Zealot Activity under Pilate?

[maryhelena]

<snip>
Whether or not Judas the Galilean was an actual historical figure, it seems that we keep digging up gems from works of Josephus that apply well to the Gospel story.

Oh, indeed.......

I do think Peter is on to something here and it is at least interesting to consider.

The Judas the Galilean story in Josephus has been considered by Daniel Unterbrink who has written a number of books on this figure from Josephus. Peter, it seems to me, is putting a different twist on Underbrink's connection of Judas the Galilean to the gospel Jesus figure.

http://www.danielunterbrink.com/

Unterbrink's theory was discussed in the thread:

Judas the Galilean of Nazareth

http://www.earlywritings.com/forum/view ... 658#p19658

I think the author of gMark used works like Wars and maybe even Antiquities, along with the LXX, to create his Jesus story.

I can't see how the author of gMark, and gMatthew, could have Antiquities in front of him and write that Herodias had been married to Philip.

i do think the passion is largely based on the Jesus Ananias story in Wars. It doesn't even have to mean that Josephus is reliable or that the author of gMark thought he was, just that Josephus wrote first, was widely read, and presented material that could be reworked into Mark's gospel.

There is no evidence that the Jesus ben Ananias figure in Josephus was a historical figure.

Sure, it would not matter if the gospel writers took stories from Josephus and reworked them for their own ends. But that is not going to be of any help in searching for early christian origins. Stories might throw a dim light on history but they remain stories. History requires evidence. Yes, I might hammer this point all day long.......but if the ahistoricists/mythicists are ever going to make headway against the Jesus historicists - then they have to demonstrate that their theories are based upon a sound historical footing. The writing of Josephus is a quagmire; one should put ones foot down with great trepidation....

---

Don't think I'm knocking Josephus down. I do think that the writing of Josephus holds the key to moving forward research into early christian origins. So, kudos to Peter that he is willing to go there...

[maryhelena]

Jesus being the figurehead of the movement, instead of Judas who betrays him, is a central claim of the Gospel of Mark. But this Judas is just a fiction, a stand-in for Judas the Galilean, whom the author of the Gospel of Mark wants us to repudiate along with him. Mark 14:10 refers to him as "Judas Iscariot," a coded reference, likely referring to the sicarii of the 40s and 50s of the first century. The veil lifts a little in Luke 6:15 and Acts 1:13, which refer plainly to "Simon the Zealot," and comes off in the Epistula Apostolorum, which simply refers to "Judas the Zealot."

Peter, working from the assumption that Judas the Galilean and his two sons were historical figures, how do you account for the fact that there was no zealot type activity during the time of Pilate? Lena Einhorn:

• λῃσταί are mentioned frequently also by Josephus. And in his writings, the term
  usually refers to Jewish rebels (“Zealots”, in the wider meaning of the term).14 That this is the
  intended meaning also in the Gospels is suggested by Mark 15:7: “Now a man called
  Barabbas was in prison with the rebels who had committed murder during the insurrection.”
  When Josephus writes about λῃσταί, however, he does so during two distinct
  periods: from 63 B.C.E., when Roman occupation begins, until the census revolt under Judas
  the Galilean was crushed, ca. 6 C.E. And then again with great frequency after 48 C.E., when
  “all Judea was overrun with robberies”.15 This second eruption would eventually lead to the
  Jewish War.
  
  Importantly, however, Josephus never once records the presence of ”robbers”
  during the time Jesus was active. In fact, there are no mentions of their activity between 6 C.E. and 44 C.E. (see Figure 1).
  
  <snip>
  
  To underline that the failure of Josephus to mention the activity of “robbers” between 6 and
  44 C.E. is no coincidence, Tacitus in Hist. 5.9-10 writes: “Under Tiberius all was quiet.”
  Josephus does describe two occasions of Jewish mass protests under Pilate. But judging from
  his narratives (and supported by Philo), these protests were entirely non-violent. On the
  second occasion, the protests against the use of funds from the Temple treasury to build an
  aqueduct, it ended in Jews being trampled and beaten to death. But, as Josephus states, “the
  people were unarmed” (A.J. 18.55-59,60-62; Philo, Legat. 299-305). There are no signs of
  armed rebellion.
  
  
  http://lenaeinhorn.se/wp-content/upload ... .11.25.pdf

Thus, during the time of Pilate there was no zealot activity against Rome. In fact, re the above article, there was no zealot activity between 6 c.e. and around 44 c.e. And that, of course, is why NT scholars
don't care for theories linking the gospel Jesus to the zealots. (consider the flak Reza Aslan' book, Zealot, has had.)

For this reason, no zealot activity under Pilate, Lena Einhorn has put forward her time-shift theory. Thus, Peter, with your proposed theory on Judas the Galilean and his two sons, a theory that does not work within the Pilate timeframe - are you seeking to backdate the activity of the two sons of Judas the Galilean to the time of Pilate? Does your linkage of Judas the Galilean to Judas the brother of Jesus mean that you are bringing forward the evens of 6 c.e. to the time of Pilate? Because if that is what your theory entails - then you can't object either to Lena Einhorn' time-shift theory - or even my own theory that brings forward, as it were, the historical events of 37 b.c. as being relevant to the gospel Jesus story.

Peter, once you bring the zealots into an interpretation of the gospel story - one has actually lost the Pilate timeframe. Yes, one can say that there are reflections of earlier and later historical events that the gospel writers put into a Pilate timeframe - but going that route opens up a very much wider historical canvas than the lst century. To define that wider timeframe by the Josephus story of Judas the Galilean is to limit research into early christian origins not facilitate it. Note, above, that Lena Einhorn makes mention, re Josephus, that zealot activity goes back to around 63 b.c.

[outhouse]

Thus, during the time of Pilate there was no zealot activity against Rome.

Not true.

The NT states Pilate had mingled Galilean blood but is not specific about why or when.



You have to remember Zealot is a term Hellenist used to label people that lived in a geographic area.

Zealots historically existed at the beginning of the century, and they historically existed at 66CE. There is no reason to think a group disbanded and then reformed a few years later.

Its absurd to think because they were not reported by a historian, that they magically ceased to exist.


Now the NT describes Pilate and blood and Galileans around 33CE ish. That is evidence of zealot activity, as is Jesus trouble in the temple.

The NT authors are going to use the term Galilean over Zealot as they don't want Zealots associated as the leader of their movement, when they are writing to a Roman audience. They have always downplayed this to make the movement more palatable to Romans. They did not want to be associated with the people who took down the temple as they were Hellenist NOT Aramaic Galileans

[maryhelena]

Thus, during the time of Pilate there was no zealot activity against Rome.

Not true.

[outhouse]

Thus, during the time of Pilate there was no zealot activity against Rome.

Not true.

There were present at that season,.... Among the innumerable multitude of people, Luke 12:1 that were then hearing the above discourses and sayings of Christ:

some that told him of the Galileans, whose blood Pilate had mingled with their sacrifices. These Galileans were very likely some of the followers of Judas Gaulonitis, or Judas of Galilee; see Acts 5:37 who endeavoured to draw off the Jews from the Roman government,

ZEALOTS

[maryhelena]

Good questions Mary.

The zealot indications in the gospel story can't be side-lined. The big question is what to do about them since no zealot activity during the time of Pilate is recorded in Josephus - re Lena Einhorn.

Peter, in the OP, has linked Judas the Galilean with Judas the brother of Jesus.

• ''Thus far we have plenty of testimony to the effect that the family of Jesus--through his brother Judas--was persecuted by the authorities because of the claim to be sons of David.
  <snip>
  Jesus being the figurehead of the movement, instead of Judas who betrays him, is a central claim of the Gospel of Mark. But this Judas is just a fiction, a stand-in for Judas the Galilean, ........................But that's not all. This Jesus is a fiction.''

So - big question for Peter: If Judas is a fiction, a stand-in for Judas the Galilean - then, who is Jesus, who is also a fiction, a stand in for?

If all the zealot linkage is going the way of Judas and leaving Jesus a bystander - if Jesus is a pacifist why was he crucified? Surely it would be the zealot Judas that hung on the cross/stake/pole. If Judas, as Judas the Galilean, is the 'man of war' - then what historical figure does the fictional Jesus reflect as the 'man of peace'?

What historical figure, who lived during the time of Pilate, who lived during the time when there was no zealot activity, could be viewed as a 'man of peace', a pacifist?

Since this argument relies heavily on the overlap of names, I am looking for a good source for the names of Jewish males in the 1st century. I have found only the wiki list of ossuary names, which interestingly doesn't even include 'James', but am wondering if there might be a better source. Anyone?

No help here I'm afraid. The connection between names is interesting - it's almost as though the gospel story is saying - go look at Josephus....However, Josephus is up to his own storytelling....Yes, the connection with Josephus is there. The question is what does that connection mean, what does it entail.

[Peter Kirby]

Peter, working from the assumption that Judas the Galilean and his two sons were historical figures, how do you account for the fact that there was no zealot type activity during the time of Pilate?

I consider such a "fact" possible, even probable, but it doesn't really affect my hypothesis.

My hypothesis requires that there were descendants of Judas the Galilean, known to have caused a ruckus during the First Jewish Revolt. It further takes at face value, as recorded in passing by Josephus, that two of his sons were named Simon and James, who were crucified ca. 48 CE.

It doesn't require seditious Zealot activity under Pilate.

So - big question for Peter: If Judas is a fiction, a stand-in for Judas the Galilean - then, who is Jesus, who is also a fiction, a stand in for?

Jesus, as a fiction, "stands in for" (though this is not really the best way to say it) Jesus Christ, the heavenly Jesus Christ.

More specifically, "Jesus" is the name of the person that God's Son, Jesus Christ, possesses.

[maryhelena]

Peter, working from the assumption that Judas the Galilean and his two sons were historical figures, how do you account for the fact that there was no zealot type activity during the time of Pilate?

I consider such a "fact" possible, even probable, but it doesn't really affect my hypothesis.

My hypothesis requires that there were descendants of Judas the Galilean, known to have caused a ruckus during the First Jewish Revolt. It further takes at face value, as recorded in passing by Josephus, that two of his sons were named Simon and James, who were crucified ca. 48 CE.

It doesn't require seditious Zealot activity under Pilate.

The point, surely, is that your theory is using a 'historical' figure in Josephus and linking that figure to a gospel figure. i.e. linking Judas the Galilean to Judas, the brother of Jesus. If, at the point of connection, Pilate in the gospel story, no seditious zealot activity is required by your theory - then the connection holds no meaning, no relevance for the gospel story.

For instance; my theory on Antigonus suggests a relevance for the gospel crucifixion story under Pilate. The theory you are proposing, re your above quote, does not require any 'seditious Zealot activity under Pilate' i.e. it does not require that it has any relevance for the gospel story. What is the point of a theory that has no relevance for the gospel Pilate time-frame?

And as I indicated in the post that has now been moved to a new thread... once you bring the zealots into an interpretation of the gospel story - one has actually lost the Pilate timeframe - which is really what your above quote is admitting...the Pilate time frame has no relevance for the Judas the Galilean = gospel Judas.

An alternative argument could be that earlier and later historical events are reflected within the gospel Pilate timeframe - but going that route opens up a very much wider historical canvas than the lst century. To define that wider timeframe by the Josephus story of Judas the Galilean is to limit research into early christian origins not facilitate it.

So - big question for Peter: If Judas is a fiction, a stand-in for Judas the Galilean - then, who is Jesus, who is also a fiction, a stand in for?

Jesus, as a fiction, "stands in for" (though this is not really the best way to say it) Jesus Christ, the heavenly Jesus Christ.

More specifically, "Jesus" is the name of the person that God's Son, Jesus Christ, possesses.

Peter, looks like you want your cake and want to eat it at the same time....

Two fictional gospel figures.
Judas = Judas the Galilean - presumed to be historical.
Jesus = the heavenly Jesus Christ - presumed to be whatever....

If there is one thing I'm sure about - theological magic carpet rides might offer a trip to heaven - but they can't provide a sure historical grounding for early christian origins.

[Peter Kirby]

Peter, working from the assumption that Judas the Galilean and his two sons were historical figures, how do you account for the fact that there was no zealot type activity during the time of Pilate?

I consider such a "fact" possible, even probable, but it doesn't really affect my hypothesis.

My hypothesis requires that there were descendants of Judas the Galilean, known to have caused a ruckus during the First Jewish Revolt. It further takes at face value, as recorded in passing by Josephus, that two of his sons were named Simon and James, who were crucified ca. 48 CE.

It doesn't require seditious Zealot activity under Pilate.

The point, surely, is that your theory is using a 'historical' figure in Josephus and linking that figure to a gospel figure. i.e. linking Judas the Galilean to Judas, the brother of Jesus. If, at the point of connection, Pilate in the gospel story, no seditious zealot activity is required by your theory - then the connection holds no meaning, no relevance for the gospel story.

For instance; my theory on Antigonus suggests a relevance for the gospel crucifixion story under Pilate. The theory you are proposing, re your above quote, does not require any 'seditious Zealot activity under Pilate' i.e. it does not require that it has any relevance for the gospel story. What is the point of a theory that has no relevance for the gospel Pilate time-frame?

And as I indicated in the post that has now been moved to a new thread... once you bring the zealots into an interpretation of the gospel story - one has actually lost the Pilate timeframe - which is really what your above quote is admitting...the Pilate time frame has no relevance for the Judas the Galilean = gospel Judas.

An alternative argument could be that earlier and later historical events are reflected within the gospel Pilate timeframe - but going that route opens up a very much wider historical canvas than the lst century. To define that wider timeframe by the Josephus story of Judas the Galilean is to limit research into early christian origins not facilitate it.

So - big question for Peter: If Judas is a fiction, a stand-in for Judas the Galilean - then, who is Jesus, who is also a fiction, a stand in for?

Jesus, as a fiction, "stands in for" (though this is not really the best way to say it) Jesus Christ, the heavenly Jesus Christ.

More specifically, "Jesus" is the name of the person that God's Son, Jesus Christ, possesses.

Peter, looks like you want your cake and want to eat it at the same time....

Two fictional gospel figures.
Judas = Judas the Galilean - presumed to be historical.
Jesus = the heavenly Jesus Christ - presumed to be whatever....

If there is one thing I'm sure about - theological magic carpet rides might offer a trip to heaven - but they can't provide a sure historical grounding for early christian origins.

I've answered you more than adequately already.

[maryhelena]

Peter, working from the assumption that Judas the Galilean and his two sons were historical figures, how do you account for the fact that there was no zealot type activity during the time of Pilate?

I consider such a "fact" possible, even probable, but it doesn't really affect my hypothesis.

My hypothesis requires that there were descendants of Judas the Galilean, known to have caused a ruckus during the First Jewish Revolt. It further takes at face value, as recorded in passing by Josephus, that two of his sons were named Simon and James, who were crucified ca. 48 CE.

It doesn't require seditious Zealot activity under Pilate.

The point, surely, is that your theory is using a 'historical' figure in Josephus and linking that figure to a gospel figure. i.e. linking Judas the Galilean to Judas, the brother of Jesus. If, at the point of connection, Pilate in the gospel story, no seditious zealot activity is required by your theory - then the connection holds no meaning, no relevance for the gospel story.

For instance; my theory on Antigonus suggests a relevance for the gospel crucifixion story under Pilate. The theory you are proposing, re your above quote, does not require any 'seditious Zealot activity under Pilate' i.e. it does not require that it has any relevance for the gospel story. What is the point of a theory that has no relevance for the gospel Pilate time-frame?

And as I indicated in the post that has now been moved to a new thread... once you bring the zealots into an interpretation of the gospel story - one has actually lost the Pilate timeframe - which is really what your above quote is admitting...the Pilate time frame has no relevance for the Judas the Galilean = gospel Judas.

An alternative argument could be that earlier and later historical events are reflected within the gospel Pilate timeframe - but going that route opens up a very much wider historical canvas than the lst century. To define that wider timeframe by the Josephus story of Judas the Galilean is to limit research into early christian origins not facilitate it.

So - big question for Peter: If Judas is a fiction, a stand-in for Judas the Galilean - then, who is Jesus, who is also a fiction, a stand in for?

Jesus, as a fiction, "stands in for" (though this is not really the best way to say it) Jesus Christ, the heavenly Jesus Christ.

More specifically, "Jesus" is the name of the person that God's Son, Jesus Christ, possesses.

Peter, looks like you want your cake and want to eat it at the same time....

Two fictional gospel figures.
Judas = Judas the Galilean - presumed to be historical.
Jesus = the heavenly Jesus Christ - presumed to be whatever....

If there is one thing I'm sure about - theological magic carpet rides might offer a trip to heaven - but they can't provide a sure historical grounding for early christian origins.[/quote]

I've answered you more than adequately already.

--------------------

I don't think the issues I raised regarding your Judas the Galilean = Judas the brother of Jesus theory have been answered. However, if my input is not welcome - I'll back out as it seems the issue is rather a sensitive one...