“Most readers of this book, and especially New Testament scholars, will find its thesis unpalatable and even unacceptable. They should for that reason take its evidence and argument seriously, not just as positive historical proposals but as a challenge to traditional reconstructions of the life and precise setting of Jesus of Nazareth. Those who trust the Gospel portraits as reasonably accurate historically will encounter an alternative that challenges such trust; those who consider these portraits to be substantially products of social memory will also find valuable clues to historical events that may have fashioned that memory. At the very least, this book should make us think.”
—Philip R. Davies, Professor emeritus of Biblical studies at the University of Sheffield, Former Director for the Centre for the Study of the Dead Sea Scrolls
Can someone tell his personal opinion about this thesis?
Thanks in advance,
Giuseppe
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.
“Most readers of this book, and especially New Testament scholars, will find its thesis unpalatable and even unacceptable. They should for that reason take its evidence and argument seriously, not just as positive historical proposals but as a challenge to traditional reconstructions of the life and precise setting of Jesus of Nazareth. Those who trust the Gospel portraits as reasonably accurate historically will encounter an alternative that challenges such trust; those who consider these portraits to be substantially products of social memory will also find valuable clues to historical events that may have fashioned that memory. At the very least, this book should make us think.”
—Philip R. Davies, Professor emeritus of Biblical studies at the University of Sheffield, Former Director for the Centre for the Study of the Dead Sea Scrolls
Can someone tell his personal opinion about this thesis?
Thanks in advance,
Giuseppe
Now now - you made me spend some money...... - just downloaded the ebook from amazon. Yep, I've read Einhorn's theory so am interested to see how she fleshes it out in her book. Time -shift, to my thinking, is an important avenue of research for the gospel story. Albeit my own approach is a back-ward time-shift for the gospel crucifixion story.
Tread softly because you tread on my dreams.
W.B. Yeats
She wrote The Jesus Mystery: Astonishing Clues to the True Identities of Jesus and Paul (2007) in which she claims Jesus survived the crucifixion and turned into Paul. In her latest book, A Shift in Time, she claims the timeline is off by twenty years, so instead of 30 AD era, she makes Jesus a Jewish nationalist fighting Roman rule around 50 AD, claiming Josephus as source. Don't know if she completely dumps the thesis of the first book in the second.
She is a film maker by trade, and she tries to go for controversy. I read some reviews, and they don't paint a picture of great depth here. But hey, if you like reading stuff you don't have to take seriously, she could be for you.
Last edited by Stuart on Fri Apr 01, 2016 2:42 pm, edited 1 time in total.
“’That was excellently observed’, say I, when I read a passage in an author, where his opinion agrees with mine. When we differ, there I pronounce him to be mistaken.” - Jonathan Swift
.
Einhorn outlined time-shift stuff here, as well as reference to robbers, and the lack of documentation of crucifixions in the first half of the 1st C AD/CE -
An interesting aspect of the book is a comment in one of the current two reviews -
*** Very Interesting
By Ashley LaMar on March 29, 2016
There was also a interesting piece of history that caught my attention and requires a lot more research on my part. As Christians we are taught that Jesus was crucified between two thieves but if you look at the original documents the thieves are referred to as "robbers." While "thief" and "robber" may be interchangeable today Einhorn claims that historically "robber" was a word used to refer to a Jewish rebel that was uprising and revolting against the Roman rule. Was Jesus really crucified between two Jewish rebels who were fighting against Rome? What is also interesting is that "Zealot" as in "Simon the Zealot" and "Iscariot" as in "Judas Iscariot" was also used to refer to Jewish rebels. Were Jesus' followers Jewish rebels? Were they involved in not only Jesus' ministry but also the violent uprising against Rome? Could Jesus himself have been a rebel leader? It's all very interesting to read and consider.
Ashley LaMar also said -
The basic concept is that we, as Christians, have the timeline of Christ all wrong. Einhorn believes that we are off by 20 years! The ministry of Jesus is currently believed to have started when he was in his early 30's and lasted only a few years before he was crucified. The big issues with this timeline is that many historic documents that have survived from the 30's don't reference many of the events in the gospels and timeline is off. According to Einhorn, if we move the gospels to the 50's a lot of the events line up and there is a lot of collaboration for Biblical events.
I think the time-shift stuff is interesting, but it doesn't mean moving the gospels to the 50's makes a lot of the events line up for "a lot of collaboration for Biblical events".
All it may mean is gospel-writers borrowed events set in the 50s in Josephus's texts and those gospel-writers set them in the late 20s in their narratives.
stuart wrote:I read some reviews, and they don't paint a picture of great depth here
So what? It's what the reviews say and in what context.
Giuseppe wrote:
I am just curious to know which is the real difference between a Josephus who invented Judas the Galilean as foil to mask himself and a ''Mark'' who invented 'Jesus' to mask the ''Egyptian Prophet'' (or to allegorize Israel, as the mythicist R.G. Price argues).
Frankly, I don't see no difference.
it's best to assess each situation on it's own merits before comparing them.
Giuseppe wrote:
At best only one: McLaren writes in an academic article, while Lena Einhorn in a ''not-academic'' book.
What matters is the soundness or cogency of the arguments (which, in turn, will depend on the premises and the relationship of the terms in the premises to each other).
“Most readers of this book, and especially New Testament scholars, will find its thesis unpalatable and even unacceptable. They should for that reason take its evidence and argument seriously, not just as positive historical proposals but as a challenge to traditional reconstructions of the life and precise setting of Jesus of Nazareth. Those who trust the Gospel portraits as reasonably accurate historically will encounter an alternative that challenges such trust; those who consider these portraits to be substantially products of social memory will also find valuable clues to historical events that may have fashioned that memory. At the very least, this book should make us think.”
—Philip R. Davies, Professor emeritus of Biblical studies at the University of Sheffield, Former Director for the Centre for the Study of the Dead Sea Scrolls
Can someone tell his personal opinion about this thesis?
Thanks in advance, Giuseppe
What thesis? Davies' thesis? Which is?
Yes, "Those who 'trust' the Gospel portraits as reasonably accurate historically will encounter an alternative that challenges such 'trust' ..."
Yes, "this book should make us think" as it contains new "historical proposals"
One obvious issue is that the Egyptian prophet was apparently not crucified. It is not clear why followers of the Egyptian prophet would rapidly come to claim such an end for their leader if it did not actually happen.
Andrew Criddle
Jesus Barabbas (''Jesus Son of Father'') was apparently not crucified, too.
So Celsus :
After we had convicted him, and condemned him as deserving of punishment, he was found attempting to conceal himself, and endeavouring to escape in a most disgraceful manner, and he was betrayed by those whom he called disciples...
(Contra Celsum 2.9)
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.
- just downloaded the ebook from amazon. Yep, I've read Einhorn's theory so am interested to see how she fleshes it out in her book. Time -shift, to my thinking, is an important avenue of research for the gospel story. Albeit my own approach is a back-ward time-shift for the gospel crucifixion story.
she could be for you.
