The Gospel Timeline Doesn’t Match History — Here’s Why | Leena Einhorn

Comments · 289

• LL

  @lloydwilliammalcolm2169 · 2 days ago

  What an absolutely amazing, thought provoking episode and guest. Please get Leena back on again soon

  1

• LI

  @lillabotlik1975 · 2 days ago (edited)

  Fascinating indeed. It shows how messianic or other teachings of the time were dressed up using an actual historical backdrop and the sensitivities of the times warranted the putting on some veils and time shifts. Most people who were present would have probably figured out what happened but in other Provinces it became irrelevant. Thus the "myths" and personal identifications of dressed up characters started out and they continue to this day. Ms. Leena does a marvellous investigative job that does ring true. Please, Derek, bring back Ms. Leena, Ms. Leena, please come back to the show. Your books are a must. Thank you.

  1

• MI

  @mikeleidig9662 · 8 days ago

  Ms Einhorn is a wonderful gesture! Love her ❤️

  1

• JO

  @jojomr68 · 10 days ago

  I have enjoyed this interview so much!  I love Dr. Einhorn's energy and excitement for this fabulous topic.  I look forward to seeing her again for sure! ❤

  8

• RE

  @rekaajans130 · 10 days ago

  "Just as Lena Einhorn argues that the socio-political reality of the 50s CE in New Testament texts was shifted back to the setting of the 30s CE through a deliberate 'time shift'—leaving structural inconsistencies within the text—a similar 'narrative transplantation' can be observed in early Islamic texts, albeit on a spatial plane rather than a temporal one.While a significant portion of Quranic narratives, agricultural references, and theological polemics align seamlessly with the geography, ecology, and historical ecosystem of Jerusalem and the Levant, the historical placement of these narratives onto the Meccan focus mirrors the scenic shift found in Einhorn’s theory. Just as the historical remnants of the 50s bleed through the 30s setting in the New Testament, the topographical, agricultural, and theological traces of the original homeland (Jerusalem and its surroundings) leak out from beneath the text draped over the Meccan geography in the Islamic narrative. Both operations represent an effort to re-map the coordinates of textual reality—one in time, the other in space—in order to construct a new founding identity and domain of legitimacy."

  27

• FR

  @frankaapplin · 8 days ago

  I have literally read hundreds of books on the early Christianity, the Dead Sea Scrolls, Paul, James, and  mostly the historical Jesus. It culminated in writing my own book, "How Far Have We Strayed? Interpretation, Christianity, and the Historical Jesus." When I read Leena Einhorn two books, they shook me to the core because it answered so many questions that bounced around in the back of my mind. It was definitely a "Wow!" moment after so many years of searching. My questions if I had a chance to talk to her is what about Paul, James, Peter, and other items mentioned in Paul's Letters.

  5

• PO

  @positivity5307 · 10 days ago

  Your guest gets my highest compliment: thought-provoking.

  8

• PK

  @pkxdsisters7021 · 9 days ago

  I can hear Bart erhman chuckling right now

  1

• MI

  @mitchellhedden1978 · 10 days ago

  <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IWjpiPgJQJs&amp;t=254">4:14</a> <br>Is this gonna be a one hour argument from silence?

  2

• KA

  @KathyWillisUnicorn · 8 days ago

  Life-changing, ground-breaking ! Thank you. Keep pulling at these threads!

  2

• BA

  @Bacchante669 · 10 days ago

  Whoa. Her hypothesis is huge. Ordered two of her books.

  19

• AN

  @Anastasia-ip2yf · 9 days ago

  When I first heard—quite by chance, a few years ago—about Leena Einhorn’s thesis that Jesus was a transposition of the &quot;Egyptian Prophet&quot; and John the Baptist was a transposition of Theudas, it struck me as a discovery of immense significance. Whether or not the academic consensus embraces it, she hit the nail on the head, grasping the essential key to the labyrinth surrounding Jesus of Nazareth. There are, of course, other details open to debate—such as the fact that the Jesus figure is more of a puzzle that must also incorporate Judas of Gamala. However, there is one important point I wish to highlight: one cannot shift the timeframe of one figure while keeping that of others unchanged. If Mark substituted the figure of Jesus for that of the Egyptian Prophet, he must have read * The Antiquities*—or at least *The Jewish War*—which, given how books were circulated at the time, points to the very end of the first century. We need to place greater emphasis on the fact that Mark, not just Luke, was familiar with Josephus’s work. Another point is that Leena Einhorn’s thesis implies nothing regarding the historicity, dating, or ministry of Paul of Tarsus, as Flavius ​​Josephus does not mention him. Finally, while we can identify Jesus with the Egyptian Prophet in military terms, we cannot do so theologically, because we do not know what that figure actually proclaimed. The words put into Jesus’s mouth may simply reflect the views of various editors or popular wisdom. I do not believe it is necessary to claim that the creators of the Gospels were followers of the Egyptian Prophet, as it appears the latter’s followers perished at the hands of Roman troops. Nevertheless, thank you very much, Professor Einhorn, for this vitally important discovery. Academia will eventually recognize it, even if we have to wait decades. Thank you very much.

  5