Ecrasez L'infame

Here's an odd argument from Eisenman's new book, The New Testament Code (or via: amazon.co.uk) p13 (I've had it a week and that's how far I've got - doesn't bode well for the next three years, does it?):

The reference is from BJ 4.359-363 (p263 in the Penguin Classic edition), and E adds "it would be hard for anyone reading this to escape the resemblance". Well, I have. There certainly ARE resemblances between Josephus's Niger and the Gospels' Jesus - earlier in BJ (3.34, p191) Niger had spent three days in a cave, possibly buried, assumed dead by his friends, and only found when they went to bury the body; and Niger's curse on the Zealots and the Jews in general as he dies is reminiscent of the Blood Libel and the Little Apocalypses (E talks about all these on p744 of his new book). The trouble is that E explicitly says Niger carried his own cross; but Josephus does not say that, nor that he was even crucified. If E were right here, I'd agree that Niger's death does look like a template for the Passion; if he isn't, we have to give the benefit of the doubt to coincidence. Seems to me much rides on this little detail.

Although E talks further about Niger at various times in the new book, he does not mention crucifixion or "carrying his own cross out of the city" again that I can see. In particular, the detailed discussion of the parallels between Jesus and Niger in NTC pp743 makes no mention of the suggestion. In his earlier book James the Brother of Jesus, he DOES say (p885) that Niger was "executed (possibly even crucified)". That's it that I can find. Could E have some other source he just forgot to footnote? I checked Antiquities - no mention of any Niger. Hmm.

There MIGHT be a clue in BJ. Prior to his death Niger had pleaded for a burial, and his murderers had told him that "the grave he so desired would never be his". So Niger believed in bodily resurrection, which meant IIUC he was a Pharisee (or of course a "Christian", whatever that meant at the time). Further, it meant that after he was killed, his body was destroyed - which means (if we rule out cremation) eaten by carrion. Wasn't that what happened to some of the crucified - that they were left on the cross until the crows and wild dogs had torn them up? Is that where E got the idea from?

Finally - did the rebels even practice crucifixion at the time of the war or at any other time? (I know it's sometimes claimed the Romans reserved capital cases to themselves, but that was obviously before the war).

Thanks

Robert

Ecrasez L'infame

Nobody has rushed to Eisenman's defence, and I myself have been unable to find any strong argument for his assertion in NTC p13 that Niger was crucified or that he carried his own cross. We must assume (perhaps a little generously) that E is so close to his materials that on this occasion he forgot the difference between what he knows and what he's worked out must be true within his theories. Unfortunately, having caught him out so early, I shall be checking him extra-carefully from now on.

As for his general argument: does one wrong sentence matter in a 1000-page book? I think yes, because he was suggesting that the Passion is based on an episode in BJ (or the events related therein, remembered directly by the Evangelists). If he had been right, it would have strengthened MJ; as it is, it's just the kind of speculation justified by speculation that gives MJ a bad name.

Thanks

Robert