Biblical Criticism & History Forum - earlywritings.com

We have already seen clues in Hebrews and Ascension of Isaiah about Hesus being before killed (by stoning?) and only after crucified.

Stephan was before stoned and after, one may wonder if his corpse was crucified.

And Lucian talks about Jesus the impaled sophist: impaled, not crucified. Lucian doesn't mention at all Pilate.

So the death of Stephan may be a cover of the other Jesus's fate, the original Passion story without Pilate.

In particular, this version assumes that Jesus/"Stephan" saw the Son of Man in his glory while he was going to be killed.
This talks about Separationism: the impassible Son of Man is seeing the suffering carnal "Stephan"/Jesus.

But is the Son of Man really only impassible?

Isn't he also crucified, only on a cross of glory?

In outer space?

The death of James in Hegesippus and the entire episode of James in Josephus (if prof Joshua Evron is correct that it is an interpolation) are designed to cover equally the alternative Passion story about Jesus of which above.

"Show us the gate of Jesus", as pharisees address James in Hegesippus, betrayes knowledge of the Christian claim that, while the carnal Jesus/"James" was suffering, a miracolous event was happening in the same moment in heaven (outer space): the celestial crucifixion of the superior Christ. Where I diverge from Doherty is in the fact that, for me, the celestial crucifixion didn't imply drop of blood. It was not at all a bloody event. No nails in outer space. It was an abstract event, too much abstract to assume details as blood or nails.

In addition, the probable presence of two crucifixions, one earthly, the other celestial, in the Separationist christology, was a way to harmonize the anti-demiurgist hellenistic need of a cosmic impassible bloodless crucifixion with the originally Jewish story about a Jesus stoned and impaled by Jews alone.

Hence the question: was the simple story of Jesus being condemned and killed and hanged by Jews alone a vague reminiscence of a very remote historical fact?

Or was it a mere consequence of the 70 CE: the Jews killed Jesus, Jesus kills the Jews ?

I fear that the answer to this question can't never be given with certainty.

The "historian who is in me" (!) can only conclude that the evolution of beliefs was something as the following:

• 1) Jews alone killed Jesus according to the Jewish way of crucifixion (only the corpse is crucified).

• 2) Jews alone killed Jesus and crucified his corpse, in whiletime a celestial bloodless crucifixion appears in the same moment in heaven.

• 3) Pilate is introduced to make the point that the two crucifixions were one and the same: the victim being the suffering "son of Joseph" (afterall, the notorious slayer of the "sons of Joseph", i.e. Pilate, was the killer), accordingly he suffered really in the flesh.

I lean towards Robert Eisenman's view that the death of Stephen is a cover for the killing of James and not an alternative passion of Jesus. Robert Price, in his review of Eisenman's "James the Brother of Jesus", summarizes Eisenman's view on the Stephen story as follows:

As Hans-Joachim Schoeps had already surmised, the stoning of Stephen has in precisely the same way supplanted the stoning of James (actually a conflation of James' ultimate stoning at the command of Ananus and an earlier assault by Saul on the temple steps preserved as a separate incident in the Recognitions). The name Stephen has been borrowed from a Roman official beaten by Jewish insurgents whom Josephus depicts ambushing him outside the city walls. Why this name? Because of a pun: Stephen means "crown" and was suggested both by the "crown" of long hair worn by the Nazirite (which James was, according to early church writers) and by the crown of martyrdom. To Stephen has been transferred James' declaration of the Son of Man at the right hand of God in heaven, as well as James' "Christlike" prayer for his persecutors. (Eisenman might have noted, too, that the martyr's original identity as James the Just is signaled by Acts 7:52, "the Just, whose betrayers and murderers you have now become"!)

We read that a young man named Saul was playing coat checker for the executioners of Stephen and, his taste for blood whetted, immediately began to foment persecution in Jerusalem and Damascus. This has been drawn, again, from the lore of James as well as Josephus. The clothing motif was suggested by the final blow to James' head with a fuller's club, while just after his own account of James' death, Josephus tells of the rioting started by a Herodian named Saulus in Jerusalem!

https://depts.drew.edu/jhc/RPeisenman.html

Eisenman is totally wrong, as usual: James is not Stephan and vice versa.

In addition, James was transformed in a carnal brother of Jesus against Marcion. He was called "the Just" because YHWH is the Just in opposition to the Good god:



(Markus Vinzent, Christ’s resurrection in Early Christianity and the Making of the New Testament, Ashgate 2011, p.99-100, my bold)

The greatest error of Eisenman is to believe that Stephan is a Judaizer. At contrary, he is a Gentilizing icon.

The fact that a Gentilizing icon is connected with the Jewish (partially original) Passion story about Jesus is part and parcel of the process of harmonizazion between gentilizers and judaizers.

The original story had only the corpse of Jesus impaled.

The Separationism was introduced even before the introduction of Pilate in the narrative.

I find interesting that Hegesippus 'historicizes' the anti-demiurgism by reducing it fraudolently to a mere form of samaritanism:


...when really the anti-demiurgism was something of too much dualistically radical to be a mere expression of samaritanism.

viewtopic.php?f=3&t=7888&p=122851&hilit=piso#p122851

"Stephen" turns out to be Frugi Piso, the 4 day emperor. You are being given History here again, Giuseppe, not pie in the sky.

Act 6: 1 - 6: (RSV):

[1] Now in these days when the disciples were increasing in number, the Hellenists murmured against the Hebrews because their widows were neglected in the daily distribution.
[2] And the twelve summoned the body of the disciples and said, "It is not right that we should give up preaching the word of God to serve tables.
[3] Therefore, brethren, pick out from among you seven men of good repute, full of the Spirit and of wisdom, whom we may appoint to this duty.
[4] But we will devote ourselves to prayer and to the ministry of the word."
[5] And what they said pleased the whole multitude, and they chose Stephen, a man full of faith and of the Holy Spirit, and Philip, and Proch'orus, and Nica'nor, and Ti'mon, and Par'menas, and Nicola'us, a proselyte of Antioch.
[6] These they set before the apostles, and they prayed and laid their hands upon them.

v.1: Indirection. "... the Hellenists murmured against the Hebrews because their widows were neglected in the daily distribution"
Their WIDOWS? What does this mean? The Jews are killing (Greek) soldiers and no one does anything.

v.2: "And the twelve summoned the body of the disciples..." The LEGIONS are being prepared to Road grade Judea. *
"It is not right that we should give up preaching the word of God to serve tables..."

It is right to do whatever God chooses for you to do so this is about something entirely different:
v.3: "Therefore, brethren, pick out from among you seven men of good repute, full of the Spirit and of wisdom, whom we may appoint to this duty..."

Who is responsible for the food for Rome? THE CAESARS!!!

v. 4: "But we will devote ourselves to prayer and to the ministry of the word."
Vespasian has three Groups of "Ministers of the Word" and Mucianus has four." Seven Legions to march on Rome.

v. 5: And what they said pleased the whole multitude, and they chose Stephen, a man full of faith and of the Holy Spirit, and Philip, and Proch'orus, and Nica'nor, and Ti'mon, and Par'menas, and Nicola'us, a proselyte of Antioch.

"...and Nicolaus, a Proselyte of Antioch"

Who Championed Antioch?

Octavian. This is an inverted list of Caesars.
Who was Stephen?
Frugi Piso.

Follow the trail. This is not Pie in the sky.
History.

CW

*[Note: obviously, the conquering of Judea is to be listed as a "One-Time-Affair", the History that followed notwithstanding. The LIst of Caesars and what follows therefore is giving a short History of the Organization of the functioning Roman Government after Julius Caesar. Ample evidence for Vespasian controlling the grain supply in Egypt with the Legions giving approval to the Caesars that followed.

There are few doubts that Stephan in Acts is a cover of the alternative Passion story about Jesus himself, a cover fabricated in order to harmonize Gentilizing icons (Stephan, the Son of Man) with the Judaizing original story (stoning and crucifixion of the corpse).

No mention of Pilate.

Giuseppe wrote: ↑Wed Jun 15, 2022 7:08 am There are few doubts that Stephan in Acts is a cover of the alternative Passion story about Jesus himself, a cover fabricated in order to harmonize Gentilizing icons (Stephan, the Son of Man) with the Judaizing original story (stoning and crucifixion of the corpse).

No mention of Pilate.

To me, the fact that Pilate isn't mentioned in the Stephen story is another indicator that his death as related has little to do with the passion of Jesus.

Baley wrote: ↑Wed Jun 15, 2022 8:00 am To me, the fact that Pilate isn't mentioned in the Stephen story is another indicator that his death as related has little to do with the passion of Jesus.

in all the commentaries of Acts I read that the episode of Stephan is based on the Passion story of Jesus as we find it in our current gospels.

Obviously the commenters avoid to make it clear that Stephan is based on the current Passion story less any mention of Pilate.

Hence, the absence of a Roman judge for Stephan is really evidence of the episode of Stephan having been fabricated on a previous version of the Gospel Passion story, a version where Pilate was entirely absent and Jesus was killed and impaled by Jews alone.

The fact that the author of Acts had been able to find a Roman judge (Festus) for Paul, while he was not equally able to find a Roman judge for Stephan, is strong evidence that his source about Stephan was based on a previous version of the Gospel Passion story without Pilate, while in the case of Paul and Festus the author knew that Jesus was judged by Pilate, while his source didn't know Pilate.