“Rabbi Eliezer the Great says: from the day the Temple was destroyed, the sages began to be like scribes, scribes like synagogue-attendants, synagogue-attendants like common people, and the common people became more and more debased. And nobody seeks. Upon whom shall we depend? Upon our father who is in heaven. In the footsteps of the messiah insolence (hutzpah) will increase and the cost of living will go up greatly; the vine will yield its fruit, but wine will be expensive; the government will turn to heresy, and there will be no one to rebuke; the meeting-place [of scholars] will be used for licentiousness; the Galilee will be destroyed, the Gablan will be desolated, and the dwellers on the frontier will go about [begging] from place to place without anyone to take pity on them; the wisdom of the learned will rot, fearers of sin will be despised, and the truth will be lacking; youths will put old men to shame, the old will stand up in the presence of the young, “For son spurns father, daughter rises up against mother, daughter-in-law against mother-in-law a man’s own household are his enemies” (Micah 7:6). The face of the generation will be like the face of a dog, a son will not feel ashamed before his father. Upon whom shall we depend? Upon our father who is in heaven.” ~ Mishnah soter 9.5
The Mishnah preserves the fact that much of the blame for their dire circumstances comes from all the messianic figures who tried to strike a blow against oppression. In the footsteps of the messiah came suffering. In the immediate aftermath of the great revolt, (Roman Jewish war of 66-70 CE) messiahs were seen for bringing on trouble instead of being revered. This is also preserved in Josephus’ works who refuses to give the title messiah to any of these rebels who had been declared a king (and thus a king messiah). Instead Josephus alludes to that title for Vespasian. As stated in part 1 of my series of blogs on the historical Jesus, Josephus preferred to apply that title to Vespasian in his Roman propaganda, citing the Balaam prophecy (War 6.312-313). In part 2 of my blog series I gave a very important quote from Novenson who said “Josephus calls the Jewish insurgents “diadem-wearers” and not “messiahs.” Novonson said Josephus was not trying to hide the word but rendered it in a Roman idiom, actually highlighting these figures in a bad light. [1] Jesus being one of those messianic figures would have been described in a similar manner, I see no reason why Jesus would be the exception. Over the course of my other 3 parts in this series I see Jesus as the same as all the other Davidic militaristic messiahs and do not see why we should accept an exception in this matter either. It is the gospels that added the later pacific layer on top of Jesus. I have also shown in part one why it is extremely unlikely Josephus a Jew would have used the title messiah for Jesus which does not fit in with how he described all the other messianic figures. This also applies to the James passage found in Antiquities 20.9.1. I have already argued in part 1, that Josephus did not mention Christ in the Testimonium Flavianum, and here in this fourth part I will argue that he did not mention Christ in the James passage either.
NPL Allen [2] in his paper goes one step further than Richard Carriers’ [3] claim that the James passage in “Antiquities of the Jews” (AJ) contains an interlinear scribal error. Allen instead claims it was an actual Christian interpolation. I do think it was an inter linear scribal error just like Carrier suggested but I do not agree with the Jesus ben Damneus hypothesis. Josephus would never have introduced Ben Damneus twice (he is introduced at the end of Ant 20.9.1) as Carrier suggests. On Carriers’ hypothesis he would be introduced twice. The first time where Carrier speculated that it should read “James the brother of Jesus Ben Damneus.” The second time at the end of the passage. It also violates Josephus’ naming conventions. When Josephus references people to be a relation to siblings, it is because their parents are unknown or they had different parents. For example:
“brother of his, by the father’s side, whose name was Eliakim” (Antiquities 10.5.2).
So the Damneus idea is stretched.
I have a new theory how this came about.
Let us examine the line found in Ant 20.9.1:
AND now Caesar, upon hearing the death of Festus, sent Albinus into Judea, as procurator. But the king deprived Joseph of the high priesthood, and bestowed the succession to that dignity on the son of Ananus, who was also himself called Ananus. Now the report goes that this eldest Ananus proved a most fortunate man; for he had five sons who had all performed the office of a high priest to God, and who had himself enjoyed that dignity a long time formerly, which had never happened to any other of our high priests. But this younger Ananus, who, as we have told you already, took the high priesthood, was a bold man in his temper, and very insolent; he was also of the sect of the Sadducees, who are very rigid in judging offenders, above all the rest of the Jews, as we have already observed; when, therefore, Ananus was of this disposition, he thought he had now a proper opportunity [to exercise his authority]. Festus was now dead, and Albinus was but upon the road; so he assembled the sanhedrim of judges, and brought before them the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James, and some others, [or, some of his companions]; and when he had formed an accusation against them as breakers of the law, he delivered them to be stoned: but as for those who seemed the most equitable of the citizens, and such as were the most uneasy at the breach of the laws, they disliked what was done; they also sent to the king [Agrippa], desiring him to send to Ananus that he should act so no more, for that what he had already done was not to be justified; nay, some of them went also to meet Albinus, as he was upon his journey from Alexandria, and informed him that it was not lawful for Ananus to assemble a sanhedrim without his consent. Whereupon Albinus complied with what they said, and wrote in anger to Ananus, and threatened that he would bring him to punishment for what he had done; on which king Agrippa took the high priesthood from him, when he had ruled but three months, and made Jesus, the son of Damneus, high priest.
Josephus, Antiquities 20.9.1
If instead of the following line: “the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James” the original James passage had the following:
“James, son of Joseph”
Why didn’t Josephus say this which is the proper Jewish form of address? Actually at the start of 20.9.1 there is a high priest Joseph mentioned who was deprived of his position by Agrippa, perhaps it was originally written >>James, son of Joseph<<.
(“But the king deprived Joseph of the high priesthood”~ Ant20.9.1).
This Joseph had been given the high priesthood by King Agrippa:
When the king heard this news, he gave the high priesthood to Joseph, surnamed Cabi, the son of Simon the former high priest. (Ant. 20.8.11).
Instead of >>”brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James”<< Josephus could have originally written >>”James son of Joseph”<<
This is significant that if the passage was on about a different James other than the James who is a brother to Jesus- this other James would have been a son of a high priest, this would fit the passage Ant. 20.9.1 as this passage is about rival high priests! That’s just from examining passages before and after 20.9.1, It’s a passage about high priest rivalry – James Jesus’ brother would not have been involved, Jesus or James were no way near this class of people but “James son of high Priest Joseph” would. The “accusation against them as breakers of the law” would not apply to Torah strict James or Jesus, but it could apply to this other James.
If a scribe came across what could have been originally written by the hand of Josephus- “James son of Joseph”, he would automatically think “the brother of Jesus”. Origen may have also automatically thought this was the same James that was “the brother of Jesus, who is called Christ”. A scribe familiar with Origen’s writings could write this very phrase in the inter-linear column. Later scribes would mistake this as part of the text and may have added “who was called Christ”. This “James son of Joseph” may have got Origen thinking that this is James the Just when he did his exegesis in attributing it to the fall of Jerusalem. If the interpolation was of Origen school, he may have been influenced by what Origen has written before, as we will examine now.
“the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James” to describe James is seen in three passages taken from Origen’s writings:.:
1. COM, X, 17 / 5268: “James the brother of Jesus who is called Christ”;
2. Cels, I, 47: “James the Just, who was a brother of Jesus called Christ”; and
3. Cels, II, 13: “James the Just, the brother of Jesus who was called Christ”.
Origen mentions Josephus’ reference to James on four occasions: twice in his COM, X, 17 / 5268 – 5269, once in Cels. I, 47 and again in his Cels. II, 1
I will reproduce some of Origen’s Commentary on Matthew 10.17
“Flavius Josephus, who wrote the Antiquities of the Jews in twenty books, when wishing to exhibit the cause why the people suffered so great misfortunes that even the temple was razed to the ground, said, that these things happened to them in accordance with the wrath of God in consequence of the things which they had dared to do against James the brother of Jesus who is called Christ. And the wonderful thing is, that, though he did not accept Jesus as Christ, he yet gave testimony that the righteousness of James was so great:” (Comm. Matt. 10.17)
As seen below, “called Christ” has gospel tradition and seen from the quote, Origen discusses a passage instead of quoting it. The phrase “James the brother of Jesus who is called Christ” is pulled from gospel tradition. In the very next line then Origen writes “though he did not accept Jesus as Christ” so we can see “called Christ” was not pulled from the James passage. Same is going on with Contra Celsum 2.13 where Origen writes, “Josephus says, of James the Just, the brother of Jesus who was called Christ.” We know “James the Just” is not quoting the passage and neither is “who was called Christ.”
This makes much more sense than Carriers explanation and it fits as there is a high priest named Joseph deposed at the start of the passage. It makes for a very intriguing high priest rivalry where Ananus the Elder had dominated the high priesthood for most of the preceding decades, with eight high priests all coming from his family. It was Ananus II that had James executed. The Romans did not consider it illegal as they only removed Ananus from office, it was the fact he convicted James in the absence of a Roman official, an interregnum of procurators had existed and therefore the Great Sanhedrin had overstepped its authority and had upset the Romans.
A very good reason for suspecting that the James passage (or at least the words “who was called Christ”) was not original to Josephus was the fact that Josephus did not like to use the term ‘Christ’ in relation to Jesus.
You can see this by two comments from Origen.
CONTRA CELSUM 1.47 ( Origen)
“Now this writer [i.e. Josephus], although not believing in Jesus as the Christ….”
COMMENTARY ON MATTHEW X.17 (Origen)
“And the wonderful thing is, that, though he did not accept Jesus as Christ, he yet gave testimony that the righteousness of James was so great; and he says that the people thought that they had suffered these things because of James.”
CALLED CHRIST HAS GOSPEL TRADITION:
The participial phrase “(who is/who was) called Christ” (c.f. Antiquities, 20.9.1.200) does not actually include the verb “to be”. This is simply added into the English translation.
This is literally what it says in Greek:
“…and *having brought* before them (the council) the brother of Jesus, who *being called Christ*, *James – his name*…”
The participial phrase indeed matches the gospels. There is NO implication of PAST TENSE in «Ἰησοῦ τοῦ λεγομένου Χριστοῦ». And there’s no way to rephrase it to imply a present tense more explicitly.
Since, in the context of the current form of the text, Jesus is assumed to have died previously, it is totally appropriate to translate it in English as “…was called…”. The Greek phrasing should be totally non-controversial.
The same expression “called Christ” is both John 4:25 and Matthew 1:16: “of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ.” The phrase is found in a similar form in Matthew two more times, then in 27:17 and 27:22; and the author of the Gospel of Matthew has Pilate both times designating Jesus as that “Jesus who is called Christ”. The manner of letting a non-Christian witness identify Jesus as the one who was “called Christ” can accordingly be traced back to the Gospels. This would reasonably imply that it would not have felt unnatural for a Christian person with knowledge of the Gospel accounts to designate Jesus as the one called Christ, if he later found that Josephus ought to have mentioned Jesus.
“Called Christ” are the EXACT SAME phrase in different grammatical cases (nominative for ‘subject’, accusative for ‘direct object’ and genitive for ‘possessive’).
So what we observe in the English translations is a juxtaposition of the tense forms of “to be”, where past tense (“was”) is appropriate for Josephus and Origen (narrating events after Jesus’ death); while present tense (“is”) is appropriate for the Gospels (narrating events during Jesus’ life). English translators are forced to make a choice, while the Greek authors were not bound by such rules.
Ἰησοῦ τοῦ λεγομένου Χριστοῦ (genitive).
(Iêsou tou legomenou Christou)
Jesus who (was) called Christ
(Antiquities of the Jews 20:200).
Ἰησοῦς ὁ λεγόμενος Χριστός (nominative)
(Iêsous ho legomenos Christos)
Jesus, who (is) called Christ (Matt 1:16).
ὁ λεγόμενος Χριστός (nominative)
(ho legomenos Christos)
he] who ( is)called Christ (John 4:25).
Ἰησοῦν τὸν λεγόμενον Χριστόν (accusative)
(Iêsoun ton legomenon Christon)
Jesus who (is) called Christ (Matt 27:17).
Ἰησοῦν τὸν λεγόμενον Χριστόν (accusative)
(Iêsoun ton legomenon Christon)
with Jesus who (is) called Christ (Matt 27:22).
The only other early author (apart from the disputed Josephus) to mention James before the close of the second century C.E. is Hegesippus (cf. Fragments from the Acts of the Church; Concerning the Martyrdom of James, the Brother of the Lord, from Book 5), who as early as c. 165 – 175 C.E. tells his reader in great detail that James (as brother of the Lord) was hurled from the top of the Temple and then because he survived this attempt on his life he was then summarily stoned to death. Hegesippus also tells us that this happened immediately before the destruction of the Temple by Vespasian and as such it would point to a date of c. 68 – 70 C.E.
If this account is in any way accurate it means that the JP is in direct contradiction to both the date as well as the manner and circumstances of James’ death (The JP states that James was stoned along with “others” after due trial and sentencing by a high priest).
As Eisenman pointed out in his book James, the brother of Jesus, the issue is further compounded by the fact that, by the fourth and fifth centuries it was more normal for the mainstream church to defer from referring to Jesus as having flesh and blood brothers. In this regard, it will be recalled that in his DVI, 2 Jerome (c. 347 – 420 C.E.) maintains that James was Jesus’ cousin and the biological son of Mary of Cleophas. Jerome stresses that James was not the son of Joseph by another wife.
Although, in his Contra Celsum. II, 22, Origen makes it clear that he thinks that the death of Jesus was the ultimate cause for the destruction of the Temple, he repeatedly makes mention of Josephus’ reference to James in his many writings. He records Josephus as blaming the death of James for the destruction of Jerusalem and as has been clearly shown, Origen recurrently employs the almost identical phraseology as found in the JP today.
So to sum up, Josephus never introduced a figure twice in one passage. I have suggested a much better hypothesis where there was a high priest Joseph at the start of the passage. Ant 20.9.1 is about high priest rivalry and the stoning of this James in the interregnum of governors. If the passage originally read “James son of Joseph ” that would have given any scribe a hard-on and made him write in the interlinear column —- the brother of Jesus. It would have made all those commenting on it think it was a passage about James, when really this particular James may have had nothing at all to do with Christianity in the first place.
JOHN THE BAPTIST PASSAGE
Out of all the Bandits, messiahs and prophets dealt with by Josephus in the lead up to the Roman Jewish War 66-70CE, there are two exceptions to the rule of a negative portrayal. That is Jesus and John the Baptist.
I suspect it was not just the TF that was changed. The same would have happened to the Baptist passage. We all know how Josephus felt about messianic figures and he usually described them in a negative way. I will give one speculative example to show how easily this could be done.
Here’s an extract from the Baptist passage:
And when the others banded together for they were highly delighted (ήσθησαν) to listen to his words-Herod feared that the powerful influence which he exercised over men’s minds might lead to some act of revolt ; (Ant18.5.2)
ἥσθησαν ‘they were glad’ may have been a correction for ἤρθησαν ‘aroused’ to revolt.
By cleverly changing one letter ρ -> σ, would have toned down the whole passage, hiding the real reason Herod had the Baptist executed, mainly because he roused the crowd to sedition. It changed it from a political calling by the Baptist. It makes John as naive (αγαθός, agathós) and Herod Antipas as arbitrary. [4]
The following on baptism was meddled with:
“For in exactly this way one receiving the baptism appeared to him not to be obtaining a payment for their sinful deeds, but for purification of the body, inasmuch as the soul was already completely purified by righteousness.” [5]
This also agrees with Eusebius History (E. H. 1.11.5)
“for baptism would appear acceptable unto Him when they employed it, not for the remission of certain sins, but for the purification of the body, as the soul had been already purified in righteousness.”
Christians did not like that baptism atoned for sins, (it’s as if this would bypass Christ), so they negated the passage by putting in the word “not” and “but”. We have textual evidence where Rufinus’ Latin variant reverses the meaning of the Greek by saying that baptism can serve to wash away sins. In Origen’s copy we have a more primitive version: “John the Baptist, baptizing for the remission of sins” as reported in Cels 1.47.
Acts 19:4 has “Paul said, “John’s baptism was a baptism of repentance.” which has the same meaning as what the John the Baptist passage in Josephus at the time of Origen and preserved in Rufinus. The Slavonic probably has the original reading, where Baptising did none of that stuff- “except to immerse them in Jordan’s stream, and dismiss them”.
In the DSS community rule we have an example where Jews were ambiguous on baptism and if it did atone for sins in the ritual baths. (1QS 3:6–12, 1QS 4:20-22, Cf 4Q414 and 4Q512 which discuss the purification, repentance and atonement in more detail). Elsewhere in Life 11, Josephus says of Bannus “washing with cold water day and night frequently for sanctification, and I became his zealot.”
This shows that there was originally a passage there that Christians had to “fix”, just like the TF, Christians would not have meddled with such passages if they did not originally exist.
Rivka Nir abstract in her paper actually backs this up, “[the] text describes John’s baptism and its distinguishing characteristics as well as the similarities it shares with immersions common amid early Christian or Jewish-Christian sects. Of particular importance to uncovering the theological identity of this baptism is its description as an external physical purification, whose efficacy is preconditioned by inner spiritual purification. This essay shows that baptism of this nature did not exist amid mainstream Jewish circles of the Second Temple period. Such baptism appeared and developed within sectarian groups on the margins of Judaism, as at Qumran. It was then carried on and practised by early Christian or Jewish-Christian groups in the first centuries ce.” Despite Nir’s arguments for full interpolation the evidence only shows the passage meddled with. [7]
Both executions are very different, Johns on a whim of a single Jewish ruler for fear of fuelling revolutionary instincts, where Josephus is very critical of Antipas action, saying that God destroyed his army because of it. Even in the spruced up version of the TF do we not find even a hint of criticism directed against Pilate. In the Baptist passage we do find sympathy for John. Jesus was crucified which carries a seditious overtone. All this points to the passage to being originally negative.
————————————————————-
Footnotes
[1] Novenson, Matthew V., The Grammar of Messianism: An Ancient Jewish Political Idiom and Its Users, (Oxford, 2017), p.147-8.
[2] NPL Allen, Clarifying the Scope of Pre-5th Century C.E. Christian Interpolation in Josephus’ Antiquitates Judaica (c. 94 C.E.),chapter 4, 291-328.
[3] Richard Carrier, “Origen, Eusebius, and the Accidental Interpolation in Josephus, Jewish Antiquities 20.200” in the Journal of Early Christian Studies (vol. 20, no. 4, Winter 2012), pp. 489-514.
“Should he be described primarily as a teacher, prophet, miracle worker, magician, Galilean charismatic, or militant revolutionary? The list of possibilities could be extended. These types are not mutually exclusive, and it is possible—indeed likely—that a given individual would have combined different roles.”
Rebecca Gray [1]
James Tabor in his blog names 22 messianic figures in Josephus, but there were even more than that and also many were unnamed. [2] Some scholars have seen a lot of these messianic movements emanating from the adventures of Joshua.
Jesus fits the mould of other self-styled prophets who rose up against Roman maladministration. The ‘Samaritan’ who promised to show the crowds “sacred vessels which were buried [at Mt. Gerizim], where Moses had deposited them”…. are all similar types of movements to the Jesus movement. His movement was also cut down by the Pilates administration just like the Jesus movement.
A JOSHUA INSPIRED CULT
The ‘Egyptian’ claims to make the “walls come tumbling down” (Ant. 20.8.6) in Jerusalem which is a clear allusion to the battle of Jericho. (Joshua 6:20). Theudas’ claim to be able to divide the river is a clear allusion to Joshua 3.14-17, which has everything to do with the redemption of Israel. Even the gospels play out this Joshua theme for Jesus with his 12 disciples using midrash on Joshua:
“Now therefore take you twelve men out of the tribes of Israel, out of every tribe a man. And it shall come to pass, as soon as the soles of the feet of the priests that bear the ark of the Lord, the Lord of all the earth, shall rest in the waters of Jordan, that the waters of Jordan shall be cut off from the waters that come down from above; and they shall stand upon an heap.” (Joshua 3:12-13).
In one of the Tanakh images Hebrews uses, the author sees Jesus as the true Joshua who had led his people to the promised land (Hebrews 4:8-11).
As Joshua is spelt the same as Jesus in the Septuagint, Ιησούς, some modern scholars such as Richard Carrier have suggested that many have belonged to some type of Joshua cults. [3] They all saw Joshua’s success as an inspiration in their own fight with Rome. “If Jesus equals Joshua, then it follows that Jesus is “the prince of the military forces of the Lord,” as Origen said in his homily on Joshua. (Hom. in Jesu Nave 6) [4]
Many a messianic rebel was inspired by the role model of Joshua. In Joshua 5 they would have seen god’s intervention through an angelomorphic militaristic figure commanding the army of god fighting on Joshua’s side [5]:
When Joshua was by Jericho, he lifted up his eyes and looked, and behold, a man stood before him with his drawn sword in hand; and Joshua went to him and said to him, “Are you for us, or for our adversaries?” And he said, “No; but as commander of the army of YHWH I have now come.” And Joshua fell on his face to the earth, and worshipped, and said to him, “What Are does my adonai bid his servant?” And the commander of YHWH’s army said to Joshua, “Put off your shoes from your feet; for the place where you stand is holy.” And Joshua did so.
Joshua 5:13-4
From what this figure said he repeats what YHWH said to Moses, inferring Joshua as the new Moses.
Horsley sums up the driving for these bandits:
The bandit himself is viewed as just and cannot be in conflict with justice or its divine source. In fact, the bandit himself may represent a divine justice that the peasants have rarely experienced, but for which they may continue to hold out hope in a manner not unrelated to biblical fantasies.
Richard Horsley [6]
These signs prophets in desperate times looked into their scrolls for inspiration, for some, Joshua was the perfect role model in their battle with Rome, Paula Fredriksen sums this up with the following passage:
“All of these promised miracles recalled biblical episodes from Israel’s foundational history. Theudas’s parting the waters of the Jordan echoed both Moses’s leading Israel across the Red Sea and Joshua’s leading the twelve tribes across the Jordan on into the promised land. Going into the desert to seek deliverance would recapitulate the liberation from Egypt and the giving of the Torah on Sinai. The miraculous crumbling of Jerusalem’s walls recalls the miraculous fall of Jericho, Joshua’s point of entry into the Land. Enacting key moments in the birth of the nation, these signs prophets signaled the eschatological nearness of final redemption. Their grounding in biblical miracle also accounts for the size of their popular followings. Scriptural authority undergirded not only their own message; it also supported the hopes and convictions of their followers.”
Paula Fredriksen [7]
As Horsley said, “For just at the time of Herod and Jesus, several significant movements emerged among the Judean and Galilean people that were headed by figures acclaimed by their followers as kings or by figures who promised to reenact the deliverance of Israel from foreign rule in Egypt.'” [8]
Christopher Rowland shows the relationship between of the inspiration and motivation of these signs prophets and the fantasies of the scriptures:
There is another dimension to the study of the social history of
Judaism, namely the biblical traditions themselves. Whatever the social and economic circumstances which led to the genesis of those traditions, the biblical material was itself a factor in the emergence of attitudes. Its presence as a catalyst was one which could, and did, lead to dangerous and subversive attitudes (e.g., War 7.255). Resentment would have been there, but it is hard to see that resentment being channelled into such revolutionary attitudes without the contribution made by the Scriptures themselves. The traditions about the glorious future which God had prepared for the people was itself, therefore, a cause of disaffection. Once the contrast between social and political realities stood in the sharpest possible contrast to the glorious future promised in the Scriptures and echoed in writings of the period, the situation probably led to disillusionment, a narrowing of religious vision or the conviction that change was needed. That hopes were entertained not merely as articles of faith but also as part of a programme of action is confirmed by the Dead Sea Scrolls. In the War Scroll from Qumran (1 QM) we find there the belief that the might of God’s enemies would be overthrown in a battle in which the angelic legions would come to the aid of the sons of light. The fantastic detail of the preparations outlined in the War Scroll gives some indication of the frame of mind of some groups as they entertained hopes of participating in an armed struggle against the enemies of Israel (cf. War 5.459; 388).
Christopher Rowland, Christian Origins, p.17 [9]
Rebecca Grays “list of Jewish sign prophets includes the following six individuals or groups:
Theudas (Ant. 20.97-99)
a group of unnamed figures active during the procuratorship of Felix (War 2.258-60; Ant. 20.167-68)
the Egyptian (War 2.261-63; Ant. 20.169-72)
an unnamed figure under Festus (Ant. 20.188)
another unnamed figure who ied his followers to the temple just before it was destroyed in 70 C.E. (War 6.283-87)
Jonathan, a Sicarius refugee from Palestine who was active in Cyrene after the war (War 7.437-50; Life 424-25). [*]
To that list I would add the ‘Samaritan’, also killed under Pilate, was going to show a sign of buried vessels belonging to Moses and his followers turned up “in arms”. I would also add John the Baptist and Jesus.
Lena Einhorn noticed many parallels between Jesus and the ‘Egyptian’. [10] The Egyptian gathered at the Mount of Olives before his battle with the Romans. (War 2.13.5). Jesus was arrested at the Mount of Olives. The ‘Egyptian’ had led thousands, just like Matthew 15 and Mark 8 mention Jesus leading “four thousand” into the “wilderness”.
I will have to pour cold water on Einhorns hypothesis though, as it should be noted that Mount of Olives was regarded as the place where God would stand on the Day of Judgment, fighting the battle against Israel’s enemies:
“On that day His feet will stand on the Mount of Olives …” (Zechariah 14:4)
This passage talks about a messiah that would come to the Mount of Olives and enter Jerusalem, so this is a common messianic trope. As the mount of olives comes from Zechariah, therefore both Josephus and Mark used this common trope (or the messianic figures themselves enacted the trope) in their retellings and the rebels themselves re-enacting.
The gospel of John uses the word σπεῖρα,(speira), that is a cohort consisting of 500 to 1000 Roman soldiers and the word χιλίαρχος, (chiliarchos), for their commander, this is a commander of one thousand. (John 18:11). The Egyptian passages in Josephus works use the same words. This led Lena Einhorne to see this as a parallel to the ‘Egyptian’ but a much more likely explanation is that the evangelist John used Josephus and more specifically the ‘Egyptian’ passages. It has been shown that Luke had used Josephus by such scholars as Mason and Carrier. [10] When I reconstructed the Testimonium Flavianum [12] it was a passage that held so little information that the evangelist John simply started to use other passages as a framework for his gospel.
It was Morton Smith who hit the nail on the head when he observed what is really significant about the passage in Acts 5:33-39, is not that Luke got his fake history wrong (again putting Theudas before Judas and making up a story about Gamaliel) but that “Even this Christian propaganda shows that the Christians themselves expected Jesus to be seen as the same social type as Judas and Theudas.” [13] (Emphasis is Morton Smiths).
Celsus also saw Jesus among many:
But, according to the Jew of Celsus, We are not aware, indeed, whether Celsus knew of any who, after coming into this world, and having desired to act as Jesus did, declared themselves to be also the or the of God. But since it is in the spirit of truth that we examine each passage, we shall mention that there was a certain Theudas among the Jews before the birth of Christ who gave himself out as some great one, after whose death his deluded followers were completely dispersed. And after him, in the days of the census, when Jesus appears to have been born, one Judas, a Galilean, gathered around him many of the Jewish people, saying he was a wise man, and a teacher of certain new doctrines. And when he also had paid the penalty of his rebellion, his doctrine was overturned, having taken hold of very few persons indeed, and these of the very humblest condition. And after the times of Jesus, Dositheus the Samaritan also wished to persuade the Samaritans that he was the Christ predicted by Moses; and he appears to have gained over some to his views. But it is not absurd, in quoting the extremely wise observation of that Gamaliel named in the book of Acts, to show how those persons above mentioned were strangers to the promise, being neither nor of God, whereas Christ Jesus was truly the Son of God.
Origen, Contra Celsum 1.57
The same thing is going on here, it is not the fact that John used the ‘Egyptian’ passage, what is telling is the fact he saw Jesus in the same social class as the ‘Egyptian’. Cross reference this where Acts confuses Paul with the ‘Egyptian’:
“Aren’t you the Egyptian who started a revolt and led four thousand terrorists out into the wilderness some time ago?”
Acts 21:38
SOME CASE STUDIES OF SOME MAJOR MESSIANIC FIGURES.
1.Bar Kokbha
“the Jerusalem Talmud tells of the recruitment of four hundred thousand fighters who were in Bethar during the siege of the city. Half of them were recruited after they stood the loyalty test of a severed finger; and the other half, after they had uprooted a cedar of Lebanon while riding a horse.” [14]
“Jerusalem Talmud Ta‘anit 4.5: “Ben Kozebah was there, and he had 200,000 troops who had cut their little finger . . . Whoever cannot uprooted a cedar of Lebanon while riding on his horse will not be registered in your army. So there were 200,000 who qualified in one way, and another 200,000 who qualified in another way.” [15]
Here is the gospel parallel:
And if your right hand causes you to stumble, cut it off and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to go into gehenna.(hell).(Matthew 5:30)
The accounts of Jesus’ crucifixion are full of quotations from, and allusions to, Psalm 22: ‘they divided his clothes, casting lots for them’ (Mark 15:24) is a quotation from Psalms 22.18; ‘wagging their heads’ (Mark 15:29) is from Psalms 22.7; Jesus’ cry, ‘My God, my God, why have you forsaken me’ (Mark 15:34) is from Psalms 22. I .
E.P.Sanders, The Historical Figure of Jesus, p.274.
Found a great parallel with Jesus’s last words on the cross:
Babylonian Talmud Gittin 57a (passages about the bar Kokbha revolt) there are comments that Bar Daroma kept repeating the verse from Psalms 60:12:
“you have rejected us O God; God, you do not march with our armies.”[16]
This is a perfect example of how the gospels works. In Mark Jesus dying words are “My god my god why have you forsaken me?”(Psalm 22:1; cf Matthew 27:4). Luke changes this to “Father, into your hands I commit my spirit!” Luke 23:46 using psalm 31:5. “I am thirsty” is in John 19:28. Here, Jesus was answering the Messianic prophecy from Psalm 69:21: “They put gall in my food and gave me vinegar for my thirst.” We have the same for bar Kokbha.
The point is the evangelist thought of Jesus quoting a psalm as he was dying. This is a literary reflection of what these messianic figures would do before they die. The sayings are not exact but the kinda of thing that would have been said. These are Psalms of lament and suffering, reflections of any failure from whatever plan of action Jesus did. Mark psalm is the most historically reliable as on the cross Jesus would have suffered the disillusionment that the Kingdom of God did not materialize.
I like any historian am approaching the gospels as literary creations reflecting the times. It’s the same as the historical fiction films of today, based on a true story but a reconstruction without knowing what the heroes really said but what they could have said. As will be discussed in later parts, throw in the Greco Roman book culture, of which the gospels are part of (Walsh, 2021) and the Jewish pesherim, of which the content of the gospels are made and your half way there to unlocking early Christian literature. [17] The framework of the gospels are Greco Roman but the content is Jewish pesherim (Aune, 1987)[18]
Here is a quote from Walsh that how Marks gospel was put together:
Yet, among his collected texts, our author has some material expressing an interest in Jesus, including copies of the letters of another elite cultural producer who is a Pharisee and a divination specialist by the name of Paul. There he finds talk of Jesus as Christ, possessing divine pneuma (Rom. 8:9; Mark 1:10); a divine lineage of Abraham (Rom. 3, 4, 9; Mark 1); “pneumatic” demonstrations (1 Cor. 2:4–5; Mark 2:8, 5:1ff., 5:41ff.), including divin- ation; demonstrations of power over demons, archons, and unclean pneuma (Rom. 8:38–39; 1 Cor. 15:24; Mark 1:23, 39, 5:2ff., 7:25); Jesus as a prophet for a new age (Rom. 3:21–22; Mark 1:1–15) or a New Adam (1 Cor. 15:45; Mark 1:12ff.); a failure to recognize Jesus as the messiah during his lifetime (1 Cor. 2:6–8; Mark 4:41, 6:2, 8:29, 11:27ff.); and an active principle of God’s pneuma bounding people “in Christ” through baptism (Rom. 6; Mark 1). He even finds talk of fellowship meals and a meal hosted by Jesus anticipating his death (the so-called Last Supper) with dialogue (1 Cor. 11:23–25; Mark 14:22–25) and mention of other characters like James and Peter (e.g., Gal. 2; Mark 3:20–21, 31–35, 8:31–33, 14:26, 66). The proper interpretation of Judean law and alle- gory also looms large in these letters (e.g., Gal. 1:6–11; Rom. 1:16–17; 1 Cor. 9:16; Mark 1:1, 2:18ff.), as one might expect from a Pharisee. … Any gaps in his narrative can be filled with references to other bioi of heroes, philosophers, or divine figures like Alexander the Great, or other established literary authorities (e.g., Plut. Mor. 718a: “[Plato instructs that beings born of God] do not come to be through seed [οὐ διὰ σπέρματος], surely, but by another power of God [ἄλλῃ δὲ δυνάμει τοῦ θεοῦ]”). As for other demonstrations of pneumatic ability or power, there is no shortage of testimony about afflictions and healings at the hands of gods like Isis and Asclepius (IG, IV 1.121.3–9; Mark 5:24–26), including in popular literature (Apul. Met. 1.9).
Robyn Faith Walsh [19]
2. Simon bar Giora
Simon bar Giora was the leader of the rebel faction called the sicarii, who hid their daggers underneath their cloaks. This has a parallel where one of the disciples drew his short sword (a dagger) during Christ’s arrest.(Mark 14:47).
During Christ’s march to Golgotha the Roman soldiers put a purple robe on him, but later removed it again. Simon bar Giora was also known as Simon bar Poras, the latter word a shortened version of the Latin word purpura (porpora in Italian) for the colour purple. When Simon bar Giora was arrested, he put on his purple cloak before he surrendered, probably as a declaration that he was the one they wanted most.
Toward the end of the Roman siege of Jerusalem, John Levi and many others had already been captured by the Romans, but Simon was still underground and hoping to escape. Josephus recorded his bizarre behavior when he finally emerged dressed like a king, hoping to trick the Romans, but was captured and kept for the eventual celebration in Rome:
“And now Simon, thinking he might be able to astonish and elude the Romans, put on a white frock, and buttoned upon him a purple cloak, and appeared out of the ground in the place where the temple had formerly been.”(War 7.2.1) ;(Cf 1 Macc. 10:20,62 for the purple robe reference.)
Simon stayed three days underground and then appeared suddenly out of the ground.
“…appeared out of the ground in the place where the temple had formerly been…..At the first indeed, those that saw him were greatly astonished, and stood still where they were.”(War 7.2.1).
He appeared like an apparition would make a parallel with the resurrection.
Caesar’s triumphal procession is described in War 7.5.1-7. Simon was called “the general of the enemy” and his execution was in “the last part of this pompous show…at the temple of Jupiter Capitolinus.” A rope was put around his head and he was tormented as he was dragged along. All the people shouted for joy when it was announced that he had been killed (War 7.5.6). This matches the crowd turning against Jesus as he was to be crucified.
3. Judas the Galilean
One of the birth narratives of Jesus contained in the gospel of Luke corresponds with the Census of Cyrenius (6 CE), which in turn corresponds to the major tax revolt of Judas the Galilean. (Josephus, War 2.117-118 and Antiquities 18.4-25). Judas the Galilean was also an apocalyptic prophet who wanted to establish God’s kingdom (just like Jesus) right here on earth:
“Under his administration [Coponius] it was that a certain Galilean, whose name was Judas, prevailed with his countrymen to revolt; and said they were cowards if they would endure to pay a tax to the Romans, and would, after God, submit to mortal men as their lords.” (War 2.118). (I take the emphasis from Unterbinks book and reproduce some parallels Unterbink noticed. [20]
As seen here Judas wanted God’s kingdom and not the Romans. Judas the Galilean, or Judas of Gamala, was a Jewish leader who led resistance to the census imposed for Roman tax purposes by Quirinius in Judea Province around 6 CE. Luke has his Jesus born around the tax revolt. Later on the tax issue is used to entrap Jesus. (Luke 20:20-26). And the following passage in Luke sounds very similar to Judas the Galilean:
“And they began to accuse him, saying, we have found this man subverting our nation. He opposes payment of taxes to Caesar and claims to be a king messiah (christ)…. He stirs up the people all over Judea by his teaching. He started in Galilee and has come all the way here.” (Luke 23:2-5)
Judas the Galilean encouraged Jews not to register and those that did had their houses burnt and their cattle stolen by his followers. As a coincidence he had two sons with the same names as Jesus’s brothers and similar to Jesus were crucified after a trial:
“In addition to this, James and Simon, sons of Judas the Galilean, were put on trial and by order of Alexander were crucified; this was the Judas who – as explained above – had incited the popular revolt against the Romans, while Quirinius was carrying out the census in Judea”.(Ant. 20.102).
SOME OBSERVATIONS ON THESE SIMILAR MESSIANIC TYPES.
So Lena Einhorn thought Jesus was the ‘Egyptian’ in her book A Shift in Time. Daniel Unterbink in his book The three Messiahs says he is Judas the Galilean. Then you have Eisenman in his James, the brother of Jesus book who has said the Jesus movements were suspiciously like the ‘Samaritan’ passage in Ant. 18.4.1. [21] The reason Jesus sounded like all those other messianic figures is that he was one of them.
The beauty of studying these other messianic types is that these passages had no importance to anybody who happened to be attached to any particular creed or theology, that what you get is from the hand of Josephus, untampered with ‘improvements’, incisions, additions and other such alterations, that the Christian passages suffered. Therefore these comparable figures are invaluable in building a picture of Jesus in the historical context and political atmosphere that was so strained that you could cut it with a knife.
WORKS OF WONDER!
“These were such men as deceived and deluded the people under pretence of divine inspiration, but were for procuring innovations and changes of the government; and these prevailed with the multitude to act like madmen, and went before them into the wilderness, as pretending that God would there shew them the signals of liberty.” (War 2.13.4).
Paul tells us practically nothing of the miracles of Jesus but there are hints of it. As Paul tells us practically nothing about any of Jesus’s life, any traces will suffice to show it was part of Jesus’s ministry. As Jesus’s messianic goals were a failure, (not restoring Israel from the hands of the Romans, same as with all other messianic figures, it is very understandable that Paul would not talk about Jesus’s life but about his success, which is, in Paul’s mind, that God raised him). Here are two hints that Jesus ministry practiced signs of wonder:
when Paul says, what Christ has accomplished
“through me … by word and deed, by the power of signs and wonders, by the power of the Spirit,” (Rom 15:18-19)
it shows here that his ministry, which included miracles, was a reflection of Jesus’ ministry.
2. Paul says that the kingdom of God depends not on talk but on power, dunamei. (1Cor. 4:20) With the close association between powers, or miracles, and the kingdom of God in the Synoptic Gospels, it is not unreasonable to assume that Paul here is reflecting a knowledge of this association in the life of Jesus. [22]
3. Just like most messianic rebels Paul continued on Jesus’s tradition to be under the pretence of divine inspiration-
“because our gospel came to you not simply with words but also with power, with the Holy Spirit and deep conviction” (1 Thess.1:5)
4. And here again you see Paul claiming authority by works of wonder:
“I persevered in demonstrating among you the marks of a true apostle, including signs, wonders and miracles.” (2 Cor. 12:12)
– in order to attract his congregation to a spirit possession cult.
Jesus’ opponents saw him as a magician of some sort. All these self-styled prophets gathered crowds with deeds of wonder and promised to overthrow the Romans with God’s intervention. Jesus, too, was seen to perform wonders, putting him in the same comparative type as these religious resistance leaders:
“Was Christ not a magician? But lest any one should meet us with the question, What should prevent that He whom we call Christ, being a man born of men, performed what we call His mighty works by magical art, and by this appeared to be the Son of God? We will now offer proof, not trusting mere assertions, but being of necessity persuaded by those who prophesied [of Him] before these things came to pass, for with our own eyes we behold things that have happened and are happening just as they were predicted; and this will, we think appear even to you the strongest and truest evidence.” (Justin Martyr 1 Apology XXX).
And from Tertullian: “As, then, under the force of their pre-judgment, they had convinced themselves from His lowly guise that Christ was no more than man, it followed from that, as a necessary consequence, that they should hold Him a magician from the powers which He displayed.” (Apology XXI)
And from Celsus: “Continuing to pour abuse upon Jesus as one who, on account of his impiety and wicked opinions, was, so to speak, hated by God, he asserts that ‘these tenets of his were those of a wicked and God-hated sorcerer.’” (Origen, Contra Celsum 1.71)
The anti-Christian polemic comes close to recovering the historical Jesus, as can be seen from these three ancient quotes:
“Jesus, knowing that they intended to come and make him king by force, withdrew again to a mountain by himself.” (John 6:15).
“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.” (Ant 17.10.8).
“that in the days of Jesus others who were Jews rebelled against the Jewish state, and became His followers.” (Against Celsus 3.7)
Crazy messianic claims:
“These were such men as deceived and deluded the people under pretence of divine inspiration, but were for procuring innovations and changes of the government;”
Josephus, War 2.13.4
Gamaliel’s speech in Acts 5:34-39 associates the Jesus movement with those of Theudas and Judas the Galilean. Theudas also enacted prophetic actions and expected God’s intervention. Judas the Galilean wanted to set up a theocracy. He called the people “cowards if they would endure to pay a tax to the Romans, and would, after God, submit to mortal men as their lords.” (War 2.118). All our sources point to Jesus’ eschatological concepts, all of which fit the historical context of these messianic figures.
Jesus making the claim of the Temple being destroyed and restored miraculously, may have been a pesher (commentary finding meanings in the scriptures for today’s events), on the first Temple destruction in Daniel 9:26 or Jeremiah 7. And to rebuild the Temple may have been taken from Tobit 14.5. This is exactly the type of claim these messianic figures made.
Let us examine in the first person from Josephus, the miraculous messianic claims made in order to convince their followers with prophetic promises:
“Come follow me to the river Jordan, for I am a prophet and on my command I will divide the river like Moses so that you can cross” ~ Theudas as reported in Ant 20.97
“Just like with Joshua and the walls of Jericho, on my command the walls of Jerusalem will come tumbling down, I’ll lead you in to conquer the city of David”. ~ The ‘Egyptian’ as reported in Ant 20.170
“Come to Mount Gerizim, on your arrival, I’ll show you sacred vessels that are buried there since Moses deposited them there.” ~ The ‘Samaritan’ believed to be the Taheb, as reported in Ant 18.5.1
“On my command, this corrupt Temple, built by human hands will be destroyed, not one stone shall be standing on another, in three days a pure Temple will be restored not by human hands” ~ Jesus the Nazorean, whitewashed from Josephus but recovered as explained above.
This is captured in Mk 14:58 and Jn. 2:19. Mark tries to deny the saying while John has it out in the open. I write an essay showing John is much more out in the open when it comes to historical reality.
John the Baptizer, thought the kingdom of god was held up by people’s sins, you could imagine him saying, “We’re going to go out into the desert and re-enact the exodus, waters wash your body and sins, once pure, god will come.”
On top of all these crazy claims Josephus reports another along the same lines:
“A voice from the east, a voice from the west, a voice from the four winds, a voice against Jerusalem and the holy house, a voice against the bridegrooms and the brides, and a voice against this whole people!” (War 6.5.3).
This was said by Jesus ben Ananias four years before the war began. This prophecy only became interesting as it rang true. This was a prophecy of a madman who was not a messianic rebel, so it would not have made it into Josephus’ War, only that it happened to have come true to events of the war. To Josephus this prophecy became memorable and interesting in the aftermath of the Temple destruction. It would have been another worthless prophecy made by a madman (not worth reporting or writing about) if the Temple hadn’t been destroyed. The same is happening to the gospel of Mark. A prophecy by Jesus that half came true made Jesus more interesting as a remembered war hero (messianic rebel) over other remembered war heroes.
Even to say that Jesus ben Ananias prophesied the Temple destruction before the fact is as retrospective fallacy. In reading what Josephus wrote about Jesus ben Ananias it is hard for me to see that he specifically prophesied the temple’s destruction, he only prophesied woe on the temple.
Just like Jesus of Nazareth, he [Jesus ben Ananias] foretold the destruction of the temple, and just like his better-known namesake, he expressed his message in words steeped in the language and ideas of the Hebrew Bible. His prophecy of doom alludes to the prophet Jeremiah’s words about how God ‘will bring to an end the sound of mirth and gladness, the voice of the bride and bridegroom in the cities of Judah and in the streets of Jerusalem’ (Jer. 7.34). A modern hearer of this story might well suppose that the son of Ananias must have read the book of Jeremiah, but Josephus points out that he was an ‘uneducated boor’. This would mean that he probably never learned to read much apart from possibly his own name. Nevertheless, both Jesus of Nazareth and Jesus, son of Ananias, had certainly heard the oracles of the ancient prophets read aloud and retold many times. When they themselves began to prophesy, they naturally used the imagery and phraseology of their holy tradition. But the son of Ananias is unlike ‘our’ Jesus in one crucial respect. He acted in a decidedly antisocial way: he had no train of admirers, no disciples, and Josephus states that he did not even thank those kind souls who, despite everything, helped him survive by giving him food. In contrast, Jesus of Nazareth was no such loner, but rather surrounded himself with followers and was perceived as the leader of a popular movement. In this respect Jesus bears a closer resemblance to the popular prophet leaders about whom Josephus, thinly disguising his contempt,[23]
What stands out in Josephus’ account is the compulsive way in which Jesus [ben Ananias] repeated his message of doom, even in the face of punishment. It was apparently this compulsive behavior that led Albinus to conclude that he was insane. Behavior of a similar sort—though less intensely compulsive—is attributed by Josephus to the prophet Jeremiah.81 Like Jesus, Jeremiah predicted that Jerusalem would be captured and the temple destroyed, and his fixation on these predictions caused many to conclude that he was “out of his mind” Ant. 10.114)…. the similarities between his portrayal of Jesus and his portrayal of Jeremiah suggest that Josephus thought that the two men were similarly inspired by God.
Rebecca Gray [24]
If the gospel of Mark had invented the prophecy or had heard of Jesus ben Ananias prophecy he would not have written what did not happen, “not one stone shall be standing on another” but instead have written “nothing shall remain except the ruins of a wall”. As Jesus gets several details about the temple’s destruction wrong, like that there was an “abomination of desolation” (making it more likely he was using pesherim as this came from Daniel) and that there was “not one stone left on another”, suggests the prophecy was made before the destruction. Mark trying to refute this prophecy argues in favour of a failed prophecy circulating that triggered Mark’s gospel in the aftermath of the real Temple destruction. (Mark 15:37). It also suited Mark to make Jesus sound like a prophet, a prophecy achieves this affect.
Ian Mills in an interview with Derek Lambert on his Mythvision podcast [25] thinks Jesus actually made this crazy claim of an miraculous event of the destruction and restoration of the Temple. (Many messianic figures made crazy claims as seen from the ‘Egyptian’ and ‘Theudas’ discussed later in part 7 under the heading “Crazy Messianic claims). Mills thinks that when the Temple really got destroyed that this was a memorable prophecy. This in turn meant the gospel of Mark included it in his gospel, with a qualifier that it was a false report. Ian Mills drawing from E P Sanders, Jesus and Judaism, says the gospels are uncomfortable with a failed prophecy of Temple destruction. (Mark 13:1-31). Mark is writing after the destruction, and therefore highlighting this prophecy of Jesus.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. He links the blessed event of his second coming with the destruction of a Jerusalem and it’s famous Temple. It is very unusual for those trying to glorify Jesus, to put in a failed prophecy, it is not something you makeup from scratch. If you keep reading into Mark’s gospel, onto the trial of Jesus (Mark 14:57-59) you will read about people falsely accusing Jesus that he will destroy the Temple and rebuild it:
“Then some stood up and gave this false testimony against him: “We heard him say, ‘I will destroy this temple made with human hands and in three days will build another, not made with hands.’” (Mark 14:57-58).
While Jesus was on the cross people mocked him about it:
“Those who passed by hurled insults at him, shaking their heads and saying, “So! You who are going to destroy the temple and build it in three days, come down from the cross and save yourself!” In the same way the chief priests and the teachers of the law mocked him among themselves. “He saved others,” they said, “but he can’t save himself! Let this Messiah, this king of Israel, come down now from the cross, that we may see and believe.” Those crucified with him also heaped insults on him.” (Mark 15:29-32)
Mark knows his readers are well aware of the prophecy and tries to refute it. You do not try to refute a non-existent failed prophecy, that is one of the reasons for suspecting that this prophecy was circulating.
[After the ‘Egyptian”’s failed revolt, I can picture those around him, mocking him as to why the walls of Jerusalem didn’t come tumbling down. I discuss the Egyptians’ crazy messianic claim later in this paper. The belief he may have had about being a messiah would have been shattered like what happened to other messianic movements in the event of failure. Without gods intervention- they can’t be the messiah. Really Jesus was not unique and had similar problems experienced by other messianic types. The gospel of Mark tries to get around peoples opposition to Jesus being the messiah by inventing a literary construct of the messianic secret].
John 2:19 also had this prediction of destroying the Temple and rebuilding it in three days. Mark is in denial about the prediction whereas John spiritualized it.
Stephens speech also has it about the prophecy in Acts:
“They produced false witnesses, who testified, “This fellow never stops speaking against this holy place and against the law. For we have heard him say that this Jesus of Nazareth will destroy this place and change the customs Moses handed down to us.” (Acts 6:13-14).
Even the gospel of Thomas has this prophecy, saying 71:
“I will destroy this house, and no one shall be able to build it again.”
Of all the claims made by the messianic figures, it’s Jesus’s prophecy that got remembered- destroy a corrupt temple, build a pure one in three days. The reason Jesus’ prophecy got remembered over the other messianic figures is that his prophecy came half true. The destroying but not the restoring.
James Sweeney sees a connection between Paul and Jesus with the Temple metaphors used by Paul. [26] This crazy messianic claim has support in the earliest layers of NT literature. Paul has reworked this claim as a metaphor:
“Do you not know that you are a temple of God and that the Spirit of God dwells in you? If anyone destroys the temple of God, God will destroy him, for the temple of God is holy, and that is what you are” (1 Cor. 3:16–17).
Marks attempted refutation of the crazy messianic claim suggests it actually goes back to a messianic rebel and was currently circulating. When Paul was writing one very obvious point is that the Temple was still standing.
As N T Wright stated:
“The various ‘Passion predictions’ should not be dismissed as ex eventu prophecies of Jesus’ death, projected back into Jesus’ life as an apologetic device….. Neither are these predictions the melancholic musings of a man with a martyr complex. Rather, they represent the realistic reflection of someone proclaiming God’s kingdom, challenging Israel’s official (Sadducean) and unofficial (Pharisaic) leaders, attracting crowds, exciting eschatological fervour, imbibing messianic dreams, challenging boundaries about who is ‘in’, and making a powerful protest in the Temple which appears to be a symbolic foretelling of its downfall. (There are curious modern parallels. The Pakistani minister for minorities, Shahbaz Bhatti, himself a Catholic Christian, never married because he ‘knew’ that one day he would be killed by Islamic extremists. This belief came true on 2 March 2011, when he was ambushed by militants.) Jesus knew what risks he was taking, what opposition he would face, and how the story was going to end.” [27]
DATING THE EPISTLES
Eisenman made some good observations that can be used to date the epistles. [28]
“Greet those who belong to the household of Aristobulus. Greet Herodion, my fellow Jew. Greet those in the household of Narcissus who are in the Lord. (Romans 16:10-11)
Paul greeted all those in the household of Aristobulus. This was a reference to Herod Agrippa’s son. Herodion, or “Little Herod,” is assumed to be the son of Herod of Chalcis.
Douglas Campbell shows Paul’s King Aretus IV incident provides an anchor date for Paul’s epistles in general. [29] It looks like he ran out of Damascenes, but escaped to carry on further missionaries. Richard Carrier shows that Aretas could have briefly held Damascus between 35-37 CE period. [30]
On top of these datable clues the epistles all assume the temple cult is still standing (1 Cor. 3:16-17) and Jerusalem still populated (Gal 1:18); that Judea is not in a war, so they fit right in with the 50’s.
And Paul could only be referring to the Jerusalem Temple here as Jorunn Økland put it:
The statement that the spirit of God dwells in this naos (1 Cor. 3:16-17) is the expression of an idea found in the Hebrew Bible, of God’s kavod, Septuagint Greek doxa, ‘glory’ or ‘honour’ (e.g., Exod 40:34–38; 1 Kgs 8:1–11) dwelling in his sanctuary. In other words, ‘dwelling’ and naos to- gether indicate that Paul links the ekklesia to the temple in Jerusalem. Even if a Greek temple was also thought to host a presence of the deity whose image was worshipped there, the link was far more tenuous because, first, the cult statue itself was the focal point, not the building whose function it was to house it; second, the connection was perceived as less intimate since the same deity could be worshipped under different cult epithets in multiple sanctuaries even in a single city; and, third and finally, the deities of Mediterranean polytheistic systems were frequent travellers, worshipped in numerous sanctuaries across many countries. The God of Israel, by contrast, in the Second Temple period, at least, was thought to dwell in the Jerusalem temple only, although there were different ideas regarding how exactly this dwelling should be understood.
Jorunn Økland [31]
As a matter of interest (even though I don’t generally trust Acts), Acts also has Paul preaching in the 50’s where he is accused before Gallio a proconsul of Achaia. The interesting thing is that an inscription was found in Corinth showing Gallio was proconsul between 51/52 CE.
Scott Bignell wrote an article on many other indicators for dating the epistles, see footnote [32]
So this was not Jesus replacing the Temple idea in the aftermath of its destruction. So these metaphors Paul uses, is Pauls genius in reworking a failed crazed messianic claim (especially where god was supposed to intervene). Pauls asks a rhetorical question:
“Or do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit who is in you, whom you have from God, and that you are not your own? “ ( 1 Cor. 6:19)
This shows you why this Jesus movement survived where most other messianic movements collapsed. Dunn acknowledges that the traditional categories of temple, priesthood, holiness, and purity have been reworked by Paul. His suggested explanation is that the aforementioned cultic categories have been “replaced by the image of the body of Christ.” [33]
Paul mentioned other missionaries and therefore there were active missionaries in the Jesus movement. (He mentions Andronicus and Junia in Rom. 16:7. He mentions Priscilla and Aquila in 1 Cor. 16:19, (cf Romans 16:3-5). He was also very jealous of Apollo in 1 Cor. 1:12 and 16:12), What they preach is the oral tradition about Jesus. Yet Jesus was not the only messiah of these times. “Christianity was not alone in the production of messiahs; indeed, its Christ competed for converts with the christs of other apocalyptic sects, including the formidable cult of John the Baptist.” [34]
So a different take on oral tradition. All the prophecies of these mad messianic figures were circulating. Jesus’s prophecy hit a chord when the Temple got destroyed.
It’s the reason why Jesus is remembered and popularized in NT Literature and not the Egyptian or Theudas. Oral tradition was not about “Jesus only” traditions. Other messianic prophecies were circulating and stories of other messianic figures were circulating. That is why we have composite stories in the gospels. This is real life, people love prophecies and they get repeated much more than anecdotal stories do.
—————————————————————
[1] Gray, Rebecca, Prophetic Figures in Late Second Temple Jewish Palestine, The Evidence from Josephus, (Oxford, 1993), p.3.
[2] Tabor, James, Messiahs in the time of Jesus, Taborblog:
See also Horsley, Richard, A., Popular Messianic Movements around the Time of Jesus, The Catholic Biblical Quarterly, Vol. 46, No. 3 (1984), pp. 471-495
[3] Carrier, Richard, On the Historicity of Jesus, Why we have reason to doubt, (Sheffield, 2014), pp.69-70.
[5] Gieschen, Charles A., Angelomorphic Christology, Antecedents and Early Evidence, (Brill, 1963), p.64-5.
[6] Horsley, Bandits, Prophets and Messiahs, p.70.
[7] Fredriksen, Paula, When Christians Were Jews, The first generation, (Yale University Press, 2018), p.177f.
[8] Richard Horsley, ‘Messiah, Magi, and Model Imperial King’, in Christmas Unwrapped Consumerism , Christ, and Culture, (ed. Richard Horsley and James Tracy; Harrisburg, PA: Trinity Press International, 2001), pp. 139-61, quote at p.141.
[9] Christopher Rowland, Christian Origins, An Account of the Setting and Character of the most Important Messianic Sect of Judaism, 2nd ed. p.17
[*] Gray, Rebecca, Prophetic Figures in Late Second Temple Jewish Palestine, The Evidence from Josephus, (Oxford, 1993), p.112.
[10] Lena Einhorne, A Shift in Time, How Historical Documents Reveal the Surprising Truth about Jesus, (Yucca, 2016)
[11] Steve Mason, Josephus and the New Testament, (Hendrickson, 1992), ch 6; Richard Carrier, Luke and Josephus (2000), online paper:
Another figure Luke may have taken from Josephus is Menahem referred to as Manaen in Acts 13:1, who worked for Herod, Josephus, Ant. 15.373-4; cf. b.Chagigah 16a-b. This is on top of the ‘Egyptian’ and Theudas, you can see that Luke loved to use Josephan figures in his narratives.
[12] Dave Allen, The Use of the Testimonium Flavianum by Anti-Christian Polemicists. R M Price, ed.,Journal of Higher Criticism 16/1 (Spring 2021), 42-105.
[13] Morton Smith, Jesus the Magician,(Barnes &Noble, 1978), p.20.
[14] Menahem Mor, The Second Jewish Revolt, The Bar Kokhba War, 132–136 CE, p.327
[15] Mor, ibid footnote 200
[16] Mor, ibid, p. 97.
[17] Walsh, The Origins of early Christian Literature.
[18] David Aune, The New Testament in its literary environment.
[19] Walsh, The Origins of early Christian Literature, p.132.
[20] Daniel T. Unterbrink, The Three Messiahs: The Historical Judas the Galilean, The Revelatory Christ Jesus, and The Mythical Jesus of Nazareth, iUniverse, Inc. New York Bloomington 2010.
[21] Robert Eisenman, James the Brother of Jesus: The Key to Unlocking the Secrets of Early Christianity and the Dead Sea Scrolls, (Penguin, 1998), ch. 15
To quote:
“under Pontius Pilate and coinciding with our ‘Jesus’ episode in the Gospels – Josephus records another disturbance or uprising led by such a Messiah-like individual in Samaria. Looking suspiciously like the ‘Jesus’ episode in the Gospels, this Uprising was also brutally repressed by Pilate, including, it would appear, a number of crucifixions – only the locale was not the Mount of Olives but Mount “Gerizim, the Samaritan Holy Place.”
[22] Twelftree, Graham H., Jesus the miracle worker, InterVarsity press (1999), ch 9.
[23] Wassan and Hagerland, Jesus the Apocalyptic Prophet, kindle, p.99
[24] Gray, Rebecca, Prophetic Figures in Late Second Temple Jewish Palestine, The Evidence from Josephus, (Oxford, 1993), p.30.
[25] Sanders, E.P., Jesus and Judaism, (First Fortress Press, 1985) pp. 61-76.
Ian Mills in an interview with Derek Lambert on his Mythvision podcast (linked) drawing on the arguments of E P Sanders discussed in his book.
[26] Wright, N. T. and Bird, Michael F., The New Testament in Its World, An Introduction to the History, Literature and Theology of the First Christians, (Harper Collins, 2019), ch 11.
[27] Sweeney, James, Jesus, Paul, and the Temple: An exploration of some patterns of continuity, JETS 46/4 (December 2003), 609 ff
[28] Eisenman, Robert, Paul as Herodian, Journal of Higher Criticism, 3/1 Spring 1996, pp.110-122.
[29] Campbell, Douglas A. “An Anchor for Pauline Chronology: Paul’s Flight from ‘The Ethnarch of King Aretas’ (2 Corinthians 11:32-33).” Journal of Biblical Literature, vol. 121, no. 2, 2002, pp. 279–302.
[30] Carrier, Richard, blog entitled, How Do We Know the Apostle Paul Wrote His Epistles in the 50s A.D.?
[33] Dunn, James D, Theology of the Apostle, (William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2006), p.721 f and 533–64, esp. pp. 543–48 (sec. 20.3: Community without cult) as quoted by Sweeney, ibid.
[34] Hoffmann, R. Joseph, Celsus, On The True Doctrine: A Discourse Against the Christians, Translation and Introduction, (Oxford, 1987), p.7.
An Ossuary discovered at Giv’at Hamivtar, Jerusalem in 1971 is believed to have “belonging to the house of David” on the unusual place, the rim of the ossuary. Amos Kilmer was the primary archaeological report in 1972 [1] “Of the house of David” in Hebrew would be של בית דוד but the inscription is missing a ‘ת’. The inscription, the text could mean “son of David” or “house of David”, the latter reading appears to be the most probable. The Corpus Inscriptionum Iudaeae/Palestinae has accepted David Flusser [2] reading which translated דוד as David. (CIIP 1.1.45). So the actual inscription שלבידוד (sheleVE daVID) is now accepted in scholarship as “belonging to the house of David.”
Kokkinos has written: “In a penetrating analysis of Ant. 17.43-45, prompted by the discovery of an important ossuary of an individual claiming to belong to ‘the House of David’, Flusser suggested that the ‘slave’-wife of Pheroras [Herod the greats brother] may have been [thought] of Davidic descent, and that the ‘Pharisees’ …. hoped that she would become the mother of the expected Messiah.” [*3]
Ant 17.43-45: “ In order to requite which kindness of hers, since they were believed to have the foreknowledge of things to come by divine inspiration, they foretold how God had decreed that Herod’s government should cease, and his posterity should be deprived of it; but that the kingdom should come to her and Pheroras, and to their children. 44These predictions were not concealed from Salome, but were told the king; as also how they had perverted some persons about the palace itself; so the king slew such of the Pharisees as were principally accused, and Bagoas the eunuch, and one Carus, who exceeded all men of that time in comeliness, and one that was his catamite. He slew also all those of his own family who had consented to what the Pharisees foretold; 45and for Bagoas, he had been puffed up by them, as though he should be named the father and the benefactor of him who, by the prediction, was foretold to be their appointed king; for that this king would have all things in his power, and would enable Bagoas to marry, and to have children of his own body begotten.”
Herod the Great was threatened by a potential messiah figure and a prophecy of the end of his dynasty so he slaughtered everyone- gospel of Matthews slaughtering the innocents sounds like political commentary to me. —————————————————————- [*1] Kilmer, Amos, “A buried cave of the Second Temple Period at Giv’at Hamivtar, Jerusalem” (in Hebrew), Qadmoniot, 19-20 (1972), 108-9.
[*2] Flusser, David, “The house of David on an Ossuary” The Israel Museum Journal, 5 (Spring, 1986), 37-40.
A tweedy poetaster who spent his time spinning out parables and Japanese koans, a literary aesthete who toyed with 1st-century deconstructionism, or a bland Jesus who simply told people to look at the lilies of the field – such a Jesus would threaten no one, just as the university professors who create him threaten no-one. The historical Jesus did threaten, disturb, and infuriate people – from interpreters of the Law through the Jerusalem priestly aristocracy to the Roman prefect who finally tried and crucified him. This emphasis on Jesus’ violent end is not simply a focus imposed on the data by Christian theology. To outsiders like Josephus, Tacitus, and Lucian of Samosata, one of the most striking things about Jesus was his crucifixion or execution by Rome. A Jesus whose words and deeds would not alienate people, especially powerful people, is not the historical Jesus.
John P. Meier, Marginal Jew, vol. 1, p.177
I will expand on a number of papers I released including three that passed peer reviewed by the boththe Journal of Greco-Roman Christianity and Judaism (JGRChJ)and Revista Biblica in Argentina, an essay I wrote on memory studies for the SBL series John, Jesus and History initiated by Paul Anderson and among my amateur papers I wrote for Robert Prices JHC. I am going to start blogging a multi part series on the historical Jesus, the man behind the myth. The people who generally threatened the Roman Govenors were Sign troublemakers, usually a self declared prophet who gathered a crowd to witness a momentous event where God would intervene and restore Isreal as his land tenants.
These are the papers I will be expanding on:
Dave Allen, “An Original Negatve Testimonium”, R M Price, ed., Journal of Higher Criticism 15/1 (Spring 2020), 67-90.
This is a multi-part series and I have also added an appendix of the TF, see links below, so you can compare the textus receptus found in the manuscripts of Josephus Antiquities to the model TF that I have reconstructed in Testimonium Flavianum parts. Rather than a textus restitutus, I have opted for a model reconstruction as the original words of Josephus cannot be recovered. The advantage of the model is that through textual variants and indirect quotes we can make out what type of passage this really was. Once this is seen, I will compare this passage to other similar passages Josephus has written. In my peer review paper “How Josephus really viewed Jesus” RevBíb 85.3-4, I compare an earlier form of the TF to other passages Josephus wrote about the Sign Prophets. For a taster of what this paper will be about you can read the following blog here and here. One final comment, once you see Jesus as one in a series of sign prophets that Josephus writes about you will find that the TF was not too short but about average, some sign prophet passages were shorter, some longer.
In the meantime enjoy my test case of a realistic reconstruction of what Josephus would have really written about Jesus.
As a historicist, it is important not to presume the historicity of Jesus, so I look at some instances in Paul’s letters and after critically examining them, I come down in favor of historicity here and here and here and here. The passages I examine make much better sense on a Sign Prophet that came to a sticky end. Also by recognising that to second Temple Jews only actual people resurrect turns the odds from 1/3 chance as espoused by Carrier to 100% in favour of historicity. It’s obvious the letters are on about a recently executed person.
Most people dismiss Acts as worthless when determining history. What they fail to recognise is that it is a wonderful ancient document, by recognising it for what it is, real history can be determined from it.
Let’s try some higher criticism on this wonderful propaganda piece:
(This I got from Doston Jones): Acts 16:6-8 mentions that while Paul traveled on his preaching missions, he and his traveling companions came upon Asia but the Holy Spirit did not permit them to preach while in Asia. The narrative elaborates to say that Paul attempted to specifically enter into the locale of Bithynia, Marcionite country but the “Spirit of Jesus did allow them” to go in. So they moved on to another locale.
Conspicuously, no explanation whatsoever is given for this prohibition from entering Bithynia. More striking is that there is no other instance in the entire Acts narrative where Paul was required to avoid a specific place and not make any contact with his gospel.
The author of Acts is disassociating Paul from Marcion by making expressly clear that of all the many places Paul traveled and preached, he did not even set foot in the hometown of Marcion (by order of divine guidance).
(This is my own) Another note of interest is that Acts has no mention of Alexandria. It does not mention Christianity in Egypt, so Acts is also disassociating from Valentines Christianity. Acts does though allow a curious text about an Alexandrian Jew named Apollos who visited Ephesus but Paul and others judged his Christianity to be defective with John’s Baptism (Acts 18:24-25).
(This is from Steve Mason): From the following passage the Baptist movement can easily be seen as an independent separate movement: Acts 19:1-5 “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. But these two movements had existed separately as shown in Acts, the Baptist movement had existed in Asia Minor independent to Christianity, both existed after the death of both Jesus and John the Baptist.
From these last three scholars you can see Acts being written among competing christianities, very much a reflection of real history.
This is from Tyson: “….the extensive parallels in Acts between Peter and Paul. The two perform similar miracles, experience life changing visions, deliver apologetic and evangelistic speeches, and undergo imprisonments followed by remarkable releases. In content some of the speeches of Peter sound a lot like Paul as we know him from his letters…..Contrariwise, the speeches of Paul, with one exception, do not sound like Paul of his letters …… Luke would produce this kind of history as a first step at reconciliation.”~Tyson, Marcion and Luke-Acts, pp.3-4.
For example Peter’s speech in Acts 15:7-11 is exactly what Paul argued for in his letters that the gentiles do not need circumcision for salvation, the grace of god would be enough to get the gentiles there.
These were Schneckenburgers observations, (as stated in Tyson’s book), and Baur acknowledging these observations concluded that Acts “chief tendency is to represent the difference between Peter and Paul as inessential and trifling”~Baur,”Paul, the Apostle” 1:6
This is from Christopher R Matthews – introduction to Acts in the Annotated Oxford Bible:
God’s promises made to ancient people of God required the church to stand in continuity with Isreal. Two forces eroded this, 1) the Jews not accepting Jesus as Messiah and 2) the gentiles ceasing to observe Jewish ritual. Luke in Acts has three countermeasures to these forces. 1) He depicts the earliest generation as faithful Jews in Jerusalem until persecution kicks them out. 2) The ideal gentile convert Cornelius has some Jewish piety (10:2) and 3) the conversion and missionary of Paul going to Synagogues and Jewish lifestyle. This all helped the target audience of Luke which had mixed Jewish- gentile groups. Luke gives authority to Paul’s gentile mission in an apostolic council but James insists “we should write to them, telling them to abstain from food polluted by idols, from sexual immorality, from the meat of strangled animals and from blood.” (Acts 15:20). Again Luke pulling towards a type of Noahite covenant. Cf Acts 21:25. This would help in table fellowship between Gentiles and Jews.
Luke is also keen to demonstrate the non subversive nature of the church by having Roman officials interested (13:12, 19:21) and that it posed no threat (18:15,19:37,23:29,25:25,26:32). Having Paul as a Roman citizen would have helped to show this cult was compatible to Romans. Paul being a Roman citizen does soften the subversive attributes.
Calvin J. Roetzelin Handbook in Pauline studies, Eds Novenson and Matlock, Oxford 2022. P.14
Luke’s insistence, however, on the innocence of both Jesus (Luke 23:47) and Paul (Acts 25:25; 26:31–32) sounds like an apology for a sect under suspicion that was unable to claim the rights to practise their ancestral religion that were guaranteed to Jews.
Roetzel shows one of the reasons this cult would attract persecution- Jesus’ Roman execution as a felon between two revolutionaries (lestai, Mark 15:27) could put his followers at risk, and brutal Roman reprisals for suspected revolutionary activity indiscriminately fell on the innocent and the guilty alike.
These last scholars show us exactly what Luke was trying to do with his target audience, if we know what Acts was trying to do, we can know real history as opposed to the narrative history. It is not literal history you get from Acts- it is the history you can get from “unspining” the story!
Now for Oscar Cullmann,in his book Jesus and the revolutionaries, p.5.
When the apostle Paul appeared before the Roman tribune (Acts 21:38), he was asked whether he was not the Egyptian leader who had plotted the revolt of the 4000 “Sicarii” (Assassins), an event which is mentioned also by the Jewish historian Josephus. Hence every Jew in New Testament times was forced to take a stand regarding this problem [Romans seeing themselves threatened by zealoticism]
You could say narratively speaking which reflects real history Paul had been mistaken for a very specific Egyptian individual, the leader of a recently attempted coup. I think the events of the attempted revolution, the on-going sicarii assassinations, and the unknown whereabouts of the Egyptian leader were on the front burner of the mind of the commander. All this would resonate with the times.
Of course Paul was not that guy, same type of message we see in Mark- Jesus was not that guy- BARABBAS! He was not that type of revolutionary! Here I will reproduce the passage to show Acts saw Paul as a cut above the ‘Egyptian’ when he spoke in Greek.
37 As Paul was taken into the barracks, he asked the commander, “Is it permitted I say something to you?”
He replied “Do you know Greek?” 38 “Then you are not (οὐκ ἄρα) the Egyptian (σὺ εἶ ὁ Αἰγύπτιος) who some time ago led a revolt and led into the wilderness four thousand assassins?”
Acts 21:37-38 from Greek translation
This is from Morton Smith Jesus the Magician p.20.
It was Morton Smith who hit the nail on the head when he observed what is really significant about the passage in Acts 5:33-39, is not that Luke got his fake history wrong (again putting Theudas before Judas and making up a story about Gamaliel) but that “Even this Christian propaganda shows that the Christians themselves expected Jesus to be seen as the same social type as Judas and Theudas.”
Otto Betz in this essay – “Miracles in the Writings of Flavius Josephus”, ch.9 in Feldman and Hata (eds) Josephus, Judaism, and Christianity, (Detroit: Wayne State University Press, 1987), p.229.
…had some great observations on Theudas.
“Theudas was “someone,” a man chosen by God. Speaking Aramaic, Theudas may have used the term bar nash, the “Son of Man,” or “someone.” This self-designation was vague to the outsider, but significant for those who lived and thought according to the promises of the Bible.” The author of Acts depicts this title like he did for others negatively. He did not like a rival Sign Prophet for others to follow. we can infer Acts saw “son of man” as a possible self designation for Theudas.
M. David Litwa in his study of Simon of Samaria noted, “Simon is said to call himself “somebody great” (Acts 8:9). [similar to Great Power title Simonians gave Simon]… It was, instead, a way for the author of Acts to depict him as a boaster [and to raise suspicion]. In Acts, claiming “to be somebody (great)” is negative. It was the vaunt of Theudas, the revolutionary of Acts 5:36, a man said to be a false prophet who “came to nothing.” … when “Herod” did not reject deifying praise, he was immediately “eaten by worms and died” (Acts 12:22-23).
Acts lets it slip what type of movement the Jesus movement was. It shows the comparable groups were small groups who gathered crowds hoping god would help, Judas the Galilean in his tax revolt wanted a kingdom of god. (Josephus, Ant. 18.23, War 2.118). Theudas wanted to force a new age by splitting the Jordan. (Ant. 20.97-99). He was a Sign Prophet and so was Jesus.
Painter in his book Just James p.56
“In Acts the family of Jesus appears among his followers, and James is portrayed as the leader of the Jerusalem church. There is nothing to suggest that this view represents a radical change within the Jesus movement.” Not only is James the leader, you can tell from where James is first mentioned that the other brothers of Jesus also had leadership roles, as Peter said, – “Announce these things to James and the brothers” (Acts 12:17). For a leader of the Jesus movement, James is only mentioned three times in Acts 12.17, 15.13, 21 18. “It is as if Luke has pushed James into the background, but, because of his prominence, has been unable to obscure totally his leading role.”
Robert Eisenman James the Brother of Jesus
As Eisenman pointed out in his book James the brother of Jesus, fiction does not try to write people out of their narratives and yet that is what happened in Acts.
James is mentioned for the first time by name in Acts 12:17 as if he had been introduced before and is mentioned as the leader of the Jerusalem church in such an off hand way, that we the reader should know about him and would have if Acts had not been overwritten. Acts assumes we already knew who James was. Another James, James the brother of John was killed at the beginning of chapter 12 (decapitated) just before introduction of this James the Just and according to the epistles is brother of Jesus. (Cf Gal.2:12; 1:19)
It looks like Stephen was a stand in (ie this was the overwrite) for James as Stephens attack in Acts and James attack in the Pseudo Clementines Recognitions are very similar. This similarity can still be glimpsed at in Acts 7:52: “the Just One, whom you have now betrayed and murdered.”
Acts treatment of James in trying to write him out of the story hides real history, the history that it was Jesus’ brother who took over the movements after Jesus’ execution.
Milton Moreland, in Acts and Christian Beginnings, Acts Seminar Report, ed Smith and Tyson (Ed’s)
For the author of Acts, and especially for his audiences, Jerusalem’s complete destruction in 70 CE and its further decimation and rebuilding as a Roman city by Hadrian after the Bar Kokhba Revolt (132–35 CE) is an unspoken fact that lies behind the author’s ability to claim the city as the place where Christianity began. Vespasian, Titus and Domitian, in the decade after the first revolt, and Hadrian, after 135, used their victories in multiple ways to bolster their imperial claims. The author and audiences of Acts did not know the city as an active place of veneration; rather, Jerusalem was a site of mythic imagination that was claimed and envisioned by authors who used this (ruined) site as a powerful narrative setting. Acts is a myth of Christian origins.
As seen from this post, Acts is not literal history, but a carefully crafted narrative. Why do we find the evangelists crafting their stories? So as to craft Jesus into the expected messiah, a son of God where his story was carefully crafted onto Tanak expectations. Even so- real historical memories were used in this novelistic narration of events. We get clues about this from seeing where Acts was uncomfortable – suppressing how it was Jesus’ brother was in charge, suppressing the story of competing christianities etc. Acts is different from the primary source of Christianity – namely the epistles of Paul. The epistles were a first hand account (although polemical) by a missionary who actually knew James and Cephas. Acts is a later novelistic account that used the epistles.
So to conclude history is not determined from the propaganda of Acts, rather it is determined from what Acts was trying to do.
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.(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.
———————————————————-
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”~Price,The Christ Myth Theory,63.
————————————————————
The following extract from Litwas book, tells a common trope of a prophecy of a child’s future greatness is a well-known mythological motif.
“Nigidius Figulus was reputed to be a diviner who foretold the future. It was this Nigidius who met Augustus’s father on his way to the Senate house. When he inquired about Octavian’s tardiness, the latter explained that his son had just been delivered. When Nigidius learned the precise time of the child’s birth, he shouted out before astounded witnesses, “the ruler of the world had been born!” Octavian, afraid that his son would grow up to overthrow the Roman Republic, planned to kill the child.~ Livy, From the Foundation 2.3–4 [cf gMatthew,Herod attempting to kill the baby Jesus].
Yet Nigidius dissuaded him, remarking that it was impossible for the child to evade his imperial fate.~ Suetonius, Deified Augustus 94.5.
When Jesus’s parents are in Jerusalem, they offer the customary sacrifice at the temple. Suddenly an old man emerges from the shadows of the temple courts, scoops up the child from Mary’s arms, and delivers a prophecy. He addresses the Jewish deity in a prayer heard by all: “Master, now you are dismissing your servant in peace . . . for my eyes have seen your salvation, which you have prepared in the presence of all peoples, a light for revelation to the Gentiles and for glory to your people Israel” (Luke 2:29–32).”
~Litwa, How the Gospels became History, ch6.
—————————————————
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. As Peppard has shown in his book “Son of God in the Roman World”, there were only two people at that time that held the title “son of God”, that is the Emperor and Jesus. 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 adoption of the word “Parousia” by early Christians has a meaning for the coming into town of an Emperor. From the Ptolemaic period to the second century of the common era “parousia” was used in the East as a technical expression to denote the arrival or visit of a king or emperor, and celebrated the glory of the sovereign publicly. In memory of the visit of EmperorNero to the cities ofPatras and Corinth, advent coins were struck that carried the legendAdventus Augusti Corinth. The Greek word parousia here corresponded to the Latin word advent. The numerous journeyings of the EmperorHadrian were celebrated by many advent coins, and often new eras were reckoned from date of the parousia.
In the New Testament the word parousia came to refer to the second coming of Christ. (Matthew 24:3, 27, 37, 39; 1 Corinthians 15:23; 1 Thessalonians 2:19; 3:13; 4:15; 5:23; 2 Thessalonians 2:1, 8, 9; James 5:7, 8; 2 Peter 1:16; 3:4, 12; 1 John 2:28.)
———————————————————-
The story of the Magi in Matthews gospel may have been inspired by a visit of the Magi to Nero in worshipping Nero as a god.
“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 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).
With the shrewd rise of King David over all the tribes, a precedent was set and historical prototype for subsequent messianic movements, from bandit chieftain to King. During the time of Jesus all these tales of messiah savior “kings” gave rise to many messianic movements such as those reported by Josephus.
SIMON BAR GIORA
* The cleansing of the Temple scene in Mark preserves some faded memory of the entry of Simon bar-Gioras into the Temple to clean out the robbers (Zealots) of John of Giscala on the eve of the Temple’s destruction.(Mark11:15-19; Wars4.9.11-12).
“So they got together, and slew many of the zealots, and drove the rest before them into that royal palace…..the Idumeans [loyal to Simon] fell in with them, and drove the zealots out thence into the temple, and betook themselves to plunder John’s effects….. Accordingly, in order to overthrow John, they determined to admit Simon: and earnestly to desire the introduction of a second tyrant into the city…….. Accordingly he, in an arrogant manner, granted them his lordly protection; and came into the city, in order to deliver it from the zealots. The people also made joyful acclamations to him, as their saviour, and their preserver. “(Wars4.9.11).
(Also note of Simon Maccabee entering Jerusalem with people laying palms: 1Macc13:51 (cfZachariah9:9-10;Psalm118)
“Whereupon John, with his multitude of zealots, as being both prohibited from coming out of the temple, and having lost their power in the city: (for Simon and his party had plundered them of what they had:) were in despair of deliverance. Simon also made an assault upon the temple, with the assistance of the people; while the others stood upon the cloisters, and the battlements, and defended themselves from their assaults.”(Wars4:9:12)
We notice how Simon bar Gioras was welcomed into the temple to cleanse the sacred precinct from the “thieves” who infested it, Zealots under John of Gischala.
After this triumphant entry he commenced the cleansing of the temple, “sweep( ing) the zealots out of the city.”
* Tacitus, Hist. v. 12;
“All the most desperate characters in the country had taken refuge there[Jerusalem] which did not conduce to unity. They had three armies, each with its own general. The outermost and largest line of wall was held by Simon; the central city by John, and the temple by Eleazar.514 John and Simon were stronger than Eleazar in numbers and equipment, but he had the advantage of a strong position. Their relations mainly consisted of fighting, treachery, and arson: a large quantity of corn was burnt. Eventually, under pretext of offering a sacrifice, John sent a party of men to massacre Eleazar and his troops, and by this means gained possession of the
temple.515 Thus Jerusalem was divided into two hostile parties, but on the approach of the Romans the necessities of foreign warfare reconciled their differences.”
* Just like Jesus on his entry into Jerusalem people thought of Simon bar Giora as a king.
Simon, with “a strong body of men,” overran villages and became a threat “to the cities.” He had men of power, slaves and robbers, and “a great many of the populace” who “were obedient to him as their KING.” According to Josephus, it was no secret that he was “making preparations for the assault on Jerusalem” (Wars 4.9.4).
* Jesus movement was from the backwater of Galilee, simple country folk where Jesus told many agrarian parables. Jesus was a faith healer and teacher where he soon had thousands following him.
Simon bar Giora’s movement composed of Judean and Idumean villages and towns. He built up vast following. Eventually became one of the main leaders in the Jerusalem revolt.(Wars4.9.4).
* People venerated Jesus on his entry into Jerusalem
Yet the Jews had the highest regard for, and fear of, Simon. They were also very ready to take their own lives, if he would have given such a command: “Above all, they had a great veneration and dread of Simon; and to that degree was he regarded by every one of those that were under him, that at his command they were very ready to kill themselves with their own hands” (Wars 5.7.3).
* Simon bar Giora was the leader of the rebel faction called the sicarii, who hid their daggers underneath their cloaks. This has a parallel where one of the disciples drew his short sword (a dagger) during Christ’s arrest.(Mark14:47).
* During Christ’s march to Golgotha the Roman soldiers put a purple robe on him, but later removed it again. Simon bar Giora was also known as Simon bar Poras, the latter word a shortened version of the Latin word purpura (porpora in Italian) for the colour purple. When Simon bar Giora was arrested, he put on his purple cloak before he surrendered, probably as a declaration that he was the one they wanted most.
Toward the end of the Roman siege of Jerusalem, John Levi and many others had already been captured by the Romans, but Simon was still underground and hoping to escape. Josephus recorded his bizarre behavior when he finally emerged dressed like a king, hoping to trick the Romans, but was captured and kept for the eventual celebration in Rome.
“And now Simon, thinking he might be able to astonish and elude the Romans, put on a white frock, and buttoned upon him a purple cloak, and appeared out of the ground in the place where the temple had formerly been.”(Wars7.2.1) ;(Cf 1Macc10:20,62 for the purple robe reference.)
* The trial of Jesus with Pilate (Mark15:4-5) and his willingness to be taken as in Mark (14:21) “For the Son of Man goes as it is written of him, but woe to that man by whom the Son of Man is betrayed! It would have been better for that man if he had not been born”
…………does chiastically parallel with
“Thus did God bring this man to be punished for what bitter and savage tyranny he had exercised against his countrymen, by those who were his worst enemies: and this while he was not subdued by violence, but voluntarily delivered himself up to them to be punished”
(Wars7.2.1).
He stayed three days underground and then appeared suddenly out of the ground.
“…appeared out of the ground in the place where the temple had formerly been…..At the first indeed, those that saw him were greatly astonished, and stood still where they were.”
He appeared like an apparition would make a parallel with the resurrection.(Wars7.2.1).
* Caesar’s triumphal procession is described in Wars 7.5.1-7. Simon was called “the general of the enemy” and his execution was in “the last part of this pompous show…at the temple of Jupiter Capitolinus.” A rope was put around his head and he was tormented as he was dragged along. All the people shouted for joy when it was announced that he had been killed (Wars 7.5.6). This matches the crowd turning against Jesus as he was to be crucified.
Also mentions by Dr Price about parallels of Simon bar Giora and Jesus prompted me to look into this.
————————————————-
JESUS BEN ANANIAS
The most significant and compelling parallel is Mark14.60,
60 Then the high priest stood up before them and asked Jesus, “Are you not going to answer? What is this testimony that these men are bringing against you?” 61 But Jesus remained silent and gave no answer.
Procurator Albinus actually asks Jesus Ben Ananias the exact same question and he also made no answer!
* Both came to Jerusalem during major religious festival.
(Mark14:2 , JW 6.301)
* Both enter Temple area‘s and rant against Temple.
(Mark11:15-17 , JW 6.301)
* Both quote same chapter of Jeremiah.
(Jer7:11 in Mark , Jer7:34 in JW)
* Both preach daily in the temple.
(Mark14:49 , JW6.306)
* Both declared “woe” on to Judea or the Jews.
(Mark13:17 JW6.304.306.309)
* Both predict the temple would be destroyed.
(Mark13:2. , JW 6.300.309)
* Both are for this reason arrested by the Jews.
(Mark14:43 , JW 6.302)
* Both are accused of speaking against the temple.
(Mark14:58 , JW 6.302)
* Neither makes any defence of himself against the charges.
(Mark14:60 , JW 6.302)
* Both are beaten by the Jews.
(Mark14:65 JW6.302)
* Then both are taken to the Roman Governor.
( Pilate in Mark , Albinus in JW)
* Both interrogated by the Roman Governor.
(15:2-4 , JW 6.303)
* Both asked to identify themselves.
(Mark15:2 , JW6.303)
* Neither says anything in their defense.
(Mark15:3-5 , JW6.305)
* Both beaten by the Romans.
(Mark15:15. , JW 6.304)
* Not released in Mark15:6-15 ; released in JW6.309
* Killed in Mark15:34 by execution.
Killed in JW6.308-309 by artillery.
* Both utter lament for themselves immediately before they die.
(Mark15:34 , JW6.309)
* Both die with loud cry.
(Mark15:37 , JW6.309)
————————————————
THE ‘EGYPTIAN’
The Egyptian prophet (between 52 and 58 CE)
[Sources: Flavius Josephus, Jewish War 2.259-263 ; cf Jewish Antiquities 20.169-171; Acts of the apostles 21.38.]
Story: According to Flavius Josephus, there were many people during the governorship of Festus
who deceived and deluded the people under pretense of Divine inspiration, but were in fact for procuring innovations and changes of the government. These men prevailed with the multitude to act like madmen, and went before them into the wilderness, pretending that God would there show them the signals of liberty.[Flavius Josephus, Jewish War 2.259.]
He continues with the following story.
There was an Egyptian false prophet that did the Jews more mischief than the former; for he was a cheat, and pretended to be a prophet also, and got together thirty thousand men that were deluded by him; these he led round about from the wilderness to the mount which was called the Mount of Olives. He was ready to break into Jerusalem by force from that place; and if he could but once conquer the Roman garrison and the people, he intended to rule them by the assistance of those guards of his that were to break into the city with him.[Flavius Josephus, Jewish War 2.261-262.]
In his Jewish antiquities, Josephus retold the story. The number of followers seems to be less exaggerated and the prophet’s threat to use violence are ignored.
about this time, someone came out of Egypt to Jerusalem, claiming to be a prophet. He advised the crowd to go along with him to the Mount of Olives, as it was called, which lay over against the city, and at the distance of a kilometer. He added that he would show them from hence how the walls of Jerusalem would fall down at his command, and he promised them that he would procure them an entrance into the city through those collapsed walls. Now when Felix was informed of these things, he ordered his soldiers to take their weapons, and came against them with a great number of horsemen and footmen from Jerusalem, and attacked the Egyptian and the people that were with him. He slew four hundred of them, and took two hundred alive. The Egyptian himself escaped out of the fight, but did not appear any more. And again the robbers stirred up the people to make war with the Romans, and said they ought not to obey them at all; and when any persons would not comply with them, they set fire to their villages, and plundered them. [Flavius Josephus, Jewish Antiquities 20.169-171.]
Comment: Like Theudas, the Egyptian prophet took Joshua (the man who made the walls of Jericho fall;Joshua 6.20) as an example. The Roman governor was rightly alarmed: like Joshua and Moses, the Egyptian claimed to lead the Jews to a promised land without enemies. This was clearly a messianic claim, even though Josephus does not mention it. The nameless Egyptian may have called himself “king Messiah”, because Josephus uses the Greek verb tyrannein (“to be sole ruler”) in the first quotation. It should be noted that the Mount of Olives was regarded as the place where God would stand on the Day of Judgment, fighting the battle against Israel’s enemies.[Zechariah 14.4.]
The commander (chiliarch) of the Roman garrison in Jerusalem, Claudius Lysias, makes mention of the Egyptian to Paul in Acts 21:38.
In conclusion, there seems to be a pattern, where a number of episodes described in the New Testament display significant similarities to events described by Josephus, but with a fairly consistent delay of fifteen to twenty years
* Like Jesus, the Egyptian had lingered in “the wilderness” or “desert” (ἐρημία).
* Both speak of tearing down the walls of Jerusalem (cf. Luke 19:43-44).
* Both had lived in Egypt.
* Both are described as messianic leaders with a great following.
* Both are perceived as major threats by the authorities.
* “The Egyptian” is defeated on the Mount of Olives, where Jesus was arrested.
Jesus and the Egyptian are the circumstances surrounding their defeat: Jesus is arrested on the Mount of Olives, crucified, resurrected, and then vanishes. The Egyptian is defeated in a battle on the Mount of Olives, and then vanishes.
THE EVENTS ON THE MOUNT OF OLIVES
Mark 15:7 states that “a man called Barabbas was in prison with the rebels who had committed murder during the insurrection”. The author uses the definite form, as if we should already know which insurrection is intended. The fact is, however, that Mark describes no insurrection, nor do the other gospel authors. The only reported disturbances are the ones occurring when Jesus is arrested on the Mount of Olives (meeting his adversaries with the words: “Have you come out with swords and clubs to arrest me as though I were a robber?”). But the conflict seems predominately religious, and it is the Sanhedrin which sends out people to arrest Jesus, as indeed Mark, Matthew and Luke all write.
One Gospel, however, differs. In John 18:12, we read that “the Jewish police” are accompanied by “the soldiers” and “their officer” (NRSV). But it is when we go to the Greek original of John that we get the full picture: The word for “soldiers” is σπεῖρα, speira. A σπεῖρα is a Roman cohort with a paper strength of one thousand soldiers. So as to confirm that this is indeed what John describes, he uses the word χιλίαρχος for their commander (“the commander of one thousand”).
If John’s account is correct, then what occurred on the Mount of Olives must have been some sort of battle. It is difficult to imagine that the Romans would send out hundreds of soldiers to arrest one resting man. It is also worth noting that prior to the departure for the Mount of Olives, Luke 22:36 has Jesus admonishing his disciples that “the one who has no sword must sell his cloak and buy one”. Thus, judging by John, the events preceding the arrest of Jesus bear distinct similarities to the events surrounding the defeat of the Egyptian. And the location is the same.
Assuming that John is correct, and that Josephus’ narrative on the fate of the Egyptian is accurate, the one clear remaining difference between the Egyptian and Jesus is the crucifixion. Although this may be a decisive distinction, one event in the gospel accounts deserves to be mentioned in this context: the release of Barabbas. Unlike Jesus, Barabbas (or, as he is called in Matt. 27:16-17, Jesus Barabbas, meaning “Jesus, Son of the Father”) escapes crucifixion. That Jesus from Nazareth and Jesus Barabbas could be one and the same person is a proposition that has been made previously, by scholars as well as in fictional accounts. The peculiar resemblance of the names, as well as a failure to find either a biblical or an extra-biblical precedent for the described custom of releasing a prisoner at the feast, are generally cited as reasons for the hypothesis.
The word for “soldiers” is σπεῖρα, speira. ( John 18:12 )A σπεῖρα is a Roman cohort with a paper strength of one thousand soldiers. So as to confirm that this is indeed what John describes, he uses the word χιλίαρχος for their commander (“the commander of one thousand”).
Unlike the Synoptic Gospels, John 18:3 and 18:12 state that Jesus on the Mount of Olives was confronted by a speira – a Roman cohort of 500 to 1,000 soldiers.
[The word for “soldiers” is σπεῖρα, speira. A σπεῖρα is a Roman cohort with a paper strength of one thousand soldiers. So as to confirm that this is indeed what John describes, he uses the word χιλίαρχος for their commander (“the commander of one thousand”)]
This suggestion of a battle preceding Jesus’ arrest is reminiscent of an event described by Josephus in the 50s (A.J. 20.169-172; J.W.2.261-263), involving the so called ‘Egyptian Prophet’ (or simply ‘the Egyptian’). This messianic leader – who had previously spent time “in the wilderness” – had “advised the multitude … to go along with him to the Mount of Olives”, where he “would show them from hence how, at his command, the walls of Jerusalem would fall down”. Procurator Felix, however, sent a cohort of soldiers to the Mount of Olives, where they defeated ‘the Egyptian’.
—————————————
PROCURATOR FELIX(52-ca. 59 C.E.)
Pontius Pilate is not really Pilate at all in the gospels:
Changing the names of authority figures in the gospel texts, in order to detect (or disguise) parallels in the historical sources, would at the same time be a simple and a radical intervention. It would with one stroke of the pen move the narrative to a different era, but it would also likely bestow upon these authority figures characteristics and circumstances which are not in reality theirs. When comparing the gospel descriptions of various dignitaries with those from Josephus, not only does such a pattern indeed seem to emerge; in addition, there is some consistency with regard to which dignitaries would change names, and when they are active. Procurator Felix (52-ca. 59 C.E.), as he is depicted in Josephus’ texts, in several ways appears to bear stronger similarities to the Pilate described in the Gospels, than Pilate himself. In Josephus’ accounts of Pilate we find no co-reigning high priests, or open conflict between Galileans and Samaritans. Under Felix, and under Cumanus, we do.
There are other examples. Luke 13:1 reads: ”At that very time there were some present who told him about the Galileans whose blood Pilate had mingled with their sacrifices.” This statement fits poorly with Pilate. To begin with, Pilate was not the ruler of Galilee, Herod Antipas was. Secondly, the only registered violent encounter between Pilate and the Jews occurred in Jerusalem – thus in Judea – when non-violent protests against the aqueduct prompted Pilate to instruct his soldiers “with their staves to beat those that made the clamour” (JW.2.175-177).
This stands in stark contrast to what occurred under Felix. Felix, unlike Pilate, was the ruler not only of Judea, but also of “Samaria, Galilee, and Peraea” (JW.2.247; the western part of Galilee after 54 C.E.). At this point, “the country was again filled with robbers and impostors”, a disproportionate amount of whom were Galileans, and Felix was exceptionally cruel in dealing with these insurgents. As Josephus writes: “But as to the number of the robbers whom he caused to be crucified, and of those who were caught among them, and whom he brought to punishment, they were a multitude not to be enumerated” (JW.2.253).
Tacitus, in turn, puts much of the blame for the emerging rebellion on Felix and Cumanus (Annuls 12.54).
There are other, more personal, examples: the Gospels attribute great influence to Pilate’s wife (Matt. 27:19: “While he was sitting on the judgement seat, his wife sent word to him, ‘Have nothing to do with that innocent man …’”). The Gospels also mention a feud between Pilate and the Jewish king (Luke 23:12: “That same day Herod and Pilate became friends with each other; before this they had been enemies.”)
In contrast, Josephus does not mention Pilate’s wife, and, more significantly, fails to mention any animosity between Pilate and Herod Antipas (Philo does mention one possible occasion of disagreement – when “the four sons of the king” [Herod] are asked by the people to implore Pilate to remove the guilt shields, or ensigns, from Jerusalem).
Josephus does, however, describe a significant – and very personal – disagreement between Felix and Herod Agrippa II. The conflict concerns the procurator’s wife. Felix had fallen in love with Agrippa’s sister, princess Drusilla (A.J. 20.141-144). But Drusilla was not only married; Agrippa had forced her first husband, king Azizus, to convert to Judaism. Now Felix “endeavored to persuade her to forsake her present husband, and marry him”, which Drusilla did, thus “transgressing the laws of her forefathers” (A.J. 20.137-144; cf. Acts 24:24).
Hence, a prominent wife, and a personal disagreement with a Jewish ruler, are aspects of Felix’ life; not, as far as is known, of Pilate’s.
In fact Pilate as depicted in Philo’s writing and Josephus does not bear any resemblance on Pilate of the gospels.
——————————————————-
MENAHEM
Menahem was leader of the sacarii till 66AD till he got assassinated. (2.17.8-9)
Menahem’s procession from Masada to Jerusalem “like a king” and his messianic posturing in the Temple appear as striking comparative material for interpretation of Jesus’ “triumphal entry” and “cleansing of the Temple”.
———————————————————
JUDAS THE GALILEAN
Judas the Galilean, or Judas of Gamala, was a Jewish leader who led resistance to the census imposed for Roman tax purposes by Quirinius in Judea Province around 6 CE. Luke has his Jesus born around the tax revolt. Later on the tax issue is used to entrap Jesus. Keeping a close watch on him, they sent spies, who pretended to be sincere.
Luke20:20 “They hoped to catch Jesus in something he said, so that they might hand him over to the power and authority of the governor. 21So the spies questioned him: “Teacher, we know that you speak and teach what is right, and that you do not show partiality but teach the way of God in accordance with the truth. 22 Is it right for us to pay taxes to Caesar or not? 23 He saw through their duplicity and said to them, 24 “Show me a denarius. Whose image and inscription are on it?” “Caesar’s,” they replied. 25 He said to them, “Then give back to Caesar what is Caesar’s, and to God what is God’s.” 26 They were unable to trap him in what he had said there in public. And astonished by his answer, they became silent.”
Judas the Galilean encouraged Jews not to register and those that did had their houses burnt and their cattle stolen by his followers. He ended up getting crucified.
Josephus described Judas the Galilean as a sophist, in Jewish terms that would be somebody very learned in the Torah, somebody like that would be exalted by his peers, something that could have happened to Jesus, the start of his exaltation could have been from his peers.
As a coincidence he had two sons with the same names as Jesus’s brothers
Ant20.102 In addition to this, James and Simon, sons of Judas the Galilean, were put on trial and by order of Alexander were crucified; this was the Judas who – as explained above – had incited the popular revolt against the Romans, while Quirinius was carrying out the census in Judea”.
——————————————————
TITUS
Titus won the battle of Tarichaeae by crossing over the Sea of Galilee. This set Titus up for glory in the Jewish War.
The Roman army was “fishing for men” after Titus had figuratively driven the demons into the water. (CfMark5:13 and JW3.10.5-10).
———————————————————
RUFUS
Gospel of Mark calls ‘Simon of “Cyrene’, ‘the father of Alexander and Rufus’, who, ‘coming from a field, carried the cross of Jesus’ (15:21). The way Mark refers to ‘Alexander and Rufus’ they are known in some Gentile Christian Community – presumably Rome, from which Mark is often thought to originate.
In Josephus, coincidental or otherwise, there is another ‘Rufus’, a Roman soldier again, who at the end of the War does somewhat parallel things. What he does is make a daring foray, again across Jordan near Machaeros, where John the Baptist met his end, and ‘carry off’ one of the local Jewish partisans. This man is then crucified before his own town and because of his pitiful cries many surrendered, and those who did not “were butchered and the women and children enslaved – this the ‘carrying off’ and ‘cross’ themes associated with one ‘Rufus’ in Josephus. Wars7.199-209.
———————————————————-
Simon the son of Giora (69 – 70 C.E.); (BJ, II, 19, 2 / 521; 22, 2 / 652 – 654; IV, 9,4;
[Sources: Flavius Josephus, Jewish War 2.259-263 ; cf Jewish Antiquities 20.169-171; Acts of the apostles 21.38.]
Jesus Ben Ananias (JW6.301-309)
Procurator Felix (JW.2.247; JW.2.253
Tacitus Hist. Annuls 12.54;
Pontas Pilate (JW.2.175-177)
Menahem (JW.2.17.8-9)
—————————————————
It’s hard to tell which traditions actually belong to a historical character, easier to see which traditions that were attributed to him.
It seems to me to use the messianic hopefuls as reported in Josephus works as archetypes for Jesus.
Ch2 in Brandon’s book “Jesus and the Zealots” was about comparing Judas the Galilean described as a sophist in Josephus, in Jewish terms that would be somebody very learned in the Torah, somebody like that would be exalted by his peers, something that could have happened to Jesus, the start of his exaltation could have been from his peers.
Then you could take Lena Einhorn who thought a Jesus was the ‘Egyptian’. Obviously the ‘Egyptian’ would make a good archetype also.
Then you have Eisenman in his “James, the brother of Jesus” book who has said the Jesus movements were suspiciously like the ‘Samaritan’ passage in Ant 18.4.1.
Reza Aslan in his Zealot book says “One of the most fearsome of all the bandits, the charismatic bandit chief Hezekiah, openly declared himself to be the messiah, the promised one who would restore the Jews to glory.”(Jewish War1.204-205).
As the Testamonian Flavian (Ant 28.3.3) is an obvious overwritten, all of it rubbed out and overwritten piece, then all you can do is reconstruct what could have been originally written there. That is all you can possibly know about Jesus.
“And when he [the devil] brings forward Æsculapius as the raiser of the dead and healer of all diseases, may I not say that in this matter likewise he has imitated the prophecies about Christ?”~Justin Martyr, Dialogue with Typho 69.
Asclepius was son of Apollo. He shared with his father the title Paean (healer), but he was also the child of a mortal mother, Coronis, who died before delivering him. Apollo saved the infant Asclepius by cutting him from his mother’s womb on her funeral pyre. (Asclepius means to cut open). Apollo took the demigod child to Chiron the Centaur, who then instructed him in the art of medicine.
Asclepius became so good at the art of medicine that he was soon able to raise the dead. He brought mythological figures such as Lycurgus, Capaneus, the prophet Tyndareus, Glaucos, Orion and the hero Hippolytus ( who enjoyed his own apotheosis to become a god). At some point the god became vexed by all these resurrections. According to one source, Hades was annoyed that his subjects were being “stolen” from him by Asclepius.
So Zeus struck the demigod dead with a thunderbolt. Apollo interceded on behalf of his son and Zeus restored Asclepius to life and making him a god, thus fulfilling a prophecy that Asclepius would become a god only to be killed and return to divine status, “twice renewing” his fate.
——————————————————
PARALLELS TO JESUS
* A child of both God and mortal
* A great healer
* Resurrected the dead
* Fulfilled prophecies
* Suffered death, only to be resurrected
* Worshipped for his powers to heal
* Both thought of as savior gods.
* Cults and Temples were developed in their names.
* People experienced healing “miracles” effected by their god.
—————————————————
For centuries sick people went to the Temples dedicated to Asclepius.
Early Christians attacked the cult of Asclepius with venom because of rivalry.
Christians find it implausible that a person who suffered an ignominious death of crucifixion could ever be thought of as a god, but many gods were said to have suffered on earth and martyred and resurrected prior to Jesus. Asclepius being a perfect example.
The Therapuetae of Asclepius were a recognized and designated association in antiquity that included the physicians, their attendants and support staff, in the larger temples of Asclepius. These healing temples were known as Asclepeions. Examples of famous therapeutae of Asclepius between 300 BCE and 300 CE include Hippocrates, Apollonius of Tyana, Aelius Aristides and Galen. The Greek word therapeutai (θερα^π-ευτής) has the primary meaning of ‘one who serves the gods, or ‘worshipper’.
It was Asclepius on whose temple at Epidaurus the words were inscribed: “Pure must be he who enters the fragrant temple; purity means to think nothing but holy thoughts.”
——————————————————
The following extract is taken from M David Latwa’s book Iesus Dues, ch5
“Asclepius (the Latin Aesculapius), son of Apollo and famous doctor, was killed by Zeus’s thunderbolt for resuscitating people from the dead. “Jupiter aimed a thunderbolt at him,” relates Ovid, “who used the resources of a too potent art” (Fasti 6.759-60). He was buried, some say, in Cynosura (Cic., Nat. d. 3.22.57), though others pointed to Epidaurus (Ps. Clem., Hom 6.21; Rec. 10.24). But Zeus raised Asclepius from the dead. The second-century Christian apologist Theophilus of Antioch affirms that Asclepius “was raised” (ἐγηγέρθαι—a word used for the resurrection of Jesus in Matt. 16: 21; Mark 14: 28; Luke 24: 6; John 21: 14) from the dead (Autol. 1.13). According to Hyginus’s Fables, Asclepius returned from the underworld (ab inferis) by the permission of the Fates (Fab. 251.2). He was one of those made immortal from mortal human beings (ex mortalibus immortales) (Fab. 224.5). Out of mercy (κατ’ ἔλεον), says Lucian, Zeus raised Asclepius not just to a normal human life, but made him participate in immortality (ἀθανασίας μεταλαμβάνω) (Dial. Mort. 13.1).[ 51] Justin Martyr apparently understands Asclepius’s resurrection to involve a simultaneous ascent to heaven (ἀνεληλυθέναι εἰς οὐρανόν) (1 Apol. 21.2).[ 52] In Pseudo-Eratosthenes, Zeus leads Asclepius up to the stars (εἰς τὰ ἄστρα ἀναγαγεῖν) and makes him a constellation (the serpent-bearer) (1.6; cf. Dan. 12: 3). That Asclepius’s resurrection/ ascension was also a deification was widely understood. Ovid addresses Apollo: “Phoebus, you complained [about Asclepius’s death]. But Aesculapius is a god (deus est); be reconciled to your parent [Zeus]” (Fasti 6.761-62). Both Minucius Felix (Oct. 23.7) and Cyprian (Quod idola dii non sint 2) describe Asclepius as rising to godhood (in deum surgat).[ 54] After his death, Asclepius eventually received worship due to a god. Indeed, during the infancy of Christianity, Asclepius’s cult was one of the most popular in the Greco-Roman world. In his cult centers, he was said to appear in full bodily presence to his votaries (usually in dream visions). According to Celsus, for instance, “a great multitude of people, Greeks and barbarians alike, confess that they have often seen and still see not a mere apparition (οὐ φάσμα) but Asclepius himself, healing, doing good and predicting the future” (Cels. 3.24; cf. Luke 24: 39). Maximus of Tyre claims that he saw Asclepius (as well as the Dioscuri and Heracles) and insists that it was not in a dream (Or. 9.7; cf. Luke 24: 39).”
——————————————-
There are also some comparisons between the life of Pythagorus and the gospels, eg
Sostrata; then he cut open her belly, removed an enormous quantity of worms-two full basins; then he stitched up her belly and made the woman well; then Asclepius revealed his presence and bade her send thank offerings for the cure to Epidaurus [the main cult site]. (Epidaurus inscription, 4th century B.C.E.) Here we cannot help thinking of the famous story of the disciples on the road to Emmaus (Luke 24:13-35).
Also compare the nets too heavy to drag in, between the “Life of Pythagoras, 36, 60f.” And The Johannine story of the miraculous catch of fish (John 21:1-11).
Pool of Bethesda
On chapter 5 of Johns gospel, Jesus heals a paralytic at the pool of Bethesda. This pool was unknown until the same pool with 5 porticos was discovered by archaeologists in the nineteenth century. This is evidence that the evangelist knew of this pool that got destroyed in the Roman Jewish war of 70AD. This pool was used as therapeutic cure for the infirm. The pool was an asclepieion.
Chapter 5 of Johns gospel has been thought a “deliberate polemic against theAsclepiuscult, an antagonism possibly partly brought on by the fact that Asclepius was worshipped asSaviour, in reference to his healing attributes. The narrative uses the Greek phrase “ὑγιὴς γενέσθαι”,hygies genesthai, (John5:6) which is not used anywhere in theSynoptic Gospels, but appears frequently in ancient testimonies to the healing powers of Asclepius; the later narrative in the Gospel of John about Jesus washingSimon Peter‘s feet at theLast Supper, (John13:5-18) similarly uses the Greek term “λούειν”,louein,(John13:10) which is a special term for washing in an Asclepieion, rather than the Greek word used elsewhere in the Johannine text to describe washing – “νίπτειν”,niptein.” ~Maureen W. Yeung, Faith in Jesus and Paul, p. 79.
In the Acts of Pilate (gospel of Nicodemus) Pilate informs the Jews that Jesus heals by the god Asclepius:
Pilate saith: And what things are they that he doeth, and would destroy the law?
The Jews say: We have a law that we should not heal any man on the sabbath: but this man of his evil deeds hath healed the lame and the bent, the withered and the blind and the paralytic, the dumb and them that were possessed, on the sabbath day!
Pilate saith unto them: By what evil deeds?
They say unto him: He is a sorcerer, and by Beelzebub the prince of the devils he casteth out devils, and they are all subject unto him.
Pilate saith unto them: This is not to cast out devils by an unclean spirit, but by the god Asclepius.
And Justin Martyr in First Apology XXXV says “And that these things did happen, you can ascertain from the Acts of Pontius Pilate.”
————————————————————-
The ancient Mediterranean world was hip-deep in religions centering on the death and resurrection of a savior god. Usually these religions and their rites measured the yearly renewal of nature. The imagery of death and resurrection might symbolize the withering of vegetation in autumn and winter and its restoration in spring and summer. Or it might stand for the waning of daylight light till the Winter Solstice and its gradual waxing thereafter. Or perhaps the planting (death and burial) of the seed and its sprouting (resurrection). All were variations on the one theme. But the myths of each such god supplied plied the motivation for the fate and triumph of the savior, one that made sense in the native context.
One of the first mentions of Christians outside of Jewish sources was made in the Territory of Marcion, in Pontus and Bithynia. Pliny the younger sent a letter to Tragan in 112AD in regards to secret societies including Christian clubs and what to do with them.
“Several modern researchers have pointed to features in common between Pliny’s Christians and Marcion’s brand of Christianity. These include the absence of Jewish characteristics in the service, the direct worship of Christ as something like a deity, and the relatively high position accorded women.”~BeDuhn, The First New Testament,16.
According to the letter two women slaves held important positions as ministrae who distributed the ritual meal.
Tacitus may have also been informed by the Marcionite version of Luke. The opening line of the Evangelion, “In the fifteenth year of Tiberius Caesar, when Pilate was governing Judea.” Is similar to Annals15.44 “Christians…..suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus,”.
Marcions book, Antitheses showed the God of the Old Testament could not be the God of Jesus. “For example, the God of the Old Testament tells the people of Israel to enter into the city of Jericho and murder every man, woman, child, and animal in the city (Joshua 6); but the God of Jesus tells his followers to love their enemies, to pray for those who persecute them, to turn the other cheek (Luke 6: 27–29). Is this the same God? When Elisha, the prophet of the Old Testament God, was being mocked by a group of young boys, God allowed him to call out two she-bears to attack and maul them (2 Kings 2: 23–24). The God of Jesus says, “Let the little children come to me” (Luke 18: 15–17). Is this the same God? The God of the Old Testament said, “Cursed is anyone who hangs on a tree” (Deut. 27: 26; 28: 58). But the God of Jesus ordered him, the one who was blessed, to be hanged on a tree. Is this the same God?
How could the wrathful, vengeful God of the Jews be the loving, merciful God of Jesus? Marcion maintained that these attributes could not belong to one God, as they stand at odds with one another: hatred and love, vengeance and mercy, judgment and grace. He concluded that there must in fact be two Gods: the God of the Jews, as found in the Old Testament, and the God of Jesus, as found in the writings of Paul.”~Ehrman, Lost Christianities, ch5.
There was precedent for Marcions theology as Plutarch writes in Isis and Oirises 46-47 (369d-370c)
“Most of the wisest men …. think there are two gods, rivals as it were, one the maker of good things, the other of bad. But others call the better power a god, the other a demon, as does Zoroaster who… called the god “Ahurs Mazda” the demon,”Ahriman”. …..Moreover, he taught [his followers the magi] to offer sacrifices….”
———————————————–
The earliest date we have for Marcion is Polycarp’s comment that Marcion was teaching in 115 AD. Irenaeus said that Polycarp first refutes Marcion face to face. – Haer. 3.3.4. Writing in 138 AD, Justin Martyr said that Marcionites could be found in “every nation.” [Dialogue with Trypho, prologue; First Apology.chap26].
Marcions had a sea trade and as a religious leader was able to spread his brand of Christianity fast, ships are the fastest method of travel.
Due to various Jewish revolts, 66-70AD, the Kitos and the Bar Kokhba revolt, Marcions brand of Christianity excluding the Jewish roots became popular.
Moreover, Jesus explains in Marcions Evangelion that no one puts new wine into old wineskins; otherwise, the old wineskins burst and both they and the wine are destroyed (Luke5:37-38) The gospel is a new thing that has come into the world. It cannot be put into the old wineskins of the Jewish religion.
Tertullian claims “For it is evident that those men lived [Valentinus and Marcion] not so long ago,–in the reign of Antoninus for the most part,–and that they at first were believers in the doctrine of the Catholic Church, in the church of Rome under the episcopate of the blessed Eleutherus, until on account of their ever restless curiosity,with which they even infected the brethren, they were more than once expelled. Marcion, indeed, [went] with the two hundred sesterces which which he had brought into the church, and, when banished at last to a permanent excommunication, they scattered abroad the poisons of their doctrines.”~On the Prescriptions of Heresies, chXXX.
The proto Orthodox rejected Marcion because ““Christianity and Judaism “co-evolved,” and the degree to which the “orthodox” Christianity might even be said to represent a historical “convergence” with Jewish religious views and values, in contrast to other forms of Christianity, such as Marcionite and Manichaean Christianity, where such a convergence never occurred.”~BeDuhn,The First New Testament, 59-60.
As seen from Pliny’s letters, “Marcion came from a Gentile Christian community already substantially seperated from a Jewish religious background.” Ibid,60
Marcion identified certain texts as authoritative, Paul suited Marcions type of Christianity and Marcions canon gave his movement an authoritative air.
Harnack believes Marcion ( in his book called Marcion) was the first to use the term Evangelion to tell a narrative of Jesus’ life. Before this an Evangelion was a proclamation or manifesto of a powerful individual (whether divine or human). It was adopted by the early Christians.
The use of the word “gospel” by Christians in Marcions day referred primarily to a body of teaching such as the gospel mentioned in Pauls letters, and did not refer to a text.
With all the writings against Marcion we know that he was the juggernaut of Christianity:
Writings by Justin Martyr, Ireaneus, Tertullian, Origen, Eusibius and Jerome still survive.
Also here is a list of the lost works:
•Justin Martyr,Syntagma against Marcion ( mentioned Ireaneus, Haer4.6.2)
•Rhodo (Eusibius,Hist.eccl.5.13)
•Dionysus Of Corinth( Eusibius, Hist.eccl.4.23)
•Theophilus of Antioch(Eusibius, Hist. eccl. 4.24)
•Hippolytus Of Rome, Syntagma( Jerome, Vir. ill.61)
•Philip Of Gortyna(Eusibius,Hist.eccl.4.25)
•Modestus(Eusibius,Hist.eccl.4.25).
These were probably not preserved because they went too far against Pauls epistles that had come back into fashion after Marcion.
(It goes without saying that Marcions own work Antithesis (Meaning Oppositions) was destroyed but is reconstructed.)
We only know of Marcion through his detractors, and his first mention by a contemporary Justin Martyr (Apol.26.5) “already in this, the earliest reference to Marcion ( and apparently while still active) [Martyr says ‘even now’ in the quote], he is being ‘mythologized’ – reconstructed to serve the interests of his portrayer, on whose description any account must rely.”~Lieu,Marcion and the making of a heretic,15
Also in Lieu’s book, the polemics means everything is thrown against Marcion, most of which he was accused of had nothing to do with Marcion. Example Tertullian wrote a book against the Jews and just transferred what he wrote there onto Marcion, ie throw enough mud and see what sticks. That is why Marcions seems to be different to every opponent writing against him. Tertullian makes the case for a strongly dualistic – almost Manichaean – understanding of Marcionite theology. Whereas Ireaneus Marcionite godhead was tripartite (or at least that the two principle powers of God were ‘just’ and ‘merciful’ rather than ‘good’ and ‘evil’). Writings at first attributed to Hippolytus but now modern scholars treat the texts by an unknown author, compares Marcion to Empodocles whose governing principles love and discord is like Marcions good and evil.( Refutation VII.29-31).
The vigour with which Clement and Origen have combatted Marcion, shows Marcionites were a force to be reckoned with in Alexandria late 2nd century. Also a gnosticing Christianity preceded the proto- Orthodoxy in Egypt so Marcion, Valentine and Basilides were all written against. Bauer could detect no trace of orthodoxy in Egypt until the third-century bishop Demetrius.
Tyson claims that Luke Acts was written in reaction to Marcion.
Acts 16:6-8 mentions that while Paul traveled on his preaching missions, he and his traveling companions came upon Asia but the Holy Spirit did not permit them to preach while in Asia. The narrative elaborates to say that Paul attempted to specifically enter into the locale of Bithynia, Marcionite country but the “Spirit of Jesus did allow them” to go in. So they moved on to another locale.
Conspicuously, no explanation whatsoever is given for this prohibition from entering Bithynia. More striking is that there is no other instance in the entire Acts narrative where Paul was required to avoid a specific place and not make any contact with his gospel.
The author of Acts is disassociating Paul from Marcion by making expressly clear that of all the many places Paul traveled and preached, he did not even set foot in the hometown of Marcion (by order of divine guidance).
Another note of interest is that Acts has no mention of Alexandria. It does not mention Christianity in Egypt, so Acts is also disassociating from Valentines Christianity. Acts does admit in a curious text about an Alexandria Jew name Apollos who visited Ephesus but Paul and others judged his Christianity to be defective.
SOME FASCINATING FACTS in this dissertation:
*One of the first non Jewish source for Christians is from Marcion territory.
*He was responsible for the first New Testament in 144AD, it took the orthodox over 200 years to catch up.
*Was in the ascendancy, before the orthodox.
*Even Marcions history written by a contemporary is ‘mythologized’ and Marcion is demonised!
—————————————————-
DID MARCION GIVE ‘GOOD’ A BAD NAME?
“Tertullian knows that Marcion attributes to this deity the supreme quality of goodness ( bonitas). This, too, provokes a litany of dissent, not least the objection of goodness is only imaginary if it does not exhibit anger and retribution against that which disobeys its precepts.(Against Marcion I.27).”~Lieu,Marcion and the making of a heretic,65.
Marcion explained about the demiurge, the jealous creator god of the OT who dishes out retribution was not the same as the loving god, father of Jesus in his own book the Antithesis.
“alongside the ‘solely kind and supreme good’ God there is also another one whom, according to Tertullian, Marcion also insists on calling ‘God’ presumably because so did his source, the Scriptures. This deity is most persistently the ‘Creator’; he is a ‘judge, fierce and warlike (iudex, ferus, bellipotents)’. Against Marcion I.6. More than this, he is proven to lack goodness, prescience and omnipotence, and even to be actively responsible for evil to be inconsistent and unreliable in his demands and to be forever changing his mind. (Against Marcion II.5.2;21;23-4).”~ ibid,66.
Marcion’s Jesus appeared full grown on earth during the 15th year of the reign of Tiberius. For Marcion, Jesus simply appeared on earth one day, already an adult and with a celestial body. Marcion’s Jesus had no human family and only appeared to be a human being. Marcion’s Jesus only “appeared” to be crucified. Marcion’s Jesus only appeared to die. Marcion’s Jesus only appeared to be resurrected. Marcion’s Jesus was a god totally separate from the evil Yahweh, whom Marcion referred to as the “demi-urge”. This is reconstructed from church fathers writing against Marcion. [eg Tertullian, Adversus Marcionem1; Martyr, I Apology26.189-190; Ireneaus, Against Heresies 1.27; Epiphanius, Panarion 42.3.3]
name marcionite heavenly Savior (Jesus) was:
ISU CHRESTOS
The inscription “Isu Chrestos” can still be seen on the oldest surviving Christian “Synagogue” in Syria. Dated 318AD, the inscription reads, “The meeting-house of the Marcionists, in the village of Lebaba of the Lord and Saviour Jesus CHRESTOS.
In most of the earliest manuscripts the term ‘Chrestian’ is used instead of ‘Christian’. The earliest form of the term “Christian” does not occur until Codex Alexandrinus, at least the 5th century. Modern scholars put this down to the fact that the terms were interchangeable. Some cite Tertullian for this:
“Now then, if this hatred is directed against the name, what is the guilt attaching to names? What accusation can be brought against words, except that a certain pronunciation of a name sounds barbarous, or is unlucky or abusive or obscene? But ‘Christian,’ as far as its etymology goes, is derived from ‘anointing.’ And even when it is incorrectly pronounced by you ‘Chrestian’ (for not even is your acquaintance with the name accurate), it is formed from ‘sweetness’ or ‘kindness.’ In innocent men, therefore, even an innocent name is hated.”~ Apology3.
Also Justin aware of the difference.
Justin makes a pun off of it, because nonChristians commonly confused the iota and eta due to the similar phonological pronunciations.
1 Apology chpt 4 “And those among yourselves who are accused you do not punish before they are convicted; but in our case you receive the name as proof against us, and this although, so far as the name goes, you ought rather to punish our accusers. For we are accused of being Christians, and to hate what is excellent (Chrestian) is unjust. Again, if any of the accused deny the name, and say that he is not a Christian, you acquit him, as having no evidence against him as a wrong-doer; but if any one acknowledge that he is a Christian, you punish him on account of this acknowledgment.”~Martyr, 1Apology4.
But if the terms were so interchangeable why the determined rub outs in manuscripts.
*In Tacitus Annuls it has been shown under UV light the ‘e’ was changed to ‘i’
*Why did Later Christian scribes literally erased the “e” from “Chrestos” and “Chrestianous” and replaced it with an “i”. And, as we know, later editions of the Bible replaced “Chrestus” with “Christos” and “Chrestianous” with “Christianous”.
It originally was written ‘Chrestianous’ in all three places in the NT codex Siniaticus [χρηϲτιανουϲ corrected to: χριϲτιανουϲ ](Acts11:26,Acts26:27,1Peter4:16). See in picture with this post. Equally interesting is the fact that in all three cases, the right vertical stroke and the horizontal stroke of the ETA have been erased to produce an IOTA (yielding the traditional spelling). This is very unusual. Sinaiticus was corrected many times, and each generation of correctors had their own discernible “tics”. But simple erasure without further comment seems to be unprecedented. Moreover, the empty space left by the erasure is, in all three cases, not filled up. This shows that without any question the scribe of Sinaiticus deliberately meant to write “Chrestian” in all three instances; it was not a mistake and in all three instances it was rubbed out. Why?
Why is the identification of Marcion as the first collector of the Pauline epistles so unbelievable?
When Ignatius, Polycarp, and 1 Clement make reference to Pauline letters, as Bauer noted, they sound like ill-prepared students faking their way through a discussion of a book they neglected to read. None of the writers are aware of Paul’s reputation as a great epistolarian, and each makes strange statements implying an utter lack of familiarity with the Pauline corpus. Obviously the Pauline collection does not seem to be assembled yet.
•Clement seems to know of only one Corinthian epistle, First Clement47:1 appears to have thought there was but a single Pauline letter to Corinth.
•Ignatius, in his letter to the Ephesians, somehow imagined that Paul had eulogized the Ephesians in every one of his epistles. (Ignatius, To the Ephesians 12:2).
•Polycarp thinks Paul brags on the Philippians in his letters to “all churches” , ie That all Paul’s letters mentioned the Philippian congregation ( Polycarp, To the Philippians 11:3) and that he wrote several letters to the Philippians, he thought there were several letters to the church at Philippi (To the Philippians 3:2).
However Polycarp, Ignatius, and 1 Clement can be shown to make allusions to the letters to the Corinthians.
According to Bauer starting at least with 1 Clement, the Roman hierarchy found 1 Corinthians to be useful as a weapon against heresy and sectarianism. Because of this utility, 1 Corinthians was widely circulated, even as other Pauline letters were shunned and suppressed in the Roman-leaning circles.[1]
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.
Justin Martyr never mentioned Paul ( by name) but must have known of him. What he knew was that Paul was sacred to Marcion, whose legacy Justin despised. This period of neglecting Paul ended with late second-century apologists Irenaeus, bishop of Lugdunum (Lyons) in Gaul, and Tertullian of Carthage. They both sought to rehabilitate the fascinating Pauline epistles that Polycarp and others had tried to sanitize to win Marcionite and Gnostic (that is, Pauline) Christians over to Catholicism.
Legend has it that Onesimus (the slave mentioned in Philemon) was the first collector, (like a treasure hunt) going around to the various churches, delighted that the interest in Paul has reignited with the writings of Acts.
It is a lot more real that Marcion would have the means and interest in putting the Pauline corpus together.
———————————————————
[1] Walter Bauer, Orthodoxy and Heresy in Earliest Christianity, eds. Robert A. Kraft and Gerhard Kroedel (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1971), 219ff.
—————————————————
Evangelion
Harnack believes Marcion ( in his book called Marcion) was the first to use the term Evangelion as a title to tell a narrative of Jesus’ life. Before this an Evangelion was a proclamation or manifesto of a powerful individual (whether divine or human). It was adopted by the early Christians.
The use of the word “gospel” by Christians in Marcions day referred primarily to a body of teaching such as the gospel mentioned in Pauls letters, and did not refer to a text.
Marcions gospel followed the same distinctive shape and sequence as our gospel Luke leaving out a number of passages leading the early church fathers from Ireaneus onwards to think that Marcion ‘mutilated’ the scriptures. “He mutilates the gospel according to Luke…(Ireaneus Against Heresies I.27.2)
They claim the motivation of Marcion to do this was to suit his own ideological theology, but through a number of examples this is shown not to be the case.
The Evangelon aligns with Marcionite theology no better or no worse than orthodox theology.
Only one example shown in this OP to ensure brevity, many more given in Lieu’s book cited:
In Jesus’ sudden appearance in Luke24:37-39, Tertullian and Epiphanius are both perplexed that Marcions gospel had the following:
37 They thought they were seeing a phantom.38 So he said to them, “Why are you troubled and why are doubts arising in your heart?39 Look at my hands and my feet, that it is I myself because a spirit does not have bones just as you see that I have.”
(Tertullian Against Marcion4.43.6-8; Epiphanius Pan64.64.7)
This goes against Marcions docetism.(Jesus having bones). This also is close to a variant seen in codex Bazae and Ignatius. The Greek and Latin Codex Bezae variant of Luke 24 also uses “phantasma” or “ghost” in Luke 24:37 (“they thought they had seen a ghost”) in place of the Alexandrian “pneuma” or “spirit”.
Cf Ignatius,Smyrnaeans 3:2 has striking resemblances to Luke 24:39 Bazae variant.
——————————————
Given the textual evidence it is now thought that Marcion took up a gospel in circulation, Marcionite communities had multiple exemplars which would explain the different sets of harmonisations between Tertullian and Epiphanius.
John Knox-Tyson theory have Luke/Acts in its final redaction composed in 110-120AD in agreement with Pervos dates. They see Acts as domesticating Paul in an anti-Marcionite intent. By adding Luke 1-2 you get a more physical Jesus and by making a more Torah loving Paul in Acts ( mirroring Peter) all helps to combat Marcionism.
The Evangelon and Luke look like pre-existing gospels that were changed respectively for Gentile audience and Luke primarily for the Jewish audience. (ie these changes came about due to mission related purposes as opposed to ideological). In Marcions day it looks like there were already TWO versions of Proto Luke in circulation, with Marcions version having certain affinities with Western tradition, and more precisely it presupposes an earlier text form from the western text (example codex Bezae) and particularly the old Syrian text known to Ephram and Aphraat are also descended.
“As BeDuhn puts it Marcions “omissions” actually were “non interpolations”; that is the text known to him lacked material found in the alternative version of the gospel that came to be known as the gospel of Luke.”~BeDuhn,The New Testament,88.
The Evangelon is another witness in the understanding and build up, split up and reaction of certain NT literature.
Celsus has summed this up before and would explain two variant Lukes in circulation to suit Jews and Gentiles ( Marcion representing one such variant)
Were the changes the results of OBJECTERS or DISBELIEVERS, from Jewish and gentile orientated stances, Contra Celsium II.27
Chapter 27
[What Celsus said] …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. [End of what Celsus said]…..
Dave Allens blog 