More 'historical Jesus, not' thread

[jules?]

I don’t get it, is it me or am I missing some truth with regards to the historicity of Jesus? But an apology first in that I realise that the debate is operating currently on another [or more] thread, however I have some specifics and the reasoning is rather long winded.

People speak of the core ‘truth’, that once the myth is stripped away there is still a man at the centre of the story. Even Dawkins on a recent t.v. show did not hesitate to declare Jesus to be a great historical figure and in a limited poll on this site the majority opinion was that Jesus did exist. So what is the core truth?

These are the areas that I feel discount an historical man.

 Apocalyptic belief of several centuries expected the return of a messiah and this expectation was particularly focused between 100 bce- 100 c.e. based on the date/age of the world. No coincidence that Jesus should turn up when he did.
 Apocalyptic belief triggered the revolution and many believed that god would intervene at the last moment even when the Temple fell to Rome.
 Expectation of the coming messiah was varied ranging from Isaiah’s suffering Servant to the return of Moses or David or descendant to a scary half dead cosmic lamb.
 Post apocalyptic kingdom was also up for debate, was it to be a glorious Israel, a neoplatonic semi divine world, heavenly or earthly or a just society post revolution?
 The mass suicide at Masada marked a turning point in belief in that the siege had held out at the Temple and fought to the death expecting god to appear and defeat the Romans those at Masada had reinterpreted scripture and instead decided to meet god post death in heaven.
 Expectation of a new era brought many wannabe messiahs. The account of the Egyptian at the mount of olives not only imitated prophesy but is repeated, less the massacre, in the Gospels. Each messiah brought his own take of the nature of apocalypse as well as followers.
 What’s in a name? Joshua the messiah [god saves] is appropriate in that Joshua bar Nun [the fish] leads the people to the promised land and crosses the Jordan. Destroys the enemies of Israel, builds an empire and along with Moses has the ear of god travelling with him to get the Law. Joshua is also assigned the title ‘Son of God’ as are all Israelite leaders. There are also several ‘Joshuas’ preaching the End Time in the centuries of expectation.
 Despite so much controversy surrounding what the Essene believed there seems to be enough similarities between them [and indeed other Pharisee sects] and Christians to demonstrate that the belief structure did not just appear with one person but evolved over a period of centuries. Angels, holy spirits, renewal/rebirth/ ritual washing through baptism, describing themselves as ‘poor’ or ‘meek’ and of course the coming kingdom of god etc being just some of the beliefs.
 The shared principle beliefs of apocalyptic Jew and Christian is of an End Time which would be heralded by a messiah and that salvation can be achieved by adherence to the law. The differences are in interpretation of the law as well as understanding the prophesies of the coming End Time.
 Prophesy and this is the chunky bit; Isaiah is particularly importance because it laid out the road map to judgement day. An event described with the usual dark skies and global destruction but one where the wicked and the innocent of neighbouring countries will be slaughtered including wayward Jews as well as the enemy at the gates of Jerusalem but ultimately god will ensure the return of a warrior messiah and the Jewish enslavement of other nations. The most important event is features the ‘suffering servant’ [Isaiah 52:13] who is God’s messenger

[The suffering servant will ]‘succeed in his task he will be highly honoured’ yet he would be despised, ignored and go without much notice. his suffering being for everybody’s sins. ‘He was treated harshly but endured it humbly, he never said a word, like a lamb to slaughter…..He was arrested and sentenced and led off to die and no one cared about his fate. He was put to death for the sins of our people. He was placed in a grave with evil men he was buried with the rich, even though he had never committed a crime or ever told a lie.’ And after suffering his reward ‘he will again have joy’ and have ‘ a place of honour a place among great and powerful men’. It is God’s suffering servant that allows Israel’s sins to be forgiven by God and thus herald a new Jerusalem and a new age.

The suffering servant is the proto-Jesus and his suffering and death is mirrored in the Gospels almost word for word except rather than being the beautiful heroic son of God which seems to owe more to Greek ideals he is ugly, deformed even and entirely unmemorable. Jesus undergoes the same suffering and for the same goal; that of taking the place of many sinners and praying they might be forgiven. Jesus is ultimately successful in the goal set by god and is highly honoured, yet is rejected by the people who chose a criminal over him, Jesus suffers for other peoples sin, he was wounded and beaten and treated harshly including being pierced but endures it humbly without saying a word, [like a lamb to slaughter] at least in John’s account. He was arrested, sentenced and led off to die. Where as the suffering servant is placed in a grave with evil men and buried with the rich, Jesus is crucified with criminals and placed in the rich tomb in a garden. The Gospel writers dramatised the fate of the suffering servant up dating it with the Roman method of execution yet compelled by prophesy to completely contradict actual Roman practises which would have left the body up to rot. They also had the tricky problem of finding a rich tomb owner; enter Joseph of Aramathia; rich, a secret follower and even having the name Aramathia a.k.a.‘best apostle’ who just so happens to be a member of the Jewish government with the connections to get Pilate to release the body.

The prophesy of Isaiah did not make it easy for the faithful to understand how events leading up to judgement day would pan out. It mentions the birth of Emmanuel but does not mention if he is the messiah only that it will be a sign. It mentions the return of warrior king of the Davidic line but few details. Psalm 22 was also important describing the suffering of the messiah with the particular lines ‘My God my God , why have you forsaken me’ and ‘they have pierced my hands and feet’. Added to the interpretations of Daniel, Ezekiel and Enoch there was a huge amount possibilities. Apocalyptic Jews would have years of tradition and the skill of midrash to fit it all together early Christians [particularly the converted Greco-roman] would have not been so well equipped. Gospel writers cram dozens of prophesies into the text with many being out of context. But [and this is my opinion] rather than invent the life of Jesus they are simply reconstructing and dramatising all the available data and in fact Luke opens his gospel with such a statement.

 The one area where early church beliefs tie into the Gospels is the last supper or Passover feast and it is a direct inheritance of Essene practise. The Manual of Discipline [Dead Sea Scroll document] sets out ritual and daily life. It features arrangements regarding one of the most important events to happen, which was the Messianic Banquet. God would send the two messiahs when the world was purged and a new world began and the leaders of the tribes of Israel and the congregation, the name of the general select, would all sit down, in the appropriate order and share a meal and new wine.

“the Messiah will stretch forth his hand upon the bread and then all the Congregation of the community will give blessings” [The Manual of Discipline]

John Allegro writing about this Dead Sea Scroll contents suggested that the parable about the loaves and fishes is in fact a rehearsal of the messianic banquet. The Essene were re-enacting the first Passover meal held a thousand years earlier. Headed by their saviour Moses with Aaron at his side, the leaders of the twelve tribes gave thanks to God as the angel of death flew over the land causing death and destruction in its wake. Then the blood sacrifice of a lamb was good enough to absolve them of their sins and so purify them before they entered the new kingdom that awaited. It is not coincidence that Jesus is tried just in time to be sacrificed at Passover, his bones remaining unbroken and that he declares that his flesh is to be eaten. Neither are the twelve disciples or the Twin myth or cousin John.




 The desire of the Greco-Roman audience to have a digestible account of the saviour of the End Times appears to be the driving force in generating an historical character. All ‘historical’ documents derive from the Greco-roman world and it is telling that no documents emerge directly from Palestine. Mark’s lack of knowledge of the country and inaccuracies would not have been important as knowledge of the historical man was proof to the follower that the End Time was to commence. Jesus is not the main event he was only the warm-up act to one that was widely expected by pagans across the empire as mentioned by Celsus. Jews in Rome were expectant but they appear to be radical armagedonists proclaiming a bloody and fiery end to pagans and naturally they would be inspired to make such predictions at the behest of their ‘Chrestus’.


 The Roman adoption of the Messiah ‘king of the world’ by Vespasian as well as the extensive coverage of his title by historians indicates that Jewish belief was current in the wider Roman community. The dramatisation by Mark of a poor hero could be a satirical/political response but the lack of other history does not bode well for an actual Jesus of Galilee but it does for a composite character of the revolutionary anti hero type who comes from the wild radical province where so many other wannabe revolutionaries emerged who nearly saw an unbeatable empire beaten.

 The complete destruction of the temple forced the prophesies to be reinterpreted rather than to be discarded and kingly revolution was to be replaced with the only alternative of a spiritual new age. The hopes and expectations of a material kingdom being executed by Rome only to rise up in spiritual form.


 The letters of Paul are the only references to brothers of a messiah, yet the Jesus Paul knows is spiritual and the description of the passion vague. Did he make it up? Did he know of an Essene [or other sect] group that had a representative at the head of symbolic Passover feast surrounded by 12 tribal representatives? In which case it would be possible to have as many anointed saviours as there were apocalyptic Jewish groups whether they be in Palestine or across the Greco-roman world. Something like tribute Elvis’s or perhaps a santa as he is not based on an actual historical person. Oh and perhaps Josephus’ account of James makes more sense if ‘Brother of the messiah’ is a title. There are plenty of ‘brothers’ and ‘sisters’ out there who are not really related. I think it is logical because the messiah doesn’t actual get a mention.


Jesus is a specific construct for a specific event, the prophesies were widely know although widely interpreted to allow anyone to step up to the role. The fact that many are mentioned but Jesus is not would suggest historical material and belief is dramatised in a particularly Greco-roman way. Paul offers Judaism lite and eventually the apocalyptic cult degenerates into salvation for all. With the evidence pointing to a distinctly symbolic non historical spiritual messiah I search for the ‘core’ truth for an historical JC and appear to find it missing. Any places I should look?

Please be critical of my logic, I will wait and see before I rush in to respond.

Jules

[spamandham]

I don't see anything wrong with your assessment. I don't think that positing an historical core to Jesus explains any of the known facts, while on the otherhand, it makes some facts more confusing.

Our good friend Bill (of Ockham) would remind us not to introduce unnecessary entities while trying to understand the observations.

That said, I think it's certainly possible that there was a historical core to the Jesus of Christianity, but no reason to claim it likely.

[aa5874]

....... I think it's certainly possible that there was a historical core to the Jesus of Christianity, but no reason to claim it likely.

There is ALWAYS the possibility that there was an historical core to Jesus just as there is ALWAYS the possibility that Jesus had NO historical core.

And, a claim that it is possible that Jesus had an historical core does not invalidate or eliminate any other view, and is not a claim of any evidentiary value, it is just a simple claim which can be rebutted by the counter-claim that Jesus had no historical core.

All that is needed to come to a decision is to look at the evidence or lack thereof from independent sources, since the Jesus proposed by the NT and early christians writers is most likely NOT to have existed as described.

There are basically only three independent sources that give the name of a figure who had followers called christians in the 1st century, these are Josephus, Tacitus and Suetonius.

Antiquities of the Jews mentioned Jesus the Christ but these are considered forgeries, Taciitus mentioned Christus which is ambiguous and Suetonius mentioned ChrEstus who may be some other unknown person.

And Philo, a supposed contemporary of Jesus, never mentioned Jesus or christians at all, even though he mentioned Pilate.

The possibility that Jesus had an historical core is an extremely weak proposition.

[Clivedurdle]

On the anti hero bit Augustus and Jesus is about this, and what is this comment about Joshua bar nun and fish?

[TedM]

These are the areas that I feel discount an historical man.

Hi Jules. Here are some responses I have. I really don't want to get into a long discussion, so will let you respond as you wish, and maybe someone else will want to interact further, as I have more pressing concerns right now.

 Apocalyptic belief of several centuries expected the return of a messiah and this expectation was particularly focused between 100 bce- 100 c.e. based on the date/age of the world. No coincidence that Jesus should turn up when he did.

This relates to timing of appearance. Expectation of an arrival is not relevant to whether Jesus was historical or not. The question of relevance is: Was the expectation for a being that would arrive on earth or not, and whether that being would be a God or man.

 Apocalyptic belief triggered the revolution and many believed that god would intervene at the last moment even when the Temple fell to Rome.

The question is in what way would God intervene--via a messiah?, and what kind of messiah would that be--one on earth who was like a man?


 Expectation of the coming messiah was varied ranging from Isaiah’s suffering Servant to the return of Moses or David or descendant to a scary half dead cosmic lamb.

The first two are presumably "men", and on earth. The last one I've never heard of as an expectation.


Post apocalyptic kingdom was also up for debate, was it to be a glorious Israel, a neoplatonic semi divine world, heavenly or earthly or a just society post revolution?

Is this relevant?


 The mass suicide at Masada marked a turning point in belief in that the siege had held out at the Temple and fought to the death expecting god to appear and defeat the Romans those at Masada had reinterpreted scripture and instead decided to meet god post death in heaven.

How does this tie in with Paul's account of Jesus prior to these events?

 Expectation of a new era brought many wannabe messiahs. The account of the Egyptian at the mount of olives not only imitated prophesy but is repeated, less the massacre, in the Gospels. Each messiah brought his own take of the nature of apocalypse as well as followers.

And, weren't they all ACTUAL men? Where is the expectation of a messiah that would not be an ACTUAL man and not exist actually on earth?

 What’s in a name? Joshua the messiah [god saves] is appropriate in that Joshua bar Nun [the fish] leads the people to the promised land and crosses the Jordan. Destroys the enemies of Israel, builds an empire and along with Moses has the ear of god travelling with him to get the Law. Joshua is also assigned the title ‘Son of God’ as are all Israelite leaders. There are also several ‘Joshuas’ preaching the End Time in the centuries of expectation.

All the more reason one with that name might be considered the Son of God either by others or by himself. Where is the evidence for a messiah named Joshua who didn't live on earth?


 Despite so much controversy surrounding what the Essene believed there seems to be enough similarities between them [and indeed other Pharisee sects] and Christians to demonstrate that the belief structure did not just appear with one person but evolved over a period of centuries. Angels, holy spirits, renewal/rebirth/ ritual washing through baptism, describing themselves as ‘poor’ or ‘meek’ and of course the coming kingdom of god etc being just some of the beliefs.

All the more reason a person of that culture might have decided he was the messiah, or those following him. How do these various beliefs discount that in any way?

The suffering servant is the proto-Jesus and his suffering and death is mirrored in the Gospels almost word for word except rather than being the beautiful heroic son of God which seems to owe more to Greek ideals he is ugly, deformed even and entirely unmemorable. Jesus undergoes the same suffering and for the same goal; that of taking the place of many sinners and praying they might be forgiven. Jesus is ultimately successful in the goal set by god and is highly honoured, yet is rejected by the people who chose a criminal over him, Jesus suffers for other peoples sin, he was wounded and beaten and treated harshly including being pierced but endures it humbly without saying a word, [like a lamb to slaughter] at least in John’s account. He was arrested, sentenced and led off to die. Where as the suffering servant is placed in a grave with evil men and buried with the rich, Jesus is crucified with criminals and placed in the rich tomb in a garden.

Why the difference regarding the grave if it was all made up based on this passage? The question again, is what was the expectation for this messiah? Was he expected to be someone who lived and died on earth, or somewhere else? Was he expected to be a true historical person? IF so, then how does this discount a historical Jesus? Is it not possible that ANY religious leader who is crucified would become a potential "suffering servant"? Is it not possible that one of those might have orchestrated his own death? Is it not possible that this passage was used to fill in the unknown gaps surrounding such death?

IF the intent of those drawing upon this passage is to "create" a messiah like the suffering servant, then wouldn't we expect this creation to be on earth, as we find in the gospels? How then, does this explain the theory that the EARLIEST Christians DIDN'T do this, but instead created a suffering servant who lived and died in the skies, and never on earth?

But [and this is my opinion] rather than invent the life of Jesus they are simply reconstructing and dramatising all the available data and in fact Luke opens his gospel with such a statement.

Isn't that a bit of a stretch regarding Luke? I would read it to be saying exactly the opposite.

It is not coincidence that Jesus is tried just in time to be sacrificed at Passover, his bones remaining unbroken and that he declares that his flesh is to be eaten. Neither are the twelve disciples or the Twin myth or cousin John.

I agree, but could not a religious zealout have orchestrated all of that himself?


The Roman adoption of the Messiah ‘king of the world’ by Vespasian as well as the extensive coverage of his title by historians indicates that Jewish belief was current in the wider Roman community. The dramatisation by Mark of a poor hero could be a satirical/political response but the lack of other history does not bode well for an actual Jesus of Galilee but it does for a composite character of the revolutionary anti hero type who comes from the wild radical province where so many other wannabe revolutionaries emerged who nearly saw an unbeatable empire beaten.

If Jewish belief was widespread, wouldn't you think the Jews would leave some record denying that this Jesus whom it says they crucified never happened? Wouldn't the information between Jews have been accurate enough to at least result in denials of such historicity? Especially by the Jewish leaders--pharisees and sadducees that would have been greatly offended at the claim that they were responsible for killing the very same messiah they had been expecting for centuries?!


The letters of Paul are the only references to brothers of a messiah, yet the Jesus Paul knows is spiritual and the description of the passion vague. Did he make it up? Did he know of an Essene [or other sect] group that had a representative at the head of symbolic Passover feast surrounded by 12 tribal representatives? In which case it would be possible to have as many anointed saviours as there were apocalyptic Jewish groups whether they be in Palestine or across the Greco-roman world. Something like tribute Elvis’s or perhaps a santa as he is not based on an actual historical person. Oh and perhaps Josephus’ account of James makes more sense if ‘Brother of the messiah’ is a title. There are plenty of ‘brothers’ and ‘sisters’ out there who are not really related. I think it is logical because the messiah doesn’t actual get a mention.

Are you saying Paul didn't think Jesus--whom he mentions by name many times--wasn't the messiah?

Jesus is a specific construct for a specific event, the prophesies were widely know although widely interpreted to allow anyone to step up to the role. The fact that many are mentioned but Jesus is not would suggest historical material and belief is dramatised in a particularly Greco-roman way. Paul offers Judaism lite and eventually the apocalyptic cult degenerates into salvation for all. With the evidence pointing to a distinctly symbolic non historical spiritual messiah I search for the ‘core’ truth for an historical JC and appear to find it missing. Any places I should look?

This may or may not be of help: http://mypeoplepc.com/members/tedrika/dohertystop20/id24.html (references at bottom of page)

You could be right Jules, and you make some interesting points. For me I have a real hard time believing that Jews would have accepted the idea of a messiah who didn't really live on earth, or whom was made up to live on earth but whom they killed. It is easier for me to accept the idea of a person who believed he was the messiah, and who really was killed, reinterpreted to have either orchestrated his own death, or who was inspired to orchestrate his own death in response to threats on his life.

If he really was all made up, I would expect Paul to have been more clear about his form of Jesus as having not lived on earth, and I would expect the myth of his life to have been addressed somewhere in the literature by those who didn't believe he had even existed on earth in the recent past as claimed.

ted

[arnoldo]

If Jewish belief was widespread, wouldn't you think the Jews would leave some record denying that this Jesus whom it says they crucified never happened? Wouldn't the information between Jews have been accurate enough to at least result in denials of such historicity? Especially by the Jewish leaders--pharisees and sadducees that would have been greatly offended at the claim that they were responsible for killing the very same messiah they had been expecting for centuries?!
ted

Check out the Talmud, specifically Sandhedrin 43a.

[TedM]

If Jewish belief was widespread, wouldn't you think the Jews would leave some record denying that this Jesus whom it says they crucified never happened? Wouldn't the information between Jews have been accurate enough to at least result in denials of such historicity? Especially by the Jewish leaders--pharisees and sadducees that would have been greatly offended at the claim that they were responsible for killing the very same messiah they had been expecting for centuries?!
ted

Check out the Talmud, specifically Sandhedrin 43a.

That AFFIRMS historicity. It doesn't say it never happened and that Jesus was made up!

On the eve of Passover Yeshu was hanged. For forty days before the execution took place, a herald went forth and cried, "He is going forth to be stoned because he has practiced sorcery and enticed Israel to apostasy. Any one who can say anything in his favour, let him come forward and plead on his behalf." But since nothing was brought forward in his favour he was hanged on the eve of the Passover! - Ulla retorted: Do you suppose that he was one for whom a defence could be made? Was he not a _Mesith_ [enticer], concerning him Scripture says, _Neither shalt though spare, neither shalt thou conceal him?_ With Yeshu however it was different, for he was connected with the government for royalty [i.e., influential]. Our Rabbis taught: Yeshu had five disciples, Matthai, Nakai, Nezer, Buni, and Todah.

[aa5874]

If he really was all made up, I would expect Paul to have been more clear about his form of Jesus as having not lived on earth, and I would expect the myth of his life to have been addressed somewhere in the literature by those who didn't believe he had even existed on earth in the recent past as claimed.

ted

You would expect "Paul" to say Jesus was made up!!

If "Paul" claimed Jesus was made up, "Paul" would be called an heretic, like Marcion, who claimed Jesus was really not made up of flesh.

And, it is drawn to my attention that "Paul" was all made up. See Acts of the Apostles for corroboration. The fabrication of "Paul" was canonised. It is in the records of the Church for all to see for the last 1800 years or so.

[TedM]

If he really was all made up, I would expect Paul to have been more clear about his form of Jesus as having not lived on earth, and I would expect the myth of his life to have been addressed somewhere in the literature by those who didn't believe he had even existed on earth in the recent past as claimed.

ted

You would expect "Paul" to say Jesus was made up!!

If "Paul" claimed Jesus was made up,

You may want to reread what I wrote.

[aa5874]

You would expect "Paul" to say Jesus was made up!!

If "Paul" claimed Jesus was made up,

You may want to reread what I wrote.

I re-read this, too: ...If he was really made up, I would expect Paul to have been more clear about his form of Jesus as having not lived lived on earth...

[TedM]

You may want to reread what I wrote.

I re-read this, too: ...If he was really made up, I would expect Paul to have been more clear about his form of Jesus as having not lived lived on earth...

Why don't you explain to me that what you think I meant? Then I can clarify if for you because it does not seem to me that you understand what I wrote.

[aa5874]

I re-read this, too:

Why don't you explain to me that what you think I meant? Then I can clarify if for you because it does not seem to me that you understand what I wrote.

I think you meant, if he [Jesus] was really made up, you would expect Paul to have been more clear about his form of Jesus as not having lived on earth....

Isn't this what you meant? I am reading you "loud and clear".

But, based on Acts, "Paul" was made up and fabricated events about "Paul" were canonised, so I don't think "Paul" could have clarified anything.

[TedM]

Why don't you explain to me that what you think I meant? Then I can clarify if for you because it does not seem to me that you understand what I wrote.

I think you meant, if he [Jesus] was really made up, you would expect Paul to have been more clear about his form of Jesus as not having lived on earth....

Isn't this what you meant? I am reading you "loud and clear".

Sorry for the confusion. What I meant was that if Jesus didn't really live here and was therefore a made-up historical figure later on based on scriptures and expectations for the messiah, I would have expected Paul to have been more clear about his form of Jesus as having not lived on earth, using those same scriptures or other ones for support just as the gospels did. It is easier to say that Paul too made up Jesus from the scriptures and was referring to a historical Jesus, but not one he really knew lived recently, and that this crude version was added to as time went on, than to say Paul created a non-human/non-earthly Jesus from the scriptures and others later changed him to being human and on earth..

Two creations of a non-existent mythical Jesus--one not historical and the later one historical, with followings. And, Jews all over that were familiar with both, and yet no indication in the literature or apologetic literature of Jews claiming to not agree with 1. Paul's non-earthly messiah or 2. a historical Jesus who they knew hadn't been crucified by Jews.

hope that helps.

ted

[aa5874]

I think you meant, if he [Jesus] was really made up, you would expect Paul to have been more clear about his form of Jesus as not having lived on earth....

Isn't this what you meant? I am reading you "loud and clear".

....... It is easier to say that Paul too made up Jesus from the scriptures and was referring to a historical Jesus, but not one he really knew lived recently, and that this crude version was added to as time went on, than to say Paul created a non-human/non-earthly Jesus from the scriptures and others later changed him to being human and on earth......

I think Marcion's Jesus is easier. Jesus came but he wasn't real. So you eliminate all the problems of historicity. Maybe "Paul" letters were re-written.

[Kelly]

There is another possibility here to consider and that is that there was a real historical Jesus, but the official church wished to cover up his true identity.

For instance, the Bible clearly states that Jesus was raised in Galilee and Galilee was occupied by the Tribe of Benjamen from the time that the Jews returned from their Babylonian captivity. The main part of the city of Jerusalem had been the Benjaminite's allotted territory granted the Tribe of Benjamin when lots were drawn for territory in the Book of Joshua. However the Tribe of Judah took over their Jerusalem territory upon returning from captivity, and the Benjaminites were forced to settle in Galilee. It was the wealthy, elitist class from the Tribe of Judah that the priesthoods pandered too from the days of Solomon onward, and they did so even knowing that kingship had been removed from the Tribe of Judah as is clearly stated in Kings 11:11. Had Jesus actually been a Benjaminite of Galilee riding into Jerusalem and followed by a crowd, one might easily see how that would have certainly been seen as a threat to both the priesthoods and the elitist families from the Tribe of Judah, particularly if Jesus was calling for a "New Jerusalem" which would have certainly threatened the existing status quo.

There is much to support the theory that the historical Jesus, rather than the historically manipulated Biblical Jesus, could have only been a Benjaminite. There are numerous New Testament verses referring to Jesus as the "Son of Man sitting on the Right hand of God." This is a huge clue because the tribal name of Benjamin literally means "son of the right hand," as any bible concordance giving the meaning of Jewish words clearly points out.

The Jewish priesthood would have never called for the crucifixion of a man who could prove his inheritance came from the royal family of the Tribe of Judah. There is virtually no historical precedence for it. Had the historical Jesus been able to actually prove he was a member of the royal family of Judah, the priesthood would have declared him their messiah and king because that was the law of the priesthood.

Would the priesthood have had any qualms about calling for the death of a Benjaminite man? Absolutely not and there is plenty to back this up. For instance, Ezekiel 16 discusses the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, and states "Thy younger sister that dwelleth at thy right hand is Sodom and her daughters." (Ez 16:48) Again, "thy right hand" is a priestly euphemism for the Tribe of Benjamin. Chapter 8 of the Book of Ezekiel tells us that these words were spoken before "the elders of Judah." (Ez 8:1) Ezekiel clearly implies that it was the Tribe of Judah that was responsible for attacking Sodom and Gomorrah.

This is further born out in other Mesopotamian texts, where the so-called "angels" that attacked the five Salt Sea cities (Erra and Ishum, also known as Ninurta and Nergal) (http://www.piney.com/Baberraishum.html) were identified with carrying the "Lion standard" in several Mesopotamian texts, and the Lion standard was the symbol of the Tribe of Judah. All this is patently avoided today in Christian churches, because the evidence inevitably implies that at least two tribes; the Tribes of Judah and Benjamin, were in existence long before Jacob ever gave birth to the twelve sons who were supposedly the first patriarchs of the nation of Israel.

In another tale told in the book of Judges, chapter 20, the slaughter of the Benjaminites at Gibeah is also led by the Tribe of Judah and this event is clearly an all out attempt at genocide. Today's churches attempt to justify the attack on the grounds that the Benjaminites "were unfriendly and refused to open their homes to travelers." What they fail to note is that Gibeah was north of Jerusalem and on the main road that led from Jerusalem to the territory of the Ephramites. The ten tribes under the leadership of Ephraim were devoted to the worship of Baal. If it was the time of the full moon when the Ephramites held their monthly festivals where they held sexual orgies and sacrificed to Baal and Ashtoreth, (an event that often called for the sacrifice of children) every person in Jerusalem devoted to Baal would have traipsed through Gibeah on their way to the Baal parties. If the Benjaminites locked their town up tight and refused to open their houses to Baal worshipers, they were either afraid of them or openly maintaining a stance against the worship of Baal and Ashtoreth. Solomon was among those who sacrificed to Ashtoreth, (1 Ki 11:5 & 11:33) and we may assume that Baal worship was rife among the elitist classes from the Tribe of Judah.

Whoever the real Jesus was, he very decidedly was against Baal, for he named Beelzebub (the NT name for Baal) "the chief of devils," (Luke 11:15) and the worship of Baal appears to have been the national religion of the Tribe of Judah. Psalm 29 and several other verses clearly identify the Biblical Yahweh with "the cedars of Lebanon" where "the Great House of the Lord" was. This is a clear reference to Baalbek, also known as "Sion of Mt Hermon" (Baal-Hermon) in the Bible (Dt 4:48) and "the Crest of Zaphon" in the Canaanite texts found in Ugarit.

While I am the first to admit that the New Testament has been thoroughly manipulated by the priesthoods and scribes, the scribes were apparently attempting to rewrite real textual accounts of the life of Jesus and they were not necessarily very adept at it.

I believe Jesus was a real person but he could not have been a man from the tribe of Judah. If he had been, the priesthood would have declared him the new messiah rather than had him nailed to a cross. The real historical Jesus could have only been a Benjaminite, and that is what the priesthoods and scribes were attempting to cover up.

[jules?]

On the anti hero bit Augustus and Jesus is about this, and what is this comment about Joshua bar nun and fish?

If, and it is an if, the writer of Mark, knowledgable of Latin, Greek and Greek classical narrative, may have been writing a satire of Vespasian's adoption of the Jewish title of messiah, reverting to a percieved poor Jewish messiah as a counter point. Mark is is written with style and a degree of genius and the original ending simply had the empty tomb complete with the classical Deus ex Machina.

Joshua bar Nun, translated as either Jesus the fish, or Jesus the Serpent that can then be related to Nazoraean/ Nazarene, that contains elements of the term for fish/descended of David/and being particularly holy [so I am led to understand] but they are not exclusive as a holy descendant of David could be of the fish. Joshua is as holy as Moses going up the mountain to get the laws with Moses as well as being in the tent when god came for a chin wag and taking over from Moses, leading the people across the Jordan to the promised land of milk and honey, destroying the enemies of Israel and establishing a new kingdom of god. Sounds all very messianc and in his day Joshua was Jesus the Messiah.

[jules?]

Hi Ted, thanks for the response I will try and clarify my argument and even concede some points.

Expectation of an arrival does not negate a historical Jesus. What would happen sometime post 70c.e. and the failure of god to come to the aid of the revolution is the thought that may be he had which either required hunting for an historical person or making one up.

The bigger issue is whether the saviour was going to be heaven sent and cosmic or a man. Enoch and other prophesies point to a cosmic angel complete with an army of angels to join in the fight, [read the War Scroll] Other Jewish sects had different ideas including a warrior king, priestly leader, in fact as many versions existed as there were sects. But despite this no messiah actually appeared to fulfil any of the numerous prophesies and none survived the revolution. [except Vespasian]

The half dead lamb appears in Revelation and is based on half a dozen visions of the messiah that range from ‘like the son of man’, zombie sheep, a shining warrior with an angelic army etc etc. [Revelation may date to mid 1st century as the earliest version has the beast as 616 aka Caligula 37-41].

As for the nature of the post apocalyptic kingdom it was to be relevant when Christianity established itself either as a Jewish cult or independently in that the lack of material kingdom of god it adopted the heavenly version through lack of choice.

As for Paul’s ‘vision’ of Jesus is anybodies guess. Cosmic spiritual friend or real person, the debate rages. A more spiritual kingdom of god must have been in circulation a good while before the revolution of 70c.e. simply for it to be acceptable to the radical zealots who were quite up to fight to the death.

The number of wannabe historical messiahs indicates that plenty of people were expecting a man, but I go back to the original point that none succeeded. Unless of course you could make out that a/ they followed the suffering servant prophesy and were thus unknown in life and b/ the promised kingdom was entirely spiritual.


I do think that if James is connected to the Essene then he would have taken a role as symbolic earthly messiah and therefore would have been brother to the Christ who would reside in heaven. The symbolic earthly messiah would hold the Passover feast [eating the flesh] awaiting the cosmic messiah who would only come when the end was nigh. No end = no Christ. If each city had a Essene [or similar group/sect] ‘church’ then there would be as many symbolic earthly messiahs waiting. Paul may have been connected to these groups and would therefore be part of Essene type Jewish apocalyptic sect. If this is the case Paul would believe in a Jesus who was more akin to that described by Enoch. The problem then as now was interpretation. Would he be man or angel? Warrior or saviour? Who ever was studying the Dead Sea Scrolls was trying to discover time and nature of the End Time.

In response to other points you raise it comes down to interpretation and in the contexts of a Jewish belief system breaking out into the Roman-Greek world amongst Hellenised Jews and Gentiles. Without scribes and the Jewish religious establishment all sorts of ideas will become popular. You only have to look at ‘eastern’ religions that have been adopted in the west to see how they change. And I suppose that is my main point; there was so many ideas revolving around the ‘Saviour’ in the Jewish world that it should be no surprise that a bastard version should crop up in the Empire and one that descended to the simple ‘god-man who came to earth story’. Therefore it would be expected that a historical suffering servant would be created who would die in an up dated way.

The components of the Jesus story were all in circulation before Jesus the man supposedly lived and I would agree that a particularly zealous wannabe could get themselves arrested / nailed up and have their followers bribe officials to make the prophecy come true but would this really be the man who is spoken about in the gospels?

Your points make me think. I think the Jesus story is unique in that expectation of a messiah drove a revolution, generated many wannabes, interpretations but the messiah never came for the end time. That was the main event, Jesus was the warm up act.

Thanks Ted.

[spamandham]

There is another possibility here to consider and that is that there was a real historical Jesus, but the official church wished to cover up his true identity.

For instance, the Bible clearly states that Jesus was raised in Galilee and Galilee was occupied by the Tribe of Benjamen from the time that the Jews returned from their Babylonian captivity...

Imagine for a moment that you had never heard of the Bible or of Christianity, and someone handed you the Gospel of Mark.

Upon reading it, would you assume it was:

1. The biography of a historical god/man
2. ...valid to extricate all the magical aspects and assign the rest to a regular human being
3. The result of a conspiracy theory
4. A work of period hero fiction

If you were like most outsiders, you would assume it was fictional/mythical. Why then, is that not the default position? Is it really so unreasonable to assume that a story involving extensive use of magic and common folklore is a work of fiction?

[aa5874]

. The real historical Jesus could have only been a Benjaminite, and that is what the priesthoods and scribes were attempting to cover up.

You have not provided any external evidence to come to such a conclusion. If you do not accept the NT'S version of Jesus, then without evidence he could have been anything you imagine.


The NT and the early christian writers claimed Jesus was a God, these christian writers have witnesses. They have Mary, her husband Joseph, the 12 disciples, Pilate, at least three thousand people whom he fed.

Based on the NT, Jesus could only be the offspring of the Holy Ghost and there is no evidence external of apologetic sources to contradict his Holy Ghost genealogy.

[Amaleq13]

If you were like most outsiders, you would assume it was fictional/mythical.

Does this opinion have any basis in actual data?

[andrewcriddle]

Imagine for a moment that you had never heard of the Bible or of Christianity, and someone handed you the Gospel of Mark.

Upon reading it, would you assume it was:

1. The biography of a historical god/man
2. ...valid to extricate all the magical aspects and assign the rest to a regular human being
3. The result of a conspiracy theory
4. A work of period hero fiction

If you were like most outsiders, you would assume it was fictional/mythical. Why then, is that not the default position? Is it really so unreasonable to assume that a story involving extensive use of magic and common folklore is a work of fiction?

I've suggested before that the question of how one would interpret say Mark in the absence of any other information whatsoever about Christianity is more problematic than appears at first sight.

IF all evidence of Christianity had disappeared and then an archaeological dig found a copy of the Gospel of Mark in a tomb from the time of Trajan, then it might well be very difficult to interpret it.

Part of the basis of interpreting Mark is that it was written by some sort of Christian believer to be read by other Christian believers.

IF we had, apart from Mark, no evidence that anything like Christianity had ever existed then we would lack this background to help us in interpreting it.

Andrew Criddle

[aa5874]

..........Part of the basis of interpreting Mark is that it was written by some sort of Christian believer to be read by other Christian believers.....



The author of gMark is not known. It cannot be verified what the unknown author believed or if the author was actually a Christian.

The author could have been a deceiver, i.e, he may have written gMark to mis-lead his readers deliberately. Perhaps that is the reason the author did not identify himself.

[andrewcriddle]

..........Part of the basis of interpreting Mark is that it was written by some sort of Christian believer to be read by other Christian believers.....



The author of gMark is not known. It cannot be verified what the unknown author believed or if the author was actually a Christian.

The author could have been a deceiver, i.e, he may have written gMark to mis-lead his readers deliberately. Perhaps that is the reason the author did not identify himself.

I think my statement could be rewritten as ..........Part of the basis of interpreting Mark is that it was written by someone claiming to be some sort of Christian believer, in order to be read by Christian believers..... wihout affecting my central point.

My point is that Mark is to be interpreted in the context of a Christian movement of which it is a result. This would be much less clear if Mark existed in splendid isolation without us having any other evidence that a Christian movement ever existed.

Andrew Criddle

[aa5874]

The author of gMark is not known. It cannot be verified what the unknown author believed or if the author was actually a Christian.

The author could have been a deceiver, i.e, he may have written gMark to mis-lead his readers deliberately. Perhaps that is the reason the author did not identify himself.

I think my statement could be rewritten as ..........Part of the basis of interpreting Mark is that it was written by someone claiming to be some sort of Christian believer, in order to be read by Christian believers..... wihout affecting my central point.

My point is that Mark is to be interpreted in the context of a Christian movement of which it is a result. This would be much less clear if Mark existed in splendid isolation without us having any other evidence that a Christian movement ever existed.

Andrew Criddle

The author of Mark did not ever claim in the Gospel to be a Christian believer. The name Mark was first provided as the author of gMark by Irenaeus about 150 years after the death of the so-called Jesus of Nazareth .

Again, the author of gMark is unknown, the date of the writing of gMark is also not known. It is not known when the sect who were followers of Jesus of Nazareth of the NT really began.

The Christian movement and the movement of the followers of Jesus of Nazareth can be ambiguous and may not be the same.

It appears to me that there may have been many Christs and their followers who may have preceeded the Jesus of Nazareth and his sects.

Mark 13.6 For many shall come in my name saying I am Christ, and shall deceive many.

I am of the opinion there may have been many Christs that had already deceived many before gMark was written.

And "Mark" seemed to exist in splendid isolation.

[spamandham]

IF we had, apart from Mark, no evidence that anything like Christianity had ever existed then we would lack this background to help us in interpreting it.

But we are effectively in that position, since we really have few clues (if any) as to what the earliest form of Christianity really was.

[Ben C Smith]

IF we had, apart from Mark, no evidence that anything like Christianity had ever existed then we would lack this background to help us in interpreting it.

But we are effectively in that position, since we really have few clues (if any) as to what the earliest form of Christianity really was.

Your position is that, apart from Mark, we have no evidence that anything like Christianity ever existed?

Ben.

[spamandham]

But we are effectively in that position, since we really have few clues (if any) as to what the earliest form of Christianity really was.

Your position is that, apart from Mark, we have no evidence that anything like Christianity ever existed?

Ben.

No.

[Ben C Smith]

Your position is that, apart from Mark, we have no evidence that anything like Christianity ever existed?

Ben.

No.

It sounds like you are saying that we do not have enough evidence to evaluate what kind of writing Mark is.

Ben.

[dog-on]

No.

It sounds like you are saying that we do not have enough evidence to evaluate what kind of writing Mark is.

Ben.

Ben, that one is obvious.

Fiction.

[spamandham]

No.

It sounds like you are saying that we do not have enough evidence to evaluate what kind of writing Mark is.

Ben.

That's close, but not exactly what I'm saying. I'm saying that we do not have any relevant evidence that tells us the intent of the author. The evidence we do have is all much later than Mark, or in the case of the Pauline epistles, irrelevant toward determining what the proper genre of Mark is (regardless of when they were written).

It's analogous to the situation I outlined a few posts above. AFAIK, it's only because of a tendency to retroject biases into the text, that we assume it's some unique form of biography.

[Ben C Smith]

The evidence we do have is all much later than Mark, or in the case of the Pauline epistles, irrelevant toward determining what the proper genre of Mark is (regardless of when they were written).

It's analogous to the situation I outlined a few posts above. AFAIK, it's only because of a tendency to retroject biases into the text, that we assume it's some unique form of biography.

What kind of evidence would you be looking for? (Keep in mind that the Dewey Decimal System had yet to be invented, and cover blurbs were as yet unknown, as well.)

Ben.

[Amaleq13]

AFAIK, it's only because of a tendency to retroject biases into the text, that we assume it's some unique form of biography.

Again, does what you "know" have any basis in actual data?

Avoiding the question again strongly suggests the answer is "no".

It would be great if someone were to conduct the experiment your apparently unsubstantiated opinion suggests but, to my knowledge, no one has actually done the work necessary to support your speculation.

[spamandham]

What kind of evidence would you be looking for? (Keep in mind that the Dewey Decimal System had yet to be invented, and cover blurbs were as yet unknown, as well.)

Ben.

If there is none, does it matter what I would look for?

[Ben C Smith]

What kind of evidence would you be looking for? (Keep in mind that the Dewey Decimal System had yet to be invented, and cover blurbs were as yet unknown, as well.)

Ben.

If there is none, does it matter what I would look for?

There is plenty of evidence for the genre of the gospels, including Mark; there is, in fact, enough to fill a book (and that book has been written, and it is very good; details later).

It definitely matters what you would look for. If you are looking only for evidence type X and but all that exists is evidence type Y, you will conclude that no evidence exists.

Another way of saying this is: If you do not know what you are looking for, how will you know if you have found it?

Ben.

[spamandham]

If there is none, does it matter what I would look for?

There is plenty of evidence for the genre of the gospels, including Mark.

The 4 canonical gospels were written by different authors at different times, as you're well aware, with the other 3 dependent on Mark, as you're also aware.

To say they are all the same genre requires independent analysis of each. That analysis for Mark will not be valid unless it's based soley on the text of Mark itself.

Books exist that support any desired position, including the one I've suggested: Jesus A Very Jewish Myth (http://www.lulu.com/content/687167) (written by our very own Malichi151).

[Ben C Smith]

There is plenty of evidence for the genre of the gospels, including Mark.

The 4 canonical gospels were written by different authors at different times, as you're well aware, with the other 3 dependent on Mark, as you're also aware.

To say they are all the same genre requires independent analysis of each. That analysis for Mark will not be valid unless it's based soley on the text of Mark itself.

I completely agree that each judgment has to be made separately. The book that I have in mind handles that.

Books exist that support any desired position, including the one I've suggested: Jesus A Very Jewish Myth (http://www.lulu.com/content/687167) (written by our very own Malichi151).

I am not sure how to respond to an appeal to the authority of one who has no authority at all.

The authority I am appealing to is a recognized scholar (and, in case you worry about such things, is cited very favorably even by Robert Price). (Also, I am not appealing to authority for my conclusions; I am appealing to this authority as a handy source for the various kinds of evidence available; this is an important distinction to make.)

Ben.

ETA: Almost forgot to ask again: What kinds of evidence would you be looking for?

[spamandham]

I am not sure how to respond to an appeal to the authority of one who has no authority at all.


Then don't respond to it as an appeal to authority, since it certainly wasn't intended as such. The point is, present whatever evidence you have in mind rather than vaguely referring to a book.


ETA: Almost forgot to ask again: What kinds of evidence would you be looking for?

Source evidence of course (...well, English translations of it anyway) , and reasonably incontrovertable analysis thereof.


...more specifically, I would be interested in either relevant external evidence that explicitly tells us the genre, or in comparisons to other period works for which the genre's are well established. As an example, comparing Mark to Esther, we might conclude Mark is a Jewish novel rather than an attempt at a biography.

[andrewcriddle]

IF we had, apart from Mark, no evidence that anything like Christianity had ever existed then we would lack this background to help us in interpreting it.

But we are effectively in that position, since we really have few clues (if any) as to what the earliest form of Christianity really was.
Are you suggesting that Mark was not constrained to any significant extent by the views about Jesus already held by his intended audience ?

If this is what you are saying, then this is IMO unlikely, if this is not what you are claiming, then I think you may be missing my point.

You have mentioned Esther as a parallel. I am not sure myself whether or not Esther is a Jewish novel, (I agree it is not history but that is not the same thing). If you don't mind I'll use Judith, (which IMO is a Jewish novel), rather than Esther in order to discuss the point you are making.

The author of Judith was not constrained by the views about Judith held by his audience, because his (or her) audience had never heard about Judith before. The author of Mark is not in the same position. He is probably presenting a picture of Jesus with significant differences from the picture his audience previously held, but the differences cannot be too vast or his work will be rejected by his audience because it just doesn't fit their previous ideas of Jesus.

Andrew Criddle

[spamandham]

The author of Mark is not in the same position. He is probably presenting a picture of Jesus with significant differences from the picture his audience previously held, but the differences cannot be too vast or his work will be rejected by his audience because it just doesn't fit their previous ideas of Jesus.

What have you based this conclusion on?

[Ben C Smith]

I am not sure how to respond to an appeal to the authority of one who has no authority at all.


Then don't respond to it as an appeal to authority, since it certainly wasn't intended as such. The point is, present whatever evidence you have in mind rather than vaguely referring to a book.


ETA: Almost forgot to ask again: What kinds of evidence would you be looking for?

Source evidence of course (...well, English translations of it anyway) , and reasonably incontrovertable analysis thereof.

...more specifically, I would be interested in either relevant external evidence that explicitly tells us the genre, or in comparisons to other period works for which the genre's are well established. As an example, comparing Mark to Esther, we might conclude Mark is a Jewish novel rather than an attempt at a biography.

Thank you for this brief list of the kinds of evidence we would look for.

The book is Charles H. Talbert, What Is A Gospel? Talbert specializes in that second kind of evidence you mentioned, comparisons to other period works of established genre. I highly recommend his comparisons. I do not think Esther compares nearly as closely as the actual texts Talbert adduces as genre indicators for the gospels.

Ben.

[spamandham]

The book is Charles H. Talbert, What Is A Gospel? Talbert specializes in that second kind of evidence you mentioned, comparisons to other period works of established genre. I highly recommend his comparisons. I do not think Esther compares nearly as closely as the actual texts Talbert adduces as genre indicators for the gospels.

Ben.

I haven't read it, but I have read excerpts from it. I seem to recall that he found the Gospels to be so different from period biographies, that he had to invent a new category for them. The interesting aspect of that to me is not the similarities to period biographies, but the differences.

[andrewcriddle]

The author of Mark is not in the same position. He is probably presenting a picture of Jesus with significant differences from the picture his audience previously held, but the differences cannot be too vast or his work will be rejected by his audience because it just doesn't fit their previous ideas of Jesus.

What have you based this conclusion on?
Mark wants his readers to approve of his work, this sets limit to what he can say. This is true for all writers who don't want to be simply ignored.

Mark's primary intended readership is among people who are already followers of Jesus or are at least already interested in becoming followers. (I'm not sure if you agree with this, but the alternatives, eg that Mark was primarily intended for circulation by commercial publishers among people who had never even heard of Jesus, seem extremely improbable.)

Given the above, Mark cannot gratuitously keep contradicting the ideas of Jesus already held by contemporary followers of Jesus.

Andrew Criddle

[spamandham]

Mark's primary intended readership is among people who are already followers of Jesus or are at least already interested in becoming followers.

This assumes that Christianity was well established prior to the writing of Mark. I guess I'm not aware of any reason to assume that.

[aa5874]

Mark wants his readers to approve of his work, this sets limit to what he can say. This is true for all writers who don't want to be simply ignored.

This is all baseless speculation. The first time that Mark is mentioned is about the end of the 2nd century by Irenaeus. The date of writing and circulation of the Gospel attributed to Mark is uncertain and so, too, is the authorship.

[jules?]

Correct me if I am wrong but there seems to be a lot of assumptions with regards to gMark.

All that is known is that the author [he or she] wrote in Greek, was educated and had an understanding of Latin-Greek writing.

Writing a cohesive narrative rather than collecting everything like Luke or squeezing in every prophesy like Matt, Mark is informative of Jewish culture and builds up to the ending without any resurrection, just an empty tomb.

Mark is lacks either geography of Palestine or has never been there.

Mark reports none of the 'secret' sayings Jesus spoke to his disciples.

Mark either wrote pre 70 c.e. but was aware that the destruction of the temple was likely or had happened making his/her contribution post 70

I am not sure if there are any other facts that can be gleaned from the document except the earlier documents consist of Paul, maybe some other letters and perhaps gThomas.

[aa5874]

Correct me if I am wrong but there seems to be a lot of assumptions with regards to gMark.

All that is known is that the author [he or she] wrote in Greek, was educated and had an understanding of Latin-Greek writing.

Writing a cohesive narrative rather than collecting everything like Luke or squeezing in every prophesy like Matt, Mark is informative of Jewish culture and builds up to the ending without any resurrection, just an empty tomb.

Mark is lacks either geography of Palestine or has never been there.

Mark reports none of the 'secret' sayings Jesus spoke to his disciples.

Mark either wrote pre 70 c.e. but was aware that the destruction of the temple was likely or had happened making his/her contribution post 70

I am not sure if there are any other facts that can be gleaned from the document except the earlier documents consist of Paul, maybe some other letters and perhaps gThomas.


I think the author called Mark probably did not understand Jewish culture with regards to burial since he claimed Mary Magdalene went to anoint the dead body of Jesus on the Sunday morning about two days after his death [see Mark 16.1].

However, the author of John claimed the application of spices is done before, not after the burial according to Jewish custom [see John 19.39-40].

And these words are in gMark, "...He is risen.... This is similar to the resurrection scenes in the other Gospel.

[TedM]

Hi Ted, thanks for the response I will try and clarify my argument and even concede some points.

The bigger issue is whether the saviour was going to be heaven sent and cosmic or a man. Enoch and other prophesies point to a cosmic angel complete with an army of angels to join in the fight, [read the War Scroll]

I haven't read this. Is it referring clearly to the messiah, and is there any indication that he would have first lived a life as a man in order to save them from their sins?

I just don't see how the apocolyptic writings about the end times are relevant to the creation of a Messiah who lived on earth before those events. It seems you are bringing in a lot of irrelevant material to explain Paul and the Gospels. Those apocolypric writings certainly can be used to explain the references by Paul and the Gospels to the FUTURE expectation of Jesus' apocolyptic descent, but it does nothing to explain the life they reference.


The half dead lamb appears in Revelation and is based on half a dozen visions of the messiah that range from ‘like the son of man’, zombie sheep, a shining warrior with an angelic army etc etc. [Revelation may date to mid 1st century as the earliest version has the beast as 616 aka Caligula 37-41].

Doesn't the fact that he references the 12 disciples and the cross show that the belief of this writer was that the Jesus who had lived and died on earth would be the one returning from the heavens for judgement?

The number of wannabe historical messiahs indicates that plenty of people were expecting a man, but I go back to the original point that none succeeded.

It depends on who you ask. Christians who believed the gospels would have said that he did succeed because he was resurrected from his crucifixion. That is what broke the curse of death for everyone who believes, according to them.


Unless of course you could make out that a/ they followed the suffering servant prophesy and were thus unknown in life and b/ the promised kingdom was entirely spiritual.

The idea that the servant prophesy was used to "create" a false messiah with no evidence that such a person had actually lived is possible. The problem is in finding evidence that Paul or the gospels did that. One can reasonably conclude that they used it to embellish or fill in aspects of that life, but where is the evidence that the writings were ENTIRELY based on an interpretation of scriptures? The writers dont' say that's what they were doing, but they DO include details that seem unrelated to such scriptures (ie names of disciples, towns, govt figures, set at a specific point in history,etc..and for Paul references to his brothers, the last supper).


I do think that if James is connected to the Essene then he would have taken a role as symbolic earthly messiah

What exactly are you saying here? Who is "the Essene" and why would James have taken on a role as symbolic earthly messiah?


And I suppose that is my main point; there was so many ideas revolving around the ‘Saviour’ in the Jewish world that it should be no surprise that a bastard version should crop up in the Empire and one that descended to the simple ‘god-man who came to earth story’. Therefore it would be expected that a historical suffering servant would be created who would die in an up dated way.

Sounds reasonable. Just not seeing much evidence to support it even though the framework is there.

The components of the Jesus story were all in circulation before Jesus the man supposedly lived and I would agree that a particularly zealous wannabe could get themselves arrested / nailed up and have their followers bribe officials to make the prophecy come true but would this really be the man who is spoken about in the gospels?

One doesn't need to conclude that they bribed the officials. A number of possible explanations remain: The tomb wasn't empty. The tomb became empty later. There was no tomb. etc.. Or, the resurrection was considered spiritual initially...


Your points make me think. I think the Jesus story is unique in that expectation of a messiah drove a revolution, generated many wannabes, interpretations but the messiah never came for the end time. That was the main event, Jesus was the warm up act.

Interesting, but what a disproportionate focus on the warm-up act in the early Christian literature, wouldn't you agree?

ted

[spamandham]

The idea that the servant prophesy was used to "create" a false messiah with no evidence that such a person had actually lived is possible. The problem is in finding evidence that Paul or the gospels did that. One can reasonably conclude that they used it to embellish or fill in aspects of that life, but where is the evidence that the writings were ENTIRELY based on an interpretation of scriptures?

Couldn't the reverse question also be asked? Where is the evidence that the earliest tradition (presumably Mark or something close to it) was not just a story based on interpretation of scriptures?

If we remove the bogus epistles, and the portions of the 'genuine' epistles for which legitimacy is questioned, it's no longer clear to me that Paul even believed Jesus was a recent historical earthly being.

[andrewcriddle]

Mark's primary intended readership is among people who are already followers of Jesus or are at least already interested in becoming followers.

This assumes that Christianity was well established prior to the writing of Mark. I guess I'm not aware of any reason to assume that.

Who would you see as Mark's intended readership and why ?

Andrew Criddle

[Clivedurdle]

The intended readership is problematic - because of the irony. Maybe it is aimed at several very different audiences at the same time.

Maybe it is a multi-layered document, using gnostic methods. An in joke for the senior Romans about those funny Jews and their converts with their strange oriental cults - these xianities seems popular with their god jesus. I think the earliest xianities were gnostic ones.

Remember that article in the Jerusalem Post where they found fish symbols in a prison and an inscription to the god jesus before the xians "corrected" the article?

It looks very much like a play - it may have been written as such.

Other messages may have been towards other groups - pacifying slaves for example.

The added end may be a second edition, an attempt to improve it, written with agreement of someone. What if it is a deliberate work of propaganda?


We really cannot assume anything. I think there is more evidence for the above than for the classic - which ever one is it - Jesus.

[spamandham]

This assumes that Christianity was well established prior to the writing of Mark. I guess I'm not aware of any reason to assume that.

Who would you see as Mark's intended readership and why ?

Andrew Criddle

Considering the heavy references to Jewish scriptures, I'd say the intended audience was Hellenized Jews of some variety. I can only guess as to the purpose.

[jules?]

Hi Ted, thanks for the response I will try and clarify my argument and even concede some points.

The bigger issue is whether the saviour was going to be heaven sent and cosmic or a man. Enoch and other prophesies point to a cosmic angel complete with an army of angels to join in the fight, [read the War Scroll]

I haven't read this. Is it referring clearly to the messiah, and is there any indication that he would have first lived a life as a man in order to save them from their sins?

The War Scroll is from the Dead Sea cache and feature the 7 battles that the sons of light will have against the sons of darkness, the war is a dead heat till the last engagement heralding the new age. Interestingly the messiah is only hinted at, although other scrolls clearly depict a messiah from heaven who will make the blind see, the lame walk, raise the dead etc. In the War Scroll the army and the battles are both made up of men and angels who would join them in battle. Remember these people had a very different view of reality to us so therefore it was quite possible for the spiritual/ angelic to co exist with man.


I just don't see how the apocolyptic writings about the end times are relevant to the creation of a Messiah who lived on earth before those events. It seems you are bringing in a lot of irrelevant material to explain Paul and the Gospels. Those apocolypric writings certainly can be used to explain the references by Paul and the Gospels to the FUTURE expectation of Jesus' apocolyptic descent, but it does nothing to explain the life they reference.


Irrelevant material! Paul is writing about the End Times, Christianity was an end time cult, jesus was to herald the End Time. Tense is the issue, had, is,or will is the question. what changed was the church pushing a faith with a limited shelf life. Jesus brought a new personal message of end time, a new Jerusalem was founded in Rome, the body of crhist returned as the universal church, god's kingdom became spirtual and the Jews killed the saviour.


Doesn't the fact that he references the 12 disciples and the cross show that the belief of this writer was that the Jesus who had lived and died on earth would be the one returning from the heavens for judgement?


the apocalyptic groups and others had the passover supper with the two messiahs [star and septre] surrounded by the 12 representatives of the 12 tribes. The new age would be celebrated at passover but to be attended by the real cosmic messiah.


It depends on who you ask. Christians who believed the gospels would have said that he did succeed because he was resurrected from his crucifixion. That is what broke the curse of death for everyone who believes, according to them.
And that was a clever move to make an idiotic/misguided prediction that failed to materialise.



The idea that the servant prophesy was used to "create" a false messiah with no evidence that such a person had actually lived is possible. The problem is in finding evidence that Paul or the gospels did that. One can reasonably conclude that they used it to embellish or fill in aspects of that life, but where is the evidence that the writings were ENTIRELY based on an interpretation of scriptures? The writers dont' say that's what they were doing, but they DO include details that seem unrelated to such scriptures (ie names of disciples, towns, govt figures, set at a specific point in history,etc..and for Paul references to his brothers, the last supper).



Paul can be read as either beleiving in a historical human or cosmic christ, the gospels, well Mark, is a fascinating subject in its own right. I listerned to a radio documentry on James Bond creator Ian Flemming who wrote letters to fans speaking of James as a real person. Ian served in the secret service, had lots of contacts and the term James Bond features in films/books/media unrelated to the secret service but it is still fiction. Mark could be fiction, it could be a dramatised reconstruction of a little known preacher. We don't know. We do know the church evolved into a faith where a human christ was essential to the extent that history really was made up with letters, forging and even Pilates gospel


What exactly are you saying here? Who is "the Essene" and why would James have taken on a role as symbolic earthly messiah?



the Essene were the fundy end of the world branch of Judaism. Pure and zealous they were going to be the crack troops fighting with angels at there side. They were going to be the white robed male virgins mentioned in Revelation whose destiny with paridise was guranteed. The Wiki article is ok to start with but you need to dig deep and wide to get a full picture.




Your points make me think. I think the Jesus story is unique in that expectation of a messiah drove a revolution, generated many wannabes, interpretations but the messiah never came for the end time. That was the main event, Jesus was the warm up act.

Interesting, but what a disproportionate focus on the warm-up act in the early Christian literature, wouldn't you agree?

ted



Yes i agree. But that is the nature of religion.

thxs jules