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.
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 11:32 pm
Giuseppe - you don't seem to realize the difference between your reference to Carrier on Philo and Vermeiren and Doudna on the Josephan figure of Jesus b. Saphat.
I see this difference: Philo doesn't mention explicitly an archangel named Jesus in the rest of his works, whereas Josephus mentions explicitly the name of Jesus b. Sapphat, and more than a time in his books.

This only fact says me why Vermeiren applies the Argument from the Extreme Improbability of a Coincidence surely better than Carrier does.

With more right than him.
maryhelena wrote: Sat Apr 10, 2021 11:32 pm Coincidence is nowhere near enough to substantiate a historical claim.
When a coincidence is too much impossible to be considered such, then it is not more a coincidence.
maryhelena wrote: Sat Apr 10, 2021 11:32 pm You need a historical argument - and as I keep saying to you - 'Josephus' says so' is not an historical argument.
With all his propagandist interests, Josephus is a true historian. The Gospel writers are not historians. This for me is a fact. And surely the First Jewish Revolt was much more connected with the genesis of Christianity than any your preferred last asmonean king.
User avatar
maryhelena
Posts: 2881
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 11:45 pm
With all his propagandist interests, Josephus is a true historian. The Gospel writers are not historians. This for me is a fact. And surely the First Jewish Revolt was much more connected with the genesis of Christianity than any your preferred last asmonean king.
The origins of christianity lie within a Jewish context. Hence, Jewish and Hasmonean history is important to christian origins. That history does not begin with the Roman siege of Jerusalem in 70 c.e. That history goes back to Roman control of Judaea in 63 b.c. when Pompey entered the Holy of Holies of the Jerusalem temple, thereby desecrating it. Pompey removed one Hasmonean King and replaced him by another. At the siege of Jerusalem in 37 b.c. Herod removed the Hasmonean King and High Priest - the Roman Marc Antony had him executed. To deny this history any relevance to the gospel story - and hence to the origins of christianity - is very shortsighted.

Image

JD54982. Bronze AE 25, Meshorer TJC 40, Hendin 1164, Sofaer Collection 437, SNG ANS 192, HGC 10 649, SNG Cop -, aVF, Jerusalem mint, weight 13.415g, maximum diameter 25.3mm, obverse Paleo-Hebrew inscription: Mattatayah the High Priest and Council of the Jews, around and between the horns of a double cornucopia; reverse BACIΛEΩC ANTIΓONOY (of King Antigonus), ivy wreath tied with ribbons; scarce; SOLD

https://www.forumancientcoins.com/catal ... om/Coins2/


Jewish History
Josephus
Gospels and Acts.
King Antigonus Mattathias II High Priest of the Jews: 4 b.c.e. – 37 b.c.e. Hasmonean Bilingual Coins, Hebrew and Greek. Antigonus enters Jerusalem: Antigonus himself also bit off Hyrcanus's ears with his own teeth, as he fell down upon his knees to him, that so he might never be able upon any mutation of affairs to take the high priesthood again, for the high priests that officiated were to be complete, and without blemish. War: Book 1.ch.13 John 18.10; Mark 14.47; Matthew 26.51; Luke 22.50. John and Luke specifying right ear, Mark and Matthew have 'ear'. gJohn stating that Peter cut off the ear of the High Priest's servant.
Now as winter was going off, Herod marched to Jerusalem, and brought his army to the wall of it; this was the third year since he had been made king at Rome; War: Book 1. ch.17 (37 b.c.).. Herod on his own account, in order to take the government from Antigonus, who was declared an enemy at Rome, and that he might himself be king, according to the decree of the Senate. Antiquities Book 14 ch.16. gJohn indicates a three year ministry for JC.
Cassius Dio: Antigonus. These people Antony entrusted to one Herod to govern, and Antigonus he bound to a cross and flogged,—treatment accorded to no other king by the Romans,—and subsequently slew him. Roman History, Book xlix, c.22 Then it was that Antigonus, without any regard to his former or to his present fortune, came down from the citadel, and fell at Sosius's feet, who without pitying him at all, upon the change of his condition, laughed at him beyond measure, and called him Antigona. Yet did he not treat him like a woman, or let him go free, but put him into bonds, and kept him in custody.... Sosius ......went away from Jerusalem, leading Antigonus away in bonds to Antony; then did the axe bring him to his end..War: Book 1.ch.18. .. The soldiers mock Jesus: Mark 15.16-20; Matthew 27:27-31.Jesus flogged: John 19:1; Mark 15:15; Matthew 27:26. JC crucified. Trilingual sign over cross: Aramaic, Latin and Greek. gJohn 19.19-21. JESUS OF NAZARETH, THE KING OF THE JEWS. Other variations: THIS IS JESUS THE KING OF THE JEWS; THE KING OF THE JEWS; THIS IS THE KING OF THE JEWS.
..and then but Herod was afraid lest Antigonus should be kept in prison [only] by Antony, and that when he was carried to Rome by him, he might get his cause to be heard by the senate, and might demonstrate, as he was himself of the royal blood, and Herod but a private man, that therefore it belonged to his sons however to have the kingdom, on account of the family they were of, in case he had himself offended the Romans by what he had done. Out of Herod's fear of this it was that he, by giving Antony a great deal of money, endeavoured to persuade him to have Antigonus slain. Antiquities: Book 14 ch.16. Judas betrays JC for 30 pieces of silver. Matthew 27.3.
Now when Antony had received Antigonus as his captive, he determined to keep him against his triumph; but when he heard that the nation grew seditious, and that, out of their hatred to Herod, they continued to bear good-will to Antigonus, he resolved to behead him at Antioch, for otherwise the Jews could no way be brought to be quiet. (37 b.c.) Antiquities: Book 15 ch.1. Acts: 11:16.The disciples were called Christians first at Antioch.


''Dion Cassius says, 'Antony now gave the Kingdom to a certain Herod, and having stretched Antigonus on the cross and scourged him, which had never been done before to a king by the Romans, he put him to death'. The sympathies of the masses for the crucified king of Judah, the heroic son of so many heroic ancestors, and the legends growing, in time, out of this historical nucleus, became, perhaps, the source from which Paul and the evangelists preached Jesus as the crucified king of Judea.'' (History of the Hebrew's Second Commonwealth, 1880, Cincinnati, page 206)

Rabbi Isaac Mayer Wise (1819-1900), scholar and novelist

http://collections.americanjewisharchiv ... wealth.pdf


Historical artefacts, such as coins, are testimony to the fact that certain individuals were historical figures. That is the bare bones of historical evidence. However, history requires a story; a narrative, to joins up the facts and present a meaningful picture. The picture could be cloudy and unclear or it could be a reasonable explanation of what happened. In the chart, Josephus is the primary source for building that historical narrative. Did Josephus himself, writing after the events, have accurate material to work with? Or is Josephus creating his own narrative - and without a secondary source there is no way to be sure. All one can do is work with his material and question his story when it presents problems.

And no, Giuseppe, the gospel writers did not place their Jesus crucifixion story in the time of Pilate because of a Josephan account regarding the Samaritans and Pilate. They placed their Jesus crucifixion story in the time of Pilate as a remembrance of the history of the last King and High Priest of the Jews - executed in 37 b.c. Antigonus's history being from 40 b.c. to 37 b.c. - as the gospels place their Jesus crucifixion story somewhere around 30/33 c.e. 70 years from the end of Hasmonean rule in Judaea. There is no assumed backward time-shift here - there is history remembered 70 years after the event. Just as we today remember the wars of the past and those fallen in them.

(From the position of a composite literary gospel Jesus, the above argument relates only to the crucifixion element in that composite gospel figure.)
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 »

I knew about your obsession for Antigonus from reading your old posts on BCH archives. I didn't know that your obsession for this theory was so powerful to move you to reiterate it again and again everywhere, especially in threads where another candidates are given for the Gospels.

Do you know scholars who argue for your same theory, apart the Rabbi Isaac Mayer Wise?

Renè Salm argues for a Jesus lived under Ianneus as the true founder of Christianity.

Frankly, I am skeptical. I are reluctant to concede ontological status to theories so different from mine.

Even before knowing about Vermeiren's theory, I had already abandoned at all the idea that Christianity existed before 70 CE.

The idea of a crucified Messiah could only arise after the 70 CE, not before.


The list of reasons for a mythical crucifixion misses in my view an essential feature that only a historical crucifixion could have: the fact that the victim had to be brandished publicly before the eyes of the most high number of people. The crucifixion en masse of the entire Israel in 70 CE satisfies fully this requisite.


In addition:
  • The crucifixion of the victim saved by Josephus in extremis was seen even by Titus himself.
  • At contrary, who saw Antigonus die on the cross?

    Cassius Dio doesn't say that Antigonus died on the cross:

    These people Antony entrusted to one Herod to govern, and Antigonus he bound to a cross and flogged,—treatment accorded to no other king by the Romans,—and subsequently slew him.

    Roman History, Book xlix, c.22
lsayre
Posts: 769
Joined: Sun Jan 04, 2015 3:39 pm

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

Post by lsayre »

Philo is presumed to have died in about 40 AD. If Philo conceived of an Archangel named Jesus before Jesus ben Saphat was born, that doesn't leave much wiggle room whereby to presume them to be one and the same.
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 »

lsayre wrote: Sun Apr 11, 2021 4:23 am Philo is presumed to have died in about 40 AD. If Philo conceived of an Archangel named Jesus before Jesus ben Saphat was born, that doesn't leave much wiggle room whereby to presume them to be one and the same.
read the last paragraph of this post.
User avatar
maryhelena
Posts: 2881
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: Sun Apr 11, 2021 3:54 am I knew about your obsession for Antigonus from reading your old posts on BCH archives. I didn't know that your obsession for this theory was so powerful to move you to reiterate it again and again everywhere, especially in threads where another candidates are given for the Gospels.
Talk about obsession.......methinks kettle calling the pot black here.

''especially in threads where another candidates are given for the gospels''...Indeed, where speculation is provided instead of evidence then those advancing the speculation will be called out.

As to doing background checking on my posting - methinks, Giuseppe, your time would more profitably be spent on checking the speculation of your own theory.


In addition:
  • At contrary, who saw Antigonus die on the cross?

    Cassius Dio doesn't say that Antigonus died on the cross:

    These people Antony entrusted to one Herod to govern, and Antigonus he bound to a cross and flogged,—treatment accorded to no other king by the Romans,—and subsequently slew him.

    Roman History, Book xlix, c.22
The Romans, via Marc Antony, executed a King and High Priest of the Jews. Whether Antigonus was, re Cassius Dio, first hung on a cross and flogged or whether he was only beheaded does not change the fundamental historical fact. Antigonus was executed by the Romans. You don't have a Roman execution of a King of the Jews for your Jesus b. Saphat theory. Yes, you could say the sign over the gospel Jesus crucifixion cross was iconic - that it had no relevance to the history of the gospel Jesus story. But that would be to ignore Hasmonean history - for the fact is that the Romans killed a King of the Jews.

Josephus does not state that Jesus b. Saphat was crucified by the Romans. Your theory is pure conjecture, speculation. Why, in the face of historical evidence regarding the Roman execution of the last King and High Priest of the Jews would one want to turn to conjecture and speculation about a figure in Josephus that has no historical relevance whatsoever.

The historical candidate for the gospel crucifixion Jesus story is the last King and High Priest of the Jews, executed by the Romans in 37 b.c. Josephus, around 70 c.e., has a story about a figure he calls Jesus b. Saphat. There is no historical evidence to support historicity for this figure. Josephus does not state this figure was crucified by the Romans. Even if this Josephan figure was a historical figure there would be no historical relevance to his existence. There would be no reason whatsoever for the gospel writers to remember him as he had no relevance to Jewish history. The gospel writers had no need to wait around for Josephus to write a story about Jesus b. Saphat - they had the history of the Roman execution of a King of the Jews right before them.
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: Sun Apr 11, 2021 5:02 amthe fact is that the Romans killed a King of the Jews.
"of the Jews" may be genitive possessive: the Jews had that king. The polemical theological (= not historical) allusion could be: the "Jews" have Jesus, not you Gentiles, not you Marcion.

Something of similar to: the salvation comes from Jews (John 4:22).

How can you answer to this particular strong objection, so fatal to your entire theorem?
maryhelena wrote: Sun Apr 11, 2021 5:02 am
Josephus does not state that Jesus b. Saphat was crucified by the Romans.
Josephus mentions a crucifixion of three people. These three were crucified by Romans, not by aliens. How of grace :o :shock: :? :problem: :eh: :wtf: :thumbdown: :( can you claim a such thesis?
maryhelena wrote: Sun Apr 11, 2021 5:02 am
The gospel writers had no need to wait around for Josephus to write a story about Jesus b. Saphat - they had the history of the Roman execution of a King of the Jews right before them.
not even when there is the concrete probability that Jesus b. Sapphat was the Last High Priest of Jerusalem? Not even when the Pagan Hierocles meant surely Jesus b. Sapphat ?
User avatar
maryhelena
Posts: 2881
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: Sun Apr 11, 2021 5:17 am
maryhelena wrote: Sun Apr 11, 2021 5:02 amthe fact is that the Romans killed a King of the Jews.
"of the Jews" may be genitive possessive: the Jews had that king. The polemical theological (= not historical) allusion could be: the "Jews" have Jesus, not you Gentiles, not you Marcion.

Something of similar to: the salvation comes from Jews (John 4:22).

How can you answer to this particular strong objection, so fatal to your entire theorem?
maryhelena wrote: Sun Apr 11, 2021 5:02 am
Josephus does not state that Jesus b. Saphat was crucified by the Romans.
Josephus mentions a crucifixion of three people. These three were crucified by Romans, not by aliens. How of grace :o :shock: :? :problem: :eh: :wtf: :thumbdown: :( can you claim a such thesis?
Josephus does not name the man taken alive down from the cross in 70 c.e.
maryhelena wrote: Sun Apr 11, 2021 5:02 am
The gospel writers had no need to wait around for Josephus to write a story about Jesus b. Saphat - they had the history of the Roman execution of a King of the Jews right before them.
not even when there is the concrete probability that Jesus b. Sapphat was the Last High Priest of Jerusalem? Not even when the Pagan Hierocles meant surely Jesus b. Sapphat ?

Joseph Cabi ben Simon, 62-63
Ananus ben Ananus, 63
Jesus son of Damneus, 63
Joshua ben Gamla, 63-64 (his wife Martha belonged to family of Boethus)
Mattathias ben Theophilus, 65-66
Phannias ben Samuel, 67-70

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_H ... _of_Israel

I see no Jesus b. Saphat in that list of Jewish High Priests.
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: Sun Apr 11, 2021 5:30 am
Josephus does not name the man taken alive down from the cross in 70 c.e.
Josephus doesn't name him, however "Mark" (author) does.
maryhelena wrote: Sun Apr 11, 2021 5:02 am
I see no Jesus b. Saphat in that list of Jewish High Priests.
please read here:

Josippon (medieval, not regarded as reliable in mainstream scholarship, regarded as drawing from Latin translations of Josephus and other unknown sources), has as parallel: “Josua a priest, sonne of Schaftai the hygh priest” (I am quoting from a republished English translation of Josippon of 1575-1579, emphasis mine). Gr. War texts “Thebuti” = Josippon “Schaftai”, and in Josippon Schaftai/Thebuti is said to have been a high priest (Gr. War only says “priest”).

War 2.566 “Jesus son of Sapphas, one of the chief priests” (Σαπφᾶ [Loeb]), but Loeb has a footnote indicating that is an emendation from mss. reading Σαπφὼ or Σαπφὰν) is listed among other commanders, most from high-priestly-family circles, at the outset of the Revolt.

https://vridar.org/2019/05/15/alan-kirk ... ment-93102
User avatar
maryhelena
Posts: 2881
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: Sun Apr 11, 2021 5:35 am
maryhelena wrote: Sun Apr 11, 2021 5:30 am
Josephus does not name the man taken alive down from the cross in 70 c.e.
Josephus doesn't name him, however "Mark" (author) does.
maryhelena wrote: Sun Apr 11, 2021 5:02 am
I see no Jesus b. Saphat in that list of Jewish High Priests.
please read here:

Josippon (medieval, not regarded as reliable in mainstream scholarship, regarded as drawing from Latin translations of Josephus and other unknown sources), has as parallel: “Josua a priest, sonne of Schaftai the hygh priest” (I am quoting from a republished English translation of Josippon of 1575-1579, emphasis mine). Gr. War texts “Thebuti” = Josippon “Schaftai”, and in Josippon Schaftai/Thebuti is said to have been a high priest (Gr. War only says “priest”).

War 2.566 “Jesus son of Sapphas, one of the chief priests” (Σαπφᾶ [Loeb]), but Loeb has a footnote indicating that is an emendation from mss. reading Σαπφὼ or Σαπφὰν) is listed among other commanders, most from high-priestly-family circles, at the outset of the Revolt.

https://vridar.org/2019/05/15/alan-kirk ... ment-93102
'War only says 'priest'.....
Post Reply