Lena Einhorn wrote:Michael BG wrote:
Lena Einhorn wrote:
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): …
Actual Josephus has Felix capturing and sending to Rome Eleazar, the son of Dineas, who had gathered a band of zealots (Ant. 20.8.5) the Egyptian is at 20.8.6. My reference for Fadus and Theudas is Ant. 20.5.1.
I have not seen Eleazar, the son of Dineas listed as a messianic leader. If every person who is a commander in the rebellion would be a messianic pretender the list of such pretenders would be very long. This is how Josephus writes about the catching of Eleazar:
Yet did Felix catch and put to death many of those impostors every day, together with the robbers. He also caught Eleazar, the son of Dineas, who had gotten together a company of robbers; and this he did by treachery; for he gave him assurance that he should suffer no harm, and thereby persuaded him to come to him; but when he came, he bound him, and sent him to Rome.
This is how he writes about the catching and killing of Theudas:
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.
I expected you to know that when Josephus speaks of robbers he is speaking of rebels. Perhaps you should not rely on a list produced by someone else.
When Josephus introduces Judas of Gamala he links his movement to robberies and madness.
Yet was there one Judas, a Gaulonite, 1 of a city whose name was Gamala, who, taking with him Sadduc, 2 a Pharisee, became zealous to draw them to a revolt, who both said that this taxation was no better than an introduction to slavery, and exhorted the nation to assert their liberty; as if they could procure them happiness and security for what they possessed, and an assured enjoyment of a still greater good, which was that of the honor and glory they would thereby acquire for magnanimity. They also said that God would not otherwise be assisting to them, than upon their joining with one another in such councils as might be successful, and for their own advantage; and this especially, if they would set about great exploits, and not grow weary in executing the same; so men received what they said with pleasure, and this bold attempt proceeded to a great height. All sorts of misfortunes also sprang from these men, and the nation was infected with this doctrine to an incredible degree; one violent war came upon us after another, and we lost our friends which used to alleviate our pains; there were also very great robberies and murder of our principal men. This was done in pretense indeed for the public welfare, but in reality for the hopes of gain to themselves; whence arose seditions, and from them murders of men, which sometimes fell on those of their own people, [by the madness of these men towards one another, while their desire was that none of the adverse party might be left,] and sometimes on their enemies;
Ant. 18.1.1
Also Josephus implies that Eleazar was an imposter.
Lena Einhorn wrote:Michael BG wrote:
You seem to be implying that Theudas is John the Baptist. However Josephus has a passage on John the Baptist – Ant. 18.5.2. Would you need to argue that this passage was an interpolation so that Theudas = John? If so I think you will find it very difficult as our own Peter Kirby has examined the case and concluded that it is not likely to be an interpolation -
http://peterkirby.com/john-the-baptist-authentic.html.
I have a LONG discussion about this passage in my book
A Shift in Time, chapter "Chronological Enigma Ten: John the Baptist", pages 123-132. Please, if you want to argue with me seriously, read it!
Your post here tell me nothing about your position regarding the John the Baptist section in Josephus, not even a summary.
Lena Einhorn wrote:Michael BG wrote:
When you presented your paper – Jesus and the “Egyptian Prophet” at the Society of Biblical Literature Annual Meeting in 2012 was there not a criterial discussion that challenged your interpretation of the historicity of the evidence from the New Testament that you used?
I presented different aspects of this hypothesis at five sessions, and four differents meetings, of the SBL Annual and International Meetings. There was much, and very fruitful, discussion at all of them.
This tells me nothing about the criticism your theories faced at these meetings.
Lena Einhorn wrote:Michael BG wrote:
Only Matthew has Jesus living in Egypt, has Herod killing newly born children and has the sermon on the mount. All three features are generally accepted as not historical but are part of Matthew presenting Jesus as a second Moses (plus of course for living in Egypt so Jesus can fulfilment of Old Testament “prophecy” - Hosea 11:1, as I have already mentioned). There is no evidence earlier than Matthew that Jesus lived in Egypt. Perhaps the reason you haven’t engaged with this is that it can’t be countered
.
I elaborated on this earlier in this thread. Yes, only Matthew describes Jesus's sojourn in Egypt, but the statement that "John the Baptist starts preaching" (Matthew 3:1) "In those days" when Jesus returns from Egypt, as a child, suggests a chronological aberration. John the Baptist and Jesus are the same age. Furthermore, all the synoptic Gospels suggest a long absence before age 30, when Jesus suddenly reappears. Nothing is described about him between ages 12 and 30, and when he appears in Nazareth after that, he is at first not recognized. I address the whole Egypt issue in detail on pages 95-105.
In both Matthew and Luke there are two beginnings this is because they both created their own beginnings and then incorporated Mark’s beginning (which is what you see at Mt 3:1) John and Jesus were not cousins, I am surprised that you think they were, as only Luke tells us this, the purpose of which is so that John in the womb can recognise Jesus in the womb (Lk 1:41). The gospels are not the life story of Jesus and should not be considered in such a way. The gospel writers in the main were not interested in what Jesus was doing before his ministry and this might well reflect a disinterest of his early followers, what was important was his message, not what he did before his “calling”. This gap does not support the idea that Jesus lived in Egypt, it is silent on the matter and so no conclusion should be drawn from this silence. I have already pointed out that the text of Mark does not support your assertion that Jesus was not recognised in his home country (let us not conclude this was Nazareth).
iskander wrote:Lena Einhorn wrote:
"In their own language they [the Jews] call him [Jesus] Ussum Hamizri, which is to say in Latin Dissipator Ægyptius [the Egyptian Destroyer/Disperser]"
(Archbishop Amulo of Lyons: Letter, or Book, Against the Jews to King Charles ; ca. 847 CE)
They have used vile language from day one-- some still do-- against the bastard, son of a whore, who had learnt black magic in Egypt .
Mathew 2 14Then Joseph* got up, took the child and his mother by night, and went to Egypt, 15and remained there until the death of Herod. This was to fulfil what had been spoken by the Lord through the prophet, ‘Out of Egypt I have called my son.’
You got nothing at all
I have not been as blunt as islander. But our points remain unrefuted. Matthew is the only gospel that has Jesus living in Egypt. He is the earliest source for this story. I have presented the most likely explanation – it was created by Matthew as part of presenting Jesus as a second Moses and so Matthew can get Jesus to fulfil an Old Testament “prophecy”. Jews took this story from Matthew and elaborated on it, they did not have any separate tradition.
You need to produce a case that Matthew had a reliable tradition for Jesus living in Egypt or that he didn’t present Jesus in the mode of Moses (or both). You need to explain why Matthew is the only source to this story, which is linked to the killing of the babies (just as with Moses). Then you need to produce a case that the Jewish traditions for Jesus living in Egypt are older than Matthew’s gospel. You have so far failed to do this. And this why I suggested it might be impossible to produce these cases.
It's great fun, and has given me several new thoughts (spent a couple of hours yesterday researching a new thought I got from Iskander's comparison of Notzri-Mitzri!). So I'll peak in, but I'll try not to be active, at least not for now.
- to read this: