Time Shift scenarios and the New Testament texts

[maryhelena]

Based on the inerrant bible of Josephus we have the following candidates :
Antigonus
The cancelled Passover of 4 AD
The Egyptian of 40 AD
the chief of Masada 73 AD

Did I forget anyone?

What you forgot was to provide historical evidence for either the figures or the events you mentioned.
So......Hasmonean coins for the historicity of Antigonus


JD14045. Bronze AE 23, Meshorer TJC 36d, Hendin 1162, Meshorer AJC U3, VF, weight 13.16 g, maximum diameter 24.7 mm, die axis 0o, Jerusalem mint, obverse Hebrew inscription, Mattatayah the High Priest and Council of the Jews, around and between the horns of a double cornucopia; reverse BACIΛEΩC ANTIΓONOY (of King Antigonus), ivy wreath tied at the top with ribbons hanging down; nice green patina; scarce; SOLD
......

Mattathias Antigonus (Mattatayah), 40 - 37 B.C.
In 40 B.C. the Parthians took Syria, Phoenicia, and Judaea. The Parthians installed Mattathias Antigonus, the son of Aristobulus II, as their vassal King of Judaea. He sent his uncle Hyrcanus II to Babylon in chains (after biting off his ears to render him ineligible for the office of High Priest). Herod the Great fled to Rome where Mark Antony declared him King. Herod returned with Roman assistance in 39 B.C., took most of the kingdom in 38 B.C. and took Jerusalem in 37 B.C. Antigonus was taken to Antioch where Antony had him executed. Dio Cassius says he was crucified but most accounts say he was beheaded.

http://www.forumancientcoins.com/catalo ... ?vpar=1063
----------------------------------------------------

Was Antigonus crucified, hung on a stake, or was he beheaded? Probably both. According to Daniel Schwartz there was a period of time between the fall of Jerusalem to Herod in July of 37 b.c.e. and the execution of Antigonus by Marc Antony. Time in which a crucifixion, a hanging on a stake for punishment by scourging followed some months later with a death by beheading.

• The chronology of Herod's conquest of Jerusalem has been studied in detail by
  numerous scholars, including, in the past generation, Schalit, "Schiirer,"
  Stern, van Bruggen, Smallwood and Baumann. Although Josephus {Ant.
  14.487) dates it to the Day of Atonement (10 Tishri), all these scholars, as
  others, agree that the conquest was in fact completed in ca. July 37."'
  Accordingly, on the basis of the usual assumption cited above, that Herod
  counted his years from Nisan, it is usual to assume that he counted
  "inclusively" from Nisan 37. If, as we argued, he used an "inclusive" autumn
  era, it would have begun in 38. But such a conclusion as the latter is excluded
  by various considerations which show that Herod counted his years from 37
  (see below).
  ......
  
  More important, however, is a second point: this whole problem is
  only an illusion, for Josephus did not count Herod's years from the conquest
  of Jerusalem, although Schiirer and numerous others say he did. In fact, if one
  takes the statement in the scholarly locus classicus on Herodian chronology
  (SVM I, p. 326, n. 165) that
  Josephus states that he reigned 37 years from the date of his appointment (40 B . C . ) , 34
  years from his conquest of Jerusalem, 37 B . C . Cf. Ant. xvii 8 , 1 (191); B 7 i 3 3 , 8 (665)
  and checks the references, he will find that Josephus in fact counts the thirty four years from the execution of Mattathias Antigonus. But Antigonus was
  executed in Antioch by Mark Anthony {Ant. 14.488-490; Strabo, apud Ant.
  15.9),"^ and, as is shown by the latter's movements, that occurred in the late
  autumn of 37, or perhaps early in 36. Anthony was still in Tarentum in
  September—October 37."' Thus, there is nothing here to contradict the usage
  of an autumn 37 era. Apparently, Josephus, or already Herod, was only
  willing to count the new king's regnal years after Antigonus was completely
  removed.
  .....
  However, as we have seen, in fact
  at least a few months went by between July 37 and Antigonus' execution.
  
  Daniel R Schwartz: Studies in the Jewish Background of Christianity. Page 176/177/178.

Interestingly, Josephus, at the fall of Jerusalem in 70 c.e. tells a story about finding a friend of his crucified and has this friend removed from the cross - the friend survived - to die another day.

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

If we view the gospel story as reflecting, in some manner, Jewish history, then we need to keep our focus on history. Parallels between parts of the gospel story and parts of Josephus are not indications that these parallels reflect Jewish history. Yes, one can interpret them as doing so - but that is all one is doing - comparing one story with another story. At best that effort suggests a common source, a link between the material - not historicity. History is not arrived at via parallels - it is arrived at by historical evidence. Indeed, a historical 'story' can be put together from historical evidence - but without historical evidence, stories, historical narratives, have no grounding in historical reality.

Parallels, links, between the NT material and the writings of Josephus are evident. Rather than jump to the conclusion that therefore historicity can be assumed for xyz Josephan figures, methinks, it would be wiser and more productive, for a search for early christian origins, to look past the parallels until such time as historicity is established for any particular Josephan figure.

Josephus is as able to write stories as well as any NT writer - to think otherwise is to get caught up in a Josephan web of intrigue; a web of intrigue that insures the search for early christian origins continues to falter every step it makes.

[Lena Einhorn]

Michael BG wrote:

I thought you engaged in debate with others on your theories. I thought you have presented papers for others to discuss and criticise, so your theories can be tested.

It seems that you do not have answers to the idea that all the non-biblical stories of Jesus’ sojourn in Egypt are based on the fiction of Matthew and the parallel you see between the Egyptian and Jesus is extremely weak because the Egyptian was not arrested and executed as Jesus is in Mark’s gospel.

I thought I did engage ... I wrote a VERY long answer (on page 9) to your initial comment.
So I will write another long answer, and I will do it by first quoting what I initially wrote in this thread:

Below, I will briefly, provide the reasons for suggesting that Jesus of the NT is identical to "the Egyptian", described at length by Josephus in both Antiquities and War. The text in Antiquities goes as follows:

"There came out of Egypt about this time to Jerusalem one that said he was a prophet, and advised the multitude of the common people to go along with him to the Mount of Olives, as it was called, which lay over against the city, and at the distance of five furlongs. He said further, that he would show them from hence how, at his command, the walls of Jerusalem would fall down; and he promised them that he would procure them an entrance into the city through those walls, when they were fallen down. Now when Felix was informed of these things, he ordered his soldiers to take their weapons, and came against them with a great number of horsemen and footmen from Jerusalem, and attacked the Egyptian and the people that were with him. He also slew four hundred of them, and took two hundred alive. But the Egyptian himself escaped out of the fight, but did not appear any more."
Antiquities of the Jews 20.169-172

The text in War is similar but more negative, and adds that "the Egyptian" came to the Mount of Olives from "the wilderness", where he had gathered his followers.

Now there are a number of similarities to the Jesus of the NT, and some diffferences. First the similarities:
 Like Jesus, ”the Egyptian” had previously lingered in “the wilderness” or “desert” (eremia, in Greek).
 Like Jesus, “the Egyptian” had lived in Egypt.
 Like Jesus, “the Egyptian” spoke of tearing down the walls of Jerusalem.
 Like Jesus, “the Egyptian” is described as a messianic leader with a great following.
 Like Jesus, “the Egyptian” is perceived as a major threat by the authorities.
• Like Jesus, “the Egyptian” seems to have been betrayed—at least the authorities were informed beforehand about his plans.
 And last, but not least, ”the Egyptian” is defeated on the Mount of Olives, which is the place where Jesus was arrested.

But there are three differences:
1. It happened in the 50s rather than the 30s.
2. "The Egyptian" was defeated on the Mount of Olives in a battle, whereas Jesus was simply quietly awaiting his arrest with his disciples.
3. "The Egyptian" was defeated and then vanished. Jesus was crucified, resurrected then vanished.

All three differences are, however, accounted for also in the NT text:
1. Almost all the parallels to the NT that can be found in Josephus pertain to times of rebellion, and most of the them to the time period between 44 and 55 (the death of Theudas, the activityof robbers, a conflict between Galileans and Samaritans (initiated in a Samaritan village), a procurator killing Galileans, two co-reigning high priests, crucifixions of Jews, a conflict between the procurator and a Jewish king, the killing of a man names Stephanos on a road outside Jerusalem, etc. etc.)
2. If one reads the original version of John 18, there WAS a battle when Jesus was arrested on the Mount of Olives. The original greek says that the people meeting him were from the Jewish Council, accompanied by a speira with their chiliarchos. A speira is a cohort of one thousand Roman soldiers! Chiliarchos means "leader of one thousand."
3. In the Gospels, there is someone who is NOT crucified on that fateful day when Jesus was. His name is Jesus Barabbas. The name is aramaic, and means "Jesus son of the Father."

Incidentally, the last messianic rebel leader mentioned by Josephus before "the Egyptian" is Theudas. And this is what he writes about him (Antiquities 20.97-99):

"Now it came to pass, while Fadus was procurator of Judea, that a certain magician, whose name was Theudas, persuaded a great part of the people to take their effects with them, and follow him to the river Jordan; for he told them he was a prophet, and that he would, by his own command, divide the river, and afford them an easy passage over it; and many were deluded by his words. However, Fadus did not permit them to make any advantage of his wild attempt, but sent a troop of horsemen out against them; who, falling upon them unexpectedly, slew many of them, and took many of them alive. They also took Theudas alive, and cut off his head, and carried it to Jerusalem."

That sounds a lot like someone else who had gathered his followers by the Jordan river, and was later decapitated ...

Now if you look at the three differences quoted above (and my comments to those):
For me, the shock -- yes it was a shock, I had until then not thought of Josephus's "Egyptian" as NT-Jesus -- was when I read the original Greek version of John 18:3 and 18:12, and realized that the people who came to arrest Jesus, at least according to that Gospel, was no "Band" and "Captain." They were a speira and a chiliarchos, in other words a Roman cohort of between 600 and 1.000 soldiers!!

Now, one may wonder why -- if there really was a battle occurring on the Mount of Olives -- only the Gospel of John writes about this. And I will again refer to an earlier answer (when we discussed the differences between Mark and Luke on the one hand and Matthew on the other with regard to the demoniacs in Gerasa/Gadara): It is my sense that the Gospels, when they contradict each other, in reality are ADDING information to each other. It is not like Mark, Matthew and Luke are denying that there was a battle on the Mount of Olives. Luke has Jesus telling his disciples:

"But now, whoever has a money belt is to take it along, likewise also a bag, and whoever has no sword is to sell his coat and buy one. For I tell you that this which is written must be fulfilled in Me, `And he was counted among the transgressors' [lawless]; for that which refers to Me has its fulfillment." They said, "Lord, look, here are two swords." And He said to them, "It is enough." (Luke 22:36-38)

And all four Gospels mention the use of swords in the ensuing encounter on the Mount of Olives.
It is very hard to imagine why John would have stated that a whole Roman cohort met Jesus and his disciples, if there wasn't a battle.

Now with regard to the arrest and execution: Actually, Josephus does not mention how "the Egyptian" gets away, only that he does. It seems likely that he wasn't arrested, and he wasn't, from what Josephus tells us, executed.
When it comes to the whole arrest and trial of NT-Jesus, there is something strange about it. It is almost like a replica of the trial of Paul. Unless you want to go into that further, I'll leave that be for the moment, since it will take up additional space. But I would be happy to come back to it.

With regard to the execution: In my opinion, there are several hints both in the NT and in later texts that NT-Jesus may not have been executed. Irenaeus, who lived in the second century, in Against Heresies 1.24 writes:

"He appeared, then, on earth as a man, to the nations of these powers, and wrought miracles. Wherefore he did not himself suffer death, but Simon, a certain man of Cyrene, being compelled, bore thecross in his stead; so that this latter being transfigured by him, that he might be thought to be Jesus, was crucified, through ignorance and error, while Jesus himself received the form of Simon, and, standing by, laughed at them. ... Those, then, who know these things have been freed from the principalities who formed the world; so that it is not incumbent on us to confess him who was crucified, but him who came in the form of a man, and was thought to be crucified, and was calledJesus, and was sent by the father, that by this dispensation he might destroy the works of the makers of the world."

But the more important hint, I believe, is the one from the New Testament, concerning the person who was NOT crucified when NT-Jesus was:

'At that time they had a notorious prisoner, called Jesus Barabbas. So after they had gathered, Pilate said to them, "Whom do you want me to release for you, Jesus Barabbas or Jesus who is called the Messiah?"...The governor again said to them, "Which of the two do you want me to release for you?" And they said, "Barabbas." ... So he released Barabbas for them; and after flogging Jesus, he handed him over to be crucified.' (Matt 27:16-26)

Interestingly, almost all English translations of Matthew 27 have changed the original text, and removed the given name of Barabbas -- Jesus. They simply write : "At that time they had a notorious prisoner, called Barabbas." And why have they done that? They have done it because the full name, in translation, is the glaring "Jesus son of the Father."
Could Jesus of Nazareth and "Jesus son of the Father" really be two different people? By now, a number of scholars have written on this, and some have suggested that Jesus of Nazareth and Jesus Barabbas is the same person. The interpretation has of course varied. But to my mind, a reasonable interpretation is that NT-Jesus, in fact, was not crucified.

[FransJVermeiren]

In all three synoptic Gospels, we read of a mysterious event when Jesus and his disciples are going across the Sea of Galilee to "the country of the Gerasenes" (in Mark and Luke), or "the country of the Gadarenes" (in Matthew). The first odd thing about this is that neither Gerasa nor Gadara lie anywhere near the Sea of Galilee -- or any other sea for that matter.

The Gadarenes/Gerasenes story has been discussed twice by Lena with a reply of MrMacSon, but I think this subject needs correction and deserves closer attention.
Let’s start with Lena’s statement ‘The first odd thing about this is that neither Gerasa nor Gadara lie anywhere near the Sea of Galilee.’ Taking the atlas and a ruler we see that form bird’s-eye view Gadara is 9 km inland from the southeastern shore of the Sea of Galilee, and Gerasa 53 km. The nearest neighboring cities/regions east and southeast of Jewish Galilee (west of the lake) in the Decapolis were Hippos to the east (on a hilltop above nowadays Ein Gev) and Gadara to the southeast (near modern Umm Qais in Jordan). Let’s assume that the distance by road from the nearest shore of the Sea of Galilee to Gadara is 12 or 13 km.

A trip to Gadara could then go as follows:
• Get up at 7
• Take along a piece of bread and cheese for breakfast
• Take the boat at 7.30
• Breakfast on the boat – arrival at the southeastern shore of the lake (modern Ma’agan) at 8.30 (or earlier, I think this boat trip doesn’t take an hour)
• By foot to Gadara, I guess a 3 hours walk
• Arrival at the northwestern gate of the town around 11.30.

The statement that there is no Gadara near the Sea of Galilee is simply wrong. When Mark 5.1 says ‘They came to the other side of the sea, to the country of the Gerasenes’ this can only mean ‘the country of the Gadarenes’, because the Gerasa region is at least a one and a half day trip away from the Sea of Galilee. Note that some early manuscript write ‘Gadarenes’ here, others say ‘Gergustenes’ or ‘Gergesenes’, so there has extensively been tampered with this name.

In my short discussion of this story I will leave aside the demoniac(s) part, and concentrate on the purpose of the trip of Jesus and his company. At the end of the story the Gadarenes beg Jesus to leave their region, which is understandable if Jesus had come to harass them. And that’s what he and his men did: they killed a substantial herd of pigs, an important element of the food supply of the Gadarenes, who were gentiles and so ate pork. The bullying raid can be seen as a symbolic/ritual action against neighbors with a different ethnic/religious background, and might have taken place in a period of high ethnic/religious tension between Jews and gentiles. (If ‘swine’ were an obscuring name for the gentile villagers in the region, it’s still much worse but the tenor of the story is the same.)
Josephus has described in extenso the ethnic tension from the mid-60’s of the first century CE on, with the massacre of thousands of Jews in Caesarea by their gentile co-citizens as a major trigger for the escalation.

I do not just extrapolate from Caesarea to Galilee/Decapolis. In his overview of the ethnic riots Josephus gives a lot of attention to the hostility between Jewish Galilee and the Decapolis, and in particular between Tiberias on the one hand and Hippos/Gadara on the other.
• War II, 458 (Jews attacking gentiles): ‘The news of the disaster at Caesarea infuriated the whole nation; and parties of Jews sacked the Syrian villages and the neighboring cities Philadelphia, Heshbon and its district, Gerasa, Pella end Scythopolis. Next they swooped on Gadara, Hippos and Gaulanitis, destroying or setting fire to all in their path.’
• War II, 477-478 (gentiles attacking Jews): ‘After the holocaust of Scythopolis, other cities took arms against the Jews in their respective territories. The people of Ascalon put to death 2500; those of Ptolemais 2000, throwing many into prison besides. The Tyrians massacred large numbers, but imprisoned the majority in chains. Similarly the inhabitants of Hippos and Gadara killed the bolder spirits and kept the timid people in custody; and so with the other cities of Syria according to the hate and fear with which each regarded their Jewish neighbors.’
• Vita 42 (Jews against gentiles, with Justus being Justus of Tiberias): ‘On that occasion Justus, having prevailed on the citizens to take up arms and forced many to do so against their will, marched out with all his followers and set fire to the villages belonging to Gadara and Hippos, which lay on the frontiers of Tiberias and of the territory of Scythopolis.’

In short we can summarize the Gadarene story in the same terms as Josephus’s: ‘Jesus marched out with all his followers and killed the herd of pigs of a village belonging to Gadara.’ Justus is depicted as an agitator, I think Jesus is a hardly veiled agitator of the same caliber in this story.

There might have been good reasons for the Gospel writer(s) to change Gadara into Gerasa, for example to obscure the real course of events or to honor another rebel leader, or both. But ethnic/religious tension in the Tiberias-Gadara-Hippos region is the core issue of this story. I don’t see any information in Josephus or elsewhere about this kind of outburst of ethnic hostilities in the 20’s/30’s of the first century CE.

[Lena Einhorn]

Frans wrote:

"Let’s assume that the distance by road from the nearest shore of the Sea of Galilee to Gadara is 12 or 13 km.

A trip to Gadara could then go as follows:
• Get up at 7
• Take along a piece of bread and cheese for breakfast
• Take the boat at 7.30
• Breakfast on the boat – arrival at the southeastern shore of the lake (modern Ma’agan) at 8.30 (or earlier, I think this boat trip doesn’t take an hour)
• By foot to Gadara, I guess a 3 hours walk
• Arrival at the northwestern gate of the town around 11.30.

The statement that there is no Gadara near the Sea of Galilee is simply wrong."

But Frans, the text says that "the whole herd rushed down the steep bank into the sea and perished in the water." To me, that is an indication they were right by the lake.

With regard to the actual meaning of the story: neither one of us places it in 20 or 30 CE. Nor, do I think, do we necessarily place it near a lake.

[MrMacSon]

But the more important hint, I believe, is the one from the New Testament, concerning the person who was NOT crucified when NT-Jesus was:

'At that time they had a notorious prisoner, called Jesus Barabbas. So after they had gathered, Pilate said to them, "Whom do you want me to release for you, Jesus Barabbas or Jesus who is called the Messiah?"...The governor again said to them, "Which of the two do you want me to release for you?" And they said, "Barabbas." ... So he released Barabbas for them; and after flogging Jesus, he handed him over to be crucified.' (Matt 27:16-26)

Interestingly, almost all English translations of Matthew 27 have changed the original text, and removed the given name of Barabbas -- Jesus. They simply write : "At that time they had a notorious prisoner, called Barabbas." And why have they done that? They have done it because the full name, in translation, is the glaring "Jesus son of the Father."

Could Jesus of Nazareth and "Jesus son of the Father" really be two different people? By now, a number of scholars have written on this, and some have suggested that Jesus of Nazareth and Jesus Barabbas is the same person. The interpretation has of course varied. But to my mind, a reasonable interpretation is that NT-Jesus, in fact, was not crucified.

or could substitution occurred or been alluded to, as I outlined in a recent post -

In The Golden Bough, Sir James Frazer wrote about the creation of pseudo-kings who would fill the position of the real king for a day, before being sacrificed in his place. Such pseudo-kings were normally drawn from the most disposable sections of the population, beggars or criminals.

The Roman Saturnalia was a winter festival in honour of Saturn, the god of the harvest. Slaves and masters changed roles, and in the briefly changed roles of this festival involved the enthronement of a mock king who was satirically honoured and pampered, for the period of his mock reign, as though he were a king in very deed. Wendland, P.: “Jesus als Saturnalien-könig” ( Hermes, vol. xxxiii (1898), pp. 175-9.).

Frazer argued, further, that the Jews practiced such mock-kingship, and that one of the king’s titles would have been Barabbas, “Son of the Father.” Frazer suggested that Philo’s Carabbas (Flaccus Bk 36) was a scribal misunderstanding of the real name [used in the mocking that Philo recounted] -ie. Barabbas.

In the 2nd edition Frazer implied this is what might have happened to Jesus as a 'Purim ritual': Jews may have got the practice from Babylonia (3:186-98) [the name Sacrifice of Golgotha may be tied to it], but in the 3rd edition he reduces this proposition to an additional note (9:412-3) with a prefatory note that this thesis in no way impugns the 'historical reality of Jesus of Nazareth'.

http://www.earlywritings.com/forum/view ... 164#p57164

[MrMacSon]

.
Philo's account of the dressing of Carabbas is reflected Matt. 27:28-9, which follows on from the section of Matt 27 that Lena has quoted above^^ (as well as being reflected in Luke 23:11 and Mark 15:17) (there are other accounts in the NT about the mocking of Jesus).

[iskander]

Based on the inerrant bible of Josephus we have the following candidates :
Antigonus
The cancelled Passover of 4 AD
The Egyptian of 40 AD
the chief of Masada 73 AD

Did I forget anyone?

What you forgot was to provide historical evidence for either the figures or the events you mentioned.
So......Hasmonean coins for the historicity of Antigonus
....

I forgot a very important candidate :Jesus was a Roman citizen of Royal blood, his name was Antigonus ben Antipater. Jesus was the grandson of King Antigonus of Judea and of King Herod the Great .
All is revealed in : Herodian Messiah: Case For Jesus As Grandson of Herod , Joseph Raymond. This work details the author's painstakingly collected evidence supporting a shocking theory, that Jesus was the grandson of both Herod the Great and the last Hasmonean king (Antigonus).

[maryhelena]

Based on the inerrant bible of Josephus we have the following candidates :
Antigonus
The cancelled Passover of 4 AD
The Egyptian of 40 AD
the chief of Masada 73 AD

Did I forget anyone?

What you forgot was to provide historical evidence for either the figures or the events you mentioned.
So......Hasmonean coins for the historicity of Antigonus
....

I forgot a very important candidate :Jesus was a Roman citizen of Royal blood, his name was Antigonus ben Antipater. Jesus was the grandson of King Antigonus of Judea and of King Herod the Great .
All is revealed in : Herodian Messiah: Case For Jesus As Grandson of Herod , Joseph Raymond. This work details the author's painstakingly collected evidence supporting a shocking theory, that Jesus was the grandson of both Herod the Great and the last Hasmonean king (Antigonus).

Unfortunately, historical evidence is non-existent for such a figure.....

[iskander]

Unfortunately, historical evidence is non-existent for such a figure.....

I posted it to invite the forum to reflect on the evidence on which identifications are constructed

[maryhelena]

Unfortunately, historical evidence is non-existent for such a figure.....

I posted it to invite the forum to reflect on the evidence on which identifications are constructed

Good - one needs to get historical evidence on the table prior to advancing theories on the relationship between the writings of Josephus and the NT.