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 »

maryhelena wrote: Wed Mar 24, 2021 2:04 am I mentioned the 1880 book by Rabbi Wise:
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

Have you a reason to explain why Paul was interested to exalt the memory of Antigonus II? Where is the hearsay about his "resurrection"?

For that matter, I can explain why a Paul was interested to divinize Jesus b. Sapphat. About the latter, one could easily believe in a his "resurrection from dead".
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: Wed Mar 24, 2021 4:10 am
maryhelena wrote: Wed Mar 24, 2021 2:04 am I mentioned the 1880 book by Rabbi Wise:
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

Have you a reason to explain why Paul was interested to exalt the memory of Antigonus II? Where is the hearsay about his "resurrection"?

For that matter, I can explain why a Paul was interested to divinize Jesus b. Sapphat. About the latter, one could easily believe in a his "resurrection from dead".
A resurrection from the dead.....Giuseppe get real - don't confuse theology or philosophy with physical reality. ...
Jews mythologizing, 'divinize' a human man.....no way....methinks they have a lot more sense that all those christians who uphold such nonsense.

The gospel Jesus is a composite literary figure - with such a figure one can do what one wants - make him jump as high as one wants. A composite literary gospel Jesus was a way for the gospel writers to avoid divinizing, mythologizing a human man. That you now want to theorize that Paul was interested to 'divinize' Jesus ben Saphat....... :banghead:
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: Wed Mar 24, 2021 4:10 am
maryhelena wrote: Wed Mar 24, 2021 2:04 am I mentioned the 1880 book by Rabbi Wise:
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

Have you a reason to explain why Paul was interested to exalt the memory of Antigonus II? Where is the hearsay about his "resurrection"?
The gospel writers have done what we do today - we remember the past. In recent years memorial celebrations have taken place in connection to both the lst and 2nd World War. 2018 was 100 years since the lst World War Armistice Day. The "eleventh hour of the eleventh day of the eleventh month" of 1918. 70 years since World War 2 was remembered. ''Friday 8 May 2015 is the anniversary of VE Day (Victory in Europe Day), marking 70 years since the end of the second world war in Europe. The occasion will be commemorated with events across the UK''.

And of course, movies are made all the time regarding these two important events in history.

For the gospel writers the history of Antigonus was remembered in their placing their Jesus story around 30/33 c.e. That is a period of time 70 years from the events of 40 - 37 b.c. That is the time period in which Antigonus became King and High Priest until his execution, his being bound to a cross. Roman occupation hardly left any other option in which to remember a former Jewish King.




https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KMxF3L2G0-4
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: Wed Mar 24, 2021 4:30 amJews mythologizing, 'divinize' a human man.....no way....methinks they have a lot more sense that all those christians who uphold such nonsense.
Counter-example: Niger of Perea.

After this attack, he was described as having "filled all the Jews with an unexpected joy, as though he were preserved by God's providence to be their commander for the time to come".

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: Wed Mar 24, 2021 7:48 am
maryhelena wrote: Wed Mar 24, 2021 4:30 amJews mythologizing, 'divinize' a human man.....no way....methinks they have a lot more sense that all those christians who uphold such nonsense.
Counter-example: Niger of Perea.

After this attack, he was described as having "filled all the Jews with an unexpected joy, as though he were preserved by God's providence to be their commander for the time to come".

:confusedsmiley:
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 »


Submitted by Gregory Doudna on Wed, 03/24/2021 - 08:50


Richard, at first I was taken aback by the combination of (a) total rejection of and disinterest in even looking at a book directly and integrally material to your "On the Historicity of Jesus" work and niche in scholarship, sight unseen--on the stated grounds that it was written in the 19th century, combined with (b) the over-the-top bludgeoning, name-calling, and lecturing posture as if to a student when I am a colleague and a peer in a closely-related field to yours.

To get one thing out of the way quickly, scholars in collegial settings discuss unpublished work all the time. Scholars informally and formally routinely consider, respond to, and discuss ideas and proposals on the basis of experience with primary sources with no conscious restriction in conversation to "only what has been peer-reviewed published". Most papers presented at scholarly conferences, and much of the informal conversations at such and otherwise, concern work that has not yet been published. Comments to articles on this site at their best are something like those informal conversations and feedback at conference presentations.

The fact is your lack of knowledge of the argument of the George Solomon 1880 book, let alone addressing it, is a material omission in "On the Historicity of Jesus". It was a good-faith material omission since I have no doubt you, like I until recently, had never heard of it at the time you produced "On the Historicity". That however is not the case now, you have heard of it, and have given every indication that it is beneath you to look at it, or to understand its argument.

Whether after looking at it--if you do five years or ten years from now if ever--you do not find it convincing or that you disagree with it is beside the point here. The point is Solomon 1880 is not crank. It is as materially relevant to your niche of work as a published piece of work can be, but it was missed by you because not in the world of discourse with which you were familiar when you did that work.

The over-the-top bludgeoning response combined with "I will not even look at it" (paraphrase) comes across as a reaction of perceived vulnerability. It is especially odd given what you wrote in "On the Historicity of Jesus", pp. 428-429, in which you yourself say that the Gospel of Mark's Passion Story of Jesus is drawn directly from Josephus's figure Jesus b. Ananias of the 60s:

"So the entire narrative of Mark is a fictional, symbolic construct, from beginning to end (. . .) Indeed, even how Mark decides to construct the sequence of the Passover narrative appears to be based on the tale of another Jesus: Jesus ben Ananias, the 'Jesus of Jerusalem', an insane prophet active in the 60s CE who is then killed in the siege of Jerusalem (roughly in the year 70). His story is told by Josephus in the Jewish War, and unless Josephus invented him, his narrative must have been famous, famous enough for Josephus to know of it, and thus famous enough for Mark to know of it, too, and make use of it to model the tale of his own Jesus. Or if Josephus invented the tale, then Mark evidently used Josephus as a source. Because the parallels are too numerous to be at all probable as a coincidence. Some Mark does derive from elsewhere (or matches from elsewhere to a double purpose), but the overall scheme of the story in Josephus matches Mark too closely to believe that Mark just came up with the exact same scheme independently. And since it's not believed that Josephus invented a new story using Mark, we must conclude Mark invented his story using Josephus--or the same tale known to Josephus."

That is reasonable and accurate analysis. But what you have not realized and evidently have not the least interest in learning, is that the stories of Jesus of the Gospel of Mark also draw no less substantially from Jesus b. Sapphat of the 60s, and are no less compelling as direct derivation, as you acknowledge in the case of Jesus b. Ananias of the 60s.

Again, the Jesus b. Sapphat source of Jesus stories of the Gospels is absolutely not crank. I know crank and this isn't. It is no more crank than Jesus b. Ananias as source of Jesus's trial and apocalyptic. Yet Jesus b. Saphat does not even appear in the index to your 696 pp "On the Historicity" addressing the question of whether the Christian Jesus was or was not a figure in history--not even mentioned in that entire study. With respect, failure to even mention, let alone address, Jesus b. Saphat in 696 pages addressing every other conceivable aspect to the question in "On the Historicity" is sort of like missing the barn door, or not seeing an elephant in the room. This is why I say your lack of discussion of the content of Solomon 1880--I do not mean agreement, but understanding and addressing the Jesus b. Saphat connections at all--is a material omission in your otherwise highly worthy discussion.

Both my m.a. advisor at Cornell, Martin Bernal, author of Black Athena, and then Thomas Thompson at Copenhagen with my dr. degree, talked a lot about the sociology of scholarship, not simply the content of scholarship. My first publication foray crossing over from Qumran to Christian origins is, "Was Josephus's John the Baptist Passage a Chronologically Dislocated Story of the Death of Hyrcanus II?", published in the 2020 Thomas Thompson festschrift and accessible on my page on academia.edu.

Back to tone, I will leave this discussion since the bludgeoning and threat-attack mode is so offputting. You can have any last word if you like. You will get no war from me.

https://bibleinterp.arizona.edu/comment ... mment-1048

Well done Greg Doudna - spoken like a gentleman .
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 »

Greg mentions ''vulnerability'' in Carrier's response to his posts.
Strange - I've been feeling that as well.
Methinks Carrier is beginning to feel that also - vulnerability within his mythicist theory.
As I wrote earlier - I think Carrier has driven mythicism into a cul-de-sac - and can see no way to backtrack, to do a u-turn.
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 »

i can understand Richard Carrier. He is so committed to the Mythicist cause that he can hardly retract. Nevertheless I, and please note my humility, am perceptive enough to recognize that Jesus b. Sapphat is the true historical Jesus, abandoning my previous profession of mythicism in a flash.
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: Wed Mar 24, 2021 10:00 am i can understand Richard Carrier. He is so committed to the Mythicist cause that he can hardly retract. Nevertheless I, and please note my humility, am perceptive enough to recognize that Jesus b. Sapphat is the true historical Jesus, abandoning my previous profession of mythicism in a flash.
Giuseppe
Don't equate Carrier's mythicist theory with mythicisn itself. Or perhaps better said.... the ahistoricist position. That Carrier's theory is flawed does not impact upon the ahistoricist position that....... the gospel figure of Jesus is not a historical figure. Carrier's book on The Historicity of Jesus. Why We Might have Reasons To Doubt has laid the groundwork for the ahistoricist position. Carrier has no need to backtrack from an ahistoricist position. Its a position that continually gains ground. Where the problem for Carrier rests is that he has no, for want of a better analogy, anchor to reality. Without that anchor his mythicist theory becomes a floating abstraction. He needs to root it in historical reality. Ideas, if they are to have relevance within a historical context, need to reflect that context, they need to relate. Otherwise we can let our imagination run wild...

Unfortunately, he seems reluctant to do that. Carrier has run with Paul.... taken a magic flying carpet. In other words, he has placed all his eggs in a Pauline basket.....thereby neglecting the gospel story and its very insistence that history is relevant to the story the gospel writers want to tell.

And that is the real debate. What history was relevant to the writers of the gospel story? That means we have to stand on ground zero before we reach for the heavens with Paul.... ..
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 »

Hermann Detering made an good point in his review of Lena Eihnorn's book: A Shift in Time. A point that needs repeating when considering theories endeavoring to equate the gospel figure of Jesus with figures from other written works. As long as one holds to the idea, the belief, the hope - that the gospel Jesus was a historical figure one will be seeking to find such a figure - either within the time of Pilate or via a time-shift.

Indeed, as Detering acknowledges, parallels can be found within Josephus that can be viewed as relating in some way to to the gospel story of Jesus. However, he states that - ''The explanation for the striking parallels between the New Testament and Josephus must be sought elsewhere''. In order words: a surface reading of Josephus alongside a surface reading of the gospel story does not advance research into early christian origins. All we end up with is a selection of Josephan Jesus figures being claimed to be a time-shifted gospel Jesus. A take your pick Jesus - Jesus ben Ananias, Judas the Galilean, the Egyptain and Jesus ben Saphat.

Despite the above reservations, I do not dispute that some of the parallels Einhorn draws between Josephus and the New Testament have a certain plausibility. Nevertheless, I cannot ascribe to her hypothesis of a “time shift” in the form presented. The reason ultimately is that Einhorn believes she must adhere to the historicity of the Christian messiah. This forces her to assert identities that are hardly clear, much less proven. Persuasive evidence that the New Testament messiah is none other than the Egyptian messianic pretender mentioned by Josephus is simply not possible given the sparse source material. Lacking additional sources, such theses can never be verified. In my opinion, cleaving to the historicity of Jesus is a premise that may help explain the sometimes striking parallels and anachronisms, but that premise itself is not necessary.

The fact that Einhorn has not proven anything does not diminish her book. The explanation for the striking parallels between the New Testament and Josephus must be sought elsewhere. For me, that “elsewhere” becomes apparent when one jettisons the presupposition of a historical existence for Jesus. Doing so allows one to appreciate that Jesus is in all probability a late literary construct, the product of various messianic and gnostic streams of tradition that have flowed “synthetically into one.”

http://www.mythicistpapers.com/2016/05/ ... view-pt-2/

my emphasis
Post Reply