Time Shift scenarios and the New Testament texts

[MrMacSon]

note -

38 Are you not the Egyptian, then, who recently stirred up a revolt and led the four thousand men of the Assassins out into the wilderness?”

[Lena Einhorn]

MrMacSon wrote:

note -

38 Are you not the Egyptian, then, who recently stirred up a revolt and led the four thousand men of the Assassins out into the wilderness?”

I'm not sure what you mean. Could you clarify?

[MrMacSon]

But I will say this: A symbolical, or "composite", Jesus is not someone anybody would feel the need or urge to hide.

I agree. But I'd contend that the NT Jesus is a symbolic Jesus - whether he be a real 20s/30s AD/CE person, or whether he be based on the Egyptian (or Judas the Galilean as Daniel Unterbrink proposes/argues; or Jesus ben Saphat as Frans proposes/argues)

• A symbolical Jesus would not be someone anyone would feel the need to shift to another time period.

Unless he was a failed rebel leader or a failed messiah.

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.

Another key aspect of the NT is prophecy, and that is a reason to shift the narrative to before an apocalypse

[Lena Einhorn]

MrMacSon wrote:

Unless he was a failed rebel leader or a failed messiah.

If he was a failed rebel leader or a failed messiah, he existed in the flesh ...

[MrMacSon]

MrMacSon wrote:

note -

38 Are you not the Egyptian, then, who recently stirred up a revolt and led the four thousand men of the Assassins out into the wilderness?”

I'm not sure what you mean. Could you clarify?

I posted that as an acknowledgement that the Egyptian was noted in that verse as a leader of a revolt: as a vague or even cryptic reference to history.

I posted it (i) in support of your general argument that the Epyptian is important to the NT narrative, and (ii) because it seemed to tie to the Acts 21 theme of Paul stirring up the Jews (although, interesting, as an adversary to the Jews, rather than stirring the Jews against the Romans)

[MrMacSon]

If he was a failed rebel leader or a failed messiah, he existed in the flesh ...

I was just going to respond saying "Yes, I agree." But it raises (begs?) the question -

• if he is a re-cast rebel leader (or a re-cast messiah), is he the 'original'? or the same as the 'original' ?

[Lena Einhorn]

MrMacSon wrote:

I posted it (i) in support of your general argument that the Epyptian is important to the NT narrative, and (ii) to acknowledge it seemed to tie to the Acts 21 theme of Paul stirring up the Jews (although, interesting, as an adversary to the Jews, rather than stirring the Jews against the Romans)

The issue of whether the enemy was the Jews or the Romans is interesting. In the NT narrative, it seems to be exclusively the Jews. In the case of the rebels it seems to be the Romans as well as the Jewish establishment.

If there is a rebellion related context to Jesus's activity, this is an interesting contrast, which begs an explanation. One possibility is that the Gospel authors -- just like Josephus -- wrote after the Jews had been defeated, and the Romans were victorious. And they mostly wrote for a Roman audience. This is one possible explanation.
But one must not forget the very important, and in translations hidden, fact, that John 18 claims that when Jesus is "arrested" on the Mount of Olives, those who come to "arrest" him is a Roman cohort of one thousand soldiers!

[MrMacSon]

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!

• • Mark 13:1-7
    
    Antiquities of the Jews 20.169-172
    
    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.

From this post (p. 3 of this thread) - http://www.earlywritings.com/forum/view ... 124#p57124

Interestingly, Hermann Detering thinks we should look more to the 2nd Jewish War as the basis for some or all of the Synoptic Apocalypse (aka the Olivet Discourse)

• http://radikalkritik.de/wp-content/uplo ... 13-JHC.pdf

and Basil Lourié has argued that

• "The so-called 'Synoptic Apocalypse' is a reworking of a Second Temple period Jewish apocalypse (best preserved in Matthew), whose structure is recoverable from the contents and the order of Jesus’ parables."
  
  https://www.academia.edu/8157652/The_Sy ... ish_Source

[MrMacSon]

The issue of whether the enemy was the Jews or the Romans is interesting. In the NT narrative, it seems to be exclusively the Jews. In the case of the rebels1 it seems to be the Romans as well as the Jewish establishment.

If there is a rebellion related context to Jesus's activity, this is an interesting contrast, which begs an explanation. One possibility is that the Gospel authors -- just like Josephus -- wrote after the Jews had been defeated, and the Romans were victorious. And they mostly wrote for a Roman audience. This is one possible explanation.

But one must not forget the very important, and in translations hidden, fact, that John 18 claims that when Jesus is "arrested" on the Mount of Olives, those who come to "arrest" him is a Roman cohort of one thousand soldiers!

1 You mean the rebels active 44-70 AD/CE ?

One thing I think is significant to the development of Christianity is

• (i) the introduction of the fiscus Judaicus and the impact it had on Jews throughout the Empire; and
  
  (ii) Nerva's change to it in 96 AD/CE - that made it much more attractive to not be Jewish: especially for nominally-Jewish Gentiles to denounce their Judaism.

i will post something on this soon.

[Lena Einhorn]

MrMacSon wrote:

You mean the rebels active 44-70 AD/CE ?

Yes, I mean the rebels active 44-70 CE.

You are right, the general Roman "mood" probably influenced where the enmity was placed when presenting the new faith to this audience.
But additionally, there was competition between the two monotheistic faiths -- both of whom had miraculously survived the utter destruction of the Jewish war, albeit greatly altered.