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

[Giuseppe]

For example: Greg Doudna has proposed that the John, the baptizer figure in Josephus (around 36/37 c.e.) is a displacement of an event related to Hyrcanus in the 30s b.c. The question then becomes - what else in Josephus - particularly in his narrative of the Jewish Roman war - is also a displacement or a reflection of events, and their consequences, from a much earlier siege of Jerusalem.

note that the same Doudna (partially, behind my suggestions) thinks that John of Gischala is the real "John the Baptist" (once removed anything of Hircanus II from the gospels).

In my understanding, once Josephus’s John the Baptist and aspects of Josephus’s John the Baptist in the synoptic gospels are deleted, what is left is not no-John but rather a John of the era of the First Revolt and then after that in Asia Minor–the John of Asia Minor of Acts 18 of the “disciples of John”; the John of Revelation; the John the narrative character with which the Fourth Gospel opens and implied author of that Gospel; and Papias’s “John the Elder”, all arguably John of Gischala of Josephus.

[/quote]

[maryhelena]

For example: Greg Doudna has proposed that the John, the baptizer figure in Josephus (around 36/37 c.e.) is a displacement of an event related to Hyrcanus in the 30s b.c. The question then becomes - what else in Josephus - particularly in his narrative of the Jewish Roman war - is also a displacement or a reflection of events, and their consequences, from a much earlier siege of Jerusalem.

note that the same Doudna (partially, behind my suggestions) thinks that John of Gischala is the real "John the Baptist" (once removed anything of Hircanus II from the gospels).

In my understanding, once Josephus’s John the Baptist and aspects of Josephus’s John the Baptist in the synoptic gospels are deleted, what is left is not no-John but rather a John of the era of the First Revolt and then after that in Asia Minor–the John of Asia Minor of Acts 18 of the “disciples of John”; the John of Revelation; the John the narrative character with which the Fourth Gospel opens and implied author of that Gospel; and Papias’s “John the Elder”, all arguably John of Gischala of Josephus.

[/quote]

How about supporting your theory with some historical evidence?

[Giuseppe]

I have already said you: everything descends from the strongest core argument of Doudna's thesis:
"Mark" couldn't have invented that Joseph of Arimathea was a secret disciple of the Gospel Jesus. The historical nucleus of this secret friendship between Joseph of Arimathea and the Gospel Jesus are the secret dealings (reported in Vita) between Josephus and Jesus son of Saphat.

A parallel that is:

• not a mere coincidence

• Not a mere fruit of midrash by "Mark" from Josephus's Vita

This is the famous external corroboration of the crucifixion as reported by the Gospels.

If you want to deny this evidence, then you have to prove that it is a mere coincidence, or that "Mark" made deliberately Joseph of Arimathea a secret disciple of Jesus in perfect knowledge of the fact that historically Josephus was in secret league with Jesus ben Saphat.

[maryhelena]

I have already said you: everything descends from the strongest core argument of Doudna's thesis:
"Mark" couldn't have invented that Joseph of Arimathea was a secret disciple of the Gospel Jesus.

And you can read Mark's mind......

The historical nucleus of this secret friendship between Joseph of Arimathea and the Gospel Jesus are the secret dealings (reported in Vita) between Josephus and Jesus son of Saphat.

Assumptions are no substitute for reasoned argument.

A parallel that is:

• not a mere coincidence

• Not a mere fruit of midrash by "Mark" from Josephus's Vita

This is the famous external corroboration of the crucifixion as reported by the Gospels.

Assumption.

The gospel Jesus was crucified under Pilate and was taken down dead from the cross.

If you want to deny this evidence, then you have to prove that it is a mere coincidence, or that "Mark" made deliberately Joseph of Arimathea a secret disciple of Jesus in perfect knowledge of the fact that historically Josephus was in secret league with Jesus ben Saphat.

Mark, or whichever gospel writer, can make up any story they want. Likewise, Josephus. It's not a question of who came first with their stories, it's not a chicken and egg issue. History is what it is - available for stories, for legends and mythologizing to all comers. That a reflection or a link can be observed between two stories does not stop there. The question is what historical relevance do these stories highlight or reflect. It could be that both stories reflect historical realities but from different perspectives. The gospel writers from a perspective centered in the time of Pilate. Josephus from a perspective of events surrounding the war of 70 c.e. If so - then it's necessary to have a grasp of Hasmonean Jewish history before we attempt to understand the stories created by the gospel writers and Josephus.

For example: If Josephus, in his stories about the war of 70 c.e. was seeking to understand that war from a perspective of previous sieges of Jerusalem (as historians do with World War 2 and World War 1) then, by observing a gospel reflection in one of his stories, one is in actuality, having to face the possibility that the gospel writers were also reflecting past Hasmonean history in their own stories. Its not a case of a Josephan story supporting the historicity of the gospel story (even by a time-shift) its rather a case of the gospel story and the Josephan story both reflecting past Hasmonean history.

A linkage between a gospel story and a Josephan story is not a linkage that supports historicity for the gospel story. It's a linkage that supports Hasmonean history as the ground zero for both stories.

[Giuseppe]

Mark, or whichever gospel writer, can make up any story they want. Likewise, Josephus.

that both talk about three crucifixions and about the survival/"resurrection" of one victim, and about a Joseph(-us), is already recognized as mere literary dependence. The literary dependence becomes independent witness of a historical nucleus when both the authors talk about a secret friendship between a Joseph(-us) and a Jesus.

Sorry, but "Mark", or whichever gospel writer, could not have invented a so subtle detail pointing to a precise person in the entire Josephus' account .

Therefore: the man saved in extremis by Josephus was named: Jesus the son of Sapphat. Which makes fully the Doudna's case.

[maryhelena]

Mark, or whichever gospel writer, can make up any story they want. Likewise, Josephus.

that both talk about three crucifixions and about the survival/"resurrection" of one victim, and about a Joseph(-us), is already recognized as mere literary dependence. The literary dependence becomes independent witness of a historical nucleus when both the authors talk about a secret friendship between a Joseph(-us) and a Jesus.

Sorry, but "Mark", or whichever gospel writer, could not have invented a so subtle detail pointing to a precise person in the entire Josephus' account .

Maybe Josephus took his three on a cross from Mark - and ditched Mark's miracle resurrection story in order to emphasize historical reality rather than a Markan spiritual speculation perspective. i.e. the Josephan man came down alive from the cross to counter Mark, and the gospel writers, spiritualizing, philosophizing about a crucifixion. As I wrote - different perspectives on history. Both valid perspectives but to equate them as one and the same story is to loose that perspective.

[Giuseppe]

Maybe Josephus took his three on a cross from Mark

The reply In Doudna's words:

The force of the Josephus three-and-one crucifixion-survival story is difficult to weaken.The similarity to the Gospel Passion story is too alike to be unrelated coincidence, and the Josephus story is certainly presented as Josephus first-hand account with no sign that it is Josephus covertly inventing that story to counter Christianity. The Passion story of Jesus’s crucifixion is so central to the Jesus story, and Josephus dates it that story as being a story of something which occurred securely and narrowly dated some time between 68 and 70 ce. And the identification of Joseph “of Arimethea” as Josephus bar Matthias, both carrying out the same respective functions of appealing for permission to have the body taken down from the cross of the one who is resurrected/given medical treatment and survives, nails the case further. Josephus’s story of the three and one is correctly dated, and that is the correct original date of Jesus in the story of the crucifixion which became so central to the Christian gospel.

[maryhelena]

Maybe Josephus took his three on a cross from Mark

The reply In Doudna's words:

The force of the Josephus three-and-one crucifixion-survival story is difficult to weaken.The similarity to the Gospel Passion story is too alike to be unrelated coincidence, and the Josephus story is certainly presented as Josephus first-hand account with no sign that it is Josephus covertly inventing that story to counter Christianity. The Passion story of Jesus’s crucifixion is so central to the Jesus story, and Josephus dates it that story as being a story of something which occurred securely and narrowly dated some time between 68 and 70 ce. And the identification of Joseph “of Arimethea” as Josephus bar Matthias, both carrying out the same respective functions of appealing for permission to have the body taken down from the cross of the one who is resurrected/given medical treatment and survives, nails the case further. Josephus’s story of the three and one is correctly dated, and that is the correct original date of Jesus in the story of the crucifixion which became so central to the Christian gospel.

Two stories: one man was taken down dead from the cross - another man was taken down alive. Two stories set around 40 years apart. Rather than proposing a time shift - thereby overriding the gospel writers and their Pilate context - perhaps both stories are out of time. Perhaps both stories are recollections, reflections, on a past historical crucifixion. That scenario would allow both the gospel story and the Josephan story to retain their contexts. i.e. the gospel writers were placing their recollections in the time of Pilate - that they did so would indicate they had some reason to do so. Josephus placing his recollections during a time of a siege of Jerusalem.

As for Greg Doudna, he has already suggested that Josephus has misplaced a story about Hyrcanus in his account of a John the baptizer. If Josephus can do this - replay as it were - history from an earlier time to a later time - then why not replay history from earlier Jerusalem sieges to the one of 70 c.e. ?

As to Josephus being an eyewitness to the crucifixion of the man who came down alive from the cross....yep, he saw it alright - in his mind's eye...... ....

[Giuseppe]

Frankly, maryhelena, I consider the First Jewish Revolt as the Greatest Impulse to write a gospel.

I cannot imagine that events dating back to Asmonean period or, for that matter, to Pilate, can be related someway to the First Revolt, even only as a some form of theodicy.

The only analogy that comes to mind in the human history, of a fact of blood at the origin of an anomalous legend about a man, is the legend of Dracula. Vlad Tepes was a cruel tyrant, and the memory of his massacres made him the legendary Dracula. The historical Jesus son of Saphat didn't kill so much people, but it was the First Revolt to do the "dirty work" for him, so that he could be trasformed in the Gospel Jesus.

[maryhelena]

Frankly, maryhelena, I consider the First Jewish Revolt as the Greatest Impulse to write a gospel.

I cannot imagine that events dating back to Asmonean period or, for that matter, to Pilate, can be related someway to the First Revolt, even only as a some form of theodicy.

I think that approach is mistake. Historians do not consider World War 2 in isolation. I don't think historians, let alone Jewish historians, would consider the war of 70 ce in isolation....as though the loss of sovereignty following the siege of Jerusalem in 63 bc was inconsequential. As though the killing of a Jewish king after the siege of Jerusalem in 37 bc was inconsequential. The assassination of Franz Ferdinand in 1914 set up a train of events that rolled on to the nuclear horrors of World War 2. Likewise the historical events of 63 bc and 37 bc.