Time Shift scenarios and the New Testament texts

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
Lena Einhorn
Posts: 168
Joined: Thu Jul 14, 2016 1:15 pm

Re: Time Shift scenarios and the New Testament texts

Post by Lena Einhorn »

Interesting. But considering the fact that the Gospels and Acts add information to that found in Josephus -- such as, for instance, that "the Egyptian" was a leader of the Sicarii ("knifemen") -- they could not have used Josephus as their only source of first century history. They could of course have had other, now lost, sources (such as Justus), but being of the opinion that the New Testament texts reflect real first century (and to some extent unique) history, my hunch is that something was put down in writing well before the mid-second century. Paul had a disciple called Luke ....
User avatar
MrMacSon
Posts: 8798
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 3:45 pm

Re: Time Shift scenarios and the New Testament texts

Post by MrMacSon »

Lena Einhorn wrote:
....considering the fact that the Gospels and Acts add information to that found in Josephus -- such as, for instance, that "the Egyptian" was a leader of the Sicarii ("knifemen") -- they could not have used Josephus as their only source of first century history. They could of course have had other, now lost, sources (such as Justus)
True.
Lena Einhorn wrote:
... being of the opinion that the New Testament texts reflect real first century (and to some extent unique) history, my hunch is that something was put down in writing well before the mid-second century.
It's also a question of what would be put down, and whether any theological spin was put on it. As Josephus's Jewish War came out somewhere between 75 to 85 AD/CE, and Antiquities was c. 95 AD/CE, borrowing from them may well have happened partially or fully after the end of the 1st century.

Marcion was said to have lived c. 85-160 AD/CE. Wikipedia says Marcionism "was an Early Christian dualist belief system that originated in the teachings of Marcion of Sinope at Rome around the year 144" - that date being based on Tertullian's reckoning of '115 years and 6 months from the crucifixion' (Adversus Marcionem, xv) -- If the crucifiction (sic) did not happen in 33 AD/CE then such reckoning is worthless.


Marcionism could reflect a post apocalyptic event eg. post the first Jewish-Roman War (or after the 2nd Jewish-Roman war for that matter; or b/c of both) -

Marcionites held that the God of the Hebrew Bible (known to some Gnostics as Yaltabaoth) was inconsistent, jealous, wrathful and genocidal, and that the material world he created was defective, a place of suffering; the God who made such a world is a bungling or malicious demiurge.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marcionism#Teachings
Previously,

Focusing on the Pauline traditions of the Gospel, Marcion felt that all other conceptions of the Gospel, and especially any association with the Old Testament religion, was opposed to, and a backsliding from, the truth. He further regarded the arguments of Paul regarding law and gospel, wrath and grace, works and faith, flesh and spirit, sin and righteousness, death and life, as the essence of religious truth. He ascribed these aspects and characteristics as two principles, the righteous and wrathful God of the Old Testament, who is at the same time identical with the creator of the world, and a second God of the Gospel, quite unknown before Christ, who is only love and mercy. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marcionism#Teachings
and

In Marcionite belief, Christ was not a Jewish Messiah, but a spiritual entity that was sent by the Monad to reveal the truth about existence, thus allowing humanity to escape the earthly trap of the demiurge. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marcionism#Teachings
Lena Einhorn wrote: Paul had a disciple called Luke ....
I wonder if 'Paul' was ant-dated too - ie. I wonder if he was active in the Diaspora [in Asia Minor] between the Jewish-Roman Wars.

Frans J. Vermeiren's proposition about Paul is possible, too --viz. -
Frans J. Vermeiren wrote:
Paul of the New Testament = combination of [an] historical Paul, the trailblazer of the future messiah, in the 50’s and 60’s of the 1st century CE, and the later, 2nd century CE forgery of Paul into a follower of Jesus the messiah.

http://www.mythicistpapers.com/2016/05/ ... ment-37356
A 'future messiah' would seem to be more likely to be desired after the first Jewish-Roman War, though may also have been sought after Agrippa I's death in 44 AD/CE (a key event you have noted in A Shift in Time).

Another key event I am interested in is Nerva's change to the fiscus Judaicus in 96 AD/CE - that made it much more attractive to not be Jewish.

.
Last edited by MrMacSon on Mon Jul 25, 2016 2:24 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
MrMacSon
Posts: 8798
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 3:45 pm

Re: Time Shift scenarios and the New Testament texts

Post by MrMacSon »

.
This from the online Jewish Encyclopedia re Justus is interesting -

... Jerome (l.c.) mentions a third work by Justus, a short commentary on the Scriptures; but nothing further is known of it.

In Hebrew, Justus was probably called "Zadok," though the name "Justus" was very common among the Jews at that time.
as is this (albeit probably far-fetched as being the same person, unless rabbi Zadok is an adjusted or time-shifted character ;) ) -

Rabbi Zadok was one of the notable Tannaim of his generation, and his opinion on many matters is often cited in the Talmud.

Forty years before the destruction of the Second Temple, he observed fasts in order that Jerusalem might not be destroyed, and would eat only at night,[2] and when the Romans encircled Jerusalem in order to destroy it, rabbi Yochanan ben Zakai had only three requests from Vespasian, and one of them was to give him medicine measures to heal Rabbi Zadok.[3] The Mishnah in tractate Gittin elaborates on the ways Rabbi Zadok was healed.
  • 2 Babylonian Talmud, tractate Gittin, 56a
    3 Babylonian Talmud, Tractate Gittin, 56b
Lena Einhorn
Posts: 168
Joined: Thu Jul 14, 2016 1:15 pm

Re: Time Shift scenarios and the New Testament texts

Post by Lena Einhorn »

MrMacSon wrote (sorry, don't know how to get the yellow boxes around quotes): "I wonder if 'Paul' was ant-dated too - ie. I wonder if he was active in the Diaspora [in Asia Minor] between the Jewish-Roman Wars."

This -- the chronology of Paul -- is the most complex aspect of my Time Shift theory. Because Acts and Paul's Letters give the impression that the time elapsing between Paul's conversion (on the road to Damascus) and his arrest in Jerusalem is about twenty-five years. Now if there is a time-shift of fifteen to twenty years when comparing the NT narratives with Josephus -- as I suggest there is -- and Jesus ("the Egyptian") was defeated in the mid-50s, and Paul's conversion took place after this, adding another twenty-five years until his arrest in Jerusalem would take us well beyond the Jewish War, which of course is impossible. There was no Temple, and hardly any Jerusalem, by that time.

Now my explanation for this takes some time to fully elaborate on, and for the one who would like to get the fuller picture (including the graph), I suggest reading either my book A Shift in Time, pages 169-180, or, for a more condensed version, the article I have uploaded online (http://lenaeinhorn.se/wp-content/upload ... .11.25.pdf) pages 26-28.
Very briefly, it goes like this: As all students of the New Testament know, it is almost impossible to align Acts with Paul's Letters when it comes to the chronology of Paul. It is like fitting a round peg in a square hole. The two sources fill up the same amount of time between conversion and arrest -- twenty to twenty-five years -- but with vastly different activities. Acts portrays Paul visiting Jerusalem a number of times, and travelling all around the Mediterranean, whereas very little of that is visible in the Letters, in particular before the Jerusalem Council. So how do the Letters fill up the same amount of time? They do it by providing Paul with seventeen years of no activity! Three years in Arabia and Damascus before the first return to Jerusalem, fourteen years in "Syria and Cilicia" after that. None of that is visible in Acts. So the twenty to twenty-five years are simply filled with very different activity in the two sources. Scholars have beaten their heads bloody over this.
I suggest that the explanation is the following: There are no twenty to twenty-five years between conversion and arrest. There are perhaps five years, or even less! What I suggest is that we are brought back to real time (i.e. the time shift ends) by the time Paul arrives in Rome. He was probably known there, and for the story to hold together, at some point it has to come back to real time. Furthermore, it is very interesting to note that the dignitaries presented in connection with Paul's arrest and trial seem to be portrayed the same way in Josephus and the NT, which is absolute not the case for dignitaries earlier in the story.
So how is this requisite "expansion of time" accomplished in the NT? Well quite clearly very differently in Acts and the Letters. It is not inconceivable that in Acts later missionary journeys have been moved to before the arrest, so as to fill up the time. Whereas in the Letters (Galatians), it is simply filled up with seventeen empty years.

Again, to get the full picture, I suggest a reading of at least the segment and graph in the uploaded article.
FransJVermeiren
Posts: 253
Joined: Thu Jul 14, 2016 1:14 am
Contact:

Re: Time Shift scenarios and the New Testament texts

Post by FransJVermeiren »

Lena Einhorn wrote:Since a discussion about different New Testament time shift scenarios arose under a previous topic (The Woman with the Hemorrhage), it was suggested that this discussion be moved to a new topic. I will attach two of my previous posts, with some elaboration. I hope other time shift scenarios will also be discussed.
Sorry for my late participation, but my time is limited.

Speaking of time shift scenario’s, I believe we should start with the limitation of the time frame available for such shift. The dating of the oldest Gospel is important for this purpose. Some scholars propose an early date for Mark, somewhere in the late 60’s of the first century CE, but in my opinion Mark 13 (and also its parallels of the Synoptic Apocalypse in Luke and Matthew) in a veiled way describe two events that happened during the first days of August 70 CE, when the temple of Jerusalem was captured and set on fire by the Romans.
1. (Mark 13, 14) “But when you see the desolating sacrilege set up where it ought not to be” The most important arguments for the setting of the described event during the war are the following ones:
a. The parallel verse in Luke: “But when you see Jerusalem surrounded by legions”
b. The parallel with the description of the ‘desolating sacrilege’ in Daniël 11,31 which describes an abhorred idolatric offense hors category. Frequently Caligula’s attempt to have his divinized statue raised in the Temple is mentioned for this offense. But as Petronius never executed Caligula’s order, this identification is highly improbable, the more because there is another and much more important idolatric offense which has been carried out: the erection of the sacred standards of the legions before the burning Temple in the first days of August 70 CE (Josephus, War VI, 316).
2. (Mark 13, 24) “But in those days, after the catastrophe, the sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light” refers to the burning of the Temple compound. What greater catastrophe (θλιψις) ever happened to the Jews in Antiquity than the destruction of the Temple? Its roofs were covered with bitumen, and their burning caused an enormous smoke production, which darkened the city day and night.

Another verse in Mark 13 (verse 12) describes the civil war in Palestine (68-70 CE) in a similar way as Josephus does. Also the first verses of Mark 13 (verse 1 and 2) have a much more obvious place in a Jerusalem threatened by the Romans than in the peaceful 30’s: ‘And as he came out of the temple, one of his disciples said to him, “Look teacher, what wonderful stones and what wonderful buildings!” And Jesus said to him, “Do you see these great buildings? There will not be left here one stone upon another, that will not be thrown down.” No prophecy, just simple extrapolation.

From this we can conclude that Mark has been written after August 70 CE (and in my opinion soon after that date).

As a general consideration I want to add that in Antiquity records of important events were written shortly after the events. Why would the first Gospel writer have waited 40 years to do so? Scholars have proposed all kinds of explanations for this exceptional delay (‘the war as catalyst’ for example) but logically the case is simple: exceptional events, immediate writing.
Presuming that Mark has been written soon after 70 CE, in principle all events between 30 CE and 70 CE qualify for a time shift, but the events of the war and its immediate build-up more than any event earlier in time.
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.
Lena Einhorn
Posts: 168
Joined: Thu Jul 14, 2016 1:15 pm

Re: Time Shift scenarios and the New Testament texts

Post by Lena Einhorn »

I think much insight could be gained if proponents of different time shift scenarios lay out their arguments and evidence in some detail, albeit brief and summarized. The reason is that I am of the opinion that the New Testament is a history book -- albeit largely written in subtext, and with much mythology and OT references. And I am of the opinion that this history book, the New Testament, covers the whole period of the Jewish rebellion against Rome. Yes, we differ on which period is emphasized, and we differ on the actual identity of the historical Jesus. But we can give each other much new evidence and insight. That's why I started this thread.
FransJVermeiren
Posts: 253
Joined: Thu Jul 14, 2016 1:14 am
Contact:

Re: Time Shift scenarios and the New Testament texts

Post by FransJVermeiren »

As my theory consists of many different synergetic approaches, it will be difficult to summarize it briefly. I will start with the eye opener that launched my research many years ago. We’ll see how far we get.

In the recent topic ‘The woman with the hemorrhage’ DC Hindley mentions the crucifixion of Jesus together with the crucifixion story at the end of Josephus’s Life (420-421). This mention out of the context gave me the impression that DC Hindley wanted to get rid of the embarrassing fragment in Josephus.
(quote) “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.” (end of quote)

DCHindley gives the impression that there is only one parallel between the two stories. The late Dutch author Pierre Krijbolder has described in detail the parallels between both stories. I summarize with some minor changes/elaborations:
1. A certain Josephus: Joseph of Arimathea (Joseph Arimathaias in Greek), Josephus Flavius (Joseph bar Matthea in Aramaic)
2. hurries to the highest Roman official present in Jerusalem (Pilate / Titus)
3. to ask for premature release of his crucified friends
4. who are three of them
5. and who are rebels: Three rebels in Josephus, Jesus between two rebels (leistès) in the Gospels.
6. In both cases the plea is rewarded
7. which results in the special fate of one of crucified men: survival / resurrection. (From Jesus’ apparitions it becomes clear that he survived.)
8. and this event takes place in a bald = levelled area.
Golgotha is a place with the baldness, not the shape of a skull. Titus ordered the levelling of a big area to the west of Jerusalem in April 70 CE (the area before the present Jaffa gate).

Looking with an open mind to these parallels, what is the chance that two different but so similar events took place in 1st century Palestine with an interval of 40 years? In my opinion this chance is nihil. As for a lot of people the Gospels represent a divine truth, an obvious reflex is to say that Josephus knew the Gospel story and that he has abused it by postdating it with 40 years. But I don’t see any symptom of abuse (or ridicule, or irony, which have also been suggested). Paul can also be used as a counter-argument: he frequently mentions Jesus in his letters, that have been written between 50 and 60 CE, so it seems impossible that this Life story is the same story as the crucifixion story in the Gospels.

Of course these parallels don’t prove anything, but we might ask ourselves: what if? What if Josephus did not postdated this crucifixion event by 40 years? What if not only the content of this story is correct, but also its timing?
Last edited by FransJVermeiren on Wed Jul 27, 2016 8:55 am, edited 1 time in total.
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.
Lena Einhorn
Posts: 168
Joined: Thu Jul 14, 2016 1:15 pm

Re: Time Shift scenarios and the New Testament texts

Post by Lena Einhorn »

Thanks Frans (can someone please tell me how I put other people's quotes in yellow boxes?)
I thought I followed you the whole way, but then I got lost when you wrote "[Paul] frequently mentions Jesus in his letters, that have been written between 50 and 60 CE, so it seems impossible that this Life story is the same story as the crucifixion story in the Gospels."
Up until then I thought you DO believe that the story by Josephus in Life 420-21, about him asking Titus to take down his three friends from the crosses is too similar to the crucifixion story in the Gospels to be a separate event (and the name Joseph Arimathaias conspicuously similar to the name Joseph son of Matthias); i.e. I thought you meant that they probably ARE the same story, and that the crucifixion thus most likely happened during the Jewish war. Is that correct?

In any event, this is what I believe on the topic: Until I entered these forums -- i.e. until after I published A Shift in Time -- I had not thought of the similarities between Life 420-21 and the Gospel stories of Joseph of Arimathea. But I agree, the similarities are conspicuous. Where I differ from you (if I have understood you correctly), is in that I don't think this necessarily places Jesus in the times of Titus. And this is why:

When I first started seeing parallels between events in Josephus and events described in the Gospels and Acts, all of them seemed to be delayed from 28-36 CE (in the NT) to 44-55 CE in Josephus's texts (the death of Theudas; a messianic leader on the Jordan who is later beheaded; the activity of robbers; an ongoing rebellion; a conflict between Galileans and Samaritans; two co-reigning high priests; the attack on someone named Stephanos on a road outside Jerusalem; a procurator/prefect who has an influential wife, kills Galileans, crucifies Jews, is in conflict with the Jewish king, and shares jurisdiction over Galilee with that Jewish king; and, not least, a messianic leader on the Mount of Olives who is preaching to his disciples that he will tear down the walls of Jerusalem, but is defeated there by a speira lead by a chiliarchos).

But as I kept reading Josephus, I found that a number of striking parallels between the New Testament on the one hand, and War and Antiquities on the other, were not at all found in the 40s and 50s in the latter sources, but rather at other times of brewing rebellion. The birth of Jesus during the Census of Quirinius is the most obvious example (this census, in Josephus, is when the first organized rebellion took place), but I was finding more and more parallels to events which Josephus places during the Jewish war (66-70/73 CE). And still -- and this is important -- despite the fact that a majority of the Gospel events I had found involving Jesus, had been placed in the 50s by Josephus (the parallels between the defeat and arrest of Jesus on the Mount of Olives and the very similar events involving "the Egyptian", in particular), in those later and earlier parallels JESUS WAS OFTEN ALSO PRESENT. Again, if we look at the most obviously datable example -- the Census under Quirinius -- Luke's placement of Jesus's birth during that event would mean he was born in 6 CE. But if he, as Luke also says, began his missionary activity when he was thirty years old, this could hardly have happened after the 30s. And yet, we find almost all the parallels between the NT and Josephus either during the rebellious activity of the 40s and 50s, or during the Jewish war, i.e. later.
In my opinion, the explanation most likely is that the placement of Jesus's birth at the time of the Census is symbolical, rather than real. It is not HIS BIRTH that occurs then, but THE BIRTH OF THE REBELLION.

Let me give an example of a parallel from the latter period, the Jewish war, one where Jesus is also present, but to my mind only symbolically:
In all three synoptic Gospels, we read of a mysterious event when Jesus and his disciples are going across the Sea of Galilee to "the country of the Gerasenes" (in Mark and Luke), or "the country of the Gadarenes" (in Matthew). The first odd thing about this is that neither Gerasa nor Gadara lie anywhere near the Sea of Galilee -- or any other sea for that matter. Next, we read of Jesus in Gerasa meeting "a man out of the tombs with an unclean spirit." The man, whose name is "Legion, for we are many", and who has been shackled, can not be restrained anymore. He (and the unclean spirits) beg of Jesus "not to send them out of the country." Next, the unclean spirits enter a heard of swine, two thousand of them, who rush down the steep bank into the sea and drown. And the demoniac -- who apparently had been naked -- now sits clothed, and without "his legion."

In the story in Matthew, the event takes place in the country of the Gadarenes, and there are TWO demoniacs coming out of the tombs, rather than merely one.

And this, according to Josephus, is how the Jewish war in Jerusalem ended (War 6.433-434; 7.25-36): there were two surviving, and very fierce, leaders of the Jewish rebellion -- Simon bar Giora and John of Gischala. Simon bar Giora -- who under his command had had the size of three legions -- came from Gerasa. John of Gischala first became known for fighting the Gadarenes. But now it's all over. As Jerusalem lies destroyed, these two men (who have only recently stopped fighting each other) both hide in the subterranean caverns of the demolished city. Simon and his men have started digging a mine, “and this in hopes that they should be able to proceed so far as to rise from under ground, in a safe place, and by that means escape.” But, continues Josephus, their provisions begin to fail them. So Simon has to emerge from underground, and “thinking he might be able to astonish and elude the Romans, put on a white frock, and buttoned upon him a purple cloak.” But the Romans are not deluded. Simon bar Giora is put in shackles, taken out of the country, and forced to partake in Titus’ triumphal march in Rome, after which he is killed. John of Gischala is similarly forced out of the caverns for lack of food, and is similarly taken out of the country and paraded on the streets of Rome.

Now Jesus is present in the Gospel narratives of the two demoniacs hiding in the tombs, and it is to him they turn for mercy. And yet, if the parallel to Simon bar Giora and John of Gischala is a true one, there is no place for a Jesus character there (who would he be? A Roman commander?).
In my opinion, this is an example of where the New Testament is a relayer of pure history, and nothing else. The authors of the New Testament, in my opinion, here attempt to do what Josephus did: tell the story of the Jewish rebellion -- but from their perspective. They place Jesus in it only because the surface narrative in the Gospels is all about Jesus. The tale of the rebellion is pure subtext. Except, that is, when Jesus himself is part of the story of the rebellion (which in my opinion is in the 50s). Then, I believe, we see him in the flesh in both sources.

I hope this lengthy description was somewhat easy to follow.
Charles Wilson
Posts: 2100
Joined: Thu Apr 03, 2014 8:13 am

Re: Time Shift scenarios and the New Testament texts

Post by Charles Wilson »

Lena Einhorn --

Plz see: Joe Atwill, Caesar's Messiah, ISBN-10: 1461096405
ISBN-13: 978-1461096405

Joe's got the Roman-through-Josephus part pretty good.

CW

PS: I left a private message for you.

PPS: Do you have a "quote" box on your screen when you go to a Thread? If not, do this: [*quote*]Charlie's the Best![*/quote*] and you'll get your stuff in a yellowish box with the quote in it. [*quote="Charlie"*]Charlie's wonderful![*/quote*] gives you the name of the person you are quoting and the quote. Take out the asteriskeses: [*quote*]BLAH, Blah[*/quote*] becomes
BLAH, Blah
CW
Lena Einhorn
Posts: 168
Joined: Thu Jul 14, 2016 1:15 pm

Re: Time Shift scenarios and the New Testament texts

Post by Lena Einhorn »

Thanks! And yes, I know Joe Atwill's hypothesis.
Post Reply