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.
Giuseppe
Posts: 13732
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

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

Post by Giuseppe »

maryhelena wrote: Sun Apr 11, 2021 8:28 am
You cannot prove that the gospel literary figure of Joseph of Arimathea is Yosef ben Matityahu.
How can you say something of similar ?
  • Josef bar Matthea == Joseph bar Arimathea.
  • three crucifixions, one removed from the cross, both in Josephus and in Mark.
  • Josephus, in secret league with a Jesus, Joseph of Arimathea a secret disciple of a Jesus
Really, the parallelisms are self-evident.

I invite you to think more and more on these parallelisms. :cheers:
User avatar
DCHindley
Posts: 3411
Joined: Mon Oct 07, 2013 9:53 am
Location: Ohio, USA

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

Post by DCHindley »

maryhelena wrote: Sun Apr 11, 2021 5:30 amI see no Jesus b. Saphat in that list of Jewish High Priests.
Although I'm pretty sure that you already know this (IMO, you usually have everything worked out in your head before you post), but if anyone else is curious, there are no HPs by this name:
High Priests:

Appointed by Herod the Great (37 BC - 4 BC)
1. Ananel (37 BC - 36 BC)
2. Aristobolus the last Hasmonean (35 BC)
1b. Ananel for 2nd time (34 BC - ?)
3. Jesus son of Phiabi (no date)
4. Simon son of Boethus (possibly Boethus himself, no date), from Alexandria
5. Matthias son of Theophilus (5 BC - 4 BC)
6. Joseph son of Ellem (maybe for a day to perform a function for an unclean Matthias)
7. Joazar son of Boethus (4 BC)

Appointed by Archelaus (4 BC – AD 6)
8. Eleazar son of Boethus (4BC - ?)
9. Jesus son of See (no date)
7b. Joazar for a 2nd time (no date)

Appointed by Quirinius (AD 6)
10. Ananus (or Annas) son of Sethi (AD 6 – AD 15)

Appointed by Valerius Gratus (AD 15 – AD 26)
11. Ismael son of Phiabi (ca. AD 15 – AD 16)
12. Eleazar son of Ananus (ca. AD 16 – AD 17)
13. Simon son of Camithus (ca. AD 17 – AD 18)
14. Joseph surnamed Caiaphas, son in law of Annas = Ananus (ca. AD 18 – AD 36)

Appointed by Vitellius (AD 35 – AD 39)
15. Jonathan son of Ananus (AD 36 – AD 37) also played a role in affairs of 50-52 before being assassinated at instigation of procurator Felix
16. Theophilus son of Ananus (AD 37 - ?)

Appointed by Agrippa I (AD 41 – AD 44)
17. Simon Cantheras son of Boethus (AD 41 - ?)
18. Matthias son of Ananus (no date)
19. Elionaeus son of Cantheras (no date)

Appointed by Herod of Chalcis (AD 44 - AD 48)
20. Joseph son of Camei (or Camydus) (no date)
21. Ananias son of Nedebaeus (ca. AD 47 – AD 59)

Appointed by Agrippa II (AD 50 – AD 92/93?)
22. Ismael son of Phiabi (ca. AD 59 – AD 61)
23. Joseph Cabi son of HP Simon (AD 61 – AD 62)
24. Ananus son of Ananus (AD 62 for 3 months)
25. Jesus son of Damnaeus (ca. AD 62 – AD 63)
26. Jesus son of Gamaliel (ca. AD 63 – AD 64)
27. Matthias son of Theophilus (AD 65 - ?)

Appointed by the people during the War (AD 67/68)
28. Phannias/Phanni/Phanasos son of Samuel

Summarized from the Revised ET of E Schürer’s The Jewish People in the Age of Jesus Christ, volume I, ed. by Vermes, Miller & Black, 1973 etc)
From an ancient post of mine, following are all cases of Jesus characters in all of Josephus' many works (from BW 8):
The name Jesus [= Hebrew Joshua or Jehoshua]
01. Jesus, son of Phabes – High priest. Ant 15.322
02. Jesus, son of Ananus – Common man prophesied destruction of the temple. War 6.300
03. Jesus, or Jason – High priest. Ant 12.239
04. Jesus, son of Sapphias – Governor of Tiberias. War 2.566, War 2.599; Life 1.066, Life 1.134
05. Jesus, brother of Onias – High priest. Ant 12.237, Ant 12.238, Ant 12.239
06. Jesus, son of Gamaliel – High priest. Ant 20.213, Ant 20.223
07. Jesus, no patronym – Eldest high priest after Ananus. War 4.238, War 4.316, War 4.325
08. Jesus, son of Damneus – High priest. Ant 20.203
09. Jesus, son of Gamala – High priest & Josephus’ friend. War 4.160; Life 1.193, Life 1.204
10. Jesus, [or Joshua] son of Nun – Successor to Moses. Ant 03.049, Ant 03.308; Ant 4.459, & numerous other times.
11. Jesus, son of Shapat – Principal head of a band of robbers controlling Tiberias, sallies against Vespasian's messenger Valerian. War 3.450
16. Jesus, no patronym – Captain of those robbers who were in the confines of Ptolemais, allies with Josephus. Life 1.105
12. Jesus, son of Thebuthus – One of the priests, delivers to Titus precious things deposited in the temple. War 6.387
13. Jesus, son of Josadek – High priest. Ant 20.231, Ant 20.234
14. Jesus, no patronym – Galilean at head of a band of 600 followers, sent by Ananus & Jesus to depose Josephus. Life 1.200
15. Jesus, no patronym – Condemned to cross by Pilate. He was [the] Christ. Ant 18.063
17. Jesus, brother of Jacob – Called the Christ. Ant 20.200
My guess would be #4 & #11 are the same person.

DCH
Giuseppe
Posts: 13732
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

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

Post by Giuseppe »

DCHindley wrote: Sun Apr 11, 2021 8:49 am there are no HPs by this name:
Jesus b. Tebuthi is reported in B. J. VI:387-391 to have handed over to the Romans the sacred priestly vestments and some of the Temple treaseures so as to save his own skin: hence he was probably one of the last high priests working in the Temple.

The Josippon names this same Jesus b. Tebuthi with a patronimic resembling strongly "b. Sapphat".
Giuseppe
Posts: 13732
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

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

Post by Giuseppe »

The hypothesis that Jesus b. Tebuthi == Jesus b. Sapphat is corroborated by this further evidence:

“On the Priesthood of Jesus” aka “the Confession (or, Apology) of Theodosius”, is a 7th-8th CE story of Jesus being selected and registered as a priest following debate concerning Jesus’s paternity and genealogical qualifications, which, however, were satisfied. Nuvolone and Adler suppose there was a prior Jewish source of obscure origins underneath the story in its present form. In this story, Jesus being a priest is claimed to have been verified in the writings of Josephus. Again, it seems as if some ancient exegete has read a Revolt-era priest Jesus as Jesus Christ. Also, the character Theodosius in the story tells of his discovery that no other name appears after the name of Jesus in a written registry of priests kept by the Jews in the temple until it fell to the Romans. Theodosius concluded that Jesus was the final priest after which “kings and priests have ceased in Israel”.

(my bold)
https://vridar.org/2019/05/15/alan-kirk ... ment-93107
User avatar
DCHindley
Posts: 3411
Joined: Mon Oct 07, 2013 9:53 am
Location: Ohio, USA

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

Post by DCHindley »

Giuseppe wrote: Sun Apr 11, 2021 9:02 am The hypothesis that Jesus b. Tebuthi == Jesus b. Sapphat is corroborated by this further evidence:

“On the Priesthood of Jesus” aka “the Confession (or, Apology) of Theodosius”, is a 7th-8th CE story of Jesus being selected and registered as a priest following debate concerning Jesus’s paternity and genealogical qualifications, which, however, were satisfied. Nuvolone and Adler suppose there was a prior Jewish source of obscure origins underneath the story in its present form. In this story, Jesus being a priest is claimed to have been verified in the writings of Josephus. Again, it seems as if some ancient exegete has read a Revolt-era priest Jesus as Jesus Christ. Also, the character Theodosius in the story tells of his discovery that no other name appears after the name of Jesus in a written registry of priests kept by the Jews in the temple until it fell to the Romans. Theodosius concluded that Jesus was the final priest after which “kings and priests have ceased in Israel”.

(my bold)
https://vridar.org/2019/05/15/alan-kirk ... ment-93107
Don't you think that the compiler of The Josippon (I assume you mean the 4th century Latin paraphrase of Josephus's War) could be in error about this identification?

I think that misidentifications of this kind might be traced to the natural confusion between Jesus (no patronym, the 1st in command under Ananus) in War 4 and the "brother of Jesus, named Jacob" of Ant 20:200.

The identification of the Jesus of Ant 20:200 with Hegesippus' Jacob the Just do not need to be equated as if it is the only option, unless one is a proto-orthodox Christian who wants oh so desperately for Josephus to validate the historical existence of Jesus (Hegesippus, maybe Clement of Alexandria, definitely Origen, Eusebius).

In earlier threads I had come to the conclusion that Origen had completely missed the fact that his interpretation of Hegesippus' Jacob the Just martyrdom account had not figured out that Origen's copy of Ant 20:200ff had at one point contained a marginal comment that had compared Josephus' harsh description of Ananus there with his much (much!) more positive portrayal of Ananus in War 4.

In fact, in War 4 Josephus claims that it was on account of the execution of Ananus by order of the Zealot party at the hands of the Idumean war parties (which the Zealot party had allowed to enter the city), that God had allowed the city's destruction!

DCH :scratch:
Last edited by DCHindley on Sun Apr 11, 2021 9:54 am, edited 1 time in total.
Giuseppe
Posts: 13732
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

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

Post by Giuseppe »

DCHindley wrote: Sun Apr 11, 2021 9:38 am
Don't you think that the compiler of The Josippon (I assume you mean the 4th century Latin paraphrase of Josephus's War) could be in error about this identification?
It is a very singular coincidence, that the confusion had to involve just a patronimic so similar to "b. Sapphat", as "b. Schaftai". Isn't it? How much, given what we know about Jesus b. Sapphat, is it a true coincidence?

Josippon (medieval, not regarded as reliable in mainstream scholarship, regarded as drawing from Latin translations of Josephus and other unknown sources), has as parallel: “Josua a priest, sonne of Schaftai the hygh priest” (I am quoting from a republished English translation of Josippon of 1575-1579, emphasis mine). Gr. War texts “Thebuti” = Josippon “Schaftai”, and in Josippon Schaftai/Thebuti is said to have been a high priest (Gr. War only says “priest”).

War 2.566 “Jesus son of Sapphas, one of the chief priests” (Σαπφᾶ [Loeb]), but Loeb has a footnote indicating that is an emendation from mss. reading Σαπφὼ or Σαπφὰν) is listed among other commanders, most from high-priestly-family circles, at the outset of the Revolt.

https://vridar.org/2019/05/15/alan-kirk ... ment-93102

DCHindley wrote: Sun Apr 11, 2021 9:38 am I think that misidentifications of this kind might be traced to the natural confusion between Jesus (no patronym, the 1st in command under Ananus) in War 4 and the "brother of Jesus, named Jacob" of Ant 20:200. These two do not necessarily have to be equated, unless one is a proto-orthodox Christian who wants oh so desperately for Josephus to validate the historical existence of Jesus (Hegesippus, maybe Clement of Alexandria, definitely Origen, Eusebius).
this kind of (deliberate?) confusion by Christian part is more probable with the document known as "On the Priesthood of Jesus", than with a Jewish document as the Josippon.
User avatar
DCHindley
Posts: 3411
Joined: Mon Oct 07, 2013 9:53 am
Location: Ohio, USA

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

Post by DCHindley »

Giuseppe wrote: Sun Apr 11, 2021 9:52 am[T]his kind of (deliberate?) confusion by Christian part is more probable with the document known as "On the Priesthood of Jesus", than with a Jewish document as the Josippon.
I think you mentioned this source "On the Priesthood of Jesus" but I am not sure if it is supposed to be an ancient source or the interpretation of a modern scholar (anything 19th century CE or later is game) about the motivations of the compiler of the Josippon.

In my mind I can sometimes confuse the Josippon with the work usually entitled, misleadingly, as the account of "Hegesippus." The compiler was certainly not the 2nd century Hegesippus cited by Eusebius, and probably 4th century CE. Some early modern scholars seem to have used the names Hegesippus and Josippon almost interchangeably as if there was a direct relationship, but this is apparently now considered untenable.

Sorry if I have introduced a little confusion. But that is what I do. :wtf:
Giuseppe
Posts: 13732
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

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

Post by Giuseppe »

DCHindley wrote: Sun Apr 11, 2021 10:19 am I think you mentioned this source "On the Priesthood of Jesus" but I am not sure if it is supposed to be an ancient source or the interpretation of a modern scholar (anything 19th century CE or later is game) about the motivations of the compiler of the Josippon.
what? :D :lol:


This is the source "On the Priesthood of Jesus" and it is obviously not a modern source "of a modern scholar" (sic):

Suda, Ἰησοῦς ὁ Χριστὸς καὶ θεὸς ἡμῶν (Adler number #229):

Jesus the Christ and our God

[Note] that in the time of the most pious emperor Justinian there was a certain man, leader of the Jews -- Theodosius was his name –- who was well known to most of the Christians and to the aforementioned faithful emperor himself. At that time there was a certain Christian man -– Philip was his name -– a silver merchant by trade. This man being well acquainted with Theodosius and maintaining a genuine [friendship] with him, counseled him and advised him to become a Christian. So on one day the aforesaid Philip said something like this to the aforesaid Theodosius: "Why ever, as you are a wise man and accurately understand what the Law and the Prophets have proclaimed in advance about the Lord Christ, do you not believe in him and become a Christian? For I am convinced about you, that it is not because you are ignorant of what the god-inspired Scriptures have foretold concerning the coming of our common master Christ that you decline to become a Christian. Make haste therefore to save your soul, believing in our Savior and Lord Jesus Christ, lest by remaining in your unbelief you make yourself subject to eternal judgment." When he heard these things which the Christian said to him, the Jew acknowledged him and thanked him in words and gave him this answer: "I acknowledge your godly love, that being zealous for the salvation of my soul you strive in urging me to become a Christian. Therefore, as before God who understands and observes the secrets of hearts, I will speak with you without deceit and without hypocrisy and with all truth. I am fully assured that the Christ came who was proclaimed in advance by the Law and the Prophets, the one who is worshiped by you Christians, and I confess it willingly, as to my genuine friend, you who are always eager for my benefit. But being governed by human reckoning I do not become a Christian and in this respect I condemn myself. For as it is, being a Jew I am the leader of the Jews and obtain great honor and many gifts and all the necessities for this life. I suspect that even if I become the patriarch of the catholic church or receive greater and more prominent authority from you [Christians], I will not be found worthy of such great service. Therefore, so that I may not lose those things which seem pleasurable in this life, I disregard the life to come, and I am wrong to do this. But so that I may prove my words true to you my beloved friend, I entrust a mystery to you which has been hidden by us Hebrews, from which we understand with certainty that the Christ who is worshiped by you Christians is the very one who was proclaimed in advance by the Law and the Prophets -– not only from those very prophecies, but also from the mystery which has been recorded and hidden by us. And this is the story of this mystery. In ancient times, when Jerusalem was newly founded, it was customary among the Jews to appoint priests in the Temple equal in number to our scriptures, which happen to be twenty-two; whence we number the inspired biblical books as twenty-two. So a codex was stored in the Temple, in which was written the name of each of the 22 priests and the name of his father and his mother. So when one of the priests died, the rest assembled in the Temple and by a common vote appointed another priest in the place of the one who had died, completing the number of the 22 priests. And it was recorded in the codex that on this day such-and-such a priest died, the son of this man and this woman, and in his place so-and-so was elected. So as this custom prevailed among the nation of the Jews, it happened in the days when Jesus was living in Judea that one of the 22 priests died before Jesus began to make himself known and to teach men to believe in him. So the remaining priests assembled in order to make another priest in the place of the priest who had died. As each proposed the one who seemed to him worthy of becoming [a priest], the others rejected him as being deficient in virtue, from which a priest ought to be established. For if he was wise, and good in character and way of life, but happened to be ignorant of the Law and the Prophets, he was judged unsuitable for the priesthood. Thus when many priests had come to the vote and all had been rejected, one priest rose and stood in the midst of them and said to the others, 'Look, many have been named by you and have been found unfit for the priesthood. Accept me also, therefore, as I speak about one man who ought to be elected in the place of the priest who has died. For I suspect that none of you will be displeased with the nomination which comes from me.' When the other priests bade him, he said, 'In the place of the priest who has died I want Jesus, the son of Joseph the carpenter, to become priest. He is young in years, but he is adorned in speech, in manner of life, and in good character; and I suspect that no man ever has been seen in speech or in manner of life or in character such as this man is. And I suppose that this is known to all of you who live in Jerusalem and undeniable.' Hearing this speech, the other priests accepted the man and ratified the election, saying that Jesus was suitable for the priesthood beyond any other man. But some said about him that he was not from the tribe of Levi, but from the tribe of Judah. And thinking that he was the son of Joseph (for so he was named among the Jews), everyone bore witness that Joseph was from the tribe of Judah, not from the tribe of Levi. And for this reason, because they thought he was not of the Levitical tribe, they tried to prevent him from becoming priest. But the priest who had named him answered them and said that his lineage was mixed; for long ago in the ancient generations a mixing of the two tribes had occurred and from that the lineage of Joseph had descended. Hearing this the other priests acceded to the election, and by a common agreement all the assembled priests agreed to appoint Jesus as priest in place of the priest who had died. As it was customary to record in the codex not only the name of the man who was becoming priest but also [the names] of his father and mother, some said that they ought first to call his parents and learn their names from them, and to receive a statement from them, whether the man who was elected to the priesthood was their son. And all agreed to this. He who had nominated Jesus to become priest said that Joseph the father of Jesus had died, and only his mother still lived. So all agreed to bring his mother into the council and learn from her whether she happened to be the mother of Jesus and if she herself had given birth to him, and to hear the name of her husband, from whom she had borne Jesus. As this was agreeable to all, they summoned the mother of Jesus and said to her, 'Since so-and-so the priest has died, the son of such a man and such a woman, and we wish in his place to make your son Jesus [priest], and it is the custom to record the name of the father and the mother: tell us, if Jesus is your son, and if you gave birth to him.' And when Mary heard this she replied, saying to the priests, 'I confess that Jesus is my son, for I bore him, and those [men] who have been found and those women who have been found will bear witness that I bore him. But that he does not have a father on earth, accept assurance from me as you wish. For as I was a virgin and living in Galilee, an angel of God, when I was awake and not sleeping, entering the house where I was, proclaimed the good news to me that I would bear a son from the Holy Spirit. He bade me call his name Jesus. So, you see, being a virgin, after I saw this vision I conceived and bore Jesus, remaining a virgin until this day even after I gave birth.' Hearing this the priests ordered trustworthy midwives to come and instructed them to investigate whether Mary was still truly a virgin. Obtaining evidence from the facts they confirmed the assurance that she was a virgin. Those who had been present and observed her giving birth also came and bore witness that Jesus was her son. The priests, amazed at what was said by Mary and those who bore witness concerning her childbirth, answered and said to Mary, 'Tell us frankly, so that we may hear it from your mouth, of what father and mother is he the son, so that we may record him so; for whatever parents you say we will record and no others.' She answered and said, 'In truth I bore him, not knowing a father on earth for him; but I heard from the angel the he was the son of God. So he is the son of me, the woman called Mary, and the son of God, and I have not married and am a virgin.' Hearing this, the priests brought the codex and wrote thus: 'On this day the priest so-and-so died, the son of such a father and such a mother, and by the common vote of all of us Jesus became priest, the son of the living God and Mary the virgin.' And this codex was saved from the Temple by the care of those who held first place among the Jews at the time of the capture of the Temple and of Jerusalem, and is stored at Tiberias. And this mystery is known to very few trustworthy men of our nation. Therefore it was revealed also to me as a leader and teacher of our nation. For not only from the Law and the Prophets are we fully assured that the Christ worshiped by you Christians is the very son of the living God, who came to earth for the salvation of the world, but also from the record which is preserved to this day and is stored at Tiberias." When the Christian heard what was said to him by the Jew, moved by holy zeal he said to the Jew, "Straightway and at once I am bringing to the faithful and pious emperor what you have said, so that he may send to Tiberias and reveal the codex which you describe, to refute the unbelief of the Jews." But the Jew said to the Christian, "Why do you wish to bring judgment on your own soul and bring it to the emperor without attaining what you desire? For if some such thing should happen, a great war is going to take place, and slaughter will follow. And then, if they see themselves being subdued, they will set fire to the place in which the codex is stored; and our efforts will be in vain when what we strive for does not succeed, as we merely become agents of the shedding of blood. I have made this known to you my dearly beloved, as to a genuine friend, in order to prove to you that it is not out of ignorance that I reject Christianity, but out of empty opinion." When the Christian heard this from the Jew, believing that what he said was true, he did not make this discourse known to the faithful emperor Justinian, lest moved by holy zeal that great and faithful emperor should cause shedding of blood to occur, and then not even what he desired would have succeeded; but to many of his acquaintances and friends he made this discourse evident. When we had learned this from those who heard it from the aforementioned silver-merchant Philip, we gave it not a little attention, wishing to know whether indeed the Jew had spoken these words truly about this record. So we found Josephus, the historian of the capture of Jerusalem (of whom Eusebius the [spiritual son] of Pamphilus makes much mention in his Ecclesiastical History), saying openly in his memoirs of his captivity that Jesus served in the holy place with the priests. When we found this told by Josephus, a man of ancient times who lived not long after the apostles, we sought to find also from the inspired Scriptures the confirmation of such a discourse. So we found in the Gospel according to Luke that Jesus went into the synagogue of the Jews and the Book was given to him and he read the prophet Isaiah saying, "The spirit of the Lord is upon me; for this cause he anointed me, he sent me to preach good news to the poor." We judge by analogy that if Christ Jesus did not have some liturgical rank among the Jews the Book would not have been given to him to read in the hearing of the people. For among us Christians in the Church no one is permitted to read the books of the inspired Scriptures to the people unless he is enrolled in the clergy. Both from what Josephus wrote and from what the evangelist Luke recounted we know that when Theodosius the Jew told the aforesaid tale to the above-mentioned Philip the silver-merchant, he did not invent this, but truly as to a genuine friend he entrusted the mystery which had been hidden by the Jews. But Chrysostom does not at all accept this priesthood attributed to Christ.


The Josippon is entirely a different thing.
Giuseppe
Posts: 13732
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

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

Post by Giuseppe »

So the Josippon:

In those days, there was fighting and dissension in Judea between the Pharisees and the 'brigands of our people' who followed the son of Joseph, etc ...[lacuna] Eleazar, who committed great crimes in Israel until the Pharisees overcame him."

This appears to confirm what the Pagan Hierocles wrote, as told by the later Lactantius, against Jesus:

“affirmed that Christ Himself was put to flight by the Jews, and having collected a band of nine hundred men, committed robberies”

(Lactantius, Divine Institutes, 5,3)

The mention of Eleazar in the Josippon, precisely in the same point where a rebel "son of Joseph" is mentioned, makes it clear that the "son of Joseph" who is meant is precisely the Jesus also meant by Hierocles, i.e. a Jesus active during the First Jewish Revolt (66-70 CE): Jesus b. Sapphat.

It is intriguing the presence of that lacuna just in that point of the Josippon.
User avatar
maryhelena
Posts: 2887
Joined: Tue Oct 08, 2013 11:22 pm
Location: England

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

Post by maryhelena »

DCHindley wrote: Sun Apr 11, 2021 8:49 am
maryhelena wrote: Sun Apr 11, 2021 5:30 amI see no Jesus b. Saphat in that list of Jewish High Priests.
Although I'm pretty sure that you already know this (IMO, you usually have everything worked out in your head before you post), but if anyone else is curious, there are no HPs by this name:
High Priests:

Appointed by Herod the Great (37 BC - 4 BC)
1. Ananel (37 BC - 36 BC)
2. Aristobolus the last Hasmonean (35 BC)
1b. Ananel for 2nd time (34 BC - ?)
3. Jesus son of Phiabi (no date)
4. Simon son of Boethus (possibly Boethus himself, no date), from Alexandria
5. Matthias son of Theophilus (5 BC - 4 BC)
6. Joseph son of Ellem (maybe for a day to perform a function for an unclean Matthias)
7. Joazar son of Boethus (4 BC)

Appointed by Archelaus (4 BC – AD 6)
8. Eleazar son of Boethus (4BC - ?)
9. Jesus son of See (no date)
7b. Joazar for a 2nd time (no date)

Appointed by Quirinius (AD 6)
10. Ananus (or Annas) son of Sethi (AD 6 – AD 15)

Appointed by Valerius Gratus (AD 15 – AD 26)
11. Ismael son of Phiabi (ca. AD 15 – AD 16)
12. Eleazar son of Ananus (ca. AD 16 – AD 17)
13. Simon son of Camithus (ca. AD 17 – AD 18)
14. Joseph surnamed Caiaphas, son in law of Annas = Ananus (ca. AD 18 – AD 36)

Appointed by Vitellius (AD 35 – AD 39)
15. Jonathan son of Ananus (AD 36 – AD 37) also played a role in affairs of 50-52 before being assassinated at instigation of procurator Felix
16. Theophilus son of Ananus (AD 37 - ?)

Appointed by Agrippa I (AD 41 – AD 44)
17. Simon Cantheras son of Boethus (AD 41 - ?)
18. Matthias son of Ananus (no date)
19. Elionaeus son of Cantheras (no date)

Appointed by Herod of Chalcis (AD 44 - AD 48)
20. Joseph son of Camei (or Camydus) (no date)
21. Ananias son of Nedebaeus (ca. AD 47 – AD 59)

Appointed by Agrippa II (AD 50 – AD 92/93?)
22. Ismael son of Phiabi (ca. AD 59 – AD 61)
23. Joseph Cabi son of HP Simon (AD 61 – AD 62)
24. Ananus son of Ananus (AD 62 for 3 months)
25. Jesus son of Damnaeus (ca. AD 62 – AD 63)
26. Jesus son of Gamaliel (ca. AD 63 – AD 64)
27. Matthias son of Theophilus (AD 65 - ?)

Appointed by the people during the War (AD 67/68)
28. Phannias/Phanni/Phanasos son of Samuel

Summarized from the Revised ET of E Schürer’s The Jewish People in the Age of Jesus Christ, volume I, ed. by Vermes, Miller & Black, 1973 etc)
From an ancient post of mine, following are all cases of Jesus characters in all of Josephus' many works (from BW 8):
The name Jesus [= Hebrew Joshua or Jehoshua]
01. Jesus, son of Phabes – High priest. Ant 15.322
02. Jesus, son of Ananus – Common man prophesied destruction of the temple. War 6.300
03. Jesus, or Jason – High priest. Ant 12.239
04. Jesus, son of Sapphias – Governor of Tiberias. War 2.566, War 2.599; Life 1.066, Life 1.134
05. Jesus, brother of Onias – High priest. Ant 12.237, Ant 12.238, Ant 12.239
06. Jesus, son of Gamaliel – High priest. Ant 20.213, Ant 20.223
07. Jesus, no patronym – Eldest high priest after Ananus. War 4.238, War 4.316, War 4.325
08. Jesus, son of Damneus – High priest. Ant 20.203
09. Jesus, son of Gamala – High priest & Josephus’ friend. War 4.160; Life 1.193, Life 1.204
10. Jesus, [or Joshua] son of Nun – Successor to Moses. Ant 03.049, Ant 03.308; Ant 4.459, & numerous other times.
11. Jesus, son of Shapat – Principal head of a band of robbers controlling Tiberias, sallies against Vespasian's messenger Valerian. War 3.450
16. Jesus, no patronym – Captain of those robbers who were in the confines of Ptolemais, allies with Josephus. Life 1.105
12. Jesus, son of Thebuthus – One of the priests, delivers to Titus precious things deposited in the temple. War 6.387
13. Jesus, son of Josadek – High priest. Ant 20.231, Ant 20.234
14. Jesus, no patronym – Galilean at head of a band of 600 followers, sent by Ananus & Jesus to depose Josephus. Life 1.200
15. Jesus, no patronym – Condemned to cross by Pilate. He was [the] Christ. Ant 18.063
17. Jesus, brother of Jacob – Called the Christ. Ant 20.200
My guess would be #4 & #11 are the same person.

DCH
Another name for your list.....Jesus. son of Toufa.

Slavonic Tradition

Valerianus advanced on horseback,
and on approaching the wall, dismounted
and those with him (did the same]
so that the citizens should not say
that they had come to fight.
But even before they had uttered a word,
•the rebels
dashed out* against them with weapons
from the town.
Their leader was *Jesus. son of Toufa*

Greek tradition

Valerianus advanced on horseback
and. on approaching the wall, dismounted
and directed his troop to do the same.
to prevent any suspicion
that they had come to skirmish.
But before any parley had taken place.
the principal promoters of the rising
dashed out in arms to meet him.
headed by a certain Jesus, son of Saphat.
the ringleader of this band of brigands

Commentary

Isus, Tofain syn
Jesus, son of Toufa
This agrees with PA (Toupha) while MCV have Saphato

GREEK MANUSCRIPTS

A = Ambrosianus (Milan) D 50 (occurs only in conjunction with other manuscripts)
C = Vaticanus-Urbinas 84
L = Laurentianus 96-19
M = Marcianus (Venice) 383
P = Paris National Library 1425
R = Palatinus 284
V= Vaticanus 148


Josephus' Jewish War and its Slavonic Version: A Synoptic Comparison: 46 (Arbeiten zur Geschichte des Antiken Judentums und des UrChristentums). H. Leeming (Author), K. Leeming (Author)


Slavonic Tradition:

In Idumaea two commanders were appointed:
Jesus, son of Sapphas.
and "Eleazar. son of the high priest Neus,"

Greek Tradition.

Other generals were selected for Idumaea.
namely, Jesus son of Sapphas.
one of the chief priests,
and Eleazar. son of the high-priest Neus

Josephus' Jewish War and its Slavonic Version: A Synoptic Comparison: 46 (Arbeiten zur Geschichte des Antiken Judentums und des UrChristentums). H. Leeming (Author), K. Leeming (Author)

So...a development in War - Jesus son of Sapphas becomes one of the chief priest - or Jesus son of Sapphas is a son of one of the chief priests - as Eleazar is son of the high-priest Neus. High Priest Neus ?
Post Reply