the "coincidence" is too much impossible, that according to Josippon the same person named as Jesus son of Tebuthi by Josephus (and described by him as the last person found in the Temple by the Romans) had a patronimic resembling so strongly the patronimic "b. Sapphat".
On the hypothesis that the Gospel Jesus == Jesus ben Saphat
Re: On the hypothesis that the Gospel Jesus == Jesus ben Saphat
- maryhelena
- Posts: 2964
- Joined: Tue Oct 08, 2013 11:22 pm
- Location: England
Re: On the hypothesis that the Gospel Jesus == Jesus ben Saphat
Conjecture, assumption, speculation....Giuseppe wrote: ↑Sun Apr 11, 2021 5:48 amthe "coincidence" is too much impossible, that according to Josippon the same person named as Jesus son of Tebuthi by Josephus (and described by him as the last person found in the Temple by the Romans) had a patronimic resembling so strongly the patronimic "b. Sapphat".
Re: On the hypothesis that the Gospel Jesus == Jesus ben Saphat
to talk so, you are ignoring blatantly the Argument From Extreme Improbability Of A Coincidence.
If you already concede that Josephus is alluded behind 'Joseph of Arimathea', then what prevents you from the inference that the victim removed from the cross by Josephus was named 'Jesus', too ?
Only curious.
- maryhelena
- Posts: 2964
- Joined: Tue Oct 08, 2013 11:22 pm
- Location: England
Re: On the hypothesis that the Gospel Jesus == Jesus ben Saphat
Simple.....the gospel Jesus is a composite literary construct. Therefore, whoever it was that Josephus says he took down alive from the cross in 70 c.e. is not the gospel Jesus. i.e. a composite literary figure rules out being equated with any one figure - whether that figure is another fictional figure or a historical figure.Giuseppe wrote: ↑Sun Apr 11, 2021 5:56 amto talk so, you are ignoring blatantly the Argument From Extreme Improbability Of A Coincidence.
If you already concede that Josephus is alluded behind 'Joseph of Arimathea', then what prevents you from the inference that the victim removed from the cross by Josephus was named 'Jesus', too ?
Only curious.
That Titus Flavius Josephus, previously known as Yosef ben Matityahu, is possibly reflected in the gospel figure of Joseph of Arimathea does not time-shift the gospel crucifixion story to the 70 c.e. Jewish Roman war.
What it does indicate is that Josephus, and a group of Jewish intellectuals and philosophers, were involved in creating the gospel Jesus story. In secret if one wants i.e. they have not put their name cards on the table. Why - it's the Jesus story that is deemed to be important, to be relevant - not the names of those who contributed to that story. Yes, of course, one wants to know names - but perhaps they realized that satisfying our curiosity would only distract and overshadow the historical relevance they sought to preserve in their Jesus story.
Actually, since Yosef ben Matityahu claims Hasmonean descent - it's quite possible that the Joseph of Aramathea gospel figure reflects not just Josephus but Hasmonean involvement in the creation of the gospel Jesus story. After all, if it's their history that is being reflected in the gospel crucifixion story then Hasmonean involvement is par for the course.....
Josephus: 'Life' ''I am of the chief family of that first course also; nay, further, by my mother I am of the royal blood; for the children of Asamoneus, from whom that family was derived, had both the office of the high priesthood, and the dignity of a king, for a long time together.''
Re: On the hypothesis that the Gospel Jesus == Jesus ben Saphat
Accordingly, I expect by you an explicit denial of your preached theory about Antigonus as the best candidate for the role of the Gospel Jesus.maryhelena wrote: ↑Sun Apr 11, 2021 6:30 am
Simple.....the gospel Jesus is a composite literary construct. Therefore, whoever it was that Josephus says he took down alive from the cross in 70 c.e. is not the gospel Jesus. i.e. a composite literary figure rules out being equated with any one figure - whether that figure is another fictional figure or a historical figure.
Accordingly, I expect by you a denial that the idea that Jesus is a composite literary construct is "simple". By definition, what is composite requires a complexity of construction as well.
- maryhelena
- Posts: 2964
- Joined: Tue Oct 08, 2013 11:22 pm
- Location: England
Re: On the hypothesis that the Gospel Jesus == Jesus ben Saphat
Giuseppe wrote: ↑Sun Apr 11, 2021 6:45 amAccordingly, I expect by you an explicit denial of your preached theory about Antigonus as the best candidate for the role of the Gospel Jesus.maryhelena wrote: ↑Sun Apr 11, 2021 6:30 am
Simple.....the gospel Jesus is a composite literary construct. Therefore, whoever it was that Josephus says he took down alive from the cross in 70 c.e. is not the gospel Jesus. i.e. a composite literary figure rules out being equated with any one figure - whether that figure is another fictional figure or a historical figure.
Accordingly, I expect by you a denial that the idea that Jesus is a composite literary construct is "simple". By definition, what is composite requires a complexity of construction as well.
Re: On the hypothesis that the Gospel Jesus == Jesus ben Saphat
what do you do about the coincidence that Joseph(-us) of Arimathea is said to be a 'secret disciple' of Jesus (and in public a his enemy as member of Sanhedrin) by the Gospel writers while Josephus had secret dealings with Jesus b. Sapphat (and in public he was officially his enemy as friend of Rome) ?
- maryhelena
- Posts: 2964
- Joined: Tue Oct 08, 2013 11:22 pm
- Location: England
Re: On the hypothesis that the Gospel Jesus == Jesus ben Saphat
Re-read previous post....Giuseppe wrote: ↑Sun Apr 11, 2021 6:56 amwhat do you do about the coincidence that Joseph(-us) of Arimathea is said to be a 'secret disciple' of Jesus (and in public a his enemy as member of Sanhedrin) by the Gospel writers while Josephus had secret dealings with Jesus b. Sapphat (and in public he was officially his enemy as friend of Rome) ?
Re: On the hypothesis that the Gospel Jesus == Jesus ben Saphat
I see a blatant contradiction here, with what you have claimed before, about Antigonus:maryhelena wrote: ↑Sun Apr 11, 2021 6:30 am the gospel Jesus is a composite literary construct. Therefore, whoever it was that Josephus says he took down alive from the cross in 70 c.e. is not the gospel Jesus. i.e. a composite literary figure rules out being equated with any one figure - whether that figure is another fictional figure or a historical figure.
Then please limit yourself to the only crucifixion episode.maryhelena wrote: ↑Sun Apr 11, 2021 1:54 am They placed their Jesus crucifixion story in the time of Pilate as a remembrance of the history of the last King and High Priest of the Jews - executed in 37 b.c. Antigonus's history being from 40 b.c. to 37 b.c.
(From the position of a composite literary gospel Jesus, the above argument relates only to the crucifixion element in that composite gospel figure.)
Why Antigonus would be the ideal candidate for midrashical inspiration for the crucifixion idea, when the entire story of "Joseph of Arimathea" refers said crucifixion idea to a First Jewish Revolt context, as opposed to an Asmonean context ?
My point is that your entire argument fails before this only detail: Joseph of Arimathea is Josephus.
- maryhelena
- Posts: 2964
- Joined: Tue Oct 08, 2013 11:22 pm
- Location: England
Re: On the hypothesis that the Gospel Jesus == Jesus ben Saphat
The only crucifixion story you have got is in the gospel Jesus story....a crucifixion under Pilate sometime around 30 -33 c.e.Giuseppe wrote: ↑Sun Apr 11, 2021 7:19 amI see a blatant contradiction here, with what you have claimed before, about Antigonus:maryhelena wrote: ↑Sun Apr 11, 2021 6:30 am the gospel Jesus is a composite literary construct. Therefore, whoever it was that Josephus says he took down alive from the cross in 70 c.e. is not the gospel Jesus. i.e. a composite literary figure rules out being equated with any one figure - whether that figure is another fictional figure or a historical figure.
Then please limit yourself to the only crucifixion episode.maryhelena wrote: ↑Sun Apr 11, 2021 1:54 am They placed their Jesus crucifixion story in the time of Pilate as a remembrance of the history of the last King and High Priest of the Jews - executed in 37 b.c. Antigonus's history being from 40 b.c. to 37 b.c.
(From the position of a composite literary gospel Jesus, the above argument relates only to the crucifixion element in that composite gospel figure.)
You cannot prove that the gospel literary figure of Joseph of Arimathea is Yosef ben Matityahu. You have to take any reflection or inference one finds in the names a step further than a simple equation. Particularly so as the gospel story is a a political allegory not history. Joseph of Arimathea is as much a literary construct as is the gospel Jesus figure. Josephus claims Hasmonean descent; a claim which suggests that it is a Hasmonean reflection that one sees in the literary gospel figure of Joseph of Arimathea. It's not Josephus as an individual but what Josephus represents - decent from the Hasmoneans. That is the reflection that leads to a historical enquire; an enquire that does not limit itself to the Josephus of 70 c.e.
Why Antigonus would be the ideal candidate for midrashical inspiration for the crucifixion idea, when the entire story of "Joseph of Arimathea" refers said crucifixion idea to a First Jewish Revolt context, as opposed to an Asmonean context ?
My point is that your entire argument fails before this only detail: Joseph of Arimathea is Josephus.
Equate Joseph of Arimathea with Yosef ben Matityahu and all one gets is the bizarre speculation that Jesus b. Saphat is the gospel Jesus via a time-shift scenario back from 70 c.e. to the time of Pilate.
Antigonus II Mattathias (Hebrew: מתתיהו אנטיגונוס השני, Matityahu), also known as Antigonus the Hasmonean (died 37 BCE)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antigonus_II_Mattathias
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antigonus_II_Mattathias
There you go.......Yosef ben Matityahu = Antigonus Matityahu.......how about that equation.....so lets time-shift Joseph of Arimathea back to the execution of Antigonus in 37 b.c.....