Freethought & Rationalism Archive

stephan huller · 02-27-2013, 10:05 AM

Remember Psalm 22 has nothing to do with the slaughter of the innocents. Herod the Great is clearly identified as originally presiding over the Passion of Jesus:

Quote:

My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?
Why are you so far from saving me,
so far from my cries of anguish?
2 My God, I cry out by day, but you do not answer,
by night, but I find no rest.[b]
3 Yet you are enthroned as the Holy One;
you are the one Israel praises.[c]
4 In you our ancestors put their trust;
they trusted and you delivered them.
5 To you they cried out and were saved;
in you they trusted and were not put to shame.
6 But I am a worm and not a man,
scorned by everyone, despised by the people.
7 All who see me mock me;
they hurl insults, shaking their heads.
8 “He trusts in the Lord,” they say,
“let the Lord rescue him.
Let him deliver him,
since he delights in him.”
9 Yet you brought me out of the womb;
you made me trust in you, even at my mother’s breast.
10 From birth I was cast on you;
from my mother’s womb you have been my God.
11 Do not be far from me,
for trouble is near
and there is no one to help.
12 Many bulls surround me;
strong bulls of Bashan encircle me.
13 Roaring lions that tear their prey
open their mouths wide against me. (= Herod the Great)
14 I am poured out like water,
and all my bones are out of joint.
My heart has turned to wax;
it has melted within me.
15 My mouth[d] is dried up like a potsherd,
and my tongue sticks to the roof of my mouth;
you lay me in the dust of death.
16 Dogs surround me,
a pack of villains encircles me;
they pierce[e] my hands and my feet.
17 All my bones are on display;
people stare and gloat over me.
18 They divide my clothes among them
and cast lots for my garment.
19 But you, Lord, do not be far from me.
You are my strength; come quickly to help me.
20 Deliver me from the sword,
my precious life from the power of the dogs.
21 Rescue me from the mouth of the lions;
save me from the horns of the wild oxen.
22 I will declare your name to my people;
in the assembly I will praise you.
23 You who fear the Lord, praise him!
All you descendants of Jacob, honor him!
Revere him, all you descendants of Israel!
24 For he has not despised or scorned
the suffering of the afflicted one;
he has not hidden his face from him
but has listened to his cry for help.
25 From you comes the theme of my praise in the great assembly;
before those who fear you[f] I will fulfill my vows.
26 The poor will eat and be satisfied;
those who seek the Lord will praise him—
may your hearts live forever!
27 All the ends of the earth
will remember and turn to the Lord,
and all the families of the nations
will bow down before him,
28 for dominion belongs to the Lord
and he rules over the nations.
29 All the rich of the earth will feast and worship;
all who go down to the dust will kneel before him—
those who cannot keep themselves alive.
30 Posterity will serve him;
future generations will be told about the Lord.
31 They will proclaim his righteousness,
declaring to a people yet unborn:
He has done it!

Justin's gospel thus interpreted Psalm 22 as predicting the crucifixion of Jesus during the time of Herod the Great - not Herod Antipas - undoubtedly at the time of the completion of the Temple.

stephan huller · 02-27-2013, 10:09 AM

The second prophesy Justin connects with Herod the Great - Hosea 10 - is clearly connected with the destruction of the Jerusalem temple:

Quote:

Israel was a spreading vine;
he brought forth fruit for himself.
As his fruit increased,
he built more altars;
as his land prospered,
he adorned his sacred stones.
2 Their heart is deceitful,
and now they must bear their guilt.
The Lord will demolish their altars
and destroy their sacred stones.
3 Then they will say, “We have no king
because we did not revere the Lord.
But even if we had a king,
what could he do for us?”
4 They make many promises,
take false oaths
and make agreements;
therefore lawsuits spring up
like poisonous weeds in a plowed field.
5 The people who live in Samaria fear
for the calf-idol of Beth Aven. (= house of wickedness)
Its people will mourn over it,
and so will its idolatrous priests,
those who had rejoiced over its splendor,
because it is taken from them into exile.
6 He will be carried to Assyria
as tribute for the great king. (= Jesus being brought in chains in front of Herod the Great)
Ephraim will be disgraced;
Israel will be ashamed of its foreign alliances.
7 Samaria’s king will be destroyed,
swept away like a twig on the surface of the waters.
8 The high places of wickedness[b] will be destroyed—
it is the sin of Israel.
Thorns and thistles will grow up
and cover their altars.
Then they will say to the mountains, “Cover us!”
and to the hills, “Fall on us!”
9 “Since the days of Gibeah, you have sinned, Israel,
and there you have remained.[c]
Will not war again overtake
the evildoers in Gibeah?
10 When I please, I will punish them;
nations will be gathered against them
to put them in bonds for their double sin.
11 Ephraim is a trained heifer
that loves to thresh;
so I will put a yoke
on her fair neck.
I will drive Ephraim,
Judah must plow,
and Jacob must break up the ground.
12 Sow righteousness for yourselves,
reap the fruit of unfailing love,
and break up your unplowed ground;
for it is time to seek the Lord,
until he comes
and showers his righteousness on you.
13 But you have planted wickedness,
you have reaped evil,
you have eaten the fruit of deception.
Because you have depended on your own strength
and on your many warriors,
14 the roar of battle will rise against your people,
so that all your fortresses will be devastated—
as Shalman devastated Beth Arbel on the day of battle,
when mothers were dashed to the ground with their children.
15 So will it happen to you, Bethel,
because your wickedness is great.
When that day dawns,
the king of Israel will be completely destroyed.

stephan huller · 02-27-2013, 10:17 AM

Other strange details in Justin. In the First Apology 30 he claims that the LXX was completed when Ptolemy made a request to Herod for the prophetic books:

Quote:

And when Ptolemy king of Egypt formed a library, and endeavoured to collect the writings of all men, he heard also of these prophets, and sent to Herod, who was at that time king of the Jews, requesting that the books of the prophets be sent to him. And Herod the king did indeed send them, written, as they were, in the foresaid Hebrew language. And when their contents were found to be unintelligible to the Egyptians, he again sent and requested that men be commissioned to translate them into the Greek language.

Also it is difficult to square all of Justin's identifications of 'king Herod' presiding over the Passion as Antipas when Antipas was a tetrarch not a king:

Quote:

And we have thought it right and relevant to mention some other prophetic utterances of David besides these; from which you may learn how the Spirit of prophecy exhorts men to live, and how He foretold the conspiracy which was formed against Christ by Herod the king of the Jews, and the Jews themselves, and Pilate, who was your governor among them, with his soldiers; and how He should be believed on by men of every race [Apology 40]

andrewcriddle · 02-27-2013, 11:43 AM

Philo refers to Pilate as governor under Tiberias in the Embassy to Gaius

Quote:

"Moreover, I have it in my power to relate one act of ambition on his part, though I suffered an infinite number of evils when he was alive; but nevertheless the truth is considered dear, and much to be honoured by you. Pilate was one of the emperor's lieutenants, having been appointed governor of Judaea. He, not more with the object of doing honour to Tiberius than with that of vexing the multitude, dedicated some gilt shields in the palace of Herod, in the holy city; which had no form nor any other forbidden thing represented on them except some necessary inscription, which mentioned these two facts, the name of the person who had placed them there, and the person in whose honour they were so placed there. But when the multitude heard what had been done, and when the circumstance became notorious, then the people, putting forward the four sons of the king, who were in no respect inferior to the kings themselves, in fortune or in rank, and his other descendants, and those magistrates who were among them at the time, entreated him to alter and to rectify the innovation which he had committed in respect of the shields; and not to make any alteration in their national customs, which had hitherto been preserved without any interruption, without being in the least degree changed by any king of emperor. "But when he steadfastly refused this petition (for he was a man of a very inflexible disposition, and very merciless as well as very obstinate), they cried out: 'Do not cause a sedition; do not make war upon us; do not destroy the peace which exists. The honour of the emperor is not identical with dishonour to the ancient laws; let it not be to you a pretence for heaping insult on our nation. Tiberius is not desirous that any of our laws or customs shall be destroyed. And if you yourself say that he is, show us either some command from him, or some letter, or something of the kind, that we, who have been sent to you as ambassadors, may cease to trouble you, and may address our supplications to your master.' "But this last sentence exasperated him in the greatest possible degree, as he feared least they might in reality go on an embassy to the emperor, and might impeach him with respect to other particulars of his government, in respect of his corruption, and his acts of insolence, and his rapine, and his habit of insulting people, and his cruelty, and his continual murders of people untried and uncondemned, and his never ending, and gratuitous, and most grievous inhumanity. Therefore, being exceedingly angry, and being at all times a man of most ferocious passions, he was in great perplexity, neither venturing to take down what he had once set up, nor wishing to do any thing which could be acceptable to his subjects, and at the same time being sufficiently acquainted with the firmness of Tiberius on these points. And those who were in power in our nation, seeing this, and perceiving that he was inclined to change his mind as to what he had done, but that he was not willing to be thought to do so, wrote a most supplicatory letter to Tiberius. And he, when he had read it, what did he say of Pilate, and what threats did he utter against him! But it is beside our purpose at present to relate to you how very angry he was, although he was not very liable to sudden anger; since the facts speak for themselves; for immediately, without putting any thing off till the next day, he wrote a letter, reproaching and reviling him in the most bitter manner for his act of unprecedented audacity and wickedness, and commanding him immediately to take down the shields and to convey them away from the metropolis of Judaea to Caesarea, on the sea which had been named Caesarea Augusta, after his grandfather, in order that they might be set up in the temple of Augustus. And accordingly, they were set up in that edifice. And in this way he provided for two matters: both for the honour due to the emperor, and for the preservation of the ancient customs of the city.

Andrew Criddle

Edited to Add

If one accepts the fragments attributed to Clement of Alexandria in the Paschal Chronicle, (and probably one should), then Clement did mention Pilate.

Quote:

Suitably, therefore, to the fourteenth day, on which He also suffered, in the morning, the chief priests and the scribes, who brought Him to Pilate, did not enter the Praetorium, that they might not be defiled, but might freely eat the passover in the evening. With this precise determination of the days both the whole Scriptures agree, and the Gospels harmonize. The resurrection also attests it. He certainly rose on the third day, which fell on the first day of the weeks of harvest, on which the law prescribed that the priest should offer up the sheaf.

outhouse · 02-27-2013, 12:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stephan huller

The great Nikos Kokkinos explains why we should believe that 12 BC makes the most sense for the original date of the gospel narrative. The beginning of the article:

.

Nothing personal, but ive seen alot better work out of you then this guy.

We already know the star in the birth narrative is Augustus coin, and the event in the sky when he proclaimed his dad Caesar resurrected.

Haleys would be barely visible to the naked eye, not exactly what is described, in what most claim a fictional account anyway.

stephan huller · 02-27-2013, 12:42 PM

Yes Andrew. Spot on as usual. I was aware of the reference in Philo which is why I shifted from the original question shortly after I posed it. The reference in the Paschale Chronicle raises some important questions. But I don't know if it is decisive.

The new question is - which is more believable, the idea that the gospel was originally set in the fifteenth of Augustus or fifteenth of Tiberius? I am not sure that Clement's position is completely clear here. Yes he mentions the fact that Luke says this but his citation of Luke is odd. It's not our Luke but Ephrem's Luke or perhaps most likely of all a corrected or amended reading. Nothing matches Luke as we know it exactly.

Clement says that the gospel begins with "the fifteenth of Tiberius" and the word of God coming to John and then an odd version of Jesus going in the synagogue to pronounce the year of favor. It is almost exactly like Irenaeus's summary of the Marcionite gospel in AH 1.27.2.

But the problem is that only the fifteenth of Augustus fits the idea of a prelude to the Jubilee year. In no known system can the fifteenth of Tiberius fit what follows in the gospel as Clement tells it.

We also can't forget Irenaeus's attack against Clement's interpretation of the gospel in AH 2.22.2. Clement says that the gospel narrative represents one year - the year of favor - which is the Jubilee. Irenaeus - absurdly - says that the 'year of favor' has nothing to do with that interpretation and is a figure which represents the entire period of the development of Christianity down to the age he was living in.

Irenaeus's position is stupid. Nevertheless what pulls the rug from under Clement and the other 'heretics' is that 'fifteenth of Tiberius' reference. Now of course it is in Stromata Book One. But was it there originally? Or was this yet another example of Eusebius (cf. Jerome's statement) correction of the Alexandrian masters to spare them from the charge of heresy.

If it was so clear cut that Clement 'really' believed that the ministry of Jesus corresponded to the 'fifteenth of Tiberius' why do we see consistent 'scribal errors' whenever the topic comes up? Consider the most obvious, what appears in Book Seven:

Quote:

For the teaching of the Lord on His advent, from Augustus and Tiberius in the middle of the times of Augustus was completed.

How can anyone doubt that the reference to Tiberius was added here? And then again elsewhere:

Quote:

And that it was necessary for Him to preach only a year, this also is written: "He hath sent Me to proclaim the acceptable year of the Lord." This both the prophet spake, and the Gospel. In fifteen years of Tiberius and fifteen years of Augustus (πεντεκαίδεκα οὖν ἔτη Τιβερίου καὶ
πεντεκαίδεκα Αὐγούστου, so were completed the thirty years till the time He suffered (οὕτω πληροῦται τὰ τριάκοντα ἔτη ἕως οὗ
ἔπαθεν). [Strom 1.21]

We already know that Irenaeus - and hence 'orthodoxy' - had a problem with Clement's' interpretation of the 'year of favor.' But if Clement meant 'Jubilee year' as I am certain he did then the 'fifteen of Tiberius' here is a later addition.

Just look at the context of what he is saying. He begins by quoting from his gospel (allegedly Luke) where Jesus himself says God sent me to proclaim the (single year) Jubilee. Then a reference to the agreement between Isaiah and the gospel. And then this strange back to 'in the fifteen years of Tiberius, in the fifteen years of Augustus' - so now not speaking of a single year but - like Irenaeus referencing a whole range of years - and now appearing to claim that Jesus died in 29 CE.

If Clement was arguing for a Jubilee year he could only have meant 'fifteenth of Augustus.'

stephan huller · 02-27-2013, 01:15 PM

Quote:

We already know the star in the birth narrative is Augustus coin, and the event in the sky when he proclaimed his dad Caesar resurrected.

But would it be natural to identify the year where:

a) a messianic 'star' appeared in the sky
b) the temple was built

and which

c) was a forty-ninth year/Jubilee

with the birth of a child who was the messiah or the appearance of a messiah/supernatural figure? The Qumran texts make clear that the expectation that God or a supernatural being would come in the Jubilee already existed. My difficulty is squaring the gospel account with the anti-Temple subplot in the gospel and Acts.

Which is more believable or - perhaps better - which is more likely to be original, the idea that Jesus was born on the Jubilee year that was the completion of the temple or that this was the year 'he appeared' (i.e. a supernatural being) who stood in front of Herod the Great and accused the Jews telling them they had sinned by going beyond what the Pentateuch allowed (i.e. building a permanent building as opposed to a mere flimsy tabernacle)? My difficulty is that the subplot that Herod wanted to see Jesus and that Jesus was preaching 'in a year of favor' and wanted the temple destroyed makes more sense in the fifteenth year of Augustus than the fifteenth year of Tiberius. Why would God have assigned a non-Jubilee year when the temple had long been standing to be 'the year of favor'? It doesn't make sense. The only defense is that 'Jesus was just a guy' and the rest of the idiocy that evangelicals spew.

stephan huller · 02-27-2013, 01:21 PM

The bottom line for me at least is that there is this 'Herod the Great' subplot to the gospel and I could never explain why the Catholics introduced these fictions. If the original narrative (i.e. when Jesus was a man or in the likeness of a man) was originally set in the time of Herod the Great, it was set up as a ruse - i.e. to allow for Herod the Great to appear in the narrative but now entirely with respect to an infant Jesus.

stephan huller · 02-27-2013, 01:27 PM

Having the narrative set in 12 BCE also helps explain why Jesus is never portrayed as entering Tiberias - one of the most unusual aspects of the gospel. Why wouldn't Jesus have visited the 'New York' of Galilee? The answer now - the city hadn't been built yet. Notice also John's later addition reference to the 'Tiberias' in chapter 6:

Quote:

Some time after this, Jesus crossed to the far shore of the Sea of Galilee (that is, the Sea of Tiberias),

Then some boats from Tiberias landed near the place where the people had eaten the bread after the Lord had given thanks.

This may indicate the time that John was edited for as Wikipedia notes "the Sea of Tiberias is also the name mentioned in Roman texts and in the Jerusalem Talmud." What are these Roman texts? It is also worth noting that these 'Roman texts' are elsewhere identified as 'first century texts' such as Zondervan Companion to the Bible - "the name 'Sea of Tiberias' is attested in first-century literature (Sib. Or. 12.104) and Jewish literature." Pausanius also used the term 'Sea of Tiberias." Why didn't Mark use this term?

stephan huller · 02-27-2013, 01:53 PM

Actually the avoidance of any reference to Tiberias is puzzling given Evans overview:

Quote:

The toponym “Sea of Galilee” (v. 18) also appears in Matt 4:18 and 15:29 (cf. Mark 1:16; 3:7; 7:31; John 6:1). The lake is also called the Sea of Tiberias or Lake of Tiberias (John 21:1; Josephus, J.W. 3.57), a name reflecting the prominent lakeside city Tiberias (John 6:6; Josephus, J.W. 2.68; Josephus, Ant. 18.36; Pausanias, Descr. 5.7.4; t. Sukkah). The distinctive Sea of Galilee (instead of Lake of Galilee, Kinneret Lake, Lake of Gennesar, or Lake of Tiberias) may have suggested itself to early Christian narrators of the story of Jesus who were under the influence of Isa 8:23 (Eng. 9:1), where Galilee is linked with the “way of the sea, the land beyond the Jordan." Thus, the toponym “Sea of Galilee” may have had a Christian origin. [Matthew p. 92]

But can't we turn around Evans argument and say that Mark et al should have called the lake 'Tiberias' if they had been (a) writing in the first century or (b) had been writing about a narrative set in the period. The other forms "Sea of Galilee" etc. have a different original.

I know it sounds nuts but I think the idea that the gospel was originally written for a period before the Common Era, before the city of Tiberias was founded, makes a lot of sense. There are all these anomalies that people just push back in their mind.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

02-27-2013, 01:21 PM	#48
stephan huller Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: seattle, wa Posts: 9,337	The bottom line for me at least is that there is this 'Herod the Great' subplot to the gospel and I could never explain why the Catholics introduced these fictions. If the original narrative (i.e. when Jesus was a man or in the likeness of a man) was originally set in the time of Herod the Great, it was set up as a ruse - i.e. to allow for Herod the Great to appear in the narrative but now entirely with respect to an infant Jesus.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.