Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Toto · 12-10-2012, 04:20 PM

Robert Price has just given a dramatic reading (Dec 9 video on youtube) of Lena Einhorn's SBL paper JESUS AND THE “EGYPTIAN PROPHET”

Einhorn has an older book The Jesus Mystery: Astonishing Clues to the True Identities of Jesus and Paul (or via: amazon.co.uk) (bargain book on Amazon) which appears to have an uncertain relation to her current work. The book is summarized here. Einhorn originally claimed that Jesus survived the crucifixion and turned up as St. Paul; this claim is not part of the 2012 SBL paper.

Einhorn is a Swedish physician who has worked as a scientist, and then turned to filmmaking. She is the child of a Holocaust survivor. The link to the historical Jesus is not clear.

Her thesis is that Jesus was the person described in Josephus as "the Egyptian." She points out that the events described in the gospels are a close fit to the events described in Josephus twenty years after the presumed time of Jesus - assuming that you change the names of key players and assume that events involving violence and rebellion have been reversed to be pacifistic. This time shifting assumption solves a number of problems, including why Jesus might have been 50.

The discussion is fascinating. My only question is whether the Egyptian could be considered to be the historical Jesus if he bears so little resemblance to Jesus of the gospels? There is no apparent link between the Egyptian and the Christian church. It appears more that the gospel story tellers picked up details from Josephus.

This paper does make Joseph Atwill look like a rank amateur.

Her website http://lenaeinhorn.se/

Her Biblical research:
http://lenaeinhorn.se/english-2/rese...lical-studies/

outhouse · 12-10-2012, 05:23 PM

This really sums up her work.

http://translate.google.com/translat...ed=0CDoQ7gEwAQ

In 2006, Einhorn brought attention to the book What Happened on the way to Damascus?, Where she tries to compare the New Testament with contemporary historical sources. . This leads to the bold and unique hypothesis that Jesus and Paul were the same person. Swedish Dagbladet's reviewer called it "a problematic hypothesis which probably creates more problems than it solves". A review of Halland News claimed that the book is "speculative twists with almost bantering hints about the practice and immorality from very secondary sources". In an article in Dagens Nyheter characterized Einhorn's hypothesis by Archbishop KG Hammar as "barely adequate",

Toto · 12-10-2012, 05:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by outhouse

This really sums up her work.

..

No it doesn't. Her recent SBL paper is quite an advance on the earlier book.

stephan huller · 12-10-2012, 06:20 PM

Yes I think there is some merit to this work. Jesus was crucified as a robber - even in the place of a robber. There are even tentative grounds for identify the man on the Cross with Judas the Galilean (the sign possibly referencing 'king Judas' and the Islamic pseudepigraphal substitution tradition regarding a crucified Judas). Yet I have looked at all the evidence and I don't know how you get to something which could overtake the historical Jesus. It is also worth noting that the most important prayer in the Samaritan tradition - the first prayer of Marqe which is supposed to be sung whenever Samaritans get together - has as its context the crucifixion of robbers/revolutionaries. But that's the point isn't it. Maybe ancient Palestine was just filled with robbers.

Another example which should be considered. I happen to have the English translation of the fourteenth century Samaritan chronicler Abu'l Fath which tells what life was like in Samaria and Palestine under Islamic rule. Guess what? There were a lot of robbers and revolutionaries then too. Maybe it was just like that there.

stephan huller · 12-10-2012, 07:05 PM

Someone could also help this doctor out a bit. In the Panarion, we remember (494), he directs himself at one point against the Alogi, as he calls them, a group in Asia Minor around 180 CE. In the same passage where he says the Alogi put the birth of Jesus under the consuls Sulpicius Camerinus and Poppaeus Sabinus (the latter name being somewhat distorted in Epiphanius), which means in 9 CE:

Quote:

For somewhere < in > these works I have also found a notation that the Word of God was born about the fortieth year of Augustus. Either this was a mistake on the writer's part, or else he wrote only "forty (μ) years" because the figure "beta" had been erased and only the "mu" was left on the page. For Christ was born in the forty-second year of Augustus. It says besides that Christ < was conceived > on the twelfth before the Kalends of July or June — I cannot say which — in the consulship of Sulpicius Cammarinus and Betteus Pompeianus. [Epiphanius Panarion 2 p. 61]

I would still like to see the reference to the same material being associated with Alexander of Jerusalem.

aa5874 · 12-10-2012, 07:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stephan huller

... Yet I have looked at all the evidence and I don't know how you get to something which could overtake the historical Jesus.

There is no actual evidence of an historical Jesus so overtaking the historical Jesus is really irrelevant.

Please, tell us what is "all the evidence" that you have looked at??

ALL the evidence for an historical Jesus is really NO evidence.

Now, it is completely mind-boggling that even Scholars do NOT understand the term "historical Jesus".

The historical Jesus MUST, MUST be a character that was crucified around the Passover in Jerusalem under Pilate the governor, when Herod was Tetrarch of Galilee, Caiaphas was high Priest and Tiberius was Emperor of Rome sometime between 26-36 CE.

The Egyptian Prophet in Josephus does NOT qualify for the historical Jesus.

1. A prophet is NOT usually a Messiah or Anointed.

2. The Egyptian was NOT crucified.

3. The Egyptian lived during the time of Felix the governor of Judea.

4. Jesus of Nazareth was NOT an Egyptian.

5. Claudius or Nero was Emperor at the time of the Egyptian.

6. The Egyptian was ALIVE up to at least c 52 CE.

Lena Einhorn gets a Big Fat ZERO for finding the historical Jesus.

It is most disturbing that even Scholars do not know the time period for the Quest of their historical Jesus.

The time period for HJ of Nazareth is c 6 BCE-36 CE

Again, the historical Jesus MUST be dead, and Must be a crucified Victim c 26-36 CE in Jerusalem at around Passover, when Caiaphas was High Priest, when Herod was Tetrarch of Galilee , Pilate was governor and Tiberius was Emperor.

Lena Einhorn actually found the sources for the fabrication of Myth Jesus.

This is exactly what was done. Events about numerous characters from the works of Josephus were systematically lifted and re-worked to invent Jesus of Nazareth.

Toto · 12-10-2012, 08:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stephan huller

.... Maybe ancient Palestine was just filled with robbers.

Another example which should be considered. I happen to have the English translation of the fourteenth century Samaritan chronicler Abu'l Fath which tells what life was like in Samaria and Palestine under Islamic rule. Guess what? There were a lot of robbers and revolutionaries then too. Maybe it was just like that there.

She points out that Josephus doesn't include descriptions of robbers (or lestes - a common euphemism for revolutionaries) under Pilate. The robbers came later, under Felix.

Quote:

Originally Posted by p.11

As noted above, in Josephus’ accounts of Pilate’s reign we find no descriptions of robbers, nor of crucifixions of Jews, or co-reigning high priests, or open conflict between Galileans and Samaritans. Under Felix, and under Cumanus, we do. . . .

The question is - if the gospel writers were mining Josephus for data on the historical Jesus, why did they set the story under Pilate but pick up details from a few decades later?

Quote:

Originally Posted by p.20

The century before the fall of Jerusalem was a time of intense scriptural interpretation, not least seen in the pesharim of the Dead Sea Scrolls. The writers of pesharim believed that scripture was written on two levels: one obvious, one concealed. From the Gospels – particularly Matthew 13, Mark 8, and Luke 8 – we see that also Jesus admonishes his disciples to look at the deeper level of his parables, for the hidden story: “Do you still not perceive or understand? Are your hearts hardened? Do you have eyes, and fail to see? Do you have ears, and fail to hear?” (Mark 8:17-18)

It is perhaps not a far-fetched idea that also the narrative describing the life of Jesus, the master of parables, would utilize this technique of writing on two levels: one obvious, one hidden, to be interpreted. It is noteworthy, that when we do see parallels between Josephus’ accounts and the New Testament, almost every word in the NT narrative seems to bear significance. But the action is sometimes modified – or even completely reversed. On at least two occasions, a pacifist action in the Gospels closely corresponds to a
more violent one in Josephus’ accounts . . .

youngalexander · 12-10-2012, 09:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

The question is - if the gospel writers were mining Josephus for data on the historical Jesus, why did they set the story under Pilate but pick up details from a few decades later?

Maybe because gospel writing in the late 60s -90s was a trifle too close to The Egyptian's time? Could have been a might dangerous to be associated! Better displace him back to Pilates day - especially as none (save the initiates) would figure out who you were refering to.

tanya · 12-10-2012, 11:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stephan huller

Yet I have looked at all the evidence and I don't know how you get to something which could overtake the historical Jesus.

How about this?

αρχη του ευαγγελιου ιησου χριστου υιου του θεου

aa5874 · 12-10-2012, 11:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

...The question is - if the gospel writers were mining Josephus for data on the historical Jesus, why did they set the story under Pilate but pick up details from a few decades later?

Such a question is extremely trivial. It is not expected that the authors of the Jesus story would maintain a strict chronology when they were mining data from Josephus especially when the audience is not aware of the contents of Josephus or are illiterate.

The very Gospels are filled with fiction, contradictions, implausibilities discrepancies and events about Jesus that most likely did not happen so it is NO surprise that their chronology is all over the place and cannot be reconciled.

Using Lena's myopic position then One can argue that the historical Jesus was Jesus the Son of Ananus in Wars of the Jews 6.5.3 or Jesus Son of Sapphias in the "Life of Flavius Josephus."

It is most obvious that what is really discovered are the elements ofthe works of Josephus used to fabricate Jesus of Nazareth.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Quote:

Originally Posted by p.20

The century before the fall of Jerusalem was a time of intense scriptural interpretation, not least seen in the pesharim of the Dead Sea Scrolls. The writers of pesharim believed that scripture was written on two levels: one obvious, one concealed. From the Gospels – particularly Matthew 13, Mark 8, and Luke 8 – we see that also Jesus admonishes his disciples to look at the deeper level of his parables, for the hidden story: “Do you still not perceive or understand? Are your hearts hardened? Do you have eyes, and fail to see? Do you have ears, and fail to hear?” (Mark 8:17-18)

It is perhaps not a far-fetched idea that also the narrative describing the life of Jesus, the master of parables, would utilize this technique of writing on two levels: one obvious, one hidden, to be interpreted. It is noteworthy, that when we do see parallels between Josephus’ accounts and the New Testament, almost every word in the NT narrative seems to bear significance. But the action is sometimes modified – or even completely reversed. On at least two occasions, a pacifist action in the Gospels closely corresponds to a
more violent one in Josephus’ accounts . . .

Again, "his parables, for the hidden story: “Do you still not perceive or understand? Are your hearts hardened? Do you have eyes, and fail to see? Do you have ears, and fail to hear?” comes DIRECTLY from Isaiah 6.

Isaiah 6

Quote:

9 And he said , Go , and tell this people, Hear ye indeed , but understand not; and see ye indeed , but perceive not. 10 Make the heart of this people fat , and make their ears heavy , and shut their eyes; lest they see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and understand with their heart, and convert , and be healed .

The Gospel writers RAIDED many sources to fabricate their Jesus of Nazareth.

We can see exactly how Jesus of Nazareth was invented---when he rode a donkey or two the Gospel writers mined Hewbrew Scripture and when the Three were crucified and one survived as in the Gospels they Mined the Life of Flavius Josephus.

12-10-2012, 04:20 PM	#1
Toto Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Los Angeles area Posts: 40,549	Historical Jesus found? Robert Price has just given a dramatic reading (Dec 9 video on youtube) of Lena Einhorn's SBL paper JESUS AND THE “EGYPTIAN PROPHET” Einhorn has an older book The Jesus Mystery: Astonishing Clues to the True Identities of Jesus and Paul (or via: amazon.co.uk) (bargain book on Amazon) which appears to have an uncertain relation to her current work. The book is summarized here. Einhorn originally claimed that Jesus survived the crucifixion and turned up as St. Paul; this claim is not part of the 2012 SBL paper. Einhorn is a Swedish physician who has worked as a scientist, and then turned to filmmaking. She is the child of a Holocaust survivor. The link to the historical Jesus is not clear. Her thesis is that Jesus was the person described in Josephus as "the Egyptian." She points out that the events described in the gospels are a close fit to the events described in Josephus twenty years after the presumed time of Jesus - assuming that you change the names of key players and assume that events involving violence and rebellion have been reversed to be pacifistic. This time shifting assumption solves a number of problems, including why Jesus might have been 50. The discussion is fascinating. My only question is whether the Egyptian could be considered to be the historical Jesus if he bears so little resemblance to Jesus of the gospels? There is no apparent link between the Egyptian and the Christian church. It appears more that the gospel story tellers picked up details from Josephus. This paper does make Joseph Atwill look like a rank amateur. Her website http://lenaeinhorn.se/ Her Biblical research: http://lenaeinhorn.se/english-2/rese...lical-studies/

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

12-10-2012, 05:23 PM	#2
outhouse Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2012 Location: Auburn ca Posts: 4,269	This really sums up her work. http://translate.google.com/translat...ed=0CDoQ7gEwAQ In 2006, Einhorn brought attention to the book What Happened on the way to Damascus?, Where she tries to compare the New Testament with contemporary historical sources. . This leads to the bold and unique hypothesis that Jesus and Paul were the same person. Swedish Dagbladet's reviewer called it "a problematic hypothesis which probably creates more problems than it solves". A review of Halland News claimed that the book is "speculative twists with almost bantering hints about the practice and immorality from very secondary sources". In an article in Dagens Nyheter characterized Einhorn's hypothesis by Archbishop KG Hammar as "barely adequate",

12-10-2012, 06:20 PM	#4
stephan huller Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: seattle, wa Posts: 9,337	Yes I think there is some merit to this work. Jesus was crucified as a robber - even in the place of a robber. There are even tentative grounds for identify the man on the Cross with Judas the Galilean (the sign possibly referencing 'king Judas' and the Islamic pseudepigraphal substitution tradition regarding a crucified Judas). Yet I have looked at all the evidence and I don't know how you get to something which could overtake the historical Jesus. It is also worth noting that the most important prayer in the Samaritan tradition - the first prayer of Marqe which is supposed to be sung whenever Samaritans get together - has as its context the crucifixion of robbers/revolutionaries. But that's the point isn't it. Maybe ancient Palestine was just filled with robbers. Another example which should be considered. I happen to have the English translation of the fourteenth century Samaritan chronicler Abu'l Fath which tells what life was like in Samaria and Palestine under Islamic rule. Guess what? There were a lot of robbers and revolutionaries then too. Maybe it was just like that there.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.