Lena Einhorn - A Shift In Time

[Giuseppe]

So I think in the end, your theory shares roughly the same probability of being true perhaps as the standard Zealot hypothesis or the 70s BC hypothesis. But that means it’s no more likely than they are. While I think the evidence renders another theory even more probable than all of those: that Jesus was a person only known mystically, and whose biography was in fact entirely made up.

I agree. No will of polemic, but it seems that Lena's mistake, in my view, is to assume that the Mythicists do 'the dirty work' for her: to emphasize again and again the silence of the sources on the traditional historical Jesus. It works with Josephus but it doesn't work with Paul. The silence of Paul about Jesus is so sound that Paul is a problem even for all the Zealot Jesus proponents. In fact, Paul polemizes against the 'different Gospel' of other Christians in Gal 1:8 but he says that the preacher of that 'different Gospel' may be even an 'angel from heaven': not precisely the figure of a Zealot Jesus. And even if that 'another Jesus' is allegorized by Jesus Barabbas in the fiction, Mark 14:26 is soon to give an anticipatory clue (''abbà, father'') of that 'another Jesus' by introducing the risk of the rejection of Jesus of the his ''cup of suffering'', by Jesus himself (not coincidentially, an ''angel from heaven''!).

To the gospel author(s), their rejection of Jesus as their true anointed king was part and parcel of this bad decision making. No wonder there are lines like "Let his blood be on us and our children!"

But you recognize surely the irony that that 'blood' is purifier of the same people crying that.

When I see Celsus's tactic and especially Porphyry's tactic:

1) assume a historical Jesus
2) Take stricto sensu literally the Gospels
3) conclude that the Gospels are false if taken literally (because otherwise Jesus would be a Zealot, an Egyptian sorcerer, an immoral being, a crazy, etc)

I wonder: did Celsus (or Porphyry) choose that (apparently historicist) way of polemizing to move the Christians to the unique other alternative: to recognize that their Gospels can be true only if taken allegorically ? And therefore read rightly only by few insiders?

[MrMacSon]

Lena E has provided good evidence for bulk/wholesale time-shifting many events and people from the 40s & 50s in Jospehean texts into the NT texts.

There is no evidence, account, in Josephus that the Egyptian was executed by Rome.

That the Egyptian was not described as being executed by Rome is not relevant to my point (as quoted here in this post^^).

Richard Carrier has just dismissed Lena's theory ...lets not suggest that he finds Lena's theory compatible with his own mythicist theory....

Yes, and No.

Read or re-read what I wrote a few days ago in this thread - http://www.earlywritings.com/forum/view ... 363#p58363 -

While Carrier focused on Einhorn's proposition/argument/conclusion that Jesus of the NT is The Egyptian of Josephus, what is interesting to me is (i) the way Carrier elaborates on some of his own theories, which somewhat align with Einhorn's, and (ii) some statements Carrier makes about the Gospels --viz. -

In her paper she argued that Jesus of Nazareth is actually The Egyptian in the narrative of Josephus (see OHJ, p. 70), and that the Gospel authors were just erasing the militaristic aspects of the truth of their would-be savior and relocating him in time to conceal that fact. Neat idea. And not implausible. But the similarities between Jesus and The Egyptian are too few and too generic to be that telling, and in fact they sooner suggest the Gospel authors were just borrowing “modern” ideas with which to construct their stories of Jesus.

Just as they lifted the story of Jesus ben Ananias, from the era of Nero, to fabricate a plot for their Jesus ben Joseph (OHJ, pp. 428-30), they may well have done the same for The Egyptian, and indeed may have borrowed from all the 'Josephan Christs'1 to build their mosaic (all of whom were portraying themselves as a Jesus Christ, i.e. a messianic Joshua reborn: OHJ, pp. 67-73, 245-46). That does not in any way mean Jesus of Nazareth is Jesus ben Ananias, and thus actually lived under Nero. He very certainly is not, and did not. Nor, therefore, can it mean he “is” The Egyptian, if he was built out of him, too. Rather, the stories that accumulated from famous Jesuses and other prophets in the three decades between when the sect began its new gospel in the 30s and the Jewish War of the 60s were simply thrown in a hamper and drawn from, collectively, when finally there came the thought of building the mythical Jesus of the Gospels. The tendency to use the more recent memories of the times more frequently in constructing that narrative would explain all the other evidence Einhorn amasses.

This in fact better explains why the chronology of the Gospels is so incoherent.

Einhorn’s book’s central thesis is that when you gather up all the datable references and events in the Gospels and Acts, there appears to be an abiding incoherence between a collection of facts from the 30s and 40s A.D. (like the presence of Pilate and Caiaphas and John the Baptist and Herod Agrippa I) and a collection of facts from the 50’s and 60’s A.D. (which she enumerates chapter by chapter). Her conclusion is that Christianity actually began (and Jesus actually lived) in the 50’s AD., and that the Gospels conceal this by trying to relocate it to the 30’s A.D. in order to hide certain uncomfortable political truths about what actually happened. But they couldn’t fix everything, so the original chronology is still there, under the veneer of the fake one.

... So when the Gospel authors created a historical Jesus out of other heroes and prophets (from Moses to Elijah to Jesus ben Ananias and, we may even suppose, John the Baptist), they were not particularly concerned with chronological precision. They saw the whole period from the 30s to the 60s as simply one and the same time, and borrowed from all those decades whatever resonated for them the most. And for this they all drew on Josephus (particularly Mark on the Jewish War and Luke on the Jewish Antiquities), who is also Einhorn’s only source for comparison, thus explaining all the convenient agreements. The end result would be exactly the same evidence Einhorn points to ...

http://www.richardcarrier.info/archives/11048

Carrier said previously --viz. -

• "the stories that accumulated from famous Jesuses and other prophets in the three decades between when the sect began its new gospel in the 30s and the Jewish War of the 60s were simply thrown in a hamper and drawn from, collectively, when finally there came the thought of building the mythical Jesus of the Gospels. The tendency to use the more recent memories of the times more frequently in constructing that narrative would explain all the other evidence Einhorn amasses."

A key point that Carrier did not allude to is that, if the Gospel writers used Josephus's Jewish War and Antiquities, as both he and Einhorn propose, those Gospel writers had to have done so after Jewish War and Antiquities were completed/[published(?)] which, for Antiquities, was ~95 AD/CE; and the Gospel writers had to have time-shifted the events and people they would have borrowed from the Josephean texts, and alluded to in their gospels, into the late 20s/30s AD/CE.

While Carrier was somewhat dismissive and tangental, as he is of anyone who does not fetter his ideas, I think he was not totally dismissive, and his points allowed for melding of ideas.

Carrier made no mention in his blog-post of all the other very significant time-shifted characters and events that Einhorn discusses -

• Robbers active; Galilean-Samaritan Conflict/War; Death of Theudas; Attack on Stephanos of BJ/AJ; Definite Crucifixion of Jews; Conflict betw. procurator and Jewish king; Procurator slaughtering Galileans; The Egyptian” defeated on the Mount of Olives (cf. Jesus; wrt to a time-shifted narrative, at least)

-but Lena E did list them in her reply to him, and that also allows some devoted followers of Carrier to see other facts & ideas.

.

[MrMacSon]

• -- Isn't the time-shift 'theory' separate to the theory that Jesus is the Egyptian?

The time-shift theory leads to the conclusion that Jesus likely is the same person as the Egyptian, i.e. an historical person*. And vice versa: The resemblance between Jesus and the Egyptian is one of the many pillars in the time-shift theory.

*as I cannot see any reason why Josephus would want to make the Egyptian up, as has been suggested by some on this forum.

Lena, I see the fact of the time-shifting of many people and events 'from the late 40s to the early to mid 60s, in Josephean texts' to the late 20s and early 30s in the NT texts as separate to the proposition that *the NT-Jesus is the Egyptian* (or vice versa).

I do, however, acknowledge the resemblance between Jesus and the Egyptian.

[maryhelena]

MrMacSon wrote:
However, I don't understand how you can say -

Not only does the time shift theory suggest that Jesus really existed, in the flesh, it also suggests that his life and movement is described in detail also outside the New Testament texts; i.e. it suggests there is corroborating evidence for his existence.

-- Isn't the time-shift 'theory' separate to the theory that Jesus is the Egyptian?

The time-shift theory leads to the conclusion that Jesus likely is the same person as the Egyptian, i.e. an historical person*. And vice versa: The resemblance between Jesus and the Egyptian is one of the many pillars in the time-shift theory.


*as I cannot see any reason why Josephus would want to make the Egyptian up, as has been suggested by some on this forum.

I'm not aware of anyone, other than myself, who has suggested, on this forum, that the Josephan figure of the Egyptian is not historical....

Looking at Jewish history in order to seek possible parallels to elements of the gospel story is important. However, to limit ones research to post the 30s c.e. is to limit that research. If one is upholding the idea of a time-shift, i.e. that historical events of post the 30s c.e. are relevant to the gospel story - then one cannot logically rule out the possibility that historical events prior to the 30s c.e. are also relevant to the gospel story. There is no logical reason to impose an arbitrary time period. The only reason such an arbitrary defined time period would be necessary is if one is seeking to wrap a particularly theory in cotton-wool.

A time-shift theory i.e. a theory that upholds the idea that historical events of a different time period than the 30s c.e. have been reflected in the gospel story, has much to offer NT research. It indicates that, on one level, the gospel story is a condensed history. The historical canvas the gospel writers drew upon for their Jesus story is wide. The Josephan Egyptain, even if historical, is a very small part of that wider Hasmonean/Jewish history.

[Clive]

http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/1033983.Jesus

What are all the various time shift scenarios that have been proposed?

Are any patterns discernible ?

What conclusions may be drawn?

We seem to be in an area where the key characters specialise in making up history:-)

Umberto Eco, baudolino, we need you

Here be monsters
AS Byatt is entertained yet baffled by Umberto Eco's latest novel, Baudolino, an uneasy mixture of history and fantasy
Umberto Eco: Baudolino

AS Byatt
Saturday 19 October 2002 00.35 BST Last modified on Wednesday 31 August 2016 16.50 BST


Baudolino
by Umberto Eco
522pp, Secker & Warburg, £18

Italo Calvino described a "deep-rooted tradition in Italian literature... the notion of the literary work as a map of the world and the knowable, of writing driven on by a thirst for knowledge that may in turns be theological, speculative, magical, encyclopaedic..." He was talking about Dante the visionary and Galileo the cosmographer, but he himself, and Umberto Eco, also work from the same impulses.

Eco's new novel, set during the sack of Constantinople in 1204, derives from Boccaccio its form of stories told during a crisis, but has things in common also with the fabulating fantasy of Calvino's Imaginary Cities. It is the life-history of Baudolino, a self-confessed liar, told to the Byzantine historian Niketas Choniates. It is fiction - Eco's, Baudolino's, tall-storytellers' of the ancient world - woven into the history of the fourth crusade.

At the centre of the novel is a brilliant conceit about how the human mind makes up its world. It is an examination of the deep need for explanatory stories - myths, fables, chronicles, family traditions, science - and works in codes and layers that resemble the medieval methods of biblical interpretation as much as modern semiotics. It turns, like the Christian religion, on questions of paternity and the presence of the divine spirit in matter such as the blood and wine of the Eucharist.

Baudolino lives a Freudian family romance. His father Gagliaudo is an Italian peasant, but he tells the story of how he became an adopted, favoured son of the Holy Roman Emperor, Frederick Barbarossa. He falls in love - in the classical situation of chaste courtly love and distant desire - with Barbarossa's wife, Beatrice of Burgundy, a kind of passion that thrives on fantasy and invention. He writes poems for a poet who loves an imaginary woman he has never seen. He marries, almost incidentally, a 15-year-old girl who dies in childbirth and gives birth to a real, dead, monster.

Baudolino's personal family romance at another level is reflected in the endless theological struggles of the time about the exact relation of the Christian Trinity, Father, Son and Holy Spirit, the exact nature of the flesh of the Virgin and the Son, the nature of the presence of the dead God in the blood and wine of the sacrament. This is Eco's field and the debates are both detailed, obscurantist, comic and brilliantly baffling.

.....

https://www.theguardian.com/books/2002/ ... on.asbyatt

"A self confessed liar"

[Clive]

To be completely clear, I am proposing that Eco wrote a gospel of baudolino .....

[MrMacSon]

What are all the various time shift scenarios that have been proposed?

Best to read Lena Einhorn's book or article.

• Are any patterns discernible ?

Definitely.

• What conclusions may be drawn?

The Gospel writers took people or events from the late 40s to mid 60s and put them in their narratives.

[MrMacSon]

.
Carrier has posted a 2nd comment by Lena E below his blog-post about her book.

• This is the direct link to it - http://www.richardcarrier.info/archives ... ment-17619

Lena asks a number of interesting rhetorical questions, such as (out of order) -

• "Why would they [the Gospel authors] speak of Pilate slaughtering Galileans, when he wasn’t even the ruler of Galilee?"
  
  "Why would the New Testament describe relations between Jews and Samaritans as belligerent under Pilate, but not later, in Acts – when in fact the overt conflict between Jews and Samaritans was in 48 to 52 CE, i.e. a period covered by Acts."
  
  "Why would they say that Theudas is already dead in the 30s, when he died 44-46 CE?"

[maryhelena]

.
Carrier has posted a 2nd comment by Lena E below his blog-post about her book.

• This is the direct link to it - http://www.richardcarrier.info/archives ... ment-17619

Lena asks a number of interesting rhetorical questions, such as (out of order) -

• "Why would they [the Gospel authors] speak of Pilate slaughtering Galileans, when he wasn’t even the ruler of Galilee?"
  
  "Why would the New Testament describe relations between Jews and Samaritans as belligerent under Pilate, but not later, in Acts – when in fact the overt conflict between Jews and Samaritans was in 48 to 52 CE, i.e. a period covered by Acts."
  
  "Why would they say that Theudas is already dead in the 30s, when he died 44-46 CE?"

Lena asked, on Carrier's blog ''.....why would the Gospel authors put these events in the wrong era?''

The simple answer is that the gospel story is a condensing of Jewish/Hasmonean history - history the gospel writers found to be relevant to their 'salvation' story. History both prior to and post the gospel setting of around the 30s c.e. The 30s c.e. is the ground zero for the gospel story. However, the historical reflections within that gospel story relate to a far wider historical canvas.

For instance: Theudas. In Acts this figure is placed prior to Judas the Galilean. (contrary to Josephus). Josephus has about a 40 year time slot between these two figures. (6 c.e. to somewhere between 44-46 c.e.) In placing Theudas prior to 6 c.e., Acts is, as it were, backdating Theudas. Issues of historicity for Theudas aside, Acts could simply be inferring that revolutionary type activity preceded Judas the Galilean. Jewish revolutionary activity against Rome goes back to Rome's conquest of Jerusalem in 63 b.c.e. (Aristobulus II and his sons Alexander and Antigonus were captured by Pompey in 63 b.c.e. - around 70 years prior to the Josephan story about Judas the Galilean and his two sons.)

Josephus gives Theudas and the Egyptain messianic type stories. From parting the waters of the Jordan to getting the walls of Jerusalem to fall. Literary illusions to the book of Joshua. The Mount of Olives story indicating reference to the book of Zechariah. Historicity for these two Josephan figures is ultimately of secondary concern. It is how and where Josephus has used these figures that is relevant. Both these figures are placed in time slots that have relevance for prior Hasmonean history. (i.e. Hasmonean history is credited with a dating system - approximate obviously)

Archelaus removed as ruler of Judea in 6 c.e. Approximately 70 years after Pompey removed Aristobulus II as King of Judea in 63 b.c.e.

Josephus places the revolutionary Judas the Galilean in 6 c.e. and the revolutionary Theudas around 44-46 c.e., 40 years from 6.c.e. (Fadus 44-46 c.e.)

Alexander of Judea beheaded in 48/47 b.c.e. Approximately 100 years later Josephus places The Egyptian revolutionary story. (Felix 52-60 c.e.)

I would suggest that what Josephus is doing is not so much crediting Judas the Galilean, Theudas and The Egyptian with messianic aspirations - a fools errand on their part if ever there was one - but highlighting the Hasmonean reality of a royal claim, a messianic claim, to rule Judea. A dynastic claim that ended with Roman occupation - and contributed to the continuing anti-Roman activity that would lead to the tragedy of 70 c.e.

Prior to attempting to equate any Josephus figure with a gospel figure it is beneficial to view Josephan figures through the prism of Hasmonean history under Roman occupation. The relevant question then becomes not ....'why would the Gospel authors put these events in the wrong era?' - but why did Josephus place some of his revolutionary events in time period that relate to anniversaries relevant to Hasmonean history? If we can answer that question then, perhaps, we may be a step forward to understanding the gospel story - and thus to a better understanding of early christian history.

[FransJVermeiren]

The simple answer is that the gospel story is a condensing of Jewish/Hasmonean history

I agree there is some condensation present in the gospels, but I doubt if this condensation has something to do with the Hasmoneans. Instead there are indications that the gospels have been written by an anti-Hasmonean faction. The origin of the Essene religious faction in Judaism is anti-Hasmonean, and this anti-Hasmonean tendency has continued throughout the first century CE. In first century Palestine there was a sharp, irreconcilable social division between rich and poor, and the Hasmoneans and the Essenes were at the opposite side of the dividing line. One of the self-designations of the Essenes in the Dead Sea Scrolls is ‘the poor’, and this self-designation continues in the gospels. When for example in Luke 6:20 Jesus says “Blessed are you poor, for yours is the kingdom of God”, he says in a veiled way “Blessed are you Essenes” (meaning “Blessed are we Essenes” if he includes himself) “for liberated Israel will belong to you (or to us) after we have driven away the Romans.” The sharp division between the rich, the Hasmoneans and their social stratum, at one side and the poor, the Essenes and their supporters, on the other is the subject of the story of a rich man and a poor man in Luke 16:19-31. Luke dreams of a situation where the unbridgeable chasm, with the rich ones at the pleasant side in this life, will be turned into its opposite in the afterlife. The rich man says he has five brothers. Maybe their names are John, Simon, Judah, Eleazar and Jonathan.

P.S. I think that not only the Dead Sea Scrolls and the gospels but also Josephus used the ‘poor’ designation to name the Essenes in a veiled way. When in his Vita he calls Jesus son of Saphat the leader of the party of the poor, I think he means that this man is at the head of the Essene party (Vita verse 66).