On the hypothesis that the Gospel Jesus == Jesus ben Saphat

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
Post Reply
User avatar
Giuseppe
Posts: 8863
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

On the hypothesis that the Gospel Jesus == Jesus ben Saphat

Post by Giuseppe » Tue Dec 15, 2020 1:36 am

So Doudna:
In this reading two major Jewish Revolt leaders in Jerusalem, John of Gischala and Simon bar Giora, appear in Christian texts and legend respectively as the post-70 Johannine-Christianity John of Asia Minor, and Simon Peter, in Christian texts post-70. A third Revolt leader, Jesus ben Sapphat, a warlord in Galilee aligned with John, becomes the historical Jesus, well known to Josephus who tells in Vita of entering into secret league with Jesus and tells stories about Jesus in Galilee. Jesus’s fate is not told in Josephus but he could well have come to Jerusalem at the time John’s forces did, or by some other means. Then there is the critical incident in which Josephus tells of interceding to have an unnamed acquaintance brought down from the cross after being crucified by the Romans, given medical treatment and restored to live again, among three crucified the other two of whom died of their injuries after being taken down; the one who lived could well have been Josephus’s former comrade Jesus in light of the parallel story so central to Christianity of Jesus resurrected back to life after “Joseph of Arimethea” (= Josephus son of Matthias), “secret disciple of Jesus” (i.e. no one else knew Josephus was and Josephus was not confirming that), interceded to have Jesus taken down from the cross.

Paul’s letters do not date themselves internally pre-70 CE, apart from the Aretas allusion understood to be Aretas IV mentioned above. The reason the letters considered genuine of Paul ARE firmly dated pre-70 by ca. 100% of New Testament scholars is paradoxically on the basis of texts which many of the same scholars openly concede are not reliable for history: namely the Gospels and Acts.

In the end, the argument for the letters of Paul as post-70, apart from plausibility and making better sense closer to the time of publication of the collection as you noted, is its consistency with a picture in which Christian origins is arguably better understood as emerging out of and in the aftermath of the First Revolt.

My problem with this point is that the two thieves detail are part and parcel of the same anti-marcionite polemic behind the titulus crucis, identifying univocally the principal victim as the Jewish Messiah. When at contrary for Marcion the true Jesus was the "Jesus Son of Father" (parodied by the Judaizers as 'Jesus Bar-Abbas').

So, if the Joseph of Arimatea is Josephus and the two thieves are derived from the Josephian episode described above, then the point that is going to be made is always anti-marcionite and therefore not original of the Earliest Gospel Passion Story, that included only the following episode :

So they bound Jesus, led him away and handed him over to Pilate.

“Are you the king of the Jews?” asked Pilate.

“You have said so,” Jesus replied.

[Pilate] had Jesus flogged, and handed him over to be crucified.


User avatar
Giuseppe
Posts: 8863
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: On the hypothesis that the Gospel Jesus == Jesus ben Saphat

Post by Giuseppe » Tue Dec 15, 2020 1:48 am

I have found today a great book! :cheers:
Last edited by Giuseppe on Wed Mar 10, 2021 10:42 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
MrMacSon
Posts: 6798
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 3:45 pm

Re: On the hypothesis that the Gospel Jesus == Jesus ben Saphat

Post by MrMacSon » Tue Dec 15, 2020 2:59 am

A post on this forum, Jesus son of Saphat in Josephus and the Jesus of the gospels: one and the same person

http://www.waroriginsofchristianity.com/ -
The core of my theory

In short, the core of my theory says that Christianity did not find its origin around 30 CE ‘under Pilate’ but four decades later, during the war of the Jews against the Romans (66-70 CE). The author of the first gospel, the gospel of Mark, has deliberately dehistoricized the then events by antedating them by four decades, from 70 to 30 CE ...
.
A Chronological Revision of the Origins of Christianity -
Combining the writings of Josephus with the Synoptic gospels, Christian Psuedopigripha, and the letters of early Christian "Fathers", Vermerien makes the extremely compelling argument that the "Jesus of Nazareth" in the Gospels, is identifiable with Jesus Bar Saphat, the revolutionary leader of the Galilean resistance to Roman Occupation described in Josephus's "The Jewish War."

Pointing to a number of pericopes in the Synoptics that breath the atmosphere of war, he argues that these are not insertions by Mark, Matthew, and Luke meant to make Jesus seem like a divine future-seer, but rather clues for the reader that, despite the fact the texts all place Jesus's life during Tiberius's reign, they are in fact describing events during the 3 1/2 year revolt against Rome.

Other non-canonical Gospels begin to make more sense in light of this understanding of Christian origins, the first coming to mind being Peter's demand and assertion in the Gospel of Thomas that Mary Magdalene be sent away "for women are not made for this life." In light of this reading, and Jesus response, "Then I will teach her to be manly like us", rather than [being] an obscure esotericism, this becomes an instance of one of Jesus' male comrades stating concern over the ability of a woman to fight in war, and Jesus responding that he will teach her what she needs to know.

In this text Jesus comes alive as a man whose miraculous survival of a crucifixion became the basis for declaring him Messiah and victor over the Romans.

Having engaged with other work on the 'Historical Jesus' and Christian Origins - such as the work of the Jesus Seminar, Amy-Jill Levine, John Dominic Crossan, Marcus Borg, and Robert Eisenman - this text is the only one that, in my opinion, satisfyingly brings together our collective knowledge of ancient Palestinian politics, Essenism and Zealotry, early Christian writings, and the historical documentation of Josephus to paint an important and necessary picture of Christian Origins.

I would, and have, recommend this book to anyone interested in Christian origins. Whatever your conclusions, we cannot deny that this text deserves engagement.

https://www.amazon.com/gp/customer-revi ... B00ZI34Y5G
Last edited by MrMacSon on Tue Dec 15, 2020 4:21 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
MrMacSon
Posts: 6798
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 3:45 pm

Re: On the hypothesis that the Gospel Jesus == Jesus ben Saphat

Post by MrMacSon » Tue Dec 15, 2020 3:27 am

FransJVermeiren wrote:
Sat Aug 10, 2019 9:55 pm
There was a man called Jesus son of Saphat, quite extensively mentioned by Josephus, who is staged as a godlike figure in the antedated, encoded gospels. With his charisma, social inclination and ethnic profile he gathered a revolutionary army around him and a lot of Jewish refugees expelled from regions with a non-Jewish majority. They saw him as a σωτήρ, a benevolent leader, but not as a God.

User avatar
MrMacSon
Posts: 6798
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 3:45 pm

Re: On the hypothesis that the Gospel Jesus == Jesus ben Saphat

Post by MrMacSon » Tue Dec 15, 2020 3:30 am

FransJVermeiren wrote:
Fri Dec 28, 2018 1:05 pm

... I remembered a Shepherd [of Hermas] passage with contains the Greek ἰσχυρῶς καὶ ἀνδρείως. In combination with σάρξ ('flesh', but also ‘human body’ or ‘human being’) in the same fragment, a violent and virile human being seems to be described. (In the same fragment this man is also described as holy, noble and pure.)

The passage goes as follows (Sim.V. vi. 5-6):

(5) The Holy Spirit which pre-exists, which created all creation, did God make to dwell in the flesh which he willed. Therefore this flesh, in which the Holy Spirit dwelled, served the Spirit well, walking in holiness and purity, and did not in any way defile the spirit. (6) When, therefore, it had lived nobly and purely, and had labored with the Spirit, and had worked with it in every deed, behaving with power (ἰσχυρῶς) and bravery (ἀνδρείως), he chose it as companion with the Holy Spirit; for the conduct of this flesh pleased him, because it was not defiled while it was bearing the Holy Spirit on earth.

The violence and virility of the rebellion leader Jesus son of Saphat in Josephus match with this description. (His holiness, nobility and pureness match with the description of Jesus in the gospels.)

2. Suffering, death and resurrection
The fact that the Shepherd doesn’t mention the triad execution-death-resurrection is a plus instead of a minus for this writing. The mythical crucifixion-death-resurrection triad is an invention of Mark, the (highly exceptional) historical sequence was crucifixion-survival. With the description of Jesus as powerful/violent and brave/virile the Shepherd mentions two important characteristics of the historical Jesus.
.

User avatar
Giuseppe
Posts: 8863
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: On the hypothesis that the Gospel Jesus == Jesus ben Saphat

Post by Giuseppe » Tue Dec 15, 2020 6:13 am

Doudna thinks that the historical Peter was Simon bar Giora.




Matthew 12:38-39
Then some of the Pharisees and teachers of the law said to him, “Teacher, we want to see a sign from you.”
He answered, “A wicked and adulterous generation asks for a sign! But none will be given it except the sign of the prophet Jonah.



''the sign of the prophet Jonah'' may be the same son ''of Jonah'', that is Peter? In that case, Jesus is saying that Peter will be a ''sign'' for the Pharisees and teachers of the law?

Jesus is going to predict that Simon Bar Giora will kill a lot of Pharisees.

User avatar
Giuseppe
Posts: 8863
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: On the hypothesis that the Gospel Jesus == Jesus ben Saphat

Post by Giuseppe » Tue Dec 15, 2020 6:20 am

Greek σημεῖον sounds similar to jewish Shimon of Jonas = Simon bar Jonas = Simon Bariona , alias:

Simon the Zealot, Simon the Sicarius, and Simon Sicarius

User avatar
Giuseppe
Posts: 8863
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: On the hypothesis that the Gospel Jesus == Jesus ben Saphat

Post by Giuseppe » Wed Dec 16, 2020 11:14 pm

I have posed the same question to Doudna. Curious about his answer.

What I didn't like about Vermeiren's case is his assumption that all the 4 evangelists knew the historical truth (Jesus ben Saphat == Gospel Jesus) but masked deliberately it. A collective conspiracy on a so large scale is improbable.

But Doudna is going to introduce a new factor:

later writing or compositions incorporating oral history/hearsay/legend/rumors and stories as heard from the past. This is a view retaining the much-criticized assumption of “kernels of historicity” within the literary-constructed texts of the Gospels and some of the literary sources of Acts, as opposed to complete authorial invention of those characters and stories as historical fiction.

If even 'Mark' didn't know that the legend of the crucified and risen Jesus referred to the historical Jesus ben Saphat, then 'Mark' may be 'forgiven' for having, innocently at all, placed the presumed origin of that same legend sub Pontio Pilato.

User avatar
Giuseppe
Posts: 8863
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: On the hypothesis that the Gospel Jesus == Jesus ben Saphat

Post by Giuseppe » Mon Mar 08, 2021 12:13 pm

The following is an authentic jem of George Solomon's 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)
Last edited by Giuseppe on Wed Mar 10, 2021 10:45 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
rakovsky
Posts: 1271
Joined: Mon Nov 23, 2015 8:07 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: On the hypothesis that the Gospel Jesus == Jesus ben Saphat

Post by rakovsky » Wed Mar 10, 2021 6:23 pm

I remember reading a chart of parallels between Josephus' stories and Christian ones. The parallels between these Jesuses and the Simon would seem to be the kind that would go on the chart. Unfortunately I can't find it any more. Have you seen something like it?

Post Reply