On the identity of Eleazar mentioned in an Yosippon passage

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
Post Reply
User avatar
Giuseppe
Posts: 9003
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

On the identity of Eleazar mentioned in an Yosippon passage

Post by Giuseppe »

Giuseppe wrote: Wed Apr 14, 2021 9:34 am So the Josippon passage as reconstructed by Robert Eisler (p. 111 of this book):

«in those days there were wars and quarrels in Judaea between the Pharisees and the “robbers of our nation” who strayed after Jesus, son of Joseph. And there went out some of those robbers and wandered in the wilderness where there is no way, and made unto themselves signs and miracles through their sorceries. And there came some of the sons of the city of Edom, robbers (too), and they (all) went into the hiding-places of Edom and seduced many (saying) : “in the days (of ... ) Jesus came to ... (us) ... Arrived has the angel (messenger) of God foretold by the prophets throughout the ages, and he has said ... but they listened not to him, but sought how they might kill him. Now, however, let us ....................... (The chief of these bandits) was Eleazar, who committed great crimes in Israel, until the Pharisees got the better of him»

About this Eleazar, I am advancing two/three possibilities.
  • 1) If he is the same Beloved Disciple (=Lazzarus), then he had free access to the house of the high priest, in John 18:15-17:

    Simon Peter and another disciple were following Jesus. Because this disciple was known to the high priest, he went with Jesus into the high priest’s courtyard, 16 but Peter had to wait outside at the door. The other disciple, who was known to the high priest, came back, spoke to the servant girl on duty there and brought Peter in. “You aren’t one of this man’s disciples too, are you?” she asked Peter. He replied, “I am not.”


    ...Hence he could be Eleazar ben Ananias, i.e. a son of a high priest (Ananias b. Nebedeus, 46-52 CE). His connection with the Idumeans may explain the reference to 'Edom' in the Yosippon passage.
  • 2) There is another Eleazar in Josephus, i.e. Eleazar b. Jair, the last rebel in Masada. His existence is inferred by this archeological evidence:


    Image
    445. MASADA - OSTRACON INSCRIBED: "BEN YAIR", WHICH WAS THE NAME OF ONE OF THE LEADERS OF THE REVOLT AGAINST THE ROMANS

    https://www.alamy.com/stock-photo-445-m ... 80109.html



    What is surprising is that the resurrection of Lazarus is not found in the Synoptics. In his place there is the resurrection... ...of the "daughter of Jair"! Coincidence?

  • 3) A third possibility is that Josephus confused deliberately the two Eleazars. He first defamed the Eleazar b. Ananias by making him the betrayer and killer of Menahem, and then he removed from him his heroic act of resistance in Masada, by referring said action to a "distinct" Eleazar (b. Jair).
CONCLUSION:

so, if 'Eleazar' was ben Ananias, or ben Jair, or ben X, what did it matter after all?

Reconstructing who was really 'Eleazar' is not even important, since these Eleazar(es?) were all involved in the tragic Rivolt against the Romans and had caused the destruction of the temple: whoever that "Eleazar" was, every trace of a connection between him and Jesus b. Sapphat had to be forgotten, erased, extinguished.

To Maryhelena: to know the real origins of Christianity, one has to apply on the First Jewish Revolt the Eraclitean aphorism:

Πόλεμος πάντων μὲν πατήρ ἐστι, πάντων δὲ βασιλεύς

“War is father and king of everything”
Post Reply