consequences

Hypothesis 1:  Just as it is possible that Iesous represented Simon bar Cochba (who, arguably was also represented as Simon Peter), and as it is possible that Lukuas was represented as the author of a gospel, and was represented among the disicples as Andreas, so it is possible that Quirinus  of the Lukan narrative was intended to represent Quietus (Kitos), and Herod  was intended to represent Hadrian.  Dates relating to Quirinus and Herod are essentially irrelevant to the texts for historical purposes, because the only reason for including them is to say “we’re NOT talking about what is going on right now [except, of course, we are].” 

hypothesis 2: regarding the development of early Christianity and the redaction of the Hebrew text to prohibit homosexuality, is that both occurred following the Bar Cochba Revolt.

Because the earliest extant fragments of gospels date from no earlier than the bar Cochba Revolt (the earliest fragments belonging to Matthew and John), it is probable that the documents were written by Judeans who agreed with Akiva that Bar Cochba was the anointed one who would restore the land of Israel.  This was confirmed to them because he did, in fact, restore the land of Israel for a scant two years. 

It is also probable that the texts were written at some time during the two years that bar Cochba restored the sovereignty of the land of Israel.  It is likely that the figure of Jesus was intended as a benign, pacifist representation of Simon bar Cochba, to reinforce his right and his claim to lead the Judean people.  It is likely that the identification of the protagonist as Iesou, was also intended to link bar Cochba to Yehoshua, the successor of Moses, who led the people into the land of Israel (whose book, in the LXX, is identified as the book of Iesous).  

It is also likely that the central figure was named Iesous because with that naming, the Judeans who followed bar Cochba could conceal from Roman authorities the depth of their need to believe that bar Cochba indeed was the Moshiach.  The text included Simon/Peter under his own name, with the statement “on this rock I will build my ekklesia---community.”  And so it was that for a brief time, Simon bar Cochba was the rock on which the land of Israel was reinstututed, and Israel briefly regained its sovereignty.

The brutality shown towards Judeans during the Bar Cochba Revolt almost certainly seemed similar, in Judean eyes, to the brutality inflicted on Judeans during the Maccabean revolt.  Thus texts (gospels) were written about bar Cochba in the style of 1 and 4 Maccabees  (Mark and Matthew, respectively). 

In the Gospel narratives, we find certain of the leaders of the Judean revolts represented among the disciples:  Simon /Peter and Andreas, to name two.  It is arguable that the attribution of a gospel to Luke was a way of commemorating Lukuas, the Judean commander who was also known as Andreas.

It is likely that since Greco-Romans who wanted to be accepted by Judeans as fully-functioning members of the Temple cult read the Judean text as if it was Greco-Roman text,  and thus believed that the anointed one, when he arrived, would be named Jesus, not Simon.

It is conjecturable then, that at when the Revolt was crushed, the Judeans who had written the narratives disowned them.  It is likely that the Greco-Romans who had wanted to be accepted as fully functioning members of the Temple cult obtained (found or received) them, and decided that these “biographical” narratives were the life-story of the itinerant philosopher/wonder-worker who they had been expecting. 

It is plausible that with the failure of the Bar Cochba Revolt, the texts were redacted to reflect the execution of its leader, and to add to hope that another opportunity for the reinstitution of sovereignty in the land of Israel would occur.

It is likely that those Greco-Romans wanted to be accepted by Judeans as fully functioning members of the Temple cult, but did not want the Roman authorities to confuse them with Judeans who participated in the revolt against Rome.

It is certain that with the failure of the Revolt, Greco-Romans who wanted to be accepted as fully-functioning members of the Temple cult realized that the Temple would not be restored. 

It is plausible that at that point, when Judeans were expelled from Jerusalem (and Temple cultic worship was impossible in any form), thos Greco-Romans who wanted to be accepted as fully-functioning members of the Judean Temple cult  asserted ownership of the text, and assumed ownership of those texts that had been written to incorporate the Bar Cochba revolt into the Judean canon, the gospels.

From then on, the schism was achieved:  Judeans were held liable for disrupting the Pax Romana, punished for it by Hadrian, and held in suspicion after Hadrian’s death.  Judean praxis changed to become portable and community centered.  The social structure closed so that community-held texts were first transmitted orally (to prevent them from being mistranslated/transliterated), and to secure them against outsiders.  Then, when the texts were finally written down, they were structured in a way that was inaccessible without specialized instruction, which could only be given to those whose commitment to the Judean people was assured.

Greco-Romans who asserted ownership of Judean texts needed to demonize the Judean people with whom the text had originated, both to secure their claim of rightful ownership, and to ensure that they were not held similarly liable for hostile disruption of Pax Romana.

The Protestant model for the development of the early church, that it was the product of divergent practices among small communities, does not hold if we accept as legitimate the Pauline letters.  If authentic, the Pauline letters indicate not that Paul was encouraging development of individual communities, but that he was attempting to unify the praxis of individual communities who all desired the same thing:  to be acceptable to Judeans as fully-functioning members of the Temple cult.  To that end, it would not be plausible to assume that the different communities desired to create or enforce their own individual interpretation of praxis.  It is more plausible to understand that they were attempting to achieve conformity with an as-yet-unexperienced norm.

In light of this, it is possible to conjecture that the redacted interpretations of Lev 18:22, Lev 20:13, and Genesis 19 were imposed on the text post-Hadrian, as a commentary on Hadrian, rather than as a rejection of Canaanite (via Dorff) or Greco-Roman “alternate practices” (via Scroggs).  As unpleasant as other Roman emperors might have been, and as gay as they might have been, no previous emperor had acted with the brutality that Hadrian inflicted on Judea and its people.  Hadrian was gay.  It is therefore probable that, as Haman was the demon of the book of Esther (the Haggada,h so Hadrian (and homosexuality in general) became the object of vilification by Judeans and proto-Christians.