Bin Gorion on the true identity of Jesus and Paul

[Giuseppe]

Bin Gorion was a Jewish scolar who arrived soon to the conclusion that the Testimonium Flavianum is totally interpolated. No wonders that, by doing some research, I have found that Bin Gorion was, as result, a mythicist.

For him the historical Jesus was Jesus ben Ananias.

Basically, a mythicist is by definition one who doesn't believe that the TF is (even only partially) original. I can claim so because, unless one raises explicit profession of agnosticism (see Ken or Neil), all the examples I am collecting are of people who, once declared false the TF, go to identify the historical Jesus with a Josephian character or they follow the Carrier/Doherty paradigm.

What is interesting about Gorion is this point:

Berdichevsky copied the story as printed in Sefer hama asiyot. It is the tale of a pagan priest in Damascus named Aba Gulish, who called upon the almighty God in an hour of terrible hardship and was saved. He then converted to Judaism and was appointed treasurer of the small Jewish community of Tiberias. His old habits led him to embezzlement for which God punished him with blindness. Blind and beaten, he returned to Damascus, where he publicly reconfirmed his faith in the almighty God and was healed. This miraculous event preceded the “conversion of thousands” at his hands (Bin-Gorion, Sha’ul 13). For Berdichevsky, the story of Aba Gulish could be a close analogy to the New Testament story of Paul’s conversion to Christianity (Acts 9). Berdichevsky invested the story of Aba Gulish with his own notions of originality and authenticity, arriving at the conclusion that Aba Gulish is the historical Paul. In his words: During my research of the primal source of the story, I came to recognise that the story of Aba Gulish is the Hebrew version of Shaulos-Paulus and his path to the [Christian] religion. In place of Aba Gulish one has to read Aba Shaulos. (Bin-Gorion, Sha’ul 17) Simply put, Berdichevsky saw in the story of Aba Gulish a Hebrew—and thus authentic—version of the story of Paul. He derived two conclusions from this “recognition”. First, Paul was never a Jew, but a Gentile. Second, the connection made in the New Testament between Paul (a Gentile) and Saul (a Jew) is a blend of two different stories. In other words, the New Testament’s account of the conversion of Saul to Christianity is false, and Saul is actually not Paul. Thus notes Berdichevsky: The tale of Aba Gulish is a parallel to the story of Paul in Acts 9… in the Hebrew original the intact Christian version was preserved, though the name of Jesus was replaced with the name of the “Almighty God”… One should pose the question: were not Saul and Paul, from the very beginning, indeed two different persons!? It is only later that they were identified as one and the same by the verse… “and Saul who is called Paul” (Acts 13:9) … only after Saul and Paul were associated with each other was the story of Christian conversion attributed also to Saul… We should portray the process in the following manner: A religious movement was related to the convert Aba Gulish. The circle of followers of Jesus son of Hanan, created after his death, was initially independent of that movement and evolved separately. Thereafter, the two movements were united… the figure of Shaulos is the connecting link between Jesus son of Hanan and Paul

(my bold)
https://www.academia.edu/8343659/Berdic ... l_theology

The Ebionites accused Paul as a Gentile converted to Judaism.

I wonder if the theme of the Gentile who converts to judaism and wins followers, or viceversa of the Jew who converts to a marginal religion (Christianity) and wins followers, was a pure literary motif of the time.

[Giuseppe]

For Berdichevsky, the origins of Christianity lie in Hellenism, and its association with Judaism is a later historical evolution. Yet, the reason for Berdichevsky’s view about the origins of Christianity is derived from his observation concerning Paul. He considered Paul to be “the founder of a new religion” (Bin-Gorion, Sha’ul, 125). In other words, Christianity is Paul’s creation. The roots of Pauline theology, however, are in Hellenism, not in Judaism, and consequently, Christianity, as a “new religion”, is Hellenistic. According to Berdichevsky, it was, rather, in a later historical constellation that the new Christian religion originated by Paul became attached to the figure of Jesus. Berdichevsky’s work on the life of Jesus provided him with the grounds for this argument. This work begins with the introduction of a previously unnoticed story told by Josephus Flavius, who referred to (according to Berdichevsky) a certain “Jesus son of Hanan” (Jeshu’a ben Hanan). Berdichevsky’s interpretation of this new revelation aimed to show that a real person answering to the name “Jesus son of Hanan” served as the basis for a myth about a Christian Jesus who never existed (Bin-Gorion, Jeshu’a, 1–10). In this historical conjecture, Pauline (Hellenistic) Christianity was connected with Judaism, associating the story of Aba Gulish (“Shaulos-Paulus”) with the story of Saul the Jew. Within this context, the connection between Paul and Jesus was established by a small sect of followers of “Jesus son of Hanan”—an association that then became a canonic story of Christianity, as told in Acts, but nevertheless fictitious

(my bold)

So the first euhemerizer was a follower of Jesus ben Ananias, according to Bin Gorion.

[Giuseppe]

What surprises is the presence of a fugue from Damascus for both, Aba Gulish and Paul.

Rabbi Pinchas said, There was a story in Damascus about an idolatrous temple there. It had a priest whose name was Abba Gulish and he served before the idol many years. One time, a spirit of distress came upon him and he cried for help before the idol for many days but to no avail. After that he went outside one night and said, ‘Sovereign of the Universe, hear my prayer and redeem me from my distress.’ And he was cured. He stole away and came to Tiberias and converted [to Judaism] and he observed the mitzvot [commandments]. He was appointed administrator for the poor [but as soon as] monies were entrusted to him, the hands that had been accustomed to pilfer when they had been in the idolatrous temple, began to pilfer the dedicated money [once more]. Immediately he felt [pain] in one of his eyes and it became blind. Again, he reached out for the dedicated [funds] and felt [pain] in the other one and it became blind. And those from his [previous life and] place would come to Tiberias and see him blind and tell him, ‘Abba Gulish, what were you thinking, that you scorned the idol and abandoned it so that it punished you so?’ And more and more others [came and reproved him]. What did he do? He said to his wife, ‘Get up! Put all other business on hold until we have been to Damascus.’

https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/ab ... B203CCCFD8

Paul also was appointed "administrator of the poors" by the Pillars.

[Giuseppe]

Merging the two stories, Paul would be escaping from Aretas because he had been a thief in Damascus.

[MrMacSon]

What surprises is the presence of a fugue from Damascus for both, Aba Gulish and Paul

What do you mean by 'a fuge', Giuseppe? a fusion?

[MrMacSon]

The Ebionites accused Paul as a Gentile converted to Judaism.

The Ebionites accused Paul of what? : "as a Gentile converted to Judaism" is a secondary, less significant characteristic.

[MrMacSon]

... the connection between Paul and Jesus was established by a small sect of followers of “Jesus son of Hanan”—an association that then became a canonic story of Christianity, as told in Acts, but nevertheless fictitious

So the first euhemerizer was a follower of Jesus ben Ananias, according to Bin Gorion.
.

I don't think that's euhemerizing/euhemerization as Carrier intends the word to mean (and it's a contended term best not used).

I wonder if you mean Jesus son of Hanan was deified (?) or an apotheosis (?)

[Giuseppe]

What surprises is the presence of a fugue from Damascus for both, Aba Gulish and Paul

What do you mean by 'a fuge', Giuseppe? a fusion?

what is the difference between a fugue and an escape ?

[MrMacSon]

fuge means expel, dispel, or rebel

[neilgodfrey]

Basically, a mythicist is by definition one who doesn't believe that the TF is (even only partially) original.

Not so. The authenticity of the TF has no logical bearing on the question of the historicity of Jesus. See a discussion of the fundamentals of historical methods set out at viewtopic.php?p=128280#p128280

. . . unless one raises explicit profession of agnosticism (see Ken or Neil),

I personally do not think Josephus wrote anything about Jesus, certainly not the TF -- but nor any hypothetical TF alternative. That does not stop me from considering alternative viewpoints or mean I feel I must reject anything else a "believer" might argue.

I can claim so because, . . . all the examples I am collecting are of people who, once declared false the TF, go to identify the historical Jesus with a Josephian character or they follow the Carrier/Doherty paradigm.

Have you identified those who are TF sceptics but are also believe in a HJ?

Correlation is not causation or proof of a logical relationship.