Talk:Jesus ben Ananias

Additional Citations: Historical Jesus Template

I don't want to try to add and cite these and screw up the page, but Richard Carrier is not the only historian or Bible scholar who believes this character was a template for Mark's Passion narrative. Robert M. Price discusses this in Deconstructing Jesus (I don't have the page numbers) and at 00:12:50 on the 12/20/2013 episode of Bible Geek http://recordings.talkshoe.com/TC-20430/TS-815210.mp3. Theodore Wheedon discusses this in his article The Two Jesuses and his book Mark: Traditions in Conflict. His original research is shown here: http://vridar.info/xorigins/josephus/2jesus.htm.

Not only that, but Carrier's words are deliberately mild and grossly understate the parallels. Choosing him is enough to justify making the article POV, as I have, as it seems to ignore the main reason that non-Christian scholars care about this character, and Christian scholars try to hide him, e.g. censoring Josephus on Jesus for instance.

http://www.josephus.org/causeofDestruct.htm has a much better list of parallels, that is fairly complete. Its author - who has an email address but not a name that's obvious, says that "students of the New Testament cannot fail to have noticed parallels in these passages with events surrounding Jesus of Nazareth....thirty years earlier, also at a Passover, when the curtain of the Temple was split in two, and the earth shook (Matthew 27:51). At the following Pentecost the apostles have a vision of Jesus and begin to speak in tongues, while at Josephus' Pentecost sounds and voices are heard -- there are auditory miracles in both texts." He then goes on to list "coincidences":

a man named Jesus prophesying against the Temple.
Use of word "woe", i.e. Woe to the people - Matt. 23 "Woe to you, scribes and pharisees!" Though they are using a different Greek word "aiai" in Josephus, "ouai" in Matthew
Prediction of the Temple Destruction - Matt. 24:2, which is associated with the "woes".
"the leaders" of Jerusalem bring the doomsayer to the Roman governor - Matt. 27:2. the author refers to the Greek "hoi archontes" and Thackeray's correct translation.
This Roman governor interrogates him - the accused says nothing to defend himself. (Matt. 27:13-14)
The accusation as unclear - against ben Ananias the grounds are " supernatural impulse" which is not a crime.
Both die. However of different causes. Pilate supposedly intended to let Jesus of Nazareth free the way that Josephus' governor reportedly does set ban Ananias free.
According to the timeline of the gospels and Josephus' texts, Jesus ben Ananias arose near the beginning of Albinus' governorship, very soon after the death of James the brother of Jesus of Nazareth.

I adapted this text, compressing it with the proper reference link, although I couldn't find the author's name, and it was reverted. Someone else try listing the same facts in their own words, and let's see whether this article continues to be censored. Until there is some such good list of parallels and the reasons they present difficult issues for Christian scholars, the article must be marked POV for minimizing this character's significance.

censored section on parallels with Jesus of Nazareth

The reverted edit contained a list of facts, and the amount of text was short. This subject, on both Jesus ben Ananias and Josephus on Jesus, has been subject to arbitrary "patrolled" edits from POV editors, who have removed essentially any mention of the proposition that there are many similarities between the New Testament figure Jesus of Nazareth and the Josephus character. The list of similarities is factual and was not copied word for word. Nor was the author who had posted at josephus.org (a scholarly site posting relatively undisputed facts) obvious for attribution, but that is irrelevant, as the facts stand for themselves from well known texts.

There is simply no copyvio problem with a single paragraph drawing from the single most comprehensive source adapting the wording on the facts. If there was you could have dealt with it by modifying the text in a copyedit. The choice to revert rather than simply cut the wording back to the clear facts suggest you are part of this POV that is "patrolling" these articles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.11.94.233 (talk) 13:22, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Copying a paragraph from elsewhere online is indeed a copyright violation. The patrolling administrator is under no obligation to re-write the content. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 13:26, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Even a totally unattributed paragraph - which this wasn't - is fair use, especially on a factual matter where the text is mere reporting

A copyvio revert leaves the author's version inaccessible so that themselves or others have to wholly rewrite it rather than adapting it to meet your arbitrary criteria. That is an oppressive practice and edit, and in the case of a goodwill edit you should be moving that material to the talk page where it remains accessible.

You haven't answered the concern about whether you are part of the POV "patrolling" this article. Are you in fact a believing Christian, or an atheist or Muslim invested in the theory that Jesus was a historical man without the ability to do miracles? The article has to be marked POV for failing to point out the only reason that anyone actually cares about Jesus ben Ananias, which is, this figure is either 1. proof of Josephus incorporating questionable stories thus making him useless as a validation for the existence of Jesus or James or John the Baptist 2. prototyping or reporting a character in War of the Jews that is later adapted in the Gospels by himself or other authors 3. evidence for a rather remarkable claim that there were many prophets named Jesus wandering around Jerusalem, annoying the authorities, getting whipped to the bone, refusing to apologize nor condemn his torturers, and dying horribly.

This was answered on my talk page on 16 August. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 11:29, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

where and how to link with Josephus on Jesus

Josephus on Jesus is mostly about what he explicitly says about two figures Jesus of Nazareth knew in the Gospels (from Greek evangelion = good news of military victory, itself perhaps a pun on the Roman victory over Jews and their theology). However it needs to mention Jesus ben Ananias because of the parallels noted above and the "two Jesuses problem" and the issue these present for Josephus as the only first-century CE reporter of first-century events that even mentions anyone associated with "Him".

This article had a section on the parallels with the tag Main article: Josephus on Jesus as appropriate, so that Josephus' comments on this ben Ananias character could be placed in context with the issues with other clearly modified texts that Christians used to "prove" Jesus had existed historically with a "Jewish" (actually Flavian family by then) source who was not a believer. Should that article (now also marked POV for lacking any mention of this controversy) be censored, there's at least a note that it should have made mention of poor Jesus ben Ananias. Josephus on Jesus has an extensive explanation of the issues with Josephus as a source, amazingly omitting his Flavian family ties and co-option as their official historian, so it seems more reasonable to present the issues in that article. Briefly stated, this figure must be one or all of three things:

proof of Josephus incorporating questionable stories thus making him useless as a validation for the existence of Jesus of Nazareth or "his brother" James or John the Baptist
prototyping or reporting a character in War of the Jews that is later adapted in the Gospels by himself or other authors
evidence for a rather remarkable claim that there were many prophets named Jesus wandering around Jerusalem, annoying the authorities, getting whipped to the bone, refusing to apologize nor condemn his torturers, and dying horribly.

The third is essentially what all Christian scholars seem to claim, but their perspective should not be highly regarded on Wikipedia, due to their obvious conflict of interest. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.11.94.233 (talk) 14:13, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Single source?

Is Josephus the only source we have for Jesus ben Ananias? If so, I think it is worth mentioning that fact. Ashmoo (talk) 13:03, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]