Charles Wilson

If we take some aspect of the above as having actually happened, do we have a reasonable map of events to support the thesis? In other words, can we "verify" the external history in Josephus with the internal history of the Jesus stories?

The external story given by Josephus/Nicholas has several unique aspects that are referenced in the Jesus stories. What is unsaid is that all of this took place after Herod died. It is easy to speculate that Herod in fact died a week or two too soon. It is easy to speculate that Archelaus was a wild card in the events, as if The Plan was specifically designed to deal with Herod and the assumption of Archelaus was manuevered by people in the background. It is even possible that Archelaus was not in the picture when the Slaughter was ordered by someone.
Before we read the entrails, however, we must see what is stated as having occurred:

1. Herod dies. Archelaus assumes the kingship by his actions, agreeing to do many things that only a king could do, being petitioned by a crowd that has gathered around the Temple.
*It is a day or two ahead of the Passover.*
Herod has changed his will just four days before his death stating that Archelaus should take the reins of government
Archelaus is 18 years old.
Archelaus pretends to mourn during the day and parties during the night - He drinks a lot and evidently uhh... likes the ladies of the court (See Matthew 25 here).

2. The crowd, given an agreeable set of rulings, begins to demand more. "At these clamors" Archelaus was upset. It is implied that Archie was not so upset that he could not party that night, but this is one of the vagaries of the descriptions. What is not said here implies a lot more when coupled with what is said. He attempts to hold off and what follows mirrors the important stories in the gospels.

3. Archelaus is portrayed as a "nice guy." He doesn't want to make a scene by being untoward here, so he sends his "General" to make nice talk with "The Leaders of the Sedition." Many times. In fact, he sends many people to dissuade these seditionists who are recruiting in a "Body in the Temple." The time frame here is critical. If Archelaus is in the Palace, it must take time to move back and forth several times to negotiate with these strange people who are somehow allowed to occupy the Temple and recruit people for their "Sedition". Who could possibly control the Temple during Passover? Who were these people who "...stood in the temple bewailing the Rabbins [that had been put to death], and procured their sustenance by begging, in order to support their sedition."? Remember, this material is authored originally by Nicholas of Damascus, described by me as a "Roman Political Control Officer."
These people, who mourn the deaths of Mattathias and Judas, the "Rabbins" who were immolated after destroying the golden eagle placed by Herod over the Temple, sustain their sustenance by begging. Is this because of a famine in the area? Or is it an elliptical way of identifying the group by some other way? Who lives off of the offerings of others? Why won't Nicholas plainly state who the "Leaders of the Sedition" are?

4. The vital key to alignment is here. There were two acts of violence here. The first occurs when Archie sends in a "tribune of a cohort" into the Temple to arrest the "Ringleaders of the Sedition." This is an absolutely pivotal identifier to the Passover Slaughter. The violence is not a single act but several that play out during the night. The "wars and rumors of wars" from the generals are followed by a first act of violence. On entering the Temple, the soldiers are stoned and many die. A few escape and this is where all Hell breaks loose. Archelaus is portrayed as worrying about the very safety of the government. It is late. The "seditionists" oddly return to their sacrifices as if nothing has happened. Involvement of sacrifices in the Temple could not be acconplished without the support of the Priests.

5. At this, Archelaus sends in the troops in close order formation and the cavalry on the plain. 3000 die. Everyone is told to go home. The bodies are stacked up as if they were the sacrifices. This occurs in the Temple.

6. What is left, if this alignment is correct, is to look at the "internal" story to see what has happened to the "Jesus Group", the putative "Leaders of the Sedition". Were they involved, were they saved, killed or otherwise affected?

7. We shall see that there was supposed to be a watch, people who were to be on guard for trouble. The watch failed. This is reflected over and over in the passages telling the faithful to "be on watch", "You never know when the master of the house will return", etc.
Matthew makes use of the phrase "Realm of Heaven". The Realm of Heaven is a physical place. I originally identified the Realm of Heaven as a place in the Palace of Herod, which is a good distance from the Temple. I now tentatively identify the Hasmonaean Palace as this location although it may yield some difficulties later, as we try to make sense the arrest and trial of Jesus.

8. The Jesus group finds itself in deep trouble, with some in the middle of the Slaughter. How did they escape? "Enter through the narrow door" is a phrase that locates an escape route available only to a few. Some make it, others do not. How did Peter become the "keeper of the keys to the kingdom of Heaven?" We find out here.

9. In the aftermath, the Plan is crushed, the boulder is rolled in front of ...whose tomb? This enforced silence prevents anyone from learning the truth about the Slaughter. In 8 CE, a last call to honor is made by these survivors, who still believe in the Plan. The crucifixion motif, if actually in the original, is now seen as the first story, with the Jesus group calling out the scribes and Pharisees later, demanding an acknowledgement of guilt in the death of the 3000. The group makes one last attempt to implement the Plan.

10. The final results MAY be told here in the parable of the gardener and the fig tree, where the sad story of a political resurrection ends after about four years, coinciding with the historical markers given in the stories. "Jesus", the "Prodigal Son", is welcomed back into the Priesthood. This history of a movement is over.

CW

Charles Wilson

Josephus, Wars of the Jews, Book 2, Chapter 2, Section:

“He also reproached him further, that his [Archelaus'] mourning for his father was only pretended, while he put on a sad countenance in the day time, but drank to great excess in the night; from which behavior, he said, the late disturbance among the multitude came, while they had an indignation thereat. And indeed the purport of his whole discourse was to aggravate Archelaus's crime in slaying such a multitude about the temple, which multitude came to the festival, but were barbarously slain in the midst of their own sacrifices; and he said there was such a vast number of dead bodies heaped together in the temple, as even a foreign war, that should come upon them [suddenly], before it was denounced, could not have heaped together.”

It is asserted in this work that the “Realm of Heaven”, mentioned in Matthew and elsewhere is a physical place. Also, the phrases, “Enter through the narrow door...” and the like, focus on an escape route that was used by certain of the survivors. It is implied that those who attempted to leave the Temple site by the main doors/gates were met by the cavalry outside which had orders to chase those who tried to escape. The role of Peter and especially the children here has been minimized.

The following is slightly compressed. The whole of the quotations concerning “Realm of Heaven” and “Narrow Door” are scattered in many places in the gospels. We will look at only a few. We will end with Matthew 25: 1 – 13.

Josephus tells us that many went into the Temple to dissuade the “Leaders of the Sedition” from advancing their innovations. After stoning the “Tribune in charge of the cohort,” the sacrificers return to their sacrifices as if nothing had happened (See above, original posts of Josephus.). It is very late at night. Archelaus orders the entire garrison into the city and they fall onto the worshipers by surprise.

Mark 13: 32 – 37:

“Now no one knows anything of that day or hour, not even the angels in heaven, not even the son, but only the Father. Take care, keep awake and pray; you never know the time. It is like a man leaving his house to go abroad; he puts his servants in charge,each with his work to do, and he orders the porter to keep watch. Watch then, for you never know when the Lord of the House will come, in the late evening or at midnight or at cock-crow or in the morning. Watch, in case he comes suddenly and finds you asleep. Watch: I say it to you and I say it to all.”

This is not as clear cut as it may seem. “Jesus” leaves the Temple several times. In Mark 6: 45 – 52, the disciple are the ones in trouble and Jesus saves them. Compare with Matthew 24: 27, “For like lightning that shoots from east to west, so will be the arrival of the Son of man.” This will be quoted again later. The “East” represents the Temple area, the “West” is the Palace.

Nonetheless, there is a consistency here. There is the watch. “Be on watch – Watch, I tell you -You never know...” All of these point to a terrible mistake made by certain followers away from the Jesus group in the Temple. Recently I have found a likely candidate for the place of the watch – The Hasmonaean Palace, which overlooks the Temple. I assert that the Jesus group was recruiting for a long range Plan for the re-establishment of the (Hasmonaean?) Priesthood. Herod is near death in Jericho and there are thousands of worshipers in and around Jerusalem.

Assume, then, that there was an order given to clear the Temple and surrounds and to Hell with the body count. Some of the Priests are now caught in the Slaughter and they are making their way to safety. How many got out?

Luke 13: 23 – 28:

“A man said to him, “Is it only a few, sir, who are saved?” So he said to them, “Strive to get in through the narrow door; for I tell you many will try to get in and not be able, once the master of the house has risen and closed the door. You may stand outside and knock at the door, crying, 'Lord, open for us' but he will answer you, “”I do not know where you come from.' You will proceed to say, 'But we ate and drank in your presence, and you taught in our streets!” 'I tell you,' he will say, 'I so not know where you came fro; begone, every one of you, you evildoers!' There, you will wail and gnash your teeth, to see Abraham, Isaac, Jacob and all the prophets inside the Realm of God, and yourselves shut out”

(Note: The last sentence is virtually duplicated in Matthew 8: 11 – 13: “Many, I tell you, will come from east and west to take their places beside Abraham, Isaac and Jacob in the Realm of Heaven, while the sons of the Realm will pass outside, into the darkness; there, men will wail and gnash their teeth.” Notice the switch. The first time, the Priests and the worshipers are caught in the murders. Next time, it will be the Herodians. Also, the story above this line is the story of the army-captain and the servant. Luke's is the better version. The servant is “identified” as Herod - “He deserves this favor. He built our synagogue.”. Jesus has never met such faith in Israel – the army-captain says “Do this” and Herod does it.
Herod was bed ridden twice. The first time for depression and the next time for his final illness. If we allow for “Death Humor” here and choose the second of the two bed ridden episodes, Jesus says that Herod recovered the next day. Of course he did! He died!) We now return to further action in the same drive...


In the panic, those who are trapped are looking for escape. Some know about the “narrow door” but not all make it. Why? If the “Realm of Heaven” is a physical place, what is it about the narrow door that is so problematic? Wouldn't it be difficult to have a “secret door” in a building just outside the Temple? Just how narrow is it?

Matthew 7: 13 – 14:

“Enter by the narrow gate: for the gate is broad and the road is wide that leads to destruction, and many enter that way. But the road that leads to life is both narrow and close, and there are few who find it.”

I must get to bed now. I'll finish this in an edit tomorrow or some time this century. When I return, we'll get into the Children of God – why Jesus loved them and how small you needed to be to get into the Realm of Heaven.
CW

Charles Wilson

Part 2:

At some point, those who do not believe in a “Real Jesus” must examine how much of what is left has a “real component” to it. The usual response is to ask, “OK, let's see your list of “existence predicates” and we'll criticize them for you free of charge.” This work has been an exercise in seeing if there is anything left after stripping out certain later effects. We all understand the need to explain a thesis, the logic, the evidence and the like. We tend to summarize this with a type of question, “Would you like to take a final exam or write a thesis?” (We all follow the pattern necessary to advance and then a Wittgenstein comes along with “The Tractatus...” and the “Thesis Examination” consists of having a drink or two with Bertrand Russell...)

In short, the easy work is in the broad sweeps that logic allows. What happens when the logic points you in an unpleasant or difficult direction? How much logic? How much art? How much guesswork? This may be true here.

In another group, I have asserted that the “Slaughter of the Innocents” may have come from the recruitment of youth in the Temple. The youth who is stripped of his linen garment (Recruitment for Priesthood.) who runs away after Jesus is arrested (Late Mark) may have gotten “lost” in the retelling. The Slaughter is re-defined: A killing of young recruits -> killing of all male babies. There is another alternative.

Mark 9: 36 – 37, 42 - 48:

“Then he took a little child, set it among them, and putting his arms around it said to them, “Whoever receives one of these little ones in my name receives me, and whoever receives me receives not me but him who sent me.”

“And whoever is a hindrance to one of these littles ones who believes, it were better for him to have a great millstone hung round his neck and be thrown into the sea.
If your hand is a hindrance to you, cut it off: better be maimed and get into Life, than keep your two hands and be thrown into the fire that is never quenched. If your foot is a hindrance to you, cut it off: better get into Life a cripple than keep your two feet and be thrown into Gehenna. If your eye is a hindrance to you, tear it out: better get into God's Realm with one eye, than keep your two eyes and be thrown into Gehenna, where their worm never dies and the fire is never put out.”

This is very strong stuff. Notice that Jesus is talking about “God's Realm”. Therefore, he is talking about the very few survivors who get into the Realm of God. His central focus is on the children. Remember for a moment John Hyrcanus. He had his ears disfigured so he could never be High Priest again. There are some things more important than being disfigured. In other fragments, we are told that if we have issues even with our brothers, we should leave our sacrifices at the very altar, lest we be brought in front of a judge. If this is about a War between the Priests, then better to be disfigured and survive than be of greater purity and piety and be dead.

Note the passages of the children. If you receive one of the “children in my name, you receive me.” (There is an extremely cryptic passage that follows - “...whoever receives me receives not me but him who sent me.” This is for another day. Was the “Jesus” of 8 – 12 CE one of the children involved in the saving of the Priesthood during the Assault? For another day...)

This passage is echoed in Matthew and it is worthwhile to see the difference:

Matthew18: 1 – 5:

“At that hour, the disciples came and asked Jesus, “Who is the greatest in the Realm of Heaven?” So he called a child, set it among them, and said, “I tell you truly, unless you turn and become like children, you will never get into the Realm of heaven at all. Whoever humbles himself like this child, he is the greatest in the Realm of heaven; and whoever receives a littles child like this for my sake, receives me.”

The “child” serves two tasks here. One, which we will see later, states that at some point in the Slaughter, “Jesus” sent out children from the “Realm of Heaven” to get certain Priests. Some listened and lived. Others did not and died.

The second point may be the more important. “How do you (physically) get into the Realm of Heaven?” You must turn (sideways) and “Humble yourself like this child.” (Note: I have triplet six year olds. I know this passage is an example of “How to get small”. My three are usually as big as they can make themselves. It is only when they have a “Purpose” that they “humble themselves.”) Whatever other doorways there were, and they would have been manned by armed soldiers here, there is a small “Narrow Door”. How narrow? You must make yourself “small as a child” to get in. Now you know why it would be easier for a camel to get through the eye of a needle than a rich man to get into the Realm of Heaven!

How do we know that there were doors that were closed when the Slaughter began?

Matthew 25: 1 – 13:

“Then shall the Realm of Heaven be compared to ten maidens who took their lamps and went out to meet the bridegroom [[and the bride]]. Five of them were stupid, five were sensible. For although the stupid took their lamps, they took no oil with them, whereas the sensible took oil in their vessels as well as their lamps, As the bridegroom was long of coming, they all grew drowsy and went to sleep. But at midnight, the cry arose, “Here is the bridegroom! Come out and meet him!” Then all the maidens rose and trimmed their lamps. The stupid said to the sensible, “Give us some of your oil, for our lamps are going out.” But the sensible replied, No, there may not be enough for us and for you. Better to go to the dealers and buy for yourselves. Now while they were away buying oil, the bridegroom arrived; those maidens who were ready accompanied him to the marriage-banquet, and the door was shut. Afterwards, the rest of the maidens came and said, “Oh, sir, oh sir, open the door for us!” but he replied, “I tell you frankly, I do not know you.” Keep on watch then, for you know neither the day nor the hour.”

(I place “and the bride” in “[[ ]]” as it appears to be an addition. And I admit fully that this puts Archelaus in the Hasmonaean Palace also. If the Palace is not too far away, some, if not all of the action may have taken place in the Palace. Remember, Jesus, when “arrested”, is taken to the “Praetorium” which is on the palace grounds, I believe. Oh, well...)

This section in Matthew is about as sexual as you may find in the Bible (Have you ever seen a handheld lamp? ({i}) ). It may have been “massaged” to further hide its point. That point is that Archelaus was a late night drunk and partier. It is implied by the quote from Josephus, above. (Actually, it appears a little “smeared” when compared to the similar passage in the Antiquities.) Matthew appears to tell us that this is the correct reading, however.

There is a message here from the authors and it is being given as a scream. The Slaughter was as sudden as it was final. Little children were caught, the rich and privileged were caught and even the ”very elect” were caught in the massacre. Even the “maidens”, who were invited for the orgy that was planned were left outside to be killed. This is not about the Destruction of the Temple in 70 CE. This is about something that went absolutely, insanely wrong – in 4 BCE, just before Passover.

What is left is to show how the children were used to find those “very elect” and get them to safety. Although there are great problems with the “End Times” material in the Synoptics, we may get a little hint in Mark:

Mark 13: 26 – 27:

“Then shall be seen the Son of man with great power and glory; and he will then dispatch his angels and muster the elect from the four winds, from the verge of earth to the verge of heaven.”

CW

Charles Wilson

Josephus, _Antiquities..._ 17: 9: 6:

6. So when Antipater had made this speech, and had confirmed what he had said by producing many witnesses from among Archelaus's own relations, he made an end of his pleading. Upon which Nicolaus arose up to plead for Archelaus, and said, "That what had been done at the temple was rather to be attributed to the mind of those that had been killed, than to the authority of Archelaus; for that those who were the authors of such things are not only wicked in the injuries they do of themselves, but in forcing sober persons to avenge themselves upon them. Now it is evident that what these did in way of opposition was done under pretense, indeed, against Archelaus, but in reality against Caesar himself, for they, after an injurious manner, attacked and slew those who were sent by Archelaus, and who came only to put a stop to their doings. They had no regard, either to God or to the festival, whom Antipater yet is not ashamed to patronize, whether it be out of his indulgence of an enmity to Archelaus, or out of his hatred of virtue and justice. For as to those who begin such tumults, and first set about such unrighteous actions, they are the men who force those that punish them to betake themselves to arms even against their will. So that Antipater in effect ascribes the rest of what was done to all those who were of counsel to the accusers; for nothing which is here accused of injustice has been done but what was derived from them as its authors; nor are those things evil in themselves, but so represented only in order to do harm to Archelaus. Such is these men's inclination to do an injury to a man that is of their kindred, their father's benefactor, and familiarity acquainted with them, and that hath ever lived in friendship with them; for that, as to this testament, it was made by the king when he was of a sound mind, and so ought to be of more authority than his former testament; and that for this reason, because Caesar is therein left to be the judge and disposer of all therein contained; and for Caesar, he will not, to be sure, at all imitate the unjust proceedings of those men, who, during Herod's whole life, had on all occasions been joint partakers of power with him, and yet do zealously endeavor to injure his determination, while they have not themselves had the same regard to their kinsman [which Archelaus had]. Caesar will not therefore disannul the testament of a man whom he had entirely supported, of his friend and confederate, and that which is committed to him in trust to ratify; nor will Caesar's virtuous and upright disposition, which is known and uncontested through all the habitable world, imitate the wickedness of these men in condemning a king as a madman, and as having lost his reason, while he hath bequeathed the succession to a good son of his, and to one who flies to Caesar's upright determination for refuge. Nor can Herod at any time have been mistaken in his judgment about a successor, while he showed so much prudence as to submit all to Caesar's determination."

Nicholas of Damascus is the Political Control Officer of the Herodians. He has the power to represent various parties in front of the emperor and frequently does. Notice his arguments in front of the emperor in favor of Archelaus. "Yes, 3000 died in the Temple. But it's THEIR fault! They made Archelaus do it!"

Several days ago, Saddam of Baghdad, from the witness stand, made very similar arguments about the necessity of gassing the opposition.

Archelaus was raised to his feet by the emperor. How do you think Saddam will do?

CW

Charles Wilson

Every now and then you come across something that is just fun. Fun for what it suggests, fun for what it shows about what has been assumed for about 2000 years, fun for what it shows about you.
So it is here. I have been looking at Aramaicisms, especially in Mark. I have looked at an Aramaic translation and found this little nugget:
----------
Mark 8:10 - 11:
" And at once he climbed aboard the vessel with his
disciples and came to the land of oppression*.
11. And the Pharisees came out and began making
demands to him,* and they asked him for signs from
heaven, so as to test him."

*8:10 Lit. Aramaic: "Dalmanutha."
----------

The usual explanation for this passage states that Jesus climbed into a boat and went to Dalmanutha, presumably a city on the west coast of the Sea of Galilee. There's evidently a new condo development in Dalmanutha, "The Pharisees of Herod Palms, a Condominium". The Pharisees all pile out of their new digs to test Jesus: "Are you here to fix the air condition?"

In short, there's something not quite right.

Let's look at it again, from the implications of this work and the translation given. It is asserted here that names such as "The Realm of Heaven" refer to a real, actual place near the Temple. (So, a statement such as, "Let us cross the crossing" may not be an idiom but an actual descriptive statement of how one might leave the Temple.)

Remember also that the "vessel", the "boat" refers to the room on the second floor of some place, perhaps the Hasmonaean Palace, that harbors the Jesus group during the Passover. This place is stratified, as you must be of a higher rank than "Scribe" or "Pharisee" to get into the "Realm of Heaven." Presumably, the lower floors are for the riff-raff, the upper floors for the Priests...You did know that Jesus was a Priest didn't you?

Jesus goes, not to a city of Dalmutha, but to "the land of oppression"! It's where the Pharisees and Archelaus are staying! Everyone knows everyone else here and everyone knows what the Jesus group is waiting around for. Herod is dead or dying in Jericho (Remember, Mattahias and Judas knocked down the golden eagle over the Temple on the rumor that Herod was dead.). Of course the Pharisees are challenging the Jesus group. Their lives and positions are based on their acquiescence to the Roman status quo.

This is a much more powerful explanation of events than the made up story of a god/man. It actually fits the history, even if Josephus is compromised by his plagiarisms of Nicholas of Damascus.

It's a lot of fun.

CW

Charles Wilson

One of the important stories in Mark is the story of the disciples being buffeted by the storm "In the fourth watch." It is a Jesus "miracle" story - isn't it?

It is the view of this work that most of the action takes place in and around the Temple. There is a "boat" which is a room in an upper floor of a building, tentatively identified here as the Hasmonaean Palace, which is a place of safety for the Jesus group. There is an attempt to recruit youths in the Temple for the Priesthood as part of a plan to re-invigorate the Priesthood and reassert its greater "Piety and Purity" over the hack political High Priest appointments of Herod.
Herod is in Jericho dying or dead. When Passover approaches, Herod is dead and his son Archelaus assumes the kingship. The sea, the great area surrounding the Temple filled with people, is roiling. Through the night, there is an effort to stop the "Leaders of the Sedition" from instigating a coup. Finally, a "Tribune in charge of a Cohort" is sent in and they are stoned, with many of them killed.
An order is given to clear the Temple and clear the surrounding areas of Jerusalem.
3000 die.

What is Jesus doing now? According to the gospels, Jesus leaves the Temple area, asks his disciples to watch for trouble and goes off to pray. The disciples fall asleep and Jesus is arrested. Something is missing in this story, however.
What?
This story, repeated many times in the gospels, has a different ending in some of them. Jesus is not only not crucified, he is seen as triumphant.

Mark 6: 45 - 51:

"Then he made the disciples at once embark in the boat and cross before him towards Bethsaida, while he dismissed the crowd; after saying goodbye to them, he went up the hill to pray. Now when evening came, the boat was far out in the middle of the sea, and he was on the land alone; but when he saw them buffeted as they rowed (for the wind was against them), he went to them about the fourth watch of the night. He would have passed them by, but when they saw him walking on the sea, they thought it was a ghost and shrieked aloud - for they all saw him and were terrified. Then he spoke to them at once; "Courage," he said, it is I, have no fear."

Matthew almost duplicates this story. Some words are left out, others added. Notice that in Mark, Jesus "would have passed them by, but when they saw him walking on the sea, they they thought it was a ghost and shrieked aloud."

Does this strike you as odd? Jesus sees the boat buffeted by the sea and yet he would have passed them by if they had not shrieked. Further, they all saw him and were terrified. If the raging sea were not enough, they thought they saw a ghost. In fact, it appears that it was not the storm that terrified them but the sight of a ghost.

Something is very awkward here. If they were not scared of the storm, why would Jesus go out there? Why would they shriek at the sight of Jesus, a Jesus who they thought was a ghost? Unless they have thought that Jesus was already dead! This is not a miracle story at all.

One more note about Mark. He has the boat traveling north towards Bethsaida. Matthew uses the ever cryptic:

Matthew 14: 22:

"Then he made the disciples embark in the boat and cross before him to the other side, while he dismissed the crowds:"

This brings up a point made previously. Mark and Matthew have no problem with the translation of much of what they write. There is agreement except at certain key points. The contrast of key phrases in the End Times (SynApoc) material is of note here - "When you see____" is easy to translate. Why is there a problem at "...Jerusalem surrounded by armies..."(Luke)/ "The appalling horror" (Matthew/Mark)? There should be none. The problem is that if the original is not replaced, the actual story could be pieced back together.

Matthew has the disciples crossing over to the other side, much as they did when Jesus and the disciples did when they went to the Gerasenes to free the lunatic. The "other side" is not the other side of the sea of Galilee. It is to the surrounding areas around the Temple.

Matthew continues this story with Peter, the Peter who made it into the Palace in GJohn, following Jesus after his arrest. What's Peter doing Here?!??

Matthew 15: 28 - 33:

"Peter answered him, "Lord, if it really is you, order me to come to you on the water." He said, "Come." Then Peter got out of the boat and walked over the water on his way to Jesus; but when he saw the strength of the wind he was afraid, and began to sink. "Lord," he said, "save me." Jesus at once stretched his hand out and caught him saying, "How little you trust me! Why did you doubt?" When they got into the boat, the wind dropped, and the men in the boat worshipped him, saying, "You are certainly God's son."

We get so wrapped up in Markan priority that we eliminate other options from feeling. Perhaps the stories have been re-worked before they ever made it to the gospel authors.

One thing about this story is the plain fact that Jesus was not killed here. Peter sees Jesus and goes out to him and is saved by Jesus. One aside here: Jesus attends his disciples and washes their feet at some point. Why? What is it that is so important about the washing of feet?

"Jesus" survived. At this point in the Slaughter, "Unless those days be shortened, there should no flesh be saved alive." The Temple is awash in blood, the blood of the worshippers killed in the Assault on the Temple. This is not 70 CE. This is 4 BCE. The few survivors who make it to the "Realm of Heaven" are awash in blood. The thought of the bloody feet lives with this "Jesus" as long as he is alive.

Finally, note the involvement of Peter. There is a story here and it is opaque with what is left after the re-writing and re-valuation. Does Jesus save Peter or does Peter save Jesus. Jesus almost "walked on by". Peter comes to Jesus and Jesus must save Peter.

One of them may be a child.

The wind dies down when they return to the Realm of Heaven. This is not stated in Josephus. It is a re-write. It is a re-write from the Last Call to Honor and it was written in 8 - 12 CE by the survivors.

Any interest out there for more of this?

Charles

Charles Wilson

This is low probability stuff. I've been looking at GoJ with an eye toward You Know What. What to look for? If the story has already been Re-Valued, there may be a small slip in phrasing (See above post on the "fourth watch", for example.). Another thing to look at is evidence of a composite story line. GJohn is of interest here. Often times, it's better to stay back a bit and see what shakes out. "Hasn't stopped me before..."

We open with a statement in GoJ that this is a revelation that Jesus spoke in conversation with Judas Iscariot during a week three days before he celebrated Passover. A short paragraph below, it is stated that, "One day he was with his disciple in Judea, and he found them gathered together and seated in pious observance."

So, this is a revelation.

Beyond this, it is stated that this conversation took place three days before Passover. So, when we see that this took place "in Judea", are we to conclude:

1. This is written from a position outside of Judea.

2. Someone doesn't know that Passover is held in Jerusalem.

3. Jesus holds his Passover on Mount Gerizim.

4. This is a really deep statement about the political nature of the Jesus group.

The disciples are in "pious observance." When Josephus/Nicholas reported the Assault on the Temple Worshippers in 4 BCE, it is stated that the crowd wanted the replacement of the (appointed) High Priest with someone of "greater piety and purity" a very opaque reference and one that holds a key to understanding the political nature of the Jesus stories. "Pious Observance" is a possible statement of fact but also appears to leave something out.

We know here that there is at least one Re-Valuing here since Jesus is seen as a "Real Person." He performs "miracles and great wonders for the salvation of mankind." This marks the main dating of the material as much later than the original set of stories (8 - 12 CE).

Then there is this: "Often he did not appear to his disciples as himself, but was found among them as a child." This appears ("to me") to be a minor re-write of a most important point. What part did children play in the Passover Assault when the question is asked, "Tell me sir, are there just a few who are saved? (See Luke 13)." The "narrow door" leads to "The Realm of Heaven." You must humble yourself as a child in order to fit through the door.

Compare this with the cryptic, "When you receive one of these children, you receive me and when you receive me, you receive not me but him who sent me." Our rule about eliminating the metaphysics requires us to deny that a "Jesus" appeared to anyone as both a man and a child within days of each other (and back and forth), so what does this refer to? Possibly a fragment that refers back to the Assault. ( *Attention HJ'ers: This may be your chance. Jesus, even after the re-writes (And renaming of the characters!) may yet be seen here as a youth in the Assault and the "Son of God" in the Last Call to Honor in 8 - 12 CE.* So: Who was the "God the Father" for Jesus? A surviving Hasmonaean? Someone in the Court of Herod? Jairus/Lazarus? )

In short, there is a great amount of thoughtful material in the first few paragraphs!

After this comes a passage for later discussion - "Why would you perform sacrifices if what matters is what is in your heart?"

Then comes an indicator that the "original material", if that is what it is, came from the batch of letters from the 8 - 12 CE period.

"Jesus said to them, "How do you know me? Truly[ I ] say to you , no generation of the people that are among you will know me."

So much of this material is written as "Miracle!" work that it is easy to lose track of what was originally symbolized. In GJohn, Lazarus is raised from the dead. The stone is rolled away from the tomb (uhh...Hmmm...) and he is brought back to life. Lazarus/Jairus is the author of The Plan which was to be implemented during the Passover in 4 BCE. The Slaughter occurs and the Plan is crushed. 3000 die and Archelaus holds power for ten years. Evidently, no one is to ever mention the deaths in the Temple. "Lazarus" will never be heard from again. A huge boulder in front of his tomb will see to that.

"Jesus" was there. When he comes back, the boulder has been rolled away (I compress somewhat here...). Remember the first appearance of a demon in the gospels (Mark). The man possessed is in the Synagogue! "We know who you are, you are God's Holy One!" shouts the demon. For twelve years, no one has been able to speak of this atrocity in the Temple. It is a staggering problem. "Truly I say to you, no generation of the people that are among you will know me."

It is almost too late.

It is too late for me - off to bed. More later.

Charles

Charles Wilson

Assume that a cache of written material came your way from some Temple in Jerusalem. You are living around 100 years after this great religious figure walked the earth. Actually, you find out that the original cache was much larger than what you have. Others before you have taken some of the material and rewrote into a form more acceptable to a new religion you have been converted to. You are told that, because of your linguistic and scribal skills, you are to rewrite some of this new material, correcting some errors introduced by some unnamed sources. You are to combine some of what is left into a readable form under some guidance from your church rulers and return the material to these church leaders.

Assume that something like this has happened before and that the quantity of the material is starting to fall off. Eventually, only a stray paragraph or two is left ("What happened to the old material? No one has seen it in such a long time."). Some people from strange churches have written entire tracts around these few paragraphs that have not been confiscated.

At times, you recognize one of these stray paragraphs. How did so much...heresy!... get written around this, this fragment which had the fewest of words?

We would like to have some idealized vision of this at times. It would explain a lot. That's the problem with visions, however. However much we posit cooperative (and antagonistic) processes of amalgamation, we get to a Gospel of John and see a "Signs Gospel" and one or two stories that have awkward contrasts between linguistic forms and some sweeping metaphysic and we must struggle through years getting to a reasonable certainty of composition.

So it is with The Gospel of Judas. This is truly an expansive Gnostic Metaphysics. Is there anything left from the great vistas of Gnosticism that appears to be a fragment in some sense that has just been posited? Look at the last paragraph, "The Betrayal of Jesus by Judas."

"CONCLUSION: JUDAS BETRAYS JESUS
[…] Their high priests murmured because [he] had gone into the guest room for his
prayer. But some scribes were there watching carefully in order to arrest him during the
prayer, for they were afraid of the people, since he was regarded by all as a prophet.
They approached Judas and said to him, “What are you doing here? You are Jesus’
disciple.”
Judas answered them as they wished. And he received some money and handed him over
to them."

What is this? Midrash? Re-writes of re-writes? I have already stated that this is very low probability stuff. Is there something that is true that we can discern?

"Their High Priests..." is a possible bit of evidence of an earlier fragment. The political aspects of the War Between the Priests has been very minimized (See Maccoby, _Mythmaker..._, esp.) and although later use would give a natural option to see Jesus as "Our High Priest", "their High Priests..." is descriptively accurate. Herod's High Priests were appointed, not hereditary (Josephus, that "...they wanted a High Priest of greater piety and purity."). The Plan has a Priestly component to it, a replacement of the Herodian High Priests.

"Their High Priests murmured because [he[ had gone into the guest room for his prayer." This shows both a connection to the events of Passover 4 BCE and evidence of the later Re-Valuing. For a while I resisted the idea that Jesus was outside the Temple sacrifice area when the Slaughter began. I have since come around. The Jesus group is actively recruiting youths to the Priesthood for the coming Re-Invigoration of the Priesthood. Josephus/Nicholas reports this as "the leaders of the sedition were recruiting in a body in the Temple." The gospels have Jesus outside in prayer. He has become "personified", he is a "real person Jesus". Somewhere in the ~ 100 years from the original event, this has become a story of Jesus asking his disciples to watch ("Be on watch. I say to you, I say to all."). This version points to Josephus/Nicholas (and may therefore fall to "It must be a quote from Josephus" thinking. Maybe. Maybe not.) Jesus is not sacrificing in the Temple in any event at this time

The scribes were watching, and this is consistent with the gospels From the "Banquet Story", we know that, in Herod's classification schemes of Members of the Court ("Friends", "Honored Friends", "Guards of the Realm" and "kin"), Jesus was at least an "Honored Friend". To get into the "Realm of Heaven", you must be at least higher than "Scribes and Pharisees". Scribes and Pharisees are quartered in the lower floor(s) and Jesus is in the upper floor(s).

"...arrest him during the prayer..." is a re-write since the "prayer" is the recruitment phase, or something similar. While Jesus is offering sacrifices in the Temple in his role as a Priest, there are certainly many prayers going on (From Josephus: After the soldiers were stoned, the sacrificers went back to their sacrifices "as if nothing had happened"). The Scribes and Pharisees are not looking to arrest a prayerful Priest, they are looking to arrest Priests from the outside group. "I taught daily in the Temple and you never arrested me" said Jesus in Mark. This phrase was recognized in another gospel and "smeared" to hide its meaning. It is only during the recruitment of youthful Priests for the "sedition" that arrests need to be made.

"...they were afraid of the people..." is a reflection of gospel verses, plus this: In Mark, a Scribe/Priest asks Jesus a question with a phrase that "We know you never court favor from the people, that you always choose the way of truth" [Some days the memory doesn't recall exact quotes as well as others...]. Later, the High Priest makes a choice and the choice is made because the Herodian groups are afraid of the people. This too is consistent with what is known.

Finally:
"They approached Judas and said to him, “What are you doing here? You are Jesus’
disciple.”
Judas answered them as they wished. And he received some money and handed him over
to them.

For all the talk over whether "Judas" has been split off from "Peter" in the originals through the first or second Re-Valuing, there is a consistency here, possibly reflected in the verse, "How did you get in here without a wedding robe?" and like verses. Jesus is a Priest. Peter/Judas/??? is NOT a Priest. He is easily recognizable as an interloper in The Realm of Heaven.

Someone, and it possibly is the Peter character and/or the Jesus character, made it in to the "Realm of Heaven" and possibly the Palace during the Slaughter. He is discovered and thrown back into the darkness, "where men shall wail and gnash their teeth." We know the triumphant Jesus was recognized by Peter when he almost "Passed them by in the fourth watch" and that Peter had to be saved by Jesus at that point. We are told that Jesus was arrested and killed in a mixture of story parts here.

Figuring out the final logistics of this may take more than I can bring to the table.

In any event, it should be apparent that at least some of the material is consistent with the thesis and consistent in a way that adds understanding and maybe even an additional bit of truth to the story, so effectively submerged for 2000 years.

Charles

Charles Wilson

A slight expansion is needed to understand what I wrote yesterday (see above):

"The Scribes and Pharisees are not looking to arrest a prayerful Priest, they are looking to arrest Priests from the outside group. "I taught daily in the Temple and you never arrested me" said Jesus in Mark. This phrase was recognized in another gospel and "smeared" to hide its meaning. It is only during the recruitment of youthful Priests for the "sedition" that arrests need to be made."

One of the seemingly bizarre claims I make for this material is that the "Crucifixion Motif" is the FIRST story, not the last. One of the very first changes in the Jesus stories is the transposition of the Telling of the Slaughter to the end of the stories to give the appearance of a human sacrifice that will shown to be a god/man story later.

It is not guaranteed that there originally was a crucifixion motif. Lazarus/Jairus was killed, not by stoning (Jewish choice sanctioned by God) but by crucifixion (Roman choice, reserved for political prisoners and the like). It is the High Priest group that "chooses" this, as a symbolic vote for the Roman, as opposed to God's, way of life. Jesus, as a member of the Priestly Group, knows full well what is happening, as does the Herodian group. These are the POLITICAL aspects of the stories, later submerged.

As evidence of this "common ground", Jesus comments that "He" taught in the Temple daily and was not arrested. This marks the story of the "death" as a FIRST STORY, not as a last story. As the death story is switched to the end, it is re-written again as a crucifixion story of the man/god Jesus.

Since we know that the stories were written in 8 - 12 CE, we have a better time line for the original material.

1. Preparation for the Passover, finalize Plan with anti-Herod Priests and members of Herod's court.
2. Herod dies, Archelaus assumes control.
3. "We have but one loaf." The Plan was for Herod, dying in Jericho. Archelaus is a new unforeseen event. "We're still a go with the Plan..."
4. Passover Slaughter. Joseph takes the remnants of the Plan to Galilee in exile.
5. Judas of Galilee and followers killed in 6 CE. This or something else causes a reunion of the survivors. One Last Call to Honor in 8 - 12. Joseph brings a pregnant Mary back from Galilee.
6. The Slaughter is replayed as a triumph this time. "The winds suddenly became calm. 'Have you no faith yet?' "
7. Four years later, The Plan does not get the people energized. The End...Maybe?

8. At some point - 40's? After 70's? The letters are found and re-written, possibly by Jewish redactors first (!) and the stories begin to become seen as stories from a man.
9. It is in the second or third generation that the stories become rearranged as stories of a man/god and seen as the Founding of a Transcendent New Religion. The absolutely thoroughly Anti-Jewish Human Sacrifice Motif gets written in and it's off to the races.

Or something like that.

Charles

Sven

How about writing a book? This is perhaps more fun than talking to yourself here. :wave: