John the Baptist was interpolated in Josephus to distinguish him from the Samaritan Prophet

[Giuseppe]

In 45, Caspius Fadus killed the Messiah Theudas (aka Juda or Thomas, aka Dositheus, aka John),

Between 46 and 48, Tiberias Alexander, who succeeded Fadus, ordained the crucification of the two sons of Juda of Gamala: Simon and James.

But Judas the Galilean was an invention of Josephus, per this article:

Recently I was posting about my doubts concerning the evidence for Jewish messianic movements prior to the First Jewish War (66-73 CE) and Giuseppe alerted us to a study by James S. McLaren in Negotiating Diaspora: Jewish Strategies in the Roman Empire. McLaren’s chapter is “Constructing Judaean History in the Diaspora: Josephus’s Accounts of Judas“, pages 90-107.

https://vridar.org/2016/04/05/did-josep ... inst-rome/

Hence, if Simon and James were not the sons of Judas the Galilean (since Judas the Galilean never existed) then they were more probably the sons/heirs of Messiah Theudas.

I.e. the sons of Zebedee/Dositheus/John "the Baptist".

[Giuseppe]

Remember about the perennial possibility (Dositheus = Theudas = John = Zebedee = Judas Thomas Didimus Twin) and read this:

The most relevant evidence does not concern John, but two of his disciples who were thought to have avoided death. The Samaritan Dositheus was supposedly a disciple of the Baptist. According to Origen, he was thought by his followers to have survived death and was still alive somewhere.
Later Christian and Arabic writers claim that Dositheus died in a cave where his body was consumed by worms or dogs. This may reflect the original narrative by which Dositheus’ followers believed his body was resurrected or translated.

https://czasopisma.kul.pl/ba/article/view/4378/4575

[Giuseppe]

A curious coincidence:

• the finger of Thomas in the body of Jesus. The finger finds physical resistance. Thomas is defeated.

• the tool of Dositheus in the body of Simon Magus. It doesn't find physical resistance. Dositheus is defeated.

Again: remember about the perennial possibility: (Dositheus = Theudas = John = Zebedee = Judas Thomas Didimus Twin).

[davidmartin]

Guiseppe, agree with you, and that would make Salome John's wife?
all i will say is when i read the gospels esp. John i keep seeing multiple 'messiah's being referred to and it all went down in the 40's
the 'historical' John the baptist was not John and the 'historical' James the Just was not James. those associations came later to try and place Jesus among well known persons that fitted certain orthodox characteristics they wanted to see in Jesus
The interesting thing is the gospels seem aware of this and to encode hints while still appearing to preserve the orthodox interpretation, thus I suspect some of the sources behind them go back to those who 'knew' the more correct understandings that could be explained in private, which of course is what people like the Valentinians claimed.

[Giuseppe]

Guiseppe, agree with you

ok but: Giuseppe, please.

Note that the hirelings left with Zebedee/Dositheus/John/Theudas/Thomas is an implicit accusation addressed by "Mark" (author) against the followers of John who wanted to remain faithful to their old leader, even after his Death. That accusation of "mercenaries" could be historically addressed by the followers of the Baptist, when they saw that many of them, gradually, started to join the Jesus cult and/or to identify Jesus as John Risen. Therefore they cried "Betrayers!" but the Mark's irony is that they were the real "mercenaries", wanting to remain with their "father" Zebedee/Dositheus/John/Theudas/Thomas


Hence the Jesus of paper fused the Simon Magus cult and the Baptist sect in only a new sect.

Traces of the co-optation of the Magus is in Mark 14:3-9, where Simon Magus became Simon the Leper, and the Sophia imprisoned, as Helen of Troy "with long hair", by 7 Archons, was cast in the prostitute freed by Jesus from 7 demons:

Magd-Helen = Magdalene.

Hence, the Jesus of paper wanted for himself the woman who was exclusive (well: not so exclusive!) property of the Magus.

But, even if the honour of rehabilitating the prostitute Helen was usurped by the Jesus of paper from the Magus, the gospels say us that the women helped by their money the Jesus and the 12. Hence, even by the money won by Magdalene when she "worked" as prostitute. An impure origin of these money, used by Jesus to eat and drink, while the Sinedrites rejected the money of Judah in virtue of their impure origin.

Evidently, already for the Jesus of paper, pecunia non olet.

[davidmartin]

well, the accounts in the gospels of Magdalene seem about reminding folk of her previous life kind of like branding her with the word 'whore'
the effect of this is to deny her role afterwards as a leader and heavy duty person, although John's gospel seems to correct that a bit
maybe the tension between Theudas followers and jesus in the gospels was artificial when really it was just one leader replacing another as a way to separate away from these earlier groups and as for Simon he is yet another leader. The confrontation is all later reflecting the confrontation between Paul's followers and the various earlier ones.. Jesus is just doing the best he can given the circumstances. He didn't need money, no hint of lavish lifestyle.

[Giuseppe]

No contradiction between Josephus and Acts's Gamaliel.

Acts means Judas the Galilean as the two sons. Who came after Theudas.

[Giuseppe]

But, if there is any connection here, then Ory has confused Theodosius with Theudas, Philip Sidetes with Philip the silver merchant, and a story about the Virgin Mary proving her son's qualifications as priest with a story about a Samaritan Christ figure. That would be quite extreme. Is that what we are saying happened here?

I had thought that the first 2 links could be really such :

• Book of Theodosius == Book of Theudas

• Philip Sidetes == Philip the silver merchant

But it is the third link that seemed to me too much stretched, even fanciful.

• story about the Virgin Mary proving her son's qualifications as priest == story about a Samaritan Christ figure

But then I remember that all the French Mythicists, Ory included, had accepted the Stahl's proof about John, and not Jesus, being the original child predicted by the archangel Gabriel before his mother (Elizabeth, not Mary) before his birth.

Hence, in the light of that third "coincidence", even the first two ones receive more force in the case for Theudas == John the Baptist.

[Giuseppe]

Given the perennial possibility (Zebedee/Dositheus/John/Theudas/Thomas), then the sons of Zebedee are the followers of John the Baptist, i.e. "sons of the thunder" of Elijah:

At the time of sacrifice, the prophet Elijah stepped forward and prayed: “Lord, the God of Abraham, Isaac and Israel, let it be known today that you are God in Israel and that I am your servant and have done all these things at your command. 37 Answer me, Lord, answer me, so these people will know that you, Lord, are God, and that you are turning their hearts back again.”
38 Then the fire of the Lord fell and burned up the sacrifice, the wood, the stones and the soil, and also licked up the water in the trench.
39 When all the people saw this, they fell prostrate and cried, “The Lord—he is God! The Lord—he is God!”
40 Then Elijah commanded them, “Seize the prophets of Baal. Don’t let anyone get away!” They seized them, and Elijah had them brought down to the Kishon Valley and slaughtered there.

(1 Kings 18)

Hence, who knew that Zebedee==John, was the same author who knew that "Sons of Elijah" =="Sons of Thunder".

[Giuseppe]

Another strong argument for the case that Theudas == John the Baptist:

Acts 5:33-39	Mark 11:27-33	All the Analogies, especially one: the REDUCTIO AD JOHANNEM/THEUDAM
33 When they heard this, they were furious and wanted to put them to death. 34 But a Pharisee named Gamaliel, a teacher of the law, who was honored by all the people, stood up in the Sanhedrin and ordered that the men be put outside for a little while. 35 Then he addressed the Sanhedrin: “Men of Israel, consider carefully what you intend to do to these men. 36 Some time ago Theudas appeared, claiming to be somebody, and about four hundred men rallied to him. He was killed, all his followers were dispersed, and it all came to nothing. 37 After him, Judas the Galilean appeared in the days of the census and led a band of people in revolt. He too was killed, and all his followers were scattered. 38 Therefore, in the present case I advise you: Leave these men alone! Let them go! For if their purpose or activity is of human origin, it will fail. 39 But if it is from God, you will not be able to stop these men; you will only find yourselves fighting against God	They arrived again in Jerusalem, and while Jesus was walking in the temple courts, the chief priests, the teachers of the law and the elders came to him. 28 “By what authority are you doing these things?” they asked. “And who gave you authority to do this?” 29 Jesus replied, “I will ask you one question. Answer me, and I will tell you by what authority I am doing these things. 30 John’s baptism—was it from heaven, or of human origin? Tell me!” 31 They discussed it among themselves and said, “If we say, ‘From heaven,’ he will ask, ‘Then why didn’t you believe him?’ 32 But if we say, ‘Of human origin’ …” (They feared the people, for everyone held that John really was a prophet.) 33 So they answered Jesus, “We don’t know.” Jesus said, “Neither will I tell you by what authority I am doing these things.”	The early Church (personified by "Jesus") is accused by the authorities in both the cases. The authorities need a discussion among themselves alone, without the early Church (personified by "Jesus") in both the cases The authorities's dilemma in both the cases: If the early Church (personified by "Jesus")/the "baptism of John" comes from men, then they would have tolerated/feared the same disgraces caused by the analogues of Theudas, Judas the Galilean etc If the early Church (personified by "Jesus")/the "baptism of John" comes from men, then they would have recognized the divine victory on themselves. In one case the focus is placed on the passage from a discussion about the origin of the authority of Jesus to a discussion about the origin of the authority of John. In the other case the focus is placed on the passage from a discussion about the origin of the authority of early Church (personified by "Jesus") to a discussion about the origin of the authority of Theudas, "claiming to be somebody" : are they the same identical person?

ADDENDA: This explains why the presumed chronological error (Theudas preceding Judas the Galilean and not vice versa) was deliberate. The same source shared by both Acts and "Mark" (author) had an emphasis put on Theudas/"John" as at the origin of the Christian claim that "Jesus" was the Christ.

That claim stands or collapses with Theudas/"John".