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.
User avatar
Giuseppe
Posts: 8974
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

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

Post by Giuseppe »

Giuseppe wrote: Sun Mar 21, 2021 6:34 am
maryhelena wrote: Sun Mar 21, 2021 1:10 am 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,
...have identified at all independently among them, the historical Jesus with Jesus the son of Sapphat.
Now I should add a fourth author to this list: Claude Bertin.

He is the author of HOW CHRISTIANITY WAS INVENTED, available also on Archive.org

He is based explicitly on the works of George Solomon:

A honest search for documentary proof of the facts has led the author of this Essay to seriously question the historical value of the records known today as “Apostolic Writings” and “Early Church Fathers” – as this has been abundantly discussed in the scholarly volumes of Emil Walter, Arthur Heulhard, Robert Eisler and others referred to in this work. But the surprising development was the rediscovery of genuine historical accounts confirming the existence of certain authentic “Messianic” characters alive within the geographical setting and timeframe alluded to by the Christian Tradition. George Solomon wrote The Jesus of History and the Jesus of Tradition Identified in 1880, in which he severely condemns the Christian religion as a heresy from the Jewish beliefs, opening up a theological debate that went beyond historical considerations. Solomon, however, clearly indicated the keys necessary to entangle the greatest of the mysteries of History. This Essay will, therefore, leave out the conflicting theological arguments from the case and, while relying on George Solomon’s impeccable research, offer conclusive evidence to prove that the story of the traditional Jesus is a garbled development from a historical root.
For the first time in recent years, we shall strive to introduce to the modern public the real Jesus as known to history, before his figure was distorted by popular belief and hopefully solve the riddle of How Christianity was Invented.

(p. 5-6, my bold)
maryhelena
Posts: 1866
Joined: Tue Oct 08, 2013 11:22 pm
Location: England

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

Post by maryhelena »

Giuseppe wrote: Sun Apr 04, 2021 1:28 am
Giuseppe wrote: Sun Mar 21, 2021 6:34 am
maryhelena wrote: Sun Mar 21, 2021 1:10 am 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,
...have identified at all independently among them, the historical Jesus with Jesus the son of Sapphat.
Now I should add a fourth author to this list: Claude Bertin.

He is the author of HOW CHRISTIANITY WAS INVENTED, available also on Archive.org

He is based explicitly on the works of George Solomon:

A honest search for documentary proof of the facts has led the author of this Essay to seriously question the historical value of the records known today as “Apostolic Writings” and “Early Church Fathers” – as this has been abundantly discussed in the scholarly volumes of Emil Walter, Arthur Heulhard, Robert Eisler and others referred to in this work. But the surprising development was the rediscovery of genuine historical accounts confirming the existence of certain authentic “Messianic” characters alive within the geographical setting and timeframe alluded to by the Christian Tradition. George Solomon wrote The Jesus of History and the Jesus of Tradition Identified in 1880, in which he severely condemns the Christian religion as a heresy from the Jewish beliefs, opening up a theological debate that went beyond historical considerations. Solomon, however, clearly indicated the keys necessary to entangle the greatest of the mysteries of History. This Essay will, therefore, leave out the conflicting theological arguments from the case and, while relying on George Solomon’s impeccable research, offer conclusive evidence to prove that the story of the traditional Jesus is a garbled development from a historical root.
For the first time in recent years, we shall strive to introduce to the modern public the real Jesus as known to history, before his figure was distorted by popular belief and hopefully solve the riddle of How Christianity was Invented.

(p. 5-6, my bold)
I noticed you referenced this writer previously.

viewtopic.php?t=3090
Claude Bertin on the Christian Origins

As noted earlier re Solomon's book......his theory involves a composite Jesus figure. Seems strange to me to keep referencing this book when you fail to grasp his basic point - a composite Jesus. Greg Doudna has dropped the Jesus ben Ananias figure and retains the second figure of Solomon's composite Jesus theory as the historical Jesus. OK - whatever - but to keep referencing Solomon's book in support of Jesus ben Saphat being the historical Jesus is to misrepresent what Solomon's actually wrote - a theory about a composite Jesus figure.

If one wants to take one element of Solomon's theory and discard the other element - by all means - but it would be beneficial to your readers as to why the decision has been made to drop Solomon's composite Jesus theory. That way everyone knows what is going on here....

p. 171

https://archive.org/details/jesusofhistoryje00solo

Josephus tells us that there were two men of the same name, both notable and living at the same time, and that a time when portents and prodigies of a striking kind amazed the Judean world; that the one was inspired with the belief that he was a prophet, and was, in fact, instinct with a certain “divine fury;” that he preached a gospel of woe through the length and breadth of the land; and though they tried and again tried to torture him into silence, they could not persuade him to desist. The other Jesus, Josephus tells us, though of kindred pretensions, was a man of a stern, uncompromising spirit, and sought other ends, who was forsaken by all his followers after having been betrayed by one of them. Now it is the characters of these two men as described by Josephus which we think gave rise to the conception of the traditional Jesus, while the capital mistake committed by the Evangelists in their chronology is, we think, due to a further confusion in the Greek mind of this Jesus with the prophet who suffered under Pontius Pilate.

.

Interestingly, in your earlier thread you commented on Solomon's composite Jesus theory:

Giuseppe wrote:
The thesis of the author is that Christianity started after the 70 CE (Paul and Hebrews being late forgeries), when, under the strong expectation of the Messiah (''Christ''), an artificial hybrid was created deliberately from the memories of the violent Jesus son of Saphat and the memories of the apocalyptic (but innocent) Jesus son of Ananias.

...and now you want to hold on to one element of George Solomon's theory but ditch the second element - thus, in actuality, ditching Solomon's composite Jesus theory.......

If one upholds a composite Jesus theory - a composite Jesus that reflects historical figures - then one cannot turn around and say that historical figure X is the historical Jesus. All one could say is that one can see reflections of historical figure X within the composite figure of the gospel Jesus. In other words - upholding a composite Jesus figure rules out any one historical figure being the historical Jesus.

Back to the drawing board, Giuseppe - your on a wild goose chase..... :popcorn:
User avatar
Giuseppe
Posts: 8974
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 04, 2021 2:52 amGreg Doudna has dropped the Jesus ben Ananias figure and retains the second figure of Solomon's composite Jesus theory as the historical Jesus. OK - whatever - but to keep referencing Solomon's book in support of Jesus ben Saphat being the historical Jesus is to misrepresent what Solomon's actually wrote - a theory about a composite Jesus figure.
it is not a "betrayal" of Solomon's ideas, the idea that Jesus b. Ananias was one and the same of Jesus b. Sapphat. At any case, George Solomon is expressly a historicist: the title of his book talks about a "Jesus of history" and a "Jesus of tradition" as "identified". More explicit than this one dies :D


maryhelena wrote: Sun Apr 04, 2021 2:52 am If one upholds a composite Jesus theory - a composite Jesus that reflects historical figures - then one cannot turn around and say that historical figure X is the historical Jesus. All one could say is that one can see reflections of historical figure X within the composite figure of the gospel Jesus. In other words - upholding a composite Jesus figure rules out any one historical figure being the historical Jesus.
Based on your words, then I should conclude that the historical Jesus enfant from Prague would be Josephus (!), given the following evidence:

After three days they found him in the temple courts, sitting among the teachers, listening to them and asking them questions. Everyone who heard him was amazed at his understanding and his answers

(Luke 2:46-47)

...was based on Josephus's Life 2:

...and I made mighty proficiency in the improvements of my learning; and appeared to have both a great memory, and understanding. Moreover, when I was a child, and about fourteen years of age, I was commended by all for the love I had to learning; on which account the High Priests, and principal men of the city came then frequently to me together, in order to know my opinion about the accurate understanding of points of the law.

George Solomon argues that traits of the Samaritan false prophet ended in the Gospel tradition, too (in primis the dating under Pilate), but he doesn't conclude from this that the Samaritan false prophet was the historical Jesus.

It is not sufficient to show mere analogies with some Gospel episodes to be a "historical Jesus". What is necessary is also to show the impulse given to the creation of a new sect by a possible candidate to the role.

Vermeiren and Doudna think that the impulse was given by the survival of Jesus b. Sapphat thanks the help given in extremis to him by Josephus. That unexpected survival to cross was the original "resurrection".

As impulse, I think it is more than sufficient.
maryhelena
Posts: 1866
Joined: Tue Oct 08, 2013 11:22 pm
Location: England

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

Post by maryhelena »

Giuseppe wrote: Sun Apr 04, 2021 3:44 am
maryhelena wrote: Sun Apr 04, 2021 2:52 amGreg Doudna has dropped the Jesus ben Ananias figure and retains the second figure of Solomon's composite Jesus theory as the historical Jesus. OK - whatever - but to keep referencing Solomon's book in support of Jesus ben Saphat being the historical Jesus is to misrepresent what Solomon's actually wrote - a theory about a composite Jesus figure.
it is not a "betrayal" of Solomon's ideas, the idea that Jesus b. Ananias was one and the same of Jesus b. Sapphat. At any case, George Solomon is expressly a historicist: the title of his book talks about a "Jesus of history" and a "Jesus of tradition" as "identified". More explicit than this one dies :D


maryhelena wrote: Sun Apr 04, 2021 2:52 am If one upholds a composite Jesus theory - a composite Jesus that reflects historical figures - then one cannot turn around and say that historical figure X is the historical Jesus. All one could say is that one can see reflections of historical figure X within the composite figure of the gospel Jesus. In other words - upholding a composite Jesus figure rules out any one historical figure being the historical Jesus.
Based on your words, then I should conclude that the historical Jesus enfant from Prague would be Josephus (!), given the following evidence:

After three days they found him in the temple courts, sitting among the teachers, listening to them and asking them questions. Everyone who heard him was amazed at his understanding and his answers

(Luke 2:46-47)

...was based on Josephus's Life 2:

...and I made mighty proficiency in the improvements of my learning; and appeared to have both a great memory, and understanding. Moreover, when I was a child, and about fourteen years of age, I was commended by all for the love I had to learning; on which account the High Priests, and principal men of the city came then frequently to me together, in order to know my opinion about the accurate understanding of points of the law.

George Solomon argues that traits of the Samaritan false prophet ended in the Gospel tradition, too (in primis the dating under Pilate), but he doesn't conclude from this that the Samaritan false prophet was the historical Jesus.

It is not sufficient to show mere analogies with some Gospel episodes to be a "historical Jesus". What is necessary is also to show the impulse given to the creation of a new sect by a possible candidate to the role.

Vermeiren and Doudna think that the impulse was given by the survival of Jesus b. Sapphat thanks the help given in extremis to him by Josephus. That unexpected survival to cross was the original "resurrection".

As impulse, I think it is more than sufficient.
Josephus does not name the man taken down alive from the cross.
Josephus does not state that Jesus ben Saphat was hung on a cross.

You have no way to establish historicity for Jesus ben Ananias.
You have no way to establish historicity for Jesus ben Saphat.

'Josephus says so' is not an historical argument.

It would be foolish, if searching for early christian origins is our interest, to give Josephus a blank check, a free pass that enables him to be excused from historical questioning. Josephus needs to be put in the dock; to face the court of historical enquiry - not granted immunity.
User avatar
Giuseppe
Posts: 8974
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 04, 2021 4:51 am Josephus does not name the man taken down alive from the cross.
Josephus doesn't, "Mark" does, however.
maryhelena wrote: Sun Apr 04, 2021 4:51 am 'Josephus says so' is not an historical argument.
on this point I can't follow you. There is an expert of OT, who thinks Josephus' books are sufficient to realize the true identity of the historical Jesus.

With a good degree of certainty (I can't reveal further details of a private discussion via mail with both them), I can only say now that both he and Doudna have recognized respectively the two historical figures (described by Josephus) who, at least in my view, formed the essential historical nucleus of the Gospels.

Sic stantibus rebus, you can call the Gospel Jesus a composite figure or a historical figure, that is only speculation.
I know enough to close here the discussion.

By now.

Best continuation,
Giuseppe
maryhelena
Posts: 1866
Joined: Tue Oct 08, 2013 11:22 pm
Location: England

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

Post by maryhelena »

Giuseppe wrote: Sun Apr 04, 2021 5:46 am
maryhelena wrote: Sun Apr 04, 2021 4:51 am Josephus does not name the man taken down alive from the cross.
Josephus doesn't, "Mark" does, however.
maryhelena wrote: Sun Apr 04, 2021 4:51 am 'Josephus says so' is not an historical argument.
on this point I can't follow you. There is an expert of OT, who thinks Josephus' books are sufficient to realize the true identity of the historical Jesus.
Wow...someone hit the million dollar jackpot......found that needle in a haystack - found that pot of gold at the end of the rainbow.....The world waits with baited breath.....

With a good degree of certainty (I can't reveal further details of a private discussion via mail with both them), I can only say now that both he and Doudna have recognized respectively the two historical figures (described by Josephus) who, at least in my view, formed the essential historical nucleus of the Gospels.

I'll repeat:

Josephus does not name the man taken down alive from the cross.
Josephus does not state that Jesus ben Saphat was hung on a cross.

You have no way to establish historicity for Jesus ben Ananias.
You have no way to establish historicity for Jesus ben Saphat.

'Josephus says so' is not an historical argument.

Sic stantibus rebus, you can call the Gospel Jesus a composite figure or a historical figure, that is only speculation.
I know enough to close here the discussion.
Amazing is it not - questioning Josephus is enough to get one cancelled....whatever is the world coming to.... :banghead:

By now.

Best continuation,
Giuseppe
maryhelena
Posts: 1866
Joined: Tue Oct 08, 2013 11:22 pm
Location: England

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

Post by maryhelena »

Look what I found online.....


Other Jesus characters bear a resemblance to the Historical Jesus Christ. , they are cataloged below .

The First is Jesus of Gamala a Wealthy Galilean / high Priest/ Rebel Leader in the vicinity of Tiberias. Was in a position to give orders to Tiberians although under whose authority is not mentioned, possibly as a regional Governor. In the civil war in Judaea. He had debated with the besieging Idumeans, led by ‘James and John, sons of Susa’. It didn't do him any good. As per legend When the Idumeans breached the walls he was executed.

The second is .Jesus of Shaphat {or Son of Shaphat / Ben Shaphat} also a Wealthy Galilean / high Priest?/ Rebel Leader in the vicinity of Tiberias. In the Jewish Revolt of 68AD this Jesus led rebel factions in Tiberias. Led a group that attacked Roman Commander Valerian and made off with his horses, he took refuge in Tiberias. When the city was about to fall he fled north to Tarichea on the Sea of Galilee.

Third is Jesus ben Sapphias {or Son of Sapphias / Ben Sapphias } Referred to by Josephus as a rebel leader of a "seditious mob of Mariners" {mariners being equated to as fishermen} in the vicinity of Tiberias. At one point he was the Governor of Tiberias. Was also a High Priest and a General appointed by "Ananus ". In addition to the simile of names with Jesus of Shaphat, This Jesus's description and geography are very close to Jesus of Gamala and Jesus -Shaphat and Jesus ben Sapphias- they may all be the same person.


http://www.geocities.ws/nephilimnot/his ... hrist.html

my formatting

Interesting perspective on some of Josephus's Jesus figures...may all be the same person......

What those who advocate arguments like the one above - and the Frans Vermeiren argument to which this thread is linked - need to constantly keep in mind is that Josephus has his own interpretation of the historical events he is writing about. Hence, making arguments based upon what could well be Josephus's own interpretation of events is counter-productive - one interpretation based upon an older interpretation. In other words: with Josephus one is not reading 'straight' history. Josephus is writing history from his own perspective.


Page 17

To understand the role of Josephus in the construction of a modern account of the first century CE, however, we must still explore the relationship between Josephus and his narrative and the impact of that relationship on scholarly reconstructions of the period. Without resolving these questions it will not be possible to establish appropriately the distinction between when, if ever, Josephus’s narrative is to be viewed as his interpretation of a given situation and when it is an accurate description of what actually happened.

page 67

It is evident that the narrative of events contained in Josephus's texts should not be taken at face value. The interpretative framework as outlined indicates that to distinguish between the comments and the narration of events is not possible. It is not simply a matter of dismissing Josephus's interpretations, nor a matter of working out which version of an event is accurate. The interpretative process is more fundamental: it controls the entire choice of subject matter and, therefore, the overall picture that is being conveyed. We must now contend with the possibility that although we can make conclusions and observations regarding what Josephus narrates, what we can conclude is, in itself, the product of an interpretation. In other words, the picture being used to understand the first century CE in Judaea may not necessarily provide the reader with a 'full' or 'balanced' representation of what was happening in the territory. In effect, our major resource for examining the period is itself a constructed picture.

James S. McLaren: Turbulent Times ? Josephus and Scholarship on Judaea in the First Century CE.

Wise words from Josephan scholar James McLaren. :thumbup:
User avatar
Giuseppe
Posts: 8974
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

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

Post by Giuseppe »

Giuseppe wrote: Sun Apr 04, 2021 1:28 am
Giuseppe wrote: Sun Mar 21, 2021 6:34 am
maryhelena wrote: Sun Mar 21, 2021 1:10 am 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,
...have identified at all independently among them, the historical Jesus with Jesus the son of Sapphat.
Now I should add a fourth author to this list: Claude Bertin.

He is the author of HOW CHRISTIANITY WAS INVENTED, available also on Archive.org
Another author who knew George Solomon's book is Herbert Cutner, author of Jesus: God, Man or Myth? An Examination Of The Evidence
https://www.amazon.com/Jesus-God-Myth-E ... 1585090727

Some quotes:

The curious thing is that while many of the historicists are ready to give up a miracle-mongering Jesus, they show increased reluctance to put someone, clearly defined, in his place. Many years ago George Solomon wrote a provocative and controversial work on The Jesus of History and the Jesus of Tradition Identified. His thesis was that Judas of Galilee and the Jesus mentioned by Josephus during the Roman siege of Jerusalem as crying 'Woe to Jerusalem" on its walls, both gave rise to the Jesus cult and legend. But the historicists never took kindly to such a prototype as the latter. Although Christians have perhaps used the "Woe .. ," phrase more than any other religious body, they steadfastly refuse to believe in Mr. Solomon's explanation, and even those who do not believe in a Divine Jesus are not prepared to accept this particular madman. They prefer to argue about some vague or shadowy Jesus of whom we know nothing whatever, but who was the real founder of Christianity; only he must not be the kind described by Josephus.

(p. 3-4, my bold)


Cutner was essentially a Jesus Agnostic, with Mythicist leanings, however he conceded the J.M. Robertson's admiration for G. Solomon (remember that J.M. Robertson has been defined by Bob Price as the greatest mythicist of the past):

A book which always received high praise from J. M. Robertson is The Jesus of History and the Jesus of Tradition Identified by George Solomon, a work in which the part the books of Josephus played in the construction of the Gospels is very strongly emphasized; and I consider some of his arguments unanswerable.
Jesus, he claimed; is a mixture of two men found in Josephus, the Jesus who seems to have gone about the town with "woe to Jerusalem" and been repeatedly flogged, and Judas the Galilean, who had a following of poor people, was betrayed, and died under Pontius Pilate. There was a Jesus, a robber chief, who is confused by Mr. Solomon with Judas the Galilean, but who is considered by Dr. Robert Eisler as the veritable Jesus of Nazareth in his book The Messiah Jesus. Indeed it should be possible to hunt out more Jesuses, and even men with different names, who might have given our Gospel writers hints in drawing the Savior of Christianity.

Solomon's book is valuable for its searching analysis of Josephus, and for the way in which some incidents in the Gospels appear to have been taken almost completely from the Jewish writer. And it is Solomon who shows how utterly impossible it was for Josephus never to have given a hint as to how Christianity grew up in Palestine had Paul and James and the others really lived, or at least, had helped in founding a new religion. If Solomon is right even in part of his theory, I cannot see how Couchoud' s thesis can be maintained. Are we really to understand that Clement of Rome in his final redacting of Luke's Gospel went to Josephus for words, phrases, and incidents?
Dr. Couchoud's work is a brave attempt to account for the origin of our four Gospels, and I feel he has in all probability got nearer to the heart of the problem than many other writers; but it is still unsolved.

(p. 243-244, my bold)

Even so, Curtner has not resumed well the Solomon's view (he seems to believe that Judas the Galilean was the historical Jesus for Solomon, when this is clearly false, it is rather the theory preached by Unterbrink et alia, not by G. Solomon).
User avatar
Giuseppe
Posts: 8974
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

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

Post by Giuseppe »

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.
maryhelena
Posts: 1866
Joined: Tue Oct 08, 2013 11:22 pm
Location: England

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

Post by maryhelena »

Giuseppe wrote: Tue Apr 06, 2021 4:43 am
Giuseppe wrote: Sun Apr 04, 2021 1:28 am
Giuseppe wrote: Sun Mar 21, 2021 6:34 am
maryhelena wrote: Sun Mar 21, 2021 1:10 am 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,
...have identified at all independently among them, the historical Jesus with Jesus the son of Sapphat.
Now I should add a fourth author to this list: Claude Bertin.

He is the author of HOW CHRISTIANITY WAS INVENTED, available also on Archive.org
Another author who knew George Solomon's book is Herbert Cutner, author of Jesus: God, Man or Myth? An Examination Of The Evidence
https://www.amazon.com/Jesus-God-Myth-E ... 1585090727

Some quotes:

The curious thing is that while many of the historicists are ready to give up a miracle-mongering Jesus, they show increased reluctance to put someone, clearly defined, in his place. Many years ago George Solomon wrote a provocative and controversial work on The Jesus of History and the Jesus of Tradition Identified. His thesis was that Judas of Galilee and the Jesus mentioned by Josephus during the Roman siege of Jerusalem as crying 'Woe to Jerusalem" on its walls, both gave rise to the Jesus cult and legend. But the historicists never took kindly to such a prototype as the latter. Although Christians have perhaps used the "Woe .. ," phrase more than any other religious body, they steadfastly refuse to believe in Mr. Solomon's explanation, and even those who do not believe in a Divine Jesus are not prepared to accept this particular madman. They prefer to argue about some vague or shadowy Jesus of whom we know nothing whatever, but who was the real founder of Christianity; only he must not be the kind described by Josephus.

(p. 3-4, my bold)


Cutner was essentially a Jesus Agnostic, with Mythicist leanings, however he conceded the J.M. Robertson's admiration for G. Solomon (remember that J.M. Robertson has been defined by Bob Price as the greatest mythicist of the past):

A book which always received high praise from J. M. Robertson is The Jesus of History and the Jesus of Tradition Identified by George Solomon, a work in which the part the books of Josephus played in the construction of the Gospels is very strongly emphasized; and I consider some of his arguments unanswerable.
Jesus, he claimed; is a mixture of two men found in Josephus, the Jesus who seems to have gone about the town with "woe to Jerusalem" and been repeatedly flogged, and Judas the Galilean, who had a following of poor people, was betrayed, and died under Pontius Pilate. There was a Jesus, a robber chief, who is confused by Mr. Solomon with Judas the Galilean, but who is considered by Dr. Robert Eisler as the veritable Jesus of Nazareth in his book The Messiah Jesus. Indeed it should be possible to hunt out more Jesuses, and even men with different names, who might have given our Gospel writers hints in drawing the Savior of Christianity.

Solomon's book is valuable for its searching analysis of Josephus, and for the way in which some incidents in the Gospels appear to have been taken almost completely from the Jewish writer. And it is Solomon who shows how utterly impossible it was for Josephus never to have given a hint as to how Christianity grew up in Palestine had Paul and James and the others really lived, or at least, had helped in founding a new religion. If Solomon is right even in part of his theory, I cannot see how Couchoud' s thesis can be maintained. Are we really to understand that Clement of Rome in his final redacting of Luke's Gospel went to Josephus for words, phrases, and incidents?
Dr. Couchoud's work is a brave attempt to account for the origin of our four Gospels, and I feel he has in all probability got nearer to the heart of the problem than many other writers; but it is still unsolved.

(p. 243-244, my bold)

Even so, Curtner has not resumed well the Solomon's view (he seems to believe that Judas the Galilean was the historical Jesus for Solomon, when this is clearly false, it is rather the theory preached by Unterbrink et alia, not by G. Solomon).
Giuseppe - the take away from all the books that see reflections of the gospel Jesus in the Josephan Jesus figures (and even Judas the Galilean and The Egyptain of Lena Einhorn) is not that one of these writers has hit the jackpot and identified Josephus Jesus X as the historical Jesus of gospel renown - it is that the Josephan writer, and a related school of intellectuals and philosophers, were involved with the creation of the gospel Jesus story. Concentrating on comparison between a Josephan Jesus figure and the gospel Jesus figure, while interesting in and off itself, does not further the search for early christian origins. All one sees doing this is a reflection - or to use Paul - one sees darkly...one is still in the shade. One needs to see Josephus face to face - one needs to get his measure. One needs to put him in the dock of historical enquiry.
Last edited by maryhelena on Tue Apr 06, 2021 5:42 am, edited 1 time in total.
Post Reply