Time Shift scenarios and the New Testament texts

[iskander]

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?

A non-biblical Jesus could only be an invention without any connotation to the story of interest .

[Lena Einhorn]

To MrMacSon:
There are a number of messianic leaders named by Josephus, is that what you mean? But not all of them are NT-Jesus, unless Jesus is REALLY a composite character.
I think we may have a hard time finding a term for the non-biblical character that we can all agree on. After all, some of us think he was a flesh and blood character, others that he was a celestial being ...

[iskander]

For Christians he was a man.

[MrMacSon]

• There are a number of messianic leaders named by Josephus, is that what you mean?

I meant the total number of people in the writings of Josephus that are named Jesus. Not all are messiah-claimants, and it would seem that some who don't seem to be messiah claimants have, in recent times, been conflated with the NT-Jesus (eg. Jesus ben Ananias)

• But not all of them are NT-Jesus, unless Jesus is REALLY a composite character.

Yep, and not all of them would have contributed to such a composite.

I think we may have a hard time finding a term for the non-biblical character that we can all agree on. After all, some of us think he was a flesh and blood character, others that he was a celestial being ...

Re being a celestial being, I think they propose the NT-Jesus evolved from concepts of a Christ from the Pauline texts or Gnostic- or Docetic- like theology (or both).

[Lena Einhorn]

MrMacSon wrote:

I meant the total number of people in the writings of Josephus that are named Jesus. Not all are messiah-claimants, and it would seem that some who don't seem to be messiah claimants have, in recent times, been conflated with the NT-Jesus (eg. Jesus ben Ananias)

Well, can we add some who are not named Jesus by Josephus ...?

[iskander]

Yes , you can add and add ...anything for the converted, but it means nothing at all.

[MrMacSon]

As long as they're not Michael Jackson pretending to be something he wasn't -

eta: posting the video or making the comment was not a dig at anyone. It was an attempt at a light-hearted response

[MrMacSon]

I think we may have a hard time finding a term for the non-biblical character that we can all agree on. After all, some of us think he was a flesh and blood character, others that he was a celestial being ...

.... I think they propose the NT-Jesus evolved from concepts of a Christ from the Pauline texts or Gnostic- or Docetic- like theology (or both).

That could involve a synthesis of the Doherty-Carrier propositions and Lena's or Frans' propositions (or both) and the propositions of Markus Vinzent & Matthias Klinghardt that the synoptic Gospels were written after the Marcionite theology.

[Michael BG]

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.

…

I think the question we all have to ask ourselves when we look at different scenarios presented …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.

I read your article and I was interested in your theories and wondered how you would address my concerns about the evidence upon which you base your theories and so I welcomed the opportunity to ask you here.

It is not a question of accepting a new idea, it is about the intellectual argument in support of the new idea and whether it can sustain its position against the criticism of its position. There is no point in replacing one belief with another.

I thought you engaged in debate with others on your theories. I thought you have presented papers for others to discuss and criticise, so your theories can be tested.

It seems that you do not have answers to the idea that all the non-biblical stories of Jesus’ sojourn in Egypt are based on the fiction of Matthew and the parallel you see between the Egyptian and Jesus is extremely weak because the Egyptian was not arrested and executed as Jesus is in Mark’s gospel.

[MrMacSon]

…

So, thirdly, to answer your question "If we only had the gospels of Mark and Q what evidence would you have for your theory?": I would have the close analogy between the events of the Mount of Olives, as depicted in the Gospels, and that of "the Egyptian", in Josephus. And I would have all the non-biblical evidence of Jesus's adult sojourn to Egypt, the lack of New Testament information before age 30, as well as the strange homecoming to Nazareth, apparently after a long absence.

Our earliest two sources (three if you include Paul) have nothing about Jesus’ birth. Matthew and Luke both fill this vacuum in their own way ...

If the NT-Jesus is a person translocated in time from the 50s, then Paul would not have heard stories about Him in the 30s.

It seems unlikely that Origen would want to contradict Matthew’s fiction that Jesus stayed in Egypt for a while and so has no interest in counting Celsus’ assertion that Jesus was in Egypt.

Celsus is likely to be a fictive character used for the sake of rhetoric.

What Origen writes as his summary is “I give it as my opinion that all these things worthily harmonize with the predictions that Jesus is the Son of God.” He goes on to say that the birth story is a falsehood and that Jesus was born of a virgin, just as in Matthew’s fiction. Therefore if you accept Origen and Matthew’s view that Jesus went to Egypt logically you should accept the Virgin birth!

Not necessarily. One can accept one part of a narrative without accepting another part of it.