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 4:54 am
I said that George Solomon provides no source for the 'evidence' he states that reached Rome.
he probably assumed that his readers knew the fate of Pilate, as described by Josephus.
User avatar
maryhelena
Posts: 2878
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 4:56 am
maryhelena wrote: Sat Apr 10, 2021 4:54 am
I said that George Solomon provides no source for the 'evidence' he states that reached Rome.
he probably assumed that his readers knew the fate of Pilate, as described by Josephus.
George Solomon assumes his readers know the Josephus Samaritan story. He then assumes that it was this Josephan story that caused the 'four Greek writers' to place their own Jesus story in the time of Pilate.

George Solomon....previous link . ''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. It was adopted when all the living witnesses who could have corrected them were dead, and on the best evidence they had; ''

So....Solomon's theory, and your own Jesus b.Saphat theory, assumes that the four gospel writers were wrong in placing their Jesus story in the time of Pilate...

However, such a theory, by charging the gospel writers with being mistaken about their Jesus Pilate time frame - ceases to have any relevance whatsoever to the gospel Jesus story. It makes no sense to cherry-pick the gospel story and leave behind the context in which that story is set. Have Jesus b. Saphat as ones 'Jesus' if one wants to - but don't attempt to cherry-pick the gospel story in order to support such a theory. Why, if one proposes that the real Jesus crucifixion story happened around the Jewish Roman war of 70 c.e., would gospel writers seek to time-shift the event back to the time of Pilate. What do they gain? What do they gain by time-shifting a 70 c.e. crucifixion to the time of Pilate?

The gospel story is what it is. A story set in the time of Pilate. Move the story away from Pilate and one looses any relevance the story might have. Create a new Jesus story by all means - but don't take away from the gospel writers the story they are telling. The choice is between taking their story literally or taking it as an allegory, a political allegory. Time-shifting the story to 70 c.e. negates both these two options. It seeks to side-step the issues and problems that these two options already present. One can't answer these problems by attempting to shift the debate to 70 c.e. Context matters. Change the context and one changes the story.
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 6:59 am Why, if one proposes that the real Jesus crucifixion story happened around the Jewish Roman war of 70 c.e., would gospel writers seek to time-shift the event back to the time of Pilate. What do they gain? What do they gain by time-shifting a 70 c.e. crucifixion to the time of Pilate?
They wanted to connect more strongly what they received — the traditio — with the official History. To explain the former by invented references to the latter.


A very similar question:

Why did they make Nero a candidate for the role of Antichrist?

The answer is: 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.

Idem in the case of the Gospel writers: they made the Samaritan false prophet slain by Pilate the best candidate for the role of their traditional Jesus (the Jesus of their traditio).
By doing so, they believed that they could justify that story in the eyes of public opinion.

Had the Samaritan false prophet not lived under Pilate, then there would be no mention at all of Pilate in our Gospels.
User avatar
maryhelena
Posts: 2878
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 7:20 am
maryhelena wrote: Sat Apr 10, 2021 6:59 am Why, if one proposes that the real Jesus crucifixion story happened around the Jewish Roman war of 70 c.e., would gospel writers seek to time-shift the event back to the time of Pilate. What do they gain? What do they gain by time-shifting a 70 c.e. crucifixion to the time of Pilate?
They wanted to connect more strongly what they received — the traditio — with the official History. To explain the former by invented references to the latter.
Had the Samaritan false prophet not lived under Pilate, then there would be no mention at all of Pilate in our Gospels.
With that sort of assumption you might as well ditch the gospels all together...oh well....I suppose cherry-picking is needed to support your assumptions re Jesus b. Saphat......Ironic really - those who want to time-shift the Jesus story still feel the need for gospel support while denying that story's context.
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 7:56 amIronic really - those who want to time-shift the Jesus story still feel the need for gospel support while denying that story's context.
the alternative (to the time-shift 70 CE 30 CE) is that the Gospels are pure deliberate inventions, without even a bit of remembered history, indeed.

My point is that Jesus b. Sapphat is, in the Gospels, a remembered Jesus.

Not co-opted, or used as mere literary expedient. But remembered.
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 »

An example of how Jesus b. Sapphat was remembered in a Gospel episode.
User avatar
maryhelena
Posts: 2878
Joined: Tue Oct 08, 2013 11:22 pm
Location: England

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

Post by maryhelena »

Richard Carrier has responded to Greg Doudna on the Jesus b. Saphat theory.


Submitted by Richard Carrier on Fri, 04/09/2021 - 18:07

In reply to by Gregory Doudna

Doudna: You did not respond to any point I made. Ignoring content and obsessing over tone instead is precisely the behavior of a crank. As also of anyone who does not have a legitimate case to make.

https://bibleinterp.arizona.edu/comment ... mment-1054
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 »

There is nothing of new under the sun: George Solomon was enumerated among historicists by mythicists and among mythicists by historicists.

Ideology should go distant!
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 »

What is particularly strange about Carrier's irrational apologetics is that I find particularly interesting his own Argument from Extreme Improbability of a Coincidence.

He used it to prove that Philo knew that Jesus was the name of a Jewish archangel, because otherwise he would have never called Joshua of Zechariah as anatolē and Logos.

I (and Vermeiren and Doudna, but curiously not G.Solomon) use the same Argument from Extreme Improbability of a Coincidence to prove that Josephus knew that the name of the crucified victim saved by him in extremis was Jesus b. Sapphat (with which he had secret dealings in past) because otherwise "Mark" (author) would have never made a Joseph(-us) of Arimathea the "secret disciple" of the Gospel Jesus.
User avatar
maryhelena
Posts: 2878
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 9:15 pm What is particularly strange about Carrier's irrational apologetics is that I find particularly interesting his own Argument from Extreme Improbability of a Coincidence.

He used it to prove that Philo knew that Jesus was the name of a Jewish archangel, because otherwise he would have never called Joshua of Zechariah as anatolē and Logos.

I (and Vermeiren and Doudna, but curiously not G.Solomon) use the same Argument from Extreme Improbability of a Coincidence to prove that Josephus knew that the name of the crucified victim saved by him in extremis was Jesus b. Sapphat (with which he had secret dealings in past) because otherwise "Mark" (author) would have never made a Joseph(-us) of Arimathea the "secret disciple" of the Gospel Jesus.
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. The difference is between a theological or philosophical theory and a historical theory - in fact a historical claim being made by Vermeiren and Doudna. Coincidence is nowhere near enough to substantiate a historical claim. Particularly a claim that is challenging the consensus on Christian origins and history. Speculation, coincidences won't cut it. You need a historical argument - and as I keep saying to you - 'Josephus' says so' is not an historical argument. Josephan scholar James McLaren says: ''It is evident that the narrative of events contained in Josephus's texts should not be taken at face value''.

Yes, Richard Carrier can be a hard case sometimes - but, for heavens sake, why should the man be interested in speculative theories about a figure in Josephus - a figure for which there is no historical evidence. Conjecture, coincidence, can indeed suggest possibilities that need to be investigated - but that's as far as they go - they don't establish, in this case, historical evidence for Jesus b. Saphat being the gospel Jesus figure.
Post Reply