AstaKask said
So… you don’t have any reason why this isn’t more suited for peer review?
Again, you add nothing of value, topical to the discussion. Again, you are an adversary, so address your comments to people who will have a discussion with you. That is what I am doing: being grateful for posts and responses that show reading comprehension of the New Testament, Josephus, Tacitus, etc. I respond to people who can think, not regurgitate without thinking.
I’ll go on to the trouble of actually blocking you by adding you to my adversary list since you insist on not participating in the forum to discuss topics people wish to discuss.
scarletra said
It’s an interesting theory. I’m not sold on it because I have too many questions about the Old Testaments lack of historical credibility.If there is no evidence of the exodus, why should we look for a historical Jesus to have a connection with the Samaritans.
However, the Samaritan Pentateuch is one of the oldest versions of the Old Testament. There is still a group who call themselves Samaritans in Israel who claim to have descended from Ephraim and another tribe that I can’t remember.
It has more support historically because of this, but still. If there is no evidence of an exodus, there is no reason to make a connection between a historical Christ and the Old Testament.
Hi,
James K. Hoffmeier also has a book, The Archaelology of the Bible.
His Chapter 4: Israelites in and out of Egypt is interesting.
If it’s not too late [being new to the forum] I’m going to vote no on the grounds of Occam’s Razor. The testimony of the Gospel writers and Paul, tendentious though they may be, should be given at least as much weight, indeed more weight, as the speculation that Josephus was talking about Jesus of Nazareth. On the other hand, I agree it’s an interesting hypothesis. I’d add that there’s a well established tradition in Samaritan literature by which providential events occurring in Jerusalem are condemned as fake. So in favor of the hypothesis we might say that the idea of Jesus being crucified there is just one more in a long line of Judean lies and forgeries, from the fake southern shrine in Shiloh to the fake ark of the covenant forged by the apostate priest Eli, to the fake Temple in Jerusalem, to the whole line of southern Kings including David, none of whom were legitimately anointed and therefore could not be the messiah. So, yes, it’s possible that Jesus is was a Samaritan, but it’s not proven unless you dismiss the not only the entire NT but also believe that Jesus, as a Samaritan, rejected all of the OT except the Samaritan version of the Torah. That means getting rid of any of his citations from the prophets, of which there are many. Sorry, it’s a bridge to far for me.
On the other hand, I agree it’s an interesting hypothesis.
I’d add that there’s a well established tradition in Samaritan literature by which providential events occurring in Jerusalem are condemned as fake.
Steefen
The providential event of the Messiah of Joseph …
If necessary, Messiah ben Joseph will wage war against the evil forces and die in combat with the enemies of God and Israel.[7] According to Saadia Gaon the need for his appearance will depend on the spiritual condition of the Jewish people.[8] In the Sefer Zerubbabel and later writings, after his death a period of great calamities will befall Israel.[7] God will then resurrect the dead and usher in the Messianic Era of universal peace.
You’re saying because of the Zechariah 1: 18-21 Four Craftsmen, with Messiah ben Joseph explained above, Pilate did not execute a Samaritan messiah?
fefferdan
So in favor of the hypothesis we might say that the idea of Jesus being crucified there is just one more in a long line of Judean lies and forgeries, from the fake southern shrine in Shiloh to the fake ark of the covenant forged by the apostate priest Eli, to the fake Temple in Jerusalem, to the whole line of southern Kings including David, none of whom were legitimately anointed and therefore could not be the messiah.
Steefen
To the extent that the Messiah ben Joseph refers back to Joshua distributing Samaria to the tribe of Joseph, Yeshua was crucified by Pilate. What you say in favor of the hypothesis above is misguided.
fefferdan
So, yes, it’s possible that Jesus is was a Samaritan, but it’s not proven unless you dismiss the not only the entire NT but also believe that Jesus, as a Samaritan, rejected all of the OT except the Samaritan version of the Torah. That means getting rid of any of his citations from the prophets, of which there are many. Sorry, it’s a bridge to far for me.
Steefen
Dismiss the entire NT?
Jesus rejected the OT except the Torah?
Josephus spent time with the Essene community. / Paul spent time with the Essene community.
The Dead Sea Scrolls tell us the Essene community thought Paul was a liar who erected a congregation on lying. What is dismissed in the NT is not Pilate executed a Messiah, son of Joseph. Keep that in mind.
This Essene community had a document called the The Book of the Covenant of Damascus.
The Book of the Covenant of Damascus (the Zadokite Documents or the Damascus Document) is a work presenting the views of the sect which is said to have left the Land of Judah and emigrated to the Land of Damascus.
** you do not have permission to see this link **
This was the New Covenant.
Apparently Paul/Josephus who spent time with the Essenes, knew about the Book of the Covenant of Damascus and corrupted its meanings. The Essenes, in response, wrote the Habakkuk Pesher condemning Paul or Josephus for corrupting their original Damascus Covenant/New Covenant.
It seems the original Damascus Covenant/New Covenant was not for the benefit of Gentiles but Paul spouted untruths about the New Covenant extending it to “New Covenant in the Blood of Christ.”
Paul pretty much says if you do not believe in, have faith in and be saved by faith not works of the Torah–if you do not have faith in how I resurrected the dead Samaritan Messiah as the Messiah of David, took the New Covenant of the Damascus Document and repurposed it for the whole word, then all is vanity and worthless.
The Essene community declares it IS unrighteous and worthless: Paul has led many astray in order to build a worthless city on blood.
Damascus is a Greek word. In Hebrew, the word for blood is dam and the word for cup is chos. Maybe in esoteric terms the Cup of the New Covenant in His Blood is not a cannibalistic Holy Communion but drinking in the story of Paul on the road to Damascus and all that follows from it, with the gospels writers in tow with the Holy Communion literal meaning (remember in John, Jesus insists he’s talking about his actual body and blood, and then he loses followers, and the Holy Communion esoteric meaning that ties back to the Essene Community and the original meaning of the Damascus Covenant.
So, yes, dismiss it all because what it really is, is Paul hijacking the Damascus Document with its New Covenant of the Essenes and making it a New Covenant with the Hellenistic Gentiles.
Thank you for the book suggestions Steefen. I will add them to my reading list. Although, would you be able to indicate briefly what the most convincing aspect of these books was?
It is also interesting that you emphasize the Dead Sea Scrolls in your most recent reply. What do you think of the Second Treatise of the Great Seth?
It says, “Adam was a laughingstock, since he was made a counterfeit type of man by the Hebdomad, as if he had become stronger than I and my brothers . . . Abraham and Isaac and Jacob were a laughingstock . . . David was a laughingstock . . . the prophets were laughingstocks . . . they came into being as counterfeits” ** you do not have permission to see this link **
I am open to other possibilities and deeper reflections on this verse. On the surface, it would seem to be saying that the Old Testament account of Adam is a counterfeit by the seven. I cannot find a deeper meaning for Hebdomad and I don’t find the one given by the reference very convincing, which says it means “7th god.” On the surface, I am wondering if the seven if a reference to the writers of the Septuagint and whether all of the following references to the characters of the Old Testament are suggesting that the Old Testament has been tampered with?
It is also interesting that The Second Treatise of the Great Seth gives an account of Jesus escaping death on the cross that is almost verbatim with the account given in the Quran.
“I did not succumb to them as they had planned. But I was not afflicted at all . . . I did not die in reality but in appearance . . . I removed the shame from me . . . It was another . . . who drank the gall and the vinegar . . . who bore the cross . . . upon whom they placed the crown of thorns.”
The Quran suggests that someone else stood in the place of Christ as well. It is also a primary teaching in Islam that the Bible was corrupted as this writing is also suggesting. Have you ever heard of the possibility that the Quran was originally a syro-Aramaic text that was written long before we are told a prophet named Muhammad lived? There is a book about this that I haven’t had the chance to read, but the title is pretty concise in describing what the book is about–The Syro-Aramaic Reading of the Koran.
When you consider this along with what the Dead Sea Scrolls say, it is possible to consider that the historical Christ could have been a Syrian? Or, as Fefferdan was saying, maybe he was a Samaritan, but a Samaritan with a different version of the Old Testament that does not include many of the writings that we are familiar with.
Either way, the Old Testament is in the same condition as the new when you consider how well they coexist at the moment. If you start saying that the New Testament should change for historical reasons, whatever they are, the Old has to change as well in consequence.
Scarletra
It is also interesting that you emphasize the Dead Sea Scrolls in your most recent reply. What do you think of the Second Treatise of the Great Seth?
Steefen
That treatise would not be in the Dead Sea Scrolls. There is a difference between the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Nag Hammadi discoveries.
Second Treatise of the Great Seth is an apocryphal Gnostic writing discovered in the Codex VII of the Nag Hammadi codices and dates to around the third century.
= = =
The Biblical Jesus is a composite character of historical fiction. Let us say that the Biblical Jesus is 40% Person A, 50% Person B, and 10% Person C. Neither Person A nor Person B was crucified. For the most part, the Biblical Jesus was not crucified.
= = =
Scarletra
When you consider this along with what the Dead Sea Scrolls say, it is possible to consider that the historical Christ could have been a Syrian?
Steefen
Syrian because why?
Scarletra
Or, as Fefferdan was saying, maybe he was a Samaritan with a different version of the Old Testament that does not include many of the writings that we are familiar with.
Steefen
The original post was made by me, not by Fefferdan.
My post is: Resolved: The Historical Jesus is the Samaritan Pilate Slew, as Josephus records.
I am not using the Nag Hammadi library to support the resolution. Fefferdan would have to respond to you about whether or not the Nag Hammadi library supports his agreement with the resolution.
“I died in appearance.” To me, that means, reality showed a death. The Gnostics have a different focus on reality than what has been and is accepted as a real death.
Scarletra
Either way, the Old Testament is in the same condition as the new when you consider how well they coexist at the moment. If you start saying that the New Testament should change for historical reasons, whatever they are, the Old has to change as well in consequence.
Steefen
Not in consequence, for historical accuracy issues unique to the Hebrew Bible.
I will get back to you on the Hoffmeier books.
Steefen sorry I’m having trouble getting the quote feature to work right. So I’ll have to just answer without complete reference to what you said
I admit that I was applying contemporary Samaritan ideology in a first century context. I don’t how the Samaritans thought about the Jewish Torah and prophets back then. So yes what I said about that was misguided but not for the reasons you suggest.
I’m not convinced that Paul or even Josephus spent time with the Essenes, and I don’t accept that the Essenes were referring to Paul in their diatribes. I did read Eisenman, if you’re basing your proposition on his arguments, though. I’ve also read the Zadokite Documents. Fascinating. But I don’t know that Paul or Josephus knew them, let alone corrupted them, or that the Habbakuk Pesher refers to them. I think rather that Paul’s “new covenant” refers to Jeremiah, whose writings were much likely to be known by him.
I agree that Paul taught salvation by faith the Messiah’s death and resurrection not obedience to the Torah. Whether he was right or wrong about that, I think the Essenes’ enemies were the Sadducees who controlled the Temple priesthood, not Paul. I do think it’s possible that Jesus’ attack on the moneychangers might have been meant as a signal to the Essenes that he was willing to act as their Messiah. But once again, we have this Jerusalem problem. Samaritans would not have been concerned about the Temple in Jerusalem. And I don’t see a Samaritan connection to the Essenes through Damascus or elsewhere. The Essenes were very strict about the Law and they copied the Books of Ezra and Nehemiah, which rejected the Samaritans as unqualified to participate in Temple life.
Does anyone object to Josephus’s account that Pilate executed the Samaritan who wanted to show people objects at Mount Gerizzim? Please explain your objection to the historical accuracy of that account, if any.
Is there a difference between the Samaritan execution and the execution in the Testimonium Flavianum?
fefferdan
I merely do not want to confirm that this person was the same one we normally call Jesus of Nazareth.
Steefen
I confirm that this person is one of the historical characters in the composite character of historical fiction, the Biblical Jesus Christ.
Even though Josephus, probably in his autobiography, writes that he spent time with the Essenes, you do not want to accept that. Please explain.
You go on to say Josephus did not even know the Essenes. You are clearly in error.
You say Jesus gives a signal to the Essenes. Jesus makes a scene to impress the Essenes. What was their reaction? What was Jesus’ reaction to their inaction?
You do not see a connection between the Samaritan and the Essenes. My position was that Paul sewed them together in his creation of the New Testament Jesus. Second, the Essenes would have had to reject the book of Zechariah to ignore the Messiah of Joseph. Please give us your reason for that–the Essenes rejected the Four Horns and the Four Craftsmen scripture with one of the Craftsmen being Messiah ben Joseph.
Zechariah 1: 18
Then I looked up, and there before me were four horns.
(19)
I asked the angel who was speaking to me, “What are these?” He answered me, “These are the horns that scattered Judah, Israel and Jerusalem.”
(20)
Then the LORD showed me four craftsmen.
(21)
I asked, “What are these coming to do?” He answered, “These are the horns that scattered Judah so that no one could raise their head, but the craftsmen have come to terrify them and throw down these horns of the nations who lifted up their horns against the land of Judah to scatter its people.”
Messiah ben Joseph / Wikipedia
In Jewish eschatology Mashiach ben Yoseph or Messiah ben Joseph (Hebrew: משיח בן־יוסף Mašīaḥ ben Yōsēf), also known as Mashiach bar/ben Ephraim (Aram./Heb.: משיח בר/בן אפרים), is a Jewish messiah from the tribe of Ephraim and a descendant of Joseph.[1] The figure’s origins are much debated. Some regard it as a rabbinic invention, but others defend the view that its origins are in the Torah.[2]
Messianic tradition
Jewish tradition alludes to four messianic figures. Called the Four Craftsmen, each will be involved in ushering in the Messianic age. They are mentioned in the Talmud and the Book of Zechariah. Rashi in his commentary on the Talmud gives more details.
Rashi explains that Messiah ben Joseph is called a craftsman because he will help rebuild the temple.[3] Nahmanides also commented on Messiah ben Joseph’s rebuilding of the temple.
fefferdan
I did read Eisenman. … I have read the Zadokite Documents. … I think Paul’s “New Covenant” refers to Jeremiah’s New Covenant.
Steefen
What book or books did you read by Eisenman?
You read a translation of the Zadokite Documents. That means you read the Damascus Document, correct? Which translation, and the text had introductory commentary by whom?
Paul’s New Covenant relies on the cup of blood of Jesus.
Is not the cup of blessing that we bless a participation in the blood of Christ? And is not the bread that we break a participation in the body of Christ?
First Corinthians 10: 16
The Damascus Covenant also relies on a Messiah. As mentioned above, in the word Damascus, there are two words: blood and cup. Paul’s First Corinthians scriptural verse corrupts the Damascus Covenant by either going esoteric etymologically or going outright cannibalistic. Nevertheless, Paul’s New Covenant and the Damascus New Covenant rely on a Messiah and Jeremiah’s New Covenant certainly does not.
scarletra
Thank you for the book suggestions Steefen. I will add them to my reading list. Although, would you be able to indicate briefly what the most convincing aspect of these books was?
Steefen
I’m drafting a response about why I think the Exodus and the Wilderness Tradition are historical while you do not. Why do you say the Exodus and the Wilderness Tradition are not historical? I would like to provide information related directly to your claim, if possible.
Let me ask this: Did the Hebrews/Israeliites cross the Reed Sea, the Red Sea, or both?
fefferdan
I am not convinced Josephus spent time with the Essenes.
Steefen
[W]hen I was about sixteen years old, I had a mind to make trial of the several sects that were among us. These sects were three: the first is that of the Phariisees, the second that of the Saducees, and the third that of the Essenes … I thought that by this means I might choose the best if I were once acquainted with them all. So I contented myself with hard fare and underwent great difficulties and went through them all. Nor did I content myself with these trials only; but when I was informed that one whose name was Banus lived in the desert, used no other clothing than grew upon trees, had no other food than what grew of its own accord, and bathed himself in cold water frequently, both by night and by day, in order to preserve his chastity, I imitated him in those things.
So, when I had accomplished my desires, I returned back to the city, being now nineteen years old
From: Josephus’ Autobiography: Life of Flavius Josephus
Steefen said
scarletra
Thank you for the book suggestions Steefen. I will add them to my reading list. Although, would you be able to indicate briefly what the most convincing aspect of these books was?Steefen
I’m drafting a response about why I think the Exodus and the Wilderness Tradition are historical while you do not. Why do you say the Exodus and the Wilderness Tradition are not historical? I would like to provide information related directly to your claim, if possible.
Let me ask this: Did the Hebrews/Israeliites cross the Reed Sea, the Red Sea, or both?
Among other things, the fact that the name of the pharaoh is not given. This is a huge red flag. When historians discuss Egyptian history, the name of the pharaoh or the name of the dynastic period is how they communicate the information that is given.
Not one pharaohs name is given when there was supposed interaction between Abraham, Joseph, or Moses and the pharaohs.
This absence of this piece of information that is significantly recorded in almost every other instance where Egyptian history is mentioned is the primary reason that it is difficult to date the time of the exodus with any degree of accuracy.
None of the issues we have regarding the historical legitimacy of the exodus would exist if the name of even one pharaoh was given.
Determining the reason for excluding this information can lead to speculation, but it is a reality that the absence of any evidence for an obvious exodus coupled with the absence of any evidence of anything resembling the description of ancient israel leads to a solid hypothesis that the exodus as described in the Bible did not happen.
Steefen
Did the Hebrews/Israelites cross the Reed Sea, the Red Sea, or both?
Did they allegedly cross the Reed Sea or the Red Sea, or both?
Scarletra
No answer.
Steefen
There is a translation issue: Did the Israelites really cross the Red Sea with them traveling south in Egypt or did they cross the Reed Sea in the Delta area. One needs to decide which translation of that term in the Bible is being used in the question, Is the Exodus as described in the Bible historical or not.
Why do you say the Exodus and the Wilderness Tradition are not historical?
Scarletra
The name of the pharaoh is not given.
Steefen
Someone tells you he/she escaped from captivity but they withhold the name of the person who held that person captive and you think that negates whether or not the person was held in slave captivity. That is faulty reasoning that got you to your conclusion.
Scarletra
There is an “absence of any evidence for an obvious exodus.”
There is an absence of any evidence of anything resembling the description of Ancient Israel.
The hypothesis that the exodus as described in the Bible did not happen is solid.
Steefen
There is movement of Israelites three times in my book
The Greatest Bible Study in Historical Accuracy: Insights on the Exodus, King David, the 23rd Psalm, Jesus and Paul Paperback – March 3, 2011 by Steefen (on Amazon) [Since March 3, 2011, I’ve been working on updating the Jesus and Paul section.]
I discuss 1) the movement of the Hyksos out of Egypt, 2) the movement of slaves from Amarna where the working conditions were very hard on the slaves, and if I have not already, I will discuss 3) the exodus from Pi-Ramesses.
There was some sort of plague that did hit Amarna and did kill the child of a pharaoh. The exit from Amarna was led by a “Moses who was a lawgiver” which comes from the account of the Ancient Egyptian historian, Manetho, which appears in the Works of Josephus.
I’m double checking if back before March 3, 2011, how much of the third movement of Israelites from Pi-Ramesses I included. The movement of slaves from Pi-Ramesses has a major element of the exodus described in the Bible.
Steefan “Someone tells you he/she escaped from captivity but they withhold the name of the person who held that person captive and you think that negates whether or not the person was held in slave captivity. That is faulty reasoning that got you to your conclusion.”
No, what you are saying here is speculation based on emotion. You are suggesting that hardship prevents someone from mentioning the name of their captor as though there was a standard we could follow that would show a consistent pattern to prove this.
The facts are that the name of the Pharoah is not given in the accounts of Abraham, Joseph, and Moses and it is the absence of this information that leads to difficulty in dating the time of the exodus. This is just a fact. Everything else is speculation including, and especially, what you are saying.
Although, this is not surprising considering that it is clear that you are very emotionally invested in your theory by your comment about my not including a response regarding the red sea. I was making a quick response. This was what was at the top of my head.
In the case of Abraham and Joseph, there was no captivity to prevent someone from mentioning the name of Pharaoh, and there is no way to know where any of these stories came from because they do not exist in cuneiform. So your theory about not including this information because of suffering doesn’t always work either. It would only work in the case of Moses.
In addition to this, referencing Amarna is fine when it is isolated. It is not fine when you try to link this with the archeological evidence regarding the conquest of Jericho or the conquest of several other locations that would have had to be overcome during the same time period. Not to mention the fact that King Solomon is not mentioned in any of the ancient writings and Israeli archeologists have already found evidence of the presence of Egypt in Israel in the form of articles indicating the presence of the Pharoah.
Specifically, they have found items identifying a particular Pharoah because this Pharoah’s picture is engraved on these items and there is nothing comparable to prove that King Solomon ever existed.
And again, it becomes a little odd that the name of the Pharoah is not given when there is evidence that the Pharaohs would have their identities engraved on various articles.
In reality, Judaism was more than likely invented during the time of Maccabees. The historical Jesus could have been associated with this, but this would not be requirement considering Israel has no ancient history that the New Testament also makes a deliberate connection with.
So, historically, Jesus doesn’t have to be connected with this at all and this has nothing to do with the teachings of Paul.
Scarletra
Steefan “Someone tells you he/she escaped from captivity but they withhold the name of the person who held that person captive and you think that negates whether or not the person was held in slave captivity. That is faulty reasoning that got you to your conclusion.”
No, what you are saying here is speculation based on emotion. You are suggesting that hardship prevents someone from mentioning the name of their captor as though there was a standard we could follow that would show a consistent pattern to prove this.
The facts are that the name of the Pharoah is not given in the accounts of Abraham, Joseph, and Moses and it is the absence of this information that leads to difficulty in dating the time of the exodus. This is just a fact. Everything else is speculation including, and especially, what you are saying.
Although, this is not surprising considering that it is clear that you are very emotionally invested in your theory by your comment about my not including a response regarding the red sea. I was making a quick response. This was what was at the top of my head.
Steefen
The name is Steefen not Steefan.
You are so far off base.
Person A does something to Person B. Person B reports it but does not name Person A. That Person B does not give the name of Person A does not negate that Person A did something to Person B.
Like I said, the fact is that the absence of the name of Pharoah creates an issue in trying to date the time of the exodus. This is compounded by the fact that there is no real evidence that this took place or that there was ever a place resembling what scripture describes as ancient Israel.
In addition to this, your speculation only works in the case of Moses and not in the case of Abraham or Joseph. What reason did Abraham have for not mentioning the name of Pharoah?
In addition to this, you can’t prove this is the reason this information was excluded, “Person A does something to Person B. Person B reports it but does not name Person A. That Person B does not give the name of Person A does not negate that Person A did something to Person B.”
How are you not able to see that what you are saying is only speculation?
Scarletra
There is no real evidence that this (the Exodus) took place.
Steefen
Semitic people migrated from the Levant into Egypt.
Semitic people left Egypt to return to the Levant.
You definitely do not know Ancient History. That is the starting point: the well established fact that Semitic people descended into Egypt.
Semitic people eventually had kingdoms/dynasties in the eastern Delta and in the western Delta. Those in the eastern Delta were known as the Hyksos who ruled parts of Syria, who ruled Canaan, who ruled the eastern Delta and the Western Sinai. For a time, the Hyksos moved south but were repelled back. There was an Exodus of the Hyksos out of Egypt.
The biblical account of the Exodus is a composite story of multiple movements of people within Egypt, from Egypt to Sinai, and from Egypt back to the Levant. As such, as their are multiple groups of people moving, during multiple timeframes, there is not one pharaoh to be named, there are multiple pharaohs over multiple dynasties. The Semitic people who moved around and the pharaohs are conflated into one biblical story. That Person B does not give the name of Person A does due to a conflation does not negate the action, the movement of Semitic people within Egypt, from Egypt to Sinai, from Egypt to the Levant; hence, you are wrong.
BDEhrman
FreedomBen
evgendob
Robert
2 Guest(s)