John of Gischala "was scandalized" at the news about Josephus and Jesus ben Sapphat

[Giuseppe]

I see that the following passage in *Ev:

18 And when John the Baptist heard about all these things, he was scandalized. 19 And John calling unto him a certain two of his disciples sent them to Jesus, saying, Art thou he that cometh? or look we for another?

(*Ev 7:18-19)

...is based on Vita 25 of Josephus:

25. But when John, the son of Levi, who, as we before told you, abode at Gischala, was informed how all things had succeeded to my mind; and that I was much in favour with those that were under me; as also that the enemy were greatly afraid of me; he was not pleased with it, as thinking my prosperity tended to his ruin. So he took up a bitter envy and enmity against me. And hoping that, if he could inflame those that were under me to hate me, he should put an end to the prosperity I was in, he tried to persuade the inhabitants of Tiberias, and of Sepphoris (and for those of Gabara he supposed they would be also of the same mind with the others,) which were the greatest cities of Galilee, to revolt from their subjection to me, and to be of his party: and told them, that he would command them better than I did.

https://penelope.uchicago.edu/josephus/autobiog.html

Josephus reports that John of Gischala was scandalized at the news about his own [of Josephus] success, but note that when Josephus was on the side of the rebels, officially he commanded Jesus ben Sapphat, hence the success of the latter were officially the success of Josephus.

[Giuseppe]

This finding gives a different reconstruction of the Origins, one where Jesus ben Sapphat was originally an enemy of John of Gischala and only later he received the his "baptism", i.e. when Jesus ben Sapphat abandoned the Galilee and worked under the high command of John of Gischala during the siege of Jerusalem by the Romans.

Hence both Marcion and Mark would be wrong:

• Marcion (*Ev) would be wrong because he denied that Jesus ben Sapphat was "baptized"/recruited by John of Gischala;

• Mark would be wrong because he denied that Jesus ben Sapphat was a rival of John of Gischala for a while in Galilee, at least before that Josephus consummated his betrayal of the Zealot cause.

How much apologetically idyllic is then the reconstruction of the traditional historicists, when they imagine a Jesus pious follower of John the Baptist, or a Jesus who broke with John the Baptist only after the baptism by him.

[Giuseppe]

It is surprising that, at least for a time, a Gospel (*Ev) is more faithful to historical reality than a historian (Josephus) !

Josephus was lying when he reported that John of Gischala feared only the his [of Josephus] influence on the "Galileans".

*Ev 7:18-19 reported the historical truth: insofar Jesus ben Sapphat served the interests of Josephus in Galilee, he was virtually an enemy of John of Gischala.

Hence the "scandal" by John of Gischala worked as an indirect witness of the greatness of Jesus ben Sapphat.

[gdoudna]

I think this is barking up the right tree. Very interesting Giuseppe, even if nobody is commenting. Yes, Jesus ben Sapphat underlies much of the Jesus in Galilee stories of the Gospels, and John of Gischala underlies the Johannine-Christian "John" figure reflected in some of the "John the Baptist" stories in the Gospels. There was no Jesus in the 30s, and my paper on Josephus's John the Baptist as a chronologically displaced story of the death of Hyrcanus II at the hands of Herod the Great I believe removes any John the Baptist from the 30s as well (https://www.academia.edu/43060817/_Is_J ... s_II_2020_).

[StephenGoranson]

For what it is worth,
I don't, so far, find either the proposed switch of Hyrcanus II for John the Baptist
nor the proposed switch of those two people named Jesus
plausible.

[StephenGoranson]

Guiseppe's effort to remove Jesus from the time of Pilate has been based on his interpretation of Greek and/or on a different and contradictory interpretation of Hebrew,
and on an effort to date Jesus earlier, to the era of Jannaeus (a well-known error)
and, on an effort, contradictorily, to date Jesus later, to the war with Rome.

[Giuseppe]

Guiseppe's effort to remove Jesus from the time of Pilate has been based on his interpretation of Greek and/or on a different and contradictory interpretation of Hebrew,
and on an effort to date Jesus earlier, to the era of Jannaeus (a well-known error)
and, on an effort, contradictorily, to date Jesus later, to the war with Rome.

I enjoy to inquiry on different hypotheses, and it would be intellectually dishonest by you to ignore this point in order to raise that kind of criticism.

Note that the parallelism between the "scandal" by John the Baptist in *Ev 7:17-18 and the angry reaction by John of Gischala at the Josephus's news may even be evidence of a Gospel midrash from Josephus, under the traditional dating of Paul in 50-60 CE.

Afterall, we have already at least another example of a Gospel midrash from Josephus's Vita:

After three days they found him in the temple courts, sitting among the teachers, listening to them and asking them questions. Everyone who heard him was amazed at his understanding and his answers

(Luke 2:46-47)

...was based on Josephus's Life 2:

...and I made mighty proficiency in the improvements of my learning; and appeared to have both a great memory, and understanding. Moreover, when I was a child, and about fourteen years of age, I was commended by all for the love I had to learning; on which account the High Priests, and principal men of the city came then frequently to me together, in order to know my opinion about the accurate understanding of points of the law.

Returning to the topic:

I wonder if the event that triggered the "scandal" by John the Baptist in *Ev 7:17 (that in Matthew is omitted as effect of an editorial fatigue, pace Olson), i.e. the miracle of raising the widow's son from the dead in the town of Nain, was based (not only on a midrash from Elijah but also) on the healing of Josephus in Caphar-nain, i.e. "Caphar-naum". If so, Josephus would figure partially in the episode about the John the Baptist being "scandalized" at the Jesus's news.


COROLLARY:
If the reason "John the Baptist" is, as Greg has argued, a fusion of stories about John Hyrcanus II and John of Gischala, then the reason the marcionite Jesus exalted John the Baptist as the more great "among the born by woman" is not more, contra Bruno Bauer, the fact that *Ev assumed the knowledge of a previous gospel with the baptism of Jesus by John, but simply the assumption of the persistent fame of John of Gischala.

[maryhelena]

After three days they found him in the temple courts, sitting among the teachers, listening to them and asking them questions. Everyone who heard him was amazed at his understanding and his answers

(Luke 2:46-47)

...was based on Josephus's Life 2:

...and I made mighty proficiency in the improvements of my learning; and appeared to have both a great memory, and understanding. Moreover, when I was a child, and about fourteen years of age, I was commended by all for the love I had to learning; on which account the High Priests, and principal men of the city came then frequently to me together, in order to know my opinion about the accurate understanding of points of the law.

Jesus story based upon Josephus ? Then how about Paul's story also being based on Josephus ?

Apostle Paul	Flavius Josephus
Roman citizen	Roman citizen. Life. 77
Shipwreck on way to Rome	Shipwreck on way to Rome
Time in Rome	Time in Rome
Trade: tent maker	Trade: soldier and writer
An educated man	An educated man
A Pharisee	A Pharisee
Not an original apostle, post the gospel crucifixion story.	Born around 37 c.e. Pilate removed. Hence after gospel crucifixion dating.
Original Name is Saul of Tarsus	Original Name is Joseph ben Matityahu
Tribe of Benjamin. The tribe designated to stay with the Aaronic Priesthood and the tribe of David after the nation split in two.	Descended from priests and royal Hasmonean blood.
A former persecutor of Christians	Josephus had been an enemy of Rome
Circumcision not required of gentiles. Nor Jews living among Jews. Acts 21.21.	Maintains circumcision not required of gentiles to stay among Jews. Life: 23
Paul was caught away to the third heaven	Josephus had prophetic dreams
made defence before Agrippa II	appealed to Agrippa II re his history
had a friend named Epaphroditus	had a friend named Epaphroditus

[StephenGoranson]

Guiseppe, of course you are free to say, as you did above, in part:
"I enjoy to inquiry on different hypotheses [...]"
What I do question is your approval of multiple opinions which all embrace mythicism,
but, at the same time, as means to that end,
you appear to accept those scenarios that are quite contradictory.

[Giuseppe]

scenarios that are quite contradictory.

because the character itself of the evidence is contradictory, in primis the dating of Paul. If the first epistle comes after the 70 CE, surely then the search for Origins in figures actives in the First Jewish War is 100% justified. Vice versa, under the traditional dating of Paul, you know how much I am interested to Carrier's and Ellegard's mythicist views insofar they explain the strange sound silence of Paul about a recent earthly Jesus.