Time Shift scenarios and the New Testament texts

[Secret Alias]

If you are going to threaten to pull out of the forum for being shown the truth not once but twice (and now three times) then it speaks volumes about how much of a truth-seeker you really are. The purpose of this forum is to help foster knowledge and learning. I have learned a lot from hanging out with smarter people than myself. I've made plenty of errors at the forum and had my ass spanked as a result. But it has made me a better scholar (I hope).

Like you I came into the study of early Christianity with a pre-packaged 'theory' which attempted to explain history with a tout comprendre. I came to a forum like this one attempting to win people over to my theory. Over time and interaction with smart people I realized my theory was wrong. The value in the forum it turned out was not as a vehicle to make converts to my theory but to refine my skills in truth seeking.

There are a lot of grey areas in the humanities but how ancient languages worked usually isn't one of them. In this case your use of the Talmud was an error and a simple 'oops, I am sorry' would have been sufficient. You don't have to be a Semitic language scholar to develop theories about early Christianity. But you have to admit you made a mistake when it has been pointed out to you in order to be credited with seeking after the truth rather than self-motivated interests.

[Secret Alias]

The furthest I could go is to argue that Kefar Sekania of Egypt (מצרים) may be a scribal error for נוֹצרים or Notzrim. As such Kefar Sekania would then refer to the town in Galilee with Christian associations. But you can't get anywhere from Egypt (מצרים). You might want to make something about the similarity in appearance of the two words.

[Secret Alias]

You could similarly argue I guess that the allusion to a rebellious 'Egyptian' might have been a deliberate concealment of 'Notzri' owing to the similarity in the way the words appear on the page. In other words, someone substituted one word for the other to protect Christians. Just trying to help.

[iskander]

I just discovered something else, on this topic of Notzrim vs Mitzrim (see above)! And I'm beginning to regret I didn't see this before I wrote the book ...

As I mentioned, in the early uncensored, handwritten manuscripts of the Talmud (online at http://jnul.huji.ac.il/dl/talmud/bavly/selectbavly.asp), the name of Yeshu Ha-Notzri (Jesus the Nazarene, or Jesus the Christian) have not been erased or removed (which it later was). And although the available manuscripts (the earliest Firenze, from 1177) write Ha-Notzri, "the Christian", as הנוצרי, in Hebrew that looks very similar to המצרי Ha-Mitzri ("the Egyptian"). There's just a tiny space between the nun and the vav, which, if pulled together, would look like a mem, and turn the word into Ha-Mitzri.

"Notzri" is a strange word, which doesn't appear before the Babylonian Talmud, and it has just been assumed that it is connected to Nazareth. Earlier in this thread, I allowed myself to throw in the suggestion that perhaps, from the beginning, it could have been written Ha-Mitzri. But since the available manuscripts have it as Ha-Notzri, that merely becomes an unsubstantiated speculation.

What I now found, however, adds fuel to the speculation:
There is a very strange sentence in the Talmud tractate Gittin 57a:

"Once when R. Manyumi b. Helkiah and R. Helkiah b. Tobiah and R. Huna b. Hiyya were sitting together they said: If anyone knows anything about Kefar Sekania of Egypt, let him say."

The reason it is strange, is that Kefar Sekania lies nowhere near Egypt. It is a Galilean town! This has prompted some Talmud scholars to suggest that "Egypt" מצרים in this sentence really should be something "with Nazarene associations" (and thus that the mem in reality should be a nun and a vav). But in fact, מצרים doesn't mean only "Egypt". It also means "Egyptians"! And this is also the way the word is interpreted in some translations.
Now why did these scholars suggest it should be something "with Nazarene associations"? The reason they did this, is because Kefar Sekania, in the Talmud, is a town associated with the Christians! In tractate Abodah Zarah 17a (uncensored versions), it is written:

”Once I was walking along the upper market of Sepphoris and found a man, one of the disciples of Yeshu ha-Notzri whosa name was Jacob of Kefar Sekania.”

and in Tosefta Hullin 2.24 it says:

"Once I was strolling on the road of Sepphoris when I met Jacob from Kefar Sekania who told me a heretical teaching in the name of Jesus son of Pantiri and it pleased me."

So, simply put: Could it be, that the word in Gittin 57a is no mistake, and that it really is מצרים (Egyptians)?
If so, the town -- in the Talmud associated with Christians -- is really presented as "Kefar Sekania of the Egyptians".

Gittin 57a
http://www.sefaria.org/search?q=kefar
http://www.sefaria.org/Gittin.57a/en/Se ... on?lang=en

[outhouse]

Yes, I think I shall cease and desist. I don't want to participate in a forum where language like this is used.

Don't listen to him, he is more pseudo then anything or anyone here. Keeping him on ignore solves these issues. n

[Secret Alias]

Listen to outhouse. He's a genius. An example of genius sprouting in soil that knows no ancient languages. Use him as an exemplar of great scholarship and original thinking.

[DCHindley]

Although this subject seems to have temporarily petered out, I spent a little time annotating William Whiston's English translation of Josephus' War Book 7, sections 253-274, where Josephus sums up the common themes of the major players in the War of 66 CE. My intent was to see whether "Zealots" could have been active in the time of the revolt of Judas occasioned by the taxation being imposed by the Emperor's procurator Cyrenius, around 6 CE.

(JOE Jwr 7:253-274) 253 It was one Eleazar, a powerful man, and the commander of these Sicarii ... was a descendant from that Judas who had persuaded a large number of the Jews, as we have formerly related, not to submit to the taxation when Cyrenius was sent into Judea to make one; 254 for then it was that the Sicarii got together against those who were willing to submit to the Romans, and treated them in all respects as if they had been their enemies, both by plundering them of what they had, by driving away their cattle, and by setting fire to their houses: 255 for they [the followers of Judas] said that they [those willing to submit to the taxation] differed not at all from foreigners, by betraying, in so cowardly a manner, that freedom which Jews thought worthy to be contended for to the utmost, and by owning that they preferred slavery under the Romans before such a contention.

256 Now this was in reality no better than a pretence and a cloak for the barbarity which was made use of by them, and to colour over their own avarice, which they afterward made evident by their own actions; 257 for those [same parties or groups of people] that were partners with them [the Sicarii] in their rebellion [to the taxation], joined also with them [i.e., the Sicarii] in the war against the Romans, and went further lengths with them in their impudent undertakings against them [i.e., the Romans]; 258 and when they [the parties or groups of people mentioned before] were again convicted of falsehood in this pretext, they still more abused those who justly reproached them for their wickedness; 259 and indeed that [war against the Romans] was a time most fertile in all manner of wicked practices, insomuch that no kind of evil deeds were then left undone; nor could anyone so much as devise any bad thing that was new, 260 so deeply were they all infected, and strove with one another in their single capacity, and in their communities, who should run the greatest lengths in impiety toward God, and in unjust actions toward their neighbours; the men of power oppressing the multitude, and the multitude earnestly labouring to kill the men of power. 261 The one part [i.e., the men of power] were desirous of tyrannizing over others; and the rest of offering violence to others [indiscriminately], and of plundering such as were richer than themselves. 262 They were the Sicarii who first began these transgressions [in the time of Cyrenius], and first became barbarous toward those allied to them, and left no words of reproach unsaid, and no works of perdition untried, in order to kill those whom their contrivances affected.

263 Yet did John [of Gischala] demonstrate by his actions, that these Sicarii were more moderate than he was himself, for he not only slew all such as gave him good counsel to do what was right, but treated them worst of all, as the most bitter enemies that he had among all the citizens; nay, he filled his entire country with ten thousand instances of wickedness, such as a man who was already hardened sufficiently in his impiety toward God, would naturally do; 264 for the food was unlawful that was set upon his table, and he rejected those purifications that the law of his country had ordained; so that it was no longer a wonder if he, who was so mad in his impiety toward God, did not observe any rules of gentleness and common affection toward men.

265 Again, therefore, what mischief was there which Simon the son of Gioras did not do? Or what kind of abuses did he abstain from as to those very freemen who had set him up for a tyrant? 266 What [manner of] friendship or kindred [by nationality] were there that did not make him more bold in his daily murders? For they looked upon the doing of mischief to strangers only, as a work beneath their courage, but thought their barbarity toward their nearest relatives would be a glorious demonstration thereof.

267 The Idumeans also strove with these men who should be guilty of the greatest madness! For they [all], vile wretches as they were, cut the throats of the high priests, that so no part of a religious regard to God might be preserved; they from there proceeded to destroy utterly the least remains of a political government, 268 and introduced the most complete scene of iniquity in all instances that could be practised;

under which scene [of iniquity], that sort of people that were called Zealots grew up [in power, although they had already been a faction in the city when the Romans were preparing to overtake Galilee, and had in fact let the Idumeans into the city to overthrow the aristocracy of the Chief Priests], and who indeed corresponded to the name; 269 for they imitated every wicked work; nor, if their memory suggested any evil thing that had formerly been done, did they avoid zealously to pursue the same; 270 and although they gave themselves that name from their zeal for what was good, yet did it agree to them only by way of irony, on account of those they had unjustly treated by their wild and brutish disposition, or as thinking the greatest mischiefs to be the greatest good.

271 Accordingly, they all met with such ends as God deservedly brought upon them in way of punishment; 272 for all such miseries have been sent upon them as man's nature is capable of undergoing, till the utmost period of their lives, and till death came upon them in various ways of torment: 273 yet might one say justly that they suffered less than they had done, because it was impossible they could be punished according to their deserving: 274 but to make a lamentation according to the deserts of those who fell under these men's barbarity, this is not a proper place for it ...

This way of understanding the text, which is not wildly speculative by any means, does seem to suggest that the Zealots first mentioned as rising in power in the time of the preparation for the Roman siege of Jerusalem ca. 68 CE, were connected, directly or indirectly, with one of the parties mentioned in section 257 that joined with Judas in his rebellion against the Roman taxation directed by Cyrenius.

I invite civil comment, if humanly possible.

DCH

[iskander]

257 The Sicarii and the other party.
A name for the other party ? " Sons of Liberty".

[DCHindley]

257 The Sicarii and the other party.
A name for the other party ? "Sons of Liberty".

Not sure where you are getting the "sons of" part, unless you are referring to some sort of modern day militia movement such as we have here and there in the USA, which could easily have a name like that, seeing it was used by one party involved with the American revolution of 1776.

Unfortunately, if that is the case, the modern militias that might adopt such a name would be keen not only to be free from taxes, but all forms of job safety, environmental protection, and discrimination regulations. I am not so sure most folks want to work in a society where you as a worker, as long as you were not a woman who should only be barefoot at home popping out babies, Hispanic or Asian in ethnicity, or of Islamic faith, who would be deported without trial as rapists, drug dealers and terrorists, are a resource to use at will in unsafe environments and then dispose of when used up, who go home to polluted drinking water and smog. We might as well live in industrial areas of China.

257 for those1 that were partners with them2 in their rebellion, joined also with them2 in the war against the Romans3, and went further lengths with them2 in their impudent undertakings against them3.

Lots of pronouns and stuff there. It is difficult to follow them all to decipher what persons or parties were being referred to. But I think, barring any grammatically based objections, I have come up with something reasonable. I have not tried to trace the pronouns back to parties previously mentioned, by Greek case & gender. My Greek is weak, and my head aches when I try to think too much. Prions! Pretty soon folks will be calling me "Al Zeimers".

1) Those persons and/or parties who joined in rebellion with the Sicarii in 6 CE and again in 66 CE.
2) The Sicarii party.
3) The Romans as Governors of the nation.

It would be the followers of Judas in 6 CE (and again in 66-74 CE as the Sicarii) who would be the freedom fighters.

255 for they1 said that they4 differed not at all from foreigners3, by betraying, in so cowardly a manner, that freedom which Jews thought worthy to be contended for to the utmost, and by owning that they preferred slavery under the Romans3 before such a contention.

4) Those willing to submit to the taxation.

I don't think we can equate Sicarii with the Zealots, though. The Sicarii agenda was such that when their attempt to take control of the initial rebellion in 66 CE failed (Menachem, who had royal aspirations, was killed by members of another faction) they withdrew to Masada, which they held, although they did make skirmishes and raids to the south and west. I think they may have armed early on some of the factions sympathetic to their goals, but generally, they stayed at Masada, perhaps awaiting divine intervention. They did harbor, IIRC, Simon Bar Giora for a period, whose forces held a number of towns and villages in the eastern regions of Judea, before Simon entered Jerusalem to take control of the revolution. Simon, IMHO, was akin to what historians called Anarchists in the Russian revolution, full armies roaming about with the goal of destroying any infrastructure, military, industrial or agricultural, that supported the existing power base, reasoning that a better world would grow from the ashes. So, the Sicarii were using Simon as their winnowing shovel separating the wheat from the chaff before they could step in and take over, perhaps with divine intervention.

268b under which scene [of iniquity], that sort of people that were called Zealots5 grew up, and who indeed corresponded to the name; 269 for they5 [zealously] imitated every wicked work; nor, if their5 memory suggested any evil thing that had formerly been done, did they5 avoid zealously to pursue the same; 270 and although they5 gave themselves that name from their5 zeal for what was good, yet did it agree to them5 only by way of irony, on account of those4 they had unjustly treated by their5 wild and brutish disposition, or as thinking the greatest mischiefs to be the greatest good.

5) The Zealot party.

Al Zeimers

[Charles Wilson]

It would be the followers of Judas in 6 CE...who would be the freedom fighters.

Mark 5: 25 - 26 (RSV):

[25] And there was a woman who had had a flow of blood for twelve years,
[26] and who had suffered much under many physicians, and had spent all that she had, and was no better but rather grew worse.

Symbolism is an acquired taste, I suppose, but I believe that the above Passage points to Judas of Galilee in the past tense - within about three years actually. Judas was one of the "Doctors" and the Woman with the 12 Year Issue of Blood has suffered under his "care". There were "Freedom Fighters" but they cannot get the job done against the might of Rome. Therefore, they are worse than useless. We get another hint of this from another Section of Mark 5:

Mark 5: 2 - 4 (RSV):

[2] And when he had come out of the boat, there met him out of the tombs a man with an unclean spirit,
[3] who lived among the tombs; and no one could bind him any more, even with a chain;
[4] for he had often been bound with fetters and chains, but the chains he wrenched apart, and the fetters he broke in pieces; and no one had the strength to subdue him.

This points to something different than a savior/god. The Transvalued "Jesus" fixes this man right up! Clothes and everything! There must have been a Men's Clothing Supply store next to the Tombs! BTW, what would "clothes" signify in a Jewish Story?

Anyway, we could argue all day about Symbolism. Taken as a whole, however, these assignments of meaning make sense. These Stories have been rewritten and Transvalued.

Best,

CW