Etienne Nodet: the Samaritan false prophet slain by Pilate is Dositheus/Nathanael

[Giuseppe]

Prof Etienne Nodet (historicist) has titled this intriguing article as:

LE SALUT VIENT DES JUIFS (Jn 4,22),
ET NON DE SIMON LE MAGICIEN (Ac 8,9)

Translation:

SALVATION IS FROM THE JEWS (Jn 4,22),
AND NOT FROM SIMON MAGUS (Ac 8,9)

...but he could well title it as:

SALVATION IS FROM THE JEWS (Jn 4,22),
AND NOT FROM DOSITHEUS/THE SAMARITAN FALSE PROPHET SLAIN BY PILATE (Ac 8,9)

...without betraying minimally his view, since this is the conclusion of the article:

Quant à Jean-Baptiste opérant en Samarie, ce sont ses disciples qui lui disent là que tous vont à Jésus (Jn 3,26). Il s’agit alors simplement d’une manière de contrer Simon sur son terrain, car l’affirmation du Ps.-Clément que Simon était disciple de Jean-Baptiste est difficile à suivre, faute d’éléments probants. Incidemment, il faut observer qu’en Jn 8,48 les adversaires de Jésus le soupçonnent d’être Samaritain et d’avoir un démon, c’est-à-dire de n’être qu’un magicien.
L’ombre de Simon est encore là.
Ce Simon eut manifestement une influence considérable et menaçante, [30] et il fallait affirmer sans polémique que Jésus était plus grand. Les témoignages indépendants des Actes et de Justin le montrent, non moins que les traditions sur la postérité de son mouvement, qui s’est rattaché au gnosticisme, quoique sans doute artificiellement. Le récit de la Samaritaine de Jn 4 n’en témoigne pas directement, car il s’inscrit aisément dans la narration d’ensemble de l’évangile, mais il reçoit un éclairage nouveau si l’on restitue en arrière-plan les silhouettes de Simon et d’Hélène.

The very important note [30] reads:

30 JOSÈPHE, AJ 18:85-86, rapporte, à la fin du règne de Tibère (mort en 37), l’affaire d’un mouvement samaritain écrasé abusivement par Pilate: un homme invitait tout le peuple à se rendre au Garizim pour voir les vases sacrés enterrés là par Moïse. L’information est imprécise, et il n’y a guère de rapprochements directs avec Simon au temps de Claude. On peut cependant imaginer que Josèphe fasse allusion à un prédécesseur de Simon, par exemple Dosithée-Nathanaël, quoique le personnage soit très mal connu. JUSTIN et IRÉNÉE l’ignorent ; PS.-CLÉMENT, Rec. 1.54, affirme que l’origine des doctrines sadducéennes (refus des Prophètes et négation de la résurrection) était l’enseignement du Samaritain Dosithée, suivi par Simon le Magicien ; selon 2.8, Dosithée aurait fondé une secte (ou un parti, αἵρεσις) après la mort de Jean-Baptiste. ORIGÈNE, C. Cels. 6.2 affirme qu’après Jésus Dosithée voulut persuader les Samaritains qu’il était le Messie annoncé par Moïse ; en 1.47 il l’a nommé avec JeanBaptiste, Theudas et Judas le Galiléen (cf. Ac 5,36-37), c’est-à-dire avec ceux que les Juifs ont cru à tort être le Christ. Sur Dosithée et l’origine des Dosithéens, cf. les données rassemblées par Paul CARBONARO, « Les Samaritains et la naissance du Pentateuque », RB 120 (2013), p. 42-71. Quant à Nathanaël disciple de Jésus, il était de Cana selon Jn 21,2, mais sa mise en scène est remarquable : Philippe, en l’invitant (Jn 1,45), parle de Jésus en faisant clairement allusion au nouveau Moïse de Dt 18,18 ; puis en le voyant, Jésus dit « Vois, en vérité (ἀληθῶς) un Israélite (hapax) chez qui il n’y a pas de ruse », comme s’il y avait eu un doute sur son identité (ni juif ni païen). On peut se demander s’il n’y a pas là un souvenir discret de Dosithée, dûment transformé : par le contexte, la scène est située en Galilée, mais et la présentation de Jésus par Philippe comme « fils de Joseph » (cf. Jos 24,32 : ossements de Joseph à Sichem), et ensuite l’allusion de Jésus au songe de Jacob-Israël (Jn 1,51 ; cf. Gn 28,10-17) suggèrent des attaches samaritaines, d’autant plus que Jacob était rusé…

My English translation of the entire passage plus the note:

As for John the Baptist active in Samaria, they are his disciples who tell him there that all the people go to Jesus (John 3:26). It is then simply a way to counter Simon on his ground, because the assertion of Pseudo-Clement that Simon was a disciple of John the Baptist is difficult to follow, for lack of probative elements. Incidentally, it should be noted that in John 8:48 the opponents of Jesus suspect him of being a Samaritan and of having a demon, i.e. of being only a magician.

The shadow of Simon is still there.

This Simon clearly had a considerable and threatening influence, [30] and it had to be claimed without controversy that Jesus was greater. The independent testimonies of Acts and Justin show this, no less than the traditions on the posterity of his movement, which was linked to Gnosticism, although probably artificially. The story of the Samaritan woman in John 4 does not bear direct witness to this, as it fits easily into the overall narrative of the gospel, but it receives new light if the figures of Simon and Helen are restored in the background.

The very important note [30] reads:

30 JOSEPHUS, AJ 18:85-86, reports, at the end of the reign of Tiberius (d. 37), the case of a Samaritan movement wrongly crushed by Pilate: a man invited all the people to go to Gerizim to see the sacred vessels buried there by Moses. The information is imprecise, and there is little direct connection with Simon in Claudius' time. It is conceivable, however, that Josephus is referring to a predecessor of Simon, for example Dositheus-Nathanael, although the character is very poorly known. JUSTIN and IRENEUS ignore him; PS.-CLÉMENT, Rec. 1.54, states that the origin of the Sadducean doctrines (rejection of the Prophets and denial of the resurrection) was the teaching of the Samaritan Dositheus, followed by Simon the Magician; according to 2.8, Dositheus is said to have founded a sect (or a party, αἵρεσις) after the death of John the Baptist. ORIGEN, C. Cels. 6.2 states that after Jesus Dositheus wanted to persuade the Samaritans that he was the Messiah announced by Moses; in 1.47 he named him with John the Baptist, Theudas and Judas the Galilean (cf. Acts 5.36-37), i.e., with those whom the Jews mistakenly believed to be the Christ. On Dositheus and the origin of the Dositheans, cf. the data gathered by Paul CARBONARO, "Les Samaritains et la naissance du Pentateuque", RB 120 (2013), p. 42-71.

As for Nathanael, a disciple of Jesus, he was from Cana according to John 21:2, but his setting is remarkable: Philip, in inviting him (John 1:45), speaks of Jesus with a clear allusion to the new Moses of Deut 18:18; then on seeing him, Jesus says "See, verily (ἀληθῶς) an Israelite (hapax) in whom there is no guile," as if there had been some doubt about his identity (neither Jew nor Gentile). One wonders if there is not a discreet memory of Dositheus here, duly transformed: by the context, the scene is set in Galilee, but and Philip's presentation of Jesus as "son of Joseph" (cf. Josua 24:32: Joseph's bones at Shechem), and then Jesus' allusion to the dream of Jacob-Israel (John 1:51; cf. Gen 28:10-17) suggest Samaritan links, especially as Jacob was cunning...

(my bold)


If even a Catholic prof as Nodet recognizes the historical "threat" of a confusion between the Christian Jesus and the Samaritan Dositheus, i.e. between the Christian Jesus and the false Samaritan prophet slain by Pilate, then the case is even more strong that Jesus had to be placed under Pilate because he, and not his Samaritan rival, had to pose as "a Prophet like Moses".

[Giuseppe]

no less than the traditions on the posterity of his movement, which was linked to Gnosticism, although probably artificially.

And why did the historical figure who posed as "a Prophet like Moses" (i.e. Dositheus, of which Simon Magus is the clone or follower) become an anti-demiurgist icon, "although probably artificially"?

The answer of this anti-demiurgist interest for Dositheus is found in nuce in the type of "a Prophet like Moses". Stuart is a genius when he writes:

Matthew is well aware of the Marcionite and Heterodox use of the messiah ben Joseph motif. He opposed that lineage and supported Davidic instead (σπέρματος Δαβίδ, per Romans 1:3, 2 Timothy 2:8 which no doubt reference Matthew). So how does he diminish Joseph, son o Jacob? He makes him the immediate father of Jesus, and Joseph's father Jacob instead of having Isaac has some Matthan (Matthew?) as his father, breaking the lineage (note, Luke would obscure it further swapping Heli for Jacob). Matthew takes a small dig at Joseph son of Jacob/Israel,by diminishing his prominence in saying "Jacob the father of Judah" then adding "and his brothers" who are not worthy of name mention, when even Ruth and Uriah get mentioned.

So it's in my view not Messiah ben Joseph morphing into Messiah ben David, but rather a convenient symbolism for competition between competing camps.

What Stuart is probably saying is that the "Prophet like Moses" could be misinterpreted easily in an anti-demiurgist gentile context as a "Prophet anti-Moses". Not only Jesus is better than Moses (as Dennis MacDonald thinks that it was the case with his reconstructed Q+ and Bob Price thinks that it was the case with proto-Luke): Jesus is now, in Marcionite hands, against Moses and, by logical extension, against YHWH.

Therefore the same proto-Luke (Jesus as "a Prophet like Moses") was misinterpreted, once fallen in gentile hands (by Marcion in primis), as proposing Jesus as a "Prophet anti-Moses"). The same trajectory is visible in proto-John: from being a gospel supporting Jesus as "a Prophet like Moses" it becomes a gospel supporting Jesus as a "prophet anti-Moses").

The judaizing reaction started to remove the ground from under the feet of the anti-demiurgists: Jesus was not (or not only) the "Prophet like Moses" (given the anti-demiurgist misinterpretations this "Prophet like Moses"-type had provoked among gentile Christians), he was principally the davidic Messiah. It were Mark and Matthew the first two gospels where Jesus is made davidic. Proto-John was sanitized too.

So in a shortest row:

no less than the traditions on the posterity of his movement, which was linked to Gnosticism, although probably artificially.

...Etienne Nodet has given, without knowing it, the entire solution to the Synoptical Problem.

[Stuart]

Uh, no, that is not what I meant.

What I was saying is the NT writers provide evidence of the two competing messiah origin stories, and lineage of authority for Jesus in early Christianity. I was simply following on Ben Smith's lead. In essence one grouping of early Christian sects supported a Judea (son of David) messiah, the other grouping supported an Israel/Samaritan messiah (son of Joseph). This says nothing at all about their Christology, with probably a wide range of views represented in each camp. Any associations came later.

The eventual winner was David, and Joseph was duly demoted from ancient source to recent cuckold (by the holy spirit).

[Giuseppe]

one grouping of early Christian sects supported a Judea (son of David) messiah

This group supporting a davidic messiah didn't exist in first century CE. The need of describing Jesus as a davidic messiah appeared only when the Judaizers saw how much easily the "Prophet like Moses"-type was misinterpreted by anti-demiurgist sects as a "A Prophet anti-Moses" (an example inter alia: the fact that Dositheus has become an anti-demiurgist icon, when really the historical Dositheus posed as 'a Prophet like Moses').

[Giuseppe]

In Hegelian terms:

• pauline epistles (Jesus crucified in outer space)

• proto-Luke (Jesus as "A Prophet like Moses")

• anti-demiurgist use of proto-Luke to preach Jesus as "a Prophet anti-Moses"

• Jesus as davidic messiah for gentiles (Mark)

• Jesus as davidic messiah for judaizers (Matthew)

• proto-John (a marcionite/cainite gospel)

• John (catholicized John)

• Canonical Luke (catholicized version)

Pilate was introduced in proto-Luke to make the point that Jesus had to be without controversy the "Prophet like Moses", in emulation of Dositheus (== the Samaritan false prophet slain by Pilate). This emulation of Dositheus has become a rivalry when Dositheus was used as anti-demiurgist icon: accordingly, Dositheus was placed under a different time (he becomes now Theudas slain by Fadus via interpolation in Josephus, not more slain by Pilate).

[Stuart]

one grouping of early Christian sects supported a Judea (son of David) messiah

This group supporting a davidic messiah didn't exist in first century CE. The need of describing Jesus as a davidic messiah appeared only when the Judaizers saw how much easily the "Prophet like Moses"-type was misinterpreted by anti-demiurgist sects as a "A Prophet anti-Moses" (an example inter alia: the fact that Dositheus has become an anti-demiurgist icon, when really the historical Dositheus posed as 'a Prophet like Moses').

Who said first century? But that said, nascent Christian(ish) communities clearly date into the 1st century. The theologies presented in the presented in the early elements of the Pauline letters show a lot of diversity. The divisions lines that formed in the middle of the 2nd century had yet to crystalize.

What I see in the gospels is a series of "oh yeah, well since you say that it that just means" sort of arguments, where each successive author/editor filled in more details of the theology, often accepting some claims by the prior. In short, a lot of it they made up as they went along, in response to whatever was said before and gained some traction. In this respect I agree with Celsus. The Marcionism, proto-Gnosticism and proto-Orthodoxy of say 115 AD was very different than that of 150 AD, when the gospels were beginning to take off, and much different than their fully formed versions of the early 3rd century.

I think you see things as more static and fully formed from day one than you should. Theology and storylines evolved.