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: 2886
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 8:40 am
maryhelena wrote: Sun Apr 11, 2021 8:28 am
You cannot prove that the gospel literary figure of Joseph of Arimathea is Yosef ben Matityahu.
How can you say something of similar ?

  • Josef bar Matthea == Joseph bar Arimathea.

Alternative parallel re names.....

Titus Flavius Josephus - born Yosef ben Matityahu

Antigonus II Mattathias (Hebrew: מתתיהו אנטיגונוס השני‎, Matityahu), also known as Antigonus the Hasmonean (died 37 BCE)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antigonus_II_Mattathias

  • three crucifixions, one removed from the cross, both in Josephus and in Mark.
One man taken down dead from the cross another man taken down alive from the cross......parallel?
  • Josephus, in secret league with a Jesus, Joseph of Arimathea a secret disciple of a Jesus
/
Josephus had a friend named Epaphroditus. Paul had a friend named Epaphroditus - so according to your above reasoning - Paul is Josephus.......

Really, the parallelisms are self-evident.

I invite you to think more and more on these parallelisms. :cheers:
While parallelism are interesting they should not be taken out of context. If there are parallelisms in your 3 points they need to be viewed within their respective contexts. It's not a case of picking one context - the Jewish war of 70 c.e. as being some sort of primary parallel and the parallel of 30 - 33 c.e. as being a secondary parallel. Actually we are then not talking parallels but plagiarism. That way is not how to view parallels. Parallels need to be viewed in their individual context. Attempts to time-shift the relevance of a parallel outside of its context is to distort it's contextual relevance..


Abstractly, Qumran might have influenced the NT, or abstractly, it might not have, or Talmud
the NT, or the Midrash Philo, or Philo Paul. The issue for the student is not the abstraction but
the specific. Detailed study is the criterion, and the detailed study ought to respect the context
and not be limited to juxtaposing mere excerpts. Two passages may sound the same in
splendid isolation from their context, but when seen in context reflect difference rather than
similarity.
----
It would seem to me to follow that, in dealing with similarities we can sometimes discover
exact parallels, some with and some devoid of significance; seeming parallels which are so
only imperfectly; and statements which can be called parallels only by taking them out of
context. I must go on to allege that I encounter from time to time scholarly writings which go
astray in this last regard. It is the question of excerpt versus context, which I have touched on
and now return to.

Parallelomania*

Samuel Sandmel

https://www.sbl-site.org/assets/pdfs/pr ... el1961.pdf

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: Mon Apr 12, 2021 10:29 am Parallelomania*
No, it isn't. Maryhelena, you should read again what Doudna says:

The force of the Josephus three-and-one crucifixion-survival story is difficult to weaken. The similarity to the Gospel Passion story is too alike to be unrelated coincidence, and the Josephus story is certainly presented as Josephus first-hand account with no sign that it is Josephus covertly inventing that story to counter Christianity. The Passion story of Jesus’s crucifixion is so central to the Jesus story, and Josephus dates it that story as being a story of something which occurred securely and narrowly dated some time between 68 and 70 ce. And the identification of Joseph “of Arimethea” as Josephus bar Matthias, both carrying out the same respective functions of appealing for permission to have the body taken down from the cross of the one who is resurrected/given medical treatment and survives, nails the case further. Josephus’s story of the three and one is correctly dated, and that is the correct original date of Jesus in the story of the crucifixion which became so central to the Christian gospel.

https://vridar.org/2021/01/05/spit-at-a ... ent-127478 (my bold)
User avatar
maryhelena
Posts: 2886
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: Mon Apr 12, 2021 10:37 am
maryhelena wrote: Mon Apr 12, 2021 10:29 am Parallelomania*
No, it isn't. Maryhelena, you should read again what Doudna says:

The force of the Josephus three-and-one crucifixion-survival story is difficult to weaken. The similarity to the Gospel Passion story is too alike to be unrelated coincidence, and the Josephus story is certainly presented as Josephus first-hand account with no sign that it is Josephus covertly inventing that story to counter Christianity. The Passion story of Jesus’s crucifixion is so central to the Jesus story, and Josephus dates it that story as being a story of something which occurred securely and narrowly dated some time between 68 and 70 ce. And the identification of Joseph “of Arimethea” as Josephus bar Matthias, both carrying out the same respective functions of appealing for permission to have the body taken down from the cross of the one who is resurrected/given medical treatment and survives, nails the case further. Josephus’s story of the three and one is correctly dated, and that is the correct original date of Jesus in the story of the crucifixion which became so central to the Christian gospel.

https://vridar.org/2021/01/05/spit-at-a ... ent-127478 (my bold)
The problem, Giuseppe, with all of that is that it requires a time shift.... and by resorting to a time shift to accommodate this theory one has negated any relevance the parallels have within their respective contexts. For example: viewing the gospel story as being a political allegory related to Hasmonean history does not parallel with the events of the Jewish Roman War of the 70s. By backward time shifting the events of the 70s to the 30s one has, as it were, cancelled the relevance of Hasmonean history for the gospel writers. Thus the Roman execution of Antigonus is sidelined for an unnamed man of the 70s. I really don't think that this is what Josephus, a Hasmonean of royal descent, would want to be seen to be suggesting. It is surely far more likely that it is his historical recollection of the siege of Jerusalem in 37 b.c. that is uppermost in his mind when recounting cucifixions in 70 c. e.
User avatar
maryhelena
Posts: 2886
Joined: Tue Oct 08, 2013 11:22 pm
Location: England

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

Post by maryhelena »

Regarding Joseph of Arimathea - below is a quote from Brodie in an earlier thread regarding Josephus and New Testament writers.

Did GMark Intend Joseph of Arimathea to be Josephus?

viewtopic.php?f=3&t=2951

Thomas Brodie: Beyond the Quest for the Historical Jesus.
page 165

Furthermore, Josephus and the evangelists were both engaged not only in writings and publishing, but essentially in the same field of writing-in diverse modifications and updatings of the Jewish scriptures. Thus while Antiquities uses many sources, it particularly builds on the traditional Jewish scriptures. And Luke-Acts is written as a continuation of the ancient Jewish scriptures (Sterling I 992: 363). And like Josephus, Luke too was a form of wide-ranging historian who went back to the beginning of things. Curiously, the Testimonium has affinities to some of the speeches concerning Jesus in the first half of Acts. In fact, the overall affinities between Josephus and Luke-Acts are so strong that researchers claim that one depends on the other, and, while the direction of dependence is debated, the two literary works do seem somehow intertwined. Luke in tum had access to Mark, and Mark also was in continuity with the ancient scriptures (see esp. Winn 2010). In others words, given the link of older scriptures with New Testament narrative, it makes sense that the Antiquities that built so carefully on the older scriptures should also acknowledge New Testament narrative.

What is important in the present context is the availability of a relatively simple working hypothesis: Josephus the writer, in accord with his general practice of adapting sources, especially scripture and scripture-related sources, knew enough about the writings of at least two specific New Testament authors, authors to whom in various ways he seems to have been close, that he could adapt and summarize what they had said, and so could make reference to Jesus.

What is certain is that it is extremely risky to conclude that Josephus did not have access, direct or indirect, either to serious discussion with some Christians or to some of the work of the evangelists, so it is not possible, in any reliable way, to invoke Josephus as an independent witness to Jesus. Unreliable witness cannot be used to condemn someone to death. And neither can it be used to assert that someone lived.

my formatting

''Furthermore, Josephus and the evangelists were both engaged not only in writings and publishing, but essentially in the same field of writing-in diverse modifications and updatings of the Jewish scriptures.''

Both Josephus and the NT writers are writing from the perspective of Jewish scriptures - Josephus even saying that he would begin his writing where the prophets left off. Hence, methinks, rather than view these two sources as independent of one another it's time to consider a cooperative approach. In other words - one is not copying from another - both Josephus and the NT writers are furthering the same agenda. Understanding, interpreting, through OT scripture via a prophetic lens, the historical context in which they functioned.
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 »

you are misinterpreting Brodie on this point. Josephus was not in secret league with the Gospel writers.
And obviously Josephus based on OT only for the first books of his Jewish Antiquities. BJ or Vita cannot be compared in no way with the Gospels.
User avatar
maryhelena
Posts: 2886
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: Wed Apr 14, 2021 1:26 am you are misinterpreting Brodie on this point. Josephus was not in secret league with the Gospel writers.
And obviously Josephus based on OT only for the first books of his Jewish Antiquities. BJ or Vita cannot be compared in no way with the Gospels.
So it's back to cherry-picking Josephus....


Thomas Brodie page 182

But a theory that set the fall of the temple at the very
origins of Christianity would have to deal with difficulties about dating,
particularly the dating of the early epistles. So, while granting a role to the
fall of the temple, it would seem a role should also be given to the inspirations
and divisions that existed within Judaism prior to 70 CE

''a role should also be given to the inspirations and division that existed within Judaism prior to 70 c.e.''

Setting the Stage: The Effects of the Roman Conquest and the Loss of Sovereignty

Nadav Sharon: ‘Despite the enormous amount of scholarly work on the Second Temple Period it seems to me that the period of 67–37 bce, and the dramatic change it brought upon Judea, have been somewhat neglected in modern historical study’

It seems to me safe to assume that a change such as the loss of sovereignty must have had a tremendous impact on Judean religion and society. However, as already observed, historical study has relatively neglected this period, and has focused on the destruction of the Temple, not on the loss of independence, when reflecting upon the evolution of ancient Judaism.

However, it seems that in addition to the neglect of that period, this picture in turn has also made it seem all the more natural for scholars to emphasize the Destruction as the basis for understanding later Judaism and to overlooking the impact of the loss of independence and the beginning of Roman dominion of Judea.

It is, therefore, my contention here that some conceptual and institutional developments which were crucial for the development of post-Destruction Judaism are to be understood more appropriately against the background of the loss of independence and the beginning of Roman rule in Judea.

(Was 70 c.e. a Watershed in Jewish History)

https://www.academia.edu/2501352/Settin ... overeignty


Hasmonean historyChronologyJosephus
37 b.c. Antigonus executed100 years63 c.e. James stoned
30 b.c. Hyrancus executed*70 c.e. unnamed man crucified
7 year end of Hasmoneans *7 year time frame to 70 c.e.

I would suggest that this is what Josephus is doing in his story about having the unnamed man taken down from the cross : remembering past history; remembering the last 7 years of Hasmonean history. Replaying the historical tape as an undercurrent for the stories he writes in regard to the war of 70 c.e. No need whatsoever to time-shift the crucified man of 70 c.e. back to the time of Pilate. - that gospel man is a literary creation. Josephus has already, by his use of a seven year parallel - indicated what Roman execution he is remembering from 37 b.c. A real historical Roman execution of the last King and High Priest of the Jews.

(Historically, two Hasmoneans were executed. No, not brothers, an uncle and a nephew, but from the family of Hasmonean Kings. )
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 »

So the Josippon passage as reconstructed by Robert Eisler (p. 111 of this book):

«in those days there were wars and quarrels in Judaea between the Pharisees and the “robbers of our nation” who strayed after Jesus, son of Joseph. And there went out some of those robbers and wandered in the wilderness where there is no way, and made unto themselves signs and miracles through their sorceries. And there came some of the sons of the city of Edom, robbers (too), and they (all) went into the hiding-places of Edom and seduced many (saying) : “in the days (of ... ) Jesus came to ... (us) ... Arrived has the angel (messenger) of God foretold by the prophets throughout the ages, and he has said ... but they listened not to him, but sought how they might kill him. Now, however, let us ....................... (The chief of these bandits) was Eleazar, who committed great crimes in Israel, until the Pharisees got the better of him»

About this Eleazar, I am advancing two/three possibilities.
  • 1) If he is the same Beloved Disciple (=Lazzarus), then he had free access to the house of the high priest, in John 18:15-17:

    Simon Peter and another disciple were following Jesus. Because this disciple was known to the high priest, he went with Jesus into the high priest’s courtyard, 16 but Peter had to wait outside at the door. The other disciple, who was known to the high priest, came back, spoke to the servant girl on duty there and brought Peter in. “You aren’t one of this man’s disciples too, are you?” she asked Peter. He replied, “I am not.”


    ...Hence he could be Eleazar ben Ananias, i.e. a son of a high priest (Ananias b. Nebedeus, 46-52 CE). His connection with the Idumeans may explain the reference to 'Edom' in the Yosippon passage.
  • 2) There is another Eleazar in Josephus, i.e. Eleazar b. Jair, the last rebel in Masada. His existence is inferred by this archeological evidence:


    Image
    445. MASADA - OSTRACON INSCRIBED: "BEN YAIR", WHICH WAS THE NAME OF ONE OF THE LEADERS OF THE REVOLT AGAINST THE ROMANS

    https://www.alamy.com/stock-photo-445-m ... 80109.html



    What is surprising is that the resurrection of Lazarus is not found in the Synoptics. In his place there is the resurrection... ...of the "daughter of Jair"! Coincidence?

  • 3) A third possibility is that Josephus confused deliberately the two Eleazars. He first defamed the Eleazar b. Ananias by making him the betrayer and killer of Menahem, and then he removed from him his heroic act of resistance in Masada, by referring said action to a "distinct" Eleazar (b. Jair).
CONCLUSION:

so, if 'Eleazar' was ben Ananias, or ben Jair, or ben X, what did it matter after all?

Reconstructing who was really 'Eleazar' is not even important, since these Eleazar(es?) were all involved in the tragic Rivolt against the Romans and had caused the destruction of the temple: whoever that "Eleazar" was, every trace of a connection between him and Jesus b. Sapphat had to be forgotten, erased, extinguished.

To Maryhelena: to know the real origins of Christianity, one has to apply on the First Jewish Revolt the Eraclitean aphorism:

Πόλεμος πάντων μὲν πατήρ ἐστι, πάντων δὲ βασιλεύς

“War is father and king of everything”
User avatar
maryhelena
Posts: 2886
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: Wed Apr 14, 2021 9:34 am So the Josippon passage as reconstructed by Robert Eisler (p. 111 of this book):

«in those days there were wars and quarrels in Judaea between the Pharisees and the “robbers of our nation” who strayed after Jesus, son of Joseph. And there went out some of those robbers and wandered in the wilderness where there is no way, and made unto themselves signs and miracles through their sorceries. And there came some of the sons of the city of Edom, robbers (too), and they (all) went into the hiding-places of Edom and seduced many (saying) : “in the days (of ... ) Jesus came to ... (us) ... Arrived has the angel (messenger) of God foretold by the prophets throughout the ages, and he has said ... but they listened not to him, but sought how they might kill him. Now, however, let us ....................... (The chief of these bandits) was Eleazar, who committed great crimes in Israel, until the Pharisees got the better of him»

About this Eleazar, I am advancing two/three possibilities.
  • 1) If he is the same Beloved Disciple (=Lazzarus), then he had free access to the house of the high priest, in John 18:15-17:

    Simon Peter and another disciple were following Jesus. Because this disciple was known to the high priest, he went with Jesus into the high priest’s courtyard, 16 but Peter had to wait outside at the door. The other disciple, who was known to the high priest, came back, spoke to the servant girl on duty there and brought Peter in. “You aren’t one of this man’s disciples too, are you?” she asked Peter. He replied, “I am not.”


    ...Hence he could be Eleazar ben Ananias, i.e. a son of a high priest (Ananias b. Nebedeus, 46-52 CE). His connection with the Idumeans may explain the reference to 'Edom' in the Yosippon passage.
  • 2) There is another Eleazar in Josephus, i.e. Eleazar b. Jair, the last rebel in Masada. His existence is inferred by this archeological evidence:


    Image
    445. MASADA - OSTRACON INSCRIBED: "BEN YAIR", WHICH WAS THE NAME OF ONE OF THE LEADERS OF THE REVOLT AGAINST THE ROMANS

    https://www.alamy.com/stock-photo-445-m ... 80109.html



    What is surprising is that the resurrection of Lazarus is not found in the Synoptics. In his place there is the resurrection... ...of the "daughter of Jair"! Coincidence?

  • 3) A third possibility is that Josephus confused deliberately the two Eleazars. He first defamed the Eleazar b. Ananias by making him the betrayer and killer of Menahem, and then he removed from him his heroic act of resistance in Masada, by referring said action to a "distinct" Eleazar (b. Jair).
CONCLUSION:

so, if 'Eleazar' was ben Ananias, or ben Jair, or ben X, what did it matter after all?

Reconstructing who was really 'Eleazar' is not even important, since these Eleazar(es?) were all involved in the tragic Rivolt against the Romans and had caused the destruction of the temple: whoever that "Eleazar" was, every trace of a connection between him and Jesus b. Sapphat had to be forgotten, erased, extinguished.

To Maryhelena: to know the real origins of Christianity, one has to apply on the First Jewish Revolt the Eraclitean aphorism:

Πόλεμος πάντων μὲν πατήρ ἐστι, πάντων δὲ βασιλεύς

“War is father and king of everything”
:banghead: :confusedsmiley: :scratch:
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 »

By reading Klinghardt's opus magnum, I can well conclude :cheers: with G. Solomon the part I put in bold in the following quote from his book:

That there is a missing link in the history of the Christian traditions, as given in the account of the four Greek writers, has, since the development of a very recent spirit of inquiry, been generally acknowledged. There is a greater desire evinced to find this missing link, ever since historical inquiry has demonstrated the fact that the Gospels were not written till the second century.

(G. Solomon, ibid., p. 161)
User avatar
maryhelena
Posts: 2886
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: Thu Apr 15, 2021 10:00 am By reading Klinghardt's opus magnum, I can well conclude :cheers: with G. Solomon the part I put in bold in the following quote from his book:

That there is a missing link in the history of the Christian traditions, as given in the account of the four Greek writers, has, since the development of a very recent spirit of inquiry, been generally acknowledged. There is a greater desire evinced to find this missing link, ever since historical inquiry has demonstrated the fact that the Gospels were not written till the second century.

(G. Solomon, ibid., p. 161)
Dating when the gospels were written is, in itself, an interesting endeavor. An endeavor complicated because of updates to the story the gospels are telling. (Matthew's birth narrative verse Luke's birth narrative - further complicated because Slavonic Josephus puts the birth narrative of an anointed one prior to the 15th year of Herod the Great.) In other words - the story develops, the story widens it's time frame. However, what the above versions of the story settle on is that its Jesus figure was crucified under Pilate.

Thus, while the question of when the story was first written is interesting - that question does not negate the story that is being told. Crucifixion under Pilate. Time-shifting the story challenges the writers of that story - and they are no longer around to have their say. All that is possible for us today is to challenge the story - not the date the story was written because it's not possible to date the writing. The legacy the gospel writers left behind is their story not the date on which they wrote their story. We question the story as to it's historicity, it's mythology, it's allegory. That should be our focus - not the never-ending controversy as to when that story was first written.

Missing links ? Methinks your theory has a rather large void between Josephus's War and his Life. Your Jesus b. Saphat, assumed by your theory to have been taken down alive from the cross....what did he do from 70 c.e. - Josephus makes no mention of his death. Did he have a change of heart and begin to offer the other cheek ....strange, now that I think of it.....that sounds very like Josephus himself....from an enemy of Rome to collaborator. Man of War to Man of Peace. Oh you might say.....time-shifting the story of the 70s Jesus b. Saphat back to the time of Pilate allows his Man of War image to be cleaned up...sidelined for the now Prince of Peace. Possible of course, people do change their minds - but what a story Josephus could have been writing about Jesus b. Saphat in 94 /95c.e. - yep, he missed the boat on that one...he saved a man who changed the world.....and keeps his mouth shut...
Post Reply