ChandraRama

Similarities between John of Gischala and Jesus of Nazereth

1) Jesus and John G are both from Galilee. They and their followers were referred as Galilean.
a. Jesus came from Galilee (Multiple attestations of Gospels)
b. John of Gischala came from Galilee (Josephus)

2) Both of them claimed messiahship for themselves
a. John G behaved like a King and tried to liberate Israel
b. Jesus – Multiple attestations from Gospels

3) Jesus and John G are betrayed by Sicarii
a. Jesus betrayed by Judas Iscariot (a sicarii)
b. John of Gischala betrayed by Simon Ben Giora (Sicarii leader)

4) Betrayal is motivated by High priests
a. John of Giscala Gischala betrayed by Simon Ben Giora by Moderate faction leaders High Priest Ananias and former High priest Jesus ben Gamala
b. Jesus was betrayed by Judas at the instance of High Priest Ananias

5) The betrayer hanged to death
a. Judas hanged “himself”
b. Simon ben Giora was hanged to death in front of the Roman citizens

6) Jesus and John G did not care about the dietary rules of Jewish law.
a. impiety towards God. For he had unlawful food served at his table and abandoned the established rules of purity of our forefathers [Flavius Josephus, Jewish War 7.264]
b. Jesus did not care about the dietary rules of Jewish law (Multiple Gospel attestations)

7) Approach to Roman coins
a. John of Gischala minted his own coins bearing inscription “Freedom for Zion” in lieu of Roman coins
b. Jesus commanded about coins “Give back to the emperor the things that are the emperor's, and to God that are God's”

8) Both were militant
a. “if you don't have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one.” Jesus’ followers carried sword even inside the temple. Used the sword to cut of the ear of a person.
b. John Gischala is a militant zealot leader who was the one of the two main generals who were fighting for the control of the Jerusalem (other is Simon Ben Giora)

9) Both acted in way that is more like a fugitive from the Roman authorites
a. “And he strictly ordered them not to make him known.”(Mark)
b. John G keep escaping from the Roman authorities from Gischala to Jerusalem.

10) Masses turned against the protagonists instigated by the Chief priests in both cases
a. But the chief priests stirred up the crowd to have him release for them Barab'bas instead. And Pilate again said to them, "Then what shall I do with the man whom you call the King of the Jews?" And they cried out again, "Crucify him." (Mark)
b. Chief priests Ananus and Jesus call the people and idumeans to fight against John G.

11) Both of them captured on Passover week.
a. War of Jews, book 6, chapter 9: John of Gischala (and Simon) captured on Passover week by the Romans. Suddenly John becomes peaceful man and offers the hand of friendship to Romans. He was captured for life imprisonment.
b. Jesus captured on Passover week as multiply attested by Gospels



Notes:
1) John Giscala and Simon Ben Giora were both taken to Rome along with the prisoners. John was supposed to be a life long prisoner and Simon Ben Giora was hanged in public in front of the Romans as written by Josephus. It is possible Josephus Bar Mathias (Joseph Arimathia?) helped John Giscala (his former friend and recent enemy to escape the gallows). John Giscala returning to Galilee may be what is hinted in the last words of Mark that Jesus went back to Galilee.
2) Were John Giscala and Simon taken in the procession in Rome? triumphal procession in Rome which ends at the Capitolium, or place of the head, a temple to Jupiter, just as Jesus procession ends at Golgotha, place of the skull.
3) The names of the main characters in the Mark’s Gospel seems to reflect the place from which they came. Jesus is Joshua. Joshua is associated with Galilee which became part of Israel under Joshua(?). Judas came from Judae same as Simon Bar Giora.
4) If you reverse the map of Galilee, Nazereth would be in the same position as Gischala. They just reverse their positions. Gischala is same distance from the northern boundary of Galilee as the Narereth is from southern boundary of Galilee. See the map in http://members.aol.com/fljosephus2/warChronology4.htm

RUmike

One singly attested quote cannot demonstrate that Jesus was "militant." You're stretching here.

The so-called "messianic secret" is a theological device of Mark that has nothing to do with being or acting like a fugitive. This one should definitely be thrown out of the list.

ChandraRama

There are books postulating that Jesus is a militant revolutionary.

Regarding the messianic secret, that is too much of a apologetic justifications..

Amaleq13

This doesn't really respond to the criticism since they, too, would be "stretching" if they relied on a single quote. You need to offer the additional evidence upon which such claims might be made in order to address the stated problem.

How is the notion that the messianic secret in Mark is a literary invention of the author intended to explain why Jesus wasn't declared the Messiah until after his death an "apologetic justification"?

jeffevnz

I don't see how this is a similarity:

ChandraRama

Jesus and John were welcomed by the people when they arrived Jerusalem
a) Jesus- Multiple attestations in Gospels
b) John G - "1. NOW upon John's entry into Jerusalem, the whole body of the people were in an uproar, and ten thousand of them crowded about every one of the fugitives that were come to them, " Josephus , War of Jews, Book 4, chapter 3

Jesus and John both abused the temple properties
a) Jesus - Multiple attestations in Gospels
b) John - "he betook himself to sacrilege, and melted down many of the sacred utensils, which had been given to the temple; as also many of those vessels which were necessary for such as ministered about holy things, the caldrons, the dishes, and the tables; nay, he did not abstain from those pouring vessels that were sent them by Augustus and his wife; for the Roman emperors did ever both honor and adorn this temple; whereas this man, who was a Jew, seized upon what were the donations of foreigners, and said to those that were with him, that it was proper for them to use Divine things, while they were fighting for the Divinity, without fear, and that such whose warfare is for the temple should live of the temple; on which account he emptied the vessels of that sacred wine and oil, which the priests kept to be poured on the burnt-offerings, and which lay in the inner court of the temple, and distributed it among the multitude, who, in their anointing themselves and drinking, used [each of them] above an hin of them. " Josephus, War of Jews, Book5, chapter 13

Jesus and John were captured in caves?
a) Jesus- The name Gethsemane is probably derived from Aramaic Gat-shemanin, meaning "Oil Press". It was a cave of about 36 by 60 feet that is owned by the Franciscan Custody of the Holy Land and that is located not far from the more well-known Christian pilgrimage site called the "Garden of Gethsemane". This cave appears to have once housed a beam-style olive press of the kind used in the first century. It is an early pilgrimage site that predates the later Tomb of the Virgin nearby. (http://cc.usu.edu/~fath6/Nazarenes.htm)

b) John of Gischala was captured when he hid himself inside a cave.
"As for John, he wanted food, together with his brethren, in these caverns, and begged that the Romans would now give him their right hand for his security" Josephus, War of Jews, book 6, Chapter 9


More later...

ChandraRama

There were many articles on the militant nature of Jesus and his followers. I thought I dont have repeat all of them here. If you insist, I dont have a problem rewriting them here. I would do so later.


I dont see why that should be taken as a literary device. It can very well refer to the actual nature of Jesus and that may be for a reason that was not mentioned in the gospels but can be inferred as part of Jesus's militant nature.

DavidfromTexas

Are you misquoting Jesus?

Please provide the source of your quote.

Thanks.

Amaleq13

All you need is the other evidence (ie besides the single quote) upon which they rely.

It is not so much a question of an "insist" on my part but a rational obligation on your part as the one making the argument.

This does nothing to answer my question and suggests you have missed my point. You suggested that RUmike's counter-explanation to yours was an "apologetic justification" and I'm asking you to defend that characterization. IMO, it suggests a poor understanding of the position.

To my knowledge, there is nothing that requires that the messianic secret must be understood as a literary device but it is clearly a reasonable possibility and, IIUC, one that is accepted by many scholars.

ChandraRama

I agree