TOWARDS A DIFFERENT EARLIEST CHRISTIAN CHURCH HISTORY

TOWARDS A DIFFERENT EARLIEST CHRISTIAN CHURCH HISTORY Part One This paper is a long time in coming, and now that it can finally be written, I regret part of what I must say. The roots of this paper go back to a conversation I had with Professor H Wolf, the Department Head of Religion. my major, at Wittenberg University in the spring of ’75, my Senior year. I mentioned that I felt there was a problem with Christian theology, and he asked me what it was. I admitted that I was not certain, but that something “felt wrong”. He challenged me to find the problem and document my findings in a paper. Later, at Trinity Theological Seminary, Dr. Ben A. Johnson, whom I knew from Hanna School of Theology where I took Biblical Greek from him, before it merged into Trinity Lutheran Seminary, also encouraged me to find what I felt was problematic. Dr Wolf has passed, and it has now been a few years, maybe a decade or more even, since I last communicated with Dr. Johnson, but I am ready at last to present my findings. The discrepancies arise in what is often considered “irrelevant” historical context surrounding the events after the crucifixion, Paul, John and the other Apostles. I propose that they reveal inconsistencies, if not outright misrepresentations in the belief structure. The fallacy is not where anyone currently expects it. Jesus was a historical figure who was crucified. There was a historic event remembered as the Resurrection, Paul and the other apostles were real people, and far more like the rest of us in terms of fallibility than is often considered. The questionable facts are within the traditions that have come down to us in the New Testament and challenging that roughly 1950-year-old The Crucifixion was roughly 1990 years ago, that is early April 33 CE, I root the deceptive accounts in the aftermath of the Jerusalem temple falling in 70 CE. message is why I regret writing this paper. Now to get to this point, let us consider some “irrelevant” It must be irrelevant, or someone would have examined it already. That is unless to do so would be to threaten tradition, although this first portion will conform to tradition and thus present no major problems, although parts of it still get ignored especially how hated Rome was. Problematic details will be added in later. background history of Rome. Sometime after Rome was “founded” (this officially occurred about 500 years after the earliest signs of settlement in its location that have been uncovered by archeology), they joined other Latin-speaking city-states in a mutual defense pact. This pact lasted until Rome decided to seize control and defeated and subjugated the other members There had always been a leader for the group, but someone from Rome had never achieved that position prior to Rome’s military takeover of the alliance. Once Rome gained control, they never relinquished power.. Then later, when the Italian peninsula was invaded, Rome, and its subjugated allies, joined other Italian groups to defeat the invasion. Rome subsequently defeated and subjugated these other groups also. Then there was a treaty alliance with the Greek city-states of southern Italy that lasted until Rome violated the treaty and then defeated them when they objected. Other treaties that Rome decided to ignore, or decided had been violated, included ones with the Greeks in Greece, Carthage, and into Anatolia (modern day Turkey), defeating and subjugating all. This brings things to the early 1st century BCE and some problems in Anatolia, specifically along the Southern shore of the Black Sea and the kingdoms there. Mithradates of Pontus, in the eastern portion of the region, engaged in expanding his kingdom by conquering some of his neighbors in Anatolia Mithradates’ father had been an ally of Rome and expanded the kingdom without any complaints from Rome. Mithradates himself expanded the kingdom to include much of the north shore of the Black Sea, all the way to what is today the Crimea Peninsula. . Complaints were sent to Rome asking for assistance. Rome offered very little direct assistance at first, due to internal problems There was a dispute going on between those supporting the Senate and those supporting the common people. Some non-Latin Italian groups, notably the Samnites, got involved on the side of the common people., but what was offered was all against Pontus, pressuring him to give up some acquisition. Mithradates responded by calling for the assassination of all Latins in Anatolia on a specific single night in 88 CE. When an estimated 80-100,000 Latins died that night, Rome responded with the first of three wars against Mithradates. Greece took the occasion following the initial success of Pontus, to also rebel with the assistance of Mithradates and had to be reconquered by Rome under Sulla in 86 BCE. After a few years, Sulla, the Roman general who would subsequently become the first dictator in Rome upon his return to Italy with his army Like Caesar 25-30 years later would do, he recognized that his enemies in Rome were plotting with regards to what they would do to him when he returned, so he brought his army, which at that time was private (the idea of a professional army was still very new and armies were raised when authorized but paid by a private citizen) and not supposed to enter Italy as a unit, with him when he returned. Sulla won the ensuing conflict (Crassus who will be referenced a little later was a key assistant in the major battle) between the supporters of the common people, who had seized power, and those with whom Sulla allied in support of the Senatorial class. This clearly initiated the idea that military force, and/or assassination, could be used to remove a “problem” leader. Of course, failure to succeed would prove fatal to the conspirator(s), as the aftereffects Brutus’s, and his co-conspirators’. actions made abundantly clear to all future people with the idea. The fate of Sejanus in 32 CE further made that clear (but still Gaius Caligula, Claudius and Nero were all assassinated)., defeated Mithradates. And during this first Mithradatic war, Rome made its first official contact with the Parthian Empire and agreed to make the Euphrates the boundary between the Empires and vowing peace This treaty was never formally ratified by either side though, in fact the Parthian ambassador was executed for allowing Sulla to insult him.. During Sulla’s dictatorship, a Roman governor in the province of Asia, a small part of Anatolia, attacked Pontus (or Mithradates), sparking a second war that ended indecisively within two years. Then following Sulla’s death, there arose a third war with Rome, this time with allies, a rebelling Roman general in Spain and likely a group of escaped gladiators lead by Spartacus and the estimated 1-200,000 Italians who joined with them. Meanwhile, Parthia, an ally of Pontus by marriage, stayed out of the conflict. Roman forces led by Pompey eventually won decisively in 63 BCE and as part of the general action in the region, annexed the Kingdom of Syria and intervened in the Maccabean kingdom, never fully leaving One excellent (imho) source for a fuller account of Mithradates and Rome is: Adrienne Mayor, The Poison King: the Life and Legend of Mithradates, Rome’s Deadliest Enemy, Princeton, Princeton, 2009 Judea. Then in 54 BCE, Crassus, one of the three leaders in Rome’s 1st Triumvirate, decided to invade the Parthian Empire Technically, Crassus was just continuing an action begun in 56 CE by his predecessor in Syria, Gabinius, who had committed Rome to involvement in a Parthian civil war between two brothers for the throne. Unfortunately for Crassus, by 53 the dispute had been resolved, with Mithradates IV of Parthia, who had requested the support, having lost. He had some initial success, capturing some cities, but in 53, when he continued his campaign, he encountered a Parthian warlord who had been tasked with slowing down the Roman invasion while the emperor gathered allies and increased his army. The Romans had roughly 40-45,000 troops, including a small cavalry detachment, while the Parthians had roughly 11,000 mostly light cavalry horse archers. The two groups encountered each other near Carrhae, in what is now southeastern Turkey (Harran) According to Ovid in “Fasti”, Book 9, this occurred on June 9th. Fuller details about Crassus may be found in Plutarch’s “Histories” and in Cassius Dio’s “Roman History”. Both sources seem prejudiced against Crassus with regards to Carrhae, although acknowledging earlier military successes. Likely both sources relied on Cassius, a subordinate of Crassus, who did survive and did have success against the Parthian who had invaded Syria the next year.. A few days later the surviving Romans made it back into Roman Syria. The Parthians subsequently raided into Roman Syria and as far south a Jerusalem and the surrounding areas Pompey resolved a dynastic dispute in the Hasmonean kingdom, as well as intervening in future successions. Parthian intervention is why it may be disputed as to when Herod the Great, appointed by Rome. became king of Judea. He was appointed by the Roman Senate in 40 BCE, but only secure in Jerusalem in 37.. Peace was not fully reestablished until Augustus negotiated a treaty in the late 20’s BCE. There were minor disputes between the empires after this, but also hostages were sent from Parthia to Rome, when convenient for the Parthian emperor The hostages were high ranking members of the royal family, and thus removed from dynastic rivalry., it is unclear whether Rome reciprocated, but things remained basically calm until 34 or 5 CE when the king of Armenia, a border kingdom for both empires, died and was replaced by the Parthians Under the terms of a treaty made with Augustus, both Rome and Parthia were to agree on the king in Armenia. Artabanus of Parthia argued that the treaty was with Augustus and thus voided on his death.. Rome objected, and with the encouragement of some Parthian nobles, sought to replace the Parthian emperor. The first candidate Rome advanced died enroute, along with Flaccus, the Roman Imperial Legate of Syria Poisoning is often suspected as the cause of death of both men. The Roman candidates for Parthian emperor came from the hostages sent to Rome earlier and their descendants. (32-34/5) leaving a period with no easily known leadership in Roman Syria during a time of potential conflict. Vitellius was appointed as the new Imperial Legate in 35 and sent with a different Roman supported candidate for Parthian Emperor to the region. This time the Roman backed candidate was successful in driving out the Parthian emperor temporarily, until he disappointed the collected Parthian nobles and they defected back to the displaced emperor, Artabanus, who marched back to reclaim the throne in 37 After the apparent success, Vitellius intervened in a couple other client kingdoms in the immediate region then went to Jerusalem. . Here I note that the Apostle Paul (traditionally circa 5 CE-64/65 Ce, maybe as late as 67) was linked with cities in Anatolia, Greece, Italy and possibly Spain Clement of Rome in 1st Clement claims that Paul went to the uttermost west (Spain) in 5:4-5). This general time period (34-37 CE, but usually towards the latter part) is often linked to Paul’s encounter with the ethnarch Often translated as “governor”, but actually a hard to define title (literally a leader of the people), more than a tetrarch, such as Antipas was. but less than a king. The incidence is described in 2 Corinthians 11:32-33. of King Aretas of Nabataea See 2 Corinthians 11:32, interestingly enough Acts does not mention this encounter, although it does relate a very similar incident in which Paul had to flee Damascus by the same means to avoid Jews who were after him, see Acts 9:23-25. I concur with the general timing but disagree with Josephus’s claim that Aretas attacked Antipas and thus also the opinion of many biblical scholars that this reported conflict also involved Aretas attacking or gaining control of Damascus. Rather it appears that Damascus was governed by Nabataea at this time Damascus was a part of the Decapolis, a group of ten “independent” cities, although geographically removed from the other cities. However, all the cities seem to have been associated with Roman client kingdoms even when geographically distinct.. And since Aretas was never punished, nor was Nabataea annexed by Rome until the early 2nd century Nabataea was “acquired” by Rome in 106 CE under Trajan, there is no record of it being conquered or seized, unlike what happened in England under Nero. Damascus is also referenced as a Roman city for the first time in contemporary records at time. , it would appear that Aretas was not considered guilty of attacking a fellow client ruler Rome tended to investigate charges involving conflict between client kings, and false charges were known to be filed. Herod was falsely accused of initiating a conflict with Aretas’s father for example, when it appears that the guilty party was the ethnarch for Nabataea. But Vitellius had already established his method of dealing with guilty client kings, whom he could not arrest in their own territory. Instead he would coax them into Roman territory and offer an “Honor guard”, that would ultimately escort them to Rome and trial. . This crime usually involved the loss of one’s acceptance as a “friend of Rome”, and thus their leadership status. Given that Antipas was taken by Vitellius to the Euphrates frontier when he returned to stop the returning Parthian emperor from continuing into Roman territory and that Antipas returned to Jerusalem and his position as Tetrarch following the death of Tiberius, which was immediately followed by several political pardons issued by Gaius Caligula, which were revoked two years later, the same time that Antipas was removed from his position as Tetrarch and exiled to southern Gaul, Antipas looks more guilty of being the aggressor. But we will return to this issue shortly. Relations between Parthia and Rome then stabilized again for a time until 53-4 CE when again the king of Armenia died and was replaced by the Parthian emperor. This was also the time when Claudius, the Roman emperor, was assassinated and replaced by Nero (late 54 CE), possibly due to lack of approved action against Parthia Likely resisting the control of other high-ranking Romans also played a part, as would seem plausible in the assassinations of both Gaius Caligula and later Nero. This is further supported by Nero initially having two “advisors”. And given how Crassus’s reputation as a military leader changed between before Carrhae, when he was deemed very competent, even brilliant (Crassus was credited with assisting Sulla in his capture of Rome against his opponents, especially at the battle of Colline Gate and again in the defeat of Spartacus), and after Carrhae, when he was deemed totally incompetent and that he should never have been given a command at any time, the records of the reigns of the last three Julio-Claudian emperors might be taken with a large grain of salt (rather than incompetence and questionable deeds, they might well have been very competent and no worse than the typical person morally. Tiberius for example was considered questionable for his semiretirement to the Isle of Capri in 27 CE but proved still very capable of dealing with Sejanus in 32 when it seems there might have been an attempted coup). But with regards to the deeds of Corbulo, as these do not directly reflect on a disgraced emperor, and do reflect poorly on the Roman army, they sound plausible, especially since Corbulo would prove ultimately successful.. One of Nero’s first acts was to appoint Corbulo Most of the information on Corbulo comes from Tacitus, 56-120 CE and both his Annuals and Histories., a successful Roman general, to the post of Governor of the combined province of Galatia-Cappadocia in eastern Anatolia, immediately adjacent to Armenia, likely January 1, 55 CE. Corbulo was also authorized to take one legion from Syria, one from the Rhine frontier, and raise two new legions. The legion he acquired from Syria had reportedly long been a garrison legion and was no longer equipped or trained as a combat legion, and with the two new legions being raised, had to be fully equipped with armor and weapons, and while being trained, had to stand firm against an enemy known to use flaming and poisoned arrows. This period, at maximum from 55-58 CE Remember, Corbulo would have likely needed 6 or 7 weeks, maybe even longer, to arrive due to winter travel, from Rome, so arriving mid-late February, then allowing 2 weeks to arrange the transfer of the Syrian legion would make it early March, if not later. How long it would take to raise the roughly 10,000 troops for two full new legions (2,000 Romans and 8,000 others for auxiliaries) is unclear, let along equip and properly train them as all armor and weapon likely had to be made. It was thus not until the first half of 58 that Corbulo went on the offensive, although reportedly the legions spent the winter of 57-8 in the field, not in city quarters, thus credibly in offensive status, not defensive., is the only era in the 1st century where massive numbers of Romans soldiers, some Roman citizens (the core of a legion) and some not (the auxiliaries who could become Roman citizens at the completion of their service) were being melded into a single unit without major distinctions and being equipped There are now several good works on the relations between Rome and Parthia although even 30 years ago this was not the case, a few works existed but not many. I am most familiar with: Daryn Graham, Rome and Parthia: Power, Politics and Profit, CreateSpace, New York and Cam Rea, Behemoth Vs Leviathan: The Roman-Parthian Wars 66 BC-217 AD, CreateSpace, New York, 2014 . But enough about conventional, if overlooked, history at present. This historical context so far poses no serious problems, so let us now look at Paul’s Letter to the Ephesians as a starting point for possible revisions to history. Let us review some potentially problematic issues, and images found in the missive. Paul’s Letter to the Ephesians is a traditional title. The reference in the text of “in Ephesus” with regards to where the messaged saints lived is supported by most of the ancient manuscripts, with only three known ancient ones excluding the phrase But these three are the earliest manuscripts., although they keep the traditional title Some scholars even question when the traditional title came to be associated with the letter, with some suggesting that it came to be used only in the 2nd century.. It is plausible that it was known and referred to by the late 1st or early 2nd century, Clement of Rome, Ignatius of Antioch and others also might be referencing it The language they use seems to be evoking passages in Ephesians, but it is not clearly referenced. . Irenaeus seems to be the first to acknowledge it as Paul’s letter, although he merely refers to Paul as “the apostle”, so this might be disputed. Some of the ancient writers, including Origin and Tertullian seem also to have known of a version that did not include this geographical reference Most of the existent texts that exclude the phrase “in Ephesus” seem to be from the Alexandrian text family. . However, there are no other geographical locations in any currently known copies Reportedly Marcion asserted that this was the missing epistle to the Laodiceans, and included the geographic reference but if so, no known copy has been found., nor any blank spaces for a destination to be filled in This comes from a suggestion that it might have been a circular letter with a blank space in which to insert whatever location it was being presented to at the time.. Thus, there is no obvious reason to doubt the inclusion for the phrase. Overall, the authorship of Paul does not appear to have been questioned until the very late 18th century. Today the percentage of scholars questioning Paul’s authorship appears to be close to 50% Some scholars decline to commit to whether or not it is authentically Pauline, but those who do commit seem pretty evenly split, although even a relatively even split is debated by some who suggest that a majority doubt Pauline authorship., although at least one estimate rises as high as 80% Raymond Brown, whom I usually respect, made such a high estimate on at least one occasion. Perkins (Perkins, Pheme, Ephesians, ANTC, Nashville, 1997), among others, suggests a majority question the authorship. Hoehner, Harold W., Ephesians: An Exegetical Commentary, Grand Rapids, 2002, has several charts listing scholars and their positions, pp 9-20 suggesting a more even split.. These two questions demand more attention: who the author was and when was it written. A related question would be, where was it written, but the options change depending on who the author was and/or when was it written. Here one’s stance on the conservative to liberal spectrum of biblical scholarship tends to be important. The more conservative wing tends to accept Pauline authorship, and thus date it to before 62 CE, this being the last time we have any hints from Acts as to Paul’s status, as he was still a prisoner at that time, prior to his traditional death date in the mid-60’s. The more liberal stance suggests that a disciple of Paul wrote the epistle in Paul’s memory thus dating it sometime after 67, sometimes as late as the period from 80-100. This group (the more liberal wing) sees various works as “Deutero-Paulines”, Ephesians along with the Pastoral Epistles (1 and 2 Timothy and Titus), 2 Thessalonians and sometimes Colossians (Colossians seems to be accepted as authentically Pauline by a majority of scholars, but a significant minority still dispute its authorship). Those promoting the deutero-Pauline label for Ephesians use four basic criteria: (1) theology; (2) grammar, vocabulary, and syntax; (3) historical circumstances; and (4) relationship to Colossians I shall ignore this point as if one of these epistles is Pauline and the other dependent of the authentic, there is no clear reason to favor Colossians as the authentic one other than popular scholarly opinion. . The author of the non-Pauline text is said to be one of Paul’s disciples, carrying on the apostle’s teaching for a new day. Ephesians might have been a circular letter or a cover letter introducing the Pauline collection (Ephesians serving as a cover letter is promoted by E. J. Goodspeed, The Key to Ephesians [Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1936], xii-xiv. The circular letter theory is promoted by J. B. Lightfoot, Biblical Essays [London, Macmillan, 1893l reprinted Grand Rapids, Baker, 1939] 392-93; Bruce, 249-50 {F.F. Bruce, The Epistle to the Colossians, to Philemon, and to the Ephesians, NICNT, Grand Rapids Eerdmans, 1984}. For a counterargument, see Perkins, 17-19 {Pheme Perkins, Ephesians, Abingdon New Testament Commentaries, Nashville, 1997} Cohick, Lynn H, The Letter to the Ephesians, NICNT, Eerdmans, 2020, pp 4-5 Theology in Ephesians is a tricky issue to address. As in Romans, Ephesians does not seem to be related to any specific problem effecting the local church. Of all the letters Paul wrote to churches, Ephesians is the least situational. He does warn about the danger of false teaching (4:14), but his warning seems to be general and lacks the specificity that one would expect from Paul if there were some concrete threat facing the church. Most of the teaching of the letter is positively presented and is not expressed with the kind of polemic that one finds, for example, in Galatians, Romans, or 2 Corinthians. Although Paul is deeply concerned about the moral behavior pf the readers of Ephesians, his motivation to write does not seem to be prompted by his becoming aware of specific moral lapses by individuals within the community comparable to what we find in 1 Corinthians. Nor does he seem to be responding to a series of questions that the church is asking of him Arnold, Clinton E, Ephesians ZECOTNT, Zondervan, 2010, p 41 But consider, while Paul seems to have known some individuals in Rome See Romans 16:1-16, Romans was basically a Paul’s way of introducing himself to the church in Rome. “Romans is more frequently evident in parallels to Ephesians than any other Pauline letter.” Perkins, p 18 Thus, regardless of what Acts tells us, it might be possible to question how well Paul was known in Ephesus. See Ephesians 1:15-16 “For this reason, ever since I heard about your faith in the Lord Jesus and your love for all God’s people, I have not stopped giving thanks for you, remembering you in my prayers.”. This does not exactly sound like someone who was familiar with the congregation already See also Ephesians 3:2-3 “Surely you have heard about the administration of God’s grace that was given to me for you, that is, the mystery made known to me by revelation”, although it could also be argued that this merely reflects a later date Acts has Paul in Ephesus towards the end of his 2nd missionary journey, likely late 52, Acts 18:18-21 and again early in his 3rd journey in 53 for a longer stay, Acts 19:1-20:1, and finally meeting Ephesian elders as he was about to begin his final trip to Jerusalem, Acts 20:16-38. But if the letter was written after Paul being in captivity for a time, it could have been several years since he was in Ephesus, and the congregation might well have changed drastically.. This is plausible because Paul acknowledges spending some time in Ephesus, although it is unclear how long or when “But I will stay on at Ephesus until Pentecost” (1 Corinthians 16:8) All Biblical quotations are from the NIV unless otherwise noted.. The dating of either 1 Corinthians or Ephesians is not known with certainty. Additionally, in Ephesians 4:20-21, when Paul speaks of what they were taught, he does not speak of what he taught them. But rather of simply an impersonal “That, however, is not the way of life you learned when you heard about Christ and were taught in him in accordance with the truth that is in Jesus.” However, in Colossians, Paul acknowledges that it was Epaphras who taught them Colossian 1:7. Further, unlike the letter to Rome, there are no personal greetings to individuals in the closing of Ephesians, but this is also true of 1 Thessalonians and Paul also admits to having visited there. So far there are no clearly helpful answers. But in essence, the theological challenges fall into three general categories where Ephesians differs from the other Pauline writings. These are: soteriology, or the doctrine of salvation and all its components such as grace and justification to name just two; ecclesiology, or the doctrine of the church including relationships within the church; and eschatology, or doctrine of the end times, something considered noticeably lacking in Ephesians. To follow these issues in order, soteriology is an interesting one to argue, especially if one wishes to make Colossians authentically Pauline. Colossians possibly has the most different soteriology of the New Testament stating, “Now I rejoice in what I am suffering for you, and I fill up in my flesh what is still lacking in regard to Christ’s afflictions, for the sake of his body which is the church.” Colossians 1:24, The exact words used in Galatians 4 is also interesting. The exact words used only appear elsewhere in the Septuagint with regards to the scapegoat that is driven out from the people to atone for their sins. In Matthew 27 also, Barabbas is sent to rejoin the people while Jesus is driven out. If this is scapegoat imagery, then Galatians is also presenting a different soteriology. Thus this could be a correct understanding that is totally different, which is plausible if the theology of the church is still in formation.. , The concept of Paul filling what was lacking from Jesus’s suffering is a contradiction of what he, and other New Testament writers, express elsewhere, where they imply that Jesus paid the price in full, such as Romans 3:24-26: and all are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus. God presented Christ as a sacrifice of atonement, through the shedding of his blood-to be received by faith. He did this to demonstrate his righteousness, because in his forbearance he had left the sins committed beforehand unpunished-he did it to demonstrate his righteousness at the present time, so as to be just and the one who justifies those who have faith in Jesus.” (See also Romans 5:1,9,11; Galatians 1:3-4; Colossians 1:20-22). But this theology in Colossians is in line with that expressed in both 2nd 2nd Maccabees 7:37-8 makes a weak case. and 4th Maccabees 4th Maccabees 6:28-29; 7:23-4; 12:16-18; 17:22 (especially the last), where it is implied that the suffering of a righteous person can atone for the sins of others, the logic behind the suffering and death of Jesus atoning for all. But regardless of how one sees the atonement, and Ephesians does place atonement in the context of Jesus’s suffering and death (see Ephesians 1:5-7, 5:2, 25). With regards to the church, he likewise links Jesus to cosmic lordship as in Colossians (most directly) as well as in Romans, Philippians But in Philippians, while the cosmic nature is acknowledged, it is also set aside and deemphasized see Philippians 2:6-11, we will return to this later. and Thessalonians. There is further emphasis on the reconciliation of not just humans with God, but also humans with each other, that is Jews and Gentiles, as in Romans and Galatians Romans 3:22; 9:23-6; Galatians 2:7-9, 3:6-8, 28; see also 1 Corinthians 1”24 . And again, paralleling Romans and Galatians, is the attitude towards the Jewish law in Ephesians, that the Jewish law does not apply to believers Romans 6:14-15; 7; 8:2-4; Galatians 2:19-21; 3; 11-12, 24-25. Admittedly he still calls for upright moral behavior, but he does so in more general terms, not citing the Torah. The biggest problem is with the lack of eschatology in Ephesians. It is not totally lacking, there are references to a glorious future, but far more than in any other letter, the sense in Ephesians is that these things have come to pass for the believer. In fact, in Ephesians it seems that Paul is made to speak to a changed situation. Moreover, the epistle looks back to “the apostles and prophets” (2L29, cf. 3:5) and, in keeping with Jewish pseudepigraphy in particular seems to construct an image of Paul as an authoritative figure from the past (see Kitchen 38: cf. 3:1-13 [Ephesians, London and New York, Routledge, 1994]) MacDonald, Margaret Y, Colossians and Ephesians, SP, Liturgic, Collegeville, 2000. p 16 But this impression might be tempered by an unusual emphasis on the battle with spiritual powers that is present in this letter Spiritual forces are also referenced in Galatians 4:3, 8; Colossians 2:8, 20 . One gets a sense of, yes, the battle is ongoing, but it has also already been won as God cannot be defeated. Community members feel threatened by spiritual powers that shape an evil outside world (e.g., 1:21’ 2:2; 6”10-20). These powers are seen as inseparably linked to the evil that believers witness in their everyday lives (2:2). Believers are urged to set themselves apart from those around them as saints (holy ones)- in essence to turn into the church and away from the non-believing world. Despite an awareness of the goal of church expansion and the importance of universal mission, Ephesians displays very little interest in dialogue between believers and non-believers. … Believers are depicted as dwelling with Christ already, having undertaken a journey of heavenly ascent (2:6). Ibid, p 21 This is a theme that fits well with the comments about the “armor of God” that come at the end of the letter, right before Paul’s final greetings The implications of the described armor link to the Roman army, and the Roman army had a great record of success, and given that God was, or would be, intervening on the side of the church, ensured success.. But we will be returning to this issue as it is currently the weakest point in the theology section in terms of determining authorship under traditional understandings. Overall though, we cannot currently make a firm determination of authorship based on theology. Now moving onto the second criteria, what is clear is that the general style of Ephesians is distinctly different than all other letters in the general Pauline corpus, whether genuine or pseudo-Pauline. Here Witherington Bruce Witherington, The Letters to Philemon, the Colossians, and the Ephesians: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary on the Captivity Epistles, Eerdmans, Grand Rapids, 2007 argues that Ephesians was written in the Asiatic rhetorical style, more popular in the east including much of Anatolia, as opposed to the more common Western rhetorical style. The Asian style reportedly emphasized more use of created and elegant words, as well as longer sentences, which amount to a large portion of the difference in vocabulary and style in Ephesians that supporters of Deutero-Pauline status argue. but even this may be questioned. The percentage of unique words in Ephesians actually is about the same as in the undisputed works This argument is often made by the more conservative wing, with ample statistics. Hoehner for example devotes several pages to citing some, pp 24-8.. Average sentence length does appear to be longer in general than in any other Pauline epistle, but other epistles do have some equally long sentences. And since Paul seems to have relied on a professional secretary (amanuensis) See Paul’s comments about his writing his name in 1 Corinthians 16:21, Colossians 4:18 and 2 Thessalonians 3:17 some of the differences could be due to this reason In the undisputed Corinthian correspondence for example Paul uses one term for “temple” in the first, and a different term for “temple” in the second. Fitting the maximum number of characters on a page of papyrus (a quarter sheet, roughly 800 characters seems to have been standard) might also factor into the choice of words, and a professional writer was often used to maximize the use of a sheet of papyrus. The papyrus sheets folded in quarters were used in codices, apparently often carried by traveling merchants as easier to transport than scrolls, and Paul was a tent maker/merchant. , and thus, this topic too is indeterminate when it comes to authorship also. The third issue, that of historical circumstances is the most interesting one. There are three hypothesized sets of circumstances, and each set of circumstances is linked to a different date for the writing. Each set also has advantages and disadvantages. The earliest conventional proposal is that the setting is an otherwise unknown captivity of Paul in Ephesus itself. Such a captivity would have had to be between 55 and 57 in order to fit with the timeline presented in Acts, and while Acts acknowledges Paul having trouble in Ephesus, it implies that he promptly left after without any delay. But also, Paul himself acknowledges problems in his ministry that are not referenced at all in Acts. Are they Hebrews? So am I. Are they Israelites? So am I. Are they Abraham’s descendants? So am I. Are they servants of Christ? (I am out of my mind to talk like this.) I am more. I have worked much harder, been in prison more frequently, been flogged more severely and been exposed to death again and again. Five times I received from the Jews the forty lashes minus one. Three times I was beaten with rods, once I was pelted with stones, three times I was shipwrecked, I spent a night and day in the open sea. I have been constantly on the move. I have been in danger from rivers, danger from bandits, in danger from my fellow Jews, in danger from Gentiles, in danger in the city, in danger in the country, in danger at sea, and in danger from false believers. 2 Corinthians 11:22-26 Unfortunately, Acts does not record most of these reported events. One specific location where Paul implies troubles that Acts does acknowledge was Philippi, “We had previously suffered and been treated outrageously in Philippi as you know” (1 Thessalonians 2:2a). Acts does acknowledge Paul being beaten with rods and imprisoned briefly while there (Acts 16:22-23), although Luke also has Paul returning to Philippi in Acts 20:6. Luke suggests that it was due to Paul casting an evil spirit out of a slave woman who was known to prophesy and thus depriving her owner of income and adding on other vague charges against Paul as a Jew. However, that leaves five instances of lashings, two more times of being beaten with rods and a case of stoning All these would have been punishments that Jews were permitted to inflict, as long as they stopped short of being fatal to the victim.. Acts acknowledges trouble for Paul in Pisidian Antioch (Acts 13:50) but describes no clear punishment and later they passed through again with no hints of trouble (Acts 14:24). In Iconium there was a plot to stone Paul (Acts 14:5-6), but that Paul left before it occurred. There was reportedly a stoning by Jews in Lystra (Acts 14:19), but he returned later without trouble (14:21). Interestingly Luke also reports trouble involving Paul in Thessalonica in Acts 17:5-9 (Paul was searched for but not found) yet a believer had to post bond but, when Paul writes to Thessalonica, he seems to overlook this incident. Thus. Acts recounts one actual and one avoided stoning (plausibly agreeing with Paul), only one case of being beaten with rods out of three, but none of the five lashings as claimed by Paul. Admitting two incidents out of a claimed nine is poor reporting (shipwrecks are not being counted, Paul claims three while Acts reports just one, but shipwrecks are not human administered punishments and were a known danger of travel by sea at the time). We must decide whether Paul is fabricating most, or all, of the accounts he claims It might also be worth noting that while details are not given, in 2 Corinthians 6:4-5, Paul also references beatings, imprisonments and riots and then 4 verses later, in verse 9 “dying, and yet we live on, beaten, and yet not killed” or whether Luke, the presumptive author of Acts, chose to leave most of them out, while suggesting that Paul could return to the same locale, where he admits there was trouble, sometime later without incident, and if so, why. Many of the claims of Paul merely fit with travel in ancient times, overland travel entailed potentially dangerous river crossings and bandits and sea travel risked shipwrecks. But Paul’s comment about constantly being on the move is either exaggeration, with travel interrupted by fairly long stays in certain cities Short stays, less than three or four months for example, could be considered as consistent with “always on the move”, but 18-24 months in one location? as suggested in Acts (Acts14:28 states that Paul stayed a “long time” with believers in Antioch, Acts 18:11 claims that Paul stayed in Corinth for a year and half, Acts 19:9-10 suggests Paul stayed in or near Ephesus for two years), or else Luke is exaggerating about the time spent in given locations. Paul might be exaggerating in order to make himself seem more important But see Galatians 1:10, or Luke might be minimizing troubles with local authorities to support Paul’s innocence to authorities in Rome, or whomever else was his targeted audience. But either way, it would seem plausible that Luke omitted some details about Paul’s life, so we cannot categorically rule out an unknown captivity in Ephesus. One advantage to the proposed Ephesus captivity is the proximity to Colossae, which would make it easier for Onesimus, the slave referred to in Philemon Onesimus is also mentioned in Colossians as “one of them”, Colossians 4:9., to travel to where Paul is. This understanding tends to assume that Onesimus is a runaway slave though, and nothing requires this, outside of tradition His status as a runaway slave will also be a factor in considering other locations also.. It is as none other than Paul-an old man and now also a prisoner of Christ Jesus-that I appeal to you for my son Onesimus, who became my son while I was in chains. Formerly he was useless to you, but now h has become useful both to you and to me. I am sending him-who is my very heart-back to you. I would have liked to keep him with me so that he could take your place in helping me while I am in chains for the gospel. But I did not want to do anything without your consent, so that any favor you do would not seem forced but would be voluntary. Philemon 2:9-14, runaway status is not eliminated, but neither is it required. If Onesimus had been assigned to serve Paul for a time by Philemon, the locale matters only in how long it might take Onesimus to make an assigned journey (to Colossae) and back to Paul. There is also the reference to Paul soon coming to see Philemon (1:22), which might suggest a date early in Paul’s captivity, possibly expecting a short captivity, possibly followed by a physical punishment of lashes, beaten with rods or stoned, all of which Paul claims to have endured in the past. Going to a faithful friend’s house as soon as possible following such a punishment would be a logical way to rest and recover. Also, the proximity of Colossae, as well as Philippi, allows for easier communication. If so, then this favors an Ephesus site for the letter. However, if Onesimus is a runaway slave, Ephesus is very close to Colossae and not that large of a city in which to hide and this would be an argument against it as the site. Another factor in favor of Ephesus as the site for the writing of the letter is the presence of a delegation of Praetorian guards. Philippians 1:13 clearly references Praetorian guards in reference to Paul’s captivity. “As a result, it has become clear throughout the whole palace (literally Praetorian) guard and to everyone else that I am in chains for Christ.” And there is the odd comment in 1 Corinthians 15:32 “if I fought wild beast in Ephesus with no more than human hands” This is usually understood to reverence a vicious debate with humans though. and the even stranger comment in 2 Timothy 4:17 (if this is Pauline) “And I was delivered from the lion’s mouth”, although where this supposedly happened is not mentioned The writer, claiming to be Paul, cites this as his first defense and that everyone had deserted him. Earlier in this letter, the writer makes a reference to everyone in Asia abandoning him, except for Onesiphorus. 2 Timothy 1:16., but it is unclear if this is the same instance.. However, as noted earlier, Acts does not mention a captivity in Ephesus. If, such a captivity did occur, it would have to have been early, 55-57 CE, in order for Paul to engage in his other travels recorded in Acts before going to Jerusalem. The most likely crime for such a captivity would likely be due to the reported riot caused by the silversmiths in Ephesus when objecting to Paul’s preaching Acts 19:20-40. But this could also suggest that the other captivity letters belong to a different captivity, which is not impossible, and similar problems might also have been left unmentioned by Luke, but 39 lashes, being beaten with rods or stoned would seem an unlikely punishment for a Roman citizen who offended some local businessmen, especially since in Acts, Paul will reference his Roman citizenship to local authorities In Acts 22:25 Paul asks a centurion if it is legal to flog a Roman citizen who has not been found guilty.. However if the authorities were Jewish, as specified in the lashings, Roman citizenship might not be a factor as it could have been viewed as a religious matter and guilt ruled by the religious authorities. I do not find this suggestion, of an Ephesus captivity, as it stands to be convincing. The next candidate for the location is Caesarea. It has the advantage of having a clear reason for Paul to fear for his life, the leveled charge Bringing a Gentile into the temple grounds. requiring a death sentence for anyone, Roman citizen or not, for its violation. A tablet bearing this warning has been uncovered in Jerusalem A copy of a tablet issuing such a decree was found in 1871 just outside the Temple mount region of Jerusalem.. Further, should Onesimus be a runaway slave, Jerusalem is much farther away Weeks of travel as opposed to days. The same will apply to Rome. and a much bigger city than Ephesus, and thus far easier to hide in. However, there is no record of Praetorian guards being stationed in Caesarea, and while the distance favors a runaway slave, it argues against the ease of communication. If Paul was anticipating a post-captivity visit to Philemon, he would likely have many more opportunities to ask him to prepare for a houseguest. There is also no clear reason to think that Paul was expecting a quick release, especially considering that he allegedly appealed to Caesar, but also this would not in itself might require him to remain in captivity until after Nero’s ruling A local governor could ignore such an appeal, especially if he considered the prisoner innocent or if he felt that the emperor would not hear about any punishments., but stalling by the governor could be used in hopes of receiving a bribe to release him as suggested in Acts 24:26. Being a Roman official away from Rome was often a means of obtaining wealth from the locals Means of gaining wealth included receiving bribes and collecting more in taxes than was required to be turned into Rome, but just enough to cover extensive administrative fees of course. Local populations, especially the lower classes, bore the brunt of the tax levies, and saw minimal benefits which did not endear the Romans to them.. Additionally, while Jerusalem is a far safer place for Onesimus to run to, there is no obvious reason for him to choose this for a destination, unless he somehow knew of Paul’s detention. But even knowing this, he could not be certain that Paul would still be there when he arrived, and others would likewise know of Paul’s presence and might look for him there. And, it was not so large a city as to be too big to find a runaway. Again this, as it stands, does not seem convincing to me. This brings us to the last location available using conventional knowledge, that is Rome. Like Jerusalem, we have a sound reason to believe that Paul had had reason to fear for his life, although a far weaker reason as his accusers would have to also make the journey and their credibility had been questioned already. Like Ephesus, there would be Praetorian Guards present. For Onesimus Rome would be a large city, where it would be easy to hide, whether or not he encountered Paul. But the distances and time required for messages to travel back and forth is, as in Caesarea, were rather lengthy, plausibly 3-5 weeks each way. This then also almost requires that the four “Captivity Epistles” were written from more than one location, at least Philemon being written from a different location with its request to prepare a guest room as would for Paul to send Onesimus back to Colossae, as indicated in Colossians, and expect him to be returned to his (Paul’s) service. However, this suggestion goes against tradition, which holds that they were all written from the same location. Again, if we follow traditional thinking, Rome does not seem to fit. This then raises the question of, can this dilemma be resolved by looking closer at what might be seen as “irrelevant” history? As it happens, I believe that the background history can help. Consider Ephesi6:10-20: Finally, be strong in the Lord and in his mighty power. Put on the full armor of God, so that you can take you’re a=stand against the devil’s schemes. For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers if this dark world and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms This is a possible reference back to Ephesians 2:2 “the ways of this world and the ruler of the kingdom of the air, the spirit who is now at work in those who are disobedient.”. Therefore, put on the full armor of God, so that when the day of evil comes, you may be able to stand your ground, and after you have done everything, to stand. Stand firm then, with the belt of truth buckled around your waist, with the breastplate of righteousness in place, and with your feet fitted with the readiness that comes from the gospel of peace. In addition to all this, take up the shield of faith, with which you can extinguish all the flaming arrows of the evil one. Take the helmet of salvation and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God. And pray in the Spirit on all occasions with all kinds of prayers and requests. With this in mind, be alert and always keep on praying for all of the Lord’s people. Pray also for me, that whenever I speak, word may be given me so that I will fearlessly make known the mystery of the gospel, for which I am an ambassador in chains. Pray that I may declare it fearlessly, as I should. Another possible reference to this “armor of God” would be 2 Corinthians, 10:4 “The weapons we fight with are not the weapons of the world. On the contrary, they have divine power to demolish strongholds.” This depiction of putting on armor, as noted earlier, fits only one brief period in the entire 1st century in the Roman Empire, and only in the region of Anatolia. It would not be widely known outside this region, but given the need to raise two legions, as well as likely replace and reequip other soldiers The legion from Syria especially in mind here., some possibly too severely injured or who had served out their enlistments, recruitment likely took place through the region (likely most of Anatolia). This argues for an Ephesians captivity, for both the knowledge of what was occurring militarily and the presence of Praetorian Guards. It also fits with Onesimus being able to travel back and forth from Colossae. Such a proposal would date the letters to the period of 55-58 at the outside Corbulo was appointed in 55, and went on the offensive in early 58, thus allowing him to devote a detachment of soldiers to take Paul to Rome under guard.. A more realistic dating would likely be from mid to late 55, allowing Corbulo to arrive, collect the Syrian legion and begin the process of assembling two completely new legions, to late 57, as Corbulo reportedly kept his four legions, the two new ones, the one from the Rhine and the one from Syria, in the field for the winter of 57-58. It might also imply that Onesimus was loaned to Paul for some specific time period to assist with some specific duty. Paul, however, was possibly arrested by some local authority on orders from Corbulo It would also be possible that Paul was arrested before Corbulo took office, arrested by some local official and facing another lashing, beating or stoning, and that circumstances changed after news reached Rome and different orders were issue. or maybe even Nero Paul had been in trouble before, so possibly reports had been made to Rome and have been available to Nero, possibly even Claudius. If Claudius issued the arrest warrant, it might have included a death sentence that was revoked by Nero. , without specific knowledge of why. Paul might well then assume that he would soon be released from an erroneous captivity Or knew of a pardon and did not realize it was only a partial pardon., or else given some physical punishment and released as seems to have occurred previously. This would be the setting for the letter to Philemon. The letter to the Philippians could have been written earlier or later Dependent on where the arrest orders came from. If from Claudius and including a death sentence, than earlier, if the orders came from Nero or Corbulo then later., when Paul comes to realize that the charge is far more serious and carried a potential death sentence (Philippians 1:20-23 sounds as if Paul is not certain if he will live or die). Colossians and Ephesians do not carry the same concern over life-or-death issues, and thus are harder to place within this time period although Ephesians has to fall under Corbulo. However, accepting this hypothesis carries difficulties also. To evaluate it I would propose using an approach that is used in ideal scientific approaches I learned this concept from my parents, both well-respected chemists. My mother as a nationally recognized high school teacher, as well as a highly regarded university instructor, the highest paid instructor at the university, my father was a patent holding corporate research chemist., and even in ideal daily approaches, to a new hypothesis (I noted ideal because far too often the approach is not used and a default to tradition is followed). This approach is to evaluate how the new hypothesis deals with available data (ignoring data is not generally a good idea but is often done) and known problems that are not resolved by current explanations, whether directly and indirectly related to the issue being resolved. Another important consideration in this approach is, how many assumptions are necessary (with enough “if’s” or “maybe’s” anything may be established). Theologically this may be expressed as invoking divine intervention, but if one invokes the divine to resolve problems, when does one stop or is the divine merely a means of defending what one wishes to defend This used to be called “the god of the gaps”, where God is invoked to explain anything that seems to defy any generally accepted natural causes, but the flaw with such an approach is revealed whenever a natural explanation is discovered for something that had previously been defended by divine intervention. With the natural explanation God becomes unnecessary.. So how does this proposed dating size up? It clearly resolves the dating problem and renders Ephesus as the likely location as well. But what about the theological issues and the questions about why Paul was arrested and feared for his life? This solution might well point to the eschatological issue, for it was a time when Rome’s power seemed threatened. The Parthian Empire had defeated Rome in the past (but Rome had also defeated the Parthians at times) and thus was a credible threat, especially with only one battle ready legion available in the region There was likely at least one other legion in Syria, maybe two, but their battle readiness is unknown and at least one legion seems to have been based close to Jerusalem, with a detachment in the Antonia fortress, and other sites are also known through archeology.. This could then justify an understanding that Rome’s power was about to fail, portending the great and glorious ”Day of the Lord”, the eschaton. The emphasis on the lack of difference between Jews and Gentiles could likewise make sense, as Roman citizens and non-citizens were being molded into legions (and auxiliaries) that would be fighting together as a single unit. And that there was no distinction would also fit with the retirement, both current and future, of auxiliary members of a legion. Retired Roman soldiers were granted non-inheritable Roman citizenship for their service, and often also parcels of land in Roman colonies Philippi, where Paul was beaten with rods was one such colony. Settling retired soldiers in such a place served two factors it rewarded their service, and it placed good numbers of retired, presumably loyal, soldiers in strategic locations in case they were needed.. For the believers, this would then be a time of melding Jews and Gentiles into a single body prior to their “retirement” and “resettlement”, after God’s ultimate victory, in God’s kingdom. And as the “Day of the Lord” was “clearly” at hand, the emphasis on future salvation made no real sense, as the salvation was immediately at hand, just continue in the current morale path in order to not be disqualified. And the third issue regarding Pauline authorship, that on language and style, becomes far lesser problematic with this understanding. The style of the secretary who did the actual composing of the letter, based on Paul’s diction should be sufficient to explain the differences in this specific letter, along with the immediate setting, when compared to other letters This is especially true if the Pastorals are accepted as Pauline, but that issue remains unresolved at present.. As for the charge, the report of thirty-nine lashes sounds like the scourging that Jesus officially received from Pilate I will be challenging this version of history a little later. I suspect that the Jews issued the lashing in an attempt to appease Pilate rather than the other way around., less than what was considered a fatal number but still a drastic punishment, and this will be looked at further. Stoning was, from what I have learned, more of a Jewish punishment than a Roman one. The beating with rods though sounds similar to punishments issued to Roman soldiers for infractions, and occurring in Philippi would support a military type of punishment for some infraction Philippi’s status as a Roman colony largely populated with retired soldiers would fit this.. But none of these punishments tell us what the supposed crime was. If we accept tradition, Paul, especially as a Roman citizen Here again a problem arises. If Paul was alive at the time Acts was written, as it implies, for Luke to have claimed Roman citizenship for Paul would leave only two options open, one is that Paul really was a Roman citizen, and the other is that Luke, with all his apparent knowledge, committed a capital offense. Even if Paul was already dead, claiming that he had been a Roman citizen might have been a punishable crime. I find it easier to believe that Paul actually was a Roman citizen rather than think that Luke, while arguing in every other way that Christianity was not a problem for Rome, would incorporate such a lie., would not have been eligible for such punishments for less than a very severe crime, certainly not for interfering with a non-citizen’s livelihood unless they were very highly placed, and neither Acts nor Paul’s letters suggests such. To resolve this issue, we must make a choice, do we examine historical records to see what is plausible, or do we rely on divine intervention to support tradition no matter what. And note that some of what we will look was ultimately recorded safely after the 1st century, but reportedly is based on 1st century documents. Some parts to be examined might be explicable by purely human motives, but others might require divine intervention for explanations if the alternative historical records are to be rejected. Let us start with the assumption that is shared with tradition, that Paul was a Roman citizen, a citizen by birth, see Acts 22:22-29. For a Jew, as Paul claims to have been See Romans 16:11; Philippians 3:3-6, to be a Roman citizen by birth was very unusual. But it was true for all descendants of Herod the Great, and in all likelihood, we do not know most of them, just a select few. Paul references someone he calls “Herodion” in Romans 16:11, and as some scholars have noted, this sounds more like a family nickname than a proper name. Many of Herod’s descendants also spent time in Rome, including with the Julio-Claudian family. So let us examine Herod and what he and his known descendants did for possible insights into Paul. The main, and traditional, source for such information is the Jewish historian Josephus, who wrote histories of the Hebrew (Jewish) nation for Vespasian and his family. The biggest problem will be the same one that seems to have vexed Roman historians, namely that disgraced people must have been noticeably disgraceful well before their fall, while praiseworthy people had few, if any, flaws. His attitude is revealed in the accounts of how the Hasmonean (Maccabean) kingdom grew. According to Josephus (and the various Maccabees works), the Hasmoneans, during the period that the Seleucidan empire was collapsing, and various other kingdoms were arising, successfully conquered some neighboring regions. These included, Samaria and Idumea two regions that were predominately Yahwistic and at least partially pro-Jerusalem already, and these were also places where circumcision seems to have been practiced. But according to Josephus, these regions had to be conquered and forced into what the Romans called “the Jewish Federation”, and the Idumeans had to be forcibly circumcised. This explains why, within roughly one generation, an Idumean was a high-ranking official in the Jewish Federation A more reasonable explanation would be that the Hasmoneans defeated the local Seleucidan forces, with local assistance and afterwards the locals willingly joined the federation in many cases, including Idumea, Samaria and Galilee. It also explains why other regions, not primarily Yahwistic or seeming to not practice circumcision were not forced to have all men circumcised when conquered, nor have any of their people rapidly rising in rank in the federation These would be the Arab regions that became part of the Hasmonean empire, including Peraea, Gaulanitis and Trachonitis all in the Trans-Jordan region. Antipater, Herod’s father, was a high ranking official under the Hasmoneans. Who appointed him to that status is unclear.. That is, unless Josephus was less than totally truthful in his accounts, perhaps tilting his accounts to suggest that when the Jews were operating within God’s will they were unstoppable, but when they moved outside God’s will, they would lose and another country would defeat and punish them, just as had happened in the Jewish rebellion. This understanding might be worth remembering as we evaluate what is said about Herod. Among other things that seem accurate is that Herod was appointed by the Romans as the king of the Jewish nation in 40 BCE, although the Parthian involvement in the region kept him from taking the throne in Jerusalem for three years. There is likewise no clear reason to doubt Josephus’s listing of wives and sons, although how the deaths of those who died during his reign occurred may be questioned This would include the massacre of infants in Bethlehem, something that is only reported in Matthew, and helps establish conflict between Jesus, and thus his followers, and the disreputable, in Roman eyes, Herod. Herod is portrayed as having killed many, including family members, and having ordered a large number of Jews to be killed upon his death, in order to assure mourning after he died.. His building program also seems well supported, including the expanded temple grounds in Jerusalem, various fortresses in his kingdom, Caesarea, as well as projects in Damascus, Anatolia, Greece and the Samnite regions The Samnites were one of the most violently anti-Roman groups in Italy. in Italy. It likewise seems plausible that the reported incident of Roman Eagles being mounted on a gate for the temple complex, and their being torn down by angered Jews, is historical. Also, it seems obvious that something occurred circa 4 BCE that caused him to be removed from power, often described as his death, but perhaps just being deposed by Augustus, leading to a division of the kingdom between Philip, Archelaus and Antipas that Antipas sought to prevent by appealing to Augustus to be granted rulership of the entire kingdom. But conventional history cannot explain why these events would have occurred, especially given Herod’s usual attention to Jewish sensibilities as indicated by the presence of mikvehs (ritual baths that were popular in 2nd temple Judaism) in all fortresses associated with him as well as no likenesses of him in Judean territory including not on coinage. To explain the issue of the Roman Eagles and Herod’s loss of status A death in early 1 CE, possibly 1 BCE, seems more plausible based on Josephus’s accounts of eclipses around his death. Varus’s action, putting down a minor rebellion in Judea seems to fit better in 1 CE than 4 BCE based on Aretas of Nabataea’s assistance and his recognition as King of Nabataea by Augustus in 1 CE as well as the timing of lunar eclipses mentioned by Josephus., we must consider some officially “irrelevant” history. This source is “A History of Armenia”, by Moses of Chorene His authorship is dispute, but the work seems to draw on some ancient sources, but also likely on legends., who lived in the 5th century CE. The writer claims to have gained his knowledge from royal archives in Edessa, and of which roughly 2 ½ chapters Chapters 6-8a seems to be associated with the “legend of Addai”, which likely dates to the 3rd century CE, but was plausibly stored in these archives and included in the history with the actual archives. If these few pages are removed, the history flows much more smoothly, could explain some issues and largely seems to fit in the early 1st century CE The key element in this dating will be presented a little later, in a more thematically, and chronologically appropriate section.. The key here is that Moses of Chorene’s history claims that Agbar became the king in Edessa (Osroene) and a Roman client king, circa 5 BCE. Shortly after this though, Herod reportedly attacked Agbar and was defeated. However, an attack by one client king on another, as noted in the clash between Antipas and Aretas earlier, was not tolerated by Rome. If such an attack occurred, Herod would have incentive to attempt to appease Rome, possibly by erecting Roman Eagles on the temple grounds, and Augustus would consider the removal of Herod from official rulership of Judea to be justified, which would fit the 4 BCE timing for Herod’s removal from the official records. But neither this, nor Herod’s building projects, would necessarily cause the Jews to dislike Herod Both Matthew 22:16 and Mark 3:6; 12:13 reference “Herodians”, an otherwise unknown group, as associating with Pharisees in trying to trick Jesus. But most, if not all, encounters between Jesus and Pharisees seem more like lawyers debating points of law in a basically friendly fashion than antagonistic encounters, even as Jesus is portrayed as always winning. Numerous examples of differences between ancient Rabbis are preserved in the Talmud, both the Babylonian and the Jerusalem versions, and some seem datable to the first half of the 1st century CE., and his expansion of the temple would likely be viewed very favorably, as would the construction of Caesarea, a major port city enabling expanded trade. In fact, given the anticipation of the nearness of the “Day of the Lord” that seems to be present in late 2nd temple Judaism, as evidenced by the concern over uncleanliness (evidenced in the prevalence of mikvahs and specially made cooking and table ware from materials that would not remain ritually unclean for any length of time as well as comments in Talmudic records).This belief was linked to the first Sabbath of Jubilee years since the dedication of the rebuilt temple The precise dating if the restored temple may be disputed, but the actions of the Jews indicate that it must have been considered close., which for most of its existence had been in a land under foreign domination. The land, and all that was on it, was to be returned to its original owner, that is God, and that return would be a part of the “Day of the Lord”. The designated year for this was 27-8 CE This date was calculated by Wacholder, Ben Zion, “The Calendar of Sabbatical Cycles During the Second Temple and the Early Rabbinic Period”, Hebrew Union College Annual, Vol. 44, 1973 ----------------------”The Calendar of Sabbath Years During the Second Temple Era: A Response”, Hebrew Union College Annual, Vol. 54, 1983 This would have been immediately after John the Baptist reportedly began his preaching (based on the references to Tiberius’s reign) “in the wilderness of Judea and saying, ’Repent for the kingdom of heaven has come near.’ (Matthew 3:1-2) and “The ax is already at the root of the trees” (Matthew 3:10), suggesting his anticipation of the soon coming of the “Day of the Lord”, just as much of Jesus’s teachings suggested.. Herod’s activity in both annexing lands to his kingdom and his building projects, in light of this expectation, would likely have been seen favorably by the Jews, while his plausible attempted expansion into another client kingdom would merit punishment by the Romans. Of Herod’s four sons, that we know of as adults (seven sons are known from eight wives, one named daughter is suggested, but others are implied, and how many children have not been recorded is unknown, but plausibly several), Archelaus (sometimes claiming the dynastic title of Herod), Herod II (Herod II Philip in some sources), Philip the Tetrarch and Antipas (also sometimes claiming the dynastic title of Herod), we know the least about Archelaus and Philip. Archelaus was, from 4 BCE to 6 CE, the ethnarch of the largest portion of Herod’s kingdom, Judea, Idumea and Samaria. But reportedly Archelaus proved unable to control the population to Augustus’s standards and was exiled to Gaul to be replaced by a Roman prefecture But exile would also fit with suspected treasonous activity or language.. But again, as with his father, one might wonder if someone who became disgraced by Roman standards was fairly treated in subsequent Roman approved histories. Herod II Philip married Herodias, often considered to be a half-niece (the daughter of another of Herod’s sons, one of three reportedly executed, although some suggest that she was a half-sister), and lived in Rome. Not much more is known of him Presumably he had descendants and some lived in Rome. Such would explain some of Paul’s greetings at the end of Romans if he was of the general Herodian clan.. Philip the Tetrarch was granted control over largely Arab portions of Herod’s kingdom and seems to have been a competent, if not noteworthy, leader by Roman standards. He also supported an expansive building campaign like Herod’s, but unlike Herod or his brothers, he displayed emperors, and even himself, on his coinage. Antipas was given control of Galilee and Peraea, and also engaged inbuilding programs, including the city of Tiberius, reportedly erected on a cemetery, but given that attitudes from all around the Mediterranean, including among Jews, regarding contact with the dead, this report seems unlikely, and more likely a means of showing disgraceful behavior before he was ultimately punished. Following the divorce of Herod II Philip and Herodias, Antipas married her, a marriage reportedly condemned by John the Baptist and subsequently Antipas arrested and executed John the Baptist (but given that reportedly all Herod’s daughters and granddaughters required their husbands to convert to Judaism, a disregard for Jewish law concerning marrying brothers seems unlikely also and thus also raises questions about both of these descendants of Herod having involvement with John’s arrest and death Paul reported knowing a man who had ascended into heaven, as the writer of Revelation claimed, and the book of Revelation can read very well without the obvious Christian references if they are removed. Then considering the reference to two messianic figures in the work, one might wonder, as suggested by Denis O’Callaghan (he had several papers on Academia.edu at one time, but all seem to have vanished, as has his profile), if the actual author might have been John the Baptist and composed while John was under Roman arrest, not an arrest by Antipas. In that case, suggesting that Antipas arrested and executed John would be a fiction to absolve the Romans and blame the Jews. Under this theory, and fitting with the existent work, one edition would be pre-60 CE as Laodicea was largely destroyed by an earthquake in 60, one after 68 CE when Nero died and some thought he might still live in the East or be restored to life, and the last edition circa 95 CE when Nerva reportedly considered restoring the Jerusalem temple. ). The death of Philip the Tetrarch in 33 or 34 preceded the conflict between Antipas and Aretas IV over a portion of Philip’s former territory. Herod Antipas continued Herod’s program of building, likely including subsidizing the work on the Jerusalem temple. He accompanied Vitellius, the father of the future emperor, when Vitellius went to the Parthian border in 37, after Vitellius deposed Pilate and Caiaphas, and Antipas seems to have returned alone. Antipas was deposed in 39, reportedly on suspicion of treason and accumulating too many weapons and was exiled to southern Gaul. Of these four sons, only Herod II did not clearly link himself to Herod’s legacy, although also he was the only one not listed as a ruler. This then leads us to look closer at Antipas, the longest reigning of Herod’s sons, and the only one involved in any combat. This was after the death of Philip the Tetrarch, as noted above with Aretas IV, sometime between 33 and 37. Josephus claims that Aretas was the aggressor, yet Aretas, a client ruler like Antipas, was never punished Aretas IV died in office and his son inherited the throne with Gaius Caligula’s consent.. Another factor in accepting Antipas as the aggressor comes from Moses of Chorene, whose material is not fully supported as legitimate. It is in this matter that support for his credibility arises. In the reported letters between Agbar IV and Tiberius in chapter 8 of the work there are mentions of reported letters between Agbar and Tiberius. Agbar claims to have responded with soldiers when Aretas requested assistance against Antipas’s attack, and the sequence of events reported would place this sometime after the beginning of Tiberius’s actions against Artabanus Agbar reports sending people out to meet with an otherwise unknown “president” of Syria, which would fit with the time frame between the death of Flaccus, the Imperial Legate in this period and the arrival of Vitellius.. Agbar’s letter comments about an alliance in Jerusalem that could be dangerous for Rome, that of Antipas, Caiaphas and Pilate. Jesus’s resurrection is also mentioned. Tiberius claims to have investigated all these issues, absolving Agbar, and thus Aretas also, of any blame in the battle with Antipas, acknowledging having heard of the resurrection and actually having had it investigated and that he was planning to visit Jerusalem himself to see the evidence, finally stating that he would deal with the problems in Jerusalem after he dealt with “the rebelling Spaniards”. It is this last mistranslated phrase that supports the legitimacy of Moses of Chorene’s work. There were no known troubles in Spain, that is the Iberian Peninsula under Tiberius’s rule This point was brought to my attention by Ramelli, Ilarie L. E. “The Possible Origin of the Agbar-Addai Legend: Agbar the Black and Emperor Tiberius”, Journal of Syriac Studies, Vol. 26.2. 2013, pp325-41. However, the mercenaries that Tiberius hired to cause trouble in Armenia and support his candidate for Parthian emperor were Eastern Iberians, plausibly referenced as just “Iberians”. The region known to the Romans as Eastern Iberia is what is now known as eastern Georgia, bordering Armenia. Vitellius, after seeing the Roman candidate seemingly successfully installed in Parthia then proceeded with his legions west to Cilicia to assist them with problems caused by “wandering tribesmen”. The tribesmen are not clearly identified, but Iberian mercenaries would certainly be possible, especially given that for a time, shortly before, there had been no official leader in Syria (the province was, at the time, technically Syria-Cilicia) and thus no formal governmental control. And a third, relatively unknown factor, is a specific coin minted by Antipas in the year 33-4 CE ” For fuller details on the coin, see Fontanille, Jean-Phillipe and Aaron J Kogon, “Two New Symbols on a Coin of Herod Antipas”, Israel Numismatic Research, Oct 2015. . This coin, the largest denomination of four minted coins that year, had specific symbols that suggest good times coming for the people of Judea, plus one unknown symbol that has been consistently obliterated on all known specimens of this coin. This coin, being minted shortly after the death and resurrection of Jesus, who seems to have preached the coming “Day of the Lord”, or “Kingdom of God”, much like John the Baptist seems to have done, appears to be suggesting Antipas proclaiming the eminent coming of this day and his taking actions accordingly. The year 34-5 CE would be the first Sabbath year following the anticipated Sabbath of Jubilee years. Subsequent Sabbath years would be 41-2, which we will be discussing; 48-9, which seems to have been uneventful; 55-6, which we will be discussing; 62-3, which we will be discussing and 69-70, which also bears discussion. This then would fit with Antipas accompanying Vitellius to the Parthian frontier, as a prisoner, and returning to Jerusalem alone following word of Tiberius’s death and Gaius Caligula’s pardon of political prisoners. It also fits with Antipas’s subsequent dismissal and exile when Gaius revoked pardons in 39 CE I go into this matter, including the coin which may have had an image invoking the Shroud of Turin, in far more detail in my paper “King Aretas and Paul: Dragging in Antipas and the Shroud of Turin”, https://www.academia.edu/43139921/King_Aretas_and_Paul_Dragging_in_Antipas_and_the _Shroud_of_Turin, but given Agrippa’s actions as ruler, the specific charges level by Josephus do not seem to fit. Suspected treason, implied by Josephus would fit though.. Antipas’s successor, Agrippa I, likewise had problems with Rome, although he was credited as being strongly pro-Jewish, possibly the Agrippa referenced in the Talmud as being acknowledged as a “brother” by a group of Pharisees. He began building an additional wall around Jerusalem until he was rebuked by Emperor Caligula as possibly preparing for a rebellion. And again, like his Herodian predecessors, he subsidized building projects in other parts of the eastern Roman Empire. Following the death of Caligula, Claudius expanded his kingdom, adding the regions of Galilee and Samaria. Then in 41-2, the next Jubilee year, Agrippa I organized a “birthday party” in Tiberius in Galilee (although Josephus had just noted that he liked living in Jerusalem), and invited five other client kings These kings were Antiochus of Commagene, whose eldest son became betrothed to a daughter of Agrippa; Sampsiceramus II of Emesa; Cotys IX of Lesser Armenia; Polemo II of Pontus and Herod of Chalcis, his brother., but neglected to invite Marcus, the Imperial Legate of Syria. When Marcus, having hear of it, was on route to this meeting, Antipas and the other kings traveled out to meet him and assure him that nothing improper was being conducted. This was also the approximate time that Queen Helene, a converted Jewess, of Adiabene (a Parthian client kingdom) permanently relocated to the Jerusalem area Mishnah Nazir 3.6 The date is not specified, but since she completed 14 years of a Nazir vow prior to her death, this must have been close to the time she entered the “holy land”.. While existent records do not link Queen Helene to this gathering, Marcus was reportedly concerned that the gathering was negotiating with the Parthian empire. I thus feel fairly safe in stating that there were members of the Herodian line supporting the idea that God was about to directly intervene in world history to the benefit of the Jewish people at least to the level of Herod’s grandchildren. Agrippa II, a great grandson, continued supporting building projects, but also supported the Romans in the First Jewish War, so what his attitude was is open to question Josephus claimed to be opposed to the conflict, but he was made a general on the Jewish side, and he seems to have distorted his account of history to disgrace those disgraced in Rome, while greatly neglecting the arising Christian movement and even advancing a different Jewish leader as potentially the one thought to be coming (Izates of Adiabene, the son of Queen Helene) who had conveniently passed. . But as noted earlier, Paul looks plausibly like a descendant of Herod, and plausibly like a supporter of the eminent coming of the “Day of the Lord”, as indicated by his one-time attitude towards the assumed requirements of the Torah “For you have heard of my previous way of life in Judaism, how intensely I persecuted the church of God and tried to destroy it. I was advancing in Judaism beyond any of my own age among my people and was extremely zealous for the traditions of my fathers.” (Galatians 1:13-14) See also Philippians 3:3-6. To make such a claim, during a time when there was great concern about individual righteousness and following the perceived Torah commands, fits very well with preparation for God’s coming, as do comments such as Paul makes in 1 Corinthians 2:8, 15:51,52; Colossians 3:6, 1 Thessalonians 4:15 among others. This then provides a clue as to what crime Paul, as a Roman citizen, could have committed that led him to fear for his life. That there are possible comments about facing wild beasts while in captivity further confirms the potential crime. Facing wild beasts in an arena was a punishment for non-citizens who were guilty of treason against Rome, as was crucifixion. Treason might also explain the instances of Paul receiving thirty-nine lashes, a punishment comparable to part of what Jesus suffered, and the portion of Jesus’s punishment that does not fit with crucifixion. Jesus is the currently only known example of both lashing and crucifixion for the same offense, but this would fit if instead of being lashed by Romans, if Jesus was lashed by the temple authorities as an attempt to appease Pilate and spare Jesus’s life This would also be consistent with a Herodian anticipation of the coming “Day of the Lord”, looked forward to by many if not most Jews. They would have acted to protect someone they felt was close to God.. The shift of blame from the temple authorities seeking to appease Pilate by the scourging, to Pilate seeking to appease the temple authorities would fit with denying treason and affirming that Christianity was no threat to Rome Luke/Acts also seems to emphasize that there is no problem between Jesus/Christianity and Rome, but does place enmity between Christians and Jews (the other gospels also suggest enmity, but not as much as Luke/Acts, John even recognizes some Jewish support for Jesus), and since the accounts we have all seem to be from the post First Jewish War era, linking Christians with Romans in opposition to official Judaism would be a logical way to deny treason.. Another such shift of who authorized the punishment might figure in the death of James (properly Jacob) the Just. This event is traditionally assigned to a brief period with no immediate Roman oversight Even without a Procreator in Jerusalem though there would still have been a Roman garrison in the Antonia Fortress and Acts claims that during this general time period, that they did intervene in Jewish disturbances as would have occurred with the reported death of James. when the temple authorities killed James (62 CE), but there is no indication of any reaction among the general population which, according to Josephus, had great admiration and love for James. Further, Eusebius cites Papias, a 2nd century source, as indicating that James was allowed into the Holy of Holies, something only granted to the High Priest, yet James does not appear on any official lists of Jewish High Priests. But given that the Qumran community seems to have maintained an alternative priesthood, it would be logical for them to have an alternative High Priest. Such a position would also require close cooperation between the two High Priests, not an antagonistic relationship. However, should the Romans have executed James, especially in the aftermath of the end of the war with Parthia Gessius Florus, was the Procreator of Judea from 64-66 and is accused by Josephus of raiding the temple treasury, among other crimes, including whipping and possibly crucifying Roman citizens. This is unusually harsh commentary about a Roman official, unless he was already disgraced in Roman eyes. Josephus also implies that he was largely responsible for the Jews rebelling in 66., the timing would fit with the popular uprising in Jerusalem that led to a Roman legion approaching Romans killing James might well result in actions against the Roman authorities that could not be handled by the troops stationed in Jerusalem, thus requiring a full legion to be dispatched. The account by Josephus does not indicate that severe of a problem, unless much is omitted., but ultimately not entering Jerusalem in 66, and the legion being destroyed as it departed the region, igniting the full Jewish uprising that lasted until 70 CE The 1st Jewish War technically lasted until 73, but the loss of the temple would have been disheartening as it was God’s house on earth, and thus something that should not have fallen. and the destruction of the temple. Its destruction would have demanded some theological explanation, how could God allow His own house on earth to fall, especially when the people were doing so much to prepare for His coming. An official dispute between Christians and Jews For some different considerations as to who killed Jesus. See: Bermejo-Rubio, Fernando, and Christopher B. Zeichmann, “Where Were the Romans and What Did They Know? Miliary Inerrligence Networks as a Probable Factor in Jesus of Nazareth’’s Fate”, Scripta Classica Israelica, Vol 37, 2019, pp 83-116 could provide cover for one group or the other, depending on how Rome reacted, while the theological issues were sorted out and while God’s wrath dissipated. That something changed is also suggested in two New Testament accounts, the Gospel of Mark has four different known endings Possible endings are 16:8, supported by the two oldest known manuscripts and comments by Eusebius and Jerome but seems very abrupt; ten manuscripts add the phrase “But they reported briefly to Peter and those with him all they had been told.  And after this Jesus himself sent out by means of them, from east to west, the sacred and imperishable proclamation of eternal salvation.  Amen”; adding the phrase “And they excused themselves saying, ‘This age of lawlessness and unbelief is under Satan, who does not allow the truth and power of God to prevail over the unclean things of the, Benja spirits.  Therefore reveal thy righteousness now.’  Thus they spoke to Christ.  And Christ replied to them, ‘The term of years of Satan’s power has been fulfilled, but other terrible things draw near.  And for those who have sinned I was delivered over to death, that they may return to the truth and sin no more, in order that they may inherit the spiritual and incorruptible glory of righteousness which is in heaven.’” After verse 15, supported by one manuscript from the 5th century and acknowledged by Jerome; and extending to verse 20 but all these texts are from one text family and are not among the earliest. in ancient manuscripts and the Gospel of John seems to have two endings John 20:31 sounds like an ending, as does John 21:25. The key, to my mind, differences occur in the words “written that you may believe: in 20:31 and “This is the disciple who testifies to these things and who wrote them down. We know that his testimony is true: in 21:24... But does this understanding explain other questions? In fact, it can. Treason being linked to Christianity would explain the actions of Nero in executing Christians in 64, which occurred roughly 3 weeks after the signing of a peace treaty with Parthia, officially ending the war that began in 53. It explains why King Aretas’s ethnarch would have tried to capture Paul in Damascus in the mid 30’s. It would confirm that Antipas was likely the aggressor in the conflict with Aretas and provide the reason why he was eventually exiled. It could confirm the suspicions about the gathering of client kings with Agrippa I in 42 as well as provide a reason for his attempt to expand Jerusalem’s walls. It could explain the periodic persecutions of Christians over the next couple of centuries, as the suspicion of treason would remain, even as no obvious evidence of wrongdoing was found, as noted by Pliny the Younger who investigated and was told to do nothing unless some evidence was found of wrongdoing Letters between Pliny the Younger as the Governor of Bithynia and Trajan, circa 112 CE.. As noted above, it explains the accounts in both the gospels and Acts of conflict between the Jews and the Christians, and additionally allows for the conflicts between Acts and the letters of Paul. It implies that Acts would specifically have been written as a cover for Paul, as with a charge of treason against a Roman citizen, there would have been no appeal to Caesar, rather he would have been sent to Rome under guard, likely after Corbulo was satisfied that he could spare the necessary troops, thus likely in 58 after successful military actions had begun, as suggested earlier. Nero would likely have followed established precedence for dealing with condemned Romans of high standing and exiled Paul, this time to Spain, well away from his power base in the east, as claimed by Clement of Rome, where Paul remained until pardoned, likely by either Galba or Otho in 68 (both short term emperors came from Spain) and the other two emperors following Nero in the year of four emperors, Vitellius and Vespasian, would have been unlikely to issue Paul a pardon, Vitellius due to knowledge from his father and Vespasian due to his experiences in the war. And the implications are not yet done. Witherington, in his commentary of the Pastoral Epistles supports Pauline authorship, although he suggests a pre-67 date, and suggests that Luke was the secretary at the time of their writings, thus explaining some of the different language used. I concur that the Pastorals are Pauline, but I date them to 68 or 9, following a release from exile and before an execution by Vespasian (the tradition of Nero’s ordering the execution places the blame on a disgraced emperor again). I accept that Witherington sees evidence of Luke being the actual writer and I have no better candidates. And moving away from specifically Luke-Acts, if we accept that there was no historic conflict between Jesus and the general Jewish community, then we might find the lost “Q” gospel, the hypothesized document behind the “Jesus sayings” in the Synoptic gospels, that also seem paralleled in Paul’s letters See Wenham, Paul, Paul: Follower of Jesus or Founder of Christianity, Eerdmans, Grand Rapids, 1995. This is due to the records in the Talmud, which do relate sayings of various rabbi’s, some reportedly close in time to Jesus is not earlier. Papias, as recorded by Eusebius, claimed that Matthew recorded the words of Jesus in Hebrew. This would imply that this Matthew was a scribe associated with Jesus, much like we hear about the scribes and pharisees in conflict with Jesus. Since it seems there were scribes recording words of rabbis in the 1st century, we have no reason to suspect that it would have been different with Jesus. But if, after 70 CE, there was a conscious decision to create the image of conflict between Jesus and official Judaism, these recordings would be removed from any official collections maintained by the Jewish rabbis, but they would have been available prior to this time wherever there was concern about existent rulings by rabbis with regards to understanding the demand of the Torah, likely including in the diaspora, thus allowing believers to detect Paul’s references to the Jesus sayings. But if this is the entirety of the argument, it is still not fully convincing, so what other evidence exists? Now we will look at other parts of the New Testament for more clues, starting with 1 John and the Gospel of John. Many scholars link these two works, suggesting that 1 John served as a cover letter for the gospel, and I will partially concur. Both works, in their existent form, seem to be by the same author, and 1 John as a cover letter does seem to fit. But is the Gospel of John that we have the original Recall, there seem to be two endings.? Most scholars agree that the “beloved disciple” wrote the Gospel of John. It is also widely accepted that the apostle John, the son of Zebedee. wrote the version that we have today Other candidates include a literary character who was an idealized disciple, although even such a literary a character could be based on an actual person, Lazarus, the apostle Thomas and John Mark. All these other persons are often excluded for various reasons.. But was John the original author or was he merely the final editor? Many scholars, I suspect most, believe that what we have today is not the original, but either a second or third edition “the Gospel as we have it is likely the final redaction of two earlier editions” MacDonald, Dennis R., The Dionysian Gospel: The Fourth Gospel and Euripides, Fortress, Minneapolis, 2017, p xv, I could likewise cite numerous other scholars making very similar claims. Irenaeus recorded the connection to John circa 200 CE Polycrates, Bishop of Ephesus, Clement of Alexandria and the Latin Muratorian Canon, all writing close to 200 CE also make this connection. and noted that his source was a former teacher, Polycarp, who had reportedly been a disciple of John and saw him writing the gospel after he knew of the other gospels Polycarp would likely have been a teenager when he observed this activity. My little brother was likely a teenager when he observed our father writing checks to pay for our grandfather’s nursing home care (our grandfather went into a nursing home to stay when he was 11 and died when he was 17), and I have no doubt that he did see this action. But while my little brother “knows” that our father thus paid for the care, I have the record of our father having been given Durable Power of Attorney for our grandfather, thus the ability to write checks on our grandfather’s checking account. I also have records that our grandfather had sufficient funds to pay for several years of nursing home care (more than he actually spent in such care) in just one account several years before he needed such care, and that his farm produce net income well into the time he was in a nursing home (my mother claimed that my grandfather’s net income surpassed my father’ earnings as an upper mid-level manager for Goodyear, likely while his position was still two steps below Vice President), as well as Social Security, so, whose checkbook was our father writing checks from?. I would submit that he was merely the final editor having rewritten an earlier gospel to make it more acceptable If there were aspects of an original version which was known to exist that would be objectionable to Rome, a rewrite would be in order. And as noted earlier, both John 20:30-31 and 21:24-25 sound like endings.. But then who was the first writer? I think we can know something of the first writer by possible contradictions in the text. The Greek is fairly simple, but the prologue and various events seem to reflect the influence of Euripides “Bacchae”, a classic work The parallels with the Bacchae have been noted since at least the 3rd century, although often ignored. Prior to the discovery and publication of the Dead Sea Scrolls though, many, if not most or all, scholars saw connections between John and Greek philosophers and playwriters in general.. The text also contains 7 miracles, 7 “I am” sayings and 7 other discourses, all connected by brief narrative sections and scattered in three groups. This pattern of 3 groups of 7 also fits a classical Greek pattern, suggesting a good education in rhetoric, something at odds with the simple Greek Many scholars see a connection between the Gospel of John and classic Greek culture.. Acts, which with its companion piece, the Gospel of Luke These works seem to date to the post 70 CE era (widely accepted), but also seem in part to actively refute John’s presentation of Jesus (debatable)., has the most refined Greek It is always easier to read refined language than to write it. Most of us can understand a spoken or written refined English, but for many, such is not daily speech, and our writing tends to reflect our daily speech., also seems to share connections with the “Bacchae” Some scholars also see a connection between the Bacchae and 3rd Maccabees. The connections in Luke and Acts though are of limited nature, but for one example see: Kichenash, Michael, “The Scandal of Gentile Inclusion: Reading Acts 17 with Euripides’ Bacchae”, Classical Models of the Gospels and Acts: Studies on Mimesis Criticism, Vol 3, Claremont, Claremont, 2018 downloaded 2-13-2023 . The connection between John and classical Greek drama might be best summed up as: the Tetrarch in 33 or 34 preceded the conflict between Antipas and Aretas IV over a portion of Philip’s former territory. Herod Antipas continued Herod’s program of building, likely including subsidizing the work on the Jerusalem temple. He accompanied Vitellius, the father of the future emperor, when Vitellius went to the Parthian border in 37, after Vitellius deposed Pilate and Caiaphas, and Antipas seems to have returned alone. Antipas was deposed in 39, reportedly on suspicion of treason and accumulating too many weapons and was exiled to southern Gaul. Of these four sons, only Herod II did not clearly link himself to Herod’s legacy, although also he was the only one not listed as a ruler. This then leads us to look closer at Antipas, the longest reigning of Herod’s sons, and the only one involved in any combat. This was after the death of Philip the Tetrarch, as noted above with Aretas IV, sometime between 33 and 37. Josephus claims that Aretas was the aggressor, yet Aretas, a client ruler like Antipas, was never punished Aretas IV died in office and his son inherited the throne with Gaius Caligula’s consent.. Another factor in accepting Antipas as the aggressor comes from Moses of Chorene, whose material is not fully supported as legitimate. It is in this matter that support for his credibility arises. In the reported letters between Agbar IV and Tiberius in chapter 8 of the work there are mentions of reported letters between Agbar and Tiberius. Agbar claims to have responded with soldiers when Aretas requested assistance against Antipas’s attack, and the sequence of events reported would place this sometime after the beginning of Tiberius’s actions against Artabanus Agbar reports sending people out to meet with an otherwise unknown “president” of Syria, which would fit with the time frame between the death of Flaccus, the Imperial Legate in this period and the arrival of Vitelliius.. Agbar’s letter comments about an alliance in Jerusalem that could be dangerous for Rome, that of Antipas, Caiaphas and Pilate. Jesus’s resurrection is also mentioned. Tiberius claims to have investigated all these issues, absolving Agbar, and thus Aretas also, of any blame in the battle with Antipas, acknowledging having heard of the resurrection and actually having had it investigated and that he was planning to visit Jerusalem himself to see the evidence, and finally stating that he would deal with the problems in Jerusalem after he dealt with “the rebelling Spaniards”. It is this last mistranslated phrase that supports the legitimacy of Moses of Chorene’s work. There were no known troubles in Spain, that is the Iberian Peninsula under Tiberius’s rule This point was brought to my attention by Ramelli, Ilarie L. E. “The Possible Origin of the Agbar-Addai Legend: Agbar the Black and Emperor Tiberius”, Journal of Syriac Studies, Vol. 26.2. 2013, pp325-41. However, the mercenaries that Tiberius hired to cause trouble in Armenia and support his candidate for Parthian emperor were Eastern Iberians, plausibly referenced as just “Iberians”. The region known to the Romans as Eastern Iberia is what is now known as eastern Georgia, bordering Armenia. Vitellius, after seeing the Roman candidate seemingly successfully installed in Parthia then proceeded with his legions west to Cilicia to assist them with problems caused by “wandering tribesmen”. The tribesmen are not clearly identified, but Iberian mercenaries would certainly be possible, especially given that for a time, shortly before, there had been no official leader in Syria (the province was, at the time, technically Syria-Cilicia) and thus no formal governmental control. And a third, relatively unknown factor, is a specific coin minted by Antipas in the year 33-4 CE ” For fuller details on the coin, see Fontanille, Jean-Phillipe and Aaron J Kogon, “Two New Symbols on a Coin of Herod Antipas”, Israel Numismatic Research, Oct 2015. . This coin, the largest denomination of four minted coins that year, had specific symbols that suggest good times coming for the people of Judea, plus one unknown symbol that has been consistently obliterated on all known specimens of this coin. This coin, being minted shortly after the death and resurrection of Jesus, who seems to have preached the coming “Day of the Lord”, or “Kingdom of God”, much like John the Baptist seems to have done, appears to be suggesting Antipas proclaiming the eminent coming of this day and his taking actions accordingly. The year 34-5 CE would be the first Sabbath year following the anticipated Sabbath of Jubilee years. Subsequent Sabbath years would be 41-2, which we will be discussing; 48-9, which seems to have been uneventful; 55-6, which we will be discussing; 62-3, which we will be discussing and 69-70, which also bears discussion. This then would fit with Antipas accompanying Vitellius to the Parthian frontier, as a prisoner, and returning to Jerusalem alone following word of Tiberius’s death and Gaius Caligula’s pardon of political prisoners. It also fits with Antipas’s subsequent dismissal and exile when Gaius revoked pardons in 39 CE I go into this matter, including the coin which may have had an image invoking the Shroud of Turin, in far more detail in my paper “King Aretas and Paul: Dragging in Antipas and the Shroud of Turin”, https://www.academia.edu/43139921/King_Aretas_and_Paul_Dragging_in_Antipas_and_the _Shroud_of_Turin, but given Agrippa’s actions as ruler, the specific charges level by Josephus do not seem to fit. Suspected treason, implied by Josephus would fit though.. Antipas’s successor, Agrippa I, likewise had problems with Rome, although he was credited as being strongly pro-Jewish, possibly the Agrippa referenced in the Talmud as being acknowledged as a “brother” by a group of Pharisees. He began building an additional wall around Jerusalem until he was rebuked by Emperor Caligula as possibly preparing for a rebellion. And again, like his Herodian predecessors, he subsidized building projects in other parts of the eastern Roman Empire. Following the death of Caligula, Claudius expanded his kingdom, adding the regions of Galilee and Samaria. Then in 41-2, the next Jubilee year, Agrippa I organized a “birthday party” in Tiberius in Galilee (although Josephus had just noted that he liked living in Jerusalem), and invited five other client kings These kings were Antiochus of Commagene, whose eldest son became betrothed to a daughter of Agrippa; Sampsiceramus II of Emesa; Cotys IX of Lesser Armenia; Polemo II of Pontus and Herod of Chalcis, his brother., but neglected to invite Marcus, the Imperial Legate of Syria. When Marcus, having hear of it, was on route to this meeting, Antipas and the other kings traveled out to meet him and assure him that nothing improper was being conducted. This was also the approximate time that Queen Helene, a converted Jewess, of Adiabene (a Parthian client kingdom) permanently relocated to the Jerusalem area Mishnah Nazir 3.6 The date is not specified, but since she completed 14 years of a Nazir vow prior to her death, this must have been close to the time she entered the “holy land”.. While existent records do not link Queen Helene to this gathering, Marcus was reportedly concerned that the gathering was negotiating with the Parthian empire. I thus feel fairly safe in stating that there were members of the Herodian line supporting the idea that God was about to directly intervene in world history to the benefit of the Jewish people at least to the level of Herod’s grandchildren. Agrippa II, a great grandson, continued supporting building projects, but also supported the Romans in the First Jewish War, so what his attitude was is open to question Josephus claimed to be opposed to the conflict, but he was made a general on the Jewish side, and he seems to have distorted his account of history to disgrace those disgraced in Rome, while greatly neglecting the arising Christian movement and even advancing a different Jewish leader as potentially the one thought to be coming (Izates of Adiabene, the son of Queen Helene) who had conveniently passed. . But as noted earlier, Paul looks plausibly like a descendant of Herod, and plausibly like a supporter of the eminent coming of the “Day of the Lord”, as indicated by his one-time attitude towards the assumed requirements of the Torah “For you have heard of my previous way of life in Judaism, how intensely I persecuted the church of God and tried to destroy it. I was advancing in Judaism beyond any of my own age among my people and was extremely zealous for the traditions of my fathers.” (Galatians 1:13-14) See also Philippians 3:3-6. To make such a claim, during a time when there was great concern about individual righteousness and following the perceived Torah commands, fits very well with preparation for God’s coming, as do comments such as Paul makes in 1 Corinthians 2:8, 15:51,52; Colossians 3:6, 1 Thessalonians 4:15 among others. This then provides a clue as to what crime Paul, as a Roman citizen, could have committed that led him to fear for his life. That there are possible comments about facing wild beasts while in captivity further confirms the potential crime. Facing wild beasts in an arena was a punishment for non-citizens who were guilty of treason against Rome as was crucifixion. Treason might also explain the instances of Paul receiving thirty-nine lashes, a punishment comparable to part of what Jesus suffered, and the portion of Jesus’s punishment that does not fit with crucifixion. Jesus is the currently only known example of both lashing and crucifixion for the same offense, but this would fit if instead of being lashed by Romans, if Jesus was lashed by the temple authorities as an attempt to appease Pilate and spare Jesus’s life This would also be consistent with a Herodian anticipation of the coming “Day of the Lord”, looked forward to by many if not most Jews.. The shift of blame from the temple authorities seeking to appease Pilate by the scourging, to Pilate seeking to appease the temple authorities would fit with denying treason and affirming that Christianity was no threat to Rome Luke/Acts also seems to emphasize that there is no problem between Jesus/Christianity and Rome, but does place enmity between Christians and Jews (the other gospels also suggest enmity, but not as much as Luke/Acts, John even recognizes some Jewish support for Jesus), and since the accounts we have all seem to be from the post First Jewish War era, linking Christians with Romans in opposition to official Judaism would be a logical way to deny treason.. Another such shift of who authorized the punishment might figure in the death of James (properly Jacob) the Just. This event is traditionally assigned to a brief period with no immediate Roman oversight Even without a Procreator in Jerusalem though there would still have been a Roman garrison in the Antonia Fortress and Acts claims that during this general time period, that they did intervene in Jewish disturbances as would have occurred with the reported death of James. when the temple authorities killed James (62 CE), but there is no indication of any reaction among the general population which, according to Josephus, had great admiration and love for James. Further, Eusebius cites Papias, a 2nd century source, as indicating that James was allowed into the Holy of Holies, something only granted to the High Priest, yet James does not appear on any official lists of Jewish High Priests. But given that the Qumran community seems to have maintained an alternative priesthood, it would be logical for them to have an alternative High Priest. Such a position would also require close cooperation between the two High Priests, not an antagonistic relationship. However, should the Romans have executed James, especially in the aftermath of the end of the war with Parthia Gessius Florus, was the Procreator of Judea from 64-66 and is accused by Josephus of raiding the temple treasury, among other crimes, including whipping and possibly crucifying Roman citizens. This is unusually harsh commentary about a Roman official, unless he was already disgraced in Roman eyes. Josephus also implies that he was largely responsible for the Jews rebelling in 66., the timing would fit with the popular uprising in Jerusalem that led to a Roman legion approaching Romans killing James might well result in actions against the Roman authorities that could not be handled by the troops stationed in Jerusalem, thus requiring a full legion to be dispatched. The account by Josephus does not indicate that severe of a problem, unless much is missing., but ultimately not entering Jerusalem in 66, and the legion being destroyed as it departed the region, igniting the full Jewish uprising that lasted until 70 CE The 1st Jewish War technically lasted until 73, but the loss of the temple would have been disheartening as it was God’s house on earth, and thus something that should not have fallen. and the destruction of the temple. Its destruction would have demanded some theological explanation, how could God allow His own house on earth to fall, especially when the people were doing so much to prepare for His coming. An official dispute between Christians and Jews For some different considerations as to who killed Jesus. See: Bermejo-Rubio, Fernando, and Christopher B. Zeichmann, “Where Were the Romans and What Did They Know? Miliary Inerrligence Networks as a Probable Factor in Jesus of Nazareth’’s Fate”, Scripta Classica Israelica, Vol 37, 2019, pp 83-116 could provide cover for one group or the other, depending on how Rome reacted, while the theological issues were sorted out and while God’s wrath dissipated. That something changed is also suggested in two New Testament accounts, the Gospel of Mark has four different known endings Possible endings are 16:8, supported by the two oldest known manuscripts and comments by Eusebius and Jerome but seems very abrupt; ten manuscripts add the phrase “But they reported briefly to Peter and those with him all they had been told.  And after this Jesus himself sent out by means of them, from east to west, the sacred and imperishable proclamation of eternal salvation.  Amen”; adding the phrase “And they excused themselves saying, ‘This age of lawlessness and unbelief is under Satan, who does not allow the truth and power of God to prevail over the unclean things of the, Benja spirits.  Therefore reveal thy righteousness now.’  Thus they spoke to Christ.  And Christ replied to them, ‘The term of years of Satan’s power has been fulfilled, but other terrible things draw near.  And for those who have sinned I was delivered over to death, that they may return to the truth and sin no more, in order that they may inherit the spiritual and incorruptible glory of righteousness which is in heaven.’” After verse 15, supported by one manuscript from the 5th century and acknowledged by Jerome; and extending to verse 20 but all these texts are from one text family and are not among the earliest. in ancient manuscripts and the Gospel of John seems to have two endings John 20:31 sounds like an ending, as does John 21:25. The key, to my mind, differences occur in the words “written that you may believe: in 20:31 and “This is the disciple who testifies to these things and who wrote them down. We know that his testimony is true: in 21:24... But does this understanding explain other questions? In fact, it can. Treason being linked to Christianity would explain the actions of Nero in executing Christians in 64, which occurred roughly 3 weeks after the signing of a peace treaty with Parthia, officially ending the war that began in 53. It explains why King Aretas’s ethnarch would have tried to capture Paul in Damascus in the mid 30’s. It would confirm that Antipas was likely the aggressor in the conflict with Aretas and provide the reason why he was eventually exiled. It could confirm the suspicions about the gathering of client kings with Agrippa I in 42 as well as provide a reason for his attempt to expand Jerusalem’s walls. It could explain the periodic persecutions of Christians over the next couple of centuries, as the suspicion of treason would remain, even as no obvious evidence of wrongdoing was found, as noted by Pliny the Younger who investigated and was told to do nothing unless some evidence was found of wrongdoing Letters between Pliny the Younger as the Governor of Bithynia and Trajan, circa 112 CE.. As noted above, it explains the accounts in both the gospels and Acts of conflict between the Jews and the Christians, and additionally allows for the conflicts between Acts and the letters of Paul. It implies that Acts would specifically have been written as a cover for Paul, as with a charge of treason against a Roman citizen, there would have been no appeal to Caesar, rather he would have been sent to Rome under guard, likely after Corbulo was satisfied that he could spare the necessary troops, thus likely in 58 after successful military actions had begun. Nero would likely have followed established precedence for dealing with condemned Romans of high standing and exiled Paul, this time to Spain, well away from his power base in the east, as claimed by Clement of Rome, where Paul remained until pardoned, likely by either Galba or Otho in 68 (both short term emperors came from Spain) and the other two emperors following Nero in the year of four emperors, Vitellius and Vespasian, would have been unlikely to issue Paul a pardon, Vitellius due to knowledge from his father and Vespasian due to his experiences in the war. And the implications are not yet done. Witherington, in his commentary of the Pastoral Epistles supports Pauline authorship, although he suggests a pre-67 date, and also suggests that Luke was the secretary at the time of their writings, thus explaining some of the different language used. I concur that the Pastorals are Pauline, but I date them to 68 or 9, following a release from exile and before an execution by Vespasian (the tradition of Nero’s ordering the execution places the blame on a disgraced emperor again). I accept that Witherington sees evidence of Luke being the actual writer and I have no better candidates. And moving away from specifically Luke-Acts, if we accept that there was no historic conflict between Jesus and the general Jewish community, then we might find the lost “Q” gospel, the hypothesized document behind the “Jesus sayings” in the Synoptic gospels in general, that also seem paralleled in Paul’s letters See Wenham, Paul, Paul: Follower of Jesus or Founder of Christianity, Eerdmans, Grand Rapids, 1995. This is due to the records in the Talmud, which do relate sayings of various rabbi’s, some reportedly close in time to Jesus is not earlier. Papias, as recorded by Eusebius, claimed that Matthew recorded the words of Jesus in Hebrew. This would imply that this Matthew was a scribe associated with Jesus, much like we hear about the scribes and pharisees in conflict with Jesus. Or in other words, there were scribes recording words of rabbis in the 1st century, and we have no reason to suspect that it would have been different with Jesus. But if, after 70 CE, there was a conscious decision to create the image of conflict between Jesus and official Judaism, these recordings would be removed from any official collections maintained by the Jewish rabbis, but would have been available prior to this time wherever there was concern about existent rulings by rabbis with regards to understanding the demand of the Torah, likely including in the diaspora thus allowing believers to detect Paul’s references to the Jesus sayings. But if this is the entirety of the argument, it is still not fully convincing, so what other evidence exists? Now we will look at other parts of the New Testament for more clues, starting with 1 John and the Gospel of John. Many scholars link these two works, suggesting that 1 John served as a cover letter for the gospel, and I will partially concur. Both works, in their existent form, seem to be by the same author, and 1 John as a cover letter does seem to fit. But is the Gospel of John that we have the original Recall, there seem to be two endings.? Most scholars agree that the “beloved disciple” wrote the Gospel of John. It is also widely accepted that the apostle John, the son of Zebedee. wrote the version that we have today Other candidates include a literary character who was an idealized disciple, although even such a literary a character could be based on an actual person, Lazarus, the apostle Thomas and John Mark. All these other persons are often excluded for various reasons.. But was John the original author or was he merely the final editor? Many scholars, I suspect most, believe that what we have today is not the original, but either a second or third edition “the Gospel as we have it is likely the final redaction of two earlier editions” MacDonald, Dennis R., The Dionysian Gospel: The Fourth Gospel and Euripides, Fortress, Minneapolis, 2017, p xv, I could likewise cite numerous other scholars making very similar claims. Irenaeus recorded the connection to John circa 200 CE Polycrates, Bishop of Ephesus, Clement of Alexandria and the Latin Muratorian Canon, all writing close to 200 CE also make this connection. and noted that his source was a former teacher, Polycarp, who had reportedly been a disciple of John and saw him writing the gospel after he knew of the other gospels Polycarp would likely have been a teenager when he observed this activity. My little brother was likely a teenager when he observed our father writing checks to pay for our grandfather’s nursing home care (our grandfather went into a nursing home to stay when he was 11 and died when he was 17), and I have no doubt that he did see this action. But while my little brother “knows” that our father thus paid for the care, I have the record of our father having been given Durable Power of Attorney for our grandfather, thus the ability to write checks on our grandfather’s checking account. I also have records that our grandfather had sufficient funds to pay for several years of nursing home care (more than he actually spent in such care) in just one account several years before he needed such care, and that his farm produce net income well into the time he was in a nursing home (my mother claimed that my grandfather’s net income surpassed my father’ earnings as an upper mid-level manager for Goodyear, likely while his position was still two steps below Vice President), as well as Social Security, so, whose checkbook was our father writing checks from?. I would submit that he was merely the final editor having rewritten an earlier gospel to make it more acceptable If there were aspects of an original version which was known to exist that would be objectionable to Rome, a rewrite would be in order. And both John 20:30-31 and 21:24-25 sound like endings.. But then who was the first writer? I think we can know something of the first writer by possible contradictions in the text. The Greek is fairly simple, but the prologue and various events seem to reflect the influence of Euripides “Bacchae”, a classic work The parallels with the Bacchae have been noted since at least the 3rd century, although often ignored. Prior to the discovery and publication of the Dead Sea Scrolls though, many, if not most or all, scholars saw connections between John and Greek philosophers and playwriters in general.. The text also contains 7 miracles, 7 “I am” sayings and 7 other discourses, all connected by brief narrative sections and scattered in three groups. This pattern of 3 groups of 7 also fits a classical Greek pattern, suggesting a good education in rhetoric, something at odds with the simple Greek Many scholars see a connection between the Gospel of John and classic Greek culture. Another example would be the Book of Revelation, where 7 scrolls are followed by 7 angels blowing trumpets, followed by 7 angels with bowls of wrath.. Acts, which with its companion piece, the Gospel of Luke These works seem to date to the post 70 CE era (widely accepted), but also seem in part to actively refute John’s presentation of Jesus (debatable)., has the most refined Greek It is always easier to read refined language than to write it. Most of us can understand a spoken or written refined English, but for many, such is not daily speech, and our writing tends to reflect our daily speech., also seems to share connections with the “Bacchae” Some scholars also see a connection between the Bacchae and 3rd Maccabees. The connections in Luke and Acts though are of limited nature, but for one example see: Kichenash, Michael, “The Scandal of Gentile Inclusion: Reading Acts 17 with Euripides’ Bacchae”, Classical Models of the Gospels and Acts: Studies on Mimesis Criticism, Vol 3, Claremont, Claremont, 2018 downloaded 2-13-2023 . The connection between John and classical Greek drama might be best summed up as: And we are still not finished with potential evidence for a linking of Jesus with Dionysus. The Tosefta, a companion work to the Mishna, a compilation of Jewish oral law and first compiled in the early 3rd century, refers to heretics (often referring to Christians) and a Yeshua (the Hebrew transliterated as Jesus) ben (son of) Pantera. This comes in two places, both involving rabbis with similar sounding names, Eliezer (ben Hycanus) and Eleazor (ben Dama). The name also is referenced in Origen’s “Contra Celsium” (late 2nd century) where the Greek philosopher claims that Jesus was the illegitimate son of a Roman soldier with the name Pantera. Here the interesting point is that a panther (pantera) was an animal associated with Dionysus. Additionally, there are known to be many images of Jesus from the first few centuries CE Jefferson, Lee M, “Jesus the Magician? Why Jesus Holds a Wand in Early Christian Art”, Biblical Archeological Review, Vol. 46, No. 4, p 41-7 that portray him, as Dionysus is often portrayed, as a beardless younger man, and sometimes, again in agreement with images of Dionysus, holding a wand as He performs a miracle. Scholars often suggest that this implies that Jesus was considered a magician performing miracles, but they tend to be uncertain as to how to reconcile this image with the prohibitions against magic that are also common in early church records. But a connection to Dionysus, also associated with a wand, or thyrsus, a rod made of fennel ending in a pinecone, although this seems to be missing in most of the images of Jesus. A connection between Jesus and Dionysus seems confirmed. At this point it would seem clear that earliest Christianity had reason to be concerned about Rome, but even in 68, when it seems most plausible that Paul was able to wander the empire for the first time in a decade, there was hope for the Church. The Jewish rebellion was ongoing, and God would certainly intervene. The proof, that in the current day call the Shroud of Turin, was solid proof. The image was clear proof of the resurrection of Jesus See Mayor, William, “1 John 5:6-8: The Shroud of Turin in the New Testament”, https://www.acadeia.edu/33976329/1_John_5. But when the Jerusalem temple fell, likely by August 70 CE, it became obvious that God was not going to intervene. If He was to intervene, surely he would have done so before His house on earth, the temple, was destroyed. At that time, if not before, those surviving religious leaders of the two groups that would become Christians and Jews had to decide on how the truth, as they perceived it, was to survive. The Romans were known to collect whatever they wished, especially unusual items, and transport them to Rome, and likely to the emperor. The candelabra from the temple was among the treasures seized, the Shroud would be also if it was found, and it was the proof that God was coming soon for the united group of Jews and Christians. It had “life blood” on it which was important, and thus it needed protection. The ultimate protection, even beyond its likely transfer to Antioch in a water jar, would be by removing it as proof of the resurrection. The proof then became a physical resurrection, one ending with the bodily ascension into heaven. There was nothing to be found on earth. The official records, the gospels, were amended to show this fact. And to ensure that at least some of God’s people survived, Jews and Christians officially became opponents. Jews officially recognized Vespasian as the coming messiah There are two different accounts of a Jewish leader, Josephus, a priest and rebel general, officially surrendered to Rome and predicted that Vespasian would become emperor in one account, and another account states that Rabbi Yochanan ben Zakkai was smuggled out of besieged Jerusalem and subsequently met with Vespasian to assure him that there were many Jews who still loved Rome, and in some accounts proclaimed Vespasian as the coming messiah. Rabbi Zakkai was allowed to establish a center for Rabbinical studies in Yavneh after the rebellion was finished and it was there, circa 73 CE, that the Jewish canon, which would ultimately become the Christian Old Testament was established.. Josephus, when he later wrote his histories, ignored Jesus and suggested that some mistakenly though that Izates of Adiabene would be the coming messiah.