Biblical Criticism & History Forum - earlywritings.com

MrMacSon wrote:

In Cyrenaica, the rebels were led by one Lukuas or Andreas, who called himself "king"

This is really interesting, because if your hunch is right here, and it may well be, it is further evidence that the New Testament tells the history of the entire rebellion, from beginning to end.

Lena Einhorn wrote:Frans, I agree that Mark 13 (as well as Luke 21, and Matt 24) are pivotal. But it is always assumed that this pertains to the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 CE!

Lena, you give the impression that I only want to show that Mark 13 discusses the war against the Romans and the destruction of Jerusalem. It would be strange if I were the first one to discover this. What I try to say is that maybe this chapter in a veiled way gives an important chronological clue: that the messiah arrives after the conflagration of the temple.

Lena Einhorn wrote: And this is my thought: The authors of the New Testament tell not one, but two histories:
The history of the Jewish rebellion against Rome -- all of it, from beginning to end.
And the history of one messianic rebel leader -- active during a very limited period of time -- who probably survived and vanished from sight.

About the first story: Indeed, from 6 CE until 70 CE, with the war as the culminating period of the rebellion
About the second one: If the NT tells the story of a rebel leader in the 50's of the first century CE, the delay question remains the same: why did the first Gospel writer wait until after the war to write down 'exceptional' events from 15 years before?

Lena Einhorn wrote:Frans, I agree that Mark 13 (as well as Luke 21, and Matt 24) are pivotal. But it is always assumed that this pertains to the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 CE!
Instead, ponder these three segments:

“One of his disciples said to him: ‘Look, Teacher, what large stones and what large buildings!’ Then Jesus asked him, ’Do you see these great buildings? Not one stone will be left here upon another; all will be thrown down.’ When he was sitting on the Mount of Olives opposite the temple, Peter, James, John, and Andrew asked him privately, ‘Tell us, when will this be, and what will be the sign that all these things are about to be accomplished?’ Then Jesus began to say to them, ‘Beware that no one leads you astray. Many will come in my name and say, “I am he!” and they will lead many astray. When you hear of wars and rumors of wars, do not be alarmed; this must take place, but the end is still to come.’”
Mark 13:1-7

"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

"But there was an Egyptian false prophet that did the Jews more mischief than the former; for he was a sorcerer, and pretended to be a prophet also, and got together thirty thousand men that were deluded by him; these he led round about from the wilderness to the mount which was called the Mount of Olives, and was ready to break into Jerusalem by force from that place; and if he could but once conquer the Roman garrison and the people, he intended to domineer over them by the assistance of those guards of his that were to break into the city with him. But Felix prevented his attempt, and met him with his Roman soldiers, while all the people assisted him in his attack upon them, insomuch that when it came to a battle, the Egyptian ran away, with a few others, while the greatest part of those that were with him were either destroyed or taken alive; but the rest of the multitude were dispersed every one to their own homes, and there concealed themselves."
War of the Jews 2.261-263

The last two quotes, by Josephus, refer to the emergence, and defeat, of "the Egyptian", which happened ca. 55 CE, well before the Jewish war against Rome.

Lena, I see that in all three fragments the Mount of Olives is mentioned. In the Josephus fragments the city walls are important (because of the Egyptian's intention to break into the city), while in Mark 13 the magnificent buildings (the temple and maybe the other buildings on the Temple Mount) are mentioned. As Mark 13 in its entirety discusses the war period, I believe it is more likely that these verses reflect a conversation (probably not only held between Jesus and his companions) in Jerusalem under the threat of a Roman attack.

FransJVermeiren wrote:As Mark 13 in its entirety discusses the war period, I believe it is more likely that these verses reflect a conversation (probably not only held between Jesus and his companions) in Jerusalem under the threat of a Roman attack.

The problem is that Mark 13 is about Jannaeus and his battles with Demetrius Eucerus. Josephus' description of the situation is laughable. Demetrius camps out at Shechem, near Gerizim, and drives Janaeus into "the Mountains".
There is an Anchor Verse for all of this:

Mark 13: 14, 17 (RSV):

[14] "But when you see the desolating sacrilege set up where it ought not to be (let the reader understand), then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains;
...
[17] And alas for those who are with child and for those who give suck in those days!

Verse 14 is indirect, referring to Eucerus committing the Abomination of Desolation on the Altar at Gerizim. Verse 17 provides the clearest link to Jannaeus:

Josephus, Antiquities..., 13, 14, 2:

"Now as Alexander fled to the mountains, six thousand of the Jews hereupon came together [from Demetrius] to him out of pity at the change of his fortune; upon which Demetrius was afraid, and retired out of the country;
[Massively Absurd.]
after which the Jews fought against Alexander, and being beaten, were slain in great numbers in the several battles which they had; and when he had shut up the most powerful of them in the city Bethome, he besieged them therein; and when he had taken the city, and gotten the men into his power, he brought them to Jerusalem, and did one of the most barbarous actions in the world to them; for as he was feasting with his concubines, in the sight of all the city, he ordered about eight hundred of them to be crucified; and while they were living, he ordered the throats of their children and wives to be cut before their eyes..."

So, I politely disagree here. Mark 13 is about Alexander Jannaeus. If you find another Scenario for Mark 17 that is plausible and has as much accessory material around it, I would be happy to read about it.

CW

FransJVermeiren wrote:

Lena Einhorn wrote:
Frans, I agree that Mark 13 (as well as Luke 21, and Matt 24) are pivotal. But it is always assumed that this pertains to the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 CE!

Lena, you give the impression that I only want to show that Mark 13 discusses the war against the Romans and the destruction of Jerusalem. It would be strange if I were the first one to discover this.

Frans I didn't say you were the first one, I wrote that "it is always assumed".

Lena Einhorn wrote:
And this is my thought: The authors of the New Testament tell not one, but two histories:
The history of the Jewish rebellion against Rome -- all of it, from beginning to end.
And the history of one messianic rebel leader -- active during a very limited period of time -- who probably survived and vanished from sight.

About the first story: Indeed, from 6 CE until 70 CE, with the war as the culminating period of the rebellion
About the second one: If the NT tells the story of a rebel leader in the 50's of the first century CE, the delay question remains the same: why did the first Gospel writer wait until after the war to write down 'exceptional' events from 15 years before?

We don't know how long he waited. If we assume that the prophesy about the destruction of the city in Mark 13 is associated with the prophesy made by "the Egyptian" (about the destruction of the city) -- rather than the actual destruction in 70 CE -- it could have been written anytime after 55 CE.
My hunch, however (and this is just a hunch), is that Mark 13 may consist of an aggregate of the prophesy made by "the Egyptian", in ca. 55 CE, and the actual events of 70 CE. But that is just a loose guess. The only thing I feel is a bit more than a guess when it comes to the dating of the Gospels is that Luke and Acts were probably written after Josephus wrote Antiquities -- since they contain so many references and common turns of phrase.

Lena, I see that in all three fragments the Mount of Olives is mentioned. In the Josephus fragments the city walls are important (because of the Egyptian's intention to break into the city), while in Mark 13 the magnificent buildings (the temple and maybe the other buildings on the Temple Mount) are mentioned. As Mark 13 in its entirety discusses the war period, I believe it is more likely that these verses reflect a conversation (probably not only held between Jesus and his companions) in Jerusalem under the threat of a Roman attack.

Again, I don't see a decisive difference between the prophesy made by "the Egyptian", and that pronounced in Mark 13. But as I said, Mark 13 may well be an aggregate between the prophesy of "the Egyptian" and the later events, in 70 CE.

Furthermore: it is not only that the Mount of Olives is "mentioned" in all three fragments. The messianic leader (Jesus vs "the Egyptian") is actually pronouncing his prophesy from there in all three fragments.

Furthermore: If you go by the description in the original Greek version of John 18, not only is the prophesy pronounced from the Mount of Olives in both cases, but in fact, the messianic leader (Jesus vs "the Egyptian") is met by a complete cohort of Roman soldiers (600-1.000 men), at that exact spot -- the Mount of Olives -- in both cases. And that is where he is defeated. In both cases.

Charles Wilson wrote:

The problem is that Mark 13 is about Jannaeus and his battles with Demetrius Eucerus.

Charles, could you lay out the text a little more about why you believe Mark 13 is about Jannaeus?
Are there other common elements, besides the fleeing to the mountains and the killing of the children?

Mark 13 is a prophecy, whereas Jannaeus was past tense by the time that Gospel was written. is that not a contradiction?

PS To Charles: I take back the thing about contradiction in the last sentence I wrote. But the distance in time between Jannaeus and the writing of Mark makes it a little odd that that catastrophe would be pronounced as a prophecy -- so much later.

Lena Einhorn wrote:Charles Wilson wrote:

The problem is that Mark 13 is about Jannaeus and his battles with Demetrius Eucerus.

Charles, could you lay out the text a little more about why you believe Mark 13 is about Jannaeus?

Mark 10: 11(RSV):

[11] And when they bring you to trial and deliver you up, do not be anxious beforehand what you are to say; but say whatever is given you in that hour, for it is not you who speak, but the Holy Spirit.

This is the upper bracket for this Passage. It mentions the "Holy Spirit", which I believe is a Marker for Domitian. YMMV.
Verses 24 - 26 also point to Roman construction. Verse 24 may be from Sources for Dio, Epitome 64. 25 tells of the "powers in the heavens" and that should represent the Ascension of the Flavians, with Verse 26 representing Titus. YMMV.

Verse 27 is taken from The Story and should be tested for Hebrew or Aramaic artifacts. I believe that this verse comes from 8/9 CE and the Priest or Peter telling of the Second Coming at the Passover when the Romans will be overthrown. The first time around, the child was Peter who came out from Antonia to save the Priest - later rewritten as the story where Peter sank in the waters up to his knees and "Jesus" had to save Peter. This obsession with Peter up to his knees in mud and bloody water is replayed over and over and finds its expression in the "Foot Washing" episode.

So, Lena, I'm already deep in the soup here. It's easy to deny the premises and laugh about it but the Thesis becomes self sustaining. Our Poster MichaelBG has pointed out that I understood his position, I would see the NT in a different light as well. Agreed. Therefore, if you can read the Stories - especially the early Stories in Mark - with a different Intentionality, you may assemble an astonishing POV. It implies a bit of Michael Polanyi and Tacit Knowledge. YMMV.

Are there other common elements, besides the fleeing to the mountains and the killing of the children?

Of course.

[14] "But when you see the desolating sacrilege set up where it ought not to be (let the reader understand), then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains;

Many believe that they are finished with the Symbolism when they read Daniel - "Oh! "Let the reader understand..." Well, I just read Daniel and I know about Antiochus Epiphanes and the Greeks. I've even eaten one of their salads!"
That's just the start. The Symbolism becomes Second Level. The Greek tie-in is with Demetrius Eucerus and his sacrifice at the Temple at Gerizim. Josephus hides everything he can about the History. You have to look at a map to see that Shechem, where Demetrius camps, is near Gerizim. When you read that "Jesus" was only sent to the Lost Sheep of the House of Israel, you have to drop the metaphysics and look elsewhere. BTW, I admit I could be wrong here in my assignment but overall (and in this case) I believe I am correct.

My problem is that I had to start as everyone else has, with making assignments of Symbols for implied meanings. I can give as many assignments as you want, up to and including Space Aliens. I had to make discoveries and re-establish a Symbolic Base. What happened was that I read early Mark over and over and realized, to the best of my abilities, that the Intentionality of the Stories was changed. The main discovery was this Intentionality led to verifiable empirical results that ended with archaeological findings and linguistic Analysis that paid big dividends. Atwill was correct on the Roman part of the thesis. Jay Raskin, though his ends are much different than mine, has positive realisations everywhere about the NT, especially the splitting of Mark and John from a literal Common Source. Poster Adam, again, different in results, has some nice material and he pointed me to Howard Teeple.

Is there more? YES! Jannaeus was a King and a High Priest! He had a wife. Again, Josephus created great mischief here by not EXPLICITLY stating that Jannaeus married his brother's wife in a Leverite marriage. He suddenly begins writing about "Alexandra" and that is how she has been named for 2000 years. WRONG-O!

If Salome was Jannaeus' wife, is she mentioned in the NT?

Luke 2: 36 (RSV):

[36] And there was a prophetess, Anna, the daughter of Phan'u-el, of the tribe of Asher; she was of a great age, having lived with her husband seven years from her virginity,
[37] and as a widow till she was eighty-four. She did not depart from the temple, worshiping with fasting and prayer night and day.
[38] And coming up at that very hour she gave thanks to God, and spoke of him to all who were looking for the redemption of Jerusalem.

This is Salome. She is mentioned as being a widow until she was 84. An interesting construction: 8/9 CE subtract 84 years finds the Ascension of a widow to become a Queen of Judaea. Who came to the Throne in 76 BCE?
Obscure Mathematics in NT studies is always a hazard.
"...having lived with her husband seven years from her virginity...". That would mean that Jannaeus would have married a virginal Salome Alexandra after the death of his brother...wouldn't it? Perhaps someone is telling us something, something else. Something about Jannaeus. Something about Salome. Something about the Families mentioned here. "The Greeks called her Salome Alexandra". Thanx a pile, Josephus.

Herod's last speech is about how he accomplished more in his years than the Hasmoneans did in 125 years. The Hasmoneans? Why is this important? Isn't the Metaphysical Jesus enough in the NT? One thing leads to another. Why does the crowd demand that Archelaus appoint a High Priest of "...greater piety and purity"? What does that mean? Read what Josephus writes about Hyrcanus 1. Jannaeus. Salome and the Hasmoneans in between. They are all called by a racial slur.

Ant..., 13, 10, 5:

This man said [to Hyrcanus]," Since thou desirest to know the truth, if thou wilt be righteous in earnest, lay down the high priesthood, and content thyself with the civil government of the people," And when he desired to know for what cause he ought to lay down the high priesthood, the other replied, "We have heard it from old men, that thy mother had been a captive under the reign of Antiochus Epiphanes." This story was false, and Hyrcanus was provoked against him..."

The Hasmoneans were a threat. The control of the Stooge High Priest was not enough. The poison to the Herodians and Romans was to be found in the Mishmarot Priesthood, authorized by David, as found in 1 Chronicles 24. One thing leads to another. If Jannaeus and Salome are in the NT and they were of the Hasmoneans and the Mishmarot Group Jehoiarib (and were believed to be from Immer as well), there should be evidence of Mishmarot in the NT. There is.

Mark 13 is a prophecy, whereas Jannaeus was past tense by the time that Gospel was written. is that not a contradiction?

I hope you see that it is not. The Romans could write a story of a savior/god from whole cloth or they could rewrite (steal) something from Jewish History. If "Jesus" is recorded as having said that the Temple will be leveled and destroyed, perhaps it would be better to say that the author Post-Dicted the event, writing his tale AFTER the Temple had been destroyed. So it is here with Jannaeus. The memory of a Time Passed, when Judea had Power and Glory and each Mishmarot Group had its own Settlement assigned as a Home in Galilee, was still a powerful memory. The List of Settlements is a physical thing. Several Settlements in Galillee have copies of this List. It is real. This was a real driver for what Poster outhouse calls the "Hellenized Jews". They had to be marginalized and destroyed, by force or by Psy-Ops.

As Atwill said, "How can we get the Jews to worship Caesar without them knowing it?

Easy. Rewrite a Story of a child of Immer named Peter. Peter saves a Priest and watches as 3000+ people are murdered. Peter and the Priest come back 12 years later to finish the job. They are intercepted and the Priest is murdered. The Law and the Prophets were until John. Why? Because the Story is re-manufactured into the story of a savior/god who moves his entire church to Rome.

Imagine that.

CW

Thanks Charles! I'm not sure I follow you, but I'll ponder it some more, and check out the segments you refer to.