Herod the Great sought out the Jews in the Diaspora.
How did Jesus seek out the Jews in the Diaspora?
As king, Herod the Great was King of the Jews because he sought to make good with Galilee, Judea, Idumea, and with the Diaspora.
The biblical Jesus did not put enough time into building up Judea, the Diaspora, the Hellenists, or the Idumeans. Jesus did not have an audience with Queen Helena.
Jesus and his kingdom of righteousness was less a king of the Jews than Herod the Great was King of the Jews.
Jesus and his Son of Man’s kingdom of righteousness was less an empire than Augustus Caesar’s empire.
Jesus and his 12 judges, his disciples vs Augustus Caesar and the many client kingdoms (Herod the Great’s kingdom included), the Senate, the military leaders, the educating of the princes of Rome’s territories by Augustus so they would grow up to be kings vs the sermons to the public at large of Jesus; the succession planning of Augustus vs what succession planning of Jesus.
What the frack are you going on about?
Herod didn’t care about the Jews. They were his path to power, for himself and his family–without them, he had nothing to offer Rome. The more Jews he has under his control, the more powerful he is. So he tries to lure them back. (Where many would be killed in the failed uprising, and the Temple he built would be almost totally destroyed (a few stones left standing on each other, but maybe Jesus meant it metaphorically–it wasn’t a hard guess, seeing what had happened to the last one).
The Diaspora has always been the way for the Jewish people to prove their greatness, anyway. Name most of the great people in history who were Jewish. Consider how few of them were born in Palestine (these days, many Israelis don’t even want to call it Palestine, because that implies the Palestinians have a right to live there. Politics.)
It’s a philosophical difference–yes, of course Herod and Augustus both built well, were both talented statesmen. In their own time, they were both vastly more significant than Jesus.
But in the end, Shelley is always right.
What Jesus wrought remains. Very different from what he imagined. But it all began in his imagination. Kingdoms fall. Empires fall. Temples fall. Cathedrals burn. He remains.
Ideas are all that ever remain. Who figured Socrates to be the most influential of the Greeks? Him and many other a thinker has outlived kings and emperors. Jesus was just a different kind of thinker.
Steefen
How did Jesus seek out the Jews in the Diaspora?
godspell
No answer
Steefen
Luke 10
After appointing the 70 (or 72) disciples, Jesus spoke of the great need for evangelism (Luke 10:1–2). He then commissioned the 70. It seems their ministry was specific to preparing Jesus’ path to Jerusalem.
A similar commissioning had occurred with Jesus’ twelve apostles as the Lord sent them out to cure diseases and cast out demons (Matthew 10:1–42; Luke 9:1–6). The main difference is that Jesus had told the Twelve that they were to preach in Galilee, avoiding Gentile areas and Samaria, but the 70 (or 72) were given no such restriction.
So, no, Luke 10 cannot be used to show Jesus sought out the Jews in the Diaspora.
Jesus, who started a Son of Man Movement about a new kingdom of God/Righteousness/Heaven and said this kingdom was already present, did not have the political organization for the population of is kingdom, say, the lost sheep of Israel, either in Israel or in the Diaspora.
With an awareness of the recent history of the kingdom of Herod the Great, Idumea would have been a stop on his campaign tour before going into Jerusalem. Given the role of the Idumeans in Jewish Civil War and Jewish Revolt against Rome and given Jesus’s foretelling of events about the Jewish Civil War and Jewish Revolt, he would have had a message for the Idumeans.
Jesus and his kingdom of righteousness was less a king of the Jews than Herod the Great was King of the Jews because when one compares the job description in effect of Jesus vs. Herod the Great, Herod the Great’s kingdom at hand was more practical.
Jesus and his Son of Man’s kingdom of righteousness was less an empire than Augustus Caesar’s empire.
godspell
Herod didn’t care about the Jews. They were his path to power, for himself and his family–without them, he had nothing to offer Rome. The more Jews he has under his control, the more powerful he is. So he tries to lure them back.
Steefen
But you say, “yes, of course Herod … built well, was a talented statesman. In his own time, he was vastly more significant than Jesus.”
For the Jewish people: Herod the Great built well, was a talented statesman, vastly more significant than Jesus for the Jewish people.
And of course you cannot blame the Jewish Civil War and the Jewish Revolt on Herod the Great.
godspell
It’s a philosophical difference.
Steefen
It is not a philosophical difference of political contribution vs. spiritual contribution. Jesus taught about an actual kingdom marked by God’s intervention. I would also call Jesus’ preached vision of a theocratic kingdom with excellent health care by commonplace healthcare miracles and judicial excellence producing a kingdom of righteousness a political contribution.
godspell
But in the end, Shelley is always right.
What Jesus wrought remains. Very different from what he imagined. But it all began in his imagination. Kingdoms fall. Empires fall. Temples fall. Cathedrals burn. He remains. Ideas are all that ever remain. Who figured Socrates to be the most influential of the Greeks? Him and many other a thinker has outlived kings and emperors. Jesus was just a different kind of thinker.
Steefen
Jesus remains. Actually, he does not. He taught people to remember him by drinking his blood and eating his body. Medical science says that thought has decayed, boundless and bare, and where that was is now lone and level sands stretched far away because blood from another person goes into the circulatory system by transfusion not into the digestive system. Jesus was so stuck on that idea that he went against the book of Leviticus and more to proclaim it.
Second, Jesus’s crucifixion was atonement for the sins of the world. With all of the sins since his crucifixion up to the present day, God is satisfied because his son was crucified. That too has decayed, boundless and bare, where that was is now lone and level sands stretched far away. That is the pinnacle of the judicial system in Kingdom of Righteousness. It is not: it is ineffective. God can see us now–now that his son has been crucified.
Remove the weekly or monthly musical dinner theater
of the recitation of crucifixion atonement and the retrograde and unscientific Holy Communion ritual.
Remove the impractical political apparatus of the Son of Man movement.
Remove the god who will see us now, now that his son has been executed.
It seemed a pretty pointless question, about Jesus and the Diaspora, so I didn’t answer it. Obviously he believed all people of good will, including all Jews of good will, would be in the Kingdom. He had no need to seek them out, nor did he have the resources. That really should be obvious to anyone who posts here, given how hard Bart has worked to make it clear. You just don’t pay attention very well.
You are at least as literal-minded as any religious fundamentalist I’ve encountered. You, like they, believe either everything in the bible is true or none of it. This is what I’ve learned, over and over. People who worship Jesus uncritically and people who hate him uncritically, are in fact the same people. They’ve just chosen different extremes. And the truth is never in the extremes.
(Question–how much of what we ‘know’ about Herod and Augustus is true? Historians argue about them as well. You don’t care.)
Jesus remains. Proof? Here you are, talking endlessly about him. Not Herod or Augustine. They’re just your beards. 😉
Adam Kolman Marshak, Author of The Many Faces of Herod the Great
Herod actively promoted Diaspora communities and offered himself as an effective patron. In turn. these communities supported his kingdom by making pilgrimages to Jerusalem as well as paying the half-shekel tax to the Temple, an institution over which he exercised significant control.
By the end of his reign, he had managed to bind the Diaspora and Judaean communities more tightly together, creating a larger and more connected Jewish ethnos, which extended throughout the Mediterranean and had him as its primary patron and spokesperson. In effect, Herod transformed from being king only of Judaea to being Melekh HaYehudim, King of the Jews.
For Jews, the term Melekh HaYehudim (“king of the Jews”) was connected with the glorious past of the Davidic monarchy and the First Temple period.
The greatest evidence for Herod’s desire to be the new Solomon was the rebuilding of the Temple. The completion of the Temple will be the most notable of his accomplishments and the one that will earn him eternal fame. It will also be a tremendous and conspicuous act of piety.
As a sign of his dedication to the project, Herod advertises that he will fund the entire enterprise. The project significantly enhanced Herod’s status as a pious monarch. No other initiative during Herod’s reign accumulated more prestige and fame for him among his Jewish subjects than his work on the Temple Mount. It solidified his position as a Jewish king in his own right. Herod achieved what he most desired: association and identification with the Davidic monarchy, particularly Solomon.
= = =
In the past, most Herodian scholars accepted Josephus’s assertion that Herod was more Greek than Jewish, at best, ambivalent toward Judaism and at worst, antagonistic toward it. It is only recently that such a viewpoint has come to be seen as overly simplistic.
Herod did consider himself a Jew and accordingly felt himself bound by certain obligations and commandments. As king of Judaea and the most visible representative of his religion around the Roman world, he actively attempted to live a “Jewish” life within and in harmony with the larger Graeco-Roman world. His public religiosity was as much a part of his self-presentation to his Jewish audience as it was to his Hellenistic and Roman audiences. He was a fully Hellenistic, Romanized Jewish king, the first of a new breed of Jewish rulers who felt at home in each of these worlds.
Who are you arguing with? And why can’t you make arguments of your own, instead of quoting random scholars, while ignoring most of them? Are you trying to prove me right, when I said historians argue over Herod as well?
Again, there is no historical figure of whom differing opinions are not expressed. If most Herodian scholars think one thing, you can’t just say “This one thinks differently” and call it an argument.
Herod considered himself a lot of things–most of us have divided identities–but mainly his loyalty was to himself and his (famously dysfunctional) family. Not the Greeks, the Jews, or even the Romans, but he knew the Romans could easily crush him if he wasn’t careful. He was stuck in a balancing act, like any client king, and he figured this would strengthen his position. Obviously it didn’t work–I wonder if it backfired? The returned exiles might have been more extreme in their nationalistic sentiments, leading to the uprising, which ultimately led Rome to exercise direct control and do away with the client kingship. Whatever the reason, what he built barely lasted a single human lifetime.
The Diaspora in this case was voluntary. Nobody was being held captive in Babylon (which didn’t exist anymore). Some Jews, for a variety of reasons, preferred to live away from their homeland, as is still the case today. And based on what we know, a very large percentage of Jews, at home and abroad, deeply distrusted Herod, which makes sense.
There was a word for anyone who ever trusted Herod the Great–stupid.
And if we’re being 100% honest, the only reason most people even know Herod and his family existed is the role they play in the gospel story. Supporting players in the life of Jesus, who they were at best marginally aware of. History has a way of playing tricks like that on the great and powerful.
The practicality and feasibility of the Son of Man’s Kingdom of God/Heaven/Righteousness (how realistic the dream could be of Jesus manifesting Zechariah’s messianic city) determines how guilty Jesus was of leading people astray with his Son of Man movement (how guilty he was, as Josephus puts it: being an innovator) and how worthy he was of being disliked by Jewish and Roman authorities.
Compared to the Kingdom of Herod the Great and Augustus’ Rome and territories, how realistic, practical, and feasible was Jesus’ Kingdom of God/Heaven/Righteousness? If it was too idealistic or even sophomoric, his enemies were justified in their claim that he led Jews astray with his political visions which also included the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Power?
Jesus messianic city (partly fulfilling Zechariah’s prophecy) did not materialize in Jesus’ lifetime or within his 40 days of resurrection or with the extra day appearance to Paul, if there was a legitimate appearance to Paul.
The political accomplishments of Augustus (military, transitioning Rome from a republic to an empire, ending Civil War, buildings and infrastructure, as pontifex maximus, building piety and moral character, etc.) and Herod the Great (being a leading and exemplary Hellenized client king, supporting the Diaspora, making Jerusalem great again with overtures to David and Solomon by way of successfully embarking on the construction of the Temple of Jerusalem, etc.) should have been the standards against which Jesus’ political initiatives should have been judged for endorsement or they should have paled against what God could do.
Was the political presence of Jesus and his political aspiration to have his kingdom cabinet of 12 disciple-judges (Matthew 19: 28 ) his downfall?
I’m afraid realism is in the eye of the beholder. Jesus thought God himself would establish the kingdom, and make him king. Pilate and the Romans were not interested in theological nuances. You think you’re a king? OK, this is what we do to people who want to be king….
Steefen
Schweitzer said there was a successful phase of Jesus’ mission and a tragic phase of Jesus’ mission. You said Jesus was an apocalyptic prophet.
Looking at the successful phase (the kingdom is at hand, the blind is given sight, the lame walk therefore the God of the Torah rejects no one because none have blemishes)
as opposed to the later tragic phase (rejection of the one who comes to Jerusalem humbly on a donkey in the name of the Lord, premonition of the tribulation of the destruction of Jerusalem, capture, conviction, and crucifixion),
we ask, Did apocalyptic prophet Jesus lead people astray from political realities to believe God would establish, not only Zechariah’s messianic city, but a kingdom of Israel.
There is no question here as to whether or not Pilate and Emperor Tiberius were going to brake for Jesus,
especially with Jesus not campaigning his kingdom prophecy to
Philip the Tetrarch (of Northeast Palestine, Gaulantis, Batanea, Trachonitis),
Herod Antipas (Tetrarch of Galilee and Perea), and
Herod Archelaus (Tetrarch of Samaria, Judea, and Idumea; the three areas were later combined under the name Iudaea province and ruled by a prefect)
Herod Archelaus was banished to Vienne of Gaul, so Jesus would have had to campaign his kingdom to Pilate after garnering the support of Philip and Herod Antipas.
Political Realism is in the eye of the beholders or political realism: Herod Antipas in Galilee for starters, Philip, Pilate, then Tiberius as opposed to his god intervening, turning over the tables of empire/sponsor government of the client kingdom of Palestine and the management of Herod the Great’s successors.
The question for Christianity in Antiquity and Christians today: do we endorse Jesus’ political vision. The answer seems to be no.
In The Great Courses, From Jesus to Constantine: A History of Early Christianity, you approximately said after the exiles and defeats of the Jewish people, Jewish religion moved away from expecting God’s intervention (especially on the scale suggested by Jesus: God establishing and kingdom and making him king); and, the misfortunes that had been visited upon the nation of Israel were no longer due to their disobedience.
For Jesus to lead people back to expecting God’s direct intervention on that scale is misleading, yes?
Steefen said
The practicality and feasibility of the Son of Man’s Kingdom of God/Heaven/Righteousness (how realistic the dream could be of Jesus manifesting Zechariah’s messianic city) determines how guilty Jesus was of leading people astray with his Son of Man movement (how guilty he was, as Josephus puts it: being an innovator) and how worthy he was of being disliked by Jewish and Roman authorities.
All this proves is you’ve got a bee in your proverbial bonnet, and don’t want to actually discuss anything. How do you think you’d have gone over in Roman-ruled Palestine? Be grateful you live in the Christianized western world, where free speech is a thing. And in many cases, seriously overpriced.
I think it’s pretty clear Jesus had no political vision, as such–he had a vision of how people might learn to treat each other better, and many who have followed him have lived up to that–and many others have not–that wouldn’t surprise him. Sheep and Goats. Some of us are better than others, but this can only be determined by the way people treat others. Not by wealth, power, race, class, or sex. We’re still catching up to him on that.
Of course he was wrong about God sending the Son of Man to enact the Kingdom in the lifetimes of those he was preaching to. And Plato was wrong about Philosopher Kings and Guardians. And Herod was wrong to think his family would hold power a long time. And the Romans were wrong to think their Empire would last forever–and would remain pagan. It lasted longer than it might have BECAUSE of Jesus–because Christianity temporarily revived it, and kept many of its best (and worst) ideas alive. This is how history works. Like it or not. Nobody ever has ideas that work out precisely as planned. Too many variables.
But Jesus’ ideas, and those of his followers, have been, overall, the most influential and enduring of anyone who ever lived–and if you’re going to quote Bart as an authority (and as if he agrees with you), you should acknowledge that he’s said as much, many times. You do read his books, right? (You do read books, right?)
PS: Bart does believe Jesus expected God to make him king–he’s also acknowledged that this is not the majority opinion among his fellow scholars, and that there are legitimate alternate readings of the historical record we have. The gospel record suggests Jesus believed he’d be killed, told his disciples this (to their horror and disbelief) and in my opinion, it’s the resurrection prophecies that were put in his mouth after the fact. He never expected to be in the Kingdom himself. He was the Passover sacrifice to help bring it about. Much as that didn’t happen, we are still living in a world shaped by his ideas and his life. Much more than by Herod, Augustine, or even Alexander. Though there are always would-be tyrants lurking about. And would be if none of them had ever been born.
Jesus left us no writings–Augustus is known to have written his memoirs.
And after his death, they were lost.
People still read the gospels.
Bart has said several times that his favorite book of the bible is Ecclesiastes.
Jesus would have liked it too.
Augustus wouldn’t have.
god misspell
Augustus is known to have written his memoirs.
And after his death, they were lost.
Steefen
Augustus wrote the Res Gestae Divi Augusti. They are not lost.
Res Gestae Divi Augusti (Eng. The Deeds of the Divine Augustus) is the funerary inscription of the first Roman emperor, Augustus, giving a first-person record of his life and accomplishments.
godspell
Jesus had no political vision.
Of course he was wrong about God sending the Son of Man to enact the Kingdom in the lifetimes of those he was preaching to.
Steefen
Jesus was wrong about Politics and Theology. Being wrong about Theology factors into being wrong about Religion, Faith, and personal salvation. Being wrong about Politics factors into being wrong about the notion of a sacred country, a sacred Constitution, values, and moral clarity.
Jesus was wrong about Theology.
Being wrong about Theology factors into being wrong about Religion, Faith, and personal salvation.
Jesus was wrong about Politics.
Being wrong about Politics factors into being wrong about the notion of a sacred country, a sacred Constitution, values, and moral clarity.
Jesus was wrong about Justice in the context of a Kingdom of Righteousness.
Jesus celebrating Yom Kippur is not mentioned in the gospels, yet, he is a figure of atonement for sin. There is flawed justice when personal responsibility and all other influences of human behavior are not wedded to atonement, punishment, and rehabilitation.
Jesus was wrong about Human Biology and he was wrong about Religion (the Hebrew Bible), how serious the God of Moses and the Prophets was against consuming Body and Blood.
Being wrong about blood in the digestive system vs. the circulatory system is a huuuuge wrong.
As for consuming blood, the God of the Torah said He would turn his face away from someone who does that.
As for consuming a human body, the Hebrew Bible stated that happens when a people are seiged and defeated.
Therefore, Jesus’ Holy Communion is a sacrament of defeat and alienation from God.
Jesus wasn’t a theologian.
Jesus wasn’t a politician.
Jesus wasn’t a lawyer.
Jesus sure as bloody hell wasn’t a biologist.
So that leaves religion, which he didn’t think would exist in the Kingdom, since he believed people entered the Kingdom based entirely on their behavior towards others.
You’re clearly wrong about all these things. Judge not lest ye be judged (an idiot).
😀
godspell said
Jesus wasn’t a theologian.Jesus wasn’t a politician.
Jesus wasn’t a lawyer.
Jesus sure as bloody hell wasn’t a biologist.
So that leaves religion, which he didn’t think would exist in the Kingdom, since he believed people entered the Kingdom based entirely on their behavior towards others.
You’re clearly wrong about all these things. Judge not lest ye be judged (an idiot).
😀
Bart Ehrman
The debaters I like very much the least are the ones who mock. I could, obviously, name names. But there are a couple of people I simply won’t debate. I don’t think mockery is a form of intellectual inquiry or exchange.
BDEhrman
FreedomBen
evgendob
Robert
1 Guest(s)