archibald wrote: ↑Wed Jan 24, 2018 1:26 pm
One thought I have had:
What if, instead of concluding that there was a time shift, to relocate an actual, controversial figure (safely) in the 30's (a time of relative peace and quiet, apparently, where there would be no 'competing narratives' to lead the reader to uncover the deception) we suggested that events from later were used as a stage set for an invented figure placed (safely, for similar reasons) in the 30's?
The latter may work even better, given that Einhorn herself accepts that some of the parallels come from more than one period, not just the mid 50's (as per the 15-20 year 'shift' she concentrates on) but also the 60's. She is arguably suggesting (at least) two time shifts. Is this not explained better by suggesting that stage sets for a fictional figure would not be restricted to borrowings from only one (the 'real') alternative decade?
If I am not mistaken, she also suggests that some incidents were borrowed from/shifted to earlier too, to/from the turn of the century?
It might also be added that her 'main' time shift is arguably slightly spread out. In some cases it is 15 in others 20.
To sum up, might we expect more consistency if there was only one 'real' set of events being shifted?
And (with apologies if I am repeating issues previously discussed in the prior thread, which I have not read yet):
I remain curious as to where the 'love and pacifism' Jesus came from, in either possible scenario (Einhorn's concealed 'actual rebel figure' or a completely invented figure).
I find it hard to imagine that it was just thought up as a foil (in the first scenario) or 'just thought up' in the second.
Why do I say that? I guess because it's actually rather philosophically profound stuff, and arguably rather beautiful. Too well-formed to have been 'just thought up' during the writing of a deception.
Last edited by archibald on Wed Jan 24, 2018 2:45 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Jax wrote: ↑Wed Jan 24, 2018 2:37 pm
What's nice about this concept is that it pushes the first Gospel post Antiquities in the 90's
Possibly, and I am not averse to that suggestion.
But equally, all that would have been required was for the 50's-60's events to have happened and be known about. There would have been no need to wait for Josephus to (perhaps also) write about them.
