at the same time, most of whom are still alive, though some have died; then he appeared to james, and then to all the apostles; and last of all he appeared to me too; it was as though i was born when no one expected it.

Leolaia

Dating nearly needs be done on a verse by verse basis. Simplistic comments that surmise a date for a book because an early writer made reference to it or quoted a passage, are likely to be misleading.

Well, don't forget that except in unusual circumstances (such as Daniel) dates are really ranges, so while interpolations and later redactions make terminus ad quem dates problematic, later witnesses do help establish terminus a quo dates, as well as give supporting evidence for a probable final limiting point. So Papias, for instance, gives good evidence that Mark could not have been first composed after 135 and probably existed for some time before then, but it does not show that he knew Mark in its current form.

77

Resurrection Appearance to James the Just

by Leolaia in

apostle paul provides an early list of jesus' resurrection appearances in 1 corinthians 15. it is important because this list was written before our canonical gospels were written and thus serves as an independent source of information.

paul writes:"christ died for our since, in accordance with the scriptures; that he was buried and that he was raised to life on the third day, in accordance with the scriptures; that he appeared first to cephas and secondly to the twelve.

next he appeared to more than 500 of the brothers at the same time, most of whom are still alive, though some have died; then he appeared to james, and then to all the apostles; and last of all he appeared to me too; it was as though i was born when no one expected it.

Leolaia

Narkissos....Thanks for the very long and informative post. This is all so interesting isn't it? You may be right on this matter; we don't know how Paul knew this didactic material. But the lack of attribution to the formal parallels does not necessarily constitute positive evidence of this. I would have to go back to the book to refresh my memory on the evidence, but from what I recall from the Apostolic Fathers and Catholic Epistles, there is a real looseness in allusion to Jesus sayings where in most cases the language is just reflected without attribution; 1 Clement's allusion to the Parable of the Sower is a great example of this. The same holds true for allusions to Paul's letters in the Fathers -- in most cases the language is just reflected without Paul cited as the authority. That doesn't mean Paul's epistles weren't known under his name. It is quite possible that Paul had a catechismal source like the Didache that he used. But when Paul specifies "the Lord says" or "the Lord's teaching" he is not quoting a specific text but imho asserting that his own wording (and interpretation) of a particular teaching has its authority in the Lord. The "Lord's teaching" that Paul refers to is certainly not foreign to the gospel tradition and has a lot in common thematically with the formal parallels.

36

Jesus gave no signs

by peacefulpete in

according to mark 8:11-13 jesus was grieved even indignant at the request for some "sign".

had he not done many before and would he not do miraculous signs yet?

i propose (not original to me) that some early form of mark (urmark) or q contained no miracles.

Leolaia

I think it might be going too far to deem John mythical as well. Price's model would not work with both Jesus and John as theological constructs, Christian midrashic interpretation of John's role does not entail that John did not exist (any more than R. Abika's midrashic interpretation of the Balaam prophecy entail that Simon bar-Kosba did not exist), and deeming Josephus' references to John as an interpolation sounds very ad hoc to me: in particular, if they were Christian interpolations like the Jesus quote, why is there no mention of John as the one preparing the way (which occurs in all the gospels), and why is the description of his arrest and death at odds with the gospel account? Josephus showed strong interest in the Essenes, indicated himself as a follower of a teacher very much like John, so without going into any textual evidence on the matter, his statements on John do not strike me as inconsistent with Josephus. And his statement about how Herod's loss was divine retribution for John's death sounds a lot like how Josephus described the destruction of Jerusalem as divine retribution against the people.

23

Jesus and the Fig Tree

by Leolaia in

luke 16:19-31).

matthew 13:3-9; mark 4:2-9; luke 8:4-8; gospel of thomas 9:1).

" (luke 8:4-8).

Leolaia

aww, just out of curiosity, what is it about my avatar you don't like?