maryhelena wrote: ↑Sun Apr 04, 2021 2:52 amGreg Doudna has dropped the Jesus ben Ananias figure and retains the second figure of Solomon's composite Jesus theory as the historical Jesus. OK - whatever - but to keep referencing Solomon's book in support of Jesus ben Saphat being the historical Jesus is to misrepresent what Solomon's actually wrote - a theory about a composite Jesus figure.
it is not a "betrayal" of Solomon's ideas, the idea that Jesus b. Ananias was one and the same of Jesus b. Sapphat. At any case, George Solomon is expressly a historicist: the title of his book talks about a "Jesus of history" and a "Jesus of tradition" as "identified". More explicit than this one dies
maryhelena wrote: ↑Sun Apr 04, 2021 2:52 am
If one upholds a composite Jesus theory - a composite Jesus that reflects historical figures - then one cannot turn around and say that historical figure X is the historical Jesus. All one could say is that one can see reflections of historical figure X within the composite figure of the gospel Jesus. In other words - upholding a composite Jesus figure rules out any one historical figure being the historical Jesus.
Based on your words, then I should conclude that the historical
Jesus enfant from Prague would be Josephus (!), given the following evidence:
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.
George Solomon argues that
traits of the Samaritan false prophet ended in the Gospel tradition, too (
in primis the dating under Pilate), but he doesn't conclude from this that the Samaritan false prophet was the historical Jesus.
It is not sufficient to show mere analogies with some Gospel episodes to be a "historical Jesus". What is necessary is also to show the
impulse given to the creation of a new sect by a possible candidate to the role.
Vermeiren and Doudna think that the
impulse was given by the survival of Jesus b. Sapphat thanks the help given
in extremis to him by Josephus.
That unexpected survival to cross was the original "resurrection".
As
impulse, I think it is more than sufficient.