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

[maryhelena]

So - basically, you have two choices here:

1. the gospel writers used the writings of Josephus to write their Jesus gospel story.

2. the Josephan writer and whatever group of writers, thinkers, philosophers, were involved with him, were involved in the writing of the New Testament.

Option 1. is a dead end - it infers that the writers of the New Testament were copycats, plagiarists.

Forgive me if I opt for (1). precisely the view held about them by various Porphyry, Hierocles, etc. I note that also George Solomon has not a high praise (to use an euphemism) of the "four Greek writers".

OK....chickened out - Giuseppe that's the easy way.......close eyes to the elephant in the room...

[Giuseppe]

you insist always on Josephus who was reporting his own interpretations of the facts, and not the facts themselves, but all Josephus scholars know that already.

What you (and Charles) are advancing is the absurd/irrational/idiotic idea that Josephus was inventing out of whole cloth figure after figure in his First Revolt narrative, instead of doing tendentious writing of contemporary history partly from firsthand participation and the rest from knowledgeable hearsay, as he says he was doing and as Josephus scholars think he did.

[maryhelena]

you insist always on Josephus who was reporting his own interpretations of the facts, and not the facts themselves, but all Josephus scholars know that already.

What you (and Charles) are advancing is the absurd/irrational/idiotic idea that Josephus was inventing out of whole cloth figure after figure in his First Revolt narrative, instead of doing tendentious writing of contemporary history partly from firsthand participation and the rest from knowledgeable hearsay, as he says he was doing and as Josephus scholars think he did.

Now then - Greg Doudna has suggested that the Josephan figure of Jesus b. Ananias may be ''historically illusory''.
He has also suggested that the Josephan figure of John the Baptizer is not the gospel John the Baptist i.e. the Josephan John the Baptizer figure is a misplaced story about Hyrancus II.

Greg Doudna:
Here is my analysis. Whereas Jesus b. Sapphat is historical (Josephus knew him well), Jesus b. Ananias is more ambiguous, as discussed by Wedeen. Although at first sight it may seem a tough sell as an argument, I think a credible argument can be made that whereas Jesus b. Sapphat is historical, Jesus b. Ananias as a distinct figure told by Josephus may be historically illusory,

https://vridar.org/2021/01/25/john-the- ... ent-132769

Greg Doudna

"Is Josephus's John the Baptist Passage a Chronologically Dislocated Story of the Death of Hyrcanus II?"

If this analysis is correct—that Josephus misplaced this story to the wrong Herod in Antiquities—then there is no attestation external to the New Testament of the Gospels’ figure of John the Baptist of the 30s CE. The implication would seem to be this: either the Gospels’ John the Baptist has been generated in the story world of the Gospels, or he derives from a different figure than Josephus’s John the Baptist, secondarily conflated with Josephus’s John the Baptist. These issues are beyond the scope of this paper.

https://www.academia.edu/43060817/_Is_J ... yrcanus_II_

There you go - two Josephan figures who Greg Doudna has question as to 1. historicity of Jesus b. Ananias. 2. the Josephan figure of John the Baptizer is a misplaced story i.e. not related to the gospel time frame.

Giuseppe - once it is conceded that Josephus made up one figure - Jesus b. Ananias - and misplaced another figure - then it's open season as to what is historical and what is illusionary in Josephus. That means no blank check for Josephus.

[Charles Wilson]

What you (and Charles) are advancing is the absurd/irrational/idiotic idea that Josephus was inventing out of whole cloth figure after figure in his First Revolt narrative...

Giuseppe --

You could not be more wrong if you sat down at the computer and Posted on this Site TRYING to be more wrong.

What have I been doing on this Site for about a decade? What reasons are there for Posting ANYTHING anymore? I thought that showing a relationship between the Mishmarot Priesthood and the Herodians and Passover and the Roman thesis had some meaning. If someone would Falsify the Thesis, I could at least have the satisfaction of knowing that sometimes very complex Sets of Coincidences do actually occur.

"Who performs sacrifices in the Temple?" "Oh, I don't know...It's kinda like a Drive-Thru Sacrifice place I guess, where you bring your cow, slaughter it and these nice people clean up the mess for you..."

"What did Demetrius Eucerus do?" "Well...He gave Alexander Jannaeus and his Troops a thorough, horrific beating at Shechem. It was near this Shopping Center named "Gerizim". What an odd name, "Gerizim", kinda like "Iowa". Then, Demetrius, after beating Jannaeus like a dog, gets all ashamed and stuff and leaves the country entirely! Why would he do that? I guess we'll never know why Demetrius left like that. I'll never understand those Greeks, ya' know?..."

"'N that vinegar on a sponge on a hyssop stick...That sounds...gaay." "What's a guy like Vitellius to do, anyway?" He's a busy man. He has needs. 'N what's Asiaticus doing selling Posca in a bazaar in Puteoli anyway? It's not like posca has anything to do with vinegar and ...Oh, wait."

All meaningless. Word Salad. Speaking in tongues would make more sense. After all, "speaking in tongues" originally meant that the hearers heard in their own lang---.

Never mind.

[maryhelena]

you insist always on Josephus who was reporting his own interpretations of the facts, and not the facts themselves, but all Josephus scholars know that already.

What you (and Charles) are advancing is the absurd/irrational/idiotic idea that Josephus was inventing out of whole cloth figure after figure in his First Revolt narrative, instead of doing tendentious writing of contemporary history partly from firsthand participation and the rest from knowledgeable hearsay, as he says he was doing and as Josephus scholars think he did.

''absurd/irrational/idiotic idea that Josephus was inventing out of whole cloth '......

Giuseppe, a while back you alerted Neil Godfrey to an article by James McLaren. Perhaps, in view of your above statement you might care to have another look at Neil's website and his quote from James McLaren.

Neil Godfrey: ''Conclusion: Josephus created Judas the Galilean as a foil to bear the responsibility for the humiliation of the Jewish defeat. I’m not saying that Judas did not exist (though he may not have) but that Josephus has been forced to modify his account with each retelling of his role in starting the rebellion. These variations indicate that Josephus is creatively rewriting history to deflect blame for the war from his own class of aristocratic priests.''

Josephan scholar James McLaren: ''This study shows that we can no longer assume that this Judas presented by Josephus is an historical figure who engaged in some activity in 6 CE. It is not simply a case of claiming that Josephus may have exaggerated the account of Judas’s career and its impact by adjusting a few details here and there. Rather, Josephus’s apologetic has constructed Judas, making him a vital part of the explanation of what happened in Judaea in 66-70 CE. Who he was, what he did and what he advocated, if anything at all, need to be established afresh, outside the framework provided in War and Antiquities. ''

https://vridar.org/2016/04/05/did-josep ... inst-rome/

Did Josephus Fabricate the Origins of the Jewish Rebellion Against Rome?

Now then - suggesting it is ''absurd/irrational/idiotic'' to question Josephus as to figures in his stories is not a scholarly position to be taking. One would only do this if one is placing all ones bets on one particular Josephan figure. In this case Jesus b. Saphat. It's all very well to take Josephus on face value when the issue is of no real significance or of historical importance. In the case of your wanting to identify Jesus b. Saphat with the Jesus of the gospel story this is not the case. The issue is far bigger than Jesus b. Saphat - in fact bigger than the question of his historicity or whether he was a figment of Josephus's imagination. The issue is the gospel Jesus figure. That's the fundamental question - was this figure historical or a literary creation. Pointing to Jesus b. Saphat - or whatever Josephan figure one settles on - is to jump the gun. First know what one is dealing with in regard to the gospel story. Making a patchwork quilt out of bits and pieces of the gospel story woven into bits of cloth taken from Josephus - is just that - a bit like those painting by numbers art kits that one can buy. As McLaren has said:

It is evident that the narrative of events contained in Josephus's texts should not be taken at face value. The interpretative framework as outlined indicates that to distinguish between the comments and the narration of events is not possible. It is not simply a matter of dismissing Josephus's interpretations, nor a matter of working out which version of an event is accurate. The interpretative process is more fundamental: it controls the entire choice of subject matter and, therefore, the overall picture that is being conveyed. We must now contend with the possibility that although we can make conclusions and observations regarding what Josephus narrates, what we can conclude is, in itself, the product of an interpretation. In other words, the picture being used to understand the first century CE in Judaea may not necessarily provide the reader with a 'full' or 'balanced' representation of what was happening in the territory. In effect, our major resource for examining the period is itself a constructed picture.

James S. McLaren: Turbulent Times ? Josephus and Scholarship on Judaea in the First Century CE. page 67

[Giuseppe]

Tsk, tsk. The scholars you mention have given their list of cogent reasons to doubt about these mentioned figures. Can you raise equal reasons to cast doubt on the various historical Jesus(es) figures of the First Revolt account by Josephus, too ? Frankly, I doubt you can.

Your logic ("doubt in something, ergo doubt in everything") applies perfectly to Gospels.
However, it doesn't apply to Josephus's works. There is an abyss, between Josephus and the Gospels, as to reliability and credibility of the sources. I continue to believe to Josephus even if he is demonstrably a perfect liar on some items. I can't do the same with the Gospels.

With Josephus, I have no need of independent sources to test his claims, except in few cases.

With the Gospels I need desperately independent evidence to test their enigmatic and obscure claims.

[maryhelena]

Tsk, tsk. The scholars you mention have given their list of cogent reasons to doubt about these mentioned figures. Can you raise equal reasons to cast doubt on the various historical Jesus(es) figures of the First Revolt account by Josephus, too ? Frankly, I doubt you can.

Your logic ("doubt in something, ergo doubt in everything") applies perfectly to Gospels.
However, it doesn't apply to Josephus's works. There is an abyss, between Josephus and the Gospels, as to reliability and credibility of the sources. I continue to believe to Josephus even if he is demonstrably a perfect liar on some items. I can't do the same with the Gospels.

With Josephus, I have no need of independent sources to test his claims, except in few cases.

- ''except in few cases' - yep.... cases that don't involve your chosen Josephan figure of Jesus b. Saphat...

Here is a bit of advice that I learned from 'spin' some years ago. Many people lived in ancient time - but to claim historicity for any ancient person one needs evidence of existence. You don't have historical evidence for Jesus b. Saphat. Full stop - move on....waste of time when you don't have historical evidence for Jesus b. Saphat

Once more - let me repeat: 'Josephus says so' is not an historical argument.

[maryhelena]

Giuseppe

This whole argument over Jesus b. Saphat is no different to the Jesus historicists argument. They believe, without evidence, that there was a historical Jesus crucified under Pilate. Now, you want to tell the Jesus historicists they are mistaken - the gospel Jesus is really Jesus b. Saphat who lived around 70 c.e and fought in the war against Rome - but, like them - you have no historical evidence that your Jesus, Jesus b. Saphat, was a historical figure. How do you think the Jesus historicists are going to buy your argument? Why should they move on from their lack of evidence to your lack of evidence.....without historical evidence you have nothing whatsoever to offer them..

[Giuseppe]

Here is a bit of advice that I learned from 'spin' some years ago.

who is this 'spin' ? Can anything good come in support of your hyper-skepticism about Josephus' claims from one who has written:

As it is clear that the story of the death of James is not derived from AJ 20.200, where did it come from? It's found in a text by Hegesippus, preserved by Eusebius in his Ecclesiastical History 2.23

http://bcharchive.org/2/thearchives/sho ... 734&page=8

This only quote is sufficient to believe this 'spin' not at all an hyper-skeptic about Josephus' claims, given his efforts to prove Origen based on Hegesippus rather than on Josephus (= the implicit assumption is that Josephus is a lot (!!!) more reliable than Hegesippus, please like the difference).

It is virtually impossible that this 'spin' is someone who would support your hyper-skepticism about any figure in Josephus.

At most, he is only another of the scholars I have meant in my quote above:

you insist always on Josephus who was reporting his own interpretations of the facts, and not the facts themselves, but all Josephus scholars know that already.

What you (and Charles) are advancing is the absurd/irrational/idiotic idea that Josephus was inventing out of whole cloth figure after figure in his First Revolt narrative, instead of doing tendentious writing of contemporary history partly from firsthand participation and the rest from knowledgeable hearsay, as he says he was doing and as Josephus scholars think he did.

My accusation of hyper-skepticism addressed against Maryhelena (and Charles) stands entirely.

[Giuseppe]

you have no historical evidence that your Jesus, Jesus b. Saphat, was a historical figure.

This claim is absurd, extremely absurd.

I don't care to comment this.

How do you think the Jesus historicists are going to buy your argument?

if they are Jesus historicists who concede the fact that "Mark" (author) has Josephus in view behind 'Joseph of Arimathea', then they are Jesus historicists who have to concede equally that the name of the person saved by Josephus in extremis was named 'Jesus' (because "Mark" identifies him by this name) and was one and the same as 'Jesus b. Sapphat', given otherwise the extreme improbability that the Josephus of the fiction was a "secret disciple" of the Jesus of the fiction and that the Josephus of the history had secret dealings with the Jesus of the history.