Time Shift scenarios and the New Testament texts

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
User avatar
maryhelena
Posts: 2903
Joined: Tue Oct 08, 2013 11:22 pm
Location: England

Re: Time Shift scenarios and the New Testament texts

Post by maryhelena »

Lena Einhorn wrote:
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.
Because no one version of the gospel Jesus ticks all the boxes. A composite, literary, Jesus figure provides a medium to accommodate relevant, to the gospel writers, historical figures. While a 'take your pick' Jesus might go down well with some academics i.e. Jesus was like this or that etc - it will not do for a historical inquiry. The historical 'stones' fall where they will.....

Is there a deep-lying desire to make Jesus ahistorical? And if so, why?
A ''deep-lying desire to make Jesus ahistorical?''

Lena, the only deep-lying desire of members of this forum is to get at the 'truth', get to understand early chrisitian origins.

As for Jesus - that gospel figure will remain ahistorical until such time as someone finds the Holy Grail to support the historicists argument.
Tread softly because you tread on my dreams.
W.B. Yeats
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 »

TedM wrote:
I see any reference to a at least a semi-known figure without providing the name as highly unusual.
"In their own language they [the Jews] call him [Jesus] Ussum Hamizri, which is to say in Latin Dissipator Ægyptius [the Egyptian Destroyer/Disperser]"
(Archbishop Amulo of Lyons: Letter, or Book, Against the Jews to King Charles ; ca. 847 CE)
iskander
Posts: 2091
Joined: Thu Aug 13, 2015 12:38 pm

Re: Time Shift scenarios and the New Testament texts

Post by iskander »

Lena Einhorn wrote:
TedM wrote:
I see any reference to a at least a semi-known figure without providing the name as highly unusual.
"In their own language they [the Jews] call him [Jesus] Ussum Hamizri, which is to say in Latin Dissipator Ægyptius [the Egyptian Destroyer/Disperser]"
(Archbishop Amulo of Lyons: Letter, or Book, Against the Jews to King Charles ; ca. 847 CE)

They have used vile language from day one-- some still do-- against the bastard, son of a whore, who had learnt black magic in Egypt .
Mathew 2 14Then Joseph* got up, took the child and his mother by night, and went to Egypt, 15and remained there until the death of Herod. This was to fulfil what had been spoken by the Lord through the prophet, ‘Out of Egypt I have called my son.’
You got nothing at all
TedM
Posts: 855
Joined: Sun Oct 13, 2013 11:25 am

Re: Time Shift scenarios and the New Testament texts

Post by TedM »

Lena Einhorn wrote:
TedM wrote:
Are there any other unnamed messianic figures, prophets, leaders described such as we see by Josephus in relation to the Egyptian and in the Slavonic account of the 'wonder-doer'?

I see that as a highly unusual thing, but maybe it isn't..?
Josephus of course writes about other messianic figures than "the Egyptian" -- named and unnamed. The example under Festus, that MrMacSon wrote about a few pages back, is an example. As are the named messianic leaders (like Simon of Peraea, Athronges, Judas the Galilean, Theudas, Menahem, Simon bar Giora).
So there are maybe a dozen such public figures named, and only 3 unnamed - two of which 'Jesus' and the 'Egyptian'?
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 »

To TedM:
I'm not sure I follow your question. Josephus writes about "impostors", in plural, under Felix, for instance. But only a few of those during the first century does he write extensively about, and names.
With regard to"the Egyptian": he is one of the messianic rebel leaders Josephus writes extensively about, in both his major works. Whether you consider "the Egyptian" a name is of course doubtful (he only in fact writes that "he came out of Egypt"). But the reason I quoted Archbishop Amulo above is that it seems, at least in his time, the ninth century, the Jews referred to Jesus only as "the Egyptian Disperser/Destroyer". No other name.
Giuseppe
Posts: 13732
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: Time Shift scenarios and the New Testament texts

Post by Giuseppe »

FJVermeiren wrote:
Giuseppe wrote: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.
If Luke knew the secret behind Mark then we should assume that the conspirators were two different communities. Even if these two communities had very different theological views (probably in conflict between them).

The history teaches that in each conspiracy the probability of success is inversely proportional to the number of conspirators involved. More people know the secret, more there is the risk that the secret becomes public.
I think that your case may be more strong if you assume only the allegorical Mark as the anti-Roman conspirator, with the late Gospels only interested to expand the original story by use of midrash from Septuaginta and Josephus, following purely their theological goals.

John, for example, invented the 3 Passover story to claim that the Jesus mission was longer than what was stated by heretic Gnostics (who did insist that Jesus was only few days on this earth).

The fact that Luke makes more explicit Mark 13 shows only that Luke was against the (for him enigmatic) secrecy of Mark and was content to co-opt a gospel that allegorized the general theme of the death and resurrection of Israel in 70 CE (of which the gospel Jesus had become a symbol for the outsiders unaware of the secret).

Mark made an allegorical mask for the Jesus of Josephus (only for insiders) but so doing, as collateral effect, he made his Gospel Jesus the symbol (for the outsiders) of the destruction of Israel in 70 CE and his re-birth in the gentile world. At that point, all the Jewish messianists ("Luke", "Matthew", " John", etc) and even gentile Gnostics (Marcion, Simon Magus, etc) were interested to co-opt that symbol of a nascent new Israel: the Christianity.
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.
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:
FJVermeiren wrote:
What revolutionary taxing did you have in mind, Frans?
Jesus arrives in Jericho at the head of a large number of armed Galilean rebels and their families. After several days underway they are tired and hungry. The irritation of Jesus' captains is shown in the incident with the blind man on their arrival at Jericho (18, 35-43). As Jesus is hungry himself, he invites himself at Zacchaeus's house. At once Zacchaeus announces that he will give half of his possessions to the poor (i.e. the poor people who recently flooded the roads of Jericho). Do we believe Jesus was spreading an irresistable aura of generosity? Or is Zacchaeus highly intimitated and does he fear for his life if he is not accomodating'?
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.
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:
Could John have been written independent of the synoptics? -ie. not dependent on them?
In short: John knew the gospel of Mark and used some of its material, the core story (= the Passion) in the first place. But John also knew what really happened, and so he provides us with some unique historical data:
• The meeting of Jesus and Nakdimon ben Gourion
• The close connection between Jesus and Eleazar son of Ananias
• Jesus’ age (in his 40’s)
• Jesus’ three years long stay in Judea (67-70 CE).
There is certainly more, this is what comes out of my instant memory.
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.
FransJVermeiren
Posts: 253
Joined: Thu Jul 14, 2016 1:14 am
Contact:

Re: Time Shift scenarios and the New Testament texts

Post by FransJVermeiren »

Giuseppe wrote:
John, for example, invented the 3 Passover story to claim that the Jesus mission was longer than what was stated by heretic Gnostics (who did insist that Jesus was only few days on this earth).
I think it's the other way around: the Gnostics invented a Jesus who stayed only a few days on earth, the Synoptics invented a Jesus who stayed only one week in Jerusalem. My research shows that Jesus stayed in Judea from October 67 CE until September 70 CE, which means that he celebrated the Passovers of 68, 69 and 70 CE in Jerusalem.
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.
Giuseppe
Posts: 13732
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: Time Shift scenarios and the New Testament texts

Post by Giuseppe »

Frans, do you think that some Greek-Roman had suspected something about who is behind the Gospel Jesus? That part of the truth had leaked among the outsiders ? And if yes, with which effect?
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.
Post Reply