Time Shift scenarios and the New Testament texts

[MrMacSon]

Thanks Frans

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?

I thought that is what Frans meant -ie. Frans thinks the story in Life 420- 21 was time-shifted 40 yrs earlier to be the Gospel story of Jesus of Nazareth.

I think Frans is saying that the Pauline letters having 'been written between 50 and 60 CE', or perceived to have been written then, make it seem impossible that Jospehus was merely using or repeating the Gospel stories of Jesus of Nazareth, set in the 20s & 30s, in his version of events in Life [ie. Vita(?)]

[MrMacSon]

.
I have quoted most of Lena's last substantive post (near the bottom of the previous, 2nd page of this thread). I have omitted the first three paragraphs in full, but have reproduced the rest in full, but with some changes in layout (spacing & some indenting) and with some emphasis on some brief passages -ie. underling and italics -

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)...1

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.

• 1 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.

Hi Lena. I think your explanations of the timing of Jesus of Nazareth's birth in relation to to the Census is very good, and your outline of the symbolic parallels of 'the fates of Simon bar Giora and John of Gischala' (at the end of the Jewish-Roman War) with 'the Gospel narratives of Jesus in Gerasa & Gadara (meeting "a man ['Legion' or Demonic] [coming] out of the tombs with an unclean spirit")' is an excellent exposition.

You say "the New Testament is a relayer of pure history, and nothing else" and "The authors of the New Testament, in my opinion, ... tell the story of the Jewish rebellion -- but from their perspective" [my italics]. But you note 'there is no place for a Jesus character' in Josephus's account of the fate of Simon bar Giora and John of Gischala, even though there are strong parallels to the gospel narrative of a similar (even though metaphoric) story.

To me, that indicates that the Gospel writers have used events that Josephus has narrated (albeit as likely or purported historical accounts), and used various people in those events, to create and instill a largely composite or fictitious character - ie. Jesus of Nazareth - within their retelling or relaying of those events; sometimes replacing or usurping some of the people present in the similar events that Josephus narrates.

When you say "in those later and earlier parallels Jesus was often also present", it seems Jesus was only present in the Gospel parallels of some of those later-dated events - he seems to only be a literary presence [in those Gospel parallels].

It seems that the NT Jesus of Nazareth could well be a composite retelling of various people

• - eg. 'the Egyptian' and the character that Fran's focuses on (Jesus son of Saphat (?)) +/- others -

• • rather than a translocation of one person with the translocation of the retold narratives.

In other words the events are re-narrated with the presence of a single character with a consistent theme to that character -

• de-militarizing, merciful, healing, providing salvation.

The Gospel narratives seem symbolic - a basis for theology: a new theology.

.

[Lena Einhorn]

Hi MrMacSon,
Thanks for your good summary and comments.
Now to your final remarks -- that my interpretation, and that of others, that there are symbolic elements in the NT narratives probably also leads to the conclusion that Jesus is a "composite", an entirely symbolic figure -- these are my reflections:

I don't believe this is the case (that Jesus is an entirely symbolic, or even composite, figure) . But discussing these issues in fora where mainly mythicists write, I have come to realize that the belief in a mythical Jesus is a core belief as strong -- and sometimes even stronger -- than a belief in a divine Jesus. It carries the weight of a profound conviction. And profound convictions are almost impossible to shake.

When I wrote that I see the New Testament as a history book, I meant it. But it is not only that. It is also a collection of sacred texts, carrying an agenda -- the agenda to inspire belief. In that sense -- that it is both history book and sacred text -- it is reminiscent of the Old Testament. But I think there is a big difference: the New Testament is also a mystery book, a book harboring a riddle. And the riddle is connected to the historical narrative. When Jesus says to the disciples that "to others I speak in parables, so that ‘looking they may not perceive, and listening they may not understand’”, he meant it. The history book is BURIED underneath the sacred text -- because it was a history not entirely congruent with the sacred narrative. It was a history that NEEDED to be hidden, since it was connected to violent strife, and contrary to the message of the religion. And yet, the authors felt a need to be true to their origins. So they buried the founding story in subtext, and they shifted it to a different era, where no violent strife was apparent, and where no competing narratives were available. And they dared us to find it. Without Josephus -- our parallel source of history -- that task would be impossible. But with Josephus next to the New Testament we seem to acquire the tools to at least partly decipher that historical riddle -- embedded in the sacred, literary and supernatural text of the New Testament.

Now obviously, we arrive at different interpretations -- different solutions to the riddle. I don't claim to be any wiser than someone else. But I will say this: A symbolical, or "composite", Jesus is not someone anybody would feel the need or urge to hide. A symbolical Jesus would not be someone anyone would feel the need to shift to another time period.
And this is my thought: The authors of the New Testament tell not one, but two histories:
The history of the Jewish rebellion against Rome -- all of it, from beginning to end.
And the history of one messianic rebel leader -- active during a very limited period of time -- who probably survived and vanished from sight. And who probably participated in the telling of his own story. To my mind, the most likely historical candidate for that person is "the Egyptian", who shares so many characteristics with Jesus, as he is portrayed in the New Testament. And who is preceded by a person, Theudas, who shares so many characteristics with John the Baptist. And is followed by Menahem, who -- as I have deliberated on in the post "The woman with the hemorrhage" -- shares so many similarities with Simon Peter.

[Lena Einhorn]

I will add another interesting verse in the New Testament, which seems to possibly hold a connection with the Jewish war against Rome:

Acts 13:1 says: "“Now in the church at Antioch there were prophets and teachers: Barnabas, Simeon who was called Niger, Lucius of Cyrene, Manaen a member of the court of Herod the ruler, and Saul.”

In this one sentence, there are three, or possibly even four, names very similar to names associated with the Jewish war:

1. Niger was the name of one of the main commanders in the beginning and middle of the war. He is the only person named Niger in all of Josephus's chronicles.

2. Cyrene (a place name appearing in several sections of the NT) was far away from Judea or Galilee, or Antioch, but in North Africa – in present-day Libya – where, after the end of the Jewish War, many of the fleeing Sicarii ("knifemen") settled. According to Acts 21:38, "the Egyptian" was a leader of the Sicarii -- the most violent of the rebel factions, and the one holding out last, on Masada. In the final chapter of the final book of War of the Jews, Josephus writes: “And now did the madness of the Sicarii, like a disease, reach as far as the cities of Cyrene.”

3. Manaen is the Greek form of the Hebrew name Menahem, or Manahem. Menahem was the Sicarii leader at the beginning of the Jewish war. Being a Galilean (and thus born far from Antioch), Menahem could be said to have been “brought up with Herod the Tetrarch,” the then ruler of Galilee.

4. Barnabas, finally. When Barnabas is first mentioned in Acts, he is introduced in the following way: “Barnabas (which means ‘son of Parakleseos’)” (Acts 4:36) Parakletos, which means "comforter", "helper", is in Hebrew -- yes -- Menahem! So Barnabas would mean "son of Menahem."

Added to this conglomeration of rebellion associated names, the names are also in Acts listed in the same sentence, where it is said that they belong to one and the same grouping -- in this case "the church at Antioch."

Again, this is an example of how intricately -- and rarely perfectly clearly -- the New Testament (and Luke and Acts in particular), keeps dropping rebellion-related names and associations, always in subtext. The clearest example of this, of course, is that Luke and Acts manages to name all the main first century rebel leaders up until the beginning of the Jewish war (Judas the Galilean, Theudas, "the Egyptian", and Manaen/Menahem). And yet, the context is never given, and the names are just dropped into the narrative, without much explanation -- and only once for each name.

[DCHindley]

Thanks Frans (can someone please tell me how I put other people's quotes in yellow boxes?)

Just highlight the text you want to appear in "Quote" box, and then click on "Quote" button, and it will enclose it with "quote tags". If you want to quote an entire message, when the post is onscreen, click on "Quote" and it will enclose the whole message. If that is too much, just delete the parts that are not relevant

You can also create tables, if you don't mind getting frustrated because it can be tedious to create from scratch. Most folks create the table in MS Excel or MS Word, and use this web page to create the table code.
http://jsfiddle.net/agKTg/6/embedded/result/

The web site says it works with Excel tables, but I also use it with Word tables without any difficulty. Copy the table code and paste it into your message, click preview button, and presto, it works fine most of the time. It can get caught up if one of the table cells contain certain forms of punctuation, but I haven't been able to figure out what triggers errors. Generally the jsfiddle web page has little problem with punctuation, but perhaps it is tripping up in tabs or something.

If you want to see an example, find a post that has a quote or a table, click reply button, and kinda study the tag code to see what it is doing. It is almost all some simply command in brackets to start a quote, and the same code in a bracket at the end, preceded by a "/" character.

[Lena Einhorn]

Thanks! With your help, I did figure it out (did it in another post). Thanks for taking the time to explain it.

[DCHindley]

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.
...
DCHindley gives the impression that there is only one parallel between the two stories.

I don't try to "get rid" of anything.

Everybody who attempts historical explanations has pretty much the same set of possible evidence, but has to attempt to exclude "noise" (evidence that is not really related to one another). She or He chooses a subset that they think can produce a credible reconstruction, but it will never be perfect.

But if we compare the story of a man who go to the market and another of a woman drawing water, they are both human beings, both are dressed in clothes, both have arms, legs, noses, eyes, etc., both walked to where they were going, both picked up and carried something home, both have homes to go to, but is this significant? Not if they are random and/or commonplaces to the situation of going about everyday business/tasks.

1) Joseph is a common enough name.
2) Roman officials are also common denominators for any crucifixion in that region and time.
3) Requesting a dead body be released for burial is not the same as asking to take down friends and try to save them.
4) Three is three.
5) Josephus was not a lestes ("robber"), and sometimes "robber" just means "robber".
6) Even the fellow whose preserved bones has a nail driven through the heel was buried, which was apparently not the usual fate of a crucified person. So we know it happened, perhaps with a bribe.
7) Survival is not the same as "resurrection" from the dead.
8) All executions of this kind happen in open (bald) areas. That is the purpose of public executions. "This could be you ..."

DCH

[FransJVermeiren]

First I will give a little clarification on Paul and ‘it seems impossible that this Life (= Vita) story is the same story as the crucifixion story in the Gospels.’ The emphasis is indeed on seems. At first sight, starting from the NT texts as they have come to us, placing the core events of the Gospels during the war period is impossible because it is incompatible with Jesus the earlier Pauline epistles. I’ll come back to Paul later, he’s a though obstacle.
Thanks to MrMacSon.

I continue with a following element of my research. It has something to do with what Lena Einhorn calls ‘subtext’, if I am allowed to call the apocalyptical sections of the NT a particular kind of subtext. I fully agree with Lena Einhorn when she says ‘And yet, the authors felt a need to be true to their origins’ and I think they were in the first place so in the Synoptic Apocalypse as well as in Relevation. In these texts they tell what really happened chronologically, but only to their brothers and sisters, hiding at the same time the real course of events for the Romans.
Two apocalyptic texts are important, Mark 13 which I already mentioned above and which I will elaborate briefly as far as chronology is concerned, and Relevation 11.

Chronological markers in Mark 13:
Verse 1-2: Between 68 CE and the first months of 70 CE
(Verse 7-8: atmosphere of war, siege and famine without concrete chronological clues)
Verse 12: civil war, 68-69 CE
Verse 14: the ultimate humiliation, beginning of August 70 CE
Verse 17: lamentation over the mothers who are victim of the famine during the siege, June to end of August 70 CE. See the famous cannibalism story in War VI, 201-213 and also Luke 23, 28-30.
Verse 19: siege and destruction, a catastrophe without precedent: summer of 70 CE
Verse 24-25: smoke production from the burning of the Temple compound, beginning of August 70 CE.

And what happens next, in verse 26? “And then they will see the Son of man coming in clouds with great power and glory.”
In other words: The messiah arrives after the destruction of the Temple. I know the ‘second coming’ theory which is used time and again to explain Paul’s ideas, and here also it could be used as an objection. But linguistically as well as concerning content there is no basis for a ‘second coming’ theory, not here and equally not in Paul.

Next time I will discuss Revelation 11 (The Two Witnesses).

[Lena Einhorn]

see next

[Lena Einhorn]

Frans, I agree that Mark 13 (as well as Luke 21, and Matt 24) are pivotal. But it is always assumed that this pertains to the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 CE!
Instead, ponder these three segments:

“One of his disciples said to him: ‘Look, Teacher, what large stones and what large buildings!’ Then Jesus asked him, ’Do you see these great buildings? Not one stone will be left here upon another; all will be thrown down.’ When he was sitting on the Mount of Olives opposite the temple, Peter, James, John, and Andrew asked him privately, ‘Tell us, when will this be, and what will be the sign that all these things are about to be accomplished?’ Then Jesus began to say to them, ‘Beware that no one leads you astray. Many will come in my name and say, “I am he!” and they will lead many astray. When you hear of wars and rumors of wars, do not be alarmed; this must take place, but the end is still to come.’”
Mark 13:1-7

"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

"But there was an Egyptian false prophet that did the Jews more mischief than the former; for he was a sorcerer, and pretended to be a prophet also, and got together thirty thousand men that were deluded by him; these he led round about from the wilderness to the mount which was called the Mount of Olives, and was ready to break into Jerusalem by force from that place; and if he could but once conquer the Roman garrison and the people, he intended to domineer over them by the assistance of those guards of his that were to break into the city with him. But Felix prevented his attempt, and met him with his Roman soldiers, while all the people assisted him in his attack upon them, insomuch that when it came to a battle, the Egyptian ran away, with a few others, while the greatest part of those that were with him were either destroyed or taken alive; but the rest of the multitude were dispersed every one to their own homes, and there concealed themselves."
War of the Jews 2.261-263

The last two quotes, by Josephus, refer to the emergence, and defeat, of "the Egyptian", which happened ca. 55 CE, well before the Jewish war against Rome.