maryhelena

The activities of the messiah figure in the time of Alexander Jannaeus - are fiction. Its the time frame that is of interest. What Epiphanius does do is name Alexander Jannaeus. And interestingly, attempts to identify "Salina" as the wife of Alexander Jannaeus , i.e. as Alexandra Salome. And that is what this thread is about - the identity of the Queen Helene of the Toledot Yeshu...since the wife of Alexander Jannaeus was not known as either Helene or Salina...

Duvduv

Frank Zindler discusses that the name Helena/Salina derives from Salome, and her name in the Talmud was Shlomzion.
In any event, it isn't clear (at least to me) that the Epiphanius statement indicates a commitment to the idea of a Yeshu in the time of the queen long before the dates of the gospels.

Iskander

Shouldn’t you be playing bridge, instead?

“As a result of Krauss’ work, it has become clear that Toledot Yeshu is not a single composition but rather the product of a long literary history, the result of many “distinct – though occasionally converging – strands of tradition” (Hillel Newman). Yet the newly discovered manuscripts have multiplied the number of those included in the edition of Krauss, asking for a renewed and fresh approach. Thus, since the autumn of 2008, Peter Schäfer, Michael Meerson, former research associate Adina Yoffie, and a group of undergraduate students have been engaged in collecting and transcribing all the available Toledot Yeshu manuscripts. Due to the large number and variety of versions of Toledot Yeshu,,”
http://www.princeton.edu/~judaic/toledotyeshu.html

maryhelena

Bridge? 9.15 tomorrow morning.....

Until then - time to play with the Toledot puzzle...

Thanks for the link. I did see it referenced somewhere - and have not seen any updates - but very pleased to see that that Toledot story/stories are getting attention....

andrewcriddle

FWIW there is an archived thread For Richard Carrier: On "The God Who Wasn't There" movie which (among other things) discusses the Epiphanius passage which some argue dates the birth of Christ to the time of Alexander Jannaeus.

Andrew Criddle

Duvduv

Epiphanius could have merely thought that the Hasmonean dynasty had extended until the time of the birth of Jesus, and that Ephiphanius did not know about the information found in Josephus describing the 30 years of Herod the Great before the year associated with the birth of an historical Jesus, confusing the first Herod with Herod Antipas.

maryhelena

Thanks, Andrew, for the link...will go back and read it more thoroughly....

Actually, I posted a comment on Richard Carrier's blog - with a link to this thread.

http://freethoughtblogs.com/carrier/...#comment-19744

.."proceed with caution"....

Whatever the late dating of the available manuscripts of the Toledot Yeshu - the story is much older. An earlier dating for the Yeshu story is surely suggested by the Epiphanius reference to Alexander Jannaeus and his Christ figure. I'm beginning to view the Yeshu story as a prototype for the later JC story. Yes, Yeshu is fiction, as is JC - it's the setting for both these stories, the historical setting, that is relevant for investigating early christian origins - which would be origins in Jewish history. It's not all in the mind of 'Paul' - as some mythicists seem to imagine...or in a carpenter from Nazareth as the historicists imagine...It's big time history - the blood and the tears, the heartbreak and the hope; the highs and the lows of historical reality, that are the 'legs' upon which the gospel story runs...

maryhelena

And he could also have had his reasons for placing the birth of his Christ figure in the time of Alexander Jannaeus........and if that is want he was wanting to actually do - then it is up to us, today, to work with that and see where it can take us...

At the very least, the Epiphanius account is suggesting that the historical time frame involving Alexander Jannaeus was relevant for his Christ figure...

Duvduv

Is there a problem with the idea that he thought that Herod of the gospels that as a Christian he revered, was the same as the Herod who succeeded the sons of Shlomzion, or is there an indication that he knew the historical information from Josephus?
And if he didn't know Josephus when others before him did, why would this be the case?

maryhelena

Duvduv, I think we are going around in circles here. Epiphanius wrote what he did! His Christ figure was born in the time of Alexander Jannaeus - and died under the time of the mysterious Queen Helene. That's it.

What we have are three stories:

1) The fictional character of Yeshu was 'born' under the rule of Alexander Jannaeus. The Toledot Yeshu dating being around 90 b.c. and death in the time of Queen Helene.
2) The fictional character of Jesus was 'born' under the time of Herod the Great - from 40 or 37 b.c. to 4 b.c. Death in the time of Pilate.
3) The fictional character of Jesus was 'born' under Quirinius, 6 c.e. Death in the time of Pilate.

We have three stories that, I would suggest, have been fused together. A story from the time of Alexander Jannaeus and a story from the time of Herod the Great and a story from the time of Quirinius. That means that Yeshu and Jesus were not historical figures. Rather, it is the history of these three historical time periods that was relevant to the creation of the finished product - the gospel JC story. In other words; elements from the history of these three historical time periods has been fused together, condensed, into the 'history' of the fictional JC figure who was executed, crucified in the time of Pilate. This is the historical backdrop for the messiah hung on a tree story, Alexander Jannaeus, or more specifically, Queen Helene to Pilate.

The bottom line in all of this is that we are dealing with not one but two messiah figures stores. Not that two messiah figures were hung on a tree. The fused storyline only needs one messiah figure to be hung on a tree i.e. crucified, hung on a cross. The other messiah figure could well have lived to old age. That is what storytelling can do. Mix up, fuse, two stories together. So, JC was not 'born' in the time of Alexander Jannaeus - JC was 'born' under Herod the Great - and under Quirinius. It is Yeshu that was 'born' in the time of Alexander Jannaeus. i.e. fictional characters have been placed in specific historical time frames. It is the fusing of these two stories that puts the crucifixion story in the time of Pilate. Yeshu, the older storyline, was hung on a tree during the time of Queen Helene - long before Pilate...

That's all storytime.

Now, for historical research into early christian origins - we need to put all this historical time frame, all the historical elements, on the table. Make a chart and put the gospel story alongside the real history - and see the connections...

The gospel JC storyboard has not just used OT midrash, prophetic interpretations and mythology in the creation of its central figure - it has also used historical elements, historical figures.

All of the above is step one. From that fuller picture of the creation of the gospel story - then - we can begin to ask questions about the use of the relevant historical figures. We can begin to question the Josephan writer more thoroughly re his historical reconstructions. Without going this route - a historical route - the JC historicists will continue to ridicule and dismiss the ahistoricist arguments.

'Paul' is not the avenue through which early christian origins can be sought. It's the Jewish origins to the JC storyboard that are necessary to establish - 'Paul' only wants a philosophy/theology of neither Jew nor Greek. We have to take a step back - before 'Paul' did his philosophical/theological leap into a purely spiritual/heavenly/intellectual context for his Christ figure. We have to deal with the gospel JC story. We have to deal with the story in Slavonic Josephus - and we have to deal with the story of the Toledot Yeshu...We have to deal with Hasmonean and Herodian history. We have to deal with Josephus...