The woman with the hemorrhage: a political story?

[MrMacSon]

I have good arguments to think that John’s Lazarus is Eleazar son of Ananias, another prominent rebel leader. He was the one who provoked the war by refusing further offerings in favor of the Roman emperor in the Temple in 66 CE.

What do you mean by "by refusing offerings in favour of the Roman emperor in the Temple" ??

[DCHindley]

I have good arguments to think that John’s Lazarus is Eleazar son of Ananias, another prominent rebel leader. He was the one who provoked the war by refusing further offerings in favor of the Roman emperor in the Temple in 66 CE.

What do you mean by "by refusing offerings in favour of the Roman emperor in the Temple" ??

Eleazar was the Captain of the Temple, in other words, the person who ran its daily affairs. There was a point, before the war even broke out in fighting, where he would no longer allow sacrifices to be made for the health/safety of the emperor. These sacrifices had previously been made (at the emperor's expense) as a token of Judean willingness to work with the empire, and I think they had been established by Herod the great. Eleazar was the person who started the insurrection, one that quickly spun out of Eleazar's control.

409 At the same time Eleazar, the son of Ananias the high priest, a very bold youth, who was at that time governor of the temple, persuaded those who officiated in the divine service to receive no gift or sacrifice for any foreigner. And this was the true beginning of our war with the Romans; for they rejected the sacrifice of Caesar on this account: 410 and when many of the high priests and principal men besought them not to omit the sacrifice, which it was customary for them to offer for their princes, they would not be prevailed upon. These relied much upon their numbers, for the most flourishing part of the innovators assisted them; but they had the chief regard to Eleazar, the governor of the temple.

DCH

[Lena Einhorn]

Yes, do elaborate.

[Lena Einhorn]

To Frans:
That Lazarus (Eleazar in Hebrew) is Eleazar son of Ananias is an interesting thought. As also Eleazar son of Ananias is a rebel leader in the Jewish war -- just like Eleazar son of Jairus -- it could of course be him. The replacement of "Lazarus" with "the daughter of Jairus" in the synoptic Gospels would however, it seems to me, make Eleazar son of Jairus a more likely choice, based on the names. I would therefore be very curious to know why you think he might be Eleazar son of Ananias.

I would like to add one more thing, regarding Eleazar son of Ananias: I believe he is mentioned in Acts chapter 5 as "the captain of the Temple." Both in my book A Shift in Time -- pages 155-58 -- and in the article I have uploaded online (http://lenaeinhorn.se/wp-content/upload ... .11.25.pdf) -- pages 21-24 --
I have placed Acts 5:1-33 next to Josephus' Antiquities 20:204-210 and War 2:441-446. The parallels are striking, not to say astonishing. It is as if they tell the same story. And if this is really the case, not only is "the captain of the Temple" in Acts identical to the captain of the Temple in Josephus -- i.e. Eleazar son of Ananias -- but Ananias in Acts would be identical to high priest Ananias in Josephus, and, most remarkably, Simon Peter in Acts would be identical to rebel leader Menahem.
I would invite everyone to make the comparison.

[Secret Alias]

I glanced at the parallels. I have to admit I don't think they are as exciting as you do. But the truth is that there is a part of me that wishes they were stronger so I could help explain why Irenaeus thinks Jesus lived in the time of Claudius (which you allude to twice in your work). I guess my difficulty is with hanging too much weight on Acts. I wish you'd summarize your strongest arguments here in the forum and let us take them apart one by one and see how much substance there is rather than handing a book to us and say 'read it.' Could you make an argument based on the book for some sort of relationship between Acts and Josephus here?

[Secret Alias]

In fact you yourself describe the parallels in the book quite differently - i.e. 'ambiguous' rather than 'striking.' - "The parallels are considerably more ambiguous in this last example."

[Lena Einhorn]

Well, don't just glance. ... Look carefully. Statistically speaking, I think the chances of all those parallels being pure coincidence are slim.

[Lena Einhorn]

They are more ambiguous than the earlier ones only because they don't pertain to the era of the late forties and fifties, as all the earlier parallels did. But the more I read Josephus, the more I've seen that the parallels all seem to relate to eras and activities of the rebellion. But not only one era, also different eras than that of the Egyptian.

[Secret Alias]

But I don't see any strong parallels. There's the mention of a prison and the name of Ananias. What more is there? The connection with 'rebellion' and the like is from your imagination. Nothing in the text. Again I'd like to see another example of Acts using Josephus. It would make me happy. But I just do see any strong parallels. Again why not lay out the argument here rather than directing me to your book.

[Secret Alias]

When I was a wee lad I came to a forum like this to promote my book. After awhile I discovered that engaging with people in order to figure out the veracity of my claims would have been more useful BEFORE I wrote my book. That's why I never published again. It's easy to hog 200 pages and lay out an argument unopposed. But when you have to defend your thesis bit by bit, each link in the chain exposed - it's considerably more difficult.