stephan huller

Clive,

The ancient Israelites left Egypt under a set of circumstances that were disputed by Jews and Egyptians. Yes, certainly.

But is it possible - remember this post began as a question or a series of questions - that whatever was originally developed by the author of the Torah was eventually modified by the Alexandrian Jewish community to assist with the conversion of native Egyptians?

This is the marble I have had bouncing around in my head for the last few years.

There was some sort of violent dispute between the Jewish and Greek communities in Alexandria in the early first century. Philo won't tell us why things have soured between them. The general assumption is that the Jews were striving to advance their social standing to be equal with the Greeks.

But when the Greeks are allowed to speak for themselves something else comes to the fore which is rarely touched by scholars - the idea that Agrippa was plotting to take over the world.

My lord Caesar, what do you care for a twopenny-halfpenny Jew like Agrippa?... I accuse them of wishing to stir up the entire world... They are not of the same nature as the Alexandrians, but live rather after the fashion of the Egyptian [Musurillo, Acts of the Pagan Martyrs p. 23]

I find the use of the word ταράσσω ('to stir up' or 'to disturb'). The term can mean to defeat an army or freq. of political agitation, “τ. τὴν πόλιν” Ar.Eq. 867; τὰ πράγματα ib.214:—Pass., to be in a state of disorder or anarchy, ἐν ἀλλήλοις τ. Th.2.65, cf. D.2.14, Ptol.Tetr.164. (LSJ)

Isidore specifically accuses the Jews later of 'living after the manner of the Egyptians.' While it would be nice to have more detail here, I can't help but see that there were indeed Jews in Alexandria actively converting native Egyptians and this was scaring the Greeks.

Philo repeatedly references the active conversion of Gentiles in his writings and it would only be natural in my mind to imagine that the crossing of the sea would have been ritualized into something resembling the ἀπολύτρωσις sacrament of the Marcosians. More research is need of course. But we do have signs of Philo being aware of the 'mysteries' of the Marcosians.

My guiding hypothesis however when looking at Christian baptism especially as it formulated by the Apostle in 1 Corinthians chapter 10 is that it would be impossible for a Jew or Samaritan to believe that the ancient Israelites experienced βαπτίζω in any form. It was the ancient Egyptians who drowned in the sea. Maybe that is why the Apostle formulates Christian water immersion in terms of a βαπτίζω on behalf of the dead - i.e. the dead ancestors of the Egyptian proselytes.

judge

This seems like agood point, except that the same hebrew prophets who foretell of the messiah, in other places insist the jews themselves are stiffnecked hard hearted blind fools who wouldn't recognize the messiah if they fell over him (or at least what yaweh was doing with repspect the their hopes).


Is there any reason, reading the hebrew prophets, to assume that the ancient jews themselves would have more grip on messianic realisations than anyone else?

Its akin to japanese chefs complaining that japanese people wouldnt know good japanese food if they had it stuffed down their throats.

This is why pauls letters (in places) can make some kind of argument for the kind of messiahism (is that word :P) that he preached.

Over and over we see the NT authors using the hebrew prophets themselves to argue that jews themselves had no clue. Had those ideas not first been in the hebrew prophets then any barnd of xtian messianism would have been very hard to support in any way.

But maybe its the old story. We can make the bible say what ever we want it say.

stephan huller

Well I might counter that it's one thing for the Jewish prophets to complain that THEIR CONTEMPORARIES were a bunch of morons. The idea that the prophets were saying that God knew ahead of time that the authorities would fail to recognize him is simply absurd. I don't know where to start with this.

Perhaps it might be worth revisiting the Jewish concept of the messiah.

Let's get one thing straight - Messiah means Christ and Christ means Messiah and the two words only mean Anointed and the usual referent is a secular king. The Queen was anointed by the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Moderator of the Church of Scotland at her coronation. There is no Greek word Christos unambiguously meaning what Christian theology uses it to mean. The altar was “christos” when olive oil was poured on it. Flour is “christos” when olive oil is poured on it. Grass is “christos” when the sprinkler is turned on. If it means someone special, then it means any king of any country at any time.

Aside from this, there is no Hebrew or Aramaic word “Messiah”. This is an ARTIFICIAL word only existing in late modern English. There is the Hebrew word משיח Mashiach (approximate pronunciation) and the Aramaic Meshiach (approximate pronunciation) and definite Meshicha (approximate pronunciation) and the Greek phonetic transcription Messias (where the 's' is a Greek suffix). French correctly renders both Mashiach and Messias as “Messie”. German has “Messias” for both.

A source of confusion is that the Aramaic and Greek forms also render the Hebrew Kohen Mashuach, an anointed High Priest. Another source of confusion is that although the word Mashiach = Christos in the Psalms usually refers to any earthly temporal king, in some places it refers to a heavenly figure known from Canaanite mythology and from contemporary writings about Melchizedek, seen as manifestation of a heavenly figure. (King of Salem = King of Peace. Melchizedek means King of Righteousness, as in the Christmas carol “Hark the Heavenly Angels Sing”, which says “Hail the King of Righteousness”. The phrase in the carol is a conscious translation of Melchizedek [Malki-tsedek in modern transcription]). A further difficulty is that some occurrences of Mashiach = Christos have both the earthly and the heavenly meanings.

Jesus NEVER EVER ONCE used the term Mashiach = Christos = Anointed for himself. One could argue I suppose that he did this because the term had too many meanings, some badly misleading. One could also argue that he used “Son of Man”, which is deliberately ambiguous. In Aramaic of the time (as Bar Nasha) and in literary Hebrew (Ben Adam) it could just mean “the one under discussion” or “the person”. As an allusion to Daniel XI, it meant a heavenly figure who acts to bring the will of God to earth.

Finally, all the references to Isaiah at the start of Luke DON’T refer to a heavenly figure. In the context in Isaiah, it is a child already born or about to be born in 700 B.C. What was miraculous then 700 B.C. was the sign of divine intervention in history, symbolised by the birth and the change in political circumstances coinciding. The Prince of Peace etc. is in the first instance this child in 700 B.C. The angel says or Luke says the same power is to act again, more powerfully, in the birth of Jesus.

Let's make this clear. Jesus always rejected the term Mashiach (Hebrew) or Meshicha (Aramaic) or “Christos” (Greek). All these words mean exactly the same thing, someone or something anointed. He rejected the term was because the PRIMARY CONNOTATION is “legitimate TEMPORAL or SECULAR king”. This is its meaning in Daniel IX: 25 and 26.

ALL EARLY CHRISTIAN COMMENTATORS AGREE THAT THIS ANOINTED IN DANIEL IS ONLY A TEMPORAL KING. (All early Christian commentators agree with the mainstream Jewish interpretation, that it is meant to refer to Marcus Agrippa). In the contemporary Jewish context, Anointed = Mashiach = Christos meant a new secular king descended from David.

Jesus’s descent from David is of about one percent of importance in defining his status in traditional Christianity. American Evangelicalism is close to heresy in this respect. The traditional model is Moses.

AGAIN THERE IS NOT ONE BIT OF DIFFERENCE BETWEEN CHRISTOS AND MASHIACH. THEY ARE THE SAME WORD IN TWO DIFFERENT LANGUAGES. Daniel IX says Marcus Agrippa was Christos in one meaning, the usual meaning, a secular king. Jesus and Paul would have agreed. This is a rare meaning of the term in the Psalms, hardly found anywhere else in the O.T. (Yes, I mean this). Actually the verb is usually used to carry this meaning, not the noun. (“He has been anointed”, not “He is the Anointed”).

Jesus didn’t use the word Christos at all, because the first meaning was wrong in his case and the second meaning would not be relevant or applicable till after the Resurrection and Ascension.

Jesus never repudiated the title Mashiach: he just discouraged the use of it when applied to himself.

maryhelena

I already commented on this post in the other thread. However, a few more points could be made - particularly as they relate to Alexandria as the early 'hot seat' of what became christianity.

The gospel storyline re its messianic/anointed figure of Jesus has this figure living in Egypt for a short while. On the return to Judea the reference is made to 'Out of Egypt I called my son'. This storyline is usually placed somewhere between 4 bc and 6 ce. Between the death of Herod the Great and the death of his son, Herod Archelaus of Judea.

Here is an alternative view of that gospel storyline:

The gospel birth narrative of Matthew does not say when Jesus was born - only that this birth occurred during the reign of Herod the Great. Herod became King in Rome in 40 bc and the siege of Jerusalem is dated to 37 bc.

After the siege of Jerusalem, Herod the Great married the Hasmonean princess Mariamne I. Josephus can be read that Mariamne already had a child prior to this marriage. What happened to this child? (there is some story re Agrippa being the cast off child of a Jewish Salome). Perhaps, at this early stage Herod the Great did not want the son of Mariamne to be part of the marriage deal. Perhaps it was also thought, for the safety of her Hasmonean child, that the child would be better off elsewhere - in Alexandra.

The gospel storyline has Herod killing all the boy babies under two years of age - as he feared some challenge to his rule. If the slaughter of innocents is dated to the siege of Jerusalem in 37 bc - then the son of Mariamne was probably born within the two preceding year - 39 to 37 ce. Safe in Alexandria the young child stayed there until when? Could be until the time of his mother being killed by Herod - Josephus recalls how remorseful Herod was over the death of his beautiful wife. The young Jesus is depicted as going to the Jerusalem temple at age 12 - saying he must be about his father's business.

At the time of his mother's death in 29 bc, her Hasmonean son would be about 10 years old. Herod could have adopted him at that time. Later, in 7 bc, Herod probably made Philip one of his legal heirs. In that year two of Herod' Herodian/Hasmoneon sons, Alexandria and Aristobulus were killed, or most likely, disinherited. Thus indicating some palace intrigue. (Antipater being killed or disinherited in 4 bc, just prior to the death of Herod - thus eliminating any challenge to the inheritance of Philip - albeit an inheritance that Herod stopped short of including Judea....) In 7 bc Mariamne' Hasmoneon son would be, like the gospel Jesus, about 30 years old. (around 32 years for Philip).

So, from around 39 to 37 bc, Egypt, Alexandria, became the alternative, Hasmonean, seat of 'spiritual' significance. Herod the Great ruled Jerusalem - but the real seat of Jewish spirituality had shifted to Egypt. In that connection, the Hasmonean son of Maraimne would be the focus of all its OT interpretations. When the Jerusalem temple fell in 70 c and no immediate hope of a restoration - then Hasmonean thoughts - already probably influenced by Philo - would turn towards the greater potential, the greater significance, of a world wide spiritual meme.

stephan huller

No more arguing from me. I have to go to bed. But I am very interested where we get the evidence for this:

I want this to be true, but I was wondering what's evidence for this proposition? Again, I am not arguing with you, just want to see how I can follow your lead and follow the trail of evidence for this.

maryhelena

Great! Have a good sleep - and lets follow the Hasmonean idea later - it really is, methinks, the secret to all of this...

ph2ter

Hi Stephan,

I learned that the issue of calendar was of the first importance for the ancient people and their religious systems. This is especially true for all agricultural societies because their existence depended on the right calendar, which was always corrected according to the solar cycle. So those elements of your theory look very valid to me and I already give you some ideas regarding the cycles of 42 and 50 days.

Also I think that the Carabas episode which Philo recorded in a reference to the Agrippa's visit of Alexandria posses some link with the mocking of Jesus in the Gospels.

Another link which could strengthen your theory may be the Epistle of Barnabas. I argued before on this forum that the author never heard about or read any of the Gospels, i.e that he writes before any of the canonical Gospels were penned down.
According to the author the Jews lost the covenant already when Moses cast the two tables out of his hands. The author says: "Now then learn how we have received them. Moses, being a servant, took them; but the Lord himself, having suffered for us, has given them to us in order that we might be the people of his inheritance."

The author mentions great miracles and signs which the Lord has done to Israel teaching him, but from the context it is clear that the author does not speak about miracles which Jesus performed according to the Gospels, but about great signs and miracles which the Lord has done to Israel before the covenant was broken at Sinai. After that the Lord Jesus chose his own apostles to preach his Gospel and after the apostles started to preach the Gospel, only "then He manifested Himself to be the Son of God". Interestingly, for the author there were twelve of them „as a witness to the tribes, for there were twelves tribes in Israel“. (But the twelve is also the number of months in a year.)

The author also knows the significance of the eighth day:
"Lastly he says to them, I cannot stand your new moons and your Sabbaths. Consider what he means by it: the Sabbaths, he says, that you now keep are not acceptable to me, but only those which I have made, when resting from all things I shall begin the eighth day, that is, the beginning of the other world. For which cause we observe the eighth day with gladness, in which Jesus rose from the dead..."

When the writer speaks about baptism he emphasizes:
"Now for the former of these, it is written to the people of Israel how they will not receive that baptism which brings forgiveness of sins, but will institute another to themselves that cannot. For thus says the prophet: Be astonished, O Heaven! And let the earth tremble at it, because this people have done two great and wicked things: they have left me, the fountain of living water, and have dug for themselves broken cisterns that can hold no water. Is my holy mountain a Zion, a desolate wilderness?"

Then he argues that:"Consider how he has joined both the cross and the water together. For thus he says: Blessed are they who put their trust in the cross and descend into the water, for they will have their reward in due time; then, he says, I will give it to them."
One episode in Exodus in patristic age was interpreted in the same sense. Some connection of Mary with a sister of Moses, a prophetess Maryam (Miryam) also appears. After crossing the Red Sea, Maryam took a timbrel (drum) in her hand and start to singing because 'the Lord has the horse and the horseman (of Pharaoh) sent into the sea'. (Exodus 15.20) Few lines later in OT, when Jews three days after the Red Sea crossing were in the wilderness they found the water under the name 'Marah' (bitter) which was bitter. Moses threw a tree into the water and water was made sweet. (Exodus 15.23). Christians connected this water with the water of baptism which becomes life-giving only after it is joined with the cross - a tree which Moses threw into the water. The action of Moses is seen figuratively as the true and proper baptism. It is interesting that Gregory of Nyssa and Ambrose somehow connected a female drummer with virginity. Timbrel is very important instrument in the cult of female goddesses Cybele and Inana. It was made in secret ceremonies out of a skin taken from a sacrificed bull. The context was transformed in OT betraying concealed sexual motifs. Female drummers in OT were then associated with virginity.

(only a passing note: This story of Egyptian horseman drowned in the Red Sea always puzzled me because it is inversion of an ancient myth which speaks about a god which is killed by his wife after a sacred wedding. If horseman is that god (a Pharaoh), and Maryam his wife, then the Jews in Exodus are on the wrong side of the sea - on the virtual, underworld side.)

Moses and baptism can be connected also looking at his birth account : "And the child grew, and she brought him unto Pharaoh's daughter, and he became her son. And she called his name Moses: and she said, Because I drew him out of the water." (Exodus 2.10)

A few more thoughts about baptism which could have some relevance to your theory: In the center of baptism is death. When someone is baptized he goes under the water becoming 'dead' and then goes out of the water becoming again 'alive', like the Christ was after his resurrection. Water signifies death. When someone is under the water, it means that he is dead. When Jesus walks on the water, that means he is capable to conquer the death. In baptism in Jordan he is born again out of the water. Although water signifies a tomb, it signifies a womb too, because Jesus is born again from the very same water and on the symbolic level this water is his mother Mary.

maryhelena

I don’t think we are going to find a certified document stating that after 37 bc the Hasmonean’ relocated their seat of operation from Jerusalem to Alexandria. But what did they do - submit quietly to Herod’s rule after their defeat at the siege of Jerusalem. Escape to Egypt? Maybe. Hardly to Rome as it supported Herod’s rule.

Using the bare bones of the gospel storyline as a template, as a working model, its possible to investigate the relevant historical time period: As noted above, the gospel storyline does not give a specific date for the birth of Jesus. It connects this birth to the slaughter of young children. Historically such a slaughter of the innocents occurred in 37 bc at Herod the Great’ siege of Jerusalem. After the birth of Jesus the gospel story has an escape to Egypt. Since it cannot be established that this gospel figure is historical, questions regarding the storyline can present other possibilities.

If, as I am maintaining, Mariamne I already had a child prior to her marriage to Herod the Great (a scenario, again, within the gospel birth narrative) then the possibility is that it was her child that was sent to Egypt for safe keeping from Herod. Thus, the question presents itself: What role did Alexandria play in the post 37 bc history of the Hasmoneans.

What later transpired in Alexandria re either the building of a new temple or simply the creation of a spiritual, intellectual, temple, is of interest for early Christian origins. Jerusalem is only where the gospel storyline is placed - it is not necessarily the place from which Christian ideas originated. Even much later, when Mariamne’ son was eventually acknowledged by Herod and made one of his heirs and became ruler in Caesarea Philippi, the intellectual momentum would still be based in Alexandria.

The gospels depict Jesus coming out of Egypt and moving to Nazareth because the return to Judea was not possibly while Herod’ son Archelaus was still ruling. This could indicate that the son of Mariamne did not return to Judea until Herod had ‘killed’ or disinherited his two Herodian/Hasmonean sons, Alexander and Aristobulus, which was in 7 bc. At this time Mariamne’ son would be about 30 years of age. As was the gospel Jesus when he started his ministry. (as an aside, I am beginning to think there might be a co-regency here with Herod over Judea - which would further develop the palace intrigue of 7 bc.) If this was so it would, at that time, further any messianic speculation regarding Philip.

Take the Alexandrian Philo, for instance. Philo wrote about the Essenes - a philosophical ideal community that he envisaged in the land of Palestine. These Essenes, as Rachel Elior has pointed out, would have lived completely at odds with Jewish culture re marriage and pro-creation. In other words, they existed as a philosophical ideal but did not exist historically. (Josephus, later, simply gave them a pseudo-history by dating them.....). Philo, with his philosophical Essenes, is indicating that something unusual was taking place in the land of Palestine. He was, in other words, doing some sort of interpretation re the historical context at that time. Thus, an indication that, within the intellectual environment of Alexandria, ideas re Judaism were in flux.

With the rule of Herod over Jerusalem was there a Hasmonean desire to restart anew elsewhere? Did Jerusalem become violated when ruled by a foreigner? And thus ceased to have any ‘spiritually’ relevance. Necessitating a new temple in Alexandria. Would Jerusalem be viewed as though it itself was Egypt - the former land of enslavement - and Alexandria the new ‘spiritual’ Jerusalem? In other words, did the reign of Herod the Great over Jerusalem necessitate a re-think of what Jewish spirituality involved? It is so often said that it was 70 ce that propelled Judaism to re-examine its theological ideas - but the die was cast far earlier.

Did Daniel feature in all of the new developments? Most probably. I don’t think Daniel, in and of itself, should be interpreted to some very specific event. I think it is open ended. All it is is a use of ‘sacred’ numbers applied to various historical situations. Symbolic numbers - the 7 and the 70 - different combinations all used in an attempt to view history as prophetic history, history with some ‘salvation’ meaning etc. Repetitive historical cycles as there are cycles in nature and in the planets.

Slavonic Josephus has an interesting account re Herod’s siege of Jerusalem in 37 bc.

Josephus' Jewish War and Its Slavonic Version: A Synoptic Comparison (Arbeiten Zur Geschichte Des Antiken Judentums Und Des Urchristentums, Bd. 46.) (or via: amazon.co.uk)

Page 172 from the Slavonic Josephus

Immediately the priests started to grieve
and complain to one another, saying among
themselves in secret (things)they would
not dare to say in public because of Herod’s
friends.
For they were saying: ‘The Law forbids us
to have a foreigner (as) king, but we are
expecting the Anointed, the Meek One, of
David’s line. Yet we know that Herod is an
Arab, uncircumcised. The Anointed One
will be called meek but this (king) has
filled our whole land with blood. Under
the Anointed the lame were to walk,
the blind to see, the poor to prosper,
but under this (king) the hale have become
lame, those who could see have gone blind,
the rich are beggared.
But is this (king)the hope of nations?
We detest his misdeeds, are the nations
going to hope in him?”
Alas, God has abandoned us and we are
forgotten by Him, and he wishes
to commit us to desolation and ruin,
not as in the time of Nebuchadnezzar
or Antiochus! For them the prophets were
teachers of the people and promised us
captivity and return. But now there is
no one to ask and no one to console (us)!
In reply the priest Ananus told them:
“I know all the Writings. When Herod was
fighting in front of the city,
I never imagined that God would allow him
to reign over us. But I now understand
that our devastation is <already> at hand.
And consider Daniel’s prophecy. For he
writes that after the Return, the city of
Jerusalem will stand for 70 weeks of
years, that is 400 years and 90, and will
lie waste after those years”.
And they calculated the years and it was so.

What ‘Return’ is being indicated here? A ‘Return’ that has relevance to Herod’s siege of Jerusalem in 37 bc.?

One way this could have been calculated is simply to add 37 years to 483 years (69 weeks) and one gets to around 520 bc. About the 2nd year of Darius when the temple rebuilding got re-started after being stopped soon after the return from Babylon at the time of the degree of Cyrus. Could this have been the impetus to build a new temple in Alexandria? Who knows. What Slavonic Josephus does indicate is that ‘talk’ re the fall of Jerusalem to Herod was centred on Daniel ch.9.

Josephus, in Antiquities, places the ‘death’ of Philip the Tetrarch in 33/34 ce - 70 years from the 37 bc siege of Jerusalem and the beheading of the Hasmonean Antigonus. A messianic connection to Philip? A use by Josephus of Daniel ch.9.? Josephus places the ‘death’ of Philip’ in 33/34 ce (a re-birth as King Agrippa more likely....)That year is 490 years from 457 bc and the 7th year of Artaxerxes when Ezra is reported to have visited Jerusalem with silver and gold for the temple.

Yes, interpreting the years of Daniel ch.9 is easily done. What the above interpretation does suggest is that, from a Jewish perspective, a Hasmonean son of Mariamne, born prior to the siege of Jerusalem by Herod, prior to 37 ce - could well be viewed, from an interpretation of Daniel ch.9, as a messianic figure. A Hasmonean messiah figure that had become not only a Jewish messiah figure but also, because of where and for how long Philip ruled, a universal model of a messiah figure. Thus opening up the way forward towards a transformation of the literal Jewish messiah concept into the Christian spiritual messiah concept. And since a Hasmonean messiah figure is not going to get much traction in Roman Judea - Alexandria becomes the safe haven – and the hot bed of radical, forward looking, Judaism. And, re Slavonic Josephus, Jerusalem' devastation is at hand - as the legitimate place of Judaism' literal temple...its legitimate place of worship. 37 bc, and not 70 ce, is the defining moment for Judaism...at least for those with eyes to see....

And Caesarea Philippi and Bethsaida Julius, the places of significance to the actual life of Philip the Tetrarch, are featured within the gospel storyline re the pseudo-historical life of its mythological Jesus, its spiritual messiah construct.

Clivedurdle

Herod's temple was the largest on the planet. Might that be a clue to his ambitions?

maryhelena

Whatever were his plans re his Jerusalem temple - the horse had bolted....the bird had flown - the spirit had departed...etc... Thus, a futile attempt at maintaining appearances - a charade that would not fool any Hasmoneans. Come 70 ce and all that was destroyed was the charade - the illusion that Herod' temple was in any way a legitimate reflection of Jewish spirituality. I doubt any Hasmoneans shed a tear over the fall of Herod' Jerusalem temple. They had already moved on spiritually...