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
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 »

The problem I see with a theory that "Jesus" (whether under that name or another) actually existed, but at a later time than Gospel and early Christian tradition places it, is that it requires a reason, and a means, to antedate the events by 40 years. It seems we are back to some sort of conspiracy theory, which I think is much more fanciful than the evolution of tradition based around a real Jesus who existed in Pilate's time.

That being said, I think that the publication of Emperor Maximinus Daia's "Acta", which I suppose were supposed to be official records of the governors and other officials with judicial powers (Acta, commentarii, ὑπομνηματισμός), did not have much good to say about Jesus, or John the Baptist. These, per Eusebius, were "forged" to throw Jesus into a bad light and detract from his appeal to the masses. Because these Acta precisely date the events related to Jesus around 21 CE, not around 30 CE as Church tradition believed at that time (311 CE) by church leaders, and because Constantine was seeking their support for his own ambitions, one could propose that they were altered to make the 21 CE date impossible. These altered copies were made available to Church leaders like Eusebius.

Several scholars have reversed engineered "aporia" (things that give pause, such as abrupt transitions in subject matter) in the events related in book 18 of the Antiquities to suggest that Pilate actually became prefect in 19 CE.

This is a kind of conspiracy too, I suppose, but one that tried to discredit Maximinus' published Acta by making them chronologically impossible. Eusebius says "it is plain that Pilate was not yet ruling in Judea, if the testimony of Josephus is to be believed, who clearly shows in the above-mentioned work [Josephus' Ant 18:32-35, 89] that Pilate was made procurator of Judea by Tiberius in the twelfth year of his reign (26 CE)". Church History 1.9.3. He felt obligated to correlate the start of Pilate's prefecture with the 12th year of Tiberius, that he says can be found in book 18 of Josephus' Antiquities. The problem is that the received text of the Antiquities does not actually date the event by a year of Tiberius. Since the end of Pilate's rule is correlated with a specific year of an Emperor's rule, the date of his succession in the received text calculates back to 26 CE.

The "aporia" was the fact that the received text of Josephus provides a set number of years for only the governorships of Gratus (11 yrs) and his successor Pilate (10 yrs). Since Gratus was in the habit of appointing a new Judean High Priest every year, and just four are specifically mentioned, while the received text implies that he governed for another 7 years, one can hypothetically disregard the 11 yrs attributed to him in the received text of Ant., and propose that he only ruled four years, making the start of Pilates governorship 19 CE. This option allows it to be possible for the date provided in Maximinus's Acta (21 CE) to be true. This was Constantine's doing, however, not Eusebius'. Eusebius was willing to go along with it, though he did add a caveat: "if the testimony of Josephus is to be believed". I think this suggests that Eusebius, who may not have had a copy of Antiquities 18 in his possession, was aware that others who did have them were saying there were differences in this matter between the copies they had read and the text being promoted by Eusebius.

Well ... gotta see an Orthopedic Surgeon tomorrow, so must get some sleep now ... zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

DCH
User avatar
maryhelena
Posts: 2900
Joined: Tue Oct 08, 2013 11:22 pm
Location: England

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

Post by maryhelena »

DCHindley wrote:The problem I see with a theory that "Jesus" (whether under that name or another) actually existed, but at a later time than Gospel and early Christian tradition places it, is that it requires a reason, and a means, to antedate the events by 40 years. It seems we are back to some sort of conspiracy theory, which I think is much more fanciful than the evolution of tradition based around a real Jesus who existed in Pilate's time.

<snip>

DCH
Yep, Pilate's time has to be considered as a historical time period relevant to the gospel story. Even if, as I do, using the pre-Pilate Roman execution of Antigonus as a pivotal point in developing the gospel story or, as some others do, using an event post-Pilate's time as a pivotal point, the historical time period of Pilate (whether dated early, 19/21 c.e., or 26 c.e.) has to, as it were, have it's own historical relevance for the gospel story.

Assumptions re a Daniel prophecy relevance for Pilate's time do not negate relevance for the historical realities of Pilate's time period.Thus, backdating the relevance of later history to this date, or bringing forward the relevance of earlier history to Pilate's time, without linking them to historical events during the time of Pilate, serve only to undercut the relevance, for the gospel story, of the time of Pilate.

One way to link together earlier, or later, events to the time of Pilate is to view the gospel Jesus as a composite figure. For instance, the Roman execution of Antigonus could be viewed as a part of that composite Jesus figure - leaving open the possibility for a later, Pilate's time historical figure, to become an important part of the composite Jesus figure. Pre-Pilate and post-Pilate historical figures could have relevance for the composite gospel Jesus figure. However, the central time period, Pilate's time, must hold relevance in any reconstruction of early christian origins. To negate this relevance is to re-write the gospel story.

Viewing the Jesus figure as a composite figure does not require a Roman crucifixion under Pilate. Lena Einhorn has demonstrated that there is no evidence in Josephus (the TF apart) for Roman crucifixions under Pilate. (i.e. the Roman execution, hanging on a stake, of a King of the Jews took place in 37 b.c.e.)

As for Josephus - historical evidence has to be forthcoming before any of the figures mentioned in his work become relevant for a historical search and understanding of early christian origins. Yes, one might compare one gospel story to a story in Josephus - but that is all one is doing - comparing one story with another story. History, especially, early christian history, demands history, not story-telling, be at the front of research. i.e. first one identifies relevant historical figures - then one can consider the stories that have been built up around them.
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 »

DCHindley wrote:The problem I see with a theory that "Jesus" (whether under that name or another) actually existed, but at a later time than Gospel and early Christian tradition places it, is that it requires a reason, and a means, to antedate the events by 40 years.
Lena Einhorn may have more to say on this, but I will take the liberty to repeat what she posted on Vridar -

"My hunch is that they chose a period of quiet — where other historians mention no Jewish messianic leaders (barring the TF, of course)."

http://vridar.org/2016/05/25/jesus-and- ... ment-78235
I will also take the liberty to repeat aspects of another substantive [first] post by Lena on that page -

... The conclusion I have drawn after long hours comparing the New Testament with Josephus is that the New Testament – or rather each Gospel, and Acts – is not one book but two. One telling the obvious story, one telling the hidden. And the hidden story is absolutely impossible to perceive unless one has the books of Josephus open.

Reading the New Testament by itself only leads to the observation of a number of bizarre, or inexplicable, details. And since our brains like to have everything neat and tidy, we tend to ignore those details, put them aside, or, at most, explain them as mistakes.

But, I would argue, it is no mistake when Luke places Jesus’s birth at the time of the census (at least ten years later than Matthew does!), and does so without mentioning the concomitant birth of something else: the organized anti-Roman rebel movement. It is no mistake when the author of Luke/Acts manages to name all the first century rebel leaders up until the Jewish war, and does not explain who they are. It it is no mistake when the same author bizarrely chooses to place Judas the Galilean after Theudas (Acts 5:33-38), although he was active decades before Theudas. It is no mistake when Jesus tells his disciples to bring swords to the Mount of Olives (Luke 22:36), and then, fifteen verses later, tells them not to use them, And it is probably no mistake when the author of John supplies the strange detail that a resting Jesus was met by a cohort of 600 to 1000 Roman soldiers.

It is, I would argue, all part of the subtext, the other story. The one that is historical, but has to be veiled, albeit only partially.

It seems that whenever the tale is disguised on one level, it is opened up on another. So when the author of Luke/Acts mentions the rebel leaders Theudas and Judas the Galilean, he next places them in the wrong order. And when Jesus tells his disciples to bring swords to the Mount of Olives, he next tells them to put these away. But this all becomes considerably less weird when one keeps Josephus next to the New Testament, as a historical guide. And, importantly, the authors of the Gospels (especially Luke) stay remarkably close to Josephus. It’s almost as if they tease us, present us with a riddle to solve.

Now I don’t disagree that in telling the story of Jesus, there may be a lot of deliberate modeling on earlier scriptures. Jesus, after all, had to fit with some earlier messianic notions. Letting him, for instance, be born in Bethlehem, although he was a Galilean, is easy to perceive as a construct. There are many such examples ...

http://vridar.org/2016/05/25/jesus-and- ... ment-78111

Now, one can argue the historicity of the Josephean texts, but that raises the question -
  • why are there these inter-relationships between the NT texts and those Josephean texts?
The fact that the NT narratives use real people and events (such as Pilate, or the census) in the times they are set does not negate (i) the argument the NT has 'borrowed' information ascribed elsewhere to other time periods, or (ii) the fact the NT has information more suited to those other time periods.


.
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 »

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 a): This is the same reason as the one mythicists refer to when postulating that Jesus never existed: Barring the TF, there is NOTHING in non-biblical sources from the first century corroborating Jesus's existence in the twenties and thirties CE. This is in spite of the fact that the period is covered in great detail by Roman historians, Josephus in particular. And it is in spite of the fact that the Gospels describe Jesus as a person with a great following, and one whose trial involved all the highest dignitaries of the realm.

The reason b): Despite his absence in non-biblical first century sources, when stories about Jesus do emerge, in the second century and on, also polemical sources (Jewish and non-Jewish) describe Jesus as a person with a great following, and one who had a big societal impact (see e.g. Celsus, Talmud, Sepher Toldoth Yeshu). Another common thread in these polemical sources is that Jesus "brought magic from Egypt." Thus, the early polemicists do not, as a rule, deny his existence.

The reason c): In light of the above -- that Jesus is not visible when the Gospels claim that he is, but that his existence nevertheless is attested to also by early polemicists -- it is not a far-flung thought that he may have existed at another time than when the Gospels claim that he existed.

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.

The reason e): If there is an absolute dearth of non-biblical evidence of Jesus's existence in the 20s and 30s, there are indeed, judging by Josephus, strong parallels to the Gospel narratives in the late 40s and 50s. Not only do the number of parallels increase dramatially, from zero to more than thirty, there is a consistent theme in these parallels: they all pertain to Jewish rebellious activity. In other words, if Luke says that Jesus and his disciples were stopped in a samaritan village on their way to Jerusalem for the festivals, and that Jesus responds to a suggestion to "command fire to come down and consume them [the Samaritans]" with words of peaceful avoidance, Josephus writes that when the Galileans are travelling to Jerusalem on their way to the festivals, and are stopped in a Samaritan village, the Galilean rebels "set the villages on fire" (something which rekindles the Jewish rebellion). And when Luke describes the time of Jesus's birth as the time of the "census under Quirinius", Josephus describes the census under Quirinius as pivotal for only one reason: it sparked the Jewish rebellion, and constituted the birth of the organized rebel movement. So the birth of the rebel movement has turned into the birth of Jesus (without the mentioning of any rebellion). Thus, the defining moments of the Jewish rebellion are all there in the Gospels and Acts, but the rebellious context is mentioned only in subtext, if at all. It is important to note, however, that all the elements are still there, and the author of Luke and Acts manages to name all the major rebel leaders of the first century, up until the beginning of the war (Judas the Galilean, Theudas, "the Egyptian", Menahem (Manaen)).
In conclusion: the whole history of the Jewish rebellion is presented, mostly in subtext, in the New Testament, but the story of Jesus and his disciples are, as I see it, moved from the fifties, where the parallels between Jesus and the messianic leader whom Josephus calls "the Egyptian" are so numerous that it is very hard to attribute it to coincidence.

The means: The question, of course, is the following: if indeed a transfer of the story from the fifties to the thirties was performed (in order to eliminate competing, and more violent narratives), when was it done, and by whom? My feeling is that whereas in Mark and Matthew the time shift has been implemented more crudely, sometimes leading to strange aberrations (how could, for instance, Jesus return from Egypt as a child at the same time as John the Baptist starts preaching (Matthew 3:1), if they are the same age?!), the dual story in Luke and Acts seems much more elaborate. It is often suggested that the author of Luke had read Antiquities by Josephus. If so, he would have known what Josephus wrote. To my mind it seems likely that Luke wrote with the time shift in mind, whereas Mark and Matthew may have been changed retroactively. It is, of course, possible, however, that the whole time shift was performed by a later editor.
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 »

Just noted MrMacSon's comment :)
User avatar
maryhelena
Posts: 2900
Joined: Tue Oct 08, 2013 11:22 pm
Location: England

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

Post by maryhelena »

MrMacSon wrote:
<snip>
Now, one can argue the historicity of the Josephean texts, but that raises the question -
  • why are there these inter-relationships between the NT texts and those Josephean texts?
The fact that the NT narratives use real people and events (such as Pilate, or the census) in the times they are set does not negate (i) the argument the NT has 'borrowed' information ascribed elsewhere to other time periods, or (ii) the fact the NT has information more suited to those other time periods.
:thumbup:

Yes, Josephus is important, vitally important, to any search for early christian origins. However, the writings of Josephus are a minefield and thus need to be approached with apprehension. Josephus is as able to tell stories as well as any gospel writer.

Indeed, the gospel writers have placed stories or events derived from earlier and later historical periods to Pilate's time. However, that in no way negates the relevance of a historical figure living during the time of Pilate from having a relevance for the gospel story. The center, the time of Pilate, must hold as the cornerstone that holds the gospel story together. (apologies to Yeats..... :) )
Tread softly because you tread on my dreams.
W.B. Yeats
FransJVermeiren
Posts: 253
Joined: Thu Jul 14, 2016 1:14 am
Contact:

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

Post by FransJVermeiren »

DCHindley wrote:The problem I see with a theory that "Jesus" (whether under that name or another) actually existed, but at a later time than Gospel and early Christian tradition places it, is that it requires a reason, and a means, to antedate the events by 40 years. It seems we are back to some sort of conspiracy theory, which I think is much more fanciful than the evolution of tradition based around a real Jesus who existed in Pilate's time.

DCH
Maybe we can start from the problems that have never been solved with Jesus placed under Pilate. The first one is the 40 years delay between the time of the presumed facts (around 30 CE) and their first record (Mark, after 70 CE). Traditionally this problem is skirted with ad hoc arguments, but historiographically it remains unsolved. That witnesses waited 40 years to write down such important facts is unique, and for that reason false (see my review of Richard Bauckham’s ‘Jesus and the Eyewitnesses’ on Amazon.com). The second one is the Jesus/Paul problem, Paul as a propagator of Christianity being totally unaware of Jesus’ life, great deeds and teachings.

The solution start with Josephus (and continues with him for a great part …): as he does not describe Jesus and early Christianity up to 70 CE, Christianity did not exist in that period (the TF being entirely forged).

Frequently the term ‘conspiracy theory’ is used to get rid of inconvenient ideas. Better alternatives might be ‘text manipulation theories’ or ‘forged chronology theories’. I think we should also distinguish between fantasy and imaginative powers.
www.waroriginsofchristianity.com

The practical modes of concealment are limited only by the imaginative capacity of subordinates. James C. Scott, Domination and the Arts of Resistance.
User avatar
maryhelena
Posts: 2900
Joined: Tue Oct 08, 2013 11:22 pm
Location: England

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

Post by maryhelena »

FransJVermeiren wrote:
DCHindley wrote:The problem I see with a theory that "Jesus" (whether under that name or another) actually existed, but at a later time than Gospel and early Christian tradition places it, is that it requires a reason, and a means, to antedate the events by 40 years. It seems we are back to some sort of conspiracy theory, which I think is much more fanciful than the evolution of tradition based around a real Jesus who existed in Pilate's time.

DCH
Maybe we can start from the problems that have never been solved with Jesus placed under Pilate. The first one is the 40 years delay between the time of the presumed facts (around 30 CE) and their first record (Mark, after 70 CE). Traditionally this problem is skirted with ad hoc arguments, but historiographically it remains unsolved. That witnesses waited 40 years to write down such important facts is unique,
Assumption.

The original, the autograph, of Mark's gospel has not been found. Therefore, dating a copy, or a copy of a copy of a copy, has no relevance to the dating of the autograph original gospel of Mark.

<snip>.... The second one is the Jesus/Paul problem, Paul as a propagator of Christianity being totally unaware of Jesus’ life, great deeds and teachings.
Assumption.

The NT figure of Paul is not a historical figure:
  • Historicized fiction.

    A mass of data had suddenly fallen into place.
    What hit me was that the entire narrative regarding Paul, everything the
    thirteen epistles say about him or imply-about his life, his work and travels,
    his character, his sending and receiving of letters, his readers and his
    relationship to them-all of that was historicized fiction. It was fiction,
    meaning that the figure of Paul was a work of imagination, but this figure had
    been historicized-presented in a way that made it look like history,

    Thomas Brodie: Beyond the Quest for the Historical Jesus
The Jesus figure of the gospels and the Paul figure of the epistles are literary creations around which is spun a story of early christian origins. A story not a history. If it's early christian origins we seek then it's history we have to deal with. It's not looking for reflections of the NT story in history that opens a road forward - it's the opposite, looking for reflections of history within the NT story that has the potential to produce an understanding of early christian origins. Jewish history pre and post Pilate. A time-shift, if you like, going backwards and forwards but centered, focused, on the time of Pilate.
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 »

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?
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 »

I think that the Judean war had served as a catalyst that caused the gospel Jesus (Jesus Christ, a divine savior figure) to be synthesized out of whatever historical figure Jesus really was. I don't see this as a "problem" that requires the hypotheses you propose. In fact, I am not sure that the parallels you point out have to mean anything. Jesus being crucified between two "robbers" and then resurrected from the dead is NOT the same thing as three compatriots of Josephus being crucified and taken down before they died with one being revived fully. Even of you are thinking of some scenario like Hugh Schonfield's Passover Plot where Jesus prepares to feign death so he could be revived and somehow fulfill his interpretation of "prophecy", the gospels portray Jesus as really dying, and Josephus relates that his friends were not quite dead yet, as there could be no pre-preparation. That's a little like claiming that the trinity is real because there are three primary colors. Poison ivy also has three leaves, and that does not prove that the trinity will give you itchy blisters. The number three is a pure coincidence.

DCH
FransJVermeiren wrote:
DCHindley wrote:The problem I see with a theory that "Jesus" (whether under that name or another) actually existed, but at a later time than Gospel and early Christian tradition places it, is that it requires a reason, and a means, to antedate the events by 40 years. It seems we are back to some sort of conspiracy theory, which I think is much more fanciful than the evolution of tradition based around a real Jesus who existed in Pilate's time.

DCH
Maybe we can start from the problems that have never been solved with Jesus placed under Pilate. The first one is the 40 years delay between the time of the presumed facts (around 30 CE) and their first record (Mark, after 70 CE). Traditionally this problem is skirted with ad hoc arguments, but historiographically it remains unsolved. That witnesses waited 40 years to write down such important facts is unique, and for that reason false (see my review of Richard Bauckham’s ‘Jesus and the Eyewitnesses’ on Amazon.com). The second one is the Jesus/Paul problem, Paul as a propagator of Christianity being totally unaware of Jesus’ life, great deeds and teachings.

The solution start with Josephus (and continues with him for a great part …): as he does not describe Jesus and early Christianity up to 70 CE, Christianity did not exist in that period (the TF being entirely forged).

Frequently the term ‘conspiracy theory’ is used to get rid of inconvenient ideas. Better alternatives might be ‘text manipulation theories’ or ‘forged chronology theories’. I think we should also distinguish between fantasy and imaginative powers.
Post Reply