Lena Einhorn wrote:
When I first started seeing parallels between events in Josephus and events described in the Gospels and Acts, all of them seemed to be delayed from 28-36 CE (in the NT) to 44-55 CE in Josephus's texts
- the death of Theudas; a messianic leader on the Jordan who is later beheaded; the activity of robbers; an ongoing rebellion; a conflict between Galileans and Samaritans; two co-reigning high priests; the attack on someone named Stephanos on a road outside Jerusalem; a procurator/prefect who has an influential wife, kills Galileans, crucifies Jews, is in conflict with the Jewish king, and shares jurisdiction over Galilee with that Jewish king; and, not least, a messianic leader on the Mount of Olives who is preaching to his disciples that he will tear down the walls of Jerusalem, but is defeated there by a speira lead by a chiliarchos.
But as I kept reading Josephus, I found that a number of striking parallels between the New Testament on the one hand, and
War and
Antiquities on the other, were not at all found in the 40s and 50s in the latter sources, but rather
at other times of brewing rebellion.
- The birth of Jesus during the Census of Quirinius is the most obvious example (this census, in Josephus, is when the first organized rebellion took place)...1
but
I was finding more and more parallels to events which Josephus places during the Jewish war (66-70/73 CE). And still -- and this is important -- despite the fact that a majority of the Gospel events I had found, involving Jesus, had been placed in the 50s by Josephus (the parallels between the defeat and arrest of Jesus on the Mount of Olives and the very similar events involving "the Egyptian", in particular), in those later and earlier parallels JESUS WAS OFTEN ALSO PRESENT.
- 1 if we look at the most obviously datable example -- the Census under Quirinius -- Luke's placement of Jesus's birth during that event would mean he was born in 6 CE. But if he, as Luke also says, began his missionary activity when he was thirty years old, this could hardly have happened after the 30s. And yet, we find almost all the parallels between the NT and Josephus either during the rebellious activity of the 40s and 50s, or during the Jewish war, i.e. later.
In my opinion, the explanation most likely is that the placement of Jesus's birth at the time of the Census is symbolical, rather than real. It is not HIS BIRTH that occurs then, but THE BIRTH OF THE REBELLION.
Let me give an example of a parallel from the latter period, the Jewish war, one where Jesus is also present, but to my mind only symbolically:
In all three synoptic Gospels, we read of a mysterious event when Jesus and his disciples are going across the Sea of Galilee to "the country of the Gerasenes" (in Mark and Luke), or "the country of the Gadarenes" (in Matthew). The first odd thing about this is that neither Gerasa nor Gadara lie anywhere near the Sea of Galilee -- or any other sea for that matter. Next, we read of Jesus in Gerasa meeting "a man out of the tombs with an unclean spirit." The man, whose name is "Legion, for we are many", and who has been shackled, can not be restrained anymore. He (and the unclean spirits) beg of Jesus "not to send them out of the country." Next, the unclean spirits enter a heard of swine, two thousand of them, who rush down the steep bank into the sea and drown. And the demoniac -- who apparently had been naked -- now sits clothed, and without "his legion."
In the story in Matthew, the event takes place in the country of the Gadarenes, and there are TWO demoniacs coming out of the tombs, rather than merely one.
And this, according to Josephus, is how the Jewish war in Jerusalem ended (
War 6.433-434; 7.25-36): there were two surviving, and very fierce, leaders of the Jewish rebellion -- Simon bar Giora and John of Gischala. Simon bar Giora -- who under his command had had the size of three legions -- came from Gerasa. John of Gischala first became known for fighting the Gadarenes. But now it's all over. As Jerusalem lies destroyed, these two men (who have only recently stopped fighting each other) both hide in the subterranean caverns of the demolished city. Simon and his men have started digging a mine, “and this in hopes that they should be able to proceed so far as to rise from under ground, in a safe place, and by that means escape.” But, continues Josephus, their provisions begin to fail them. So Simon has to emerge from underground, and “thinking he might be able to astonish and elude the Romans, put on a white frock, and buttoned upon him a purple cloak.” But the Romans are not deluded. Simon bar Giora is put in shackles, taken out of the country, and forced to partake in Titus’ triumphal march in Rome, after which he is killed. John of Gischala is similarly forced out of the caverns for lack of food, and is similarly taken out of the country and paraded on the streets of Rome.
Now Jesus is present in the Gospel narratives of the two demoniacs hiding in the tombs, and it is to him they turn for mercy. And yet, if the parallel to Simon bar Giora and John of Gischala is a true one, there is no place for a Jesus character there (who would he be? A Roman commander?).
In my opinion, this is an example of where the New Testament is a relayer of pure history, and nothing else. The authors of the New Testament, in my opinion, here attempt to do what Josephus did: tell the story of the Jewish rebellion -- but
from their perspective. They place Jesus in it only because the surface narrative in the Gospels is all about Jesus. The tale of the rebellion is pure subtext. Except, that is, when Jesus himself is part of the story of the rebellion (which in my opinion is in the 50s). Then, I believe, we see him 'in the flesh' in both sources.
I hope this lengthy description was somewhat easy to follow.