the_agnostic_wanderer said

It seems to me that Jesus’ apocalyptic message of an imminent cleansing of the earth that would sweep away the unrighteous (that include the Romans too) was very politically charged. The Romans probably didn’t care much about the technicalities of Jesus’ theology but would have understood enough to know that guys like him preaching a coming “kingdom of God” usually spelled trouble. So the end of the day, even if Jesus’ did not preach armed insurrection, his clash with the Roman authorities seems inevitable. 

I’m not saying that he was predicting his impending death, but he must have known he was taking a rather dangerous path. Even if he considered himself just another prophet and not the “King of the Jews” or the Messiah he was fully aware of what happened to John the Baptist (whom he knew personally). It is not far-fetched to imagine that Jesus at least considered the possibility that one day he might face a similar fate. 

Pilate was well-known for his cruelty and his willingness to slaughter any Jewish rabble-rouser (he had no compunction about setting his troops on troublesome crowds of unarmed civilians and had done so several times).
Earlier we have Simon of Peraea (c 4 BC) and Athronges (c. 4-2 BC) who both led separate uprisings against the Herodians and the Romans – both attempts came to a swift and brutal end. So the threat of Roman retribution was clearly in the air – it is quite sure that Jesus at least heard about these incidents. 

Again, I’m not suggesting that he prophesied his death. But did he know how dangerous his mission was? Was he – in some sense – expecting to die?   

It’s a good hypothesis that he was.

Quite a few statements attributed to him in the Gospels indicate that Jesus saw his personal mission as culminating in his being killed. The Last Supper story makes that very clear, as does the order to “take up your cross and follow me”; in fact, he is even presented as calling Peter “Satan’ for daring to challenge the view that he would be handed over to the priests and be treated harshly. His refusal to defend himself when faced with accusations, after his arrest, is also easily explained on this view. 

Stephen said
And do you think the figure of David and his house is a “familiar motif in Ancient Near East literature”?

No, David is one of the greatest characters in all of ancient fiction.  Even if he was based on a historical character the account in the  Book of Samuel cannot be historically accurate.  The period described is one of the best attested in ancient history and we have zero evidence of the world empire described in the Bible.  

You have two academics – one studies how the bible is NO DIFFERENT to the literature of the Middle East, the other studies how the bible is DIFFERENT to all other religious literature. Which one is considered the “scholar” in the 20th and 21st Centuries? The former “no different” man – despite both men presenting facts and both equally qualified. The latter is a red-neck, conservative, fundamentalist, bible bashing, reactionary Christian propagandist. Our narcissistic and nihilist society is confronted by the bible. By dismissing Job, Moses, Elijah, Jesus etc we are really dismissing what they have to say, under the cover of “scholarship.”

Rubbish.  Go ahead and stay small while the world gets bigger.  

Been reading about the excavations at Shiloh. Here was Samuel, the second last Prophet of Israel. The ark was taken but typically the bible doesn’t mention the history around this – Shiloh was destroyed. But here we see evidence of the “horns of the altar” and Levitical sacrifice (right side only butchering) and the city destroyed. So that part ties up fine – when the Ark was returned it moved to Jerusalem. And we know the “House of David” existed in extra-biblical sources. 

The population of Israel, and its extent under Solomon is feasible. Tinma Valley excavations tell us the population at that time was much higher than first thought. And Israel expanded and contracted as the great empires collapsed late Bronze Age and were re-built. Tracking Israel is as difficult as tracking the Mongol Empire – after Exodus the Jews remained mostly a tent-dwelling people for several centuries. 

the_agnostic_wanderer said

It seems to me that Jesus’ apocalyptic message of an imminent cleansing of the earth that would sweep away the unrighteous (that include the Romans too) was very politically charged. The Romans probably didn’t care much about the technicalities of Jesus’ theology but would have understood enough to know that guys like him preaching a coming “kingdom of God” usually spelled trouble. So the end of the day, even if Jesus’ did not preach armed insurrection, his clash with the Roman authorities seems inevitable. 

I’m not saying that he was predicting his impending death, but he must have known he was taking a rather dangerous path. Even if he considered himself just another prophet and not the “King of the Jews” or the Messiah he was fully aware of what happened to John the Baptist (whom he knew personally). It is not far-fetched to imagine that Jesus at least considered the possibility that one day he might face a similar fate. 

Pilate was well-known for his cruelty and his willingness to slaughter any Jewish rabble-rouser (he had no compunction about setting his troops on troublesome crowds of unarmed civilians and had done so several times).
Earlier we have Simon of Peraea (c 4 BC) and Athronges (c. 4-2 BC) who both led separate uprisings against the Herodians and the Romans – both attempts came to a swift and brutal end. So the threat of Roman retribution was clearly in the air – it is quite sure that Jesus at least heard about these incidents. 

Again, I’m not suggesting that he prophesied his death. But did he know how dangerous his mission was? Was he – in some sense – expecting to die?   

I’m inclined to find this scenario very plausible: Jesus was fully expecting his death at the hands of the Pharisees, or the Herodians, or the Temple establishment. By getting killed at their hands — while being holy and innocent — he would be making sure that upon them would come “all the righteous blood that has been shed on earth” i.e. that they would get punished by God for killing him and others. The basic idea is laid out in Matthew 23:

³³ “You snakes! You brood of vipers! How will you escape being condemned to hell? ³⁴ Therefore I am sending you prophets and sages and teachers. Some of them you will kill and crucify; others you will flog in your synagogues and pursue from town to town. ³⁵ And so upon you will come all the righteous blood that has been shed on earth, from the blood of righteous Abel to the blood of Zechariah son of Berekiah, whom you murdered between the temple and the altar. ³⁶ Truly I tell you, all this will come on this generation.

I find this interpretation explains a lot, including the Temple incident, the prophecy of the Temple’s destruction, the command to his disciples to take up their crosses and follow him, his calling Peter “Satan” after Peter denies his prediction of his own suffering, his mysterious references to his future “baptism with which I must be baptized”, his refusal to defend himself at his trial, the Last Supper ritual, etc.

Stephen said
I find this interpretation explains a lot, including the Temple incident, the prophecy of the Temple’s destruction, the command to his disciples to take up their crosses and follow him, his calling Peter “Satan” after Peter denies his prediction of his own suffering, his mysterious references to his future “baptism with which I must be baptized”, his refusal to defend himself at his trial, the Last Supper ritual, etc.

I’m afraid I find this point of view extremely unlikely.  The only concept of  the Messiah Jesus  would have had available to him was the triumphalist one.  Of course after the fact his disciples would claim that he knew all along what would happen and that his death was part of the plan.  But I suspect the most surprised participant at the crucifixion was Jesus himself.  He expected vindication by angels and got executed for his trouble.   

This is the Jewish POV. It completely denies the Messiah as Redeemer. Why? Because the Jews didn’t see need for redemption, but to triumph over their enemies. Zechariah, about four centuries before Jesus, spoke of the reigning Messiah as being the same man who was lowly, rode upon a donkey and was pierced for his people.

Robert said

You’re obviously unaware of the ‘Jewish POV’ expressed in the Talmud’s discussion of this passage of Zecharaiah as a messianic text.  

I am aware of most anti-Redeemer “arguments” by Jews. It’s tiresome, given the large number of Redeemer prophecies given in the Tanakh. No wonder, the Tanakh was uniformly hostile of the Jewish people and spoke of the of their nation with the coming of the Redeemer. And it actually happened.

Stephen said
 But those prophets I mentioned here all spoke of the Messiah as Redeemer – something which confuses Judaism. 

That’s because it was retrofitted Christian invention.  

There remained this suspicion that the Old Testament itself was retrofitted to Christianity or modern Judaism since the fall of the temple. But the Dead Sea Scrolls ended such speculation.  There are TWO Messiahs in the Tanakh, one the reigning King and the other the suffering Redeemer. These were not invented by Christians. In fact it was the Jews themselves who brought Christianity to the Gentiles – not only Jewish converts from the time of John the Baptist but even many of the priests after Jesus died.