Time Shift scenarios and the New Testament texts

[MrMacSon]

MrMacSon wrote:
My flippant 'sock-puppet' comment was a reflection of (and a riff off) your previous comment a few days ago where you called him 'fictive'.

Did I?
Celsus writes about a fictive Jew, which he uses as a medium to state his opinions.
Is that what you mean?

My understanding is we only have Origen's account of what Celsus is supposed to have said.

[MrMacSon]

MrMacSon wrote:
I think the NT-Jesus story hides the failures of the 40 AD/CE to 135 AD/CE messianic aspirants. There was no hope for Judaism to resurrect itself after 134 AD/CE, but there had been hope until then.

I simply fail to understand why NT-Jesus has to be based on a "composite figure" (or even a fictive one) when one could actually pick out ONE of "the 40 AD/CE to 135 AD/CE messianic aspirants." Why does he have to be based on ALL of them? I don't understand the logic.
Is there a deep-lying desire to make Jesus ahistorical? And if so, why?

I wasn't saying NT-Jesus has to be based on a composite figure. I was saying the NT-narrative (which of course is mostly about NT-Jesus) is a way of obscuring the failings of others.

Written after the events, but set before the events, to change perceptions of the outcomes or consequences of the events.

Doesn't that align with what you think?

[Lena Einhorn]

To MrMacSon (on Celsus):
Sure. My only question was why you thought I said Celsus was "fictive." You must have misunderstood what I wrote. But let's not dwell on that ...

[FJVermeiren]

To Lena and Frans:
I have no problems about the shift time hypothesis. But I see that both you seem to think that not only "Mark" (author) but also Matthew and Luke KNEW the truth about the true identity of the Gospel Jesus (the Egyptian or the Jesus of Josephus). This is a problem for me insofar I see ONLY Mark, as an allegory clearly meant to hide something (or someone), differently from the obtusely theological and literalist Matthew, Luke and John (for not say about the ridiculous author of Acts). I consider the author of Matthew a proto-catholic (by definition, someone unaware of the real intent of "Mark"). Same problem about the real author of Luke: the literalist Marcion.
In my view, Matthew and Luke were " mortal" enemies of Mark on a theological level: how could they share the same secret knowledge of Mark about HIS Jesus?
Under the shift time hypothesis, I am inclined to think that Matthew and Luke were interested only to coopt the literary production of Mark, not the historical figure behind Mark. This is why I am reluctant to consider the mention of Egypt in Matthew as an Egyptian's clue, or to consider the Lord's Prayer in Matthew as an anti-Roman prayer.

Thanks in advance for four replies.

I would have to study Matthew again to give my opinion on this Gospel, but I can give my view on Luke and John. As I accept the priority of Mark, I see Mark (author) as the inventor of the forged chronology of the Gospels. But both Luke and John show to be well informed about what Mark had fabricated.

I believe Luke knew the real course of events as well as Mark did, because he adds historical information on liberation and war to Marks writing. Luke wrote his Gospel in an environment (time and/or space) where hiding the true course of events was less dangerous than in Marks, in other words, Luke in some places (not too many) unveils Marks story (a little bit). If Luke hadn’t known the real course of events and only further elaborated Mark without knowing about Marks chronological intervention (your opinion if I understand you well), this would have been impossible.

Two examples:
• If in the synoptic Apocalypse Mark says ‘But when you see the desolating sacrilege set up where it ought not to be’ and Luke changes this sentence into ‘But when you see Jerusalem surrounded by legions, then know that its desolation has come near’, how could Luke change this veiled sentence into more concrete information if he wasn’t aware of what Mark was alluding to?
• Luke gives an important place to Jesus’ journey to Jerusalem and the Zacchaeus story in Jericho is part of it. It is not difficult to see in the Zacchaeus fragment a story of revolutionary taxing (during the great rebellion). How could Luke add this little piece of historical information to Marks story if he was not informed about the real course of events?

Broadly John follows Marks forgery just like Luke does, but he also gives historical information that doesn’t occur in the Synoptics. If he totally depended on Mark, why would he describe a long stay of Jesus in Judea (around 3 years, because 3 Passovers are described) while the Synoptics compress Jesus' Judean period into a highly unrealistic one week? John knew exactly how long Jesus had stayed in Judea, so here he independently provides historical information.

[MrMacSon]

To MrMacSon (on Celsus):
Sure. My only question was why you thought I said Celsus was "fictive." You must have misunderstood what I wrote.

Yes, I did. Though I had previously thought Celsus was the fictive Jew, too.

An issue I have is that so many oft-referenced texts or passages attributed to the pre-Nicene/Apostolic Church Fathers involve elaborate texts about what someone else is supposed to have said, but we have either no or little other evidence of what the other person said, or no or little evidence of the other person -eg. Celsus, Marcion,

Cheers.

[MrMacSon]

• Luke gives an important place to Jesus’ journey to Jerusalem and the Zacchaeus story in Jericho is part of it. It is not difficult to see in the Zacchaeus fragment a story of revolutionary taxing (during the great rebellion). How could Luke add this little piece of historical information to Marks story if he was not informed about the real course of events?

What revolutionary taxing did you have in mind, Frans?

Broadly, John follows Marks forgery just like Luke does, but he also gives historical information that doesn’t occur in the Synoptics. If he totally depended on Mark, why would he describe a long stay of Jesus in Judea (around 3 years, because 3 Passovers are described) while the Synoptics compress Jesus' Judean period into a highly unrealistic one week? John knew exactly how long Jesus had stayed in Judea, so here he independently provides historical information.

Could John have been written independent of the synoptics? -ie. not dependent on them?

[Lena Einhorn]

MrMacSon wrote:
I think the NT-Jesus story hides the failures of the 40 AD/CE to 135 AD/CE messianic aspirants. There was no hope for Judaism to resurrect itself after 134 AD/CE, but there had been hope until then [...]

I wasn't saying NT-Jesus has to be based on a composite figure. I was saying the NT-narrative (which of course is mostly about NT-Jesus) is a way of obscuring the failings of others.

Written after the events, but set before the events, to change perceptions of the outcomes or consequences of the events.

Doesn't that align with what you think?

Well, let me ponder that one ... I think the NT-narrative has two purposes:

1. Spreading a new religion (based on Judaism, but separating from it). A religion which reaches out to a wider audience. A religion which basically has a pacifist message (although sometimes expressed with some contradictory ambiguity).

2. Telling the history of the Jewish rebellion against Rome, and also the history of the specific messianic rebel leader who was the originator of this new religion.

Now, since purpose 1. and purpose 2. are not completely synergic -- and purpose 1. is primary -- purpose 2. has to be put in subtext, be partially hidden.

[MrMacSon]

... I think the NT-narrative has two purposes:

1. Spreading a new religion (based on Judaism, but separating from it). A religion which reaches out to a wider audience. A religion which basically has a pacifist message (although sometimes expressed with some contradictory ambiguity).

I agree. Though, of course, that means first creating a new religion. I think the development of Christianity parallels what Ptolemy I Soter is said to have done in promoting (or possibly even creating) the cult of Serapis to unite the Greeks and the Egyptians after the death of Alexander the Great.

eta1: it's noteworthy that the cult of Serapis was growing in the eastern Mediterranean during the 1st & 2nd centuries AD/CE.

eta2: It seems a lot of what is known about the cult of Serapis comes from Plutarch (c. AD 46 – AD 120) and Tacitus

2. Telling the history of the Jewish rebellion against Rome, & also the history of the specific messianic rebel leader who was the [basis] of this new religion

Now, since purpose 1. & purpose 2. are not completely synergic --& purpose 1. is primary-- purpose 2. has to be put in subtext, be partially hidden.

I essentially agree, though I would call it re-telling the history of the Jewish rebellion against Rome -

• by 'getting in first', and
  
  as you said in (1): by using [or overlaying] a pacifist message (because the rebellious, warring approach had failed)

[Secret Alias]

Deep thoughts.

[iskander]

Have you ever looked at the Mishmarot Priesthood?

CW

The war of Varus has rebels, messianic expectations, crosses galore... a very attractive period for the activity of a bellicose man- see attached file, varus 2