PROPAGANDA AND THE RISE OF CHRISTIANITY

Jesus proclaims that the Messiah, the “Son of Man” in “great power and glory” would return within the lives of some of the people listening to him. They “would not taste death.”

He links the blessed event of his second coming with the destruction of a Jerusalem and it’s famous Temple.(Mark13:1-37).

The verbal description of war mirrors that of Josephus telling of the Jewish War, actual events 40 years later.

Titus fulfilled Jesus’s prophecy right down to the “armies in the clouds” that would appear before brutal war’s final seige and Temple destruction.

“….chariots and troops of soldiers in their armour were seen running about among the clouds, and surrounding of cities.” JW 6.5.3.

As most ancient literature imitated other works both the gospels and Josephus can be both seen imitating Jeremiah and Isaiah.

“Behold, he shall come up as clouds, and his chariots shall be as the whirlwind”

Jeremiah4:1

“For, behold, the LORD will come with fire, and with his chariots like a whirlwind, to render his anger with fury, and his rebuke with flames of fire.”

Isaiah66:15 cf. 19:1

As a side note Vespasian was the only person Josephus has called the messiah.

Vespasian and Titus openly proclaimed they were Jewish messiah’s as part of their Imperial cults.

Is it possible that Jesus’s prophecy was written while these Flavian Emperors ruled in order to prove their messianic intentions after they conquered Judea?

PRO ROMAN GOSPELS:

Jesus advocates peace with Rome in an age of rebellion, even calling for the payment of taxes.

Acknowledges faith of Roman centurion with lavish praise.(Mtt8:5-13;Lk7:1-10; ie early tradition saying from Q)

Jesus calls “Not even in Israel have I found such faith!” (Matt. 8:10/Luke 7:9). The Roman centurion to whom Jesus refers is a model portrait of a Gentile God-fearer.

And for an end to impurity laws that alienate Jews from Romans.(Mk7:15-16)

Jesus criticizes traditional Jewish practice from strict Sabbath observance to Kosher diet.

Pontius Pilate vividly washes his hands of any culpability of Jesus’ crucifixion.

Really when the gospels were written they seemed to say to the Jews, “ Here is your messiah and YOU crucified him!”

Jesus was the passionate ambassador of the same universal peace, so desired by the Roman Empire.

The transnational scope of Jesus’ words ( eg “love your enemy”, “turn the other cheek”), are in perfect harmony with the imperial agenda of Rome.

All of these are almost always directed against the people of Palestine and are, therefore, anti-Jewish and pro Roman.

For instance, ‘the First shall be last and the Last shall be first”

(“Matt 19:30 and 20:16/Mark 10:31/ Luke 13:30),

“a Prophet is never accepted in his own land and in his own house’,”

(“Matt 13:57/Mark 6:4/Luke 4:24)

“who are my brothers and mother to me?”

(Matt 12:46–50/Mark 3:31–5/Luke 8:19–21.)

“Woe unto you, Choraizin and Bethseida, had the miracles that were done here been done in Tyre and Sidon, they would have converted long ago and put on sackcloth and ashes’,

(Matt 11:21/Luke 10:13.)

“sayings on behalf of ‘publicans’ (tax collectors), ‘prostitutes’, ‘sinners’ (often meaning Gentiles), ‘wine-bibbers’, ‘the good Samaritan’, ‘these Little Ones’, ‘the one lost sheep’, ‘gluttons’ (people who do not keep dietary regulations), ‘the Phoenician woman’, etc – all more or less connected to Roman ways and the admission of Gentiles into the early Church and related matters.

The Gospels redefine the mission of the Jewish Messiah as one of servitude and sacrifice rather than conquest and rule. It changes the role of the chosen people to one of humble subjugation.

Did the Flavians utilize a foreign religion to demonstrate their divine favor and legitimacy as rulers over a conquered people?

Obvious cartoonish propaganda like Pilate washing his hands of the guilt of crucifying Jesus.

Jesus betrayed by his own disciple “Judas”, who shares the name of the patriarch who gave his name to the whole nation of Judea ie the Jews.

A failed prophecy of Jesus’ second coming is put into Jesus mouth, at the time of WRITING the gospels ( after the event has passed) would make NO SENSE unless Vespasian is seen as the Messiah.

To see early Christians symbols that were used by Christians buried in the catacombs

www.jesuswalk.com/christian-symbols/anchor.htm

Caesar cults that had a huge impact on Christianity.

When a comet appeared shortly after Julius Caesar’s murder, Octavian urgently promoted and the people willingly accepted it as his father’s apotheosis, his divine spirit ascending to take his place among the heavenly gods. Octavian ubiquitously displayed that star as consolidating his power. It was engraved on ring gemstones, pressed into clay seal impressions and cheap glass beads, and minted especially on coins whose legends drew the logical conclusion that, if the father was now divine, the adopted son was therefore “Son of a Divine One” or “Son of God.” That Latin title DIVI FILIUS is on most of his coins.

In the year 44 bce Julius Caesar was murdered. In order to glorify Caesar’s memory, Octavian organized games in his honor in July of 44 bce. At the time of the games a comet appeared in the sky for seven nights in a row. This caused a great stir among the Roman populace. The comet, called Caesaris astrum or sidus Iulium, was regarded by the Romans as the soul of Caesar, which had ascended to heaven and become a god. The episode is described in Octavian’s memoirs:

“On the very days of my games a comet was visible for seven days in the northern part of the sky. It was rising about an hour before sunset and was bright. . . . The common people believed that this star signified the soul of Caesar received among the spirits of the immortal gods, and on this account the emblem of star was added to the bust of Caesar that we shortly afterwards dedicated in the forum.”~Pliny, Natural History, trans. H. Rackham (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1958). Cf Suetonius, “Iulius,” 88, in The Lives of the Caesars; Dio Cassius, Roman History 45.7.1; Servius on Virgil, Eclogues 9.46.

Cross reference this with the star prophecy in Matthew.

———————————————————-

Both in Apollonius of Tyana and Matthews birth narrative were “inspired by the visit of Tiridates I [of Arminia] and his train to Nero that culminated in their reverencing him as a god. Matthew’s tale belongs to a body of material that attributes to Jesus titles and claims characteristic of the Emperors and their cults. People said that Tiridates and his magi had initiated Nero in their mysteries and secret meals. The gospel story implies that Jesus needed no initiation: he was the predestined ruler of the magi, as well as of the Jews; but unlike the ignorant Jews the magi knew this. They understood the star that signalled his coming and came themselves to meet him, make their submission, and offer the gifts due their ruler.”~ Morton Smith, Jesus the Magician,96.

——————————————————

The most astonishing for the study of the Gospels is a Greek inscription from Priene, a city just south of Ephesus on the western coast of what is now Turkey. The two-part inscription, copied and distributed across what was then called Asia Minor, contains the earliest and most striking instance of the term “Gospel” or “good tidings” to proclaim Caesar’s Roman imperial theology. Part one records how the Roman governor of Asia, Paulus Fabius Maximus, proposed to the Asian cities that they change their calendar so that Augustus’s birthday would be henceforth New Year’s Day.

“The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ” [in Marks gospel] closely matches the formula found on a monument erected by the Provincial Assembly in Asia Minor (1st century BCE):[here is a quote from the inscription]…

“the birthday of the god has been for the whole world the beginning of the gospel (ευαγγελιον) concerning him”~The Christ Myth Theory,Price,63.

The cult provides the context for understanding the famous Pontius Pilate inscription. Found flipped upside down and reused in the seating of the theater, the fragmentary Latin inscription reads “. . . this Tiberium, Pontius Pilate, prefect of Judea, erected. . . .” While many think that the inscription’s importance lies in proving that Pilate existed (and, by extension, that the Gospels are historically reliable), the inscription’s significance lies in showing that during Jesus’ lifetime a Tiberium, a structure dedicated to the worship of Tiberius, existed at Caesarea, and that the Latin text along with the building clearly communicated the fact that Rome ruled.

——————————————————

Titles such as “Lord,” “Savior,” and “Son of God,” as well as use of the term “good news” or “good tidings” (Greek: euaggelion; English: Gospel) for the Emperors acts of public beneficence, show the inextricability of what we today would call “religious” and “political” discourse. There was no “separation of church and state” in the Roman Empire, and that a human being could be seen as “divine” and could be hailed as bringing “Gospel” was by no means anomalous. This imperial cult penetrated even into Jesus’ Galilee: the fragmentary Latin inscription that records the name of Pontius Pilate comes from the Tiberium, a structure erected for the worship of the emperor Tiberius, in Caesarea.

The fact that the proclamation of Vespasian was issued from Judea led Josephus to interpret an ancient oracle foretelling that a ruler from Judea should acquire dominion over the entire world as an allusion to Vespasian (Wars6.5.4; cf Tacitus,Hist.v. 13 and Suetonius, Vespasianus,§ 4). The new emperor left his son Titus in command of the army, while he himself hurried to Rome to take possession of the throne. Vespasian is greeted with “good news” in Wars4.10.6.

James Steven Vallient discusses the cult of Vespasian and its parallels to Jesus in his book Creating Christ, “Vespasian is the only Roman emperor who is reported to have actually performed miracles during his earthly existence. Vespasian performed these feats at the Temple of Serapis in Alexandria. Moreover, they were healing miracles. And they happened to be exactly the same healing miracles that Jesus performs in the New Testament.”~Creating Christ, James Stevens Valliant. (Cf Tacitus Histories book IV,81;Suetonius, Vespasian,7).

——————————–

POLITICS AND PARODY

(The real history preserved in the gospels).

There is some reason to think the Gospel of Mark was written in Rome. For one thing, it uses a number of Latin loan-words (like “praetorium” in 15:16 and “centurion” in 15:39).[1]

Not only written in Rome but pro Roman and in parody to nationalistic messianic Jews:

TAX COLLECTION:

The Herodians in this period were the Roman tax collectors in Palestine. Their usefulness to Rome in part rested on their effective collection and transmission of revenues. If some spilled off into their own pockets, so much the better.

The Gospel refurbishments of these various materials are, once again, clearly directed against those looking to build earthly ‘Kingdoms’ and challenge Caesar’s Dominion in this world. But this is exactly the point about the polemic over the tax issue accompanying the description of Jesus as ‘not deferring to anyone nor regarding the person of men’ in the series of questions put to Jesus by the Establishment Parties, directly followed in Matthew and Mark (Luke puts this elsewhere) by the citation of the Righteousness/Piety dichotomy, in particular, ‘you should love “your neighbour as yourself’.

Paul in Romans 13, citing the Righteousness Commandment as a reason for ‘paying taxes’ to Rome and ‘giving all their due’ (Romans13:6–9; cfMatthew22:23 ;Luke23:2)

Matthew17:24-27 where a coin is taken from the fishes mouth, is a political commentary to pay your earnings to Caesar.

The ‘Galilean’ or ‘Sicarii Movement’ founded by Judas and Saddok is pictured in Josephus as beginning on just the note of opposition to paying the tax to Rome.

PUT AWAY THE SWORD

When Peter draws one of the swords a few hours later at Jesus’ arrest in the Garden of Gethsemane, slashing the ear of Malchus, one of the priests’ servants, and Jesus rebukes him saying: “Put up again thy sword into his place: for all they that take the sword shall perish with the sword.”(Matthew 26:52).

This makes sense when put into first century Jewish context. Those that take up arms against Rome will perish, therefore Jesus says to put away your sword Peter.

This all fits in with ‘turn the other cheek’ (Matt5:38-42)and ‘love your enemy’ (Luke6:27-31) passages found in the sermon on the mount.

PRAISING THE ROMAN CENTURIAN:

Acknowledges faith of Roman centurion with lavish praise.(Mtt8:5-13;Lk7:1-10; ie early tradition saying from Q)

Jesus calls “Not even in Israel have I found such faith!” (Matt. 8:10/Luke 7:9). The Roman centurion to whom Jesus refers is a model portrait of a Gentile God-fearer.

ANTI JEWISH MESSIANIC NATIONALISM

The Temptation episode in the Synoptics is nothing but a negative “parody of Josephus’ ‘Deceivers and false prophets, who lead the people out in the wilderness, there to show them the signs and wonders of their impending freedom’. In Matthew 4:3 and Luke 4:3, ‘the Devil’ even tells Jesus that, if he is ‘the Son of God’, he should ‘command these stones to become bread’, precisely the kind of miraculous ‘signs or wonders’ Josephus condemned. In later Gospel episodes, Jesus does do such miracles, even this very multiplication of loaves in the wilderness this ‘Temptation by the Devil’ episode denies he is willing to do (Matt 15:33 and Mark 8:34).

HARLOTS:

But of course the Herodian Princesses we “have thus far encountered were also ‘harlots’, none more so than Bernice. (orthodox Wiki tells us st. Veronica (Bernice), a woman healed by Christ Mt9:20) Bernices ‘Riches’ even Josephus admits were prodigious. There is little doubt that her sister Drusilla – Felix’s ‘Jewish’ wife in the scenes in Acts – was Rich, too. The ‘Temple Wall Affair’, directed against Agrippa II’s viewing of the Temple sacrifices while reclining on his balcony and eating. This is sometime after 60 CE, around the time he and his sister, Bernice, appear in Acts (25:13–26:32) interviewing Paul.

Otherwise, apart from her royalty, what would Felix’s interest have been in her?

FOOD REGULATIONS:

When Jesus is portrayed as ‘eating and drinking … a glutton and a wine-bibber, a friend of tax collectors and Sinners’ (Matt 11:19 and Luke 7:34) – this right after John the Baptist is portrayed as ‘neither eating bread, nor drinking wine’. Marks gospel gets the John the Baptist scene over in one paragraph. The gospel finds it very important to tag Christianity onto a very popular Baptist cult – Suddenly Scripture is saying that Jesus approved of such persons such as the tax collectors and gentile bibbing wine. Nor did Jesus make a fuss over purity regulations regarding food, nor make distinctions between people

“or nations regarding table fellowship on such a basis – meaning Jesus was a ‘Paulinist’.

MINI APOCALYPSE PROPHECY:

A failed prophecy of Jesus’ second coming is put into Jesus mouth, at the time of WRITING the gospels ( after the event has passed) would make NO SENSE unless Vespasian is seen as the Messiah.

(Mark13:1-37)

JUDAS ISCARIOT

Jesus betrayed by his own disciple “Judas”, who shares the name of the patriarch who gave his name to the whole nation of Judea ie the Jews. Iscariot also denotes the sicarii.

The parody Judas Iscariot suicide embodies of that carried out by the ‘Sicarii’ followers of Judas the Galilean movement on Masada three years after the fall of Jerusalem and the implied

“condemnation of this earlier Judas. What these extreme ‘Sicarii’ did on Masada and ‘Zealot’ practice generally, might have been seen as the ideological licence for such a ‘suicide’ or ‘Sanctification of the Name’ (Kiddush ha-Shem)/martyrdom. This account of Judas’ ‘Treachery’, and that of ‘blasphemy’.

PETER AND THE CENTURION

Peter is then portrayed as greeting a Roman Centurion from Caesarea and returning with him to visit his household there (Acts10-11:11)– a Roman Legionnaire who is portrayed as caring intensely about Judaism and all things Jewish, when over and over again Josephus makes it clear that it was these same legionnaires from Caesarea who exacerbated the problems in the country, no governor ever feeling confident enough over a 20-year period to exercise control over them – finally goading the Jews to revolt against Rome!

(Ant 20.173–8 and War 2.266–70.)

Acts’ portrayal of Peter’s visit to Cornelius’ household is just the opposite of the account in Josephus upon which it is based – the visit by Simon to Agrippa’s household in Caesarea.(Ant19.7.4).

Unlike Peter, the Simon in Josephus, who inspects the household of Agrippa I in Caesarea, wants to bar Herodians from the Temple as unclean, not accept them.

That someone, overwriting this episode about the Jerusalem Simon’s visit to Agrippa I’s household in Caesarea and presenting it, rather, in terms of Peter visiting the house of the Roman Centurion Cornelius in Caesarea from ‘the Italica Contingent’, may or may not have intended to catch the attention of either Trajan or Hadrian to convince them of what a positive attitude their predecessors in the Italica Regiment had had to Christian leaders has to be considered.

URBANISATION

Galilee was urbanized at the time of Jesus, and the socioeconomic impact of Antipas’s two new cities (Tiberius and Sepphoris) hit Galilee right at this time.

The Lord’s Prayer asks for the repeal of debts (Luke 11:4), the courts are viewed as offering no recourse for indebtedness (Luke 12:58–59), the accountability of the tenants to their owners is well known (Mark 12:1–11), as is the practice of seasonal day laborers looking for work (Matthew 20:1–15) and the abusive steward (Matthew 24:47–51). Antipas began the ur- banization of Galilee right at the time of Jesus’ life and ministry; he thought those two cities were Good News to some in Galilee, but they certainly were not Good News to all.

PARODY OF THE NETS.

In Matthew and Mark, ‘they left their nets and followed him’, and ‘Jesus’, addressing all four, utters the even more famous, ‘I shall make you fishers of men’ (Matt 4:18 and Mark “1:17). Both clearly play on and invert the allusions in the Damascus Document about ‘Belial’ (‘Balaam’ and ‘Balak’ in Revelation) casting his ‘net’ to deceive Israel (in Revelation, this is literally ‘cast a stumbling block before the Sons of Israel’) or ‘catch’ men. The three nets of Belial are ‘fornication’, ‘riches’ and ‘pollution’. ( CD 5.7–11 and 6.17–7.9).

The writers of these Hellenized New Testament parodies could not have been unaware of this.

THE ANOINTED AND MESSIANIC

The way Jesus was being annointed in the gospels is a parody. As described he’s getting a massage from sinful women. That would make him a corrupt politician…even in the first century.

So…Jesus not really being properly annointed at all…shouldn’t we be looking in the rest of the 30s who was legitimately annointed a king? There IS one besides Jesus.

“…..those who accompanied Jesus into the city misidentified him: “Blessed is the one who comes in the name of the Lord! Blessed is the coming kingdom of our father David!” They thought Jesus was a scion of David and a political victor who would usher in a kingdom. The reader should know, however, that this scene is a parody. What king would enter a city riding on a borrowed colt fit only for cargo with two cloaks serving as a saddle? The misidentification of Jesus by the crowds apparently caricatures popular Jewish messianism, which the evangelist seems to have opposed in light of the recent debacle in Judea. Jesus would reign but not as an earthly monarch. Rather, he had to “suffer many things,” die, and rise from the dead. He refuted the notion that the Messiah would be the son of David; the Messiah would not be the son of David but the Son of God. The acclamation of the crowd demonstrates their misguided enthusiasm for a political savior, expressed by their shout “Hosanna!” or “Save us, now!” Jesus is the savior, but he will not inaugurate “the coming kingdom of . . . David,” for he came “not to be served,” like a king, “but to serve, and give his life a ransom for many.”~ Homeric epic and the gospel of Mark, 106-7.

ROAD TO EMMAUS

Jesus appeared to two who ‘were going the same day to a village called Emmaus, sixty furlongs (about seven and a half miles) from Jerusalem’ (Luke 24:13).

It is interesting that the only mention of Emmaus in Josephus comes in the Jewish War (7.217-18) following the fall of the Temple. Here, in the same breath that he tells us that the two drachmas’ tax formerly paid by Jews to the Temple – the ‘two mites’ paid by the Poor widow in Gospel parody in Mark and Luke! – were now to be paid directly to Rome and that Titus was leasing out the whole country, Josephus tells us that Emmaus was only ‘thirty furlongs from Jerusalem’, not the ‘sixty’ as here in Luke. What is more, it was now to be settled by 800 Roman army veterans at Titus’ express order.

Along the way to Emmaus, Jesus castigates the two for their lack of ‘belief’ and elucidates for them the scriptural meaning of his suffering and death (Luke 24:25). They do not recognize him at first and invite him for a meal. Soon after recognizing him he disappears.

APOCALYPTIC LEADERS

One thing historical that Bart Ehrman has been able to squeeze out of the gospels through multiple attestation is the sayings of Jesus were that of an Apocalyptic leader. This can be seen in his book “Jesus Apocalyptic Leader of the new millennium”. Apocalyptic messianic leaders were all over book17 and book18 of Josephus Antiquities.

SLAUGHTER OF THE INNOCENTS:

Herod finishes the job of obliterating the Maccabean family. Those he doesn’t execute he marries. But even these he eventually butchers, including his favourite wife Mariamme, the last Maccabean princess, while he is away in Rome getting Octavius to reconfirm the crown Anthony had conferred on him (29 BC). In the end, Herod even had his two sons by her – who had been brought up in Rome – put to death, presumably because he was jealous of their Maccabean blood and “because the crowd preferred them to him. Here, Herod really did kill all the Jewish children who sought to replace him, as Matthew 2:17 would have it, but these rather were his own children with Maccabean blood!”~James the Brother of Jesus,Robert Eisenman,ch3

In view of such executions, the emperor Augustus reportedly quipped, “It is better to be Herod’s pig than son” (Macrobius, Saturnalia, 2:4:11)—the joke being that, since Herod was a Jew, he didn’t eat pork and his pig would be safe.

—————————————————

There may be a kernel of truth lurking here and there like a pebble beneath the surface of a stream.

—————————————————-

A CHRISTIAN CONNECTION TO THE FLAVIANS:

Largest catacomb in Rome is named after Flavia Domitilla, who was a member of the Flavian family, the granddaughter of the Emperor Vespasian and the niece of the Flavian emperors Titus and Domitian. She was the owner of the catacombs.

The oldest known Christian burial site with perhaps the oldest known archeological evidence of Christianity in the world. Anchor and fishes symbol ( Original Christian symbols) were used at this catacomb.

The frescoes are done with pagan scenes but also Christian scenes from the New Testament. Some of these scenes feature the last supper, disciples and other followers of Christ. Not only because of the art, but because of who was buried here, many Christians eventually wanted their remains to be forever in this place.

Domitian ruled for 15 years and was known to have conducted a harsh purge of the upper class, even executing and banishing some of his own family members who may have been Christians—including his nephew-in-law Titus Flavius Clemens and his niece, the afore-mentioned Domitilla. He even adopted their children as his own heirs.

————————————————————-

[1]Benjamin W. Bacon, Is Mark a Roman Gospel? Harvard Theological Studies VII (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1919), pp. 53-59.

SOURCES FOR THIS BLOG

James, the Brother of Jesus, Eisenman

Creating Christ, Valliant and Fahy

Holy Fable II, Price

Jesus, Apocalyptic leader of the new millennium, Ehrman

Homeric Epic and the Gospel Of Mark, MacDonald.

The Historical Jesus in context, ed. Amy-Jill Levine, Dale Allison, JD Crossan.

Jesus the Magician, Morton Smith.

The Christ Myth Theory and its problems, Price.

SON OF GOD CONCEPT AND ROMAN CULT PROPAGANDA INFLUENCE ON JEWISH MESSIANISM:

In Plutarch Lives Cleomenes III body was nailed to a cross and the populace deeply affected by his tragic end and by a series of extraordinary events that occurred after his crucifixion (Mark15:38), like a large snake wound itself around his cross, the people claimed it was a miracle and proclaimed him “son of the gods”.

‘Son of God’ fragment 4Q246 from the DSS has some very interesting implications for the concept of the title ‘Son of God’ in Jewish messianism.

The text includes phrases such as “son of God” and “the Most High”, so the two references of Daniel 7:13-14 and Luke 1:32-33, 35 are considered to be related to the fragmental phrases.

“Son of god” text 4Q246 col2

1.He will be called the son of God, they will call him the son of the Most High. But like the meteors (<- This is the comet reference)

2. that you saw in your vision, so will be their kingdom. They will reign only a few years over

3. the land, while people tramples people and nation tramples nation.

4. Until the people of God arise; then all will have rest from warfare.

5. Their kingdom will be an eternal kingdom, and all their paths will be righteous. They will judge

6. the land justly, and all nations will make peace. Warfare will cease from the land,

7. and all the nations shall do obeisance to them. The great God will be their help,

8. He Himself will fight for them, putting peoples into their power,

9. overthrowing them all before them. God’s rule will be an eternal rule and all the depths of

10. [the earth are His].

It is possible that the Messiah of Qumran was influenced by the Roman vision of redemption and Augustus’s propaganda.

In 40 bce, the year Virgil wrote the Fourth Eclogue, ushering in a new age.

And in thy consulship, Pollio*, yea in thine,

shall this glorious age begin . . .

under thy sway,

any lingering traces of our guilt shall become void, and release the earth from its continual dread.

~Virgil, Fourth Eclogue 1–14

*Pollio held consul in 40BC.

According to Margaret Baker in “The Great Angel” the ’son of god’ was indeed an early tradition in Christianity.

“Long before the first Gospel was written down, Paul could quote a Christian hymn, [Philippians2:6-11] presumably one which his readers would recognize, and therefore one which was widely known……

Similarly, at the beginning of Romans, Paul quotes what seems to be an early statement of Christian belief:

the gospel of God … concerning his Son, who was descended from David according to the flesh and designated Son of God in power according to the Spirit of holiness by his resurrection from the dead. (Rom. 1.3-4)

All the titles are there: Son of God, Lord and Messiah.” Page2.

—————————————————

ROMAN WORLDVIEW OF DIVINE STATUS AND DIVINE SONSHIP.

Adoption through Roman imperial cult was a metaphor of power and exaltation.

Comparing Jesus divine sonship to the Emperors divine sonship exalts Jesus and shows his power.

It is better to understand the metaphor of adoption in early Christianity, (example gMark) by grounding it in adoptive practices of the Roman Empire.

As the gospel of Mark is read out, the son of god resonates with its audience.

To the Jewish ‘son of god’ is seen as an earthly royal title like that of the Israelite royal ideology established through line of David.

To Greaco Roman audience it was associated with sons of Zeus of Apollo and the many kings who appropriated that title.

And the most famous person in the world, the emperor, was divi filus.

—————————————————-

SOURCES:

Margaret Baker, The Great Angel,2

Peppard, The son of God in the Roman World.

Israel Knohl, The Messiah before Jesus.

Mattila, S. (1994). Two Contrasting Eschatologies at Qumran (4Q246 vs 1QM). Biblica, 75(4), 518-538.

Plutarch, Life of Cleomenes, ch38

MARKS USE OF PHILO

If you have a fear of “parallomania”, you should read Thomas L. Brodie in The Birthing of the New Testament . His book demonstrates that it was common practice for authors of the time to draw upon and assimilate multiple sources in their composition of new works.

———————————————

Mark15:16-20.

The mockery of Jesus as a Jewish king finds an approximate parallel in Philo Flaccus6.36-39; On the occasion of King Agrippa I’s visit to Alexandria the people seized a lunatic named Carabbas. As Agrippa was not popular the local populace staged a mock coronation on poor Carabbas.

The evangelist interest as portraying Jesus as Caesar’s rival has made him correspond this periscope more closely with Agrippa I story found in Flaccus6.36-39.

[(Cf Isaiah50:6-7; 4Macc6:1-30, for treatment of Eleazer; 1Macc10:20,62 for the purple robe reference.)

Also cf Josephus JW.6.301-309 for similarities with Jesus Ben Ananias and the scenes following.]

Quote from Philo,Flaccus6.36-39

VI. (36) There was a certain madman named Carabbas, afflicted not with a wild, savage, and dangerous madness (for that comes on in fits without being expected either by the patient or by bystanders), but with an intermittent and more gentle kind; this man spent all this days and nights naked in the roads, minding neither cold nor heat, the sport of idle children and wanton youths; (37) and they, driving the poor wretch as far as the public gymnasium, and setting him up there on high that he might be seen by everybody, flattened out a leaf of papyrus and put it on his head instead of a diadem, and clothed the rest of his body with a common door mat instead of a cloak and instead of a sceptre they put in his hand a small stick of the native papyrus which they found lying by the way side and gave to him; (38) and when, like actors in theatrical spectacles, he had received all the insignia of royal authority, and had been dressed and adorned like a king, the young men bearing sticks on their shoulders stood on each side of him instead of spear-bearers, in imitation of the bodyguards of the king, and then others came up, some as if to salute him, and others making as though they wished to plead their causes before him, and others pretending to wish to consult with him about the affairs of the state. (39) Then from the multitude of those who were standing around there arose a wonderful shout of men calling out Maris; and this is the name by which it is said that they call the kings among the Syrians; for they knew that Agrippa was by birth a Syrian, and also that he was possessed of a great district of Syria of which he was the sovereign;”

Mark 15:16-20 New International Version (NIV)

The Soldiers Mock Jesus

16 The soldiers led Jesus away into the palace (that is, the Praetorium) and called together the whole company of soldiers. 17 They put a purple robe on him, then twisted together a crown of thorns and set it on him. 18 And they began to call out to him, “Hail, king of the Jews!” 19 Again and again they struck him on the head with a staff and spit on him. Falling on their knees, they paid homage to him. 20 And when they had mocked him, they took off the purple robe and put his own clothes on him. Then they led him out to crucify him.

———————————————-

Somebody executed under Roman law had no rights, there is evidence for mainly people being left on the cross to rot after crucifixion (eg Horace, Epistle 1.16.48), but there were exceptions for feast days where the body was granted to the family. As can be seen, Philo Flaccus10.83, may have influenced the gospel narrative where sometimes family members did get the body. (Cf Plutarch,Antonius2) Here in the gospel Pilate gifts the body to Joseph.

Mark15:45

“When Pilate was informed by the centurion, he gave the body to Joseph”.

Philo, Flaccus:

10.83. I have known instances before now of men who had been crucified when this festival and holiday was at hand, being taken down and given up to their relations, in order to receive the honours of sepulture, and to enjoy such observances as are due to the dead; for it used to be considered, that even the dead ought to derive some enjoyment from the natal festival of a good emperor, and also that the sacred character of the festival ought to be regarded.

—————————————————-

Mark9:2-13.

The pre-Passion narrative in the Gospel of Mark has striking affinities with Philo’s first volume of On the Life of Moses.

(Cf Josephus AJ4 and AJ5; Exodus24:16-16; 34:29; Malachi3:2; 1,2Kings)

The formal parallel to the position of the transfiguration pericope in the Gospel of Mark is intriguing. Compare the numbered points in square brackets:

Prior to this scene in Mark,

[1]Jesus has had a call-vision (baptism),

[2] announced the Kingdom of God,

[3] and manifested his authority in miracles.

[4] A following has gathered

[5] but only now “confesses”

[6] and is introduced to the theme of the journey to Jerusalem and the death of the Son of Man, which is paradigmatic for his followers.

In the Vita Mos there has been

[1] a call-vision (the burning bush – the only other event in the story that receives allegorical treatment, (Vita Mos I 65-70),

[2] the announcement in secret to the elders of the imminent departure to a better country (ibid,86),

[3] and the legitimization of his authority in miracles (ibid,91-139).

[4] Through all of this, however, the Hebrews were only “spectators” of the sufferings of others [i.e. the Egyptians suffering the plagues]” (ibid,146).

[5] Only now (ibid,148-162) is the question of Moses’ authority for the Hebrews themselves raised and answered by the declaration quoted above that they willingly gave him leadership (ibid,163).

[6] A description of the way ahead with intimations of testing and death follows (ibid,164;171;183).

The mountain ascent scene draws together motifs of all four roles: kingship, lawgiver, priesthood and prophet. Moses is a perfect parallel to Jesus.

Mark9:2-13

2 After six days Jesus took Peter, James and John with him and led them up a high mountain, where they were all alone. There he was transfigured before them. 3 His clothes became dazzling white, whiter than anyone in the world could bleach them. 4 And there appeared before them Elijah and Moses, who were talking with Jesus. 5 Peter said to Jesus, “Rabbi, it is good for us to be here. Let us put up three shelters—one for you, one for Moses and one for Elijah.” 6 (He did not know what to say, they were so frightened.) 7 Then a cloud appeared and covered them, and a voice came from the cloud: “This is my Son, whom I love. Listen to him!” 8 Suddenly, when they looked around, they no longer saw anyone with them except Jesus. 9 As they were coming down the mountain, Jesus gave them orders not to tell anyone what they had seen until the Son of Man had risen from the dead. 10 They kept the matter to themselves, discussing what “rising from the dead” meant.

11 And they asked him, “Why do the teachers of the law say that Elijah must come first?”

12 Jesus replied, “To be sure, Elijah does come first, and restores all things. Why then is it written that the Son of Man must suffer much and be rejected? 13 But I tell you, Elijah has come, and they have done to him everything they wished, just as it is written about him.”

—————————————————

Mark10:46-52(cf8:22-26)

Comparing the way Plato, Philo and Mark respectively treat blindness, and its healing, as a metaphor. Philo is speaking, in one place, of Genesis 15 (LXX) and Abraham’s vision of the heavens (Heir, 76). God “led him outside” and told him to “look up” (anablepein) at the heavens. Philo proceeds to play upon the double meaning of the Greek word: it can mean both “look up” and “(re)gain sight”. Of Jacob (Gen. 28:21) Philo wrote that he was blind in his soul and only gradually was granted true sight by God until he saw a vision of God himself (On Dreams, 1.164; Rewards, 36-39.

Quote from Philo,On Dreams1.164(XXVI).

“And do not thou ever cease through weariness to anoint thy eyes until you have introduced those who are duly initiated to the secret light of the sacred scriptures, and have displayed to them the hidden things therein contained, and their reality, which is invisible to those who are uninitiated.”

Mark 10:46-52 New International Version

46 Then they came to Jericho. As Jesus and his disciples, together with a large crowd, were leaving the city, a blind man, Bartimaeus (which means “son of Timaeus”), was sitting by the roadside begging. 47 When he heard that it was Jesus of Nazareth, he began to shout, “Jesus, Son of David, have mercy on me!” 48 Many rebuked him and told him to be quiet, but he shouted all the more, “Son of David, have mercy on me!” 49 Jesus stopped and said, “Call him.” So they called to the blind man, “Cheer up! On your feet! He’s calling you.” 50 Throwing his cloak aside, he jumped to his feet and came to Jesus. So they called to the blind man, “Cheer up! On your feet! He’s calling you.” 50 Throwing his cloak aside, he jumped to his feet and came to Jesus. 51 “What do you want me to do for you?” Jesus asked him. The blind man said, “Rabbi, I want to see.” 52 “Go,” said Jesus, “your faith has healed you.” Immediately he received his sight and followed Jesus along the road.

[That he is not only blind but a beggar may come from the possible meaning of his name in Aramaic Bar-teymah, “son of poverty.” In this, the fictive nature of the story is doubly clear.]

Cf LXX Isaiah 35: 5a, 6a, 8a: “Then shall the eyes of the blind be opened … then shall the lame man leap as an hart … And there shall be there a pure way, and it shall be called a holy way”

—————————————————-

Mark7:1-23

General uses of hand washing is found in Philo. In Special Laws1.259-260, Philo develops on the idea of literal ritual hand washing found in the Hebrew Bible and emphasizes soul purity.

Quote from Philo,Special Laws1.259-260

“For if you observe this with your reason rather than your eyes you will proceed to wash away the sins and defilement with which you have besmeared your whole life, some voluntary and accidental, some due to your own free will…”

Mark7:1-23

7 The Pharisees and some of the teachers of the law who had come from Jerusalem gathered around Jesus 2 and saw some of his disciples eating food with hands that were defiled, that is, unwashed. 3 (The Pharisees and all the Jews do not eat unless they give their hands a ceremonial washing, holding to the tradition of the elders. 4 When they come from the marketplace they do not eat unless they wash. And they observe many other traditions, such as the washing of cups, pitchers and kettles.[a])

5 So the Pharisees and teachers of the law asked Jesus, “Why don’t your disciples live according to the tradition of the elders instead of eating their food with defiled hands?”

6 He replied, “Isaiah was right when he prophesied about you hypocrites; as it is written:

“‘These people honor me with their lips,

but their hearts are far from me.

7 They worship me in vain;

their teachings are merely human rules.’[b] 8 You have let go of the commands of God and are holding on to human traditions.”

9 And he continued, “You have a fine way of setting aside the commands of God in order to observe[c] your own traditions! 10 For Moses said, ‘Honor your father and mother,’[d] and, ‘Anyone who curses their father or mother is to be put to death.’[e] 11 But you say that if anyone declares that what might have been used to help their father or mother is Corban (that is, devoted to God)— 12 then you no longer let them do anything for their father or mother. 13 Thus you nullify the word of God by your tradition that you have handed down. And you do many things like that.”

14 Again Jesus called the crowd to him and said, “Listen to me, everyone, and understand this. 15 Nothing outside a person can defile them by going into them. Rather, it is what comes out of a person that defiles them.” [16] [f]

17 After he had left the crowd and entered the house, his disciples asked him about this parable. 18 “Are you so dull?” he asked. “Don’t you see that nothing that enters a person from the outside can defile them? 19 For it doesn’t go into their heart but into their stomach, and then out of the body.” (In saying this, Jesus declared all foods clean.)20 He went on: “What comes out of a person is what defiles them. 21 For it is from within, out of a person’s heart, that evil thoughts come—sexual immorality, theft, murder, 22 adultery, greed, malice, deceit, lewdness, envy, slander, arrogance and folly. 23 All these evils come from inside and defile a person.”

———————————————————

FIRST EXCLUSIVE PICTURE OF MARKS BEDROOM, a man of sources.

GREEK CULTURE AND THE GOSPELS

Mark is a mixed genre of Greek novel and Jewish pesherim. “Literary genre is a fluid category, and texts can inhabit multiple genres.” [1] The pesherim is similar to the Midrash and pesherim found in the Dead Sea Scrolls. Midrash would not be the correct label for what the Gospels are doing with the Tanakh. Calling them “pesherim” would be much more correct. The differences mainly being that a midrash still basically sticks to the main story in the Old Testament, it just adds details and links together other OT passages in order to expand it. A pesher basically disconnects the text from the main story and renders it in some unique ways. The literary practice we are seeing is , where the OT (mostly the greek translations of the LXX) is the hypotext, and Mark is the hypertext.

Brodie in his book “Beyond the historical Quest”, explains why the gospels (what we would call in modern times) just “plagiarized” the Tanakh, Greek literature and even Pauls epistles among other writings. They would use verbatim verses instead of footnotes, the ancients were so well versed in the Tanakh, they knew straight away what part of the OT the gospel story was referring:

“radical difference between the way literary texts are composed in modern times and the way in which they were composed by ancient writers. At the heart of the composition of ancient texts, including biblical texts, lay a visceral instinct for literary preservation. The reason for this deep seated custom of preservation and re-use seems to lie, in part at least, in a feeling that existing knowledge, stored largely in precious handwritten texts, was not to be taken for granted but was to be thoroughly understood, imitated (imitatio; Greek, mimesis), emulated (aemulatio; Greek, zelos), rewritten (in diverse forms, Near Eastern and Mediterranean) and thereby preserved.” ~ Brodie, Beyond the historical Quest, 128.

In this post we will inspect other hypotexts other than the OT for memises. These texts are mainly found through Greek culture.

In part one we will inspect similar contemporary Greek novels. In part two we will see Marks use of Homer for structure and style of the gospel. Finally in the third part we will appreciate Euripides play The Bacchae and it’s similarities in establishing new cults. Most of the stories of the gospel came from scriptures. To see Marks use of the Tanakh see Dr Prices “Christ Myth Theory and its problems”. To dissect and examine one side of the genre, on this post I’m concentrating on the Greek side of this genre.

Dennis R. MacDonald in his books, “Homeric Epic and the gospel of Mark” and “The Dionysian Gospel: The fourth gospel and Euripides”, has shown how Greek culture has affected the gospels. Here I am going to examine the Greek Novel, Greek plays and Homeric Epic poems.

The evangelists wrote in the wrong country and wrong language to be eyewitnesses. At best they may have picked up some eyewitness accounts and included them in their gospels. All the gospels are written in Greek, the langua franka of the eastern empire. As a result the evangelists were highly educated and used the latest writing techniques of their day. These techniques included memises, and a favourite target for imitation was Homeric epic, even Plato was quoted at saying “this poet has educated Greece”. The Hawara Homer in the Bodleian MSS, just shows the popularity of Homer amount the elite up to the first few centuries of the common era. Evidence of Odyssean influence on a contemporary Greek novel such as Chariton wrote is apparent. Mark by using Greek genre of βίοι has a mixture of literature and history combined. MacDonald has stated that Mark is an imitation of “specific texts of a different genre: Mark wrote a prosed epic modeled largely after [Homers poems] the Odyssey and the ending of the Illiad.” This memises is largely discussed in his book, “Homeric Epic and the gospel of Mark”. This is the subject I deal with further down.

For βιοι see this link:

scholarworks.wmich.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi

For now I’m going to show more contemporary (with the gospels) Greek novels and see how they have affected the gospels. This may help us determine Marks genre.

————————————————

[1] How the Gospels became History, (2019),Latwa ch3.

————————————————

FIRST PART: GREEK NOVAL.

CASE STUDY ONE: “Life of Aesop”.

Both the gospel of Mark and this novel (Life of Aesop) are roughly contemporary and both are anonymous. Both seen as aretalogical, novelistic biographies. The two stories criticize values associated with elite Hellenistic classes. In the case of Aesop as a slave is given rhetorical skills by the gods where he was soon able to outclass his master Xanthus and basically soon was in control.

Both sets of writings turn shame into honor. Jesus use of terms in ch9+10 like that of “child”, Mark9:36-37, was a term commonly used for a slave. This would challenge anybody who was culturally formed within the honor shame values of the time. In Mark one must utterly invert conventional meanings of greatness so that the first shall be last and the last shall be first. (Mark10:42-45).

The Life of Aesop’s story of Xanthus’s wife washing the rustic’s feet relates similarly to the Gospel of John’s story of Jesus washing Peter’s feet. The washing of the feet in John 13:1-20 is a ritual of inversion which transforms the ritual of receiving someone into one’s home, carried out by slaves and common to many cultures in the ancient world. Here in Johns gospel the ritual is used as an admission to discipleship. Aesopic conversations may have encompassed the Gospel of John in the first centuries of Christianity. It confirms that John 13:1-20 has to be set against the background of Graeco-Roman banqueting customs, especially as regards the slaves’ function and the use of the linen cloth for washing feet.

https://www.jstor.org/stable/25765962

CASE STUDY TWO:

Chariton of Aphrodisias (Greek: Χαρίτων Ἀφροδισεύς) was the author of an ancient Greek novel probably titled Callirhoe.

Here is the following extract from that novel:

“Without even seeing them or listening to their defense he immediately ordered the sixteen cell-mates to be crucified. They were duly brought out, chained together at foot and neck, each carrying his own cross. The executioners added this grim public spectacle to the requisite penalty as a deterrent to others so minded. Now Chaereas said nothing as he was led off with the others, but on taking up his cross Polycharmus exclaimed, “It is your fault, Callirhoe, that we are in this mess.” … Mithridates sent them all to save Chaereas before he died. … So the executioner stopped his work, and Chaereas descended from the cross, regretfully, for he had been glad to be leaving his miserable life and unhappy love. … “Because of you I have ascended the cross and uttered not a word of reproach. If you should still remember me, then my sufferings are nothing.”

What is important in the present context is that the novelist Chariton, writing at the beginning of the Christian era, if not earlier, mentions an empty sepulcher. Chaereas goes to the grave of his (supposedly) deceased wife, Callirhoe. Here are the key sentences with which Chariton describes this visit: Chaereas “arrived at the tomb at daybreak.” “He found the stones removed and the entrance open. At that he took fright.” “No one dared enter (the tomb).” “He could not believe that his wife was not lying there.” “He searched throughout the tomb, but could not find anything.” Finally, Chaereas says, speaking in spirit to his wife, “I will search for you by water and by land.” Callirhoe is not really dead, but only seems to be so. There is agreement between the story of Chaereas and the New Testament that is almost word for word at some points. The connections with the fouth gospel are again particularly clear, since there the fact of the empty tomb is especially emphasized and elaborately portrayed (Jn 20:5ff.).

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

CASE STUDY THREE:

Out of this same era as Chariton’s novel Callirhoe comes Xenophon of Ephesus’ novel known as The Ephesian Tale. In this story, the protagonist Habrocomes likewise is crucified and in this case unambiguously survives the crucifixion through miraculous means.

https://mythodoxy.wordpress.com/2014/12/31/bart-ehrman-vs-chariton-xenophon/

ALL EXAMPLES SHOW THAT MARK WAS A LITERARY PRODUCT OF ITS TIME AND HELLENIC GREEK PLACE IN HISTORY. (This Post is not to show Mark wrote a novel that was mistaken for history. This Post was written to show you the genre of Marks gospel by showing you and comparing contemporary Greek novels).

————————————————————

SOURCES: ( linked above).

The “Life of Aesop” and the Gospel of Mark: Two Ancient Approaches to Elite Values

DAVID F. WATSON

Journal of Biblical Literature

Vol. 129, No. 4 (WINTER 2010), pp. 699-716

The Resurrection Stories

Johannes Leipoldt

JHC 4/2 (Fall, 1997), 138-149. Theologische Literaturzeitung 12 (1948), 740-742. Translated by Eric Weinberger. Original JHC page numbers in brackets.

Jeffrey Henderson, Longus: Daphnis and Chloe – Xenophon of Ephesus: Anthia and Habrocomes (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2009), 204-210

——————————————-

PART TWO: HOMERIC EPIC POEMS

First of all I’m going to deal with the two feedings in Mark as these had many sources, two from the Old Testament (Kings and Exodus) and one source Homers epic poem (Odysseus).

TWO FEEDINGS

Mark’s gospel, that he has two versions of the miraculous multiplication of loaves and fishes (6:34-44; 8:1-9).

HISTORICISTS EXPLANATION

The thing that strikes us first is perhaps the suspicion that a single basic sequence was passed on intact by means of a process of oral transmission which eventually allowed many of the details to change and develop, until there were (at least) two versions circulating by the time Mark encountered the tradition. They were different enough that he decided not to risk leaving either set out. Like a modern fundamentalist faced with a set of biblical contradictions, Mark may have assumed similar events happened twice. At any rate, the mere fact of the doubling of the story chain is highly significant, since it allows us to gauge the kind of variation and evolution that was possible in the oral tradition.

SEMITISM:

Semitisms are linguistic features within the Greek texts which are dissimilar and otherwise unused in the Greek language but common and well known in the Semitic languages and translations of Semitic texts such as the LXX.

Hebrew and Aramaic do not have grammatical case while Greek does, so overuse of nouns and pronouns connected to possession, nominative, and accusative case is extremely bizarre writing in Greek but normal in NW Semitic.

Redundancy of Nominal/Accusative/Genitive phrases

-συμπόσια συμπόσια 2x in Mark 6:39-42

Idiomatic Narrative Phrases

– ἀποκριθεὶς εἶπεν in Mark 6:37

– Ἐν ἐκείναις ταῖς ἡμέραις in Mark 8:1

– ἔκλασεν καὶ ἐδίδου in Mark 8:6

This would mean that there was a previous text which would have been translated from a Semitic language into Greek.

———————————————————-

MIRRORING THE SEPTUAGINT

The two sea miracles recall Moses’ parting the sea (Exod. 14), while the pair of feeding miracles mirror Moses’ feeding the Israelites in the wilderness with manna and quails (Exod. 16; Num. 11:4-15, 18-23, 31-32) and Elisha’s miraculous multiplication of food in 2 Kings 4:1-7 and 4:42-44.

———————————————-

SOURCE Deconstructing Jesus, Dr Price.

———————————————

MEN ONLY AT FIRST FEEDING

At Mark6:44 the word ‘ANDRES’ (ἄνδρες) is used.

καὶ ἦσαν οἱ φαγόντες τοὺς ἄρτους πεντακισχίλιοι ἄνδρες.

It is a Greek word for male gender only. This was very strange to have males only at the first feeding so Matthew changed this to include women and children. Why male only? Because it parallels with both 2Kings4:43, “How can I set this before 100 men…”

Not only that but it also parallels with a feeding in the Odyssey by Homer of only men……

HOMER EPICS AND THE GOSPEL OF MARK P86 onwards (MacDonald).

“When Telemachus and Athens arrived at Pylos they witnessed a feast to Poseidon on the shore at which the celebrants sat divided into units and 500 men were in each, 4500. Later Homer makes it clear that this is a feast only the men of Pylos participated. The male only party in Homer presumably is due to the nature of the feast – a sacrifice by sailors to secure favorable weather and seas from Poseidon.

“the men (άνδρών) of Pylos” participated.

The 5000 whom Jesus served at the shore of the Sea of Galilee likewise were exclusively male. Mark gives no justification for the presence of men only. Matthew added women and children.

The correlations of disembarkation at shores and the feedings of 4500 or 5000 men are not accidental. They are Marcan flags.

Homer’s second feast at Menelaus’s Sparta was lavish but presumably smaller and because it was a wedding feast it included women.

Similarly the crowd in Mark’s second meal though substantial, is smaller than at the first and like the Spartan wedding seems to have included women.”

————————————————-

SOURCE Homeric Epic and the gospel of Mark, MacDonald.

————————————————-

WHICH IS MORE LIKELY?

ORAL TRADITION

MARK USED SOURCES OF KINGS, EXODUS, NUMBERS AND THE ODYSSEY.

——————————————————–

THE MIMESES OF THE ODYSSEY

(The following is extracted and discussed in much greater detail in “Homeric Epic and the gospel of Mark” by MacDonald).

The disciples of Jesus and Odysseus retinue are all made to look foolish, more of a literary technique to enhance the greatness of the hero.

Both in Odysseus’s nostos and Mark’s Gospel, the narrator first presents the hero’s retinue favorably and gradually introduces evidence of their folly until, in the end, they fail altogether. Second, Homer and Mark both treat the hero’s retinue as a unified group. Few individuals in either assemblage have distinguish ing traits, and each group as a whole derives its identity almost exclusively vis a-vis the protagonist. Third, both retinues failed, because they, unlike the hero himself, could not endure hardships. Fourth, Mark’s Simon Peter plays a role reminiscent of Eurylochus, Odysseus’s second-in-command.

When one first meets Eurylochus, his epithets suggest that he was nearly Odysseus’s peer as a hero – “godlike” and “great-hearted” – but one’s impression of Eurylochus steadily deteriorates.6 In contrast to Odysseus, Eurylochus does his best to avoid danger and suffering. “Eurylochus . . . is set up by the narrator to represent the craven attitude toward life.” No other character speaks on behalf of the entire crew; it is he who opposes Odysseus on behalf of the others, who, like himself, are incapable of enduring hardships.

Similarly in Mark, the reader first views Peter favorably: he had left everything to fish for humans, and he was the first· character, apart from the demons, to recognize Jesus’ true identity. He spoke not merely for himself but for the Twelve as a whole. But one’s assessment of Peter changes dramatically in a series of disputes over suffering.

Peter could not understand a messiah who must suffer and die. “But turning and looking at his disciples, he [Jesus] rebuked Peter and said, ‘Get behind me, Satan! For you are setting your mind not on divine things but on human things.’ ”

Peter, his second-in-command, three times denied knowing him, and all proved to be greedy, cowardly, potentially treacherous, and above all foolish, unable to understand and respond as they ought. Such harsh treatment of the disciples surely is a Marean creation, and Matthew and Luke repeatedly deleted disparaging passages or adjusted them to improve apostolic reputations.

Sons of Thunder:

Only Mark says that Jesus renamed James and John, Boanerges or sons of thunder. Greeks knew Castor and

Polydeuces as sons of Leda by her husband Tyndareus, but also as the Dioscuri, “Zeus’s boys.” Among Zeus’s epithets were “the Thunderer” and “the Thunder ing One.” His father Cronos bore the epithet “Father-of-thunder-and-lightning.” As early as Homer, thunder and lightning were taken as signs of Zeus.

that the name Boanerges alerted Mark’s reader to the similarities between these brothers and Castor and Polydeuces. Mark consis tently presented the brothers as christianised Dioscuri and expected his readers to interpret them as such.

The brothers had seen jesus glorified at the Transfiguration and now wanted such glory for themselves.

In the art of the Roman Imperial period, the Dioscuri commonly appeared on the right and left of an enthroned deity.

—————————-

Foreboding:

Even in Galilee, Jesus’ opponents have ties to Jerusalem, which prepares the reader to expect the worst when Jesus enters the city.

Early in the Odyssey Homer warned the reader that the suitors planned to kill Telemachus on his return from Pylos-and Odysseus, too, if he should return.

Cleansing of the Temple displays intriguing parallels to Odysseus’s Mnesterophonia, the Slaying of the Suitors. In Book 2.2. the King of Ithaca revealed his true identity and commenced his revenge.

The overturning of tables, chairs, and vessels recurs throughout Odysseus’s orgy of violence against the suitors.

‘My house shall be called a house of prayer for all the nations’? But you have made it a den of robbers.”

In both stories the hero denounces those who had ruined his house.

—————————————————

Greaco Recognition scene:

Peter’s declaration, conventionally called his Confession, might better be called his Recognition. Mark8:27-28

this pericope is the turning point of the gospel of Mark, it is like a Greaco recognition scene where the hero finally recognizes himself only here Jesus initiates the recognition scene.

In fact, the scene resembles Eurycleia’s recognition of Odysseus from the scar on his leg. Peter and Eurycleia both recognized the identities of their masters, articulated their recognitions with “you are X,” and were told in no uncertain terms to keep silent about it.

Peter, in a flash of insight, correctly guessed Jesus’ identity, just as Eurycleia had recognized the beggar: “[You are Odysseus.” “Peter answered him, ‘You are the Messiah.’ And he sternly ordered him not to tell anyone about him.” Jesus thus silenced Peter just as Odysseus had silenced Eurycleia.

As Eurycleia recognises Odysseus she spills water from the dish parallels the anonymous woman who anoints Jesus with costly perfume lard. This woman breaks the Alabaster jar and spills the expensive lard. As the disciples give out to Jesus the clue that this is dependant on the Eurikleia scene is in Jesus answer: Mark14:9 Truly I tell you, wherever the gospel is preached throughout the world, what she has done will also be told, in memory of her.” Eurycleia’s name means “far flung glory”.

Eurycleia (εύρυκγέος) enjoyed “far-flung renown” for having recognized Odysseus from his scar, but her renown pales next to that of the woman who recognized that Jesus must die and accordingly anointed him: “(Wherever the good news is proclaimed in the whole world, what she has done will be told in remembrance of her.” She will have εύρυκγέος.”~ibid,119.

Jesus sailing:

In no gospel does Jesus sail more often than in Mark, and, as far as we now know, no other author independent of Mark related jesus to things nautical. Several episodes echo sailing tales in the Odyssey. Jonah was not the only influence on Mark1:16-20.

Furthermore, attributing Mark’s story solely to the influence of Jonah in the Septuagint, fails to account for two peculiarities. First, in no other passage in the gospels does jesus travel with a convoy, as he does here: “(O]ther boats were with him.” These vessels play no role in the rest of the story, and Matthew and Luke, independently recognizing the superfluity of ships, reduced Jesus’ convoy to a single vesse!P Second, jesus faults the disciples for their lack of faith, even though they seem to have done nothing amiss. A storm arose, the boat foundered, and they woke jesus because they believed he could help them. Their question, “[D]o you not care that we are perishing?” expects a positive answer; they assumed that jesus cared for them and would have wanted to know of the danger they were in. What else could they have done? Let jesus sleep while the storm sank the ship? Both pecu liarities have a Homeric explanation: Mark imitated the story of Aeolus’s bag of winds.

Cyclops and the Gerasene demonic:

Odyssey 9.354-366 and Mark5:9

Neither Odysseus nor the demoniac gave his true name. Odysseus’s pseudonym of “nobody” indicates nonexistence; the demoniac’s (“legion”) a plethora of existences. In both stories the exchange of names gives the hero power over the monster in radically different ways. By naming himself “Nobody” Odysseus outwitted the giant, who then could not ask for help from his friends, for Nobody was harming him. jesus, on the other hand, gained power over the demons by learn ing their name.

—————————————————

LUKE AND PLUTARCH HAVE SIMILAR DIVINE CONCEPTIONS.

As M David Latwa says in his book IEUSES DEUS, ch2.

To focus on pure similarity is parallelomania; to focus on pure difference is apologetics. ( ie we must focus on both similarities and differences to get the most learning out of parallels).

If Christians were socialized in predominantly Greco-Roman environments, it is no surprise that they employed and adapted common traits of deities and deified men to exalt their lord to divine status. Christians constructed what it meant for Jesus to be divine using the language, values, and concepts that were common in Greco-Roman culture.

Nevertheless, there is still a sense in which the many lands of the ancient Mediterranean basin—as they were politically unified by a system of imperial government—represented a cultural οἰκουμένη in which, as Tacitus says, “all things were connected” (cuncta inter se conexa) (Ann. 1.9).

In the famous line of Horace: “Conquered Greece her conqueror subdued (Graecia capta ferum victorem cepit), and Rome grew polished, who till then was rude” (Ep. 2.1.156-57, trans. J. Conington).

The notion of a god’s congress with a virgin probably stemmed from Egyptian royal mythology…..This got integrated into Hellenistic Judaism. Thus Luke did not need to go outside Judaism to speak of Jesus’ divine conception.

There is nothing in Judaism to suggest a virgin birth—for the Messiah or anyone else.[ 17] “The only conceivable parallels are pagan ones.”

fn17 Jews did apparently know of the divine begetting of the Messiah (1QSa 2: 11-12, based on Ps. 2:7), but this begetting is usually taken in a figurative sense, and does not occur through a virgin. Also these titles were of ROYALTY, not Divinity. The references are to ADOPTION BY GOD as the ROYAL heir to David’s throne. The king was “the Son of God.

What we have here is a syncretist melting pot, where same concept means two different things between the Jewish and pagan culture. By understanding that, we can understand what Luke was doing to these Jewish concepts and why the gospels really are the inverse of what really went on in the Jesus movements.

In the “Greek” world (so it is thought), divine conception is literal and common (as seen, for instance, in the cases of Heracles, Dionysus, Perseus, and so on), whereas in the “Jewish” world, divine conception is infrequent and figurative. Although the Israelite king (Ps. 2: 7; 1 Sam. 7: 14), collective Israel (Exod. 4: 22; Deut. 14: 1; Hos. 11: 1), and the righteous man (Sir. 4: 10; Wisd. of Sol. 2: 18) are all called “sons of god” in ancient Jewish literature, this is usually understood figuratively. Thus many interpreters—and not a few critics of Christianity—have deduced that early Christians must have borrowed a tradition of divine birth from Greco-Roman sources, either as a result of their own gradual hellenization or in a secondary attempt to render the gospel persuasive to gentiles.

Plutarch (c. 50–120 ce), Luke’s contemporary, uses like language and a similar pattern of thought when he speaks of divine conception (Quaest. conv. 717e-718b; Numa 4).(cf Luke 1: 35)

Plutarch in his Life of Numa uses the more flexible term πνεῦμα (“ wind”/“ breath” /“ spirit”). The linguistic overlap between Luke and Plutarch—both of whom use δύναμις (power) and πνεῦμα (spirit) in their accounts of divine conception—invites a closer investigation of their conceptual similarity.

For Egyptians, then, pneuma—called the “pneuma of god (θεοῦ)” in Numa 4.4—is a kind of divine “stuff” (οὐσία) associated with the basic elements of air, heat, and moisture. In his On Isis and Osiris, Plutarch observes that for Egyptians, Zeus-Amon himself is identified with πνεῦμα (365d).

The identity between the high God and pneuma—as well as the association of pneuma with fire and air—bears a significant resemblance to Stoic theology. According to Chrysippus, for example, the essence of God (ἡ τοῦ θεοῦ οὐσία) is an intelligent and fiery pneuma (πνεῦμα νοερὸν καὶ πυρῶδες) (SVF 2.1009). According to Alexander of Aphrodisias, the Stoics understand God to be “an intelligent and eternal pneuma” (Mixt. 224.32-225.4 = SVF 2.310). Pneuma, in other words, embodies the reality of God (who for Stoics, is also called “Logos” and “Zeus”), as it is spread throughout the universe.

Plutarch concurs with the Egyptians that “with a woman, it is not impossible for a pneuma of god (πνεῦμα . . . θεοῦ) to draw near and engender (ἐντεκεῖν) certain principles of generation (ἀρχὰς γενέσεως).” The ambiguity of πνεῦμα (breath? wind? spirit?) is important, and it makes apt Plutarch’s analogy of the wind impregnating the hen in Table Talk 718a. In both cases, the motion of air was felt to be a good analogy for how the divine comes into contact with a human female in order to make her pregnant.

Importantly, both Luke and Plutarch use the language of pneuma and power to speak of divine conception. They both reject a crassly anthropomorphic (gods having sexual with women) and sexual understanding of divine conception. Both historians apparently receive their stories of divine conception from previous tradition. As creative writers, both probably improve upon these traditions in order to make them theologically sophisticated, plausible, and thus acceptable to the cultured reader of their day. Both Plutarch and Luke craft stories of divine begetting that are refined and sophisticated enough to be taken as “history” as it was understood in the first century. As shown in Luke early Christians must have borrowed a tradition of divine conception from Greco-Roman sources as a result of their gradual Hellenization.

—————————————————-

holy spirit (πνεῦμα ἅγιον) will come upon you (ἐπελεύσεται ἐπὶ σὲ), and power of the Most High (δύναμις ὑψίστου) will overshadow you (ἐπισκιάσει σοι)—and so (διὸ καὶ) the child to be born will be called holy (ἅγιον), son of god (υἱὸς θεοῦ). (Luke 1: 35)

The “Egyptians,” he says, “not unpersuasively assume this distinction: that with a woman (γυναικὶ μέν), it is not impossible for a pneuma of a God (πνεῦμα . . . θεοῦ) to draw near (πλησιάσαι) and engender (ἐντεκεῖν) certain principles of generation (ἀρχὰς γενέσεως)…..”(Plutarch,Num 4.4).

MYTHOI

M David Latwa when comparing Greaco-Roman writers and the evangelists has made some interesting observations, really the gospels are understood better when seen from their own literary context.

When dealing with myth Latwa deals with its ancient conceptualities and structures of plausibility. “Thus I will not attempt to define a modern concept of myth and apply it to the gospels.”

The gospel writers aimed to write historiography (and with gMatthew specifically biography βίος)

Biography was an important subgenre of historiography that focused on a single (often heroic) person from birth to death.

To speak of Jesus, the evangelists could have used drama, lyric, hymn, dialogue, fable, or epic. Yet they chose a genre closest to biography. They made the various stories of Jesus into a “life of Jesus,” a type of literature the ancients called bios.

Gospel stories were originally written and received by Christians as historia, as stories relating actual events.

Pure “historia” related an account of real events, whereas pure “mythos” reported mythical (meaning fantastical) events.

In actual literature they mixed and blended without apology or sense of contradiction.

Elizabeth Rawson writes that “myth and marvels became an almost essential ornament even to basically serious [historiographic] works and, like rhetorical elaboration of more recent events in order to bring out pathos and drama, and to give vividness, they often ran riot. In a society in which there was a limited amount of prose fiction . . . some historiography probably presented the best light reading available” (Intellectual Life in the Late Roman Republic [London: Duckworth, 1985], 217).

“Mythos means a false story [logos] resembling the truth [eoikōs alēthinōi]. Accordingly, it is far removed from actual events [ergōn].”~ Plutarch, On the Fame of the Athenians 4.348a–b.

Historians who skillfully blended mythoi into their work were often quite successful.

Seneca complaining about “Ephorus: he is a historian. Some historians get praise by relating unbelievable stories [incredibilium]. By means of the wondrous [miraculo] they arouse a reader who would likely go and do something else if he were led through run-of-the-mill stories.”~ Seneca, Natural Questions 7.16.1–2.

The main characteristic of ancient historiography (historia) was that it related, or was thought to relate, events that actually occurred.

Yet the relation between mythoi and truth was more complex. Truth could also be found in mythoi, for the ancients hid their wisdom even in strange and fantastical stories.

———————————————-

SOME Historiographical Tropes

In order to frame their gospels the Evagelists used some common tropes of the ancient literary world.

These historicizing tropes increase the “reality effect” of the gospels.

•trope of objectification.

Dreams, visions, perceptions of divine intervention, and so on are deeply personal and idiosyncratic experiences. Nevertheless, humans regularly tell stories about them. In the very act of narration, an event is objectified or described as if it were experienced externally.

eg Jesus’s resurrection appearances.

In origin, these appearances were perhaps visions experienced by early Christians either individually or in a group setting. Yet these visions came to be described as palpable events that occurred in space and time. Eventually, Jesus’s luminous body seen in visions became more solid in the act of historiographical retellings. Despite its ability to walk through walls, the body began to be depicted as “flesh and bone” (Luke 24: 39), able to be poked and prodded by eyewitnesses—including the famous “doubting Thomas” (John 20: 24–28).

other tropes mentioned

•Synchrony, mention of famous persons

•syntopy, mention of famous places

•Other tropes include the introduction of eyewitnesses, vivid presentation (enargeia), alternative reports, links of causation, and (in the case of the third gospel) a preface highlighting deliberate research.

This tradition of historiography, as noted earlier, was associated with Herodotus and was widespread both before and after the gospels were written. Latwa then carries on comparing the same type of writing to other Greaco-Roman writers of the time.

———————————————-

SOURCE:

HOW THE GOSPELS BECAME HISTORY, Jesus and Mediterranean Myths, (2019), M David Latwa, Introduction.

————————————————–

PART THREE: Greaco play.

THE ANALOGIES AND MYTH MOTIFS BETWEEN CHRISTIANITY AND DIONYSUS ARE STIMULATING.

Why is it that Dionysus appears in human form? Because they are establishing a new cult in Thebes. Dionysus is key to the action in the Bacchae, a play which contains many motifs common to the ancient myths of Dionysus’ first visits to cities, especially their ruling families: these include the god’s revelation of his powers through miracles which are ignored by non-believers, violence against the god, his revenge, often through the infliction of madness, and remorse which comes too late.

The genre of tragedy is a piece of creative writing and constitutes an inseparable blend of mythology, literary reminiscences, poetic fantasy, and sometimes allusions to contemporary forms of Dionysian worship. The gospel of Mark always reminds me of a sacred play of much the same genra.

[A GOD BORN OF A WOMAN “OF THE FLESH”]

For my mother’s sisters, the ones who least should, claimed that I, Dionysus, was not the child of Zeus, but that Semele had conceived a child from a mortal father and then ascribed the sin of her bed to Zeus, [30] a trick of Kadmos’, for which they boasted that Zeus killed her, because she had told a false tale about her marriage…….my mother, Semele, in appearing manifest to mortals as a divinity whom she bore to Zeus.(Opening lines of the Bacchae).

[PAGAN BEATITUDE]

Blessed is he who, being fortunate and knowing the rites of the gods, keeps his life pure and [75] has his soul initiated into the Bacchic revels. (Line number from Bacchae in square brackets).

[GREAT CELEBRATION AT GOD BORN]

O Thebes, nurse of Semele, crown yourself with ivy, flourish, flourish with the verdant yew bearing sweet fruit, and crown yourself in honor of Bacchus with branches of oak [110] or pine. …..At once all the earth will dance……raving Satyrs were fulfilling the rites of the mother goddess, and they joined it to the dances of the biennial festivals, in which Dionysus rejoices……The plain flows with milk, it flows with wine, it flows with the nectar of bees.(ibid).

[DOUBTING MERE MORTALS, HOW DARE YOU]

[200] We mortals have no cleverness in the eyes of the the gods. Our ancestral traditions, and those which we have held throughout our lives, no argument will overturn, not even if some craftiness should be discovered by the depths of our wits. Will anyone say that I do not respect old age, [205] being about to dance with my head covered in ivy? No, for the god has made no distinction as to whether it is right for men young or old to dance, but wishes to have common honors from all and to be extolled, setting no one apart.(ibid).

[REJECTED BY AUTHORITIES]

As the authorities were threatened by Jesus so too was the king of Thebes and the preserver of social order, Pentheus finds himself threatened by the Dionysian rites, which brought the women from the city to the mountains tearing animals apart and devouring raw meat of animals.

Pentheus has Dionysus imprisoned.

[BARABBAS INCIDENT]

The Barabbas translation in Aramaic is son of the father, Jesus is self styled son of the father. Barabbas being released is an allegory of Yom Kipper, the goat released while Jesus is the goat sacrificed. As this ritual of releasing a prisoner was not practiced at time of gospels, the whole incident is an allegory. In Greece there was a festival Dionysia where a prisoner would be temporally released.

Here is a piece taken from Merritts paper “Jesus Barabbas and the paschal pardon” ( JBL 104 1985) that compares the Barabbas incident in Mark to an incident in the play ‘The Bacchae’.

“Euripides tells a similar story with respect to freeing of the maenads or Bacchae, the women worshippers of Dionysus, who had come with him from Aisa Moreover, when Dionysus continued to try to persuade Pentheus to accept him as a god and Pentheus ordered Dionysus bound and imprisoned, an earthquake collapsed the palace, freeing Dionysus unbound.”

———————————————————

Dionysus here is portrayed as a real person. His followers were called The Bacchae. Euripides actually believed Dionysus existed ( as a deity) perhaps the play was just made up, but in Euripides’ mind he existed.

———————————————-

“Both jesus and Dionysus are the offspring of a divine father and human mother (which was subsequently suspected as a cover-up for illegitimacy); both are from the east and transfer their cult into Greece as part of its universal expansion; both bestow wine to their devotees and have wine as a sacred element in their ritual observances; both had private cults; both were known for close association with women devotees; and both were subjected to violent deaths and subsequently came back to life. By the middle of the second century, observations of such relationships are explicitly made and would later be developed in various directions. . . .

A juxtaposition of jesus and Dionysus is also invited in the New Testament Gospel of john, in which the former is credited with a distinctively Dionysiac miracle in the wedding at Cana: the transformation of water into wine (2:1-ll). ln the Hellenistic world, there were many myths of Dionysus’ miraculous production of wine, and thus, for a polytheistic Greek audience, a Dionysiac resonance in jesus’ wine miracle would have been unmistakable. . . .John’s Gospel employs further Dionysiac imagery when jesus later declares, “I am the true vine” (Ἐγώ εἰμι ἡ ἄμπελος ἡ ἀληθινή,15:1). John’s jesus, thus, presents himself not merely as a “New Dionysus,” but one who supplants and replaces him.”~Courtney J. P. Friesen, Reading Dionysus: Euripides’ Bacchae and the Cultural Contestations of Greeks, Jews, Romans, and Christians (STAC 95; TUbingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2015), 19-22.

At John2:1-11, Jesus turning wine into water is a tip of the hat to Dionysus.

“Every year on the day of the Dionysus feast the temple springs in Andros and Teos were said to have poured out wine instead of water. In Elis on the eve of the feast three empty jars were set up in the temple, which were then found full of wine on the next morning.”

“the Dionysus Feast, that is on the night of the 5th to the 6th of January . . . . The Early Church . . . saw the Feast of Christ’s Baptism as his epiphany and celebrated it on the 6th of january. Equally it held that the 6th Of January was the date of the marriage at Cana”.~Bultman, John, 119fn1,119.

“From the Bacchae, Luke has derived the core of the Damascus road epiphany, the basic idea of a persecutor being converted despite himself by direct fiat from the god whose followers he has been abusing. Pentheus has done his best to expel the enthusiastic maenads of Dionysus from Thebes, against the counsel of Cadmus, Teiresias, and other level heads who warn him not to be found fighting against a god (Teiresias: “Reckless fool, you do not know the consequences of your words. You talked madness before, but this is raving lunacy!” 357-60; Dionysus: “I warn you once again: do not take arms against a god,” 788-89; “A man, a man, and nothing more, yet he presumed to wage war with a god,” 636-37; cf. Acts 5: 33-39). The maenads, though they seem to be filled with wine, are really filled with divine ecstasy (“ not, as you think, drunk with wine,” 686-87; cf. Acts 2:15), as witnessed by the old and young among them prophesying (“ all as one, the old women and the young and the unmarried girls,” 693-94; cf. Acts 2:17-18) and the tongues of fire harmlessly resting upon their heads (“ flames flickered in their curls and did not burn them,” 757-58; “tongues of fire,” 623-24; cf. Acts 2:3)! Pentheus remains stubborn in his opposition, arresting the newly-arrived apostle of the cult, who turns out to be Dionysus himself, the very son of god in mortal disguise”~Amazing Colossal Apostle, Robert M. Price ch1.

“Rituals of Christianity under the influence of Dionysus (whether in Greece or even in Palestine) that Jesus bequeaths his devotees a sacrament of his body, the body of grain, and his blood, the blood of the grape (Mark 14:22-25). Only so is he the True Vine giving vitality to his branches (John 15:1-6), does he turn water into wine (John 2:1-10). As Jesus the Corn King, his winnowing fan is in his hand (Matt. 3:12), he is slain while the wood is still green (Luke 23:31), yields up his life like the planted seed (John 12:24), and is buried in a garden (John 19:41).”~Deconstructing Jesus, Price.

——————————————

The coin depicts Dionysus on a donkey, (circa 460BC) reminiscent of Jesus on a donkey.

SOURCES: two papers linked and “The Bacchae” by Euripides.

http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0092

Click to access THESIS%20-%20CHRISTODOULOU.pdf

https://www.jstor.org/stable/3260593

PAUL AND JAMES RIFT AS SEEN IN EPISTLES

THE ANTIOCH INCIDENT

“After three years I went up to Jerusalem to make Peter’s acquaintance, and I remained with him for fifteen days, I but did not see any of the other Apostles, except James the brother of the Lord. (Gal1:18–20)”

Paul lists ‘James, Cephas and John’ as the Central Triad of Pillar Apostles.”(Gal2:9).

In Galatians he makes it clear, too, that the character he calls either Peter or Cephas was subservient to James and not only obliged but willing to defer to James’ leadership (Gal 2:11–12).

“11 When Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned. 12 For before certain men CAME FROM JAMES, he used to eat with the Gentiles. But when they arrived, he began to draw back and separate himself from the Gentiles because he was afraid of those who belonged to the circumcision group.13The other Jews joined him in his hypocrisy, so that by their hypocrisy even Barnabas was led astray.”

Paul left Antioch and traveled to Jerusalem to discuss his mission to the Gentiles with the Christian “pillars of authority.” Gal2:1-10.

Back in Antioch to Paul’s dismay, the rest of the Jewish Christians sided with Peter, including Paul’s long-time associate Barnabas:

The rest of the Jews joined in this charade and even Barnabas was drawn into the hypocrisy. Gal2:12-13

“The blowup with Peter was a total failure of political bravado, and Paul soon left Antioch as persona non grata, never again to return.”~White, L. Michael (2004). From Jesus to Christianity. HarperSanFrancisco. p. 170.

As seen from Pauls epistles, especially the Antioch incident of Gal. 2:11-14, a rift can be seen between Paul and the Jamesian sect, the highly controversial stance of Cephas – who acted “out of fear for the circumcision party” – according to Paul, it was the representatives of James who created the problem. Paul’s stance, in any event, is clear: these “men from James” represented a completely intolerable view that threatened the essence of his gospel message.

A major part of the argument was Paul bringing this movement to the gentiles who need not be circumcised or follow the Law. This was evidently part of the Gospel as he taught it among the Peoples or Nations.

The Antioch incident sums this up:

A dispute arose among Christian leaders as to whether or not Gentiles needed to observe all the tenets of the Law of Moses. It is James who is ahead of the Jerusalem church. In particular, it was debated whether Gentile converts needed to be circumcised or observe the Jewish dietary laws (Kashrut), circumcision especially being considered repulsive in Hellenistic culture.

You can see in Galations, it’s the dietary laws (Kashrut) that caused this incident.

Paul fears the ‘other gospel’ Gal1:6-9, which opposes his own, he even fears a different Jesus preached 2Cor11:4, this was the doctrine (gospel) and different interpretation of Jesus that was propounded by the Jerusalem church. Pauls ‘gospel’ is what survives today but the original ‘gospel’ of the Jerusalem church can only be reconstructed from Pauls polemic views of it.

Background History.

David Sim in his paper [1] gives the full background history to this whole incident:

“That Jerusalem was behind the mission of these outsiders explains why Paul spends so much time in the early part of the letter spelling out his own relationship with the original Christian community. He states that after his conversion experience when his commission and gospel were revealed to him, he did not immediately go to Jerusalem to visit those who were apostles before him (Gal 1:16-17). Then after a three year gap he went to Jerusalem for two weeks where he met with Peter and James the brother of Jesus (1:18-20). Paul does not spell out the nature of these discussions, but it is safe to assume that they did not talk about the Law-free mission to the Gentiles that Paul earlier in the letter said had been revealed to him. The reason for this conclusion is that Paul says that it was only when he visited Jerusalem the next time did he set out the gospel he preached to the Gentiles (2:2). The implication is that this matter had not been raised previously with Peter and James.

That second visit to Jerusalem, known as the apostolic council, [cf Acts15] is of more importance. Paul states that after a fourteen year period (in Antioch), he went up to Jerusalem because of a revelation (Gal2:2) and took Barnabas and Titus with him. More trustworthy in this case is the alternative tradition in Acts. According to Acts 15:1-2, certain men came from Judea (Jerusalem?) to Antioch and told the Gentile Christians that they could not be saved unless they were circumcised and adopted the whole Mosaic Law. Paul and Barnabas debated with these men, and it was decided that they and some others should go to Jerusalem to discuss this matter with the leading apostles. Paul covers up the embarrassing truth that the Antiochene community was forced to defend its Gentile mission before the leaders of the Jerusalem church, since this would have compromised his argument that he was independent of the Jerusalem leadership. In any event Paul then offers his account of the meeting that took place. He and his companions had a private meeting with James the brother of Jesus and the disciples Peter and John, and it was only then that he set before them the Law-free gospel he preached to the Gentiles (Gal2:2). Then false brothers came into the meeting, but Paul opposed them (Gal2:3-5) and finally won the day. The Pillar apostles accepted that Paul had been charged with the mission to the Gentiles just as Peter had been commissioned to evangelise the Jewish world, and they gave him the right hand of friendship. The only condition was that Paul and the others would remember the poor, to which Paul willingly agreed (2:6-10)……. the same issue broke out again soon after in Antioch. Paul describes this incident immediately after in Gal 2:11-14. He states that when Peter came to Antioch, he was happy to associate with the Gentile Christians there, and he did so until certain men came from James in Jerusalem. After they came and fearing “those of the circumcision,” he withdrew from table-fellowship with the Gentiles, taking with him Barnabas and the other Jews in the Antiochene church. Paul then openly opposed and publicly accused Peter of outright hypocrisy. How could Peter live like a Gentile and not like a Jew and then later compel the Gentiles to live like Jews? It is clear even from Paul’s brief description as to what took place. For reasons unknown Peter visited Antioch and openly ate with Gentile Christians. James heard of this and sent messengers to put a stop to this practice. But more than this, the messengers of James told the Gentile Christians that they needed to observe the Law and be circumcised. This is evident not simply from the mention of “those of the circumcision,” but also from Paul’s sarcastic retort to Peter. After the message from James, Gentiles were to be compelled to live like Jews, and it is precisely because total Law-observance is at issue that Paul immediately launches into a defence of justification by faith rather than justification by works of the Law (2:15-17).

In short what James and then Peter attempted to do in Antioch, to introduce circumcision and the whole Torah to the Gentile community there, was precisely what Paul’s opponents in Galatia were doing. We have to infer from this evidence that these Christian Jewish missionaries who came to Galatia came at the behest of James in Jerusalem. In fact James shows a clear pattern of intervention whereby he sent on a number of occasions messengers to Law-free churches with the message that Gentile Christians needed to be circumcised and to observe the Torah. The initial intervention was in Antioch which initiated the apostolic council, and this was followed by a second intervention in the same city after the council which resulted in the incident that ended in a public brawl between Peter and Paul. Then we have a further intervention in Galatia. Francis Watson has argued that in Gal 1:9 Paul seems to have expected the arrival of another gospel in Galatia [2] and if this is correct then it confirms the suspicion that James’ strategy of intervention by way of envoys was well-known to Paul. This scenario coheres precisely with Paul’s attempt to represent himself as the cham- pion of the Law-free gospel at every intervention, be it in Jerusalem, Antioch or now in Galatia…….The epistle to the Galatians provides clear evidence that in the late 40s and the early 50s Paul’s relationship with the Jerusalem authorities, especially James and Peter, was one of bitter conflict……. the interventions into Paul’s Gentiles churches continued unabated in the following years. The Corinthian correspondence also reveals interference in Corinth by the mother church, and the same issues that we find in Galatians, notably Law-observance and the validity of Paul’s apostleship, are again prominent in these two letters. Moreover, there is evidence in Philippians as well that similar hostilities were either being played out in Philippi or at least were expected in the near future.

——————————————————–

JUDAIZIERS AND FALSE TEACHERS

The Judaiziers And false teachers Paul warns about are from James and the Jerusalem church.

Galatians 1:6-8

6 I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting the one who called you in the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel— 7 not that there is another gospel, but there are some who are confusing you and want to pervert the gospel of Christ. 8 But even if we or an angel from heaven should proclaim to you a gospel contrary to what we proclaimed to you, let that one be accursed! 9 As we have said before, so now I repeat, if anyone proclaims to you a gospel contrary to what you received, let that one be accursed!

Galatians 2:8- 14

8 for he who worked through Peter making him an apostle to the circumcised also worked through me in sending me to the Gentiles, 9 and when James and Cephas and John, who were acknowledged pillars, recognized the grace that had been given to me, they gave to Barnabas and me the right hand of fellowship, agreeing that we should go to the Gentiles and they to the circumcised. 10 They asked only one thing, that we remember the poor, which was actually what I was eager to do.

11 But when Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he stood self-condemned; 12 for until certain people came from James, he used to eat with the Gentiles. But after they came, he drew back and kept himself separate for fear of the circumcision faction. 13 And the other Jews joined him in this hypocrisy, so that even Barnabas was led astray by their hypocrisy. 14 But when I saw that they were not acting consistently with the truth of the gospel, I said to Cephas before them all, “If you, though a Jew, live like a Gentile and not like a Jew, how can you compel the Gentiles to live like Jew.

Galatians 1:3-18 NRSV

3 You foolish Galatians! Who has bewitched you? It was before your eyes that Jesus Christ was publicly exhibited as crucified! 2 The only thing I want to learn from you is this: Did you receive the Spirit by doing the works of the law or by believing what you heard? 3 Are you so foolish? Having started with the Spirit, are you now ending with the flesh? 4 Did you experience so much for nothing?—if it really was for nothing. 5 Well then, does God supply you with the Spirit and work miracles among you by your doing the works of the law, or by your believing what you heard?

6 Just as Abraham “believed God, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness,” 7 so, you see, those who believe are the descendants of Abraham. 8 And the scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, declared the gospel beforehand to Abraham, saying, “All the Gentiles shall be blessed in you.” 9 For this reason, those who believe are blessed with Abraham who believed. 10 For all who rely on the works of the law are under a curse; for it is written, “Cursed is everyone who does not observe and obey all the things written in the book of the law.” 11 Now it is evident that no one is justified before God by the law; for “The one who is righteous will live by faith.”12 But the law does not rest on faith; on the contrary, “Whoever does the works of the law will live by them.” 13 Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us—for it is written, “Cursed is everyone who hangs on a tree”— 14 in order that in Christ Jesus the blessing of Abraham might come to the Gentiles, so that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith.15 Brothers and sisters,I give an example from daily life: once a person’s will has been ratified, no one adds to it or annuls it. 16 Now the promises were made to Abraham and to his offspring; it does not say, “And to offsprings,”as of many; but it says, “And to your offspring,”that is, to one person, who is Christ. 17 My point is this: the law, which came four hundred thirty years later, does not annul a covenant previously ratified by God, so as to nullify the promise. 18 For if the inheritance comes from the law, it no longer comes from the promise; but God granted it to Abraham through the promise.

Romans 16:17 (NRSV) 17 I urge you, brothers and sisters,[a] to keep an eye on those who cause dissensions and offenses, in opposition to the teaching that you have learned; avoid them.

———————————–

FAITH v WORKS

Paul speaks out against James’ teaching.

James speaks out against Paul’s teaching.

Faith vs works:

Romans 3:26-28 (NRSV)

26 it was to prove at the present time that he himself is righteous and that he justifies the one who has faith in Jesus.

27 Then what becomes of boasting? It is excluded. By what law? By that of works? No, but by the law of faith. 28 For we hold that a person is justified by faith apart from works prescribed by the law.

James 2:14- 26

14 What good is it, my brothers and sisters, if you say you have faith but do not have works? Can faith save you? 15 If a brother or sister is naked and lacks daily food, 16 and one of you says to them, “Go in peace; keep warm and eat your fill,” and yet you do not supply their bodily needs, what is the good of that? 17 So faith by itself, if it has no works, is dead. 18 But someone will say, “You have faith and I have works.” Show me your faith apart from your works, and I by my works will show you my faith. 19 You believe that God is one; you do well. Even the demons believe—and shudder. 20 Do you want to be shown, you senseless person, that faith apart from works is barren? 21 Was not our ancestor Abraham justified by works when he offered his son Isaac on the altar? 22 You see that faith was active along with his works, and faith was brought to completion by the works. 23 Thus the scripture was fulfilled that says, “Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness,” and he was called the friend of God. 24 You see that a person is justified by works and not by faith alone. 25 Likewise, was not Rahab the prostitute also justified by works when she welcomed the messengers and sent them out by another road? 26 For just as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is also dead.

———————————————————–

LETTERS OF AUTHORITY

The following excerpt from Psuedoclementines explains about the LETTERS:

“Observe the greatest caution, that you believe no teacher unless he brings the testimonial of James the Lord’s brother from Jerusalem, or whomever comes after him. Under no circumstances receive anyone or consider him a worthy and faithful teacher for preaching the word of Christ unless he has gone up there, been approved, and, as I say, brings a testimonial from there. (Ps Rec 4.25)

‘the Highest Apostles’ who, according to 2 Corinthians 10:12, write their own letters of recommendation.

On Apostleship and lack of either direct appointment or letters of recommendation from James, Paul says that he has direct appointment from Jesus.

“The fact is, brothers, and I want you to realize this, the Good News I preached is not a human message that I was given by men.” (Gal 1:11)

“Even if to others I am not an Apostle [here, Paul certainly recognizes that there are those who do not accept his Apostolic credentials], without doubt I am to you. For you are the seal of my Apostleship in the Lord.”(1 Cor 9:2)

In 2corinthians3:1

“Do we start again to recommend ourselves? Unlike some who need either LETTERS to you or from you to recommend themselves, you are our letter, having been inscribed in our hearts, being known and read by all men, showing that you are Christ’s Letter served by us, not being written with ink, not on tablets of stone, but with the Spirit of the Living God on the fleshly tablets of the heart.”

2Cor3:6 “for the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life”

———————————————————–

DEFENSE FROM ATTACKS

“Do we not have authority to take a sister (or) wife around with us, as also the other Apostles and the brothers of the Lord and Cephas do? Or is it only Barnabas and I who do not have the authority not to work? Who serves as a soldier at any time at his own expense?” (1 Cor 9:4–6).

There is also an echo of attacks on Paul for profiteering by his ministry that Paul responds to so emotionally in 1 Corinthians 9:3–12.

“I even wish that those who are throwing you into confusion would themselves [meaning their own privy parts] cut off. (Gal 5:12)

——————————————————-

DEEP RELIGIOUS CONCEPTS BEHIND THE PAUL/ JAMES RIFT

It appears that God provided satisfaction to the primitive Israelites’ barbaric concepts of worship by instituting a holy and very restrictive nonhuman sacrificial system which is described in the Torah.

The prophets later emphatically stated that God was less interested in the shedding of blood to remove sin than in mercy and justice. Isaiah and Jeremiah started to move the House of Israel (the Kingdom of Judah) further away from sacrifice and to prepare them to survive as a nation (without the Temple) while in captivity. Other prophets, such as Hosea and Micah, placed the religious emphasis in practice, not on sacrifice, but on obedience.

Unfortunately, Christianity and Paul seems to have grossly misunderstood the historical duration and purpose of the blood sacrifice, and founded a belief system on the sacrificial cult with Jesus being the sacrificial lamb. “Without the shedding of blood, there can be no remission of sin.” Hebrew9:22. Most Christians don’t understand that the prophets (long after Moses) redirected the emphasis away from sacrifice and on to obedience, repentance, righteousness, justice, and mercy (all of this is understood in James’ epistle). Biblical emphasis has always been placed on the human ability to do good and repentance from sin.

The sacrificial doctrines that were developed within Christianity were readily accepted by gentile pagans who were used to many varieties of religious sacrifice.

Unfortunately, the sacrificial cult replaced the teachings like those found in the DSS messianic Jews which emphasized repentance to an emphasis on vicarious atonement.

——————————————————

These conflicting concepts can be seen in the major rift, Pauls misunderstanding, belief in Grace and belief alone for Salvation. And then those that understood James’ true Jewish understanding of good works, righteousness and repentance.

Here we have an open rift in a dichotomy of law vs. grace and faith vs. works.

————————————————————–

JAMES AS COUNTERFORGERY

The letter of James is being written to oppose the writings of Paul and the author needed someone of the stature of James in order to make the refutation convincing, both because James was the head of the Jerusalem church and because it was widely thought that he was at loggerheads with Paul.

As seen from Pauls epistles, especially the Antioch incident of Gal. 2:11-14, a rift can be seen between Paul and the Jamesian sect, the highly controversial stance of Cephas – who acted “out of fear for the circumcision party” – according to Paul it was the representatives of James who created the problem. Paul’s stance, in any event, is clear: these “men from James” represented a completely intolerable view that threatened the essence of his gospel message.

Later traditions play this out as can be seen, for example, in the graphic account of the where Paul is said to have tried to murder James for “his missionary success among Jews in Jerusalem. According to Psuedoclementines this rift got so bad that Clement has the story of the debates on the Temple steps between James and the High Priests or Temple Establishment, ending in the riot led by Paul – in which Paul picked up the ‘faggot’ – that resulted in James being injured and left for dead.

(Psuedoclementines Recognitions Book1,ch LXIX, LXX) and by implication in the Epistula Petri, where James is the recipient of the letter of Peter in which Paul, though not named, is clearly described as “the man who is my enemy.” ( Letter Of Peter to James 2.3-5, this letter appears as a preface to Psuedoclementines Homilies).

“Not only does [Epistle of James] heavily draw on Paul, it goes very decidedly into a debate with well-known Pauline statements. The reluctance of many scholars to see a literary dependence here is stunning.”~Kari Syreeni, “James and the Pauline Legacy,” in Fair Play: Diversity and Conflicts in Early Christianity, ed. Ismo Dunderberg et al. (Brill: Leiden, 2002), p. 401.

Ok now let me bring the meat to the table, the juicy evidence, showing the Greek to see the literary dependence:

James 2:21 and Rom. 4:2 (and Gal. 3:7)

James2:21 Ἀβραὰμ ὁ πατὴρ ἡμῶν οὐκ ἐξ ἔργων ἐδικαιώθη

Rom4:2 εἰ γὰρ Ἀβραὰμ ἐξ ἔργων ἐδικαιώθη,

As you can see a precise verbal overlap and the concept of justification and the example of Abraham appear completely out of the blue in Jas2:21.

Moreover, both James 2:23 and Rom. 4:3 quote Gen. 15:6 in order to establish their (contrary) views about Abraham in relationship to his justification.

James 2:24 and Gal. 2:16 and Rom. 3:28

James2:24 ὁρᾶτε ὅτι ἐξ ἔργων δικαιοῦται ἄνθρωπος καὶ οὐκ ἐκ πίστεως μόνον.

Gal2:16 εἰδότες δὲ ὅτι οὐ δικαιοῦται ἄνθρωπος ἐξ ἔργων νόμου ἐὰν μὴ διὰ πίστεως Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ,

Romans3:28 λογιζόμεθα γὰρ δικαιοῦσθαι πίστει ἄνθρωπον χωρὶς ἔργων νόμου.

One is insisting that a person is justified not by “works” of the Law but by faith, the other that a person is not justified by faith alone but by “works.” The passages are far too close to have been accidentally created in such similar yet contrary fashion.

James1:25;2:12 and Gal4:24;5:1;3:10)

“James’ reference to “the perfect law that gives freedom”(Jas1:25; cf. 2:12) seems to stand in sharp contrast to Paul, for whom the Law is a matter of slavery (Gal. 4:24; 5:1) and brings a curse (Gal. 3:10).

James3:5-12 and 2Cor 11:13

2 Corinthians 11:13-15

13 For such are false apostles, deceitful workers, transforming themselves into the apostles of Christ. 14 And no marvel; for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light. 15 Therefore it is no great thing if his ministers also be transformed as the ministers of righteousness; whose end shall be according to their works.

Paul protests that he ‘does not lie’ and turns his opponents’ accusations against them, attacking ‘those people’ he bitterly describes as ‘Pseudo-Apostles, Lying workmen disguising themselves as Apostles of Christ’ (2 Cor 11:13)

One should also note the relation of this loss of control to the aspersion on ‘the Tongue’ being ‘an uncontrollable Evil, full of death-bringing poison’ in the Letter of James3:5–12

Gal1:10, 3:5-10;Rom4:2-5 and James 4:3;2:20

In Galatians, Paul is answering the accusation that he ‘seeks to please men’, not God (1:10). This accusation echoes the charge found in the Letter of James, whoever makes himself a “friend of the world, turns himself into an Enemy of God’ (Jas4:3).

The Letter of James at this point is attacking the ‘Empty Man’, who is teaching that Abraham ‘was not justified by works’ but Faith, which is, of course, what Paul is doing in Romans 4:2–5 and Galatians 3:5–10.

(“You fool! Do you want to be shown that faith apart from works is dead?” James 2:20).

PAUL THE FALSE TEACHER IN THE FORGED EPISTLES JAMES AND JUDE

When James and Jude refer to false teachers they are speaking about Paul.

James 3:13-18 New Revised Standard Version ( NRSV)

13 Who is wise and understanding among you? Show by your good life that your works are done with gentleness born of wisdom. 14 But if you have bitter envy and selfish ambition in your hearts, do not be boastful and false to the truth. 15 Such wisdom does not come down from above, but is earthly, unspiritual, devilish. 16 For where there is envy and selfish ambition, there will also be disorder and wickedness of every kind. 17 But the wisdom from above is first pure, then peaceable, gentle, willing to yield, full of mercy and good fruits, without a trace of partiality or hypocrisy. 18 And a harvest of righteousness is sown in peace for those who make peace.

Jude 1:3-14 New Revised Standard Version ( NRSV)

3 Beloved, while eagerly preparing to write to you about the salvation we share, I find it necessary to write and appeal to you to contend for the faith that was once for all entrusted to the saints. 4 For certain intruders have stolen in among you, people who long ago were designated for this condemnation as ungodly, who pervert the grace of our God into licentiousness and deny our only Master and Lord, Jesus Christ. 5 Now I desire to remind you, though you are fully informed, that the Lord, who once for all saved a people out of the land of Egypt, afterward destroyed those who did not believe. 6 And the angels who did not keep their own position, but left their proper dwelling, he has kept in eternal chains in deepest darkness for the judgment of the great day. 7 Likewise, Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding cities, which, in the same manner as they, indulged in sexual immorality and pursued unnatural lust, serve as an example by undergoing a punishment of eternal fire. 8 Yet in the same way these dreamers also defile the flesh, reject authority, and slander the glorious ones. 9 But when the archangel Michael contended with the devil and disputed about the body of Moses, he did not dare to bring a condemnation of slander against him, but said, “The Lord rebuke you!” 10 But these people slander whatever they do not understand, and they are destroyed by those things that, like irrational animals, they know by instinct. 11 Woe to them! For they go the way of Cain, and abandon themselves to Balaam’s error for the sake of gain, and perish in Korah’s rebellion. 12 These are blemishes on your love-feasts, while they feast with you without fear, feeding themselves. They are waterless clouds carried along by the winds; autumn trees without fruit, twice dead, uprooted; 13 wild waves of the sea, casting up the foam of their own shame; wandering stars, for whom the deepest darkness has been reserved forever. 14 It was also about these that Enoch, in the seventh generation from Adam, prophesied, saying, “See, the Lord is coming with ten thousands of his holy ones, 15 to execute judgment on all, and to convict everyone of all the deeds of ungodliness that they have committed in such an ungodly way, and of all the harsh things that ungodly sinners have spoken against him.” 16 These are grumblers and malcontents; they indulge their own lusts; they are bombastic in speech, flattering people to their own advantage.

—————————————————

James was considered an impeccable authority in the early church as the “brother of the Lord” and the leader of the church in Jerusalem. Moreover, he was known to be an opponent of Paul. And so, an author who wanted to attack a “Pauline” position—that had later developed within some Pauline communities—chose his pseudonym wisely. In the letter of James we have a forger attacking a Deutero-Paul views. This makes James a counterforgery to the Deutero-Pauline epistles.

——————————————————-

FOOTNOTES:

[1] David C. Sim, The Family of Jesus and the Disciples of Jesus in Paul and Mark: Taking Sides in the Early Church’s Factional Dispute, 79-84.

[2] Francis Watson, Paul, Judaism and the Gentiles: Beyond the New Perspective (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, rev. and exp. edn 2007), pp.113-14.

SOURCES:

Forgery and Counterforgery: The Use of Literary Deceit in Early Christian Polemics, Ehrman, Bart D.,ch 10

James, the brother of Jesus, Eisenman

Amazing Colossal Apostle, Dr Price

White, L. Michael (2004). From Jesus to Christianity.

MITHRAISM AND BLOOD SACRIFICE IN CHRISTIAN BELIEF AND PRACTICE AND ITS RELATIONSHIP TO CHRISTIANITY, 2015,James J. DeFrancisco, PhD.

The Family of Jesus and the Disciples of Jesus in Paul and Mark: Taking Sides in the Early Church’s Factional Dispute, David C Sim.

EARLY CHRISTIANITY – THE GREAT CO-OPTERS!

THE BAPTIST MOVEMENT

Only Luke mentions Jesus and John were related. The other gospels seem unaware of it, or consider it a matter of no importance whatsoever. Josephus mentions John rather definitively, but doesn’t mention John being related to Jesus either. The Gospel of John says Jesus and his disciples started out associated with JBap, but they split off, formed a separate group that competed directly with him. GospJohn also shows indications of an active debate between the followers of Jesus and JBap as to which of the two was the authentic messiah. There was apparently a rupture in their relationship over something significant.

The Mandaeans literature saw Jesus as a false prophet (ch7 The book of John).

Pertinent to these issues is Steve Mason’s following remarks in his book,

Josephus and the NT, p.155

“Yet we see an obvious and major difference between Josephus and the Gospels in their respective portraits of the Baptist. To put it bluntly, Josephus does not see John as a “figure in the Christian tradition.” The Baptist is not connected with early Christianity in any way. On the contrary, Josephus presents him as a famous Jewish preacher with a message and a following of his own, neither of which is related to Jesus. This is a problem for the reader of the NT because the Gospels unanimously declare him to be essentially the forerunner of Jesus the Messiah.”

And this is what Dr R M Price has to say in his book “Amazing Colossal Apostle:

“The historical Baptist had no more endorsed Jesus as the one who was to come (as portrayed in the gospels). It means, too, that Christianity failed to co-opt and absorb the Baptist movement. But it tried.”

Steve Mason also mentions in the same book p.157 ” the early Christian tradition has coopted a famous Jewish preacher as an ally and subordinate of Jesus”.

The following passage in Acts just shows that the Baptist movement had existed in Asia Minor independent to Christianity, after the death of Jesus and John the Baptist.

Acts 19:1-5 New International Version (NIV)

Paul in Ephesus

19 While Apollos was at Corinth, Paul took the road through the interior and arrived at Ephesus. There he found some disciples and asked them, “Did you receive the Holy Spirit when you believed?”

They answered, “No, we have not even heard that there is a Holy Spirit.”

So Paul asked, “Then what baptism did you receive?”

“John’s baptism,” they replied.

Paul said, “John’s baptism was a baptism of repentance. He told the people to believe in the one coming after him, that is, in Jesus.” On hearing this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.

If people could see the gospels as propagandic history about a small struggling competing messianic movement that was trying to grow. They tell fake history because they wanted to show that all the competing religions were converting to them. That means the Baptist movement. That means Simon Magus was said to convert to Christianity in Acts, this too so didn’t happen. (Acts8:9-24). Apollo (1Cor1:12-17) as seen in Pauls epistles (and Acts), was probably belong to a rival sect too.

———————————————————-

SIMONITES, a rival to Christianity:

The heterodox sect of Simonites, often identified with Simon Magus the sorcerer (magus meaning magician) mentioned in Acts 8:9–24 who was said to have bewitched the people of Samaria and made them believe that he was possessed of divine power.

”Simon ….amazed the Samaritan people by his power, so that everyone there said about him, “This is the power of God that is called Great.” That is, they took Simon to be the representative of the greatest of the gods…”Ehrman, Peter Paul and Mary Magdalene,62

The devotees of Simon Magus proclaim, “Thou art god in Italy; thou art saviour of the Romans” (Acts Pet., 283). “He then came forward claiming to be accepted as a mighty power of the very God who has created the world” (Homilies, 546). “They all gave heed to him, from the least to the greatest, saying, ‘This man is that power of God which is called Great’” (Acts 8:10). The crowds proclaimed him God.(First Apolog.”, xxvi, lvi; “Dialogus c. Tryphonem”, cxx)

Simon seems at first to have asserted merely that he was a Messiah, though later he claimed that he was a god. The following passage of Irenæus (“Adv. Hæreses,” i. 23, § 1) clearly defines his teaching: “He was worshiped by many as a god, and seemed to himself to be one; for among the Jews he appeared as the Son, in Samaria as the Father, and among other peoples as the Holy Ghost” (comp. Hippolytus, Refutation of All Heresies,vi.19, ; Tertullian, “De Anima,” xxxiv.; Epiphanius, “Panarium.” xxi. 1; “Acts of Peter and Paul).

According to Justin Martyr, living in mid-second-century Rome, Simon became entirely persuasive in his claims that he was a divine being. Justin notes that the Romans set up a statue to Simon on the Tiber island, with a Latin dedicatory inscription that read, “Simoni Deo Sancto,” meaning “To Simon, the Holy God” (Apology 1.26). Unfortunately, Justin appears to have gotten things muddled. As it turns out, the inscription was discovered many centuries later, in 1574. It actually read, “Semoni Sanco Sancto Deo.” What a difference a word makes. Semo Sancus was in fact a pagan deity worshiped by the Sabines in Rome, and this was a statue dedicated to him. Justin mistook the inscription as referring to the Holy Simon. Even so, it reflects the status that Simon Magus must have had.

A better legend is contained in the Acts of Peter, where a miracle contest is held, retaining Peter as a rival magician and adding a rematch in Rome, where Simon Magus traveled to steal Peter’s converts from him. Simon Magus is successful until Simon Peter challenges him to another demonstration of power. Peter wins, regaining all of his gullible and fickle converts, when Simon Magus, having rigged up a special effects trick, seems to fly but soon crashes to the ground.

“Acts of Peter where Peter becomes involved with a controversy with Simon (Magus). But in this writing it becomes clear that Simon Magus in fact is a cipher for none other than Paul himself. This is evident, for example, when Peter attacks a thinly disguised Paul for thinking that his very brief encounter with Christ in his vision while on his way to persecute Christians in Damascus (a reference to Acts 9) could authorize him to teach a gospel that stands at odds with that proclaimed by Peter, who spent an entire year with Christ while he was still living and is, according to Christ’s own words, the Rock on which the church is built.” ~Peter, Paul and Mary Magdalene, Ehrman, 79

The legends seem to reflect the real competition between competing sects of Simonians and Christians, who were represented in both Samaria and Rome. Justin Martyr, himself a Samaritan convert to Christianity and visitor to Rome, tells us that in his day Simonianism had swept all Samaria into its fold, while Rome had notable Simonian congregations.

The messianic cult of Simon Magus certainly thrived in Syria, Rome and various districts of Asia Minor during the second century; The amount of Church Fathers writing against Simon Magus suggests just like Marcion, that he was a juggernaut rival to Christianity. It was not until the 4th century that it dwindled away.

—————————————————

MR “PAPER OVER THE CRACKS” LUKE, tells us Simon Magus converted to Christianity.

Acts of the Apostles, has Philip, one of the Seven who led the Hellenistic Christians, preach in Samaria and convert the whole capital city to faith in Jesus (Acts 8: 5-8ff). This is where Simon Magus comes in. Luke, the narrator of Acts, says that when Philip came to town, he found a revival of another sort already in progress. The whole place was captivated by a magician who claimed to be the Great Power, or Godhead, in the flesh. Simon validated this by producing astonishing miracles (Acts 8: 9-11). Then Philip arrived, according to Luke; but Luke digresses from the legend preserved in other Christian sources and claims the whole Samaritan populace was swayed by Philip to become Christian, including Simon!

Since Acts has Simon Peter confronting Simon Magus this would make the magician a contemporary of Jesus.

This artificial claim that Philip baptized everyone but withheld the Holy Spirit until Simon Peter could dramatically arrive from Jerusalem and make it official (Acts 8: 14-17). Simon Magus himself, cowed and repentant, is reduced to a Christian convert who sheepishly asks Peter to teach him, for money, the trick to making people speak in tongues and prophesy (Acts 8: 18-19), thus giving rise to the term simony as the buying or selling of sacred things or ecclesiastical office.

As a side note:

[Simon rescued a woman from a brothel named Helen, she was his eternal soul mate, having existed in the divine pleroma, the heavenly world of light and spirit, as Epinoia, the First Thought.

Luke seems to know all this, since he uses a special, rare Greek word in Peter’s rebuke of the magus: “Pray to the Lord that this thought (epinoia) may be forgiven you” (Acts 8: 22).]

——————————————————

Justin Martyr tells us that the Magus was widely worshipped for decades. Simon Magus HAD NOT BEEN CONVERTED to Christianity any more than the historical Baptist had endorsed Jesus as the one who was to come. It means, too, that Christianity failed to co-opt and absorb Simonianism.( or the Mandaeans pre cursors for that matter). But it tried.

Samaritan sectarians believed that the Samaritan image Dositheus (whom the Pseudo-Clementine Homilies make a disciple of John the Baptist who lost out to Simon Magus in a squabble for leadership of the sect after John’s death) was the Messiah.

John was that he had been the guru of the Samaritan heresiarchs Simon Magus and Dositheus. “There appeared a certain John the Baptist…. [T]here gathered about John thirty eminent persons according to the reckoning of the lunar month…. Of these thirty Simon counted with John as the first and most distinguished.” He would have been John’s successor except that he was away in Egypt when the Baptist died, and Dositheus took over the sect (Clementine Homilies 2.23.1-24.1).

———————————————————-

CONCLUSION:

The outlandish legends actually reflect real history of major rivilaries, Christianity was under threat from a similar messianic sects, it must have been major as all the church fathers wrote against it. They blackened Simon Magus name, if the SIMONITES had succeeded it is Simon we would be worshipping today.

————————————————

Main Source:

Price, Amazing Colossal Apostle, ch 7

Ehrman, Lost Christianity’s, ch 8

Ehrman, Peter, Paul and Mary Magdalene, ch 6

Luke, Acts8:9-24

Martyr, Apology1.26

Hippolytus, Refutation of All Heresies,vi.19;

Tertullian,De Anima xxxiv.

Epiphanius, “Panarium.” xxi. 1;

Clementine Homilies 2.23.1-24.1

Irenæus, Adv. Hæreses,” i. 23

Acts of Peter

—————————————————-

APOLLO AND THE RIVAL BAPTISM

“Apollo” (Greek Apollos), who is often mentioned as a Pauline colleague (Acts 18:24; 19:1; 1 Cor. 1:12; 3:4, 5, 6, 22; 4:6; 16:12; Titus 3:13).

Acts18:24

“An Alexandrian Jew by the name of Apollos came to Ephesus. Apollos was an eloquent fellow who knew how to make effective use of the scriptures. 25He had received instruction in the way of the Lord, could speak with spiritual ardor, and propound the story of Jesus with precision, but he was aware only of the baptism proclaimed by John.”

Apollos’ awareness only of John’s baptism constitutes a deficiency on his part.

Luke’s only historically reliable resource is Paul. Apollos the Alexandrian Jew is taken from Corinthians.

1Cor1:10

Let me charge you, brothers, by the name of our Lord, Jesus-Christ, that you all teach the same thing, that there be no schisms among you, but that you may be unified in the same thinking and the same opinion. 11You see, my brothers, those who follow Chloe demonstrated this to me about you: that there are contentions raging among you. 12This is what I am talking about: one individual announces, “As for me, I belong to Paul!” while another says, “For my part, I belong to Apollo!” Or “I belong to Cephas!” Or “I belong to Christ!”

This is an attempt to press a lid down onto the fertile chaos of Pandora’s box. The goal is to undercut the variety of Christian faith in the writer’s day by having Paul bemoan it.

The historical John the Baptist had no more endorsed Jesus as the one to come, as Apollos is said to be a colleague of Paul.

[As a side note Acts8:14-22 Simon Magus HAD NOT BEEN CONVERTED to Christianity like Acts said he did]. It means, too, that Christianity failed to co-opt and absorb Simonianism or the Mandaeans pre cursors for that matter. But it tried.

Apollos is given a cameo role in 1 Corinthians. He is mentioned there as if a competitor to Paul, since there is a split between those who follow Paul and those who follow Apollos (1 Cor 1: 12). The issue is apparently related to baptism (1 Cor 1: 13–17). But in 1 Cor 3: 6 he is identified as a co-worker who arrives after Paul (“ I planted”) and supports Paul’s work (“ Apollos watered”).

The Baptist disciples in the next passage of Acts had not even heard that there was such a thing as the Holy Spirit (19: 2–3).

Acts19:2

2He asked them, “Did you receive the Holy Spirit when you came to believe?” “No,” they answered, “We did not even hear that there is a Holy Spirit.” 3“ What sort of baptism did you receive, then?” “John’s baptism.”

Acts19:6 “After Paul had laid hands on them, the Holy Spirit descended upon them, and they began to speak in tongues and utter prophecies.”

Luke means to call attention to followers of John the Baptist, presumably a sect distinct from believers in Jesus. Apollos is accepted after his theological views are corrected. The disciples not only require instruction about John the Baptist but also a second baptism and the laying on of hands.

It would be interesting to explore the possibility that the Mandaean practice could have some connection with what Paul mentioned. Acts 18-19, after all, depicts Apollos as connected with a religion that knew John’s baptism but not that of Jesus. And 1 Corinthians mentions the influence of Apollos in the church there.

The phrase “baptism for the dead” is of course used by Paul in 1 Corinthians15:29.

Mandaeans use the phrase “baptism for the dead” to describe the masiqta – more frequently translated as “mass for the dead” or something similar in English.

The masiqta proper, of course, is a ritual meal which takes after someone has died, and not an immersion. But it is closely connected with the practice of offering a final baptism for those who are near death, and the belief that their baptism accompanies them on their journey into the lightworld and helps them on their way.

People have often said to me Acts is useless, without realizing the historical gems hidden by literal reading of the surface story. Take a baptism in history and look below the surface.

[As a side note, Apollos may have been from some other pagan religion that practiced “baptism for the dead”. The reason I went for the Mandaeans was the verses in Acts, unless they are a complete Lukean invention, they suggest Baptism from John.

Here is the evidence of pagan baptism:

Just north of Corinth was a city named Eleusis. This was the location of a pagan religion where baptism in the sea was practiced to guarantee a good afterlife. This religion was mentioned by Homer in Hymn to Demeter 478-79.

The Christian church was not practicing baptism for the dead, (1Cor15:29) but the pagans were. (and so were the Mandaeans).]

———————————————————-

Amazing Colossal Apostle- Price

Acts and Christian Beginnings – Acts Seminar Report

The Mandaean Ṭabahata Masiqta – Jorunn Jacobsen Buckley (Numen

Vol. 28, Fasc. 2 (Dec., 1981), pp. 138-163)

——————————————————

ANTE NICEAN PERIOD

“During the interval the gospel was wrongly preached; men wrongly believed; so many thousands were wrongly baptised; so many works of faith were wrongly wrought; so many miraculous gifts, so many spiritual endowments, were wrongly set in operation; so many priestly functions, so many ministries, were wrongly executed; and, to sum up the whole, so many martyrs wrongly received their crowns!”~Tertullian,Prescription against Heretics,29

Why is it the heretics all seemed to have their particular type of gospel which the Orthodox seem to co-opt eventually onto their canon. Would this suggest that the Orthodox is late, ( being in the minority, all other heretical groups seem to be in the majority) but brilliant co-opters, reason for their eventual success.

Jewish Christians ( the ebonites) who held onto the validity of the Law of Moses, held dearly onto the gMatthew.

Another set of docetic Christians “separate Jesus from Christ, alleging that Christ remained impassible, but that it was Jesus who suffered, preferring the Gospel by Mark”.~Ireaneus, Against Heresies 3.11.7

The Marcionites only accepted a form of Luke, ( which may have been original).

And the Valentines only accepted the gJohn.

Tertullian called Paul “the apostle of Marcion and the apostle of the heretics,” and both Irenaeus and Tertullian noted how much the heretics cherished Paul’s writings.

Matthew and Luke used all of Mark as a source and usually that would be enough not to preserve Marks short gospel, why was this gospel kept? Was it kept to co-opt those that cherished it?

The Orthodox canon suggests a great co-opting sect, to bring all heretical sects in to their fold.

If a book was widely popular it came to be accepted into the canon. “to secure entrance into the canon, the anonymous Epistle to the Hebrews was ascribed to Paul. It was also possible to claim some tenuous link between the ascribed authorship and an apostle, as when Mark was made Peter’s secretary and Luke Paul’s. If a book sounded too blatantly unorthodox despite a clear apostolic authorship claim, such as the numerous books attributed to Thomas, Peter, Paul, Matthias, James, and John, it could be dismissed as a forgery.” ~The Pre-Nicene New Testament, Price, Introduction.

Whilst certain varieties of Christianity had to be culled altogether, the canon, at the end, seems to have tried to integrate and absorb at least four different communities, or at least the most venerable of their Gospels, else why include all four? Unifying as many as possible as they go official.

The Orthodox were great Co-opters!

Took on all the heretics gospels. Usually a sect stuck to just one gospel, these orthodox guys took on every bodies gospels!

It is a theme I’m seeing right from the start, just as the early sect tried to co-opt the Baptist sect.

Now if the original gospels all belonged to the gnostics these gnostics would have interpreted the gospels allegorically. The earliest Christians would have seen the gospels for what they are, allegorical backstories for Pauls epistles. It is the Orthodox that took them literally and saw them as literal history!

———————————————————

Ireaneus, Against Heresies 3.11.7

“So firm is the ground upon which these Gospels rest, that the very heretics themselves bear witness to them, and, starting from these [documents], each one of them endeavours to establish his own peculiar doctrine. For the Ebonites, who use Matthew’s Gospel only, are confuted out of this very same, making false suppositions with regard to the Lord. But Marcion, mutilating that according to Luke, is proved to be a blasphemer of the only existing God, from those [passages] which he still retains. Those, again, who separate Jesus from Christ, alleging that Christ remained impassible, but that it was Jesus who suffered, preferring the Gospel by Mark, if they read it with a love of truth, may have their errors rectified. Those, moreover, who follow Valentinus, making copious use of that according to John, to illustrate their conjunctions, shall be proved to be totally in error by means of this very Gospel, as I have shown in the first book. Since, then, our opponents do bear testimony to us, and make use of these [documents], our proof derived from them is firm and true.”

Celsus suggests why we have so many gospels as reported through Origen:

Contra Celsium II.27

Chapter 27

“After this he says, that certain of the Christian believers, like persons who in a fit of drunkenness lay violent hands upon themselves, have corrupted the Gospel from its original integrity, to a threefold, and fourfold, and many-fold degree, and have remodelled it, so that they might be able to answer objections.”

Here each heretical group was able to answer its own objections with each its own gospel.

DEAD SEA SCROLLS REVEAL ANOTHER MESSIANIC FIGURE BEFORE JESUS!

In The First Messiah: Investigating the savior before Christ, distinguished Dead Sea Scrolls scholar Michael O. Wise provides a detailed examination of a messianic leader he calls “Judah” [a “Teacher of righteousness” in the scrolls] a figure whose life and prophecies pre date Jesus by a century.

By analyzing the Thanksgiving Hymns in the Thanksgiving Scroll discovered among the Dead Sea Scrolls, Wise uncovers the basis of a groundbreaking understanding of the prophetic mind. In so doing, Wise deepens our understanding of Christ, his impact on the Jewish community of his time, and even his interpretation of his own messianic role.

“[Who] has been despised like [ me? And who]

has been rejected [of men] like me? [And who] compares to

m[e in enduring] evil?

………

Who is like me among the angels?

[I] am the beloved of the king, a companion of the ho[ly ones].”

The figure represented in this hymn is complex and fascinating. We see a very marked dichotomy in the self-image of the writer. He he views himself in the image of the “suffering servant” in Isaiah 53. Of the “suffering servant” it is written: “He was despised and rejected of men; a man of sorrows, and acquainted with grief” (Isaiah 53:3). The writer of the hymn says:

And who] has been despised like [ me? And who] has been rejected [of men] like me?” 4Q491. (Cf The first messianic hymn—version 1: 4QHe frg. 1–2. ; The first messianic hymn—version 2: 4Q491 frg. 11, col. 1.; The second messianic hymn—version 1: 4QHa frg. 7, col. 1 and 2.)

The parallels between Judah and Jesus blaze forth in sharp relief:

* Both declared themselves prophets.

* Both were hailed by followers as He Who Is to Come and worked attendant wonders.

* Both founded vital and long-lasting movements before leaving this world.

Judah’s claims to messianic status led to his arrest and condemnation. Judah’s warnings of Jewish apostasy and his apocalyptic prophecies, combined with powerful personal charisma, also built a movement that survived his death and even grew into an institution comprising bishops, priests, and laity.

A common claim is that the idea of a savior—a “suffering servant”—was added later to justify the death of Jesus as Messiah. All these notions are now challenged with the evidence of the DSS Thanksgiving scroll and the Gabriel Stone.

The hero of the hymns claims divine status. He claims to be superior to the angels and describes himself as taking a seat in heaven surrounded by the angels, thus clearly comparing himself to the biblical God. Simultaneously, he depicts himself as “despised and rejected of men” and claims

Who has born[e all] afflictions like me? Who compares to me [in enduri]ng evil?

He thus identifies himself with the “suffering servant” in Isaiah. This combination of divine status and suffering is unknown in the history of the messianic idea prior to these hymns.

Jesus could have been just another messianic figure in a long line of messianic figures before him.

————————————————————

“Wise names the messianic figure at Qumran “Judah”. He was the first to see himself as a hidden Messiah [cf Messianic Secret in Mark], and Wise thinks he can recover significant bits of Judah’s biography especially through the Thanksgiving hymns. Wise thinks he can see Judah anticipate suffering and that violent men ( 1QH X), in particular Hycranus II, were seeking his life because of his beliefs about the Temple and it’s Pharisaic leadership ( esp. Shimeon Ben Shetah). These complaints of his are now written up as they were in a protest form now found in 4Q MMT. Judah was put on trial as a false prophet and exiled; shortly thereafter he died a violent death, smitten by the sword ( in 72BCE). But this Judah also believed that he was to fulfill the role of Isaiah’s suffering servant (1QH VIII-IX) and that it was he and not the Pharisees that was faithful to Gods covenant. God rewards him so his followers believe with glory at the right hand of God ( XXVI, 2-10)…… it’s unlikely Judah thought of his death as an atonement but Judah’s perception of death or at least his followers was much along the lines of Mark14:25 death could not thwart the divine plan.”

~Jesus and His Death: Historiography, the Historical Jesus, and Atonement Theory

By Scot McKnight,page89.

———————————————————-

Knohl has hypotheses who this messiah was:

”The first of the two messianic hymns inserted in the Thanksgivings Scroll constitutes a sort of self-portrait of the messianic hero. ”the beloved of the king” is an unusual way to describe one’s relationship to God, and the description of the angels as the king’s sons is unprecedented. Why did the messianic hero choose to use such unusual expressions? It is surely not unreasonable to suppose that these metaphors reflect the life experience of the protagonist of the hymns. It seems that the messianic leader belonged to the court of an earthly king. Herod’s court could be the source of the metaphors used in the messianic hymn from Qumran. A special relationship that Herod had developed with Menahem the Essene”. Ant15.372-79; Jerusalem Talmud, Hagiga 2:2 (77b).

~Knohl, The Messiah before Jesus, page53.

————————————————————

SIMON OF PERAEA

Simon of Peraea was called the King of the Jews, believed to be a Messiah. Just before Passover, the Romans beheaded him and crucified many of his followers outside Jerusalem. But his name was not Jesus, it was Simon, a self-proclaimed Messiah who died four years before Christ was born. Now, new analysis of a three-foot-tall stone tablet from the first century B.C., being hailed by scholars as a “Dead Sea Scroll on stone,” speaks of an early Messiah. And could this tablet shake up the basic premise of Christianity?

ABOUT THE STONE:

• The tablet, called the Jeselsohn Stone, is three feet tall with 87 lines of Hebrew. It was found on the antiquities market a decade ago but not seriously studied by scholars until recently.

• Based on microscopic analysis of the soils and writing found on the stone, the tablet probably came from an area near the Dead Sea in Jordan and dates back to the late first century B.C.

• Its writing is unique because it is ink on stone in two neat columns, rather than ink on parchment or engravings on stone like so many other biblical artifacts.

• The stone is broken and much of the wording has been washed away over time. Many scholars believe the stone’s imperfect pockmarks and the ambiguity of the text itself actually validate the stone.

• Much of the text describes a vision of the apocalypse transmitted by the angel Gabriel.

• The stone is controversial because it could speak of a Messiah who will show signs after three days dead, based on line 80, “Messiah ben Yosef, by three days, signs”.

• If this reading were accurate, it would imply that a Messiah who shows signs from the dead after three days predates the time of Christ — providing a missing link between Judaism and Christianity, since it suggests Jesus’ death and resurrection is of the same trope.

ABOUT SIMON OF PERAEA:

• A former Jewish slave, Simon of Peraea crowned himself king, claiming to be the redeemer of Israel, the Messiah.

• He led a failed rebellion against Rome in 4 B.C. before Passover and set fire to one of King Herod’s palaces at Jericho and several other royal residences.

• Soon after the rebellion, Simon was captured in a remote canyon and beheaded; his corpse was left to rot amidst the rocks. For Jews of the time of Simon of Peraea, not burying a corpse was the ultimate humiliation.

• In the wake of his death, many of his followers were crucified.

• Dr. Knohl believes that Jesus knew the story of Simon’s death.

• Accounts by the ancient Jewish historian Flavius Josephus may be the only literary evidence from the time that either Simon of Peraea or Jesus existed.(Ant17.10.6; 18.3.3).

Messiah Ben Yosef:

Jesus to be called Joseph’s son in the gospels is a later misinterpretation of Jesus’ title as the Galilean Messiah. Just as “Jesus the Nazorean” need not refer to having roots in Nazareth but may instead imply membership in the pious Nazorean sect (see Acts 24:5), “Jesus son of Joseph” may be a messianic title. My guess would be that, once the southern idea of Jesus as a descendant of David caught on, someone tried to reinterpret his northern messianic identity, reinterpreting the epithet “son of Joseph” by making Joseph refer to the immediate, diate, if adoptive, father of Jesus, instead of his remote ancestor, whose prophetic dreams promised him that the sun, moon, and stars would one day bow before him (Genesis 37:9).~Price, Deconstructing Jesus

In this pre-Christian Jewish text, Knohl finds references to two different concepts of the messiah—one, the Messiah son of David; and the other, the Messiah son of Joseph (Ephraim). The return of the messiah of David would involve a military victory. Indeed, the Davidic messiah will institute the messianic age with a “day of battle.” He will make his enemies “a footstool.” The Messiah son of David is a triumphal messiah. Ephraim, or the Messiah son of Joseph, is a very different kind of messiah and reflects a new kind of messianism. This kind of messianism involves suffering and death. In the new Dead Sea Scroll in stone, Knohl sees a messiah who suffered, died and rose.~ commentary on Knohl’s The Messiah before Jesus.

———————————————————

Significance of Gabriel’s stone:

A first century B.C. stone tablet discovered a decade ago near the Dead Sea in Jordan has been translated, showing it to be an apocalyptic description attributed to the angel Gabriel.

Due to its date and geographical location Knohl has associated it with Simon of Peraea. It does seem to be messianic in its focus (see line 72 and its mention of “David the servant of YHWH). The text of the tablet makes clear references to the Messiah who will destroy evil and bring in righteousness. This Messiah comes from Ephraim, or the “ Messiah son of Joseph”. (line 16). In the stone tablet, Gabriel commands the Messiah to show signs after three days, a clear trope to the resurrection of Jesus.

The text of the stone seems to draw heavily upon the Book of Daniel. Scholars know from the work of Josephus that many Jews immediately before and during the time of Jesus focused on the Book of Daniel because of his prophecies related to a messiah coming to usher in a Kingdom of God.

His mission is that he has to be put to death by the Romans to suffer so his blood will be the sign for redemption to come,” Knohl said. “This is the sign of the son of Joseph. This is the conscious view of Jesus himself. This gives the Last Supper an absolutely different meaning. To shed blood is not for the sins of people but to bring redemption to Israel.

Ephraim, or the Messiah son of Joseph, is a very different kind of messiah and reflects a new kind of messianism. This kind of messianism involves suffering and death.

All agree that the passage describes an apocalyptic vision of an attack on Jerusalem in which God appears with angels on chariots to save the city. The text expresses anxiety over the fate of Jerusalem and reflects the crucial role of angels as intermediaries. The central angelic character is Gabriel, the first angel to appear in the Hebrew Bible. “I am Gabriel,” the writing declares.

The slaying of Simon, or any case of the suffering messiah, is seen as a necessary step toward national salvation, he says, pointing to lines 19 through 21 of the tablet — “In three days you will know that evil will be defeated by justice” — and other lines that speak of blood and slaughter as pathways to justice.

It’s role in helping to understand the roots of Christianity in the devastating political crisis faced by the Jews of the time seems likely to increase.

Much of the text, a vision of the apocalypse transmitted by the angel Gabriel, draws on the Old Testament, especially the prophets Daniel, Zechariah and Haggai.

Yardeni, who analyzed the stone along with Binyamin Elitzur, is an expert on Hebrew script, especially of the era of King Herod, who died in 4 BC The two of them published a long analysis of the stone more than a year ago in Cathedra, a Hebrew-language quarterly devoted to the history and archaeology of Israel, and said that, based on the shape of the script and the language, the text dated from the late first century BC.

After the Messiah’s death his believers created a “catastrophic” ideology. The rejection of the Messiah, his humiliation, and his death were thought to have been foretold in the Scriptures and to be necessary stages in the process of redemption. The disciples believed that the humiliated and pierced Messiah had been resurrected after three days and that he was due to reappear on earth as redeemer, victor, and judge.”~Knohl, The Messiah before Jesus,45

DEAD SEA SCROLLS ON EVE OF CHRISTIANITY.

DSS shows precursor messianism to Christianity.

KING AND PRIEST MESSIAH

Frank More Cross [1] believes the doctrine of the two messiahs found at Qumran has its roots in the restoration of a diarchy.

This diarchy consists of a perfect King and a perfect High Priest, who “shall take office standing by the side of the Lord of the whole earth”. (Zechariah4:14).

The offices of old Israel was projected on a new age.

This double messiah shows division of power was already reflected from the time of Moses and Aaron.

David, the ideal king of the old days, is taken as the archetype of the ideal king of the New Age. Zadok, priest of David and high priest in Solomon’s temple, scion of Aaron is the archetype of the new Zadok, the messiah of Aaron.

At Qumran, the Damascus Document, the Rule, the War Scroll, the Testamonia (4Q175) and the Testaments of twelve patriarchs all show the doctrine of the two messiahs.

Sometimes you will get the expression “the messiah of Aaron and the one of Israel” ( CD XIV 19). Aaron being the priestly messiah and Israel is the secular messiah both of the projected diarchy that Frank is talking about.

In Christianity ( and to some degree later Rabbinical Judaism) the doctrine of the diarchy was replaced by the merging of the two figures into one.

This was caused by the destruction of the Temple when the rule of the High Priest was permanently broken.

The Dead Sea Scrolls shine a light on the eschatological salvation and also introduce the figure ( or figures) of a messiah. They clarify the origins of messianic hope that plays such a central position in Christianity.

HEAVENLY MESSIAH

Melchizedek fits right in there with the binary messianism as he was a priest-king. As Cargill has said,”I came to notice the centrality of Melchizedek and the texts that reference him- Gen.14 and Ps.110 – to every aspect of these various interpretations of binary messianic expectations.”[2].

Florentino García Martínez [3] also sees in the Melchizedek scroll a “heavenly messiah”. (11QMelch col. II 6-9). [please see index at end of this blog to reference the lines in this passage]. One of the most astonishing and controversial documents found at Qumran is the fragment from cave 11, the Melchizedek scroll. This heavenly figure proclaims liberty to the captives at the end of days (eschatological). He sets them free and makes atonement for their sins (lines 5-7). The messenger of Isaiah52:7 is identified in 11QMelch as the anointed of the spirit. (line 18). It is Melchizedek who executed judgment and takes his place as God in the divine council (Psalm82.1; line 9-14).

The text describes the heavenly high priest on the great day of Atonement when psalm82 would be fulfilled. “God has taken his place in the divine council; in the midst of the gods he holds judgment.”(Psalm82.1; line 10).

The protagonist of this text is a heavenly person, an Elohim, called Melchizedek, who at the end of times, will execute justice and be the instrument of salvation. It shows that God was deemed to act through his high priest Melchizedek.

Melchizedek earthly origins serve as a backdrop for his exalted heavenly position. This figure was “king of Salem [i.e., Jerusalem] and priest of God Most High,” as mentioned in Genesis 14:18-20

He was revered by Abraham who paid him tithes, Melchizedek in turn gave Abraham bread and wine.( just like Jesus in the Eucharist). You could compare “the wine and bread brought out by Melchizedek in Gen. 14:18 to a text from Ugarit, which may describe a festival poem used in southern Canaanite Temple ceremony……this gesture [bringing out the bread an wine] on part of Melchizedek should be interpreted as part of an offer of a peace treaty between the King and the man who rescued the people and property of Sodom.” ~Melchizedek, King of Sodom, Cargill, ch1.

The status of Melchizedek is as a heavenly being can be seen in 2Enoch and Psalms 110:4.

It explains in Hebrews how Melchizedek came to be seen as a divine figure.

After Adam every character had a genealogy, naming parents etc. but not so for Melchizedek! Therefore he saw him as an eternal divine figure. In Hebrews it’s stated this person had no genealogical record in a book (Genesis) about genealogical records. Also the author of Hebrews notices his name means “king of righteousness”. (Hebrews7:2-3). He stated he is a high priest just like Jesus not of the Levi order, ie a priest of a different order and an eternal order.(Hebrews5:6). Followers of Jesus wanted to claim him as high priest but this would never be accepted as he was not from the line of Levi. Convenient to have him come from Melchizedek instead!

The author of Hebrews associates Melchizedek to Christ and has established a priestly line distinct from that of Aaron, one from whom Jesus can be derived. ( from the Tribe of Judah, Hebrews 7:14).

“Others know Melchizedek from his apparent mention in Psalms110.4, where the psalm is typically translated, following the LXX, this way: “You are a priest forever according to the order of Melchizedek.” (NSRV). It is this reference to Melchizedek in Ps. 110 (LXX 109) that heavily influenced the later Christian understanding of him. Many Christians know Melchizedek from his multiple mentions in chapters 5-7 in the New Testament epistle to the Hebrews, where he is invoked as proof that Jesus qualifies as both as king of Israel and as high priest, despite not being of the tribe of Levi.” ~Melchizedek, King of Sodom, Cargill, Introduction.

He was King of Righteousness, King of Peace, Son of God, having neither a beginning of days nor an end of life. – Hebrews 7:2-3.

“When David conquered Jerusalem, he conquered a Jebusite city which would have had its own established cult and Temple. Of this nothing is known for certain, although it is widely thought that the mysterious Melchizedek figure who appears in the Abraham stories ( Genesis 14:18-20) is a memory of the Canaanite high god El Elyon in Jerusalem. The Old Testament never condemned El Elyon when Baal and all other Canaanite gods were denounced which suggest that the high god, in some form, retained a place in the new cult of his ancient city.” ~The Gate Of Heaven, Margaret Baker p.15.

“J. C. O’Neills argument in “The Death of the Teacher of Righteousness in Hebrews 13:12-23″ JHC 7/2 ( Fall 2000)” that the letter to the Hebrews seems to be talking about the day of atonement rather than Passover. “Death of Jesus?” in every instance in various old manuscripts there is some funny business about the name Jesus or the title Christ, it’s either that it has a pronoun without a name, others have “Jesus”, others have “Christ”, it implies ( according to O’Neill) that perhaps it wasn’t about Jesus, that it was a Christianized Essene or Qumran document. They were talking about the assassination of the Teacher of Righteousness whom they believed to be resident in heaven offering sacrifices on behalf of his people.”

“The blood ritual and judgment at the heart of time were followed by the great feast of Tabernacles and the enthronement of the Lords anointed in triumph over the judged and defeated powers of evil. This was represented in the Melchizedek text by a quotation from Isaiah: ‘How beautiful on the mountains are the feet of those who bring good news, who proclaim peace, who bring good tidings, who proclaim salvation, who say to Zion, Your Elohim reigns ( Isaiah52:7, 11QMelch)

After the enthronement, the creation was renewed. All this was claimed by the first Christians as giving the truest expression of the meaning of the death and resurrection of Jesus. The fulfillment of the blood ritual was explored in the epistle to the Hebrews as Jesus as the new Melchizedek. Also in Colossians 2:15 with its assertion that the powers of evil had been defeated and in Revelation with the ascension, enthronement and renewal of creation.”~ The Gate of Heaven, Margaret Baker,62-63

The Melchizedek scroll describes a heavenly messiah that became associated with Jesus in Hebrews.

PROPHET MESSIAH

Paul E. Hughes [4] sees a prophetic messiah in the scrolls, figures like Isaiah, Jeremiah and Ezekiel. But it is Moses (Exodus2-3) that is the ideal prophet messiah type. Both NT and Qumran use Moses as a prophetic and messianic figure. 4Q175 testimonia text, refers to a prophet like Moses, quoting two texts from Deuteronomy, the second of which is Deut18:18-19, about the raising up of a prophet like Moses in a context that considers the matter of prophetic authority. 4Q377 (Apocrophon Of Moses C) refers to the post-Exodus Sinai revelation imprecating a curse on those who fail to keep “all the commandments of the Lord as spoken by Moses his messiah”.(4Q377 2 4-6).

As studied by Dale Allison, Matthew models his Jesus on the prophet Moses.[5]

SUFFERING MESSIAH

The Joseph text 4Q372.

In fragment 1 Joseph is mentioned twice:

‘and in all this Joseph was cast into the hands he did not k[now]’ line 10, ‘in all this Joseph [was given] into the hands of foreigners’ line14-15

The opening words of the psalm ( line 16) has ‘my father and my god’.

The references of God as father is infrequent in Hebrew literature. The NT speaks frequently of God as father.

The text is referring to the fall of the historical northern kingdom. This study suggests the Joseph figure of 4Q372 appears to be a righteous king or `eschatological patriarch’ who quotes in his death-throes Psalms 89 and 22, like the suffering Ephraim Messiah of Pesikta Rabbati 36-37. ( “Messiah Ben Joseph”).

The text is reflective of the tension and polemics of the Jerusalem community and the community centered at Mt Gerizim (ie the Samaritans) who based their claim to legitimacy on their descent from Joseph.

4Q372 is not history but prophecy, a view supported by its verbal forms. Such an interpretation has implications for the dating of a Josephite messiah.

Were 4Q373 to reflect the gospels as a political statement….

It talks of the exile of Joseph and his suffering under foreign rulers. Messiah Ben Joseph belongs to the northern tribes. It speaks of a prayer for restoration of himself and destruction of his enemies occupying his land.

4Q372 suffers the same predicament as the gospels, is it on about a concrete figure or an idealised figure?

A messiah similar to a suffering messiah such as messiah Ben Joseph is also seen in Marks gospel. The disciple in Marks gospel misunderstand that Jesus has to suffer and instead had wanted a glorious messiah.[6]

ANACHRONISMS IN THE GOSPELS

ANACHRONISMS

According to Burton Mack in his book “Who Wrote the New Testament”, the pious Pharisee movement did not exist IN GALILEE [they were plentiful in Judea] until after 70 C.E., when Jews were forced out of Jerusalem and headed north.

Likewise, the use of the term “rabbi” for scribes and teachers was not in vogue until the end of the first century C.E. And yet already in Mark, Jesus is called “Rabbi,” and is debating with Pharisees in Galilean Synagogues!

Well one thing is it didn’t happen and two, our gospels are written much later than consensus tells us.

1. THE PHARISEES

At least a couple of well-known biblical scholars do give us reason to doubt the popular gospel image of Jesus bumping into Pharisees with every step he took in Galilee.

Though there may have been the odd Pharisee in Galilee prior to 70 ce the impression given by the gospels that they were a significant presence there, is unlikely historical— for the following reasons:

A) Evidence of Josephus; it is clear from his War II. 569-646, and even more from his Vita (28-406 and especially 197f.), that as late as 66 Pharisees might be respected in Galilee for their legal knowledge (through Josephus’ suggestion of this is suspect as part of his pro-Pharisaic propaganda), but they were certainly rare: the only ones Josephus encountered were sent from Jerusalem, and had been chosen to impress the Galileans by their rarity.

B)There is strong evidence that there were practically no Pharisees in Galilee during Jesus’ lifetime. A generation later, when the great Pharisee Yohanan ben Zakkai lived there for eighteen years, only two cases were brought to him for decision; he reportedly cursed the country for hating the Law – it was destined to servitude. Y. Shabbat XVL.8 (15d. end).

Not exactly Pharisee turf, then-till decades after Jesus.

C) The rabbis inherited the traditions of the Pharisees; among these traditions, it seems, there were none about Jesus.

This anachronism reflects the flight of Pharisees and other refugees into Galilee (which “hated the Torah”) after 70AD where these strict sect members were not liked by the locals.

In Jesus’ day, since the spirituality of Pharisaism was the extension of temple purity codes into the surrounding homes of the pious. Jerusalem, then, was where the action was for the Pharisees, not Galilee. The picture of Jesus debating with scribes and Pharisees coming down from Jerusalem is anachronistic due to lack of a Pharisees pre 70AD.

2. RABBI

The term “RABBI” (Hebrew/Aramaic for “My master”) was not in vogue implies an anachronism.

Mark 10.51 [and other]

Α.Jewish Encyclopedia entry “rabbi”

“Sherira’s statement shows clearly that at the time of Jesus there were no titles; and Grätz (“Gesch.” iv. 431), therefore, regards as anachronisms the title “Rabbi” (my master) as given in the gospels to John the Baptist and Jesus, ..”

Β. Geza Vermes p. 26 of “The changing faces of Jesus”

“Nor was he a “rabbi” in the technical sense despite being repeatedly addressed as such… It is even questionable whether the term ‘rabbi’ in the specialized meaning was current in the early decades of the first century AD. The great Jewish masters who lived in the age of Jesus, Hillel, Shammai, Gamaliel, are all called “elders” [Grk. “presbyters”] not ‘rabbis’.”

Hyam Macoby ‘The Mythmaker’ p 21

“Thus the assembly of sages [as the Pharisee leaders were called before the destruction of the Jerusalem Temple in AD 70; after which they became known as ‘rabbis’ …”

This surely has happened with Jesus when he is called Rabbi, a term we are told only began to take on titular use sometime in the second century C.E.

Date suggested:

Post 70, ce stretching to the time when calling Jewish sages “rabbi” became common enough for the author of “Mark” to [incorrectly] and anachronistically place it in the earlier purported era of Jesus, it is evident that the term rabbi was not in vogue until after the destruction of the Temple. In the contemporary literature many sages were quoted without the prefix of rabbi. Jose ben Joezer, Simon Ben Shetah, Shmmai, Hillel, Shammai, Nahum and many others. We have substantial literature of the period namely Josephus, Apocalyphal, Philo and early tannaitic literature before the destruction of the Temple. In none of this literature does the term rabbi occur. But when did it become common? Some time after the turn of the century? Rabbi as a title for esteemed/learned Jewish teachers is a post-Second Temple phenomenon. This period is called Rabbinic Judaism for a reason.

Which thus suggests a second century date for the writing of Mark.

3. “ALL the Jews wash their hands…”

Mark 7:3

From Nineham “St.Mark” p.193

“According to the Jewish experts, the evidence of the Talmud is that in the time of Jesus ritual washing of the hands before meals was obligatory only on the priests… but the ordinary layman -including the Pharisee and the scribe- was not concerned about such questions […] It is agreed by everyone that about 100AD, or a little later, ritual washing did begin to become obligatory on all…”

So it seems possible that Mark’s statement that “ALL the Jews wash their hands” is inaccurate for the purported era of JC but possibly accurate for a time several decades later.

Thus: Suggested date: Early 2Century

Sanders writes, p. 186 of Jesus and Judaism (1985)

Mark says that ‘the Jews’ washed their hands before eating (7:3), but in Jesus’ day it would have been a small number of them. The Rabbis eventually made handwashing ‘normative’, and it is worth nothing that it is one of the very few practices of ritual purity which have continued. But before 70 the common people did not accept the practice. That is so by definition: had they done so they would have met one of the requirements of the haberim [akin to the notion of Pharisees].

4. SHROUDS

Mark 15:46

“And he bought a linen shroud, and …wrapped him in the linen shroud and laid him in a tomb […] and he rolled a stone against the door of the tomb.

Jewish Encyclopedia [see headings]

Α.Gamaliel

“Gamaliel insured the perpetuation of his memory by his order to be buried in simple linen garments, for the example which he thus set put an end to the heavy burial expenses which had come to be almost unbearable …(Ket. 8b).”

Β.Mo’ed Katan

“It was not until after Rabban Gamaliel had been buried in simple linen garments that this custom became general.”

Γ.Shroud.

“This caused R. Gamaliel, about fifty years after the destruction of the Temple, to inaugurate the custom of using a simple linen shroud for rich and poor alike (Babylonian Talmud, Moed Katan 27b).”

So, according to the JE, about c120ce the custom was started of burial in a shroud thus suggesting this anachronism [JC being buried in a shroud] was written sometime after that date.

5. CIRCULAR TOMBS

From Richard Carrier: “There is another reason to doubt the tomb burial: the tomb blocking stone is treated as round in the Gospels, but that would not have been the case in the time of Jesus, yet it was often the case after 70 C.E., just when the gospels were being written. Amos Kloner, in “Did a Rolling Stone Close Jesus’ Tomb?” (Biblical Archaeology Review 25:5, Sep/Oct 1999, pp. 23-29, 76), discusses the archaeological evidence of Jewish tomb burial practices in antiquity. He observes that “more than 98 percent of the Jewish tombs from this period, called the Second Temple period (c. first century B.C.E. to 70 C.E.), were closed with square blocking stones” (p. 23), and only four round stones are known prior to the Jewish War, all of them blocking entrances to elaborate tomb complexes of the extremely rich (such as the tomb complex of Herod the Great and his ancestors and descendants). However, “the Second Temple period…ended with the Roman destruction of Jerusalem in 70 C.E. In later periods the situation changed, and round blocking stones became much more common” (p. 25).

6. DENARII

Donald Ariel in “A Survey of Coin Finds in Jerusalem,” through a systematic analysis of surface excavations and coin finds, concludes that significant numbers of denarii are found in Jerusalem only after 69 CE, particularly from the reign of Vespasian onward. This was because, after the destruction of the Jewish Temple in 70 CE, the currency and government in Judea changed dramatically. However, prior to this time (and during the time of Jesus) the primary silver currency in Judea (used for any taxation in coin) was the Tyrian shekel. For example, a coin hoard discovered at Isfiya, which contained coins dating from 40 BCE-53 CE, contained 4,400 Tyrian coins compared to only 160 denarii, of which about 30 were of Tiberius (Udoh, To Caesar What Is Caesar’s, pg. 235). To be sure, a few denarii made their way to Judea through circulation, but this proportion shows that Tyrian shekels were the dominant currency.

In light of this evidence, Udoh (To Caesar What Is Caesar’s, pg. 236) concludes, “the imperial denarii were not required for Roman taxation, and they did not form the basis of the silver currency of the region. The connection that is made in the Gospels, especially in Matt 22:19, between Roman taxation in Judea and the denarius does not offer any specific historical information about taxation in Jewish Palestine during Jesus’ lifetime.” Personally, I think that the passage is likely anachronistic and reflects tax collection practices after the destruction of the Jewish Temple in 70 CE.

7. TAXATION ISSUE

Mark12:13-17 “Later they sent some of the Pharisees and Herodians to Jesus to catch him in his words. They came to him and said, “Teacher, we know that you are a man of integrity. You aren’t swayed by others, because you pay no attention to who they are; but you teach the way of God in accordance with the truth. Is it right to pay the imperial tax to Caesar or not?Should we pay or shouldn’t we?” But Jesus knew their hypocrisy. “Why are you trying to trap me?” he asked. “Bring me a denarius and let me look at it.” They brought the coin, and he asked them, “Whose image is this? And whose inscription?”,”Caesar’s,” they replied. Then Jesus said to them, “Give back to Caesar what is Caesar’s and to God what is God’s.” And they were amazed at him.”

A.”CEASAR” changed from a personal name to an imperial title in the year of the four emperors, 68-69CE. The Julio-Claudine line came to a close and Galba was the first to adopt ceasar as an imperial title.

B. As stated above Denarii were rare until after the time of Nero.

C. Prewar taxation was extracted in kind and not by coin.

D. Fiscus Iudicus was an unpopular tax probably being referred to here introduced by Vespasian after the war.

8. The church

“You are Peter and on this ground I will build my church and the gates of hades will not overcome it.” Matt16:18.(cfMark8:29).

Could not have been said by Jesus because the ecclesiastical conceptions were too advanced for his time.

9. Against the Jews

The gospels portray Jesus as in conflict with “the Jews,” “the scribes,” and “the Pharisees,” implying Jesus was opposed to a monolithic “normative” Judaism-which did not yet exist! The Mishnah, a codification of scribal commentary on the Torah compiled by the end of the second century C.E., shows that the process of consolidating various earlier schools of thought and local, even idiosyncratic traditions of observance (e.g., in a certain village, of a certain scribe and his disciples) was a later endeavor beginning at Yavneh, the northern Palestinian town where, with Roman permission, Rabbi Johannon ben-Zakkai organized a new, postwar Sanhedrin empowered to adjudicate purely religious issues. When, as recently, some Christian scholars’ have been willing to notice these anachronisms, it is difficult enough for them to draw the unwelcome inference that the gospel traditions in question must be removed from consideration as evidence for the historical Jesus.

10. Eliezer ben Hyrkanus.

Jesus expresses the opinion that a vow to dedicate one’s property to the temple at the expense of one’s family forces a breach of the commandment to honor one’s parents, and hence, presumably, ought to be considered null and void (Mark 7:11-13). The same opinion was remembered as an innovation, and a controversial one, credited to Eliezer ben Hyrkanus, a later figure whose career spanned the destruction of the Temple. It is thus not an issue that had been hotly debated before Eliezer’s time, e.g., by Jesus and the scribes. The Mishnah has no trouble having Eliezer adopt a view first propounded by Jesus when it wants to. Had Eliezer adopted the view from Jesus’ halakhah, this would have provided all the more reason for the sages to disdain it, but of this we hear nothing.

11. WOMEN INITIATING DIVORCE

Also, when the Jesus states “And if a woman shall put away her husband, and be married to another, she committeth adultery” in Mark 10:12, in response to the Pharisees’ question about divorce, this is an anachronism, as women did not have the right to initiate a divorce in Judaism at that time.

As Powell states: “The Gospels were probably written in various cities of the Roman Empire in settings different from that in which Jesus lived. If what they report of Jesus is accurate, historians say, it should be free of anachronism. Sayings of Jesus that would make more sense applied to Gentile merchants living in cities than to Jewish peasants in rural areas may be regarded with suspicion. For example, in Mark’s Gospel Jesus says, “Whoever divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery against her; and if she divorces her husband and marries another, she commits adultery” (Mark 10:11-12). Under Jewish law, only husbands were allowed to initiate divorce. The second half of this saying, therefore, is anachronistic.” – Mark Allan Powell, Jesus as a figure in History, p.49

12. TWO HIGH PRIESTS

One such example concerns high priests Annas and Caiaphas. According to the Gospels, the two high priests hold their positions in tandem.

Judging by A.J 18.34-35, Annas ruled from 6 C.E. and was deposed in 15 C.E. Josephus subsequently mentions three high priests (Ishmael ben Fabus, Eleazar ben Annas, and Simon ben Camithus) before Caiaphas assumes the position, in 18 C.E. And Annas is never mentioned again. Thus, judging from Josephus’ narrative, Caiaphas ruled alone.

Curiously, however, Josephus does name two other co-reigning high priests a couple of decades later: The joint high priesthood of Jonathan, son of Annas, and Ananias, son of Nebedaios commences between 48 and 52 C.E., and Josephus refers to them as “Jonathan and Ananias, the high priests” (B.J. 2.243). When he is killed by the Sicarii, under Felix, Jonathan is still, according to A.J. 20.162 and B.J. 2.256, “the high priest”, and Ananias remains in office.

13. Disciples of Pharisees

Now John’s disciples and the Pharisees were fasting. Some people came and asked Jesus, “How is it that John’s disciples and the disciples of the Pharisees are fasting, but yours are not?”Mark2:18(CfLuke5:33)

Since the Pharisees were not priests per se but pious unlearned laymen, it would be unusual to have disciples in the clerical sense. The phrase did not come into use until after the destruction of the Temple.

14. Nazareth

“Can anything good come out of Nazareth?” asks a prospective disciple in the Gospel of John (1:46). Price has shown this is an anachronism: Nazareth fell into disrepute with Jews only decades after the alleged time of Jesus –and precisely because it became associated with him. Before the Gospels, no one disparages Nazareth –because no one seems to have heard of it before the Gospels.

15. Great Commission

the Great Commission to preach the gospel among the nations (Matt. 28:19, Luke 24:47, [Mark 16:15]). If Jesus had really said this, how can we imagine the controversy over Peter preaching to the Gentile Cornelius (Acts 10-11) ever having arisen? How can Peter have been initially reluctant? How can his colleagues in Jerusalem have called him on the carpet, questioning his orthodoxy? If the parting words of the Risen Christ were a command to preach to Gentiles, whence the dispute?

Jesus is made to address some issue or situation that probably could not have arisen in his own day but more likely emerged only in the early Christian community after him.

16. Baptism

“They came to John and said to him, “Rabbi, that man who was with you on the other side of the Jordan—the one you testified about—look, he is baptizing, and everyone is going to him.”(John3:26).

John the evangelist retrojects the baptismal competition into the days of Jesus and John themselves. The improbable result is that Jesus himself is overseeing the baptism of new disciples and in great numbers. John3:22-30.

The self-effacing Baptist assures his anxious disciples that he is not worried; he only ever intended to prepare the stage for Jesus, and now he is happy to retire to the wings. The Baptist reader knows what he has to do next: drop his outmoded loyalty to John and get with the Jesus movement.

As you can see it is the church in the evangelist’s day that is being depicted.

17. Excommunicated

Evangelist John has a newly sighted man excommunicated from the synagogue on account of his faith in Jesus (John9:34), something his parents fear as well (John9:22) in light of the general excommunication that had been decreed. But such witch-hunts all transpired decades later, as John knows the reader knows (16:1-4). The Pharisees in John 9 even view Jesus as the founder of a rival religion (John9:28, cf. 1:17), a development much too late for the lifetime of Jesus.

18. Zachariah Baruck

The Gospel of Matthew records his name as “Zechariah son of Berechiah”. He is one whose murder Jesus alluded to in Matthew 23:35 and Luke 11:50-51 ( and therefore ‘Q’ which makes ‘Q’ a late gospel too!) The venerable theologian Adam Clarke suggests that this allusion by Jesus was actually to Zacharias Baruch, who was indeed slaughtered ‘in the middle of the Temple’ in the late AD 60s. Clarke says of this: “Some think that Jesus refers … to the murder of Zacharias son of Baruch … They gave him a mock trial, and when no evidence could be brought against him … two of the stoutest of the zealots fell upon him and slew him in the middle of the temple.” Clarke has taken this possible allusion from Josephus Flavius’ Jewish War 4:343.

19. Little Apcalypse

In the introduction to the Little Apocalypse, where Jesus is made to predict the utter destruction of the Temple (Mark13:1–2) and in the Apocalypse itself, when the Pauline Mission is anticipated (Mark13:9–10), but even more importantly, in the depiction of the rending of the Temple veil at his death (Mark 15:38 and pars). This veil was more than likely damaged in the final Roman assault on the Temple or in the various altercations and the turmoil preceding this. Josephus specifically refers to it, along with its replacement materials, as having been delivered to the Romans after the assault on the Temple.

20. TEMPLE VEIL RIPPED

Titus bragged as he confessed that he “took a sword and slashed the curtain” – (b. Git. 56b; Wars5.5.5) Circa 70CE, Roman witnesses saw and heard Titus bragging about it while he had the veil in a procession that was marched throughout the streets of Rome. An imperial arch was built (the Arch of Titus) with detailed reliefs. These reliefs clearly illustrated General Titus sacking the Jerusalem temple.

The Gospel of Mark made the allegation that it was done by God (Mark 15:38). Luke 23:45; Matthew 27:51 repeated and enhanced the allegation. Mark claimed the veil in the temple was ripped wide open when Jesus died.

After Jesus died, all of the Temple activities and services carried on as normal in every way.

All veils were completely intact before Jesus died and stayed that way until forty years afterward.

Despite the mythical claims in Mark’s gospel, the veil was still in place and still intact in 70CE. When Matthew rewrote Mark’s story (c. 90CE), he included three hours of darkness, earthquakes, tombs splitting open and the claim that “many holy people who had died were raised to life” (Matthew 27:45-53). If this was historically true, how is it that no one noticed it at that time?

21. Words of Jesus using Pauls epistles

Notice that Mark 4:11 says “the mystery of the kingdom of God has been given to you.” At first reading this does not make sense. Matthew and Luke edited this statement by Jesus to “To you it has been given to know the secrets of the kingdom of heaven/God” (Matt 13:11, Luke 8:10). The evangelists are all referring to 1 Cor 15:50-51 where Paul mentions “mystery” and “kingdom of God.” Marks Jesus, adopted as his son by God at his baptism (Gal 4:5-7, Rom 8:13-16), taught Pauline Christianity. Paul’s Christology was gleaned from the epistles(Gal 1:12, 3:1, Rom 1:2, 15:4, 16:25–26).

Mark 12:10-36 is organized: quote from Ps 118 which is also quoted at Rom 8:31, teaching parallel to Rom 13:1-7, Teaching parallel to 1 Cor 15:12-14, Teaching parallel to 1 Cor 15:35-51, teaching parallel to Rom 13:8-10, quote from Ps 110 which is also quoted at 1 Cor 15:25. Mark organized that section Ps, Rom, 1 Cor, 1 Cor, Rom, Ps. This is a chiastic structure that the reader could only discern if he knew Romans and 1 Corinthians. Every pericope in Mark has a chiastic structure and the entire gospel is organized chiastically. The organization of Mark 12:10-36 cannot be a coincidence, the author must have been familiar with Paul’s epistles.

All synoptic evangelists used the Pauline epistles in their gospels.

22. Idea of atonement

A human sacrifice is not necessary if the Temple is still standing. Jesus does not have to equate himself with the Temple.

“The Jews then responded to him, “What sign can you show us to prove your authority to do all this?” Jesus answered them, “Destroy this temple, and I will raise it again in three days.” They replied, “It has taken forty-six years to build this temple, and you are going to raise it in three days?” But the temple he had spoken of was his body. After he was raised from the dead, his disciples recalled what he had said. Then they believed the scripture and the words that Jesus had spoken. ”

— John 2:18–22( Cf Matt26:60-62)

23. Nicodemus ben Gurion

The figure of Nicodemus (name means conquerer of the People) appears three times in the Fourth Gospel, in conversation with Jesus by night (3:1-21), in a meeting of the high priests and Pharisees where he warns against condemning Jesus without giving him the hearing required by the Law (7:50-52), and at the burial of Jesus, where, working with Joseph of Arimathea, he provides a rich abundance of spices (19:38-42).

Scholars have suspected that the figure reflects a known individual, evoking someone known to John’s readers as having possessed immense wealth. That someone would be Talmudical Nicodemus ben Gurion. b.Ta‘an 19b-20a; b.Avod.Zar 25a. This would be anachronistic as Josephus(War2:451) mentions a Gurion son of Nicodemus who is part of a trio who accepts the surrender of the Roman garrison in Jerusalem in 66.

24. certain parables

PARABLES

Mark 12:1-9. “The Parable of the Vineyard” aka the parable of the wicked husbandmen

The owner [god] of a vineyard [Israel] sends servants [the prophets] to the tenants [Jews] of the vineyard to collect rent. The Jews kill the prophets (cf 1 Thess. 2:14-16) so god sends his son [JC] and the Jews kill him also. God destroys the tenants [Roman Jewish War] and gives the vineyard to others [non Jews and Christians].

This means that this is a post-70 CE parable. And continues the false theme of Jews killing their prophets while also promoting the theme that non-Jews can now inherit god’s kingdom (cf Eph 3:6).

Mark 2:22 The Parable of the Old Wineskins

“And no one pours new wine [the gospel] into old wineskins [the law]. If he does, the wine will burst the skins, and both the wine and the wineskins will be ruined. No, he pours new wine into new wineskins.”

A subtle commentary on strict differentiation and incompatibility between Jews and Christians, which doesn’t happen until the late first century.

25. The Passover Lamb

The Passover lamb was NOT a sin offering. It has nothing to do with atonement of sin or any such thing. That would be Yom Kippur (Day of Atonement) in the Fall. This is a later Christian concept.

Second item, the reason for what seems to be timing issues is due to the author of Mark telling a story that occurred before 70 well after 70, and uses the nomenclature of post-70 Judaism to try to tell what happened in pre-70 Judaism. Its like the grandfather of all anachronisms! So you have items and concepts being conflated (for example you don’t prepare for Passover on the first day of Unleavened Bread!) And Matthew and Luke copy these issues. But then later down the pipe John tries to correct these issues.

26.

Since the fall of the city a few months earlier \[in 70 C.E.\], Jerusalem had been occupied by the Roman Tenth Legion \[X Fretensis\], whose emblem was a pig. Mark’s reference to about two thousand pigs, the size of the occupying Legion, combined with his blatant designation of the evil beings as Legion, left no doubt in Jewish minds that the pigs in the fable represented the army of occupation. Mark’s fable in effect promised that the messiah, when he returned, would drive the Romans into the sea as he had earlier driven their four-legged surrogates.”~William Harwood, Mythology’s Last Gods.

———————————————————-

All of these anachronism indicate that the author did not remember or know about life prior to 70 CE. If Mark was written c. 70, then the author would have remembered details about society prior to 70 and these anachronisms wouldn’t be there. Just like if I had written something c. 2001 In the aftermath of the World Trade Centre, I would have remembered details about society prior to 2001. However, an author that was born close to 70 CE would include these sort of anachronisms when he matured, closer to the 2nd century.

SANITIZED JESUS AND THE MESSIAH STONE!

THE MESSIAH STONE:

Gabriels Revelation, also called Hazon Gabriel (the Vision of Gabriel) or the Jeselsohn Stone, is a stone tablet with 87 lines of Hebrew text written in ink, containing a collection of short prophecies written in the first person. The artifact is relatively rare in its use of ink on stone. It is dated to the late 1st century BCE or early first century CE and is considered important for understanding Jewish messianic expectations in the Second Temple Period.

If anything this stone shows that Jesus’s death and resurrection was not unique in Jewish culture and tradition! It shows a Jewish sect had prophesied a suffering messiah who would show signs after three days dead!

Around 10 BCE to 10 AD there was some Hebrew “scripture” inscribed on a tablet called “Gabriel’s Revelation” in which the angel Gabriel is talking to a messiah claimant, saying that even though he died, he would show signs in three days. Some scholars think that the messiah claimant referred to here is a Jew named Simon, who was one of Herod’s slaves who revolted (the Jewish historian Josephus writes about him in his work “Antiquities of the Jews”.

“and was so bold as to put a diadem on his head: while a certain number of the people stood by him: and by them he was declared to be a King” Ant17.10.6).

The latest on the translation of line 80 of the Gabriel stone is Ronald Hendel’s (2009) reading of “In three days, signs, I Gabriel command you” and has gained widespread support. The stone is authentic and is messianic. It says that a sign would come after 3 days of Simons death.

Simon of Peraea was called the King of the Jews, believed to be a Messiah. (see line 72 and its mention of “David the servant of YHWH). Just like in the gospel of Mark, this messiah was a suffering messiah (messiah Ben Yosef is known as a suffering messiah). This Messiah comes from Ephraim, or the “ Messiah son of Joseph”. (line 16). Just before Passover, the Romans beheaded him and crucified many of his followers outside Jerusalem. But his name was not Jesus, it was Simon, a self-proclaimed Messiah who died four years before Jesus was born.

Knohl now views Simon’s death, according to the inscription, as “an essential part of the redemptive process. The blood of the slain messiah paves the way for the final salvation”. ~Isreal Knohl, The Messiah before Jesus.

Knohl also believes to shed blood is not for the sins of people but to bring redemption to Israel.

Ephraim, or the Messiah son of Joseph, is a very different kind of messiah and reflects a new kind of messianism. This kind of messianism involves suffering and death.

It is believed it was created by followers of the Messianic leader, a group of people who followed him and he was killed during his war against the Romans.

Mr. Knohl is part of a larger scholarly movement that focuses on the political atmosphere in Jesus’ day as an important explanation of that era’s messianic spirit. As he notes, after the death of Herod, Jewish rebels sought to throw off the yoke of the Rome-supported monarchy, so the rise of a major Jewish independence fighter could take on messianic overtones.

——————————————————

Apocalyptic leaders were a dime a dozen in first century Judea and environs. In Antiquities17.10.8 any one of the unnamed rebels (religious leaders) were just like Jesus. The amount of apocalyptic literature from the period is insane. Judas the Zealot (Ant17.10.5), Simon of Pereae a slave of Herod the Great (Ant17.10.6) and Athronges the shepherd (Ant17.10.7 ) were all supported by multitudes, both Simon and Anthronges were declared King at a drop of a hat, by the rebels just like it was suggested that Jesus was ‘King of the Jews’. ( no royal blood necessary.) As shown from book 17 and 18 of Josephus Antiquities it was extremely dangerous for messianic types to gather a crowd. They usually got easily squashed by the Romans. Jesus was no exception, the Romans crucified Jesus for being ‘King of the Jews’. To be accused of being a King meant you were an insurrectionist. (Mark15:2).

“I should point out that there are aspects of the crucifixion narratives that stand up to historical scrutiny, as embodying historical fact rather than Christian theology. As one salient example: all of our accounts agree that Jesus was crucified on the order of the Roman governor Pontius Pilate, and that the death sentence was imposed because Jesus claimed to be the “king of the Jews,” a political charge of treason against the state (thus, independently, write Mark and John; see also the Gospel of Peter). Moreover, this charge was inscribed on a placard over Jesus’ head on the cross. This information is attested in a range of independent sources and accords perfectly well with what we know about the Roman administration of justice in first-century Palestine.”~Peter,Paul and Mary Magdalene,Ehrman,p.222-3.

“Crucifixion was a punishment that Rome reserved almost exclusively for the crime of sedition. The plaque the Romans placed above Jesus’s head as he writhed in pain—“King of the Jews”—was called a titulus and, despite common perception, was not meant to be sarcastic. Every criminal who hung on a cross received a plaque declaring the specific crime for which he was being executed. Jesus’s crime, in the eyes of Rome, was striving for kingly rule (i.e., treason), the same crime for which nearlyevery other messianic aspirant of the time was killed. Nor did Jesus die alone. The gospels claim that oneither side of Jesus hung men who in Greek are called lestai, a word often rendered into English as ‘thieves’ but which actually means ‘bandits’ and was the most common Roman designation for an insurrectionist or rebel.”~MK Abassi,Reza Aslan Jesus of Nazarath.

Cf John6:15. “Jesus, knowing that they intended to come and make him king by force, withdrew again to a mountain by himself.”

Cf Ant17.10.8 “And now Judea was full of robberies. And as the several companies of the seditious light upon any one to head them, he was created a King immediately, in order to do mischief to the publick.”

“The accounts which Josephus gives of these years [From Judas the Galilean to 70CE]tell only of Roman maladministration and the reaction, often violent, of the Jews. Moving in and out of this sorry tale are those whom he calls ‘brigands’, but who were in fact…patriots who conducted resistance operations from strongholds in the mountainous desert country”~SFG Brandon,Jesus and the Zealots,107.

Another example of Zealot resistance leaders operating in the mountains:

“Cumanus to avenge those that were killed; they would not hearken to them; but took their weapons, and intreated the assistance of Eleazar, the son of Dineus, a robber, who had many years made his abode in the mountains.”~Ant20.6.1

Cf John19:12 Upon this Pilate sought to release him, but the Jews cried out, “If you release this man, you are not Caesar’s friend; everyone who makes himself a king sets himself against Caesar.” 13 When Pilate heard these words, he brought Jesus out and sat down on the judgment seat at a place called The Pavement, and in Hebrew, Gabbatha. 14 Now it was the day of Preparation of the Passover; it was about the sixth hour. He said to the Jews, “Behold your King!” 15 They cried out, “Away with him, away with him, crucify him!” Pilate said to them, “Shall I crucify your King?” The chief priests answered, “We have no king but Caesar.

Cross reference this with a delegation of Jews coming to Augustus trying to “obtain a dissolution of kingly government”. (AJ 17.11.2). and ask yourself, what do they want instead? Are they of the opinion that “We have no King but Caesar”? (John19:15).

——————————————————-

“As we (depending on our sympathies) spoke of ‘freedom fighters’, ‘brothers’, ‘communists’, ‘rabble rousers’, and so on, men of first century Palestine (depending on their sympathies) spoke of ‘messiahs’ ‘prophets’, ‘deceivers’, ‘brigands’, ‘charlatans’. Jesus was located in these two ranges of variation- he won attention as a miracle worker, and was executed as a messiah, a would-be ‘King of the Jews’”~Morton, Jesus the Magician,19.

In Acts5:34, (story of Gamaliel’s speech) the Christian propaganda compared the Jesus movement to that of Judas and Theudas, whereas their movements broke up, it was unlikely the Jesus movements would not as God was on their side. What is really significant about this passage is not that Luke got his history wrong ( again putting Theudas before Judas) but that even Christians themselves expected Jesus to be seen as the same social type as Judas and Theudas.

There is real life and the there is gospel life, Jesus could very well be a sanitized version of real life leader of the down trodden, burdened conquered people.

——————————————————-

Compare the following passages in Antiquities to see the reason I’ve become neutral on historicity.

Ant18.85-87(Ant18.4.1):

85But the nation of the Samaritans did not escape without tumults. The man who excited them to it was one who thought lying a thing of little consequence, and who contrived every thing so that the multitude might be pleased; so he bid them to get together upon Mount Gerizzim, which is by them looked upon as the most holy of all mountains, and assured them, that when they were come thither, he would show them those sacred vessels which were laid under that place, because Moses put them there. 86So they came thither armed, and thought the discourse of the man probable; and as they abode at a certain village, which was called Tirathaba, they got the rest together to them, and desired to go up the mountain in a great multitude together; 87but Pilate prevented their going up, by seizing upon file roads with a great band of horsemen and foot-men, who fell upon those that were gotten together in the village; and when it came to an action, some of them they slew, and others of them they put to flight, and took a great many alive, the principal of which, and also the most potent of those that fled away, Pilate ordered to be slain.

Right throw a similar passage in the washing machine, what do you get:

Ant18.64-65 ( Ant18.3.3 AKA TF)

Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man; for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews and many of the Gentiles. He was [the] Christ. And when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him; for he appeared to them alive again the third day; as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him. And the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day.

———————————————————

Eusibius did the washing. I believe it is a FULL REWRITE, not partial authentic.

“The passage remains controversial for several reasons, including the following: all extant Greek manuscripts are preserved by the church, and the earliest dates to the eleventh century (did pious monks add to a less “Christian” original?); Arabic versions lack this passage (did pious Muslim scribes remove it?); although Josephus sometimes is cited by Patristic writers, this particular passage is not attested in the Patristic corpus prior to the fourth century; Josephus does not in any other writing, including his autobiography, attest to Christian belief himself; his accounting of the death of James, whom he describes as “the brother of Jesus, the so-called Christ” (Ant. 20.9.1), still does not indicate that Josephus had become a member of the movement.”~The Historical Jesus in Context, Edited by Amy-Jill Levine, Dale Allison and JDCrossan, p20 [This passage comes from the Introduction written by Amy-Jill].

———————————————————

Eusebius quotes the Testimonium in three of his extant works: the Demonstration of the Gospel 3.5.106, the Ecclesiastical History1.11.8, and the Theophany 5.44. Eusebius rewrote it so thoroughly that was thought impossible to recover a Josephan original.

The passage fits much better into the larger literary context it occupies in Eusebius’ work. Eusebius uses the passage as part of an extended argument that he makes in the Demonstration and later reproduces in Theophany. He had to defend the incarnation and answer the charges of critics of Christianity, such as Porphyry’s argument against the divinity of Jesus calling him the wise man of the Hebrews and also that Christians had mistakenly taken him to be divine.

The phrase kata touton ton chronon (“around this time”) appears nowhere else in Josephus’s writings and is Eusibean. Josephus repeatedly, thus normally, uses the phrase kata touton ton kairon (“about this time”).

Other Eusibean phrases used but nowhere else in Josephus include:

“wise man”

“teacher of human beings”

“worker of amazing deeds”

“Christian…tribe”

receiving godly things “with pleasure”

“the truth” in the plural to mean the truth of God

and the exact phrase “and myriads of other things”

and the exact phrase “to this very day”

https://chs.harvard.edu/CHS/article/display/5871.5-a-eusebian-reading-of-the-testimonium-flavianum-ken-olson

—————————————————-

What do you get? A sanitized Jesus. All over book17 and book18 of Josephus Antiquities you get apocalyptic leaders that are referred to as ‘deceivers’ ‘innovators’ of the people. Ant18.3.3 is a very cleaned up.

Mandaeans and Nazoreans were baptizing sects that started near the Jordan. Those groups had to have cult leaders, perhaps the legends are based on them, the gospels just inverses their stories, therefore a sanitized Jesus.

Also the gospels which are similar to the passage above (Ant18.3.3) and are also of a glorified sanitized religious apocalyptic leader.

Once you cut out the fake Christian history, it becomes plausible such a character as Jesus could have existed, hidden behind rewrites.

——————————————————

In 1971, a 10th-century Arabic version of the Testimonium from the chronicle of Agapius of Hierapolis was presented by Shlomo Pines, who also discovered a 12th-century Syriac version of the Testimonium in the chronicle of Michael the Syrian. These additional manuscript sources have furnished additional ways to evaluate Josephus’ mention of Jesus in the Antiquities, principally through a close textual comparison between the Arabic, Syriac and Greek versions to the Testimonium.

Stephen C. Carlson ( see link at end of post) has followed up a curious footnote in Meiers book “A Marginal Jew” Vol 1 page 101, footnote 12, where it has been studied ( by Franz Dornsieff, “Lukas der Schriftsteller. Mit einem Anhang: Josephus und Tacitus,” ZNW 35 (1936): 148-55.), that Tacitus has used Josephus as one of his sources. Because of this he may have preserved the original TF. ( before Eusibius got his dirty hands on it)!

Here is what the reconstruction may have looked like:

TESTIMONIAN FLAVIAN RECONSTRUCTION FROM TACITUS

>>>Now there was about this time a man, an innovator and deceiver of the people. Through his sorcery and innovations he drew over to him many Galileans and by them he was seen to be a King: For fear of the influence of a great many people, he suffered the extreme penalty at the hands of governor (ἡγεμών), Pilate who condemned him to be crucified. Many of his followers, the Galileans were slain and thus checked for the moment. The movement again broke out with wild fury and mischievous superstition not only in Judæa, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular.<<<

———————————————

As can be seen from Annals15:44, the entirety of Tacitus’s information about Jesus is paralleled in Josephus, AJ 18, if not in the Testimonium, then nearby in the book. Even more significant, the use of Josephus explains the erroneous title for Pontius Pilate as a governor (ήγεμών) whereas his actual title was procurator (επίτροπος). The Greek term Josephus uses for Pilate elsewhere (ἡγεμών) Ant18.3.1 was non-specific, and Tacitus had to guess (and guess incorrectly) what Pilate’s Latin title would have been. (This would argue against Tacitus having a Roman source and would argue in favor of Josephus being his source).

—————————————————–

I’ve built on top of Carlson’s reconstruction with the following reasons:

• On one of the four points where the TF meets the Annals, it uses the phrase “mischievous superstition”. I thought that was rather Tacitean and replaced it with ‘innovator’ and ‘deceiver’ which is more Josephean.

• I replaced the line, “He drew over to him both many of the Jews and many of the Gentiles.” With “ He drew over to him many Galileans” as the original line sounds Paulinist. Also the early followers of Jesus were known as Galileans, as attested by Epitetus, Diss.4.7.6. Circa110-115AD (Cf Luke13.1-2; Mark14:70).

Diss. 4.7.6: “Well then, if madness can cause people to adopt such as attitude towards these things [not being scared at the swords of tyrants] and habit too, as in the case of the Galileans, can’t reason and demonstration teach people that God ha made all that is in the universe, and the universe itself as a whole, to be free…”

This passage shows that Christians were known to be persecuted by the Emperor Nero, and Epictetus had been within close proximity to the Emperor’s household.

• As with many messianic figure followers reported in Josephus works, they usually declared the would be leader a King, this is reflected in the reconstruction.

• The Arabic version does not blame the Jews for the death of Jesus. Instead of “he was Christ”, the Syriac version has the phrase “he was believed to be Christ”.

The key phrase “at the suggestion of the principal men among us” reads instead “Pilate condemned him to be crucified”. This phrase is reflected in the reconstruction. Origen attested that Josephus did not like the term “Christ” so I left that out (Contra Celsus I.47).

• The TF could not have been neutral because of what was written before and after it. I stated the Galileans were slain because of the opening line of this Ant 18.3.4

“About the same time also another sad calamity put the Jews into disorder: ~Ant18.3.4 and also see what was written before it:- “Who laid upon them much greater blows than Pilate had commanded them; and equally punished those that were tumultuous, and those that were not. Nor did they spare them in the least.“~ Ant18.3.2

• The interpolation of the TF into Slavonic Josephus Wars also does not name Jesus in the passage but refers to him as “there appeared a certain man”~Slavonic Wars2.9.3/4. This could have been a more primitive interpolation than Eusibius’ interpolation. I have gone for this in the reconstruction above. This could explain why Origen never cited this passage in all his works.

—————————————————

Here is the original TF:

Ant18.64-65 ( Ant18.3.3 AKA TF)

———————————————————

http://hypotyposeis.org/weblog/2004/08/a-pre-eusebian-witness-to-the-testimonium.html

———————————————————

Read the following to give you an idea of Apocalyptic leaders.

Antiquities17.10.4-8:

4. Now at this time there were ten thousand other disorders in Judea, which were like tumults, because a great number put themselves into a warlike posture, either out of hopes of gain to themselves, or out of enmity to the Jews. In particular, two thousand of Herod’s old soldiers, who had been already disbanded, got together in Judea itself, and fought against the king’s troops, although Achiabus, Herod’s first cousin, opposed them; but as he was driven out of the plains into the mountainous parts by the military skill of those men, he kept himself in the fastnesses that were there, and saved what he could.

5. There was also Judas, the son of that Ezekias who had been head of the robbers; which Ezekias was a very strong man, and had with great dificulty been caught by Herod. This Judas, having gotten together a multitude of men of a profligate character about Sepphoris in Galilee, made an assault upon the palace [there,] and seized upon all the weapons that were laid up in it, and with them armed every one of those that were with him, and carried away what money was left there; and he became terrible to all men, by tearing and rending those that came near him; and all this in order to raise himself, and out of an ambitious desire of the royal dignity; and he hoped to obtain that as the reward not of his virtuous skill in war, but of his extravagance in doing injuries.

6. There was also Simon, who had been a slave of Herod the King’s, but in other respects a comely person, of a tall and robust body; he was one that was much superior to others of his order, and had had great things committed to his care. This man was elevated at the disorderly state of things; and was so bold as to put a diadem on his head: while a certain number of the people stood by him: and by them he was declared to be a King: and thought himself more worthy of that dignity than any one else. He burnt down the royal palace at Jericho, and plundered what was left in it. He also set fire to many other of the King’s houses, in several places of the countrey; and utterly destroyed them: and permitted those that were with him to take what was left in them for a prey. And he would have done greater things unless care had been taken to repress him immediately. For Gratus, when he had joined himself to some Roman soldiers, took the forces he had with him, and met Simon: and after a great and a long fight, no small part of those that came from PERAEA, who were a disordered body of men, and fought rather in a bold than in a skilful manner, were destroyed. And although Simon had saved himself, by flying away through a certain valley, yet Gratus overtook him, and cut off his head. The royal palace also at Amathus, by the river Jordan, was burnt down by a party of men that were got together, as were those belonging to Simon. And thus did a great and wild fury spread itself over the nation: because they had no King to keep the multitude in good order: and because those foreigners, who came to reduce the seditious to sobriety, did, on the contrary, set them more in a flame: because of the injuries they offered them, and the avaricious management of their affairs.

7. But because Athronges, a person neither eminent by the dignity of his progenitors; nor for any great wealth he was possessed of; but one that had in all respects been a shepherd only, and was not known by any body: yet because he was a tall man, and excelled others in the strength of his hands, he was so bold as to set up for King. This man thought it so sweet a thing to do more than ordinary injuries to others, that although he should be killed, he did not much care if he lost his life in so great a design. He had also four brethren,20 who were tall men themselves, and were believed to be superior to others in the strength of their hands; and thereby were encouraged to aim at great things, and thought that strength of theirs would support them in retaining the Kingdom. Each of these ruled over a band of men of their own. For those that got together to them were very numerous. They were every one of them also commanders. But when they came to fight, they were subordinate to him, and fought for him. While he put a diadem about his head, and assembled a council to debate about what things should be done, and all things were done according to his pleasure. And this man retained his power a great while: he was also called King; and had nothing to hinder him from doing what he pleased. He also, as well as his brethren, slew a great many both of the Romans, and of the King’s forces; and managed matters with the like hatred to each of them. The King’s forces they fell upon, because of the licentious conduct they had been allowed under Herod’s government: and they fell upon the Romans, because of the injuries they had so lately received from them. But in process of time they grew more cruel to all sorts of men. Nor could any one escape from one or other of these seditions. Since they slew some out of the hopes of gain; and others from a mere custom of slaying men. They once attacked a company of Romans at Emmaus; who were bringing corn and weapons to the army: and fell upon Arius, the centurion, who commanded the company, and shot forty of the best of his foot soldiers. But the rest of them were affrighted at their slaughter, and left their dead behind them, but saved themselves by the means of Gratus; who came with the King’s troops that were about him to their assistance. Now these four brethren continued the war a long while, by such sort of expeditions: and much grieved the Romans; but did their own nation also a great deal of mischief. Yet were they afterwards subdued. One of them in a fight with Gratus: another with Ptolemy. Archelaus also took the eldest of them prisoner; while the last of them was so dejected at the others misfortune, and saw so plainly that he had no way now left to save himself, his army being worn away with sickness; and continual labours; that he also delivered himself up to Archelaus, upon his promise and oath to God [to preserve his life.] But these things came to pass a good while afterward.

8. And now Judea was full of robberies. And as the several companies of the seditious light upon any one to head them, he was created a King immediately, in order to do mischief to the publick. They were in some small measure indeed, and in small matters, hurtful to the Romans: but the murders they committed upon their own people lasted a long while.