Philo's guide to decoding the Hebrew Bible

[Ishtar]

So it's all Josephus's fault and we only have him to blame for this ridiculous religion?!

[Ishtar]

You know, every time one of these new god fellows arrives, he’s always bringing with him a New Covenant.

After the Flood, God drew a rainbow in the sky as a promise, or a new Covenant, with Noah and his descendents.

Jesus says at the Last Supper in Luke:

“In the same way, after the supper he took the cup, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in my blood, which is poured out for you.”

But the Zadokite Document is also full of references to the new covenant with claims that those will be judged who "rejected the Covenant of God and the pledge which they swore in the land of Damascus" – that is, the new covenant. And they emphasise that it is out of “Israel” and not Judaea, that the new “sceptre” as they call him, “The Prince of the entire congregation” will come.

So that is the clothes that the new Messiah, Jesus of Galilee who came down at Capernuam, is given by the authors of the tale.

In Matthew 1:14, a Zadok appears in the lineage of Jesus from David.

Azor fathered Zadok, Zadok fathered Achim, Achim fathered Eliud

This is the line of the David, which is the line that the Zadokites say, in the Zadokite Document, that the new covenant will restore.

So here we can see how the composers of the Jesus story made their hero a descendent of David and of Zadok who was bringing the new covenant anticipated by the Zadokites 150 years before.

Of course, the Christians will just say that Jesus was fulfilling the prophecies. But in fact, the Zadokites were waiting for the Second Coming, not the First One.

[Minimalist]

You know, every time one of these new god fellows arrives, he’s always bringing with him a New Covenant.

Yep.


"Come on down to Crazy Yahweh's Discount House of Covenants. Trade in your old covenant for a nice new shiny covenant.....and I'll even throw in the floor mats and a wax job."

[Minimalist]

So it's all Josephus's fault and we only have him to blame for this ridiculous religion?!

Josephus has a terrible tendency in his writing to slip into digressions where he suddenly departs from the present and reverts to the past. It's annoying and one can see how early christians....trying to make their story fit into history...could get confused by it.

[seeker]

Hence the "btw."

And while on the subject, I always found this an interesting essay. One of these days I have to really sit down and examine it closely.

http://mama.indstate.edu/users/nizrael/ ... ation.html

The New Testament story confuses so many historical periods that there is no way of reconciling it with history. The traditional year of Jesus's birth is 1 C.E. Jesus was supposed to be not more than two years old when Herod ordered the slaughter of the innocents. However, Herod died before April 12, 4 B.C.E. This has led some Christians to redate the birth of Jesus in 6 - 4 B.C.E. However, Jesus was also supposed have been born during the census of Quirinius. This census took place after Archelaus was deposed in 6 C.E., ten years after Herod's death. Jesus was supposed to have been baptized by John soon after John had started baptizing and preaching in the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberias, i.e. 28-29 C.E., when Pontius Pilate was governor of Judaea i.e. 26-36 C.E. According to the New Testament, this also happened when Lysanias was tetrarch of Abilene and Annas and Caiaphas were high priests. But Lysanias ruled Abilene from c. 40 B.C.E until he was executed in 36 B.C.E by Mark Antony, about 60 years before the date for Tiberias and about 30 years before the supposed birth of Jesus! Also, there were never two joint high priests, in particular, Annas was not a joint high priest with Caiaphas. Annas was removed from the office of high priest in 15 C.E after holding office for some nine years. Caiaphas only became high priest in c. 18 C.E, about three years after Annas. (He held this office for about eighteen years, so his dates are consistent with Tiberias and Pontius Pilate, but not with Annas or Lysanias.) Although the book of Acts presents Yehuda of Galilee, Theudas and Jesus as three different people, it incorrectly places Theudas (crucified 44 C.E.) before Yehuda who it correctly mentions as being crucified during the census (6 C.E.). Many of these chronological absurdities seem to be based on misreadings and misunderstandings of Josephus's book Jewish Antiquities, which was used as reference by the author of Luke and Acts.

I've heard that theory before, that whoever wrote Mark did a bit of copying from Josephus. i tend to think its unlikely, Josephus is pretty clearly written and far more accurate.

Whoever wrote Mark took a sort of template for a godman, personally I think he based it on the life of Julius Caesar, and then picked out historical names and places that seemed to fit the setting he wanted it in. The exact details of the history weren't as important to the author as the theological positions so the author didn't think they should matter to his audience.

[Ishtar]

I'd be interested to hear which parts of the Jesus Gospel story match that of Julius Caesar, Seeker.

[Minimalist]

"Luke" or whoever, was also stuck with copying large parts of the earlier gospel of Mark. That probably limited his ability to twist the story too much.

Mark has no nativity story....so Luke is therefore free to invent his own.

Matthew did the same thing.

[seeker]

Here's an interesting thought for you Ish. the Zadokite document, if it was written around 189BCE or so would have been being while the OT was being written. Matathias was the name of the first Maccabee, a jewish priest who supposedly started the jewish revolt by refusing to sacrifice to the Greek Gods (a BS story since we know that the Maccabees had to forcibly convert the Judean population after they took over).

I've always supposed that the Maccabees were either supported by the Ptolomies or entirely creations of the Ptolomies as an attempt to destabilize the Selucid Empire. Maybe the Dead Sea Scrolls are a rough draft in which Matathias meant to set himself up as messiah before he realized just how silly that sounded.

[seeker]

I'd be interested to hear which parts of the Jesus Gospel story match that of Julius Caesar, Seeker.

Actually a fellow named Richard Carrotta wrote a book about it, quite a bit of which is free online here.

There is a much briefer discussion here.

[seeker]

"Luke" or whoever, was also stuck with copying large parts of the earlier gospel of Mark. That probably limited his ability to twist the story too much.

Mark has no nativity story....so Luke is therefore free to invent his own.
Matthew did the same thing.

Mark pretty much created the main details, the rest just kind of filled in doctrinal details

[Ishtar]

Thanks Seeker.

Looking at that, I think what what they've done is in order to deify Julius Caesar, his hagiographers have just applied the usual mythological attributes and trappings to him that any self respecting godman from mythology would have. So they have his mother as a goddess, there is a cross and with his death and resurrection, he is just copying all the other life-death-rebirth deities that predated him in the region, some by hundreds of years.

OF course, they did the same thing to Jesus.

But both of them are copies - they have borrowed the clothes of others who went before them - well, went before them in myth anyway.

[seeker]

Thanks Seeker.

Looking at that, I think what what they've done is in order to deify Julius Caesar, his hagiographers have just applied the usual mythological attributes and trappings to him that any self respecting godman from mythology would have. So they have his mother as a goddess, there is a cross and with his death and resurrection, he is just copying all the other life-death-rebirth deities that predated him in the region, some by hundreds of years.

OF course, they did the same thing to Jesus.

But both of them are copies - they have borrowed the clothes of others who went before them - well, went before them in myth anyway.

Exactly, it's a template of attributes.

[Minimalist]

Except Caesar actually existed. Someone conquered Gaul...and the Senate....and Cleopatra.

[Minimalist]

Antiquities of the Jews, Book XV, Ch 4, 1 confirms that Lysanius was killed by Marc Antony at the bidding of Cleopatra. Since Antony died in 31 any murders he may have committed must have taken before his death.

Now I need to check the so-called gospels to find out where Lysanius is mentioned.


That took no time at all.

Luke.3
[1] Now in the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar, Pontius Pilate being governor of Judaea, and Herod being tetrarch of Galilee, and his brother Philip tetrarch of Ituraea and of the region of Trachonitis, and Lysanias the tetrarch of Abilene,

[2] Annas and Caiaphas being the high priests, the word of God came unto John the son of Zacharias in the wilderness.

and, as promised, "Luke" names two high priests at the same time.

It doth appear as if old "Luke" be fulleth of shit.

[seeker]

Except Caesar actually existed. Someone conquered Gaul...and the Senate....and Cleopatra.

Caesar definitely existed but certain of Caesar's exploits and attributes were also exaggerated when he died