Time Shift scenarios and the New Testament texts

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
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:
Earlier in this thread (page 2) I wrote about the two demoniacs in Gerasa/Gadara, who had both dwelled in the tombs. And I made a comparison to the two rebel leaders during the final struggle in Jerusalem -- Simon bar Giora and John of Gischala -- who, when all is destroyed (mostly by them) go hiding in the caverns of Jerusalem, but are finally brought up and punished.
And doesn't this description in Revelation 11 fit them quite well?

6. These have the power to shut up the sky, so that rain will not fall during the days of their prophesying; and they have power over the waters to turn them into blood, and to strike the earth with every plague, as often as they desire.
7. When they have finished their testimony, the beast that comes up out of the abyss will make war with them, and overcome them and kill them.
8. And their dead bodies will lie in the street of the great city which mystically is called Sodom and Egypt, where also their Lord was crucified.
9. Those from the peoples and tribes and tongues and nations will look at their dead bodies for three and a half days, and will not permit their dead bodies to be laid in a tomb.
10. And those who dwell on the earth will rejoice over them and celebrate; and they will send gifts to one another, because these two prophets tormented those who dwell on the earth.
Lena Einhorn wrote:To MrMacSon and Michael BG:
I have said this a few times in this thread, but I'll say it again: when alternative explanations are suggested for each separate element in a multi-component parallel between the NT and other sources (mine or anybody elses) this is of course perfectly all right. But there are ALWAYS alternative explanations to each element. The question is if these are brought forth to elucidate or obscure, and if they produce a scenario more or less complete and consistent than the scenario they are brought forth to debunk.
If I am describing a city where there is a Statue of Liberty, where the central part is an island, where there is a big urban park, where the location is the western hemisphere amd the main language is English, it is perfectly valid to suggest that:
1. The Statue of Liberty is by the Musée d'Orsay in Paris
2. The central island is found in Stockholm
3. The big park is Fairmount Park in Philadelphia
4. The western hemisphere location is Rio de Janeiro
5. And the city where the main language is English is Canberra
But if we look at all the elements at the same time, it makes much more sense to think of New York.

I'm not trying to be facetious here, I'm just trying to make my point. I think the question we all have to ask ourselves when we look at different scenarios presented -- especially when the topic is close to our heart -- is whether we are curious enough to be fully open to the new idea. Or if debunking is our knee-jerk reaction.
And yes, I of course have to ask myself the same question.
Quite some beautiful cities together, especially Stockholm.

May I conclude from your 'cities' contribution that we’d better look at NT stories as unities? I will try to continue your mental exercise here. Above I discussed Revelation chapter 11 as a unity, and in your reply (quote above) you picked out verse 6 to 10, suggesting that they might refer to John of Gischala and Simon bar Giora. Continuing to the next verses, the resurrection verse 11 and the ascension verse 12, can you tell where in the NT or in any other ancient source there is information available on the resurrection and ascension of both John of Gischala and Simon bar Giora?

I think Simon bar Giora is present elsewhere in the NT, in the Gospel of Luke in particular. I hope to discuss that story soon (in a new topic).
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
MrMacSon
Posts: 8798
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 3:45 pm

Re: Time Shift scenarios and the New Testament texts

Post by MrMacSon »

Ben C. Smith wrote:
Could the reason also have something to do with the famous Tacitean statement in Histories 5.9.2? Sub Tiberio quies. Perhaps the time of Tiberius (and Pilate) was chosen for Jesus precisely because it was relatively free of messianic claimants and other major troublemakers, thus contributing to the casting of Jesus as a more peaceable figure than he really was...?
And casting (or re-casting a later messiah claimant) in time of Tiberius gave Jesus primacy and pushed other [later] messiah claimants (and their failures) into the back-ground.
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 »

FransJVermeiren wrote:Perhaps we should also consider that the name of the historical Jesus was Jesus.
Perhaps those of us in this forum, at least, could consider a change in terminology and a change in emphasis. eg. stop using the term historical Jesus, and consider using the term NT-Jesus for the biblical Jesus, and consider concepts such as the primary figure or perhaps 'foundational entity' for figures or entities that the NT-Jesus is proposed to be or proposed to be based upon(?)
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 »

Ben C. Smith wrote:
Lena Einhorn wrote:
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.
Could the reason also have something to do with the famous Tacitean statement in Histories 5.9.2? Sub Tiberio quies. Perhaps the time of Tiberius (and Pilate) was chosen for Jesus precisely because it was relatively free of messianic claimants and other major troublemakers, thus contributing to the casting of Jesus as a more peaceable figure than he really was...?
Absolutely. Not only does Tacitus write that "Under Tiberius all was quiet", but a tabulation of the periods when Josephus mentions lestai (robbers), shows that there was one sustained period during Roman occupation when these rebels were completely inactive: between 6 and 44 CE, i.e. during all of Jesus's life, according to NT chronology! (see figure on page 4 of this document: http://lenaeinhorn.se/wp-content/upload ... .11.25.pdf)

Not only does that strengthen the sense of relative peacefulness (with regard to armed Jewish resistance) during the times of Pilate. It also negates the description of Jesus's crucifixion, where he is surrounded by robbers, "rebels who had committed murder during the insurrection.” (Mark 15:7)
FransJVermeiren
Posts: 253
Joined: Thu Jul 14, 2016 1:14 am
Contact:

Re: Time Shift scenarios and the New Testament texts

Post by FransJVermeiren »

MrMacSon wrote:
FransJVermeiren wrote:Perhaps we should also consider that the name of the historical Jesus was Jesus.
Perhaps those of us in this forum, at least, could consider a change in terminology and a change in emphasis. eg. stop using the term historical Jesus, and consider using the term NT-Jesus for the biblical Jesus, and consider concepts such as the primary figure or perhaps 'foundational entity' for figures or entities that the NT-Jesus is proposed to be or proposed to be based upon(?)
Perhaps we should consider that the primary figure for the NT-Jesus was named Jesus.
Is it possible that the primary figure lived later than the NT-Jesus?
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 »

FransJVermeiren wrote:
I think Simon bar Giora is present elsewhere in the NT, in the Gospel of Luke in particular. I hope to discuss that story soon (in a new topic).
Really curious to hear about that! I see him in the raising of the widow's son from Nain (the only place Nain is mentioned by Josephus is in connection with Simon using Nain as his base in the earlier parts of the Jewish war).
May I conclude from your 'cities' contribution that we’d better look at NT stories as unities? I will try to continue your mental exercise here. Above I discussed Revelation chapter 11 as a unity, and in your reply (quote above) you picked out verse 6 to 10, suggesting that they might refer to John of Gischala and Simon bar Giora. Continuing to the next verses, the resurrection verse 11 and the ascension verse 12, can you tell where in the NT or in any other ancient source there is information available on the resurrection and ascension of both John of Gischala and Simon bar Giora?
No, I was absolutely not suggesting these verses might refer to Simon bar Giora and John of Gischala. I was just throwing in an alternative to your suggestion that they refer to Jesus. I'm sure there are many alternative suggestions (and I agree, the complete picture of the alternatives should, to be plausible, work at least as well as the original suggestion). The reason I threw it in as an alternative was that at least they are two (who indeed "tormented those who dwell on the earth"), and at least they have been partaking in calamitous events indeed. And the sentense "where also their Lord was crucified" to me indicates that they themselves are not this Lord (i.e. Jesus).And "they went up to heaven in a cloud, while their enemies looked on." Well, they both did die at the end of the war ... (although John of Gischala is only assumed to have died at the hands of the Romans). But no, as far as I know they were not resurrected.
But again: I was merely pointing out that I did not see the perfect analogy to Jesus in those verses. Mainly because they are two people. And because of the line "where also their Lord was crucified", as a past tense event.
iskander
Posts: 2091
Joined: Thu Aug 13, 2015 12:38 pm

Re: Time Shift scenarios and the New Testament texts

Post by iskander »

FransJVermeiren wrote:Perhaps we should also consider that the name of the historical Jesus was Jesus.
The name is not important.The gospel of Mark is about a religious reformer.
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 »

iskander wrote:
FransJVermeiren wrote:
  • Perhaps we should also consider that the name of the historical NT-Jesus was Jesus.
The name is not important.The gospel of Mark is about a religious reformer.
I think you've missed the point, iskander. The proposition is that the narratives about the religious reformer in the gospel of Mark were based on someone else (also named Jesus).
Last edited by MrMacSon on Sat Jul 30, 2016 3:25 pm, edited 1 time in total.
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:
Perhaps those of us in this forum, at least, could consider a change in terminology and a change in emphasis. eg. stop using the term historical Jesus, and consider using the term NT-Jesus for the biblical Jesus, and consider concepts such as the primary figure or perhaps 'foundational entity' for figures or entities that the NT-Jesus is proposed to be or proposed to be based upon(?)
I'm fine with NT-Jesus. But "primary figure" and "foundational entity" sound like mathematical formulas ... I think "historical Jesus" is a rather descriptive term ... at least if one believes, as I do, that Jesus was not merely a mythological, or "composite" character -- but rather a defined historical person. Would "non-biblical Jesus" be better?
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:
  • "primary figure" and "foundational entity" sound like mathematical formulas ...
Yes, they are awkward terms. I couldn't think of anything else off the top of my head (though mathematics is a language of logic)
Lena Einhorn wrote:
  • Would "non-biblical Jesus" be better?
The problem is there' a few of those - there's 19/20 in the writings of Josephus.
Post Reply