Time Shift scenarios and the New Testament texts

[FransJVermeiren]

Deuteronomy 19:15: "A single witness shall not suffice to convict a person of any crime or wrongdoing in connection with any offense that may be committed. Only on the evidence of two or three witnesses shall a charge be sustained."

Indeed Lena, and there is not only a third, but also a fourth and a fifth witness: The Dead Sea Scrolls, the Old Testament Pseudepigrapha and the Apostolic Fathers. Up to now they have stayed out of sight in the discussion. Josephus surely is the chief witness, but the others are hardly less important. To get an idea of the eschatological world view, the universal aspirations and the hatred against the Romans of the writers of the New Testament (in subtext), the Dead Sea Scrolls are of utmost importance. The 'day of the Lord' concept that I briefly addressed in my reply to Giuseppe is only one of many highly important elements. Amongst many other documents, the Essenes of Qumran wrote 'The War of the Sons of Light against the Sons of Darkness', i.e. their war against the Romans.

[MrMacSon]

...there is not only a third, but also a fourth & a fifth witness: The Dead Sea Scrolls, the Old Testament Pseudepigrapha,& the Apostolic Fathers

and the concurrent Gnostic and NT Pseudepigrapha/Apocrypha (especially those that may be 1st & 2nd century)

[maryhelena]

maryhelena wrote:
"Whether Josephus was in 'cahoots' with the gospel writers - or simply knows the Jesus story and for whatever reason chooses to support that story in his writing - the connection between the writing of Josephus and the NT story is evident. What one makes of that connection depends on whether one is a Jesus historicist or a Jesus ahistoricist."

Are you saying that you believe that Josephus wrote about the Jesus story out of a desire to support ahistorical legend?! Why?

Why? Why not if the story is deemed to be important as a political allegory of Hasmonean Jewish history? After all, living under Roman domination required a measure of circumspection in retelling Hasmonean history.

The gospel story, a story set in the time of Pilate, is an 'ahistorical legend'. It is not history - as you yourself must maintain with your time-shift from the Egyptain to the time of Pilate.

And since I assume -- when you say that he wrote about the Jesus story -- that you don't mean the Testimonium Flavianum, why would he choose to put it in another era, where noone can find it?!

Yes, the Josephan TF is placed, re the gospel story, in the wrong time slot i.e. placed around 19 c.e. That indicates an early rule for Pilate in Judea. (Daniel Schwartz: Pontius Pilate's Appointment to Office
and the Chronology of Josephus' Antiquities, Books 18—20'' in Studies in the Jewish Background to Christianity.) It also ties in with Acts of Pilate and the 7th year of Tiberius - and also ties in with a Slavonic Josephus birth narrative early in the rule of Herod I. i.e. the Jesus figure, re the gospel of John, was not yet 50 when crucified.) Which all goes to demonstrate that the gospel Jesus story is a moving story.....

[Lena Einhorn]

To Frans and MrMacSon (concerning witnesses):
And then we have Celsus ...

[MrMacSon]

And then we have Celsus ...

• Origen's sock-puppet?

[MrMacSon]

Yes, the Josephan TF is placed, re the gospel story, in the wrong time slot -ie. placed around 19 ce. That indicates an early rule for Pilate in Judea (Daniel Schwartz: 'Pontius Pilate's Appointment to Office and the Chronology of Josephus' Antiquities, Books 18—20', in Studies in the Jewish Background to Christianity). It also ties in with Acts of Pilate and the 7th year of Tiberius - and also ties in with a Slavonic Josephus birth narrative early in the rule of Herod I. ie. the Jesus figure, re the gospel of John, was not yet 50 when crucified. Which all goes to demonstrate that the gospel Jesus story is a moving story.....

That's somewhat of a confusing gish-gallop.

[Lena Einhorn]

MrMacSon wrote:

Lena Einhorn wrote:

And then we have Celsus ...

Origen's sock-puppet?

Really? Why do you say that? Why would a Christian Church Father of his own accord want to make known the idea that "“when she [Mary] was pregnant she was turned out of doors by the carpenter to whom she had been betrothed, as having been guilty of adultery, and that she bore a child to a certain soldier named Panthera”?
or that Jesus was "“born in a certain Jewish village, of a poor woman of the country, who gained her subsistence by spinning, and who was turned out of doors by her husband, a carpenter by trade, because she was convicted of adultery; that after being driven away by her husband, and wandering about for a time, she disgracefully gave birth to Jesus, an illegitimate child, who having hired himself out as a servant in Egypt on account of his poverty, and having there acquired some miraculous powers, on which the Egyptians greatly pride themselves, returned to his own country, highly elated on account of them, and by means of these proclaimed himself a God.”?
"

[maryhelena]

Yes, the Josephan TF is placed, re the gospel story, in the wrong time slot -ie. placed around 19 ce. That indicates an early rule for Pilate in Judea (Daniel Schwartz: 'Pontius Pilate's Appointment to Office and the Chronology of Josephus' Antiquities, Books 18—20', in Studies in the Jewish Background to Christianity). It also ties in with Acts of Pilate and the 7th year of Tiberius - and also ties in with a Slavonic Josephus birth narrative early in the rule of Herod I. ie. the Jesus figure, re the gospel of John, was not yet 50 when crucified. Which all goes to demonstrate that the gospel Jesus story is a moving story.....

That's somewhat of a confusing gish-gallop.

Yep, it's a nutshell......but all has been dealt with, as you well know, in various topics on this forum over the last few years....

[MrMacSon]

MrMacSon wrote:

Lena Einhorn wrote:

And then we have Celsus ...

Origen's sock-puppet?

Really? Why do you say that? Why would a Christian Church Father of his own accord want to make known the idea that "“when she [Mary] was pregnant she was turned out of doors by the carpenter to whom she had been betrothed, as having been guilty of adultery, and that she bore a child to a certain soldier named Panthera”?
or that Jesus was "“born in a certain Jewish village, of a poor woman of the country, who gained her subsistence by spinning, and who was turned out of doors by her husband, a carpenter by trade, because she was convicted of adultery; that after being driven away by her husband, and wandering about for a time, she disgracefully gave birth to Jesus, an illegitimate child, who having hired himself out as a servant in Egypt on account of his poverty, and having there acquired some miraculous powers, on which the Egyptians greatly pride themselves, returned to his own country, highly elated on account of them, and by means of these proclaimed himself a God.”? "

Was Origen fully a 'Christian Church Father'? Why did he revise the Septuagint (over 28 years) and undertake the "Hexapla"? He arranged his texts in six columns: Hebrew in Hebrew characters; Hebrew in Greek characters; Aquila; Symmachus; Septuagint; and Theodotion.

There's no indication he organised or formulated any Christian texts of collection, other than his 'Commentaries'.

[Lena Einhorn]

MrMacSon wrote:

Was Origen fully a 'Christian Church Father'? Why did he revise the Septuagint (over 28 years) and undertake the "Hexapla"? He arranged his texts in six columns: Hebrew in Hebrew characters; Hebrew in Greek characters; Aquila; Symmachus; Septuagint; and Theodotion.

There's no indication he organised or formulated any Christian texts of collection, other than his 'Commentaries'.

But promoting the info (that he attributes to Celsus) because he himself wants to spread it, would make him a "spy for the enemy", a Quisling, or whatever you want to call it.
What makes you think Celsus never existed? I mean, there has to be a reason for Origen to want to do this.