aa5874

And perhaps then Jesus son of Sapphias was also the HJ since he had followers who were mariners and poor people. [See Life of Josephus]

Basically, I think it can argued that the Jesus of the NT is a fictional character based on the writings of Josephus, the OT and paganism.

Solitary Man

I'd actually follow Ben Smith and consider John the Baptist not as a source for Jesus but as an actual interaction.

I'm sure its been proposed somewhere, but not as you think. Rather, in searching for the HJ, we'd like to strip the later accretions (whether that includes influence from the deeds of Jesus ben Ananias or not I am not suggesting anything) and get to the historical core, i.e. the Yeshua ben Yosef who was crucified by Pilate.

You'll have to clarify the problem and why you don't think it's a problem.

No, it's just a mischaracterization of the Quest.

gstafleu

Yes, I know. But we all know that this hasn't met with much success so far. Plus, it slips in an assumption: there was a Yeshua ben Yosef who was crucified by Pilate. But, as I've shown, that is not a necessary assumption, so why make it?

Given that the method of "stripping of accretions" seems to be unproductive--for one thing, following Robert Price, you run a serious risk of being left with nothing once the stripping is done--why not try to approach it from the other side? See if we can build a developmental model that will give some results. I submit that my JbA proposal does exactly that. Doesn't it then at least merit the status of a possible scenario?

Gerard Stafleu

Ben C Smith

Thanks for this plug. But I think Gerard meant Jesus ben Ananias (JbA), not John the baptist (which might be JtB). My eye tricked me, too; I saw John the baptist at first glance, too.

Ben.

Ben C Smith

To the contrary, that is not an assumption. It is the result of critically evaluating statements in Paul, in Josephus, in Tacitus, in Lucian, in the gospels, and in quite a few other texts.

Ben.

gstafleu

Paul? And does Josephus mention Joseph (I just don't remember). If Tacitus mentions him it can just as easily be his reporting that the then-followers of Jesus believed in a Joseph (which they would have gotten from the then-existing gospels).

Anyway, do you see something fundamentally wrong with my scenario (as sketched via the conversation in the bar)? I'd say it at least merits a "possible," whatever you may think about its likelihood.

Oh, you mean the crucifixion is mentioned in Paul? True, but not that this was done by the Romans. That could then come from this other religious nut who was killed (but not crucified) by the Romans.

Gerard Stafleu

Ben C Smith

I am not talking about the son of Joseph part. I am talking about the crucified [under Pilate] part.

It may be. It may not be. But it is not an assumption in either case; it is the reading of the text.

Was ben Ananias considered or called a messiah?

(Did Jesus ben Ananias even exist, IYO? If you think he did, why do you think this?)

Yes.

Not everybody who lists details lists every detail.

This is a possibility. But it would require more of an argument than I have seen so far to push it into the realm of probability.

It might well be profitable to look into what Jesus ben Ananias has contributed to the Jesus of Nazareth story. I myself have kicked around the idea that the woe against the temple in the Olivet discourse came from Jesus ben Ananias. But what we would be doing in this case is adding to the core already established by Paul, who already has a crucified Jesus Christ being delivered up for us. And, as Solitary Man pointed out, Josephus knows the difference between the two; one Jesus is called Christ and has a brother named James; the other is called ben Ananias and was killed by a projectile.

Ben.

aa5874

Josephus knows that Jesus the Christ who rose on the third day had a brother whose name was James?

How can the Jesus of the NT, who ascended to heaven, have a brother?

If the Jesus of the NT had a brother named James, then Matthew's and Luke's version of Jesus' conception is entirely erroneous or Josephus' Jesus is not at all the Jesus of the NT.

mens_sana

Why can't he have a brother? Does the story of Jesus' conception have to be an accurate retelling? Or could it be saying little more than that this is a miraculous birth with divine connection?

Does posing a historical question that presupposes inerrancy enlighten us concerning history — or does it tell us that inerrancy, although denied, is still an active sea anchor in the minds of many?

mg01

I don't disagree. I'm trying to explore the various features of Christianity and how they are proposed to have originated assuming there was a historical Jesus.