On the midrashical source behind “what have we to do with thee, thou Jesus of Nazareth?"

[Giuseppe]

But Necho sent messengers to him, saying, “What quarrel is there, king of Judah, between you and me? It is not you I am attacking at this time, but the house with which I am at war. God has told me to hurry; so stop opposing God, who is with me, or he will destroy you.”

(2 Chronicles 35:21)

They went to Capernaum, and when the Sabbath came, Jesus went into the synagogue and began to teach. 22 The people were amazed at his teaching, because he taught them as one who had authority, not as the teachers of the law. 23 Just then a man in their synagogue who was possessed by an impure spirit cried out, 24 “What do you want with us, Jesus of Nazareth? Have you come to destroy us? I know who you are—the Holy One of God!”

25 “Be quiet!” said Jesus sternly. “Come out of him!”26 The impure spirit shook the man violently and came out of him with a shriek.

27 The people were all so amazed that they asked each other, “What is this? A new teaching—and with authority! He even gives orders to impure spirits and they obey him.” 28 News about him spread quickly over the whole region of Galilee

(Mark 1:21-28)

The "house" being the Second Temple.

[Giuseppe]

In the midrashical source, YHWH was behind Necho, when the latter asked "what between me and you?":

2 Chronicles 35:22:

Josiah, however, would not turn away from him, but disguised himself to engage him in battle. He would not listen to what Necho had said at God’s command but went to fight him on the plain of Megiddo.

In the Gospel episode, who is behind the impure spirit? YHWH ?

Probably.

No wonder that the episode is found in Mcn.

[lsayre]

Is it accurate (as in: credible) to say that the (so to speak) "Government Issue" Priests (High Priest included) lacked 'authority' (respect) among the masses, who maintained a Priest class of their own behind the backs of the Government? Robert Eisenman seems to imply that James was of this non-GI priestly class, and he further stated (concluded) that whatever James was, Jesus was also.

Might the man with the impure spirit be a later embellishment (corruption) of the screams heard from the 'Government Issue' (and thereby seen as impure) Priesthood?

[Giuseppe]

Eisenman is wrong, sic et simpliciter. The only 'good' use of Eisenman's conclusions, to my knowledge, has been made by the mythicist David Oliver Smith.

I can't see a historical nucleus behind this episode, as behind all the rest of the gospel story, unless the only "historical nucleus" is that the impure spirit is directed "against the house", i.e. against the Second Temple. Hence the impure spirit is allegory of the Roman army of Titus. It has been sent by YHWH against the temple.

Jesus dispels the impure spirit. Meaning that he is against YHWH.

A Marcionite Antithesis is in action, here.

[lsayre]

It seems quite logical for the Establishment(s) Priesthood to confront a rebel (brigand) with:

“What do you want with us, Jesus of Nazareth? Have you come to destroy us?"

With this abject fear of destruction being their motivation to rid themselves of him.

[Giuseppe]

It seems quite logical for the Establishment(s) Priesthood to confront a rebel (brigand) with:

Far from me a such naïve reading of the evidence.

[Charles Wilson]

It is 12 years later, after the murder of the 3000 at the Temple, as Archelaus is installed at the death of Herod.

"What have you to do with us...?" That is: "We aren't the people who murdered the thousands."

"...Have you come to destroy us?" The Priest - that is, the created "Jesus" character - knows better. If these people ARE different from the original murderers (Scribes and Pharisees, the military under orders of the Herodians and Romans), then they may be able to escape the coming wrath.

Mark 3: 1 - 6 (RSV):

[1] Again he entered the synagogue, and a man was there who had a withered hand.
[2] And they watched him, to see whether he would heal him on the sabbath, so that they might accuse him.
[3] And he said to the man who had the withered hand, "Come here."
[4] And he said to them, "Is it lawful on the sabbath to do good or to do harm, to save life or to kill?" But they were silent.
[5] And he looked around at them with anger, grieved at their hardness of heart, and said to the man, "Stretch out your hand." He stretched it out, and his hand was restored.
[6] The Pharisees went out, and immediately held counsel with the Hero'di-ans against him, how to destroy him.

*AGAIN*, he entered the synagogue..."
"Jesus" is freeing the Scribes to write about what happened 12 years ago.
He knows and the rest are attempting to save their asses.
Apologetix. The real answer is given later:

"WE have no King but Caesar."
THAT'S what these people have to do with this Priest, rewritten as a "Jesus" story.

CW

[Giuseppe]

...and in all this your view, what is the function of the midrashical source 2 Chronicles 35:21 I have found for “what have we to do with thee, thou Jesus of Nazareth?"

I don't see it, which is enough to reject your view as unable to capture all the evidence.

[Charles Wilson]

So, Giuseppe, why not read 2 Chronicles 34 - 35 and, if you are correct, see where the Story of Josiah leads?
Josiah hears the Book of the Lord and then keeps the Passover AND the seven days of the Feast.

Does this "Jesus" character do this? *
SOME of the words are there, certainly, but does this "capture all of the evidence?" as you demand?

I assert that much of early Mark, for example, is to be understood as "looking back".
Some of the words are reflective of the older Stories but the Intentionality is different.

Note that I do not completely disagree with you here but I do believe the rewrite into Mark is more complicated than appears.

Best,

CW

* NO!
Mark 14: 12 (RSV):

[12] And on the first day of Unleavened Bread, when they sacrificed the passover lamb, his disciples said to him, "Where will you have us go and prepare for you to eat the passover?"

[Charles Wilson]

Is it accurate (as in: credible) to say that the (so to speak) "Government Issue" Priests (High Priest included) lacked 'authority' (respect) among the masses, who maintained a Priest class of their own behind the backs of the Government? Robert Eisenman seems to imply that James was of this non-GI priestly class, and he further stated (concluded) that whatever James was, Jesus was also.

Might the man with the impure spirit be a later embellishment (corruption) of the screams heard from the 'Government Issue' (and thereby seen as impure) Priesthood?

As usual, lsayre, you are on to something. I am wary of the James Scholarship though I have a great deal of respect for Eisenman.
Herod did have more or less absolute control over the Priestly Apparatus, making Blood Enemies of the Hasmoneans and making the High Priest position an appointed one.

Josephus, War..., 2, 1, 2:

"They ["The multitude..." crying to Archelaus] cried out that a punishment ought to be inflicted for these men upon those that were honored by Herod; and that, in the first place, the man whom he had made high priest should be deprived; and that it was fit to choose a person of greater piety and purity than he was..."

What is the meaning of Josephus' phrase, "...greater piety and purity..."?

Matthew 23: 13 (RSV):

[13] "But woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! because you shut the kingdom of heaven against men; for you neither enter yourselves, nor allow those who would enter to go in.

The Scribes and Pharisees shut the Realm of Heaven against MEN. The Scribes & Pharisees prevent MEN from entering but they - flesh and Blood men also - do not allow the chosen MEN (i.e. Priests) to enter.

These are not "Government Issue Priests" and you are correct in seeing this. The people demand a return to "...greater Piety and Purity".

CW