"son of Joseph" mentioned in the Josippon appears to confirm Hierocles about Jesus

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
Post Reply
Giuseppe
Posts: 13732
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

"son of Joseph" mentioned in the Josippon appears to confirm Hierocles about Jesus

Post by Giuseppe »

So the Josippon:

In those days, there was fighting and dissension in Judea between the Pharisees and the 'brigands of our people' who followed the son of Joseph, etc ...[lacuna] Eleazar, who committed great crimes in Israel until the Pharisees overcame him."

This appears to confirm what the Pagan Hierocles wrote, as told by the later Lactantius, against Jesus:

“affirmed that Christ Himself was put to flight by the Jews, and having collected a band of nine hundred men, committed robberies”

(Lactantius, Divine Institutes, 5,3)

The mention of Eleazar in the Josippon, precisely in the same point where a rebel "son of Joseph" is mentioned, makes it clear that the "son of Joseph" who is meant is precisely the Jesus also meant by Hierocles, i.e. a Jesus active during the First Jewish Revolt (66-70 CE): Jesus son of Saphat.
gryan
Posts: 1120
Joined: Fri Jun 01, 2018 4:11 am

Re: "son of Joseph" mentioned in the Josippon appears to confirm Hierocles about Jesus

Post by gryan »

Giuseppe wrote: Fri Feb 26, 2021 11:58 am So the Josippon:

In those days, there was fighting and dissension in Judea between the Pharisees and the 'brigands of our people' who followed the son of Joseph, etc ...[lacuna] Eleazar, who committed great crimes in Israel until the Pharisees overcame him."

This appears to confirm what the Pagan Hierocles wrote, as told by the later Lactantius, against Jesus:

“affirmed that Christ Himself was put to flight by the Jews, and having collected a band of nine hundred men, committed robberies”

(Lactantius, Divine Institutes, 5,3)

The mention of Eleazar in the Josippon, precisely in the same point where a rebel "son of Joseph" is mentioned, makes it clear that the "son of Joseph" who is meant is precisely the Jesus also meant by Hierocles, i.e. a Jesus active during the First Jewish Revolt (66-70 CE): Jesus son of Saphat.
Josippon
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josippon

Hierocles
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sossianus_Hierocles

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

Divine Institutes
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Divine_Institutes
Giuseppe
Posts: 13732
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: "son of Joseph" mentioned in the Josippon appears to confirm Hierocles about Jesus

Post by Giuseppe »

Gryan, what does these references mean? Are you assuming that the reader is unable to find them alone? Are you a troll?
gryan
Posts: 1120
Joined: Fri Jun 01, 2018 4:11 am

Re: "son of Joseph" mentioned in the Josippon appears to confirm Hierocles about Jesus

Post by gryan »

Giuseppe wrote: Sat Feb 27, 2021 2:03 am Gryan, what does these references mean? Are you assuming that the reader is unable to find them alone? Are you a troll?
I found them, and decided not to keep them to myself. Easier for the next guy.

Also, I wanted you to know that I'd read your post and was thinking about what you wrote.

If you find that annoying somehow, I plead guilty of taking some bit of pleasure in reading what the Wikipedia writers had to say about the quality of your sources as historical data.

Nevertheless, I'm impressed by the breadth of your reading. I had never heard of these sources before.
gryan
Posts: 1120
Joined: Fri Jun 01, 2018 4:11 am

Re: "son of Joseph" mentioned in the Josippon appears to confirm Hierocles about Jesus

Post by gryan »

Giuseppe wrote: Fri Feb 26, 2021 11:58 am So the Josippon:

In those days, there was fighting and dissension in Judea between the Pharisees and the 'brigands of our people' who followed the son of Joseph, etc ...[lacuna] Eleazar, who committed great crimes in Israel until the Pharisees overcame him."

This appears to confirm what the Pagan Hierocles wrote, as told by the later Lactantius, against Jesus:

“affirmed that Christ Himself was put to flight by the Jews, and having collected a band of nine hundred men, committed robberies”

(Lactantius, Divine Institutes, 5,3)

The mention of Eleazar in the Josippon, precisely in the same point where a rebel "son of Joseph" is mentioned, makes it clear that the "son of Joseph" who is meant is precisely the Jesus also meant by Hierocles, i.e. a Jesus active during the First Jewish Revolt (66-70 CE): Jesus son of Saphat.
I think that "son of Joseph" should not be confused with the Jesus of the NT. They are two totally different characters. I am however aware that there are other points of view regarding what the NT Jesus was up to: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zealot:_T ... f_Nazareth
gryan
Posts: 1120
Joined: Fri Jun 01, 2018 4:11 am

Re: "son of Joseph" mentioned in the Josippon appears to confirm Hierocles about Jesus

Post by gryan »

Here is the thing that grabbed my attention. In the days before this New Topic began, I had been pondering the origin of the phrase "son of Joseph": I'm currently harboring doubts about the historical accuracy of the name "Joseph" in the phrase "son of Joseph" which appears often in Luke, Matthew and John. This name is not used in what I presume to be the literary source they have in common, Mark, in reference to Jesus's father; that is, unless at the burial of Jesus, Mark 15:47, Μαρία ἡ Ἰωσῆτος--contextually, "Mary [mother] of Joses,"--is misread as "Mary [wife] of Joseph." The scene in Mark is doubly confusing with respect to the name Joseph because of the appearance of a Joseph of Arimathea. In Matthew's burial scene, Mark's ambiguous "Mary of Joses" is reduced to "the other Mary." In an article I read recently on the topic, "The Brothers and Sisters of Jesus", Meier wrote in a footnote that it was rare in that time for a father to have the same first name as his son--Joseph, father of Joseph--but it did happen (more than just this once). https://www.jstor.org/stable/43720810?s ... b_contents
Giuseppe
Posts: 13732
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: "son of Joseph" mentioned in the Josippon appears to confirm Hierocles about Jesus

Post by Giuseppe »

What you are ignoring (probably because you are a Christian apologist and I don't like to talk with Christian apologists in my threads) is that there is a lacuna (a gap) in the Josippon in the quoted passage:
Giuseppe wrote: Fri Feb 26, 2021 11:58 am So the Josippon:

In those days, there was fighting and dissension in Judea between the Pharisees and the 'brigands of our people' who followed the son of Joseph, etc ...[lacuna] Eleazar, who committed great crimes in Israel until the Pharisees overcame him."

(it is translated from my Italian version edited by Ariel Toaff).

Why the lacuna precisely in that point where a seditious anti-Roman named "son of Joseph" was mentioned ?

What the medieval rabbis wanted to eclipse to not provoke a Christian reaction?
Post Reply