The crucifixion: alternate times and places.

[maryhelena]

. <snip> I have been interested lately in the possibility that other lives or concepts were confused or conflated with those of Jesus. The case of Jesus ben Ananias is one such instance; it has occurred to me that the evangelists, having (for whatever reason) little to no information about the last days of Jesus of Nazareth, may have filled some spots in from Jesus ben Ananias; it has also occurred to me that the overlap in name may have led to some actual confusion, rather than just to using ben Ananias as a handy template. Perhaps, for example, some allusions of Jesus to Jeremiah actually came from Jesus ben Ananias quoting Jeremiah.

Ben.

There is no historical evidence for the Josephan figure of Jesus ben Ananias...

The historical route holds out more relevance. Taking 'colour' from historical figures would generate a greater realism than taking 'colour' from a figure whose historicity can be questioned. If people can 'see' reflections of historical figures in ones literary figure an author has given depth to his creation. And of course, even if the gospel figure of Jesus was a historical figure - the addition of 'colour' from well known historical figures would add 'power' and prestige to the lesser figure. Albeit in this case some years after the death of the lesser and the greater figures...

Ah, but here is the rub with such a scenario - why the specific historical figures that are used for the added 'colour'.....If such historical figures were deemed to be relevant by the gospel writers - then should not a search for early christian origins benefit from taking on board such historical figures? Would not these figures, in an off themselves, have value for a search for early christian origins?

[outhouse]

. I have been interested lately in the possibility that other lives or concepts were confused or conflated with those of Jesus.


Ben.

If the traditions were not so strong for the Galilean being crucified at Passover outside the walls, I might tend to be more open to alternative options.

Passover fits every aspect of he story and traditions to a T.

AS far as Galileans, there is the tradition that other Galileans had also died, yet not sure when or where. But this does lead to insurrection as we already know Zealots were going to take that temple down one way or the other. They did not view it as gods house as much as a Hellenistic perversion and a money making business, IMHO.

And as far as crucified go, it also fits the crime of causing trouble at Passover with Pilate running the show with Caiaphas demanding peace.



As far as Irenaeus and the Talmud go, I feel they are way to far removed to be of any use here OTHER then what later traditions evolved into. Its bad enough the gospel authors were far far removed from any actual event and the rhetoric and fiction already steeped deeply in mythological theology competing with political figures in place.

[Ben C. Smith]

I have updated the OP with the various suggestions.

[Giuseppe]

of causing trouble at Passover

I would have a special explanation for the presence of zealot 'dissepta membra' (how prof Bermejo-Rubio calls them) disseminated in our canonical Gospels.

Assuming the gospel of Marcion comes before (and remember that in it the trouble at Temple is absent), then our canonical Gospels reacted against it making more strict and strong the identity Jesus==Jewish davidic messiah, but so doing they have a new problem to resolve:

How outdistance a Jesus Jewish Messiah from the typical infamous negative portrait of sedicent messianists Jews?

Marcionites didn't have that problem because they deliberately looked for these contradictions so to show that Jesus was not really the Jewish Messiah.

[andrewcriddle]

There is a thread http://bcharchive.org/2/thearchives/sho ... 080-2.html about the preaching of Peter passage in Clement.

Andrew Criddle

[Ben C. Smith]

Ah, I remember that now. Thanks, Andrew. I do think your suggestion of judgment is the most likely option.

Ben.

[Tenorikuma]

Epiphanius has a confused account of Jesus' crucifixion, which he says was in "the twentieth year of Agrippa called the Great, or Herod the Younger, the son of Archaelaus". The 20th year of Agrippa I is about 60 CE. (Anacephalaeosis VII §78 9.6f)

According to the Epistula Apostolorum, Jesus was crucified by Pontius Pilate and Archelaus. (So before 6 CE?)

[Ben C. Smith]

Epiphanius has a confused account of Jesus' crucifixion, which he says was in "the twentieth year of Agrippa called the Great, or Herod the Younger, the son of Archaelaus". The 20th year of Agrippa I is about 60 CE. (Anacephalaeosis VII §78 9.6f)

What a family tree: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herod_the ... mily_trees. I can hardly blame anybody, ancient or modern, for confusing the various Herods, Mariamnes, and Aristobuli.

(Is 60 CE a mistake on your part, though?)

According to the Epistula Apostolorum, Jesus was crucified by Pontius Pilate and Archelaus. (So before 6 CE?)

Interesting. Thanks. I find that in section 9 (http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/t ... lorum.html):

Concerning whom we testify that the Lord is he who was crucified by Pontius Pilate and Archelaus between the two thieves....

I will add that to the OP.

Ben.

[Tenorikuma]

(Is 60 CE a mistake on your part, though?)

Quite possibly, I was just copying from my notes. 61 would be the 20th year of Agrippa I's reign had he lived that long. (Of course, he died in 44.) If Epiphanius meant Agrippa II, we're looking at the year 73 or so. If he meant Antipas, the 20th year of his reign would be 16 CE.

[maryhelena]

Epiphanius has a confused account of Jesus' crucifixion, which he says was in "the twentieth year of Agrippa called the Great, or Herod the Younger, the son of Archaelaus". The 20th year of Agrippa I is about 60 CE. (Anacephalaeosis VII §78 9.6f)

What a family tree: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herod_the ... mily_trees. I can hardly blame anybody, ancient or modern, for confusing the various Herods, Mariamnes, and Aristobuli.

(Is 60 CE a mistake on your part, though?)

According to the Epistula Apostolorum, Jesus was crucified by Pontius Pilate and Archelaus. (So before 6 CE?)

Interesting. Thanks. I find that in section 9 (http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/t ... lorum.html):

Concerning whom we testify that the Lord is he who was crucified by Pontius Pilate and Archelaus between the two thieves....

I will add that to the OP.

Ben.

Interesting the two references to Archelaus. Possibly an indication that earlier Jesus related stories were still around and writers having trouble relating 'outdated' material to the gLuke update.....Slavonic Josephus relates the story of John the Baptist and Archelaus i.e. no 6 month birth period between John and Jesus re gLuke' birth narrative around 6.c.e....gLuke is doing a replay of the John and Jesus story in a new time slot..... a time slot that required that dating Pilate needed to move forward.....and Josephus helps out by making his dating of Pilate uncertain.....

Josephus and Dating Pilate
viewtopic.php?t=809&p=17360

As to the 20th year re Antipas or Agrippa - problems here would relate to the death of Herod 1 or a co-regency with his sons late in his life. If Herod I died in 1 b.c. his sons could count their sole rule from that date or from their coregency. A 20th year for Antipas or Philip then takes one to around that 7th year of Tiberius of the Acts of Pilate i.e. the early crucifixion story around 19 -21 c.e.

As to the two Agrippa's - well, that is a problem of its own. Josephus has two while Jewish sources only have one Agrippa.....

• Daniel Schwart: Agrippa I: The Last King of Judaea (Texts and Studies in Ancient Judaism)
  
  Pages 158 and 159
  
  Many problems beset those who would use rabbinic literature for historical purposes in general, and regarding Agrippa in particular.
  ..no one should expect to find in rabbinic literature what we find in Josephus and Philo: Jewish perspectives on Agrippa more or less contemporary with him....
  
  ....Rabbinic literature speaks not infrequently of “King Agrippa” but does not specify father or son. Do all traditions refer to the same one? If so, which one? Or do some traditions refer to one and some to the other? If so, which should be assigned to whom? Or should we prefer to assume that the lack of rabbinic concern to identify the king indicates that the fact that there had once been two Kings Agrippa has been forgotten.....
  
  The problem is quite a difficult one, and we have no unambiguous solution to offer.