George Solomon: "Mark" (author) confused the Samaritan Prophet with his Jesus of Galilea, hence SUB PONTIO PILATO

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

George Solomon: "Mark" (author) confused the Samaritan Prophet with his Jesus of Galilea, hence SUB PONTIO PILATO

Post by Giuseppe »

I have found today a great book! :cheers: The author is George Solomon and a good resume is made by the Mythicist J.M.Robertson:

Over a generation ago, Mr. George Solomon of Kingston, Jamaica, noting the general incompatibility of Josephus with the gospel story and the unhistorical aspect of the latter, constructed an interesting theory,53 of which I [125]have seen no discussion, but which merits notice here. It may be summarized thus:—

1. Banos is probably the historical original of the gospel figure of John the Baptist.

2. Josephus names and describes two Jesuses, who are blended in the figure of the gospel Jesus: (a) the Jesus (Wars, VI, v, 3) who predicts “woe to Jerusalem”; is flogged till his bones show, but never utters a cry; makes no reply when challenged; returns neither thanks for kindness nor railing for railing; and is finally killed by a stone projectile in the siege; and (b) Jesus the Galilean (Life, §§ 12, 27), son of Sapphias, who opposes Josephus, is associated with Simon and John, and has a following of “sailors and poor people,” one of whom betrays him (§ 22), whereupon he is captured by a stratagem, his immediate followers forsaking him and flying.54 Before this point, Josephus has taken seventy of the Galileans with him (§ 14) as hostages, and, making them his friends and companions on his journey, sets them “to judge causes.” This is the hint for Luke’s story of the seventy disciples.

3. The “historical Jesus” of the siege, who is “meek” and venerated as a prophet and martyr, being combined with the “Mosaic Jesus” of Galilee, a disciple of Judas of Galilee, who resisted the Roman rule and helped to precipitate the war, the memory of the “sect” of Judas the Gaulanite or Galilean, who began the anti-Roman trouble, is also transmuted into a myth of a sect of Jesus of Galilee, who has fishermen for disciples, is followed by poor Galileans, is betrayed by one companion and deserted [126]by the rest, and is represented finally as dying under Pontius Pilate, though at that time there had been no Jesuine movement.

4. The Christian movement, thus mythically grounded, grows up after the fall of the Temple. Paul’s “the wrath is come upon them to the uttermost” (1 Thess. ii, 16) tells of the destruction of the Temple, as does Hebrews xii, 24–28; xiii, 12–14.

This theory of the construction of the myth out of historical elements in Josephus is obviously speculative in a high degree; and as the construction fails to account for either the central rite or the central myth of the crucifixion it must be pronounced inadequate to the data. On the other hand, the author developes the negative case from the silence of Josephus as to the gospel Jesus with an irresistible force; and though none of his solutions is founded-on in the constructive theory now elaborated, it may be that some of them are partly valid. The fact that he confuses Jesus the robber captain who was betrayed, and whose companions deserted him, with Jesus the “Mosaic” magistrate of Tiberias, who was followed by sailors and poor people, and was “an innovator beyond everybody else,” does not exclude the argument that traits of one or the other, or of the Jesus of the siege, may have entered into the gospel mosaic.

Evidently, J.M.Robertson has not remembered about Josephus's Vita 22 and the concrete probability that the crucified Zealot saved in extremis by Josephus was precisely — docet VermeirenJesus son of Saphat. Had he done so, Robertson would have not written: and as the construction fails to account for either the central rite or the central myth of the crucifixion it must be pronounced inadequate to the data.


I have found this splendid quote in p. 232 from George Solomon's book:

The reference of the history in debate to the days of Pontius Pilate is without a single support in fact; indeed, it is unconsciously refuted by the chronology of St. Luke. 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; for it must be remembered that the person in question is represented to have been a great deluder of the people, to have led captive many who clung to him and shared his fate. Nevertheless there is abundant evidence to satisfy the candid lover of truth that not a word of Jesus can be traced to the period referred to. The religion of Jesus, so far from existing in Pontius Pilate's time, is undiscoverable up to the date of the fall of Jerusalem ; and no other religion is traceable to that age, except that of Judas of Galilee, which had already seen the light by the time when, according to Luke, Jesus was born. As presumptive evidence that Jesus has in tradition been confounded with this Judas, we have already referred to the fact that in the traditional accounts James, who is called the brother of the Lord, is also called the brother of Judas.

But be this as it may; what we have advanced rests upon no uncertain data ; novel though it be, it has a foundation that cannot be shaken; it is not put forth as a theory, but as a fact — a fact hitherto unrecognised and unthought of, because the chronology proved so misleading.

:cheers:
User avatar
MrMacSon
Posts: 8798
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 3:45 pm

Re: George Solomon: "Mark" (author) confused the Samaritan Prophet with his Jesus of Galilea, hence SUB PONTIO PILATO

Post by MrMacSon »

Giuseppe wrote: Sat Feb 27, 2021 1:32 pm
I have found today a great book ... a good resume is made by the Mythicist J.M.Robertson:

Over a generation ago, Mr. George Solomon of Kingston, Jamaica, noting the general incompatibility of Josephus with the gospel story and the unhistorical aspect of the latter, constructed an interesting theory, of which I have seen no discussion, but which merits notice here. It may be summarized thus:—

1. Banos is probably the historical original of the gospel figure of John the Baptist.

2. Josephus names and describes two Jesuses, who are blended in the figure of the gospel Jesus: (a) the Jesus (Wars, VI, v, 3) who predicts “woe to Jerusalem”; is flogged till his bones show, but never utters a cry; makes no reply when challenged; returns neither thanks for kindness nor railing for railing; and is finally killed by a stone projectile in the siege; and (b) Jesus the Galilean (Life, §§ 12, 27), son of Sapphias, who opposes Josephus, is associated with Simon and John, and has a following of “sailors and poor people,” one of whom betrays him (§ 22), whereupon he is captured by a stratagem, his immediate followers forsaking him and flying. Before this point, Josephus has taken seventy of the Galileans with him (§ 14) as hostages, and, making them his friends and companions on his journey, sets them “to judge causes.” This is the hint for Luke’s story of the seventy disciples.

3. The “historical Jesus” of the siege, who is “meek” and venerated as a prophet and martyr, being combined with the “Mosaic Jesus” of Galilee, a disciple of Judas of Galilee, who resisted the Roman rule and helped to precipitate the war, the memory of the “sect” of Judas the Gaulanite or Galilean, who began the anti-Roman trouble, is also transmuted into a myth of a sect of Jesus of Galilee, who has fishermen for disciples, is followed by poor Galileans, is betrayed by one companion and deserted [126]by the rest, and is represented finally as dying under Pontius Pilate, though at that time there had been no Jesuine movement.

4. The Christian movement, thus mythically grounded, grows up after the fall of the Temple. Paul’s “the wrath is come upon them to the uttermost” (1 Thess. ii, 16) tells of the destruction of the Temple, as does Hebrews xii, 24–28; xiii, 12–14.

This theory of the construction of the myth out of historical elements in Josephus is obviously speculative in a high degree; and as the construction fails to account for either the central rite or the central myth of the crucifixion it must be pronounced inadequate to the data. On the other hand, the author develops the negative case from the silence of Josephus as to the gospel Jesus with an irresistible force; and though none of his solutions is founded-on in the constructive theory now elaborated, it may be that some of them are partly valid. The fact that he confuses Jesus the robber captain who was betrayed, and whose companions deserted him, with Jesus the “Mosaic” magistrate of Tiberias, who was followed by sailors and poor people, and was “an innovator beyond everybody else,” does not exclude the argument that traits of one or the other, or of the Jesus of the siege, may have entered into the gospel mosaic.

That is all very, well ... ok ... as is you pointing out —
Giuseppe wrote: Sat Feb 27, 2021 1:32 pm the crucified Zealot saved in extremis by Josephus was — docet Vermeiren — Jesus son of Saphat
But, wrt —

3. ... Judas of Galilee, who resisted the Roman rule and helped to precipitate the war, the memory of the “sect” of Judas the Gaulanite or Galilean, who began the anti-Roman trouble

— saying Judas of Galilee, regardless of whether he resisted Roman rule and began anti-Roman trouble, helped to precipitate the war is far-fetched. I saw a recent account that seemed credible that the start of the First Roman-Jewish War was largely an incidental consequence of Roman reaction to Jewish v Samarian/Samitarian troubles that began in Samaria and smouldered and rolled south and only eventually involved Jews in and around Jerusalem ...

ie. there is nothing to tie events in Galilee in the early first century ad/ce to ongoing Roman v Jewish conflict that might have led to the First Roman-Jewish War over thirty years later in the mid-late 60s to 70s ad/ce.
Giuseppe
Posts: 13732
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: George Solomon: "Mark" (author) confused the Samaritan Prophet with his Jesus of Galilea, hence SUB PONTIO PILATO

Post by Giuseppe »

A genuine jem of the book:

The children of those who were witnesses of the facts did not entirely misinform those who gathered their statements and put them in form, and the error in the chronology, which ascribes the main event to the era of Pontius Pilate, is easily accounted for by reference to the historical fact that a pretender to prophecy had been executed by that procurator, in a way to afford presumptive evidence that those who got up the story had no actual intention to falsify the facts. We therefore exempt those who supplied the traditional accounts from the serious charge of fraud, which we are forced to prefer against the compilers of a later period, where the perversions which sprung out of the tradition itself were fraudulently and unjustly used as reliable evidence in proof of the truth of gross errors.

(p. 145, my bold)
Giuseppe
Posts: 13732
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: George Solomon: "Mark" (author) confused the Samaritan Prophet with his Jesus of Galilea, hence SUB PONTIO PILATO

Post by Giuseppe »

What is strange is that George Solomon was very close to historical truth when he identified the original historical crucifixion:

After the destruction of Jerusalem much respect was shown to Josephus by Titus, who both listened to his counsels and acceded to his requests. And this is what Josephus relates in his Life, chap. 67:—
"When I was sent by Titus Caesar with Cerealius and a thousand horsemen to a certain village called Thecoa, in order to know whether it were a place fit for a camp, as I came back, I saw many captives crucified, and remembered three of them as my former acquaintance. I was very sorry at this in my mind, and went with tears in my eyes to Titus, and told him of them ; so he immediately commanded them to be taken down and to have the greatest care taken of them, in order to their recovery ; yet two of them died under the physician's hands, while the third recovered."


Now we do not say that this is the original of the following from Luke, but certainly the coincidences are very remarkable. There is a Joseph, a counsellor, a rich man and a just, in both, with three men under crucifixion, of whom two die, and one is as good as restored to life again (Luke xxiii. 49-52) :

"And all his acquaintance, and the women that followed him from Galilee, stood afar off beholding these things. And behold there was a man named Joseph, a counsellor, and he was a good man, and a just. The same had not consented to the counsel and deed of them. He was of Arimathea, a city of the Jews, who also himself waited for the kingdom of God. This man went unto Pilate, and begged the body of Jesus."


These may be only coincidences, and we do not attach much importance to the circumstance, but it does seem strange that no other person referred to by the four Greek writers is designated, as here, by the name of a "counsellor," and that this should be the position of Josephus towards the Roman authorities, while the description of the traditional writer, "a good man and a just," with equal truth applies to him; neither had he "consented to the counsel and deed of them," so far, at any rate, as concerned the continuance of the war. Certain it is, however, that many sections of the traditional story are mere combinations of events drawn from the pages of the Bible and Josephus, just as many of its doctrines are from pre-existent philosophies.

(ibidem, p. 254-255)


...but alas his limits, without which his historical reconstruction would be basically 100% correct:
  • 1) he didn't follow the full logical implications of the victim being precisely Jesus son of Saphat, despite of his recognition that Jesus son of Saphat was the historical Jesus. Probably, what escaped to his attention was that Josephus reported that he had secret dealings with Jesus son of Saphat, which is an impossible 'coincidence' when paralleled to the fact that Joseph of Arimathea is described as a secret disciple of Jesus.

    Note also that Doudna has proved that Jesus son of Saphat was probably Jesus son of Tebuti (given the fact that the latter is mentioned in the Josippon as Jesus ben Saftai, i.e. Sapphias), the last high priest of the Second Temple (with all the implications of the case for the divine order).
  • 2) he didn't mention Jesus Barabbas in the entire his work. Had he done, he would have not failed to recognize the impossible 'coincidence' between Barabbas's release by Pilate and the other historical Jesus by him identified - Jesus son of Ananias - being released by Albinus.
Even so, George Solomon was a great scholar, :cheers: probably the greatest of his time (if even J.M. Robertson recognized his greatness).

The following is another jem of his book:

Now it is the characters of these two men as described by Josephus which we think gave rise to the conception of the traditional Jesus, while the capital mistake committed by the Evangelists in their chronology is, we think, due to a further confusion in the Greek mind of Jesus with the prophet who suffered under Pontius Pilate.

(ibid., p. 174-175, my bold)
Post Reply