Evidence of a cult of Jesus as Samaritan ('Son of Joseph'): a historical Jesus?

[Giuseppe]

I mean that in the fictional Passion story the scribes and pharisees use Pilate to crucify Jesus in order to reiterate again and again the accusation: a Son of Joseph deserves the crucifixion by the killer of the Sons of Joseph.

[Secret Alias]

But you guys place too much of an emphasis on Josephus. He reports a dozen things in the reign of Pilate. But there were really 10000 events going on. That Josephus alone survives for us restricts us to connect Josephus to the gospel. But someone writing in 70 CE would have had almost an unlimited number of things to connect to the gospel.

[schillingklaus]

The original passion story had no scribes and pharisees, let alone a Jewish mob, but only a responsible Roman officer who condemened Jesus right away for no given reason. Accretions to the story are often surrounded by reprises or other signs of redactorial fatigue.

[neilgodfrey]

In addition to the many points listed by Bob Price, Ben Smith and Richard Carrier as per the opening posts, we should add the detail that Jesus was buried in and resurrected out of the tomb of Joseph. Joseph buried him. (A mother of "Joses", a little Joseph?, was in attendance.)

Then there is the special attention to Samaria in the gospels (those who threaten the safety of Jesus; those who believe the report of the woman at the well) and the distinctively infamous place of Samaria as the place of Simon Magus (and all that is associated with him).

[Giuseppe]

If Joseph of Arimathea is a negative figure, then the burial of Jesus by him means that the scribes wanted that the mere "Son of Joseph" was buried by a Joseph. Corollary: for the original readers Jesus was not the Son of Joseph.

If at contrary Joseph of Arimathea is a positive figure, then for the original readers Jesus was really the Son of Joseph.

My point is that the same is true for Pilate:

If for the original readers Jesus was the Son of Joseph, then the introduction of Pilate is designed to specify that the true Son of Joseph was crucified by the killer of the Sons of Joseph. This raises the concrete possibility that the historical Jesus was just the Samaritan Impostor mentioned by Josephus.

If for the original readers Jesus was not the Son of Joseph, then Pilate is introduced because the enemies of Jesus wanted him crucified by the killer of the Samaritans.

[MrMacSon]

Who are the Sons of Joseph?

[Giuseppe]

Robert M. Price insists on the existence of a Samaritan Jesus cult even in his new book, expected for 2023:

innovative biblical scholar Robert M. Price attempts to reassemble the puzzle pieces, disclosing several earlier gospels of communities who imagined Jesus as the predicted return of the prophet Elijah, the Samaritan Taheb (a second Moses), a resurrected John the Baptist, a theophany of Yahweh, a Gnostic Revealer, a Zealot revolutionary, etc.

https://www.amazon.com/Gospels-Behind-R ... 1634312384

I wonder why, if he assumes that there was a Samaritan cult of Jesus, he doesn't conclude for the Samaritan Impostor being the historical Jesus. We are always said that a Jesus crucified by Pilate is not mentioned in secular sources. But a Samaritan prophet slain by Pilate is mentioned by Josephus. A such mention, in addition to the existence of a Samaritan cult Jesus, would suffice to identify the historical Jesus. Can someone say me where is the problem with this argument?

[schillingklaus]

The Taheb was just one failed non-Jewish attempt to make the originally anti-demiurgic saviour, who instigated Adam to swallow an illegal apple, look like a fulfillment of the Law (Deuteronomy 18:18), a prophet like Moses, in order to sell the intrinsically anti-demiurgic eucharist (feeding of the illegal apple) to YHWH fans.

So the evolution line for the institutor of the eucharist is : Gnostic Saviour serpent -> metanoious archon sabaoth (theophany of the old testament) -> taheb -> elijah reloaded -> John resurrrected -> messiah. The shift from the archon Sabaoth to the taheb goes hand in hand with the absurd identification of YHWH with The Father; and it also identifies the apple of Genesis with the manna of Exodus. In no way is a historical Samaritan movement necessary.

[Giuseppe]

So do you think that the mention of Pilate in the fictional Passion story is due to a Samaritan source coming from those who euhemerized Jesus by identifying him with the Samaritan Taheb ?

This scenario assumes that the Christians who denied that Jesus was from Samaria, i.e. the Christians behind our current gospels, accepted passively the use of a Samaritan source connecting Jesus and Pilate.

Correct?

[schillingklaus]

The Taheb is not necessarily an exclusively Samaritan legend, just one that is compatible with the Samaritan Torah+Joshuah faith.

The feeding miracle of the 4000 is compatible with Jesus as a Samaritan Taheb: It appropriates the eucharist as the feeding of the people of Israel with manna in Exodus, whither Numbers adds many little birds as a substitute for the little fish which the Jews had in Egypt. Mt and Mk add even references to the book of Joshuah: people coming from afar and staying for threee days.

The feeding of 5000, on the other hand, requires zealotic, messianic Judaism. Second Baruch states that the messiah will at the end of times slay Behemoth and Leviathan (two big fish) for the eschatological banquet and then also repeat the manna miracle. This is the only feeding miracle known to the branch of Luke.

The branch leading to Mt thus re-introduced the once forgotten Taheb version deliberately.