There is no historical evidence for the Josephan figure of Jesus ben Ananias...Ben C. Smith wrote:. <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.
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?