Since forum posts seem to have disappeared due to problems with the blog – reposting this thread and as much of the previous postings that I can remember….
——————————————————————-
In a previous thread (Historical chart of Hasmonean/Jewish history as reflected in the gospel story) I set out to compare historical figures with the gospel figure of Jesus. Primarily viewing the gospel figure of Jesus as a composite figure. In this thread I’m going to focus on the gospel reflection of the last King and High Priest of the Jews, Antigonus II Mattathias (40-37 b.c.e.)
Antigonus was a ‘Man of War’ figure. A revolutionary, a zealot, a seditionist. While the gospel figure of Jesus does reflect a ‘Prince of Peace’ characteristic it also reflects a seditionist, zealot type Jesus. Yes, a zealot/revolutionary Jesus is not a new perspective. However, it is once again making itself felt in historical Jesus studies.
HAS THE HYPOTHESIS OF A SEDITIONIST
JESUS BEEN DEALT A FATAL BLOW?
A SYSTEMATIC ANSWER TO THE DOUBTERS
Fernando Bermejo Rubio
Abstract: A large number of objections have been raised against the hypothesis
that the Galilean preacher Jesus the Nazarene was involved in some kind of
anti-Roman seditious ideology and activity. It is usually contended that those
objections have dealt a fatal blow to the hypothesis, to the extent that the overwhelming majority of scholars take for granted that it is refuted and outdated.
The present article identifies those objections, and systematically argues that none
of them is really compelling. This sobering conclusion challenges deep-rooted
assumptions in the field, thereby providing a further cogent argument for the
view of Jesus as a figure whose message had subversive political implications and
was not ultimately incompatible with violence.
** you do not have permission to see this link **
Dale Martin has published an article: ‘Jesus in Jerusalem: Armed and Not Dangerous’.
‘’ Jesus led his followers, armed, to Jerusalem to participate in a heavenly-earthly battle to overthrow the Romans and their high-priestly client rulers of Judea’’.
** you do not have permission to see this link **
I’ve not read this article as a subscription or payment is required.
However, it’s been mentioned on a number of blogs. Newsweek also had an article:
JESUS WAS CRUCIFIED BECAUSE DISCIPLES WERE ARMED, BIBLE ANALYSIS SUGGESTS
The paper also suggests that Jesus may have been in favor of fighting, at least in this apocalyptic instance, Ehrman tells Newsweek.
“It’s making me rethink my view that Jesus was a complete pacifist,” he says. “And it takes a lot for me to change my views about Jesus.”
** you do not have permission to see this link **
As to the often asked question why only Jesus was crucified and not any of his followers:
“(Why) Was Jesus the Galilean Crucified Alone? Solving a False Conundrum”, Journal for the Study of the New Testament 36.2 (2013) 127-154.
Fernando Bermejo Rubio
** you do not have permission to see this link **
In response to Dale Martin; Paula Fredriksen:
Arms and The Man:
A Response to Dale Martin’s
‘Jesus in Jerusalem: Armed
and Not Dangerous’
Abstract
Did Jesus oppose the temple? Did he predict its destruction? Against the recent proposals
of Dale Martin, this article argues that the evidence is controvertible. However, the
article does agree that Jesus’ followers were probably armed with μάχαιραι; but so was
a significant proportion of Jerusalem’s male population, specifically at Passover. These
‘arms’, then, cannot explain Jesus’ arrest and execution.
** you do not have permission to see this link **
Advancing a different perspective on a revolutionary Jesus is Douglas Oakman:
The Political Aims of Jesus
Amid competing portrayals of the “cynic Jesus,” the “peasant Jesus,” and the “apocalyptic Jesus,” the “political Jesus” remains a marginal figure. Douglas E. Oakman argues that advances in our social-scientific understanding of the political economy of Roman Galilee, as well as advances in the so-called “Third Quest” for the historical Jesus, warrant a revival——and a critical revision——of H. S. Reimarus’s understanding of Jesus as an instigator of revolutionary change.
** you do not have permission to see this link **
I’ve not read this book – thinking of buying it…..
Dale Martin responds to his critics.
** you do not have permission to see this link **
”As for how I would address the so-called pacifist sayings in the Gospels, such as Luke 6 and Matthew 5, I did address this when Stanley Hauerwas asked me about it when I first gave the presentation at Duke. If Jesus said pacifist sounding sayings and teachings (we’d have to examine the historicity of those, which I’ve not done), I take it that he was advocating only a “strategic” passive stance—precisely to await the violence he certainly expected God to bring in the future. I am certain that one cannot find anywhere in the ancient Mediterranean world any kind of principle of nonviolence as we find it in the modern world with people like Gandhi or Martin Luther King, Jr. That just did not exist in the ancient world. Everyone, or at least everyone I can find, expected that some kind of violence was part of all life and all governance.
………………….
Historical discontinuity (a rebel Jesus and passive later church): Yes, there was, in my view, a sharp discontinuity, but that is easily explained (as I hint at toward the end of my article). After the disciples saw what a disaster the armed option was, what would be more natural than that they would abandon it? There is lots of discontinuity between the historical Jesus and later beliefs and practices. But this one is easy to explain: they tried the armed option and it failed. Come up with a different strategy to get the kingdom of God!”
==========================================
I like that point – ”a rebel Jesus and a passive later church”
Jewish nationalism could never be on the table, as it were, if the early christians were to make headway with the Gentiles. The early christians needed a new man, a non-violent man, if that missionary effort was to succeed. They needed a man to whom the title Prince of Peace could find meaning. In the years following the Roman execution of Antigonus such a man did live. A man who could be viewed as a Joseph type messiah figure as opposed to the Davidic type messiah figure of Antigonus. It is the combining, the fusing, of these two messiah types that is reflected in the gospel Jesus story. Not one man with a split personality; a split personality fails to do justice to either aspect of a character. Resulting in diminishing both the rebel/zealot and the peacemaker i.e. Jesus was a bit zealot like and a bit peacemaker like but never completely committed to either. Yes, of course, we all have personality traits re ‘war’ and ‘peace’ – but it’s those who can single-mindedly pursue an objective that have the potential to impact the social/political environment in which they live.
James Schamus writing screen script of Reza Aslan’s Zealot:
(long interview – comments re Zealot near the end)
January 23, 2016
SCHAMUS: Lionsgate and David have been so understanding, because I took a year to break down all of Reza Aslan’s research, and another half year writing a script. I turned in a first draft that was accompanied by a 300-page research bible, so that every single aspect of the story I’m telling about Jesus is in a world that I feel confident current scholarship can back me up. The gift that Reza Aslan gave is there’s been basically 100 years of amazing scholarship about first century Palestine, and Jesus, and Judaism in that era, and nobody’s ever paid attention to it in the culture. Reza was able to synthesize and tell a story that really reflects the current scholarly consensus, or at least the engagements of discussions about Jesus, and it is mind blowing. It’s a whole other story than you’ve ever imagined, and so, I did that first draft.
SCHAMUS: There is enough of a story there, and I won’t go into other specifics, because I’m actually just in the thick of it right now. But I just love these characters, I love this world, and it has renewed, for me, incredible interest in the birth of that particular spiritual construct. And also, in terms of Judaism itself, and what it is now, but what it was back then. Jesus was Jewish, as was his family. They were under Herod in the north, but they’re directly under the Romans in Judea, and so there are questions of occupation, and justice. It is truly amazing.
** you do not have permission to see this link **
——————————————————
No more gentle Jesus – revolutionary Jesus soon on a screen near you……
“Indeed, the Jesus that emerges from this historical exercise – a zealous revolutionary swept up, as all Jews of the era were, in the religious and political turmoil of first–century Palestine –bears little resemblance to the image of the gentle shepherd cultivated by the early Christian community.” Reza Aslan: Zealot
Zealot movie not a Christian movie…….
(Warning)
Based on ** you do not have permission to see this link **‘s Book and based on the comments, this is NOT a Christian Film
** you do not have permission to see this link **
—————————————————
Perhaps, for all the hype that this movie will generate, Aslan might just be the man to open wide a debate that scholars have long sidelined. If all the Zealot movie does is to ‘stir the pot’ – then maybe some forward movement in NT scholarship might follow…
Daniel Schwartz: ”After I completed the preparation of this paper, it came to my attention that
Hengel’s Die Zeloten (1976^) had just been published in English translation
{The Zealots [1989]).** It may be assumed that this will occasion a renewed
discussion of the issues involved, and, in the absence of Brandon to stir the
pot, it may be that a redressing of the balance may be possible. However, you
never know. It is much simpler to determine what extraneous events and
scholarly fashions impacted upon debates of the past than how they will impact
upon debates of the future”.
Studies in the Jewish Background of Christianity
** you do not have permission to see this link **
Great that’ll give Prof Ehrman another chance to do interviews and videos showing how ridiculously inaccurate Reza Aslan’s book is.
If you want to see a great movie that takes as its theme a revolutionary marxist interpretation of the life of Jesus investigate Italian director Pier Paolo Pasolini’s THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO ST MATTHEW. It’s doubtful the new movie will even approach within light years of Pasolini’s masterpiece. The only version available seems to be dubbed into English but I understand this movie has legal issues with Pasolini’s estate, alas. Criterion Collection wherefore art thou?
The most insufferable thing about Reza Aslan, aside from his lying about his credentials, is that he gives everybody the impression he’s newly discovered all this stuff. This is an old old theory.
Stephen said
Great that’ll give Prof Ehrman another chance to do interviews and videos showing how ridiculously inaccurate Reza Aslan’s book is.
If you want to see a great movie that takes as its theme a revolutionary marxist interpretation of the life of Jesus investigate Italian director Pier Paolo Pasolini’s THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO ST MATTHEW. It’s doubtful the new movie will even approach within light years of Pasolini’s masterpiece. The only version available seems to be dubbed into English but I understand this movie has legal issues with Pasolini’s estate, alas. Criterion Collection wherefore art thou?
The most insufferable thing about Reza Aslan, aside from his lying about his credentials, is that he gives everybody the impression he’s newly discovered all this stuff. This is an old old theory.
Yep, as you say – ‘This is an old theory’ – but that’s the point! Reza Aslan is actually of secondary interest – the ‘pot’ will be stirred re the Zealot movie and that’s where my interest lies. As the quote from Daniel Schwartz indicated, this issue would do well by a ‘redressing ‘.
As you will have seen from posts that preceded the one you replied to – there are a number of NT scholars prepared to do just that.
——————–
”But we had hoped that he was the one to redeem Israel” (Luke 24.21).
The publishing house of Douglas Oakman’s book – The Political Aims of Jesus – have available a pdf of the first chapter.
** you do not have permission to see this link **
** you do not have permission to see this link **
Chapter.1 from The Political Aims of Jesus by Douglas Oakman
Revisiting Reimarus
Hermann Samuel Reimarus (1694–1768), the founder of modern historical Jesus study, was essentially correct—Jesus’ aims were different from those of his post-Easter disciples—but Reimarus’s views need to be modified by
social-scientific criticism and restated in the light of “Current Quest” investigations (“Current Quest” is my term). The argument of this present book is quite straightforward: in the eyes of his Palestinian contemporaries, Jesus’ interests
and historical activity were materially political in aim; after his death, those who remained loyal to Jesus’ memory began to proclaim him as the center of a new Greco-Roman religious cultus—first in Syro-Palestine and then in the
eastern Roman cities. As many Jesus scholars have long noted, the Jesus of history became the Christ of faith (David F. Strauss); the proclaimer became the proclaimed (Rudolf Bultmann). Apocalyptic Judean conceptions provided the
first major frameworks for interpreting Jesus’ significance (as Albert Schweitzer showed in his discussion of “thorough-going eschatology,” and as Wilhelm Wrede showed regarding what he called the “messianic secret”). These conceptions, of course, distanced Jesus automatically from mundane concerns. The displacement of the center of Jesus memory from rural Galilee to the Christ followers of the cities, close to the imperial elites, led to further revisions in the
statements of Jesus’ worldly significance.
=================
This point, to my mind, sums up the problems that present themselves when the Jesus figure is viewed through a theological or apocalyptic lens. i.e. distance from ‘mundane concerns‘. That is the cost of denying the gospel Jesus figure a political role.
”These conceptions, of course, distanced Jesus automatically from mundane concerns’.
This point, to my mind, sums up the problems that present themselves when the Jesus figure is viewed through a theological or apocalyptic lens. i.e. distance from ‘mundane concerns‘. That is the cost of denying the gospel Jesus figure a political role.
”These conceptions, of course, distanced Jesus automatically from mundane concerns’
I think this has it exactly backwards. This was the point of my post “Is Jesus Irrelevant?” It is precisely because the apocalyptic view distances us from Jesus that makes it so compelling. Non-apocalyptic views, including political ones, are attempts to make Jesus relevant and suffer from anachronism, reading contemporary concerns into the original sources.
Stephen said
This point, to my mind, sums up the problems that present themselves when the Jesus figure is viewed through a theological or apocalyptic lens. i.e. distance from ‘mundane concerns‘. That is the cost of denying the gospel Jesus figure a political role.”These conceptions, of course, distanced Jesus automatically from mundane concerns’
I think this has it exactly backwards. This was the point of my post “Is Jesus Irrelevant?” It is precisely because the apocalyptic view distances us from Jesus that makes it so compelling. Non-apocalyptic views, including political ones, are attempts to make Jesus relevant and suffer from anachronism, reading contemporary concerns into the original sources.
The ‘end is nigh’ is a phenomenon that periodically raises it’s head throughout history. What would be your opinion of those preaching apocalyptic ideas today? And, since life and society continues to evolve, a failed apocalyptic preacher is hardly a worthwhile career choice….And fail they all must. Why? Because no man can foretell the future. Yes, one can take pot-shots. One can maybe run statistics on history – it does have a habit of repeating itself – but the repeats are never carbon-copies.
As for the gospel Jesus figure: apocalyptic is relevant only as an afterwards belief by his followers. That early christian writers had an interest in apocalyptic reflects their Jewish context – and thus interest in and interpretation of their history. To go from that and state that the Jesus figure was an apocalyptic preacher – is, to my mind, a step too far. Assuming that a historical Jesus went around preaching ‘the end is nigh’ diminishes this figure
The point made by the quote from Douglas Oakman places emphasis on the ‘here and now’ – not on what may or may not happen in some future time. Apocalyptic so easily loses track of *today* while it waits for some future ‘salvation’. Indeed, a better future is what everyone wants – but that better future starts *today*.
A political Jesus figure, a figure concerned with the social/political environment in which he lived – that is a figure that ‘talks’ to people today – as that figure would have talked to people two thousand years ago. Apocalyptic is a poor substitute for a hand to hold and a heart to reach out to ones fellow man in the living situation he find himself in. Humanitarianism trumps apocalyptic any day of the week….
What would be your opinion of those preaching apocalyptic ideas today?
Delusional just like Jesus probably was.
As for the gospel Jesus figure: apocalyptic is relevant only as an afterwards belief by his followers. That early christian writers had an interest in apocalyptic reflects their Jewish context – and thus interest in and interpretation of their history. To go from that and state that the Jesus figure was an apocalyptic preacher – is, to my mind, a step too far.
You should investigate further. Scholars can demonstrate that apocalypticism is the most primitive part of the tradition. In the sources available to us, the NT and Josephus, John the Baptist is depicted as an apocalypticist. The earliest writings in the New Testament, Paul’s letters are thoroughly apocalyptic. The later writings, including the gospels, show a tendency to move AWAY from the apocalyptic view.
Assuming that a historical Jesus went around preaching ‘the end is nigh’ diminishes this figure
A political Jesus figure, a figure concerned with the social/political environment in which he lived – that is a figure that ‘talks’ to people today – as that figure would have talked to people two thousand years ago. Apocalyptic is a poor substitute for a hand to hold and a heart to reach out to ones fellow man in the living situation he find himself in. Humanitarianism trumps apocalyptic any day of the week….
Yes the political Jesus “talks” to people today because they have created him in their own image. The point of my “Is Jesus Irrelevant?” post. Jesus lived in a completely different conceptual universe than we do today. Even his current followers don’t live in that same conceptual universe. Learning about him doesn’t bring him closer, it pushes him further away from us. To know him is to lose him.
Stephen said
What would be your opinion of those preaching apocalyptic ideas today?Delusional just like Jesus probably was.
So…a delusional apocalyptic preacher, a delusional, failed, apocalyptic preacher who, after his Roman execution, his followers bestowed divinity upon……negativity turned into positivity by the magic trick of belief in a resurrection….and this is the origin of Christianity – a religion with the aim of converting the world to the ‘truth’ of it’s theology/philosophy….???
As for the gospel Jesus figure: apocalyptic is relevant only as an afterwards belief by his followers. That early christian writers had an interest in apocalyptic reflects their Jewish context – and thus interest in and interpretation of their history. To go from that and state that the Jesus figure was an apocalyptic preacher – is, to my mind, a step too far.
You should investigate further. Scholars can demonstrate that apocalypticism is the most primitive part of the tradition. In the sources available to us, the NT and Josephus, John the Baptist is depicted as an apocalypticist. The earliest writings in the New Testament, Paul’s letters are thoroughly apocalyptic. The later writings, including the gospels, show a tendency to move AWAY from the apocalyptic view.
The move is not away from apocalyptic – the move is towards apocalyptic. Revelation, after all, must be the very pinnacle of an apocalyptic handbill. The early gospel figure of Jesus was political, revolutionary, seditious. The gospel story is a move away from Jewish nationalism necessitated by a move towards the Gentiles. Apocalyptic, like prophetic fulfillment, was a ‘tool’ used by the gospel writers to accomplish the *end* of the Jewish Law – an end that brought with it the freedom to pursue the Gentile mission.
Assuming that a historical Jesus went around preaching ‘the end is nigh’ diminishes this figure
A political Jesus figure, a figure concerned with the social/political environment in which he lived – that is a figure that ‘talks’ to people today – as that figure would have talked to people two thousand years ago. Apocalyptic is a poor substitute for a hand to hold and a heart to reach out to ones fellow man in the living situation he find himself in. Humanitarianism trumps apocalyptic any day of the week….
Yes the political Jesus “talks” to people today because they have created him in their own image. The point of my “Is Jesus Irrelevant?” post. Jesus lived in a completely different conceptual universe than we do today. Even his current followers don’t live in that same conceptual universe. Learning about him doesn’t bring him closer, it pushes him further away from us. To know him is to lose him.
”To know him is to lose him”. You have well and truly lost me with that statement.
So…a delusional apocalyptic preacher, a delusional, failed, apocalyptic preacher who, after his Roman execution, his followers bestowed divinity upon……negativity turned into positivity by the magic trick of belief in a resurrection….and this is the origin of Christianity – a religion with the aim of converting the world to the ‘truth’ of it’s theology/philosophy….???
BINGO!
The move is not away from apocalyptic – the move is towards apocalyptic. Revelation, after all, must be the very pinnacle of an apocalyptic handbill. The early gospel figure of Jesus was political, revolutionary, seditious. The gospel story is a move away from Jewish nationalism necessitated by a move towards the Gentiles. Apocalyptic, like prophetic fulfillment, was a ‘tool’ used by the gospel writers to accomplish the *end* of the Jewish Law – an end that brought with it the freedom to pursue the Gentile mission.
So you say. But the evidence simply doesn’t bear this out. And you should avoid ascribing motives to the gospel writers. We don’t even know who they were much less their motivations. All we can do is look at the sources available to us. And the further back you go the more apocalyptic the tradition.
”To know him is to lose him”. You have well and truly lost me with that statement.
I’m simply saying that when we understand the historical Jesus in his own time and place he becomes a figure alien and strange to us. Even his current followers don’t think the way he thought. In fact if someone came along today thinking like he thought and teaching what he tought we wouldn’t think of him as a prophet from God but as kind of a nut.
Stephen said
So…a delusional apocalyptic preacher, a delusional, failed, apocalyptic preacher who, after his Roman execution, his followers bestowed divinity upon……negativity turned into positivity by the magic trick of belief in a resurrection….and this is the origin of Christianity – a religion with the aim of converting the world to the ‘truth’ of it’s theology/philosophy….???BINGO!
The move is not away from apocalyptic – the move is towards apocalyptic. Revelation, after all, must be the very pinnacle of an apocalyptic handbill. The early gospel figure of Jesus was political, revolutionary, seditious. The gospel story is a move away from Jewish nationalism necessitated by a move towards the Gentiles. Apocalyptic, like prophetic fulfillment, was a ‘tool’ used by the gospel writers to accomplish the *end* of the Jewish Law – an end that brought with it the freedom to pursue the Gentile mission.
So you say. But the evidence simply doesn’t bear this out. And you should avoid ascribing motives to the gospel writers. We don’t even know who they were much less their motivations. All we can do is look at the sources available to us. And the further back you go the more apocalyptic the tradition.
So you say…..re apocalyptic tradition. Evidence? All we have is the gospel story – a story open to interpretation – various interpretations. The value of an interpretation lies in it’s ability to offer insights that can throw light upon early christian origins. Apocalyptic can’t do that. Apocalyptic is a ‘belief’ system – it deals with ideas. If we are searching for early christian origins then we need to get past ideas that might have been held 2000 years ago. We have to deal with reality – and that means the social political situation. What early christians believed about that situation is one thing – what the reality was can be something quite different. History is paramount. Interpretation, finding meaning, ‘salvation’ meaning or relevance, in that history is secondary. Apocalyptic only comes into play if one has some specific catastrophic end in mind. It’s not a recipe for finding contentment in whatever life happens to throw at one. Somethings in life cannot be changed, however great the promises of apocalyptic.
”To know him is to lose him”. You have well and truly lost me with that statement.
I’m simply saying that when we understand the historical Jesus in his own time and place he becomes a figure alien and strange to us.
People don’t change that much. Human nature is what it is – today and two thousand years ago. Ideas change, a world view might change, but people respond to their social/political environment in just the same way. Inhumanity has never won a popularity contest….
Even his current followers don’t think the way he thought. In fact if someone came along today thinking like he thought and teaching what he tought we wouldn’t think of him as a prophet from God but as kind of a nut.
And that, Stephen, is the very reason to question the historicity of that gospel Jesus figure. If that gospel figure is not relevant today – then that figure was not relevant 2000 years ago. However, remove all the top dressing; remove the prophetic fulfillment, remove the mythology, remove the apocalyptic, remove the theology – and search for historical figures that were relevant to history. Historical figures that left their mark upon history – and hence were relevant to the lives of the gospel writers.
Re-contextualizing apocalyptic…..
If one seeks to find value in apocalyptic then it becomes necessary to change the context in which this idea can find value. As a concept that seeks a catastrophic end to the world – end of evil and theocracy rules or end of world and the faithful are evacuated on that great sky escalator to heaven – apocalyptic has no value whatsoever. The physical world and the social/political environment continue. Of course, history demonstrates that change occurs. That’s simply evolutionary change. Sometimes slow and sometimes dramatic. In a physical world apocalyptic has no relevance.
However, apocalyptic, dealing as it does with a catastrophic end, does have value within an intellectual world. Apocalyptic is an idea about catastrophic change – catastrophic change that brings benefit, brings value. Within an intellectual world of ideas, apocalyptic, catastrophic ends, leads the way to new better ideas. And, of course, with this view, the gospel Jesus was not an apocalyptic preacher. It is those who interpreted his life (assuming a historical Jesus here for the sake of argument) as bringing an end to the Jewish Law; those who interpreted his death, his end, as leading to a resurrection, leading to benefits, leading to value, who were the apocalyptic preachers.
Most times ideas don’t go easily to their deathbeds. They fight for the glory days of their youth. Necessitating intellectual ‘warfare’ to bring them down, to assign them their place in the museum of intellectual curiosities. Apocalyptic ideas are best suited to intellectual ‘warfare’ not physical realities of either flesh and blood or the social/political environment.
Yes, the NT Paul was an apocalyptic – but what did he do? Is he not often referred to as the founder of Christianity? A new world view. A new theology/philosophy. A new set of ideas. The old ideas must end in catastrophe in order for Paul’s new intellectual vision to arrive and prosper. Without the resurrection all is in vain – but the resurrection required the cross. No, not the abomination of human sacrifice, not sacrifice of flesh and blood, but sacrifice of outdated mental images, sacrifice of old ideas. That is Paul’s humanitarian apocalyptic legacy.
Why is the Hypothesis that Jesus Was an Anti-Roman Rebel Alive and Well?
Theological Apologetics versus Historical Plausibility
Fernando Bermejo-Rubio
** you do not have permission to see this link **
”The fact that the building blocks of the above-mentioned hypothesis come from the New Testament writings makes evident that the seditious Jesus is also a remembered Jesus (although probably an uncomfortably remembered one). This, in turn, means that if Jesus was not a seditionist, the Gospels – as far as they contain much evidence which is otherwise unintelligible – would be desperately absurd and meaningless texts. The involvement of Jesus in anti-Roman activities seems to be an inescapable corollary”.
————————————————————————————-
The seditious Jesus is a remembered Jesus!
Once memory is deemed to be relevant to the gospel story then history is relevant. For a story that has it’s final moments set in the years around 30/33 c.e. questions arise as to what would be the history that would already be in memory during those years. Is there anything in that history that could have contributed to the gospel writers placing their Roman execution story, a story about a King of the Jews being executed by Rome, in those specific years? One reason could well be that the last King and High Priest of the Jews, Antigonus, was executed by Rome in 37 c.e. – 70 years earlier….
Yes, as the chart I posted in another thread indicates, I view the gospel Jesus figure as a composite figure. A figure reflecting historical figures. A number of NT scholars are indicating, the gospel Jesus figure was a seditious figure. A revolutionary figure, a Jewish rebel, a Jewish zealot. Also, these NT scholars are indicating the seditious element in the gospel Jesus story was a later development in the gospel figure i.e. it centers around Jerusalem and the Roman execution. What this suggests is that the gospel story has fused the crucifixion, the Roman execution, with the life of another historical figure; a later historical figure, a historical figure that was not executed by Rome. A historical figure that was not a revolutionary, seditious, zealot type figure.
The gospel story, as a political allegory, has condensed history that was relevant to the gospel writers. History that covered a far wider canvas than the short ministry given to the gospel Jesus figure. It is within Hasmonean history that the gospel writers found the inspiration to turn tragedy into triumph. It’s from the ashes of the Hasmonean Kingdom that the NT ‘spiritual’ kingdom arose.
** you do not have permission to see this link **
Reposting from another thread…..
============
Apocalyptic preachers are more like a side-show – they don’t have the wherewithal to effect change within the social/political environment. It’s those prepared to man the barricades that do that. Needless to say, the gospel Jesus was a failure in both apocalyptic and revolution. And yet…………………on a literal reading of the gospel story…. that is what is celebrated as a means of ‘salvation’….failure. Failure overcome by the NT magic trick of resurrection.
Reason, logic itself, requires that such an interpretation of the gospel story is nonsensical.
The Allies celebrated victory – just as the dead are annually celebrated by ceremonies of remembrance. And the Germans? No – defeat is never a reason to celebrate, to remember with pride.
What the gospel crucifixion story is remembering is not any event of the 30/33 c.e. time-frame. The revolutionary victory that was won over the Romans, albeit for a short 3 years, was that of Antigonus in 40 b.c.e. Yes, defeat came in 37 b.c.e. – but the moment of ‘glory’ – of a Jewish kingdom free from Rome – would not be forgotten.
** you do not have permission to see this link **
BDEhrman
FreedomBen
evgendob
Robert
1 Guest(s)