The woman with the hemorrhage: a political story?

[DCHindley]

As long as we are discussing correlations between the Jesus story and events leading up to and during the Judean war, I read a book entitled Simon Son of Man: A Cognomen of Undoubted Historicity, Obscured by Translation and Lost In The Resplendence Of A Dual Appellative, by John I Riegel and John H Jordan, dated 1917, which claims that Simon Bar Giora was in fact the original Son of Man.
https://ia800503.us.archive.org/1/items ... 023mbp.pdf

In October 2015 I started a thread that can be found here:
http://www.earlywritings.com/forum/view ... ora#p42160

The authors make all sorts of claims that many of the things said about Jesus (primarily that he was the Son of Man) were actually claims made by Simon Bar Giora, which Christians had used to create the story about Jesus Christ. I thought that many of the claims (they suggested a great many word puns were at work in the original Aramaic and/or Hebrew forms of Simon's real name and self attributes, as he apparently did see himself as a larger than life figure) went too far. So, to be fair, I also cited a review by Agide Pirazzini, that I found in Biblical Review, Vol III, No 2, April 1918, which obviated many of these.

In the end, I concluded that Simon bar Giora had a thing for publishing propaganda that glorified himself and his role as a revolutionary leader, and this is probably what the Parables of Enoch were originally. Because early Christians also said that Jesus used the term "son of man" in a special sense, although one that is different than how Simon may have meant it, the common use of the term might have some significance. If they both used it to simply mean "just a plain old human being", it could be a coincidence, so I do not make a lot of it.

However, I did make a point of noting that Hegesippus, in his account of James' death where he is asked to identify the "door of Jesus" and is killed, may have used a similar sort of Simonian propaganda describing a "show trial" of Jacob son of Sosa, one of the Idumean commanders rebuffed by Jesus the chief priest 2nd in command to Ananus. Ananus had already shut the city gates to prevent their entry into Jerusalem to assist the revolutionaries who sought to wrest control of the Judean rebellion from the High Priestly families, and Jesus had insultingly suggested that they were an inferior rabble who should just go home. The Zealots had opened the doors to them and they went on to kill Ananus and Jesus, mocking them in turn for their speeches against them. Jacob son of Sosa eventually became allied to Simon bar Giora, but in time was purged and arrested. He disappears from Josephus' account at this point, but it seems likely that Simon would make an example of this man.

I suggested that in a show trial, he was mocked by Simon, who suggested that Jesus the 2nd in Command was actually right about him all along. "And what, pray tell, is the door of Jesus?" (that is, Jesus' defense for barring their entry through the city door). Like all good show trials, like the ones in Stalin's Soviet Union, the accused readily admit the charges, here saying "you shall surely see the son of man (that is, Simon under one of his nick names) coming in the clouds of heaven" like the figure in the Parables of Enoch, which would make sense if the parables were in fact Simonian propaganda meant to extoll how God was using him to cleanse the earth of powerful men and landowners. Hegesippus re-wrote this piece of propaganda to make it refer to Jesus Christ.

But, enough of my have-to-be-wrong and highly-speculative speculations. However, it might serve as an example of an early Christian writer re-using materials properly belonging to the Judean war to refer to James the head of the church after Jesus' death.

DCH

[maryhelena]

maryhelena, I'm not quite sure what you mean when you write "A time-shift, going backwards and forwards but centered, focused, on the time of Pilate." or that "the time of Pilate must hold as the cornerstone." Why?

Why? Simply because that is the historical time period in which the gospel story is set. Why did the gospel writers use the time of Pilate for their Jesus story? 1) Jesus was actually a rebel and after the defeat of 70 c.e. the gospel writers found it more advantageous to distance Jesus from the rebels and so placed him in Pilate's time period - a period of time of relative peace in Judea. 2) Pilate's time period had a historical relevance for their Jesus story.

1) is purely assumption. That there is a rebel component to the composite Jesus figure does not mean that the gospel writers sought to downplay this aspect by placing their Jesus in a time of relative peace. What it does suggest is that a historical figure living during the time of Pilate was viewed as a man of peace as opposed to a man of war. So, whether it is Antigonus as a man of war pre Pilate - or a later post Pilate man of war - the man of war, rebel leader, has been fused, by the gospel writers, with a man of peace who lived during the time of Pilate. ( the gospel Jesus being a composite literary creation that utilizes elements from the history, the actual lives, of it's component parts.)

2) the history of the years of Pilate's time in Judea had their own importance for the gospel writers in developing their Jesus story. Yes, one could say that Pilate's time period is an arbitrary setting for the gospel story - viewing Jesus as a rebel or a man of peace who lived in a very different time period and was simply placed there for arbitrary reasons. But to do that is to ignore history from that time period that could have been relevant to the gospel writers and thus the deciding factor for the setting of their Jesus story.

As to the relevance of pre-Pilate Jewish history as opposed to post-Pilate Jewish history - it's worth considering how this period of Jewish history is being viewed in recent scholarly articles.

• Nadav Sharon: Setting the Stage: The Effects of the Roman Conquest and the Loss of Sovereignty
  
  Despite the enormous amount of scholarly work on the Second Temple
  Period it seems to me that the period of 67–37 bce, and the dramatic
  change it brought upon Judea, have been somewhat neglected in modern historical study.
  
  
  https://www.academia.edu/2501352/Settin ... overeignty

• Daniel Schwartz: INTRODUCTION: WAS 70 CE A WATERSHED IN
  JEWISH HISTORY? THREE STAGES OF MODERN
  SCHOLARSHIP, AND A RENEWED EFFORT
  
  But if one of the two roots of Graetz’s original error was to underestimate the significance of politics for Jews in our period, other defenders of the assumption that 70 was a watershed have erred by
  overstating that same element. I refer to those many who write as if 70 meant the demise of a Jewish state—which is simply not true. The end of the Jewish state had come already in 63 bce, when Pompey
  conquered Hasmonean Judea; or at least in 6 ce, when Rome put an end to even the Herodian vassal state and incorporated Judea directly into the empire.

(both article published in Was 70 CE a Watershed in Jewish History?

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Watershed-Hist ... sh+history

And of course, once one suggests a time-shift from Pilate's time forward is a valid approach to the gospel story - then running a time-shift backwards, pre-Pilate, also becomes a valid approach to understanding the history from which the gospel story took it's raison d'être....

[FransJVermeiren]

Further commenting on DCHindley's statement that placing Jesus in a different era than the Gospels claim "requires a reason, and a means":


The reason d) (the answer to "why the time shift?"): If Jesus, in reality, was not exactly the kind of person that the Gospels portray -- if, for instance, he was a rebel leader, actively partaking in, and inspiring, the violent upheaval of the times, rather than merely a peaceloving spiritual leader -- there may have been an impetus for those writing or editing the New Testament to eliminate all competing narratives of his existence. The easiest way to do this -- and still tell the story -- would have been to move him to another era than when the historical sources claim he was active. This, however, would by necessity come with a cost: making Jesus into a more or less ahistorical person.

To Lena Einhorn

Thank you for your clear account on ‘reasons and means’. I just want to give a little comment on your fourth reason (d). I took a quick look at the ‘Simon Son of Man’ book that DCHindley mentions elsewhere in this topic. In its preface I found the following sentence: ‘The Roman Empire is no more (…). The object for which the crypticism of the Gospels was conceived no longer exists.’ I believe the harsh oppression by the Romans, illustrated without precedent by the way they conducted the war against the Jews, was the reason why the Gospel writers antedated the facts to a more or less peaceful period far away from the war, because praising the mighty deeds of a rebel leader would surely be retaliated with additional major oppression.

[DCHindley]

Turning this around, if Jesus was indeed active and executed during the governorship of Pilate (regardless of whatever dates one wants to use to define his period of administration), a point came when the early "Christians" (Gentiles almost exclusively it seems) felt the need to soften Jesus' image and blame the Judeans for his death. What better thing than an unsuccessful full-scale Judean rebellion in which the most horrendous atrocities occurred to trigger the change?

My opinion is that these gentiles had initially converted to Judaism and adopted Judean customs, including circumcision and observance of the Law of Moses, in hopes of participating in a blessed future kingdom of God on earth, which was probably Jesus' original key message. When the war occurred the atrocities that ensued (on both sides) caused both Judeans and their fellow gentiles to turn on them.

They apparently took the rejection very personally, and they came to reject the law and circumcision, but couldn't bring themselves to think that the God of the Judeans had also rejected them. The high Christology was then created by means of rationalization. They began to believe that God had rejected the Judeans for following their own will, and not God's, in rebelling, and believed that the promises of the future just and fruitful kingdom of God on earth that they had joined the Jesus movement for in the first place was to be given to them instead.

This does not require any time shift, only psychology, to explain the origins of the Christianity that produced the NT. No need to hide the origins by time shifting, only blame shifting. Jesus was transformed into a harmless wisdom teacher, mainly by adopting a set of wisdom sayings (Q) to add to his bibliography, and the blame squarely shifted to the Judeans ("His blood be on us and our children!" - really?). After the war, it was all too easy for other gentiles to believe that you could just not trust those hot-headed Judeans.

DCH

To Lena Einhorn

Thank you for your clear account on ‘reasons and means’. I just want to give a little comment on your fourth reason (d). I took a quick look at the ‘Simon Son of Man’ book that DCHindley mentions elsewhere in this topic. In its preface I found the following sentence: ‘The Roman Empire is no more (…). The object for which the crypticism of the Gospels was conceived no longer exists.’ I believe the harsh oppression by the Romans, illustrated without precedent by the way they conducted the war against the Jews, was the reason why the Gospel writers antedated the facts to a more or less peaceful period far away from the war, because praising the mighty deeds of a rebel leader would surely be retaliated with additional major oppression.

Further commenting on DCHindley's statement that placing Jesus in a different era than the Gospels claim "requires a reason, and a means":

The reason d) (the answer to "why the time shift?"): If Jesus, in reality, was not exactly the kind of person that the Gospels portray -- if, for instance, he was a rebel leader, actively partaking in, and inspiring, the violent upheaval of the times, rather than merely a peaceloving spiritual leader -- there may have been an impetus for those writing or editing the New Testament to eliminate all competing narratives of his existence. The easiest way to do this -- and still tell the story -- would have been to move him to another era than when the historical sources claim he was active. This, however, would by necessity come with a cost: making Jesus into a more or less ahistorical person.

[MrMacSon]

I believe the harsh oppression by the Romans, illustrated without precedent by the way they conducted the war against the Jews, was the reason why the Gospel writers antedated the facts to a more or less peaceful period far away from the war, because praising the mighty deeds of a rebel leader would surely be retaliated with additional major oppression.

Not just b/c of the possibility or threat of oppression or retribution: the rebels had failed, so a rebel messiah would not seem plausible and would be far less attractive.

There had been failed revolutions and failed revolutionaries in 66-70 CE. And ~130-135/6 AD. The aftermath of the 2nd Jewish-roman War (the Bar Kokhba Revolt) was absolute desolation. A revolutionary messiah was not going to be credible.


Other reasons the gospels might/would have been dated to the 20s/30s AD/CE include -

• a. the desire to portray the new messiah as a gentle revolutionary; as a healer (as a healer of individuals, and as a community or societal healer)
  
  • even if he was a pre-war messiah; the narratives about him had meaning in the post war periods
  b. a desire to be able to portray prophecy - easily done by ante-dating the narrative to some time before the events that shaped the narrrative

Tying the start of the Jesus narrative to the Census of Quirinius ties the story to mild unrest and to the start of the Zealot movement (according to Josephus).

The unrest after Aggripa I's death in 44 AD is also likely to be significant (as a ramping up of the resistance movement with respect to the previous quiet period across all the regions administered simultaneously by one cherished Jewish ruler; the last time universal Jewish rule occurred).

.

[DCHindley]

Tying the start of the Jesus narrative to the Census of Quirinius ties the story to mild unrest and to the start of the Zealot movement (according to Josephus).

Actually, Josephus does not use the term "Zealot" for a revolutionary faction until the start of the War of 66 CE (War 2.651, and only in War*)

DCH

*also
War 4:160, 162, 186, 193, 196f, 199, 201, 209, 215f, 224, 253, 284, 291, 298, 302, 305, 307, 310, 326, 334, 340, 342, 346, 355, 377, 381, 387f, 490, 514, 538, 544, 556, 558, 567f, 570, 574f, 577, 579
War 5:3, 5, 7, 101, 250, 358, 528
War 6:92, 148
War 7:268

[MrMacSon]

From the coins Bar Kochba struck we know of his high priest, Eleazar, who must have taken the lead in efforts to re-establish sacrificial worship. Here we see a reflection of the ancient concept of two messiahs, a lay and a priestly figure, prominent in the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs and in certain Qumran scrolls.

http://www.myjewishlearning.com/article ... -revolt/3/

and re Simeon bar Kosiba

The sobriquet Bar Kokhba, “Son of a Star,” was given to him in accord with Num. 24:17 (“A star shall go forth from Jacob”), taken to refer to the messiah. http://www.myjewishlearning.com/article ... -revolt/2/

[MrMacSon]

Tying the start of the Jesus narrative to the Census of Quirinius ties the story to mild unrest and to the start of the Zealot movement (according to Josephus).

Actually, Josephus does not use the term "Zealot" for a revolutionary faction until the start of the War of 66 CE (War 2.651, and only in War*)

I take your point. I wrote that with the view that the eventual Zealot movement was the culmination of simmering rebellion that started then (and had been quiescent, before ramping up in the mid-late 40s AD/CE)

[MrMacSon]

• and don't forget Josephus was himself a Jewish warrior (a Zealot himself?)

[DCHindley]

Tying the start of the Jesus narrative to the Census of Quirinius ties the story to mild unrest and to the start of the Zealot movement (according to Josephus).

Actually, Josephus does not use the term "Zealot" for a revolutionary faction until the start of the War of 66 CE (War 2.651, and only in War*)

I take your point. I wrote that with the view that the eventual Zealot movement was the culmination of simmering rebellion that started then (and had ramped up in the 40s)

Right, it was Judas [called the Gailiean, a very cunning "sophister" per War 2.433] who started the Sicarii movement in the time of Cyrenius.

His (grand)son Manahem, at the very beginning of the revolt of 66 CE, after Eleazar the captain of the temple had refused to receive sacrifices from foreigners, including the Romans, "took some of the men of note, with him, and retired to Masada, 434 where he broke open King Herod's armoury, and gave arms not only to his own people, but to other robbers also. These he made use of for a guard, and returned in the state of a king to Jerusalem; he became the leader of the sedition ..." only to be killed in a counterattack by forces loyal to Eleazar.

Book 7 of the War gives a review of the most egregiously evil leaders of the revolt:

253 It was one Eleazar [son of Jair], a powerful man, and the commander of these Sicarii ... was a descendant from that Judas who had persuaded a large number of the Jews, as we have formerly related, not to submit to the taxation when Cyrenius was sent into Judea to make one; 254 for then it was that the Sicarii got together against those who were willing to submit to the Romans, and treated them in all respects as if they had been their enemies, both by plundering them of what they had, by driving away their cattle, and by setting fire to their houses: 255 for they [the followers of Judas] said that they [those willing to submit to the taxation] differed not at all from foreigners, by betraying, in so cowardly a manner, that freedom which Jews thought worthy to be contended for to the utmost, and by owning that they preferred slavery under the Romans before such a contention.

256 Now this was in reality no better than a pretence and a cloak for the barbarity which was made use of by them, and to colour over their own avarice, which they afterward made evident by their own actions; 257 for those [same types of people] that were partners with them [the Sicarii] in their rebellion [to the taxation], joined also with them [the Sicarii] in the war against the Romans, and went further lengths with them in their impudent undertakings against them [the Romans]; 258 and when they were again convicted of falsehood in this pretext, they still more abused those who justly reproached them for their wickedness; 259 and indeed that [war against the Romans] was a time most fertile in all manner of wicked practices, insomuch that no kind of evil deeds were then left undone; nor could anyone so much as devise any bad thing that was new, 260 so deeply were they all infected, and strove with one another in their single capacity, and in their communities, who should run the greatest lengths in impiety toward God, and in unjust actions toward their neighbours; the men of power oppressing the multitude, and the multitude earnestly labouring to kill the men of power. 261 The one part [i.e., the men of power] were desirous of tyrannizing over others; and the rest of offering violence to others [indiscriminately], and of plundering such as were richer than themselves. 262 They were the Sicarii who first began these transgressions [in the time of Cyrenius], and first became barbarous toward those allied to them, and left no words of reproach unsaid, and no works of perdition untried, in order to kill those whom their contrivances affected.

263 Yet did John [of Gischala] demonstrate by his actions [during the Roman siege of Jerusalem], that these Sicarii were more moderate than he was himself, for he not only slew all such as gave him good counsel to do what was right, but treated them worst of all, as the most bitter enemies that he had among all the citizens; nay, he filled his entire country with ten thousand instances of wickedness, such as a man who was already hardened sufficiently in his impiety toward God, would naturally do; 264 for the food was unlawful that was set upon his table, and he rejected those purifications that the law of his country had ordained; so that it was no longer a wonder if he, who was so mad in his impiety toward God, did not observe any rules of gentleness and common affection toward men.

265 Again, therefore, what mischief was there which Simon the son of Gioras did not do? or what kind of abuses did he abstain from as to those very freemen who had set him up for a tyrant? 266 What friendship or kindred were there that did not make him more bold in his daily murders? for they looked upon the doing of mischief to strangers only, as a work beneath their courage, but thought their barbarity toward their nearest relatives would be a glorious demonstration thereof.

267 The Idumeans also strove with these men who should be guilty of the greatest madness! for they [all], vile wretches as they were, cut the throats of the high priests, that so no part of a religious regard to God might be preserved; they from there proceeded to destroy utterly the least remains of a political government, 268 and introduced the most complete scene of iniquity in all instances that could be practised;

under which scene [of iniquity], that sort of people that were called Zealots grew up [in power, although they had already been a faction in the city when the Romans were preparing to overtake Galilee, and had in fact let the Idumeans into the city to overthrow the Chief Priestly aristocracy], and who indeed corresponded to the name; 269 for they imitated every wicked work; nor, if their memory suggested any evil thing that had formerly been done, did they avoid zealously to pursue the same; 270 and although they gave themselves that name from their zeal for what was good, yet did it agree to them only by way of irony, on account of those they had unjustly treated by their wild and brutish disposition, or as thinking the greatest mischiefs to be the greatest good.

271 Accordingly, they all met with such ends as God deservedly brought upon them in way of punishment; 272 for all such miseries have been sent upon them as man's nature is capable of undergoing, till the utmost period of their lives, and till death came upon them in various ways of torment: 273 yet might one say justly that they suffered less than they had done, because it was impossible they could be punished according to their deserving: 274 but to make a lamentation according to the deserts of those who fell under these men's barbarity, this is not a proper place for it ...

Hopefully I summarized this correctly. Josephus also speaks a lot about "robbers" in relation to the various parties, including Sicarii, but I think this was his way of saying "armed militias" who were apart from the official governments of the districts in which they operated. In other words, it is not a party, but a type of armed band.

DCH