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.
maryhelena
Posts: 1831
Joined: Tue Oct 08, 2013 11:22 pm
Location: England

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

Post by maryhelena » Tue Apr 06, 2021 5:36 am

Giuseppe wrote:
Tue Apr 06, 2021 5:06 am
A "criticism" of G. Solomon's theory, one very similar to Carrier's "criticism" against Doudna, is found here:

Finally, an almost unnoticed theory is advanced by a Mr. George Solomon who thinks Jesus was born in the pages of Josephus and is the composite of an unnamed Samaritan zealot who was slain by the soldiers of Pontius Pilate, of Jesus son of Sapphias, a turbulent brigand who gave much trouble when Josephus was governor of Galilee, and of Jesus son of Ananus, a harmless monomaniac who went about predicting woe to Jerusalem and who was killed at the siege by a stone missile just as he added to his "ditty" a prophecy of his own destruction.

(...)
Moreover Dr. Jensen applies his theory to the Old as well as the New Testament ; and he is asking too much of our credulity when he expects us to believe that almost all the incidents related in the Bible are but variations of the Gilgamesh story.
Even more improbable is Mr. Solomon's suggestion. That the Jesus of the New Testament could be compounded of three characters of Josephus, none of whom bear the faintest resemblance to him and all of whom show the strongest contrasts, is beyond any reasonable probability. As are so many other radical hypotheses, this of Mr. Solomon's is like a large sack containing but a single pebble, weighty at one point but empty at all others. It leaves 99 per cent of the facts unexplained, and indeed it explains very imperfectly the remainder.

https://opensiuc.lib.siu.edu/cgi/viewco ... ontext=ocj

Note the absolute folly of this critic: he thinks that even the Jensen's theory (Jesus == Gilgamesh!) is more probable (sic) than Solomon's theory.

Surely, if Jesus b. Ananias is already a distorted reflection of Jesus b. Sapphat (as argued by Doudna), then the Gospel Jesus could be compounded of two characters of Josephus: Jesus b. Sapphat and the Samaritan false prophet slain by Pilate.
The interesting insight from Solomon is his concept of a composite gospel Jesus figure. The figures, from Josephus, that he proposes as part of that composite gospel Jesus, cannot be established as historical figures. ('Josephus says so' is not an historical argument). If one wants to uphold this insight from Solomon - then take out a history book and identify historical figures whose lives could have been used to create the composite gospel Jesus figure.

User avatar
Giuseppe
Posts: 8863
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

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

Post by Giuseppe » Tue Apr 06, 2021 6:27 am

maryhelena wrote:
Tue Apr 06, 2021 5:23 am
the Josephan writer, and a related school of intellectuals and philosophers, were involved with the creation of the gospel Jesus story
Hardly so. The valid counter-example is that not only the Gospel Jesus, but also his direct 'disciples' are derived from Josephian characters.


John the Baptist found in the SynopticsJohn Hyrcanus II
John the Baptist found in the Fourth Gospel (never called 'Baptist')John of Gischala
the John of Book of Revelation John of Gischala
Simon PeterSimon bar Giora
Simon MagusSimon bar Giora
Simon the ZealotSimon bar Giora
the two Boanerghestwo Zealots mentioned by Josephus (I go to memory)
Joseph of ArimatheaJoseph bar Matthea (aka Josephus)
Philip of ActsPhilip son of Jacimus
Paul/SaulSaul the herodian ganster


What is in action here is not deliberate literary creation, but more or less distorted oral tradition.

At the origin of that oral tradition there was Jesus b. Sapphat, as the figure who gave the primal impulse.

User avatar
Giuseppe
Posts: 8863
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

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

Post by Giuseppe » Tue Apr 06, 2021 6:45 am

The queen proof that oral tradition is in action (and not, or not only, deliberate midrash) here is the case of Joseph of Arimathea.

When I was a Mythicist, I had interpreted:
  • the abrupt appearance of Joseph of Arimathea as invention based deliberately on Josephus's story of three crucifixions etc
  • ...and particularly the entire feature of Joseph's secret friendship with Jesus as a mere literary expedient to explain the abrupt appearance above (someway as the Messianic Secret in Mark is usually interpreted as a way to "explain" why none saw Jesus in the full light of history).
Well: I was wrong.

The reason is that I can't imagine at all a "Mark" (author) who said to himself in his mind:

"Well, I go to invent the Joseph of Arimathea episode building it on the Josephus' story of three crucifixions, and I invent midrashically the fact that Joseph was a secret disciple of Jesus by going to derive it from Josephus' Vita about secret dealings between Jesus b. Sapphat and Josephus"

It is evident why this intention couldn't never figure in the mind of "Mark" (author):

had done so, it would have been self-defeating to purposely reveal that that Jesus (b. Sapphat) was indeed his Jesus (called Christ)

"Mark" (author) was a Paulinist, hence an anti-Zealot by definition: how could he compare deliberately, even only via an "innocent" midrash, his Gospel Jesus to a notorious Zealot?

maryhelena
Posts: 1831
Joined: Tue Oct 08, 2013 11:22 pm
Location: England

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

Post by maryhelena » Tue Apr 06, 2021 6:55 am

Giuseppe wrote:
Tue Apr 06, 2021 6:27 am
maryhelena wrote:
Tue Apr 06, 2021 5:23 am
the Josephan writer, and a related school of intellectuals and philosophers, were involved with the creation of the gospel Jesus story
Hardly so. The valid counter-example is that not only the Gospel Jesus, but also his direct 'disciples' are derived from Josephian characters.


John the Baptist found in the SynopticsJohn Hircanus II
John the Baptist found in the Fourth Gospel (never called 'Baptist')John of Gischala
the John of Book of Revelation John of Gischala
Simon PeterSimon bar Giora
Simon MagusSimon bar Giora
Simon the ZealotSimon bar Giora
the two Boanerghestwo Zealots mentioned by Josephus (I go to memory)
Joseph of ArimatheaJoseph bar Matthea (aka Josephus)
Philip of ActsPhilip son of Jacimus
Paul/SaulSaul the herodian ganster


What is in action here is not deliberate literary creation, but more or less distorted oral tradition.

At the origin of that oral tradition there was Jesus b. Sapphat, as the figure who gave the primal impulse.
The gospel story has Jesus crucified. That crucifixion is the center piece of Christian theology - millions of devote Christians wear the cross symbol around their necks. And now....you want to sell them a theory about a Josephan Jesus figure that even Josephus does not state was crucified - :banghead:

Admire Josephus's handiwork by all means - just be careful your not mesmerized by the carefully constructed picture he has set before you.

User avatar
Giuseppe
Posts: 8863
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

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

Post by Giuseppe » Tue Apr 06, 2021 7:01 am

maryhelena wrote:
Tue Apr 06, 2021 6:55 am
The gospel story has Jesus crucified. That crucifixion is the center piece of Christian theology - millions of devote Christians wear the cross symbol around their necks. And now....you want to sell them a theory about a Josephan Jesus figure that even Josephus does not state was crucified - :banghead:
Basilides & company would disagree. Marcion would disagree. Cerinthus would disagree. The Docetists would disagree.
In general, the followers of the (never crucified) "Jesus Son of Father" (parodied as the criminal Barabbas by Judaizers) would disagree.

maryhelena
Posts: 1831
Joined: Tue Oct 08, 2013 11:22 pm
Location: England

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

Post by maryhelena » Tue Apr 06, 2021 7:02 am

Giuseppe wrote:
Tue Apr 06, 2021 6:45 am
The queen proof that oral tradition is in action (and not, or not only, deliberate midrash) here is the case of Joseph of Arimathea.

When I was a Mythicist, I had interpreted:
  • the abrupt appearance of Joseph of Arimathea as invention based deliberately on Josephus's story of three crucifixions etc
  • ...and particularly the entire feature of Joseph's secret friendship with Jesus as a mere literary expedient to explain the abrupt appearance above (someway as the Messianic Secret in Mark is usually interpreted as a way to "explain" why none saw Jesus in the full light of history).
Well: I was wrong.

The reason is that I can't imagine at all a "Mark" (author) who said to himself in his mind:

"Well, I go to invent the Joseph of Arimathea episode building it on the Josephus' story of three crucifixions, and I invent midrashically the fact that Joseph was a secret disciple of Jesus by going to derive it from Josephus' Vita about secret dealings between Jesus b. Sapphat and Josephus"

It is evident why this intention couldn't never figure in the mind of "Mark" (author):

had done so, it would have been self-defeating to purposely reveal that that Jesus (b. Sapphat) was indeed his Jesus (called Christ)

"Mark" (author) was a Paulinist, hence an anti-Zealot by definition: how could he compare deliberately, even only via an "innocent" midrash, his Gospel Jesus to a notorious Zealot?
Zealot Jesus of the 70s.......methinks a bit late in the day. Reza Aslan at least has his zealot Jesus in the gospel Pilate time frame:

Image

maryhelena
Posts: 1831
Joined: Tue Oct 08, 2013 11:22 pm
Location: England

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

Post by maryhelena » Tue Apr 06, 2021 7:07 am

Jesus crucifixion through Art.....

Image

maryhelena
Posts: 1831
Joined: Tue Oct 08, 2013 11:22 pm
Location: England

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

Post by maryhelena » Tue Apr 06, 2021 7:12 am



ALLUSIONS TO THE END OF THE HASMONEAN DYNASTY
IN PESHER NAHUM (4Q169)
Gregory L. Doudna


There is only one context in the first century bce with which this
portrayal of violent death at the hands of gentiles for a ruler of Israel
corresponds, and that is the Roman invasion which ended the Hasmonean dynasty in 37 bce.
That Roman invasion was an army sent
by Mark Antony to install Herod as king, and it brought a violent and
horrific end to the regime of the last Hasmonean king and high priest,
Antigonus Mattathias. There was a siege and a massacre in Jerusalem
and the temple was looted by Roman soldiers. Antigonus Mattathias
was captured in Jerusalem and killed by gentiles in a foreign country.
And of particular interest in light of the allusion in Pesher Nahum is
the fact that Cassius Dio, the Roman historian, says that Antigonus
Mattathias was hung up alive on a cross and tortured in the process of
being executed by Mark Antony.3 In his death at the hands of gentiles
Antigonus Mattathias corresponds with the portrayal of the death of
the Wicked Priest, and Antigonus Mattathias is the only Hasmonean
ruler of the first century bce who does.
.....
And in asking how Antigonus Mattathias was missed I am
including myself, for I too missed this in my study of Pesher Nahum
of 2001. Now let us return to Pesher Nahum again.

https://www.academia.edu/12144236/_Allu ... 4Q169_2011_


''Dion Cassius says, 'Antony now gave the Kingdom to a certain Herod, and having stretched Antigonus on the cross and scourged him, which had never been done before to a king by the Romans, he put him to death'. The sympathies of the masses for the crucified king of Judah, the heroic son of so many heroic ancestors, and the legends growing, in time, out of this historical nucleus, became, perhaps, the source from which Paul and the evangelists preached Jesus as the crucified king of Judea.'' (History of the Hebrew's Second Commonwealth, 1880, Cincinnati, page 206)

Rabbi Isaac Mayer Wise (1819-1900), scholar and novelist

http://collections.americanjewisharchiv ... wealth.pdf

Last edited by maryhelena on Tue Apr 06, 2021 9:10 am, edited 1 time in total.

Charles Wilson
Posts: 1649
Joined: Thu Apr 03, 2014 8:13 am

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

Post by Charles Wilson » Tue Apr 06, 2021 9:04 am

Josephus, War..., 2 ,1 , 2:

"...And here it was that a great many of those that desired innovations came in crowds towards the evening, and began then to mourn on their own account, when the public mourning for the king was over. These lamented those that were put to death by Herod, because they had cut down the golden eagle that had been over the gate of the temple. Nor was this mourning of a private nature, but the lamentations were very great, the mourning solemn, and the weeping such as was loudly heard all over the city, as being for those men who had perished for the laws of their country, and for the temple. They cried out that a punishment ought to be inflicted for these men upon those that were honored by Herod; and that, in the first place, the man whom he had made high priest should be deprived; and that it was fit to choose a person of greater piety and purity than he was.

I want to take a moment to repeat something that screams, "Pay Attention!!!". Maryhelena has pointed out the Hasmonean History of the NT and how important it is to the understanding of the NT. Though maryhelena and I have had our disagreements on the importance of certain aspects of Hasmonean History, I ask for a moment that you accept at Full Value the importance of the death of Antigonus at the hands of the Romans.

This incident above is just after the death of Herod. A great number of people are agitated over what Herod has just done. If you strip out the outrage over the Temple Eagle Incident and the other areas of protest, you should see that there is something left over:

"...in the first place, the man whom he had made high priest should be deprived; and that it was fit to choose a person of greater piety and purity than he was..."

Assuming that this Translation is reasonably correct, what does "...greater piety and purity" mean for the Temple Apparatus?

The High Priest and the Support Groups have been Politicized by Herod, becoming an appointed Set of Positions. Herod had been ready to order the execution of many of his opponents, as he had throughout his career, including the Hasmonean Heirs, the leading members of the Hasmonean Families. Would it be likely that the Outrages would not be overcome at his death?

"Upon this the multitude were pleased, and presently made a trial of what he intended, by asking great things of him; for some made a clamor that he would ease them in their taxes; others, that he would take off the duties upon commodities; and some, that he would loose those that were in prison; in all which cases he answered readily to their satisfaction, in order to get the good-will of the multitude; after which he offered [the proper] sacrifices, and feasted with his friends..."

This leads to the idea that the Hatred of the people who were streaming into the Temple area are not pacified by Archelaus. Thus to the great Transvaluation: This violence must be Pacified. The Stories of the Deaths must be replaced - Transvalued.

"We have no King but Caesar..."

Yes. Exactly. As the years pass, the Memories of the Atrocities are replaced.

"Antigonus...Wasn't he...?

Yes. Exactly.

maryhelena
Posts: 1831
Joined: Tue Oct 08, 2013 11:22 pm
Location: England

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

Post by maryhelena » Tue Apr 06, 2021 9:37 am

Charles Wilson wrote:
Tue Apr 06, 2021 9:04 am
Josephus, War..., 2 ,1 , 2:

"...And here it was that a great many of those that desired innovations came in crowds towards the evening, and began then to mourn on their own account, when the public mourning for the king was over. These lamented those that were put to death by Herod, because they had cut down the golden eagle that had been over the gate of the temple. Nor was this mourning of a private nature, but the lamentations were very great, the mourning solemn, and the weeping such as was loudly heard all over the city, as being for those men who had perished for the laws of their country, and for the temple. They cried out that a punishment ought to be inflicted for these men upon those that were honored by Herod; and that, in the first place, the man whom he had made high priest should be deprived; and that it was fit to choose a person of greater piety and purity than he was.

I want to take a moment to repeat something that screams, "Pay Attention!!!". Maryhelena has pointed out the Hasmonean History of the NT and how important it is to the understanding of the NT. Though maryhelena and I have had our disagreements on the importance of certain aspects of Hasmonean History, I ask for a moment that you accept at Full Value the importance of the death of Antigonus at the hands of the Romans.

This incident above is just after the death of Herod. A great number of people are agitated over what Herod has just done. If you strip out the outrage over the Temple Eagle Incident and the other areas of protest, you should see that there is something left over:

"...in the first place, the man whom he had made high priest should be deprived; and that it was fit to choose a person of greater piety and purity than he was..."

Assuming that this Translation is reasonably correct, what does "...greater piety and purity" mean for the Temple Apparatus?

The High Priest and the Support Groups have been Politicized by Herod, becoming an appointed Set of Positions. Herod had been ready to order the execution of many of his opponents, as he had throughout his career, including the Hasmonean Heirs, the leading members of the Hasmonean Families. Would it be likely that the Outrages would not be overcome at his death?

"Upon this the multitude were pleased, and presently made a trial of what he intended, by asking great things of him; for some made a clamor that he would ease them in their taxes; others, that he would take off the duties upon commodities; and some, that he would loose those that were in prison; in all which cases he answered readily to their satisfaction, in order to get the good-will of the multitude; after which he offered [the proper] sacrifices, and feasted with his friends..."

This leads to the idea that the Hatred of the people who were streaming into the Temple area are not pacified by Archelaus. Thus to the great Transvaluation: This violence must be Pacified. The Stories of the Deaths must be replaced - Transvalued.

"We have no King but Caesar..."

Yes. Exactly. As the years pass, the Memories of the Atrocities are replaced.

"Antigonus...Wasn't he...?

Yes. Exactly.
Yes, memories can fade - perhaps one reason the Antigonus history has been preserved in the form of a political allegory i.e. the gospel Jesus story. That gospel allegory does, of course, take into account more Hasmonean history than just the history of Antigonus. However, his history is a prominent part of it's story about a Roman execution of a King of the Jews. And where do the gospel writers place their Jesus crucifixion story....somewhere around 30 to 33 c.e. 70 years from when Antigonus became High Priest and King of the Jews in 40 b.c. until his execution in 37 b.c.

Antiquities Book 15 ch.2

005. Meanwhile, now that he had taken Jerusalem, he took away all the royal ornaments and despoiled the wealthy of what they had acquired, and after collecting a large amount of silver and gold, he gave it all to Antony and the friends in his circle. 006 He also killed forty-five of the officers of Antigonus's party and set guards at the gates of the city, that nothing might be brought out along with the dead. They also searched the corpses and any silver or gold or valuables they found, was brought to the king. 007 This was not the last of the troubles he caused, partly due to the greed of the ruler who needed still more and partly because of the Sabbatical year, still in progress, which left the country still uncultivated, since we are forbidden to sow our land in that year. 008 When Antony had taken Antigonus prisoner, he decided to keep him for his triumph, but when he heard how the nation was still rebellious and in their hatred for Herod, still favoured Antigonus, he decided to behead him in Antioch, for in no other way could the Jews be pacified. 009 Strabo of Cappadocia supports me in this, when he says: "Antony had Antigonus the Jew brought to Antioch and beheaded there. I believe he was the first Roman to behead a king, thinking there was no other way to change the mind of the Jews to receive Herod, whom he had set in his place, for even tortures could not force them to acknowledge him as king. 010 With their great fondness for their former king, he felt that this disgrace would diminish his memory and also lessen their hatred of Herod." Such is Strabo's account.


Post Reply