Time Shift scenarios and the New Testament texts

[Lena Einhorn]

Evidence is great. Ridicule, however, is not. It is of course the best way to silence a discussion. But if one is truly interested in that discussion, and the evidence, it's not the way to stimulate it.

[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

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.

The man we know as Jesus was a Jewish heretic of the first century AD in Palestine.

He said , only the ten commandments come from god , the other 600+ come from men .

These heretical words were said , they were remembered and they forced Judaism to introduce very important changes in the Jewish liturgy in order to minimise its impact on the Jewish faithful.

on the table: see attached file , the ten

[maryhelena]

Evidence is great. Ridicule, however, is not. It is of course the best way to silence a discussion. But if one is truly interested in that discussion, and the evidence, it's not the way to stimulate it.

Ridicule, Lena - not in my post. Asking for, requiring evidence, is not to ridicule a theory.

Indeed, if one is truly interested in a discussion evidence is vital. Interpretation of either the NT writings or the Josephan writings is one thing - evidence is something else all together - and it is evidence that is lacking in the present discussion of time-shift scenarios. Theories are great and can open up a discussion - but that discussion will go around in circles until such time as there is historical evidence to root that theory within a historical context. And in that connection the writings of Josephus are not the answer to the gospel story - the writings of Josephus are the problem that inhibits that story from being understood within a historical context.

[Lena Einhorn]

maryhelena said:

Ridicule, Lena - not in my post.

I never said it was in your post.

[Lena Einhorn]

To make myself clear: picking apart a theory by all evidence-based means available is great.

[Lena Einhorn]

To Iskander (about the ten commandments etc):
That makes sense. But does that lead you to a theory of whether, and if so where, he is described outside of the NT?

[Peter Kirby]

Do at least some of the participants in this futile discussion see the difficulty in any reasonable person taking any of this seriously?

No, please point out each and any such difficulty, in detail and with a battery of supporting argument, so that it can be waved off and allow all to carry on none the wiser and only a little aggrieved.

Edit: It occurs to me that neither Huller nor I will be well understood ...

... people who do research will already know their ideas' own weaknesses (or a large subset of them) and acknowledge them.

[iskander]

To Iskander (about the ten commandments etc):
That makes sense. But does that lead you to a theory of whether, and if so where, he is described outside of the NT?

It is not a theory, but the confirmation that first century Christians were considered to be heretics by the Jewish religious authorities.
Mark 10 writes:

Mark 10:17-19
17 As he was setting out on a journey, a man ran up and knelt before him, and asked him, ‘Good Teacher, what must I do to inherit eternal life?’ 18Jesus said to him, ‘Why do you call me good? No one is good but God alone. 19You know the commandments: “You shall not murder; You shall not commit adultery; You shall not steal; You shall not bear false witness; You shall not defraud; Honour your father and mother

The question the man had asked was: , "Good Teacher, what must I do to inherit eternal life?"
Jesus replies, to inherit eternal life you must follow the teaching of God , for He is the only good teacher. Let no man deceive you. The Decalogue is your guide.


The reformer ignores the atoning sacrifice of the temple and the commandments ordained by the priesthood of the temple ; instead, the reformer warns him against the Oral Law and he insists that only the Decalogue comes from God and hence keeping the 10 statements, utterances of God is the way .
External confirmation.
The change of the Jewish Liturgy confirms that the statement found in Mark 10 is a historical fact. ( or one/several statements meaning the same as in Mark)

[Ben C. Smith]

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."

No, the English translations have done that because "Jesus Barabbas" is very much a minority reading, and the manuscripts that oppose it are highly respected, especially in combination with each other:

Ἰησοῦν Βαραββᾶν] Sv.r. Θ f1 241** 299** 700* pc pcv.r. syrs syrpal(mss) arm geo2 Origen mssaccording to Peter-Laodicea (NA [Ἰησοῦν])
Βαραββᾶν] ‭א A B D E F G H K L Stext W Δ Π Σ 064 0135 0250 f13 33 157 180 205 565 579 700c 892 1006 1009 1010 1071 1079 1195 1216 1230 1241 1242 1243 1253 1292 1342 1344 1365 1424 1505 1546 1646 2148 2174 Byz Lect ita itaur itb itc itd itf itff1 itff2 itg1 ith itl itq itr1 vg syrp syrh syrpal(ms) copsa copmae copbo goth eth geo1 slav (Diatessaronarm) Origenlat Jerome Augustine ς WH NR CEI ND Riv Dio TILC Nv NM

I am highly sympathetic to letting the internal evidence guide our sensibilities in such matters, and (truth be told) even rather sympathetic to reading "Jesus Barabbas" as original here, with the scribes having removed it for reasons of respect and/or in order to avoid confusion, but it is quite wrong to accuse the translations of having removed an original reading at this juncture simply because of what that reading translates out to, no matter how glaring. Rather, the translations are following those critical texts which have chosen, and habitually choose, not to ignore a coalition of Sinaiticus, Alexandrinus, Vaticanus, and Bezae (!).

[Lena Einhorn]

Ben C. Smith wrote:

No, the English translations have done that because "Jesus Barabbas" is very much a minority reading, and the manuscripts that oppose it are highly respected, especially in combination with each other

That's fair. My purpose was not to second-guess why the name "Jesus Barabbas" became only "Barabbas", but merely to point out that early (and some current) versions of Matthew call him "Jesus Barabbas", and that this means "Jesus son of the Father."

Although not relevant to this particular question, I still, more generally, have to wonder about certain changes in translation. I have already mentioned the case where, in John 18:3 and 18:12 speira and chiliarchos in translation become "the band" and "the captain," and the like. Those words do not in the least convey that a speira is a Roman cohort of 600 to 1,200 men. And that it completely changes what happened on the Mount of Olives.

Another case in point is how "Simon Bariona" (essentially "Simon the Sicarius") in the Alexandrian version of Matthew 16:17 in later versions becomes "Simon bar Jona" ("Simon son of Jonah")