On the hypothesis that the Gospel Jesus == Jesus ben Saphat

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
User avatar
maryhelena
Posts: 2904
Joined: Tue Oct 08, 2013 11:22 pm
Location: England

Re: On the hypothesis that the Gospel Jesus == Jesus ben Saphat

Post by maryhelena »

Giuseppe wrote: Fri Apr 09, 2021 7:32 am
maryhelena wrote: Fri Apr 09, 2021 6:45 am

Here is a bit of advice that I learned from 'spin' some years ago.
who is this 'spin' ? Can anything good come in support of your hyper-skepticism about Josephus' claims from one who has written:

As it is clear that the story of the death of James is not derived from AJ 20.200, where did it come from? It's found in a text by Hegesippus, preserved by Eusebius in his Ecclesiastical History 2.23

http://bcharchive.org/2/thearchives/sho ... 734&page=8

This only quote is sufficient to believe this 'spin' not at all an hyper-skeptic about Josephus' claims, given his efforts to prove Origen based on Hegesippus rather than on Josephus (= the implicit assumption is that Josephus is a lot (!!!) more reliable than Hegesippus, please like the difference).

It is virtually impossible that this 'spin' is someone who would support your hyper-skepticism about any figure in Josephus.
For crying out aloud Giuseppe - you went looking for quotes from spin....................... :shock:

At most, he is only another of the scholars I have meant in my quote above:
Giuseppe wrote: Thu Apr 08, 2021 8:09 am you insist always on Josephus who was reporting his own interpretations of the facts, and not the facts themselves, but all Josephus scholars know that already.

What you (and Charles) are advancing is the absurd/irrational/idiotic idea that Josephus was inventing out of whole cloth figure after figure in his First Revolt narrative, instead of doing tendentious writing of contemporary history partly from firsthand participation and the rest from knowledgeable hearsay, as he says he was doing and as Josephus scholars think he did.
My accusation of hyper-skepticism addressed against Maryhelena (and Charles) stands entirely.
My remark relating to spin still stands:

''Here is a bit of advice that I learned from 'spin' some years ago. Many people lived in ancient time - but to claim historicity for any ancient person one needs evidence of existence. You don't have historical evidence for Jesus b. Saphat. Full stop - move on....waste of time when you don't have historical evidence for Jesus b. Saphat''
Giuseppe
Posts: 13732
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: On the hypothesis that the Gospel Jesus == Jesus ben Saphat

Post by Giuseppe »

maryhelena wrote: Fri Apr 09, 2021 7:53 am
My remark relating to spin still stands:
Accordingly, you should have a low consideration of the intelligence of this 'spin', :lol: if you concede that he disturbed himself to argue that Josephus didn't mention 'Jesus called Christ' in Antiquities 20:200 in a forum's context where the basic assumption was clearly that the presumed mention of Jesus by Josephus would prove ipso facto the historicity of Jesus once forever.
User avatar
maryhelena
Posts: 2904
Joined: Tue Oct 08, 2013 11:22 pm
Location: England

Re: On the hypothesis that the Gospel Jesus == Jesus ben Saphat

Post by maryhelena »

Giuseppe wrote: Fri Apr 09, 2021 8:00 am
maryhelena wrote: Fri Apr 09, 2021 7:53 am
My remark relating to spin still stands:
Accordingly, you should have a low consideration of the intelligence of this 'spin', :lol: if you concede that he disturbed himself to argue that Josephus didn't mention 'Jesus called Christ' in Antiquities 20:200 in a forum's context where the basic assumption was clearly that the presumed mention of Jesus by Josephus would prove ipso facto the historicity of Jesus once forever.
Giuseppe

This is nonsense now...you are side-stepping the purpose of this thread.
spin has not been posting to this forum for quite some time - to attack 'the intelligence of this 'spin' is beyond the pale - not nice at all.... :thumbdown:
Giuseppe
Posts: 13732
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: On the hypothesis that the Gospel Jesus == Jesus ben Saphat

Post by Giuseppe »

maryhelena wrote: Fri Apr 09, 2021 8:08 am to attack 'the intelligence of this 'spin' is beyond the pale - not nice at all.... :thumbdown:
yet that is what you are doing, de facto.

You are victim of the wrong view that 'spin' doubted Josephus as reliable witness of the historicity of any person mentioned by him.

If your premise was true, then why was 'spin' so engaged to prove that Josephus didn't mention 'Jesus called Christ' in Antiquities 20:200 ?

Best answer: because he knew that, had Josephus mentioned Jesus called Christ, then Jesus called Christ existed beyond any doubt.
User avatar
maryhelena
Posts: 2904
Joined: Tue Oct 08, 2013 11:22 pm
Location: England

Re: On the hypothesis that the Gospel Jesus == Jesus ben Saphat

Post by maryhelena »

Giuseppe wrote: Fri Apr 09, 2021 8:12 am
maryhelena wrote: Fri Apr 09, 2021 8:08 am to attack 'the intelligence of this 'spin' is beyond the pale - not nice at all.... :thumbdown:
yet that is what you are doing, de facto.

You are victim of the wrong view that 'spin' doubted Josephus as reliable witness of the historicity of any person mentioned by him.

If your premise was true, then why was 'spin' so engaged to prove that Josephus didn't mention 'Jesus called Christ' in Antiquities 20:200 ?

Best answer: because he knew that, had Josephus mentioned Jesus called Christ, then Jesus called Christ existed beyond any doubt.
:banghead: :scratch: :banghead:
User avatar
maryhelena
Posts: 2904
Joined: Tue Oct 08, 2013 11:22 pm
Location: England

Re: On the hypothesis that the Gospel Jesus == Jesus ben Saphat

Post by maryhelena »

Giuseppe wrote: Fri Apr 09, 2021 7:50 am
maryhelena wrote: Fri Apr 09, 2021 7:20 amyou have no historical evidence that your Jesus, Jesus b. Saphat, was a historical figure.
This claim is absurd, extremely absurd.

I don't care to comment this.


maryhelena wrote: Fri Apr 09, 2021 7:20 am How do you think the Jesus historicists are going to buy your argument?
if they are Jesus historicists who concede the fact that "Mark" (author) has Josephus in view behind 'Joseph of Arimathea', then they are Jesus historicists who have to concede equally that the name of the person saved by Josephus in extremis was named 'Jesus' (because "Mark" identifies him by this name) and was one and the same as 'Jesus b. Sapphat', given otherwise the extreme improbability that the Josephus of the fiction was a "secret disciple" of the Jesus of the fiction and that the Josephus of the history had secret dealings with the Jesus of the history.
:popcorn:
Giuseppe
Posts: 13732
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: On the hypothesis that the Gospel Jesus == Jesus ben Saphat

Post by Giuseppe »

Power of the hearsay: two instances.

Nero was an excellent candidate for the role of Antichrist, Malik argues, in part because of the “false Neros,” the two (or three) imposters who appeared on the scene in the twenty years after Nero’s death in 68 CE and claimed the emperor had never died at all.

https://bmcr.brynmawr.edu/2021/2021.04. ... o38ojBdJUM

The four Greek writers could but rely upon traditional information alone for their chronology, and as there was evidence which had reached Rome that a pretender to divine inspiration had been executed by Pontius Pilate, it was accepted by them as the period of the events which they relate.

(p. 232 from George Solomon's book, my bold)
User avatar
maryhelena
Posts: 2904
Joined: Tue Oct 08, 2013 11:22 pm
Location: England

Re: On the hypothesis that the Gospel Jesus == Jesus ben Saphat

Post by maryhelena »

Giuseppe wrote: Sat Apr 10, 2021 3:12 am

The four Greek writers could but rely upon traditional information alone for their chronology, and as there was evidence which had reached Rome that a pretender to divine inspiration had been executed by Pontius Pilate, it was accepted by them as the period of the events which they relate.

(p. 232 from George Solomon's book, my bold)
Goodness, your really scraping the bottom of the barrel now...

I note that George Solomon provides no source for the 'evidence' he states that reached Rome. Rumor, hearsay, gossip - hardly the stuff upon which to base a historical claim.......nope - the gospel Jesus historicists won't be buying your theory about Jesus b. Saphat during the Jewish Roman war of the 70s c.e.
Giuseppe
Posts: 13732
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: On the hypothesis that the Gospel Jesus == Jesus ben Saphat

Post by Giuseppe »

maryhelena wrote: Sat Apr 10, 2021 4:16 am
I note that George Solomon provides no source for the 'evidence' he states that reached Rome.
Are you saying that the Romans of Rome saw Pilate returning in Rome without knowing the reason of his return (= the fact that he killed the Samaritan false prophet, provoking as reaction the rebellion of the entire Samaritan nation against him, and only him) ?
:whistling: This your hyper-skepticism is absurd, extremely absurd.
User avatar
maryhelena
Posts: 2904
Joined: Tue Oct 08, 2013 11:22 pm
Location: England

Re: On the hypothesis that the Gospel Jesus == Jesus ben Saphat

Post by maryhelena »

Giuseppe wrote: Sat Apr 10, 2021 4:20 am
maryhelena wrote: Sat Apr 10, 2021 4:16 am
I note that George Solomon provides no source for the 'evidence' he states that reached Rome.
Are you saying that the Romans of Rome saw Pilate returning in Rome without knowing the reason of his return (= the fact that he killed the Samaritan false prophet, provoking as reaction the rebellion of the entire Samaritan nation against him, and only him) ?
:whistling:
I said that George Solomon provides no source for the 'evidence' he states that reached Rome.
Post Reply