Biblical Criticism & History Forum - earlywritings.com

Asterix and Obelix can't hold the dimmest candle to Vincenzo Bellini's Norma.

neilgodfrey wrote: ↑Mon Apr 11, 2022 12:33 am I'll restrict my initial response here to Theudas.
...
It is the same question a historian of Rome might ask about the origin of the myths of Aeneas followed by Romulus and Remus. To answer that question we look to when we first encounter the myths by independent attestation. We don't seek the answers by studying the journeys of Aeneas and looking for historical antecedents for various characters.

Well, now that the topic has veered into a discussion of Asterix and Obelix I feel a bit cheated. No sour grapes, though, let me reiterate.

The juxtaposition of Theudas and Judas in Acts, when that is such an obviously late document, very plausibly highlights Josephus as the source of that reference. It is Acts that is doing what you are saying: pointing out a period of many messianic cults and fervors.

I don't agree that Josephus's reference to Theudas, however, is attempting to tell the same story. There is context embedded in Josephus's editorial choices which he does not explicitly mention.

For instance, prior to Theudas we have the death of Herod Agrippa. Based on Josephus (I can't say whether the Talmud corroborates this) we have a list of the High Priests of Israel. This list is not made essential to the story of Agrippa or Theudas. However, it paints a picture of an internecine struggle between the family of Boethus and Annas for control of the High Priesthood. This in the context of Agrippa's subtle, but clear and building defiance of Rome prior to his death which again, not so subtly, appears to be an assasination.

Now, does Josephus imply that Annas and Boethus are in conflict? No. However, the Boethusians are out of the office for the entire period of the Ananian High Priests. It is not as if it was natural for them to rotate in the position. With Agrippa's rise - given again the context of his political situation - we have suddenly the rise of Boethus, then another son of Annas, then a Boethus again. Curious.

Next, a scholarly interpretation of the gospel parable of Lazarus and the rich man, in which it is inferred that Annas the priest is the enemy of Lazarus. Then we have the rising of Lazarus (assumed to be the same character). In context, the conflict between Lazarus and Annas is what results in his injury.

Lazarus and Martha reasonably, but not conclusively, identify as Elionaeus and Martha Boethus.

Putting it all together, we have Agrippa forming an intrigue against Rome (Josephus gives the entire context for this, starting with enmity against Sampsiceramus II). Then, Agrippa's rise as King of Judea, unseen since his father's time. The reinstating of a Boethusian to the High Priesthood. A back and forth with the sons of Annas (implying conflict).

Finally, the death of Agrippa then the grave injury of Lazarus.

The immediate aftermath is Josephus's mention of Theudas. Following that, the nephew of Philo who later is a key figure for Rome in the Jewish Revolt (becoming Prefect of the Praetorian Guard for Titus) is persecuting James and Simon. Finally, the Great Famine which reverses Roman persecution of these "sons of Judas". Given plausible enmity between Izates of Adiabene and Sampsiceramus II, and Adiabene's role as saviors of the famine, there is also an implication of an upper level Roman decision to remove favor from the Ananian faction, perhaps decided on behalf of changes to popular Jewish sentiment.

We have, in the Jewish revolt, a clear accord between Philo's Alexandrians, Agrippa II, and Ananus the High Priest. In that Agrippa II did not follow the path of his father, and was more aligned with Rome and the pro-Roman of the diaspora.

On top of all this, it is Theudas of all people whom Valentinius chooses to claim as his master.

On the matter of independent corroboration, there are pertinent facts about the Emesene dynasty which contribute to this narrative which are not included in Josephus. One must go to Eusebius and consult his accounts of the Syrian Greek dynasty.

We also have a narrative that is not contained in any one Christian text, but which is corroborated obliquely by multiple texts. As if these some of these writers would be unaware of the narrative.

For instance, Josephus knowing that Theudas was central in a story having to do with Agrippa beginning to defy Rome. Yet, Agrippa is the last true king of Judea, and it would be deeply embarrassing to admit he was a possible rebel and was assassinated. The logic of Rome herself wanting to sweep this under the rug for the sake of stability is clear enough. It's hardly a conspiracy theory, if we grant the strong possibility that Agrippa might have been poisoned. His anti-Roman sentiment, statements and direction are not concealed by Josephus.

Then, the author of Acts, unaware of this story - being ignorant of some of the history outside of a cursory reading of Josephus - mentions Judas and Theudas as mere examples of erstwhile rebels.

In any event, summary:

Martha and Lazarus Boethus, along with James and Simon, are independently corroborated historical figures who are inserted into multiple Christian texts by authors who seem to lack any particular agenda for reporting them that way, since whatever the historical narrative surrounding the Boethusians, Agrippa and Theudas was, it is not part of the Christian narrative. These characters don't serve the Christian narrative, so there's a good argument that they are mentioned because the author is of the legitimate belief that these genuine historical persons are material to the story.

Second, again I don't agree with your assertion that Josephus implies that there is a culture of a scattering of messianic uprisings. I don't think that's implied by his particular narrative. He does imply political tensions, but he mentions certain figures quite specifically, as if there would have been a reason to mention them, and he feels the need to include them for their importance, but perhaps he is reluctant to record too many of the details. "Let the reader understand" sort of philosophy.

It seems much more to be the narrative of Acts that Judea was replete with messianics, and I'd wager the reason it is written this way is to assuage complaints that the Luke-Acts narrative isn't quite historical. "Well, there were tons of movements, remember Theudas?"

I continue to believe that scholarly attitudes of 1st century Judea are poisoned by the narrative of Acts. Looking at Josephus and other history, we see that Theudas was probably significant, but that Josephus would have very good reasons for neglecting some of the details.

neilgodfrey wrote: ↑Mon Apr 11, 2022 12:33 am
In other words, the question is: What led early "fathers" to create the myths of history? It is not, "What historical person or shadow can we somehow loosely detect behind the myth of Aeneas or Jesus and Paul etc.

It is the same question a historian of Rome might ask about the origin of the myths of Aeneas followed by Romulus and Remus. To answer that question we look to when we first encounter the myths by independent attestation. We don't seek the answers by studying the journeys of Aeneas and looking for historical antecedents for various characters.

And there may be more parallels between the legends involving Aeneas and Jesus than one might have otherwise realised

Michael Kochenash (2018) Adam, Son of God’(Luke 3.38): Another Jesus–Augustus Parallel in Luke's Gospel New Testament Studies, Vol 64, Issue 3
https://www.academia.edu/34570563/_Adam ... e_s_Gospel

Summary


Kochenash will address that in chapter 5, 'Aeneas: A Roman Way to Structure Luke’s Narrative' in his 2020 book, Roman Self-Representation and the Lukan Kingdom of God, but I'm not sure whether he elaborates as I haven't read it.

yakovzutolmai wrote: ↑Fri Apr 15, 2022 2:41 pm Second, again I don't agree with your assertion that Josephus implies that there is a culture of a scattering of messianic uprisings. I don't think that's implied by his particular narrative. He does imply political tensions, but he mentions certain figures quite specifically, as if there would have been a reason to mention them, and he feels the need to include them for their importance, but perhaps he is reluctant to record too many of the details. "Let the reader understand" sort of philosophy.

It seems much more to be the narrative of Acts that Judea was replete with messianics, and I'd wager the reason it is written this way is to assuage complaints that the Luke-Acts narrative isn't quite historical. "Well, there were tons of movements, remember Theudas?"

I continue to believe that scholarly attitudes of 1st century Judea are poisoned by the narrative of Acts. Looking at Josephus and other history, we see that Theudas was probably significant, but that Josephus would have very good reasons for neglecting some of the details.

Fwiw, I should point out that I avoided saying that Josephus was using Theudas as an instance of a "messianic fervour". Josephus does not speak for those sorts of messianic uprisings although we often find that others have read that idea into Josephus's account.

To comment on your detailed explanation, you would have to classify me as too much of a "minimalist". I tend to avoid what I call the jig-saw approach to reading the sources, piecing bits and pieces together in new ways. Your scenario makes an attractive narrative, but how can it be verified?

MrMacSon wrote: ↑Fri Apr 15, 2022 3:07 pm

neilgodfrey wrote: ↑Mon Apr 11, 2022 12:33 am
In other words, the question is: What led early "fathers" to create the myths of history? It is not, "What historical person or shadow can we somehow loosely detect behind the myth of Aeneas or Jesus and Paul etc.

It is the same question a historian of Rome might ask about the origin of the myths of Aeneas followed by Romulus and Remus. To answer that question we look to when we first encounter the myths by independent attestation. We don't seek the answers by studying the journeys of Aeneas and looking for historical antecedents for various characters.

And there may be more parallels between the legends involving Aeneas and Jesus than one might have otherwise realised

Adam, Son of God’(Luke3.38): Another Jesus–Augustus Parallel in Luke's Gospel New Testament Studies, Volume 64, Issue 3
https://www.academia.edu/34570563/_Adam ... e_s_Gospel

Summary

Reading Jesus’ conception and genealogy in the context of claims about Augustus brings clarity to the perplexing identification of Adam as God's offspring (Luke3.38). Jesus was fathered by God's spirit (1.35), as was his ancestor Adam (through Joseph). Likewise, some claimed Augustus was fathered by Apollo and that his ancestor Aeneas (through adoption by Julius Caesar) was the offspring of Aphrodite/Venus. This comparison suggests that Jesus is comparable to Augustus and that Jesus’ kingdom of God is comparable to Augustus’ Golden Age. Moreover, the logical force of these parallels favours the inferring of Joseph's adoption of Jesus in Luke.

Kochenash will address that in chapter 5, 'Aeneas: A Roman Way to Structure Luke’s Narrative' in his 2020 book, Roman Self-Representation and the Lukan Kingdom of God, but I'm not sure whether he elaborates as I haven't read it.

Thanks for reminding me of Michael Kochenash's studies! Of all things, what pleases me most is seeing that he also addresses the meaning of Dorcas/Tabitha -- "deer" -- and the significance that has for the tale of Aeneas (a name Acts mentions in the same context) -- something I have long been turning over in my mind: https://vridar.org/2015/08/01/acts-and- ... influence/

neilgodfrey wrote: ↑Fri Apr 15, 2022 4:32 pm To comment on your detailed explanation, you would have to classify me as too much of a "minimalist". I tend to avoid what I call the jig-saw approach to reading the sources, piecing bits and pieces together in new ways. Your scenario makes an attractive narrative, but how can it be verified?

Very good point. Not to be difficult, but in direct contrast, my biggest complaint with biblical scholarship is an overreliance on existing sources. The lack of pertinent details I think overemphasizes the existing accounts. If we assume Acts is fabricated, while the true narrative is simply missing, you would easily understand why this would be a problem.

That said, I think there is a reading between the lines. This is certainly done in scholarly articles quite frequently. I read an excellent review of an Assyriologist who finds sephirotic forms in Assyrian temple carvings. His argument is that the esoteric readings are formed into a clear node and spoke diagrams representing arrangements of Babylonian gods as principles, and the resultant trees are expressions of divine forms. The exoteric readings - the carvings - are stylistic representations (minus the nodes and spokes, but clearly resembling the "trees" they produce) of these forms. He then correlates this to Kabbalistic teachings. The article I read pointed out many holes in this hypothesis, but left concluding - as I did - that elements of the hypothesis are deeply compelling and can't be ignored. Again, we are left at a loss, without requisite evidence.

I think my focus on the Boethusian family as our "Bethany beyond the Jordan" set is a good place for scholarly speculation. The genesis of this direction comes from Eisenmann.

The Boethusians show up three times in Jewish history. As a contrast to the Sadducees during the pre-Maccabean period. As Herod's priests. Then, contrasted with the Annas family of priests. There is ripe scholarly speculation here.

A serious and respected scholar could easily take the "Lazarus and Annas" speculation and tie it to a political controversy during the reign of Agrippa as a commentary on the Boethusian/Ananian contrast. And it's a strong historical event in the Bible! So, has this been done even once?

Still, if we need to search for sources I would recommend this:

• Archeology in the Syrian Transjordan region searching for Bathyra.
• Archeology and discovery on the history of the Oniad Jews of Leontopolis. Particularly how their role was affected by the introduction of Roman rule in Egypt. Surely there may even be an offhand Roman comment somewhere about them. Even a single administrative document in a trashheap in Ostia about a transfer of troops from Leontopolis to Batanea would effectively validate my hypothesis.
• A more aggressive outreach to Iran and Armenia, in search of Eastern sources on the history of Upper Mesopotamian kingdoms. This is particular source of historical blindspots, for obvious reasons. I would not at all be surprised if there are documents in a museum in Tehran, or at a monastery in Iranian Azerbaijan that very clearly describes lost history of baptizing religions in Assyria or semi-Christian beliefs, or political lineages that is totally lost to Western scholarship. Not only because of contemporary political schisms, but because of thousands of years of divide with totally independent cultural and political histories divided along the Euphrates River.
• Even certain numismatic evidence could say interesting things.

neilgodfrey wrote: ↑Mon Apr 11, 2022 12:33 am

But our real question is about Christian origins.

Can I revisit what I think are the starting points for any historical reconstruction here?

Somehow I think we need to set aside entirely out of court the narrative outlines of both the gospels and Acts. We have good literary critical reasons, I think, for treating both as total fabrications so that it is misguided to try to find where a Theudas or related persons fit in those narratives as if they are built around some historical edifice.

Agreed - that the gospels and Acts are not outlines of historical narratives. However, it does not follow that these ahistorical narratives are not reflections or interpretations of historical events.

Rather, if we start with where our sources find their earliest independent attestation we have to begin with the second century and work backwards.

While finding early independent attestation to the gospel story, and Acts, is important, such late sources do not cancel the context in which the gospel story is set. The time of Pilate for the gospel story and the Acts story a follow on to that.

The earliest accounts from that starting point are found in Aristides and Justin. (Have I overlooked some?) In their works we only learn that Christianity began after Jesus appeared to his twelve disciples (not eleven) who then went out preaching to the whole known world.

Dated re the gospel story to the time of Pilate.

In other words, we have only a myth at the beginning of our search for historical origins.

Not so - we have the historical context in which the gospel Jesus story is set.

This myth, if we follow our chronological line, was later elaborated with more detail (as myths and legends usually are over time) with richer detail to make it read like a second Aeneid, a voyage from an Asian city to reach a new centre in Rome.

Indeed, myths develop along the way by those who interpret them.

Where the historical researcher needs to start, I suggest, is with an exploration of the origins of the thoughts of the likes of Aristides and Justin. From that beginning they will be commencing the journey from a more solid and verifiable position than by trying to begin by immersing themselves in mythical narratives.

What anyone thought about the Jesus myth is neither here nor there. That early christian 'fathers' interpretated the Jesus myth as a historical fact is, again, neither here nor there.

In other words, the question is: What led early "fathers" to create the myths of history? It is not, "What historical person or shadow can we somehow loosely detect behind the myth of Aeneas or Jesus and Paul etc.

I would suggest that the early 'fathers' had nothing to do with creating the Jesus myth. That myth is Jewish to it's core. That early church 'fathers' interpreted the Jesus myth as an historical account, of a flesh and blood man, reflects their naivety not their competence in Jewish history. After all - why would they be interested in Jewish history as an explanation of how and why the Jesus myth arose? After all, re the gospel story, the Jews were involved in his crucifixion, their god saw fit to burn their temple etc. God had shifted his blessings to the Christ followers - why look back when the road ahead was wide open ?

It is the same question a historian of Rome might ask about the origin of the myths of Aeneas followed by Romulus and Remus. To answer that question we look to when we first encounter the myths by independent attestation. We don't seek the answers by studying the journeys of Aeneas and looking for historical antecedents for various characters.

The search for early christian origins is not a search for how the Jesus myth was interpretated at various times - it's a search for the history that led to the creation of the Jesus myth. History is primary not someone's interpretation of the myth. What's that old saying - one can play any old tune on the bible. Interpretations are part of an attempt to understand the myth - theological, philosophical musings etc. History, on the other had, deals with what can reasonable be established. Thus, history has the potential to detect, as it were, reflections of itself within the gospel Jesus story. Interpretations of the gospel Jesus story are just that - interpretations of a story. One needs to put the Jesus myth story aside. Take up a history book, Wikipedia, Jewish writers, understand Jewish history prior to the time of Pilate - and only then come back to the gospel story and view it through a historical lens. After that historical approach - then one can have fun and games interpretating the Jesus myth story for theological or philosophical musings. In other words - history is primary, reflection is secondary and interpretation (finding meaning or insights) is the end product.

As for the topic of this thread - an attempt to find some history reflected in the Jesus myth. As Wells once said re Doherty - it's not all mythical.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Albert_Wells

And that is basically why there are many attempts to link Josephan figures to gospel figures. A purely mythical interpretation of the gospel Jesus story fails to resonate with many people. In essence - it's a cry for history to have it's say in understanding the origins, the why and the how of the existence of the Jesus story. Interpretation of the Jesus story can't answer those two questions.

maryhelena wrote: ↑Mon Apr 25, 2022 11:51 pm The search for early christian origins is not a search for how the Jesus myth was interpretated at various times - it's a search for the history that led to the creation of the Jesus myth. History is primary not someone's interpretation of the myth. What's that old saying - one can play any old tune on the bible. Interpretations are part of an attempt to understand the myth - theological, philosophical musings etc. History, on the other had, deals with what can reasonable be established. Thus, history has the potential to detect, as it were, reflections of itself within the gospel Jesus story. Interpretations of the gospel Jesus story are just that - interpretations of a story. One needs to put the Jesus myth story aside. Take up a history book, Wikipedia, Jewish writers, understand Jewish history prior to the time of Pilate - and only then come back to the gospel story and view it through a historical lens. After that historical approach - then one can have fun and games interpretating the Jesus myth story for theological or philosophical musings. In other words - history is primary, reflection is secondary and interpretation (finding meaning or insights) is the end product.

There is no question that it is absolutley necessary to understand the gospels in their historical context. But we cannot assume that the gospel narratives are "based on historical events" of any kind. That needs to be demonstrated, not assumed.

neilgodfrey wrote: ↑Tue Apr 26, 2022 3:33 am

maryhelena wrote: ↑Mon Apr 25, 2022 11:51 pm The search for early christian origins is not a search for how the Jesus myth was interpretated at various times - it's a search for the history that led to the creation of the Jesus myth. History is primary not someone's interpretation of the myth. What's that old saying - one can play any old tune on the bible. Interpretations are part of an attempt to understand the myth - theological, philosophical musings etc. History, on the other had, deals with what can reasonable be established. Thus, history has the potential to detect, as it were, reflections of itself within the gospel Jesus story. Interpretations of the gospel Jesus story are just that - interpretations of a story. One needs to put the Jesus myth story aside. Take up a history book, Wikipedia, Jewish writers, understand Jewish history prior to the time of Pilate - and only then come back to the gospel story and view it through a historical lens. After that historical approach - then one can have fun and games interpretating the Jesus myth story for theological or philosophical musings. In other words - history is primary, reflection is secondary and interpretation (finding meaning or insights) is the end product.

There is no question that it is absolutley necessary to understand the gospels in their historical context. But we cannot assume that the gospel narratives are "based on historical events" of any kind. That needs to be demonstrated, not assumed.

Searching for historical reflections in the gospel Jesus myth at least has potential for advancing research into Christian origins..... whereas a purely mythical approach leads
only to speculation about invisible entities. We don't just live in our heads. Our two feet rest upon solid ground. Our task is to relate our ideas to our reality.... if we want to prosper. Consequently..... mythicist arguments have to find an accommodation with physical reality - with history. To assume that there is no historical reflection in the gospel Jesus myth is to assume too much. The debate is over what history is being reflected.... not if its there or not.

If its not there..... if there is no historical reflection in the gospel Jesus myth.... then its time to close the shop and go home. Theological and philosophical ideas cannot provide a historical grounding for Christian origins. A history of ideas is not a substitute for the political history that contributed to their development. Physical experience not just imagination - not being off with the fairies - is fundamental to individual and social growth.

It is not an assumption to maintain that there is a historical reflection in the gospel Jesus story. Logic requires that it is there - all the more so as its a very Jewish story.

maryhelena wrote: ↑Tue Apr 26, 2022 4:39 am It is not an assumption to maintain that there is a historical reflection in the gospel Jesus story. Logic requires that it is there - all the more so as its a very Jewish story.

Did not Jews also write fiction without any historical basis for the narratives?