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

[maryhelena]

How could someone executed by the Romans in 37 b.c. be the gospel Jesus that was executed under Tiberius and Pilate around 30/33 c.e. ??? Your shifting context again......

accordingly, you should define historicist who thinks, for example, that the Gospel Jesus was the Samaritan Pretender killed by Pilate.

I'm not a historicist. I am an ahistoricst.....that's someone who believes that gospel figure of Jesus was not a historical figure.

[Giuseppe]

I'm not a historicist. I am an ahistoricst.....that's someone who believes that gospel figure of Jesus was not a historical figure.

but insofar you think that everything started with the last Asmonean king, you are by definition a historicist. You think that the last Asmonean king was remembered deliberately by "Mark" (by the detail of titulus crucis).

[maryhelena]

I'm not a historicist. I am an ahistoricst.....that's someone who believes that gospel figure of Jesus was not a historical figure.

but insofar you think that everything started with the last Asmonean king, you are by definition a historicist. You think that the last Asmonean king was remembered deliberately by "Mark" (by the detail of titulus crucis).

Nonsense..... That I maintain that history matters is one thing..... It does not turn me into a gospel Jesus historist....

It seems to me you have a problem with the idea of composite literary figures. Maybe check out Wikipedia on how Ian Fleming created James Bond.

[Giuseppe]

It seems to me you have a problem with the idea of composite literary figures. Maybe check out Wikipedia on how Ian Fleming created James Bond.

it seems that you have described the 'Mark''s attempt to derive from the last Asmonean king the idea of the titulus crucis as a deliberate conspirationist attempt by 'Mark' to eclipse the disturbing memory of said Asmonean king. This is historicity in my eyes:
the last Asmonean king was crucified -----> "Mark" wanted to eclipse him ----> "Mark" transformed him as Jesus

Is this what you are saying?

[maryhelena]

It seems to me you have a problem with the idea of composite literary figures. Maybe check out Wikipedia on how Ian Fleming created James Bond.

it seems that you have described the 'Mark''s attempt to derive from the last Asmonean king the idea of the titulus crucis as a deliberate conspirationist attempt by 'Mark' to eclipse the disturbing memory of said Asmonean king. This is historicity in my eyes:
the last Asmonean king was crucified -----> "Mark" wanted to eclipse him ----> "Mark" transformed him as Jesus

Is this what you are saying?

I maintain the gospel writers created a composite literary Jesus figure. An element of that composite literary figure reflects the Roman execution of the last King and High Priest of the Jews. A reflection, a memory of past Hasmonean history. Remembering the past is regularly and publicslly done even today. Living under Roman occupation public displays of remembrance would be asking for trouble. Allegory a safer option.

[Giuseppe]

I maintain the gospel writers created a composite literary Jesus figure. An element of that composite literary figure reflects the Roman execution of the last King and High Priest of the Jews. A reflection, a memory of past Hasmonean history. Remembering the past is regularly and publicslly done even today. Living under Roman occupation public displays of remembrance would be asking for trouble. Allegory a safer option.

Ok, just as Jesus ben Ananias in Josephus was the inspiration for some details of the Gospel Jesus.

Hence, I have to conclude that you are writing so much posts here only to show that your view is mythicist in opposition to Vermeiren/Doudna's view (the historical Jesus == Jesus son of Saphat).

Well to know.

[maryhelena]

I maintain the gospel writers created a composite literary Jesus figure. An element of that composite literary figure reflects the Roman execution of the last King and High Priest of the Jews. A reflection, a memory of past Hasmonean history. Remembering the past is regularly and publicslly done even today. Living under Roman occupation public displays of remembrance would be asking for trouble. Allegory a safer option.

Ok, just as Jesus ben Ananias in Josephus was the inspiration for some details of the Gospel Jesus.

Hence, I have to conclude that you are writing so much posts here only to show that your view is mythicist in opposition to Vermeiren/Doudna's view (the historical Jesus == Jesus son of Saphat).

Well to know.

Oh come off it..... You posted a theory and now you don't like it being criticized.. ..

[Giuseppe]

You posted a theory and now you don't like it being criticized.. ..

you are free to criticize anything, but please note the difference between your criticism and hakeem's criticism for that matter. You are claiming the same identical thing, but by a different number of words.

Forgive me if I like the extreme conciseness of hakeem with respect to your prolixity

[maryhelena]

tw you don't like it being criticized.. ..

you are free to criticize anything, but please note the difference between your criticism and hakeem's criticism for that matter. You are claiming the same identical thing, but by a different number of words.

Forgive me if I like the extreme conciseness of hakeem with respect to your prolixity

It's the criticism you need to take on board not whether you like or dislike the words being used to criticize that theory. Disliking the words used to discredit a theory services only to avoid considering the arguments raised against it. Giuseppe, feelings have no place in discussing arguments or criticism of a theory. The world turns on rationality and logic....

That said - the theory you proposed in this thread is devoid of logic. Frans Vermeiren was on this forum a while back - and his theory did not gain support - and he has not stuck around to further promote and argue for it. That Greg Doudna now seems to be promoting Vermeiren's theory that the gospel Jesus = Jesus ben Saphat is truly disappointing. (.....have you considered and excluded the possibility that Jesus ben Sapphat active in the 60s ce of Josephus became understood to be Jesus Christ? ) Richard Carrier simply dismissed it as idle speculation and unevidenced assumptions. Yep, criticize Carrier if you want - I've done so myself. However, when it comes to history, to making historical arguments, much more is needed than maintaining that 2 plus 2 = 5. i.e. add the gospel story and the Josephan story together and abracadabra we have a new theory on early christian origins.

If one wants to use Josephus in connection to, or understanding of the gospel story, then his stories have to be established historically. Taking his word as 'gospel' is misplaced. We have to, as James McLaren says, ''.....stand apart from him..'' In other words; we have to subject his stories to historical criticism.

[Giuseppe]

That Greg Doudna now seems to be promoting Vermeiren's theory that the gospel Jesus = Jesus ben Saphat

it is a remarkable, in my view, and further evidence that the thesis is basically correct, that three writers, placed in different space-time contexts so different among them:

• Vermeiren,

• Doudna,

• and George Solomon,

...have identified at all independently among them, the historical Jesus with Jesus the son of Sapphat.