Biblical Criticism & History Forum - earlywritings.com

Where do you see embarrassment with Nazareth in the gospels? Bethlehem was introduced to give Jesus a Davidic lineage. Or do you think it was embarrassment that made Matthew add the Egyptian episode in the life of Jesus? Obviously, Egypt serves a similar purpose here as Bethlehem: to connect Jesus with illustrious figures from scripture and connected prophecies.

Ulan wrote: ↑Mon May 14, 2018 8:45 am Where do you see embarrassment with Nazareth in the gospels? Bethlehem was introduced to give Jesus a Davidic lineage. Or do you think it was embarrassment that made Matthew add the Egyptian episode in the life of Jesus? Obviously, Egypt serves a similar purpose here as Bethlehem: to connect Jesus with illustrious figures from scripture and connected prophecies.

The embarrassment is in the fact that the davidic Messiah had to be born in Bethlehem, not in Nazareth. So even pacifist pro-Roman Evangelists wanted to secure the 100% origin and provenance of their Messiah.

So it is impossible that an Egyptian (was he even a Jew from Egypt) could be the leader of Zealots (I underline: Zealots) in Judea.

Hence the use of the term 'Egyptian' by Josephus is probably sarcastic anti-Zealot irony.

It is like to call Napoleone the little ''corsican'' (from Corsica), not a ''true French''.

Or like to call Stalin a Georgian, not a ''true Russian''.

Clearly only an enemy of Napoleon or Stalin could emphasize their peripheral origin in comparison with the center of their empires.

You didn't answer the point why the connection of Jesus to Egypt was added. If that were an embarrassing detail, it would not have been deliberately added. And if there really was some prophecy of salvation coming out of Egypt, Egypt cannot really have a negative connotation.

I am not saying that the mention of Egypt was embarrassing for Jesus. And the Gospel Jesus is not said to be born in Egypt. The embarrasing thing here for a Messiah is the birth (or the provenance to the point of the recognition of a person) from a foreign country.

Jesus was despised as ''The Galilean'' according to the enemies of Peter in the trial episodes. As not a ''true Judean'' from Jerusalem. So you have also in the Gospel the offence addressed to someone for the his peripheral origin.

Still, this doesn't explain why someone who could be identified by the moniker "the Egyptian" was able to raise such a large number of followers.

Ulan wrote: ↑Mon May 14, 2018 9:50 am Still, this doesn't explain why someone who could be identified by the moniker "the Egyptian" was able to raise such a large number of followers.

My faith in the numbers found in our texts (Josephus, Acts) is pretty low.

Ben C. Smith wrote: ↑Mon May 14, 2018 9:52 am

Ulan wrote: ↑Mon May 14, 2018 9:50 am Still, this doesn't explain why someone who could be identified by the moniker "the Egyptian" was able to raise such a large number of followers.

My faith in the numbers found in our texts (Josephus, Acts) is pretty low.

Sure. For example, I doubt very much the population numbers Josephus gives for Jerusalem. However, if you can reliably identify someone by the name "the Egyptian", it should be someone who at least has some notoriety. On the other hand, it shouldn't exactly be common for Egyptians to reach such a position, or the "name" doesn't work anymore.

Ulan wrote: ↑Mon May 14, 2018 9:55 am However, if you can reliably identify someone by the name "the Egyptian", it should be someone who at least has some notoriety.

But why should Josephus identify the 'Egyptian' reliably ? He certainly did not have to give an account (or even an apology!) to the followers of the ''Egyptian''. Only to the Romans.

And so there is no way to confirm Josephus as a real historian when he called a seditious Jew as ''the Egyptian impostor''.

This is not put in doubt the historicity of the man, obviously. Only the fact that he was really ''from Egypt'' (by birth or by provenance).

So at least this analysis shows that the label of ''Egyptian'' was a common insult addressed by the mainstream Jews (as Josephus or the Celsus's Jew) against false messianists.

But why just ''Egypt'' and not, for example, ''Cyrene'' or ''Samaria'' or ''Gitta'' ?

Because the coming out of ''Egypt'' was effectively the mission of any Joshua REDIVIVUS. So proving that the false messianists attacked by the mainstream Jews by the insulting label of ''Egyptian'' were posing, in their propaganda, as new Joshua.