Biblical Criticism & History Forum - earlywritings.com

Hi,

I have just finished, 'A shift in Time' (thanks to a useful recommendation) and been kindly linked to Robert Price's review of, 'The Jesus Mystery'.

I find myself very enamoured, for some reason, with the ideas Einhorn appears to put forward. In feeling like this, I am very much aware of the potential pitfall of merely being swayed by the novelty of a recent read. It has been the case in the past that I have not immediately noticed possible flaws or outright contraindications in a Jesus thesis that I have only recently come across. Daniel Unterbrink is a good example.

So, I thought I'd start a thread to hear what others think of Einhorn's ideas and perhaps learn something from that.

Cheers.

archibald wrote: ↑Wed Jan 24, 2018 8:02 am Hi,

I have just finished, 'A shift in Time' (thanks to a useful recommendation) and been kindly linked to Robert Price's review of, 'The Jesus Mystery'.

I find myself very enamoured, for some reason, with the ideas Einhorn appears to put forward. In feeling like this, I am very much aware of the potential pitfall of merely being swayed by the novelty of a recent read. It has been the case in the past that I have not immediately noticed possible flaws or outright contraindications in a Jesus thesis that I have only recently come across. Daniel Unterbrink is a good example.

So, I thought I'd start a thread to hear what others think of Einhorn's ideas and perhaps learn something from that.

Not to prevent anybody from chiming in on this thread, but there was a thread about her book a while ago which may be of interest: viewtopic.php?f=3&t=2254. Lena Einhorn herself also joined the forum and posted more than 100 times: search.php?author_id=7201&sr=posts.

My review in short:

1) I doubt strongly that ''Mark'' and ''Matthew'' were at the same time allies in the Conspiracy (to mask the 'Egyptian' behind their Gospel Jesus) and enemies in theology. I would have liked more a lot that only ''Mark'' knew the secret (''Jesus''=the 'Egyptian') while ''Matthew'' was only the his poor victim (but Einhorn has need of Matthew in his theory, since Matthew quotes the ''Egypt'').

2) the fables about the Birth, the Fugue to Egypt, the Infancy, etc, are better seen definitely as pure anti-marcionite propaganda.

3) I would like to see the 'Egyptian' as one of the co-opted figures (just as Jesus ben Ananias) and not as the cause of the Christianity.

4) last but not least, Paul remains an enigma for any paradigm where a historical Jesus is assumed.

Ben C. Smith wrote: ↑Wed Jan 24, 2018 8:16 am

archibald wrote: ↑Wed Jan 24, 2018 8:02 am Hi,

I have just finished, 'A shift in Time' (thanks to a useful recommendation) and been kindly linked to Robert Price's review of, 'The Jesus Mystery'.

I find myself very enamoured, for some reason, with the ideas Einhorn appears to put forward. In feeling like this, I am very much aware of the potential pitfall of merely being swayed by the novelty of a recent read. It has been the case in the past that I have not immediately noticed possible flaws or outright contraindications in a Jesus thesis that I have only recently come across. Daniel Unterbrink is a good example.

So, I thought I'd start a thread to hear what others think of Einhorn's ideas and perhaps learn something from that.

Not to prevent anybody from chiming in on this thread, but there was a thread about her book a while ago which may be of interest: viewtopic.php?f=3&t=2254. Lena Einhorn herself also joined the forum and posted more than 100 times: search.php?author_id=7201&sr=posts.

Thx

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?

Giuseppe wrote: ↑Wed Jan 24, 2018 8:35 am I would like to see the 'Egyptian' as one of the co-opted figures (just as Jesus ben Ananias) and not as the cause of the Christianity.

Try this:

Josephus says The Egyptian ran away from the Mount of Olives and avoided arrest. The gospels have an unnamed figure who ran away from the Mount of Olives and avoided arrest.

Now, if Mr Egypt is Jesus, this could open up possible scenarios where he avoided crucifixion.

Or, it could be a hint that this fictional gospel episode has been lifted from a real episode.

archibald wrote: ↑Wed Jan 24, 2018 1:26 pm
What if ... 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?
.

I think that's at least as feasible.

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?

That's not clear. From which 'turn of the century'? The beginning of the 2nd century?

One further thought (not directly related to my previous post):

Regarding the 'relatively quiet' years (approx 4-37 CE) or as Tacitus put it, the years when 'all was quiet', during which, as Einhorn points out, Josephus hardly mentions 'robbers'.....

Was this a quiet period? I gather that Josephus is quiet about it, in terms of not writing about it (something which in itself would explain the absence of references to robbers) and I wonder if Tacitus was relying on Josephus...

MrMacSon wrote: ↑Wed Jan 24, 2018 2:13 pm

archibald wrote: ↑Wed Jan 24, 2018 1:26 pm
What if ... 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?
.

I think that's at least as feasible.

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?

That's not clear. From which 'turn of the century'? The beginning of the 2nd century?

Sorry, beginning of the 1st C

I guess I mean locating Jesus' birth there.

To be fair, I think this is part of her 15-20 year shift thing, and not a different shift. Only the shift from the 60's is a different shift (of 25-30 years).

She is essentially proposing a 15-30 year shift.

Which is a bit spread out.