The woman with the hemorrhage: a political story?

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
User avatar
maryhelena
Posts: 2897
Joined: Tue Oct 08, 2013 11:22 pm
Location: England

Re: The woman with the hemorrhage: a political story?

Post by maryhelena »

DCHindley wrote: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?

<snip>
The problem, David, with that scenario is that if Jesus was active during the time of Pilate it is unable to identify him. It's simply a version of the standard historicist approach - a version of the gospel Jesus story that cannot be historically supported.

At least with a time-shift approach - either pre or post Pilate - attempts are being made to identify 1) historical figures deemed to be relevant for the gospel writers in creating their Jesus story 2) assumed historical figures from Josephus having a relevance for the Jesus story.

By all means reject the time-shift attempt to identify historical figures or even assumed historical figures, from Josephus, as being a valid approach to the gospel Jesus story. But proposing a nobody Jesus active under Pilate is not, in any sense, offering a scenario that holds out any reasonable hope of ever being substantiated. To my mind, such an approach is simply the safe haven of those not prepared to let history, Hasmonean Jewish history, have it's rightful place as the background, the historical canvas, from which the gospel writers drew inspiration for their Jesus story.
Tread softly because you tread on my dreams.
W.B. Yeats
Lena Einhorn
Posts: 168
Joined: Thu Jul 14, 2016 1:15 pm

Re: The woman with the hemorrhage: a political story?

Post by Lena Einhorn »

As we are discussing different time shift scenarios, I would like to, briefly, provide the reasons for suggesting that Jeus of the NT is identical to "the Egyptian", described at length by Josephus in both Antiquities and War. The text in Antiquities goes as follows:

"There came out of Egypt about this time to Jerusalem one that said he was a prophet, and advised the multitude of the common people to go along with him to the Mount of Olives, as it was called, which lay over against the city, and at the distance of five furlongs. He said further, that he would show them from hence how, at his command, the walls of Jerusalem would fall down; and he promised them that he would procure them an entrance into the city through those walls, when they were fallen down. Now when Felix was informed of these things, he ordered his soldiers to take their weapons, and came against them with a great number of horsemen and footmen from Jerusalem, and attacked the Egyptian and the people that were with him. He also slew four hundred of them, and took two hundred alive. But the Egyptian himself escaped out of the fight, but did not appear any more."
Antiquities of the Jews 20.169-172

The text in War is similar but more negative, and adds that "the Egyptian" came to the Mount of Olives from "the wilderness", where he had gathered his followers.

Now there are a number of similarities to the Jesus of the NT, and some diffferences. First the similarities:
 Like Jesus, ”the Egyptian” had previously lingered in “the wilderness” or “desert” (eremia, in Greek).
 Like Jesus, “the Egyptian” had lived in Egypt.
 Like Jesus, “the Egyptian” spoke of tearing down the walls of Jerusalem.
 Like Jesus, “the Egyptian” is described as a messianic leader with a great following.
 Like Jesus, “the Egyptian” is perceived as a major threat by the authorities.
• Like Jesus, “the Egyptian” seems to have been betrayed—at least the authorities were informed beforehand about his plans.
 And last, but not least, ”the Egyptian” is defeated on the Mount of Olives, which is the place where Jesus was arrested.

But there are three differences:
1. It happened in the 50s rather than the 30s.
2. "The Egyptian" was defeated on the Mount of Olives in a battle, whereas Jesus was simply quietly awaiting his arrest with his disciples.
3. "The Egyptian" was defeated and then vanished. Jesus was crucified, resurrected then vanished.

All three differences are, however, accounted for also in the NT text:
1. Almost all the parallels to the NT that can be found in Josephus pertain to times of rebellion, and most of the them to the time period between 44 and 55 (the death of Theudas, the activityof robbers, a conflict between Galileans and Samaritans (initiated in a Samaritan village), a procurator killing Galileans, two co-reigning high priests, crucifixions of Jews, a conflict between the procurator and a Jewish king, the killing of a man names Stephanos on a road outside Jerusalem, etc. etc.)
2. If one reads the original version of John 18, there WAS a battle when Jesus was arrested on the Mount of Olives. The original greek says that the people meeting him were from the Jewish Council, accompanied by a speira with their chiliarchos. A speira is a cohort of one thousand Roman soldiers! Chiliarchos means "leader of one thousand."
3. In the Gospels, there is someone who is NOT crucified on that fateful day when Jesus was. His name is Jesus Barabbas. The name is aramaic, and means "Jesus son of the Father."
User avatar
maryhelena
Posts: 2897
Joined: Tue Oct 08, 2013 11:22 pm
Location: England

Re: The woman with the hemorrhage: a political story?

Post by maryhelena »

Lena Einhorn wrote:As we are discussing different time shift scenarios, I would like to, briefly, provide the reasons for suggesting that Jeus of the NT is identical to "the Egyptian", described at length by Josephus in both Antiquities and War. The text in Antiquities goes as follows:

"There came out of Egypt about this time to Jerusalem one that said he was a prophet, and advised the multitude of the common people to go along with him to the Mount of Olives, as it was called, which lay over against the city, and at the distance of five furlongs. He said further, that he would show them from hence how, at his command, the walls of Jerusalem would fall down; and he promised them that he would procure them an entrance into the city through those walls, when they were fallen down. Now when Felix was informed of these things, he ordered his soldiers to take their weapons, and came against them with a great number of horsemen and footmen from Jerusalem, and attacked the Egyptian and the people that were with him. He also slew four hundred of them, and took two hundred alive. But the Egyptian himself escaped out of the fight, but did not appear any more."
Antiquities of the Jews 20.169-172

The text in War is similar but more negative, and adds that "the Egyptian" came to the Mount of Olives from "the wilderness", where he had gathered his followers.

Now there are a number of similarities to the Jesus of the NT, and some diffferences. First the similarities:
 Like Jesus, ”the Egyptian” had previously lingered in “the wilderness” or “desert” (eremia, in Greek).
 Like Jesus, “the Egyptian” had lived in Egypt.
 Like Jesus, “the Egyptian” spoke of tearing down the walls of Jerusalem.
 Like Jesus, “the Egyptian” is described as a messianic leader with a great following.
 Like Jesus, “the Egyptian” is perceived as a major threat by the authorities.
• Like Jesus, “the Egyptian” seems to have been betrayed—at least the authorities were informed beforehand about his plans.
 And last, but not least, ”the Egyptian” is defeated on the Mount of Olives, which is the place where Jesus was arrested.

But there are three differences:
1. It happened in the 50s rather than the 30s.
2. "The Egyptian" was defeated on the Mount of Olives in a battle, whereas Jesus was simply quietly awaiting his arrest with his disciples.
3. "The Egyptian" was defeated and then vanished. Jesus was crucified, resurrected then vanished.

All three differences are, however, accounted for also in the NT text:
1. Almost all the parallels to the NT that can be found in Josephus pertain to times of rebellion, and most of the them to the time period between 44 and 55 (the death of Theudas, the activityof robbers, a conflict between Galileans and Samaritans (initiated in a Samaritan village), a procurator killing Galileans, two co-reigning high priests, crucifixions of Jews, a conflict between the procurator and a Jewish king, the killing of a man names Stephanos on a road outside Jerusalem, etc. etc.)
2. If one reads the original version of John 18, there WAS a battle when Jesus was arrested on the Mount of Olives. The original greek says that the people meeting him were from the Jewish Council, accompanied by a speira with their chiliarchos. A speira is a cohort of one thousand Roman soldiers! Chiliarchos means "leader of one thousand."
3. In the Gospels, there is someone who is NOT crucified on that fateful day when Jesus was. His name is Jesus Barabbas. The name is aramaic, and means "Jesus son of the Father."
Hi, Lena

Thanks for setting out your approach to the gospel Jesus story. I wonder though if your post could be re-posted to it's own new thread - it seems this thread is running away from the OP......not that that is unusual on the forum....

As for responding I'm afraid that will have to be later - visitors are arriving this morning to stay for a week so I'll be busy and out and about etc.....
Tread softly because you tread on my dreams.
W.B. Yeats
User avatar
MrMacSon
Posts: 8798
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 3:45 pm

Re: The woman with the hemorrhage: a political story?

Post by MrMacSon »

maryhelena wrote:
I wonder though if your post could be re-posted to it's own new thread - it seems this thread is running away from the OP......not that that is unusual on the forum....
That may be best determined and done by a moderator in conjunction with all the other time-shift posts by several of us (some may need to be duplicated here and 'there'(?)).
User avatar
maryhelena
Posts: 2897
Joined: Tue Oct 08, 2013 11:22 pm
Location: England

Re: The woman with the hemorrhage: a political story?

Post by maryhelena »

MrMacSon wrote:
maryhelena wrote:
I wonder though if your post could be re-posted to it's own new thread - it seems this thread is running away from the OP......not that that is unusual on the forum....
That may be best determined and done by a moderator in conjunction with all the other time-shift posts by several of us (some may need to be duplicated here and 'there'(?)).
Yep, your right of course. Frustrating for the author of the OP - as well as forum members when threads go off topic. A new thread on time-shift scenarios and this one can go it's merry way re the issue of a woman with a hemorrhage :)
Tread softly because you tread on my dreams.
W.B. Yeats
User avatar
DCHindley
Posts: 3412
Joined: Mon Oct 07, 2013 9:53 am
Location: Ohio, USA

Re: The woman with the hemorrhage: a political story?

Post by DCHindley »

maryhelena wrote:The problem, David, with [your] scenario is that if Jesus was active during the time of Pilate it is unable to identify him. It's simply a version of the standard historicist approach - a version of the gospel Jesus story that cannot be historically supported.

...

But proposing a nobody Jesus active under Pilate is not, in any sense, offering a scenario that holds out any reasonable hope of ever being substantiated.

To my mind, such an approach is simply the safe haven of those not prepared to let history, Hasmonean Jewish history, have it's rightful place as the background, the historical canvas, from which the gospel writers drew inspiration for their Jesus story.
I am not supposing that Jesus was a "nobody", although I am sure he was not a harmless "peace-nik" Ghandi-like figure portrayed by the Gospels, but regardless Pilate considered him culpable for somehow claiming an aspiration to, or not refusing royal appellations, was able to neutralize him without major bloodshed.

What usually gets someone mentioned by historians like Josephus is not their peacefulness, but the fact that numbers were adversely affected by that person, either directly or indirectly. Pilate kills hundreds, even thousands, during several episodes that occurred in his period of governorship, primarily at the beginning and the end of it, and these get mentioned.

Here, only one man is arrested and executed, and there was no uprising that needs brutal suppression. Even the mention of John the Baptist, although Antipas did not slaughter hundreds or thousands to get rid of him as a threat, yet Aretas IV's punitive expedition against Antipas for divorcing his daughter, in which Antipas' army was crushed, probably did, and Josephus said it was popularly believed to have happened as divine punishment for his execution of John.

I do not believe that Hasmonean history must have a "rightful place" in the analysis. All you have is a possible symbol later used by Christians on one coin of Antigonus Matthias (I am going from memory on this, but we never did see an image of this coin although Stephan Huller said he would try to supply an image of it) and an account by a much later historian, Cassius Dio, who seems to say that Antigonus was actually executed by crucifixion, which differs from all other, earlier, accounts, in which he was executed by the usual means (beheaded or strangled) and his body displayed on a stake.

It can be given some degree of significance, but a "rightful place" as if it is beyond doubt, it does not, I'm sorry.

DCH (if you will excuse me, I must clean up dog pee from the dining room :()
Lena Einhorn
Posts: 168
Joined: Thu Jul 14, 2016 1:15 pm

Re: The woman with the hemorrhage: a political story?

Post by Lena Einhorn »

I just started a new topic dedicated to Time Shift scenarios,as was suggested.
Post Reply