Best evidence for a historical Joshua ben Joseph

[T.G.G. Moogly]

He could not be further from a Jewish insurrectionist--which would have been pretty much every single Jew at the time--and is very clearly instructing his followers to NOT be revolutionaries; to be meek (for ONLY the meek shall inherit the earth); to turn the other cheek to Roman authority; to obey; to pay taxes; to give your shirt; to shut the fuck up and do as you are told and if you do you will be rewarded after you're dead and it no longer matters.

Atwill contends that there has been no actual first century writing discovered from Palestine at the time up until we found the Dead Sea Scrolls. All other writing that was Jewish was destroyed. With the exception of the DSS there is zip, other writing and things like the NT and the writings of Josephus came through Rome. I'm no historian so I cannot judge his argument here.

He goes on to make the case that the Jesus we find in Paul and the gospels is nothing like the messianic jews that populated the region at the time, people who resented Rome utterly and were constantly fighting them, and quite successfully. He contends that the DSS paint a very different picture of jewish life than we see in christian writing.

He even makes the argument that yes, Rome indeed persecuted christians and Jews but only those that were enemies of the state, not all, and not because of religion. Again, I don't have the historical bona fides to comment intelligently here.

Atwill makes a pretty good case that the gospels are roman propaganda. Considering that the miracle events are central to the gospels, and not peripheral mentions such as we find in other ancient writings, it makes sense. I'm not convinced of the propaganda angle but certainly I recognize the gospels as fiction.

Incidentally, I never knew that the word gospel means good news of victory. I thought it only meant good news. Can anyone comment here?

I should add that the prophecies that Jesus made and that came to pass make sense because of how late the gospels appeared. It's pretty easy to compose literature that supposedly happened half a decade earlier and have the characters accurately predicting what's going to happen decades hence. Duh. But if I'm into christian woo I'll never make the connection.

 

[Lion IRC]

"Caesar's Messiah" or the "Roman propaganda" etc.. Not a very good plan I would think, because for example: the Jews having various sects, still remained as they were, i.e. they did not become Christian sects and still practiced their Judaism... no messiah.

Not a good plan because the Romans "invented" a jewish messiah who would be King of Kings above Caesar and above all roman gods and everything else. Unless they had enough of the old Roman ways and wanted a change. Christianity intended for the Roman Empire advocating peace, worshipping a Jew? Or...Unless this was actually a Jewish plan.

Sounds crazy right?
Romani eunt domus? 3rd person plural present indicative?

[YOUTUBE]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DdqXT9k-050[/YOUTUBE]

 

[Atheos]

An eagle can't eat the liver of a man chained to a mountain every night if that man doesn't exist.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Incidentally, I never knew that the word gospel means good news of victory. I thought it only meant good news. Can anyone comment here?

Did a little searching and found:

What Gospel Means….

Now we automatically associate this word with religion, as in evangelization or evangelical. But at the time of the Gospels, the term euangelion was associated especially with military victory. It was the good news of triumph in battle. More to it, euangelion was associated with the deity and accomplishments of the emperor of Rome. By Jesus’ time, it had become a commonplace that the Roman emperor was considered a god. Thus when an emperor was installed,euangelion was proclaimed. And when the emperor would write a new law or win a military victory or in any other way assert his command, it was announced as euangelion.

That's pretty interesting. I'm going to guess that just like the word "Easter," 99.9999999% of christians don't know where one of their favorite words comes from.

 

[Politesse]

Incidentally, I never knew that the word gospel means good news of victory. I thought it only meant good news. Can anyone comment here?

Did a little searching and found:

What Gospel Means….

Now we automatically associate this word with religion, as in evangelization or evangelical. But at the time of the Gospels, the term euangelion was associated especially with military victory. It was the good news of triumph in battle. More to it, euangelion was associated with the deity and accomplishments of the emperor of Rome. By Jesus’ time, it had become a commonplace that the Roman emperor was considered a god. Thus when an emperor was installed,euangelion was proclaimed. And when the emperor would write a new law or win a military victory or in any other way assert his command, it was announced as euangelion.

That's pretty interesting. I'm going to guess that just like the word "Easter," 99.9999999% of christians don't know where one of their favorite words comes from.

It literally means "Good news" (or more accurately, "good message"); All of the above facts are likely true, but not necessarily the only contexts in which something might be proclaimed good news.

 

[lpetrich]

So we have these levels of historicity.

The Gospels are 100% historical, miracles and all.

The miracles are unhistorical, and the non-miraculous parts of the Gospels are 100% historical.

Those parts are mostly but not entirely historical.

The Gospels are roughly half-historical. "Asimov's Guide to the Bible" proposes that the Synoptic Gospels are largely historical, but that the Gospel of John was a sort of Platonic dialogue for expressing theological ideas.

The Gospels are mostly unhistorical, with there nevertheless being some historical Jesus Christ. The Haile Selassie scenario is version of that.

The Gospels are entirely unhistorical.

 

[Wiploc]

So we have these levels of historicity.

1. The Gospels are 100% historical, miracles and all.

2. The miracles are unhistorical, and the non-miraculous parts of the Gospels are 100% historical.

3. Those parts are mostly but not entirely historical.

4. The Gospels are roughly half-historical. "Asimov's Guide to the Bible" proposes that the Synoptic Gospels are largely historical, but that the Gospel of John was a sort of Platonic dialogue for expressing theological ideas.

5. The Gospels are mostly unhistorical, with there nevertheless being some historical Jesus Christ. The Haile Selassie scenario is version of that.

6. The Gospels are entirely unhistorical.

[numbers added]

Number five is weird. Why does that one have a historical Jesus?

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Did a little searching and found:

What Gospel Means….



That's pretty interesting. I'm going to guess that just like the word "Easter," 99.9999999% of christians don't know where one of their favorite words comes from.

It literally means "Good news" (or more accurately, "good message"); All of the above facts are likely true, but not necessarily the only contexts in which something might be proclaimed good news.

By today's understanding, certainly. But it is a surprise to know how the word was primarily understood and associated in its day.

 

[lpetrich]

Of the Gospels as entirely unhistorical, here are the three main sorts of theories.

The Doherty-Carrier scenario: Paul channeled an archangel called the Christ around 50 CE. Then around 70 CE, someone wrote GMark as an allegory about this archangel. It depicted him as having earthly adventures, and it was soon interpreted literally as implying an earthly existence. It was folllowed by other works featuring an earthly Jesus Christ: GMatt, GLuke, GJohn, and a big pile of noncanonical Gospels, including GPeter, GThomas, and the Infancy Gospels (Jesus Christ as a little boy).

The Atwill scenario: Xianity was invented by Flavius Josephus around 90 CE as part of an effort to pacify the Jews.

The mountainman scenario: Xianity was invented by Constantine around 320 CE.

 

[ruby sparks]

If you're asking me what portions of the gospels I think contain authentic details about the life of Jesus.......

No, I wasn't asking that. You might, like me, have 'put together' your assessment of probability regarding his existence (and what you think that minimally entailed) based on considering more than just that.

That being said I think it makes sense that he did something that got his ass whacked. Whether or not it was literally a full-blown rampage where he publicly vandalized the trade tables near the temple, who knows? It makes sense that he could have been (rightly) convicted of being an insurrectionist if he'd actually done that, and what with the Pax Roma to protect, perhaps a Roman Crucifixion wasn't off the table.

My minimal likely Jesus is: 1st C Jewish itinerant preacher type, got whacked by the Romans.

After that I can't decide (and am not going to lose any sleep about winning an argument over) how militant he was versus how peaceful or moderate he was. It's possible he was more Political or militant, but that he was as 'pacifist' as described is as valid an alternative, imo. Not all Jewish subgroups were militant at that time. In fact, there were two main and somewhat opposing schools, a militant one and a peaceful/moderate one. Apparently, the former eventually won out by the 60's CE, that's all (quelle surprise. See also: the history of human conflict and the fate of moderates*). It's recorded in Jewish history. The latter, peaceful one (pharisees of some sort I believe) was apparently an influential school (literally) that had formed around the views of rabbi Hillel the Elder, who had died in 10 CE and was renowned for his non-militancy, moderation and pacifism. He has been called the most famous rabbi of his time.

Or Jesus could have been somewhere in between both groups.

As has been suggested, he would not necessarily have to have been guilty of much if any violence himself to appear on the Roman worry radar, given how indiscriminate they could be and how concerned they were about insurrections and nipping them in the bud. Could they have over-reacted or killed a nuisance moderate, one who they saw as associated with a threat? Sure. My guess is that the Romans crucified a lot of innocent Jews. We're talking about a system of brutal summary justice and oppression here.

Either way, I feel like Paul stumbled onto a Tabula Rasa of sorts, a group of devoted followers without their beloved leader. We know that at some point he began to claim to be in telepathic contact with Jesus. "Be followers of me even as I am a follower of Christ." I think a strong case can be made that Paul was the player in the development of early Christianity......

A tabula rasa of sorts, yes, assuming we are using the term in the same way. Tabula rasa may be overstating it. My best guess, for what it's worth, is that Paul piggy-backed on the original Jerusalem cult and bent and modified at least some of their beliefs to his own ends. I don't think it's controversial at all to say that the Christianity that has come down to us today is essentially the Pauline, wider mediterranean/Roman version.

....and everyone who opposed him through jealousy or artistic differences either left the movement or found compromise.

It seems to me that at the time of writing the epistles, Paul had not yet become the main player. It seems very clear indeed he was not the main player in Judea. He may have been getting close to being the main player in the Roman provinces, but I'm not even sure about that, given that in a number of his letters he appears to be aghast that his small, new 'flock' are straying as a result of listening to other 'travelling shepherds'. Imo, it probably took quite a while for Pauline Christianity to fully displace and supersede the original Jewish one (and offshoots of it). That said, his version probably got at least the upper hand before the end of the 1st C or early in the 2nd. I think. I'm not sure. I dare say the devastation of the Jewish nation, and the destruction of Jerusalem in particular, played a very big part in weakening the progress of the original Jewish/Jerusalem version, at home and abroad, after 70 CE.





* Jewish history reports that several leading moderates were secretly assassinated by the militants during a locked, private council meeting, just before the decision was made to go to war against the Romans. Remaining moderates were reportedly intimidated to vote in favour in order for there to be a majority.

I think it's rarely the case in human history that a whole population, or even a majority of it, supports a terrorist uprising or an armed insurgency or a declaration of war against an occupying empire.




Apologies for late editing. I am cursed with afterthoughts that I think I will forget.

 

[lpetrich]

Of these hypotheses, I find the Doherty-Carrier one the most plausible. It does not require any coverup efforts, and it successfully explains the variety of early Xian sects.

-

The Atwill hypothesis requires very little coverup, since there is very little outside record of Xianity before the time of this alleged invention of it. The main thing that would have to be covered up is the invention effort itself.

-

But the mountainman hypothesis is MUCH worse. By 320 CE, there are numerous references to early Xianity, references that would have to be written into a lot of existing documents.

Pliny the Younger (61 CE - 113? CE), around 112 CE, wrote a letter asking what to do about some early Xians. His main concern was that they denied the official gods and refused to worship those entities. That was the main concern of the Roman authorities about the early Xians, especially since they didn't have a long tradition behind them as the Jews had.

Lucian of Samosata (125? CE - 180? CE) wrote "The Passing of Peregrinus" in 165 CE, where the worshippers of a "crucified sophist" come across as hopelessly gullible, and "Alexander the False Prophet" in 170 - 180 CE, about religious prophet and charlatan Alexander of Abonutichus. He would demand the departure of Epicureans and Xians from his ceremonies.

Galen (129 CE - 212? CE) wrote a lot of books about medicine and philosophy and the like over much of his life, and he praised some early Xians for being well-behaved despite believing in what he considered a false religion.

In Xianity itself, we have not only the New Testament, but a large number of other writings, both orthodox and heretical -- the Gnostic Gospels and similar works. On the orthodox side, we have such theologians as Justin Martyr, Tatian, Athenagoras, Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, and Origen.

So Constantine would have to have hired a lot of forgers to write all those presumably fake texts.

Early Christian Writings: New Testament, Apocrypha, Gnostics, Church Fathers

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

There are indicators all over GMark that it is revisionist propaganda and that the real story being whitewashed is one of an insurrectionist movement and their popular leader. All of the nonsense about "brother against brother" and fleeing to the mountains and how they will be "hated" because of him, etc.

Why? If you take the gospels as, well, gospel, then all Jesus ever teaches is the golden rule and to love your enemies and pay your taxes (to Rome) and avoid litigation and do whatever any earthly authority tells you to do. In fact, go even further and if Romans beat you, insist that they beat you again and wear your clothes and give them your money, etc., etc., etc.

There is nothing that I can find in any of the gospels that even hints at any "governors and kings" being in any way upset about what he teaches--including any "orthodox" Jews considering there were already thousands of Essenes and Zealots and "Hellenized Jews" and Pagans, of course, and a whole slew of people believing all kinds of batshit crazy nonsense in Jerusalem long before Jesus ever comes onto the scene--let alone any Romans. Hell, he's teaching in the Temple, which had to have been approved by the chief priests and Pilate must have been absolutely thrilled with the Sermon on the Mount and the Beatitudes and literally everything Jesus ever reportedly said to any of the "masses" in Jerusalem.

The only overt civil unrest Jesus ever comes close to fomenting is when he gets inexplicably angry at the necessary money changers in the Temple and flips a few tables. It is as disruptive an event as a fucking food fight, not cause for the entire hierarchy of Roman and Jewish authority to begin plotting his death.

Only a cult member would place such importance on a minor, isolated disturbance that, at best would have been cause for a low level Roman "police officer" (equivalent) maybe sending someone to find out who this homeless carpenter Rabbi is and then the report back would be, "He's just another Jew preaching love and shit. Oh, and telling his followers to obey us and offer their other cheek when we beat them and that if they rejoice in their suffering and remain meek for their entire lives, their God will reward them. So that's refreshing."

End of report and end of concern about Jesus from a Roman perspective, certainly.

And, of course, from a Jewish orthodoxy perspective, the only apologetic is that the San Hedrin--again, numbering into the 70s--are so threatened by Jesus' supposed popularity that they want him killed (but really it's that they just know he's their messiah and that means they no longer have any power and so they want him killed, something every Jew would know is not possible if he actually were a supernatural entity sent by Jehovah as prophesied).

So where does fleeing to the hills and being hated because they know Jesus and brother turning against brother come into anything Jesus ever does, says, practices or preaches?

It is literally a message of do nothing, love those who beat you, obey authority and thank God you're oppressed! An insurrectionist leader actually talking about rising up against a military occupation and empire like the Romans, otoh? Yeah, then all of the brother against brother and his soldiers will be facing punishment and standing before governors and kings, damn straight, but a homeless Jewish carpenter talking to Jewish whores and Jewish fishermen about rendering unto Caesar that which is Caesar's? He would be celebrated and sponsored by Pilate, ffs, right from day one, if Pilate ever even were made aware such a low personage existed.

Then there is the entire arrest sequence starting in Mark 14 likewise evidencing the real story underneath the whitewash:

Mark 14: 10 Then Judas Iscariot, one of the Twelve, went to the chief priests to betray Jesus to them. 11 They were delighted to hear this and promised to give him money. So he watched for an opportunity to hand him over.

Why? For any of that? Why would they be "delighted to hear this" and promise him money? What for? And what "opportunity" does he need to watch for? Supposedly, Jesus was well known to the chief priests by this point. Again, they had to have approved of him teaching in the Temple and saw him overturn the necessary money changing tables and tried to trip him up with questions directly, etc., etc., etc. They knew exactly who Jesus was--by sight--and supposedly had already tried to stone him to death for blasphemy twice already, so why exactly would they need Judas for anything at all, let alone to pay him to "betray" him? What is he betraying? Did Jesus walk around all day openly and get periodically questioned by the chief priests and then at night went to a super secret hiding place? Why would he do that?

Homeless carpenter Rabbi preaching non-unique unorthodoxy? No. Unknown leader of an underground insurrectionist movement who actually did have super secret hiding places? Yes, only it wouldn't be the chief priests who enlisted Judas to betray him, of course. It would be the Romans.

So, do we see any evidence of this kind of super secret hiding places--and clandestine passwords--that only an underground insurrectionist movement would require? Mark 14:12:

The Last Supper

On the first day of the Festival of Unleavened Bread, when it was customary to sacrifice the Passover lamb, Jesus’ disciples asked him, “Where do you want us to go and make preparations for you to eat the Passover?”

13 So he sent two of his disciples, telling them, “Go into the city, and a man carrying a jar of water will meet you. Follow him. 14 Say to the owner of the house he enters, ‘The Teacher asks: Where is my guest room, where I may eat the Passover with my disciples?’ 15 He will show you a large room upstairs, furnished and ready. Make preparations for us there.”

It's straight out of Casablanca! But, again, why? For ANY of it? Why in the world wouldn't a homeless carpenter Rabbi just say, "Let's have Passover at Jerry's house"? No, it's a pre-arrangend special meeting place in the city that can only be accessed by finding "a man carrying a jar of water" and knowing the right password phrase, etc.

And then there is the whole "One of you will betray me this night" and woe be unto him for such a monumental transgression and "this is my body, this is my blood," which is literally a blood pact between them and ALL HUMANITY.

Homeless carpenter Rabbi? NO. NONE of that. The stakes simply aren't that large. Again, no Roman Prefect would have ever even heard of any such low personage as a homeless carpenter Rabbi who hangs out with whores and fishermen and preaches love and obedience to Rome and not a single member of the San Hedrin would feel in any way threatened by anyone they had approved to teach in the Temple saying whatever the hell his version of Judaism was. ALL Jews constantly debate what Judaism is.

Their power was invulnerable. The scenario would be identical to a Cardinal or City Councilman sitting in their million dollar penthouse apartment on the Upper East Side of Manhattan giving two shits about a homeless guy down on the street twenty floors below shouting at passersby about how the people in that building are hypocrites. Even if it were true--and that guy managed to get thousands of New Yorkers to gather around him every night and listen to his harrangues against the elite (just like we see today with millions screaming about wealth inequality and yet NOTHING happens)--the San Hedrin simply would not give a shit about Jesus.

But, again, an underground insurrectionist movement with a charismatic, popular leader that no one but his loyal lieutenants know by sight? Then this shit makes sense:

Mark 14:26 When they had sung a hymn, they went out to the Mount of Olives.
...
43 Just as he was speaking, Judas, one of the Twelve, appeared. With him was a crowd armed with swords and clubs, sent from the chief priests, the teachers of the law, and the elders.

44 Now the betrayer had arranged a signal with them: “The one I kiss is the man; arrest him and lead him away under guard.” 45 Going at once to Jesus, Judas said, “Rabbi!” and kissed him. 46 The men seized Jesus and arrested him.

Again, why? For ANY of that? Judas leads a "crowd" of armed men--sent by the San Hedrin, so, iow, the very people that would have been at the Temple too and seen Jesus turn over the tables, etc--to arrest a homeless carpenter Rabbi that Judas nevertheless must kiss in order to mark him as the one to arrest. But they already knew who Jesus was!

And why did Judas need to arrange a signal with them? They're evidently a select, heavily armed "crowd" of Jewish policemen, essentially; first century Mossad. Even if they didn't already know who Jesus was by sight from any number of times Jesus taught in the Temple and spoke around town--with the San Hedrin asking him questions, no less, which they would have been present for as their henchmen--was there some secret as to who, among eleven fishermen, was the one they all revered?

And who did Jesus and the "disciples" think was the "crowd" of heavily armed men with Judas? Were they all going to pretend to be buddies of Judas' and mingle with the post passover disciples drinking wine and partying until such time as Judas could give them that pre-arranged signal?

Again, homeless carpenter Rabbi preaching the golden rule and a bunch of humble fishermen spiritualists having just eaten Passover? No. Unknown leader of an underground insurrectionist leader in a second secret meeting place in the outskirts of town--after having held some form of blood-covenant secret meeting in the city where he warned of upheaval and rebellion and being persecuted because they knew him (iow, the night before some sort of attack, perhaps?)--being betrayed by an undercover or turncoat Judas that fears for his life if it is revealed who he is? YES.

Roman soldiers--dressed in peasant, "undercover" clothing just like with the aqueduct--who don't know who the actual leader is needing a sign indicating who he is, from someone who is either their own agent who had joined the "movement" to spy on them (and thus knows that this was the night before whatever was really being planned in the secret meeting place in the city) or someone who had been caught at some point earlier and turned by the Romans into betraying his fellow soldiers/leader.

All of that tracks perfectly. 100%.

Further evidence:

Mark 14:47 Then one of those standing near drew his sword and struck the servant of the high priest, cutting off his ear.

48 “Am I leading a rebellion,” said Jesus, “that you have come out with swords and clubs to capture me?

Wait, WHAT!? One of the eleven fishermen is armed at the secret out of town after party for Passover? And he cuts off one of the soldier's ears and then NOTHING ELSE HAPPENS?

NO. No way in hell that just happens and a fishermen is armed on passover and he cuts a guy's fucking ear off, and nothing. Whether Roman soldiers or a San Hedrin "crowd" of heavily armed henchmen, if one of their ears gets suddenly sliced off, then it's ON and a bloodbath would ensue.

And note what Jesus says next:

49 Every day I was with you, teaching in the temple courts, and you did not arrest me.

So the "crowd" DID know who Jesus was by sight! So why the fuck does Judas need to pre-arrange a "signal" with the men so that they will know which one is Jesus?

And then we have the final bit of evidence of a whitewashing going on with:

Mark 14:50 Then everyone deserted him and fled.

Everyone "deserted" Jesus and fled. Why? Again, he's supposedly just their Rabbi. Imagine you're at a Church potluck dinner on, say, Easter. A group of heavily armed men show up claiming to be sent by, say, the Archdiocese or Bishop or whatever. And you, for some unknown reason, pull a gun and shoot one of their ears off and your minister or priest or pastor stops everything at that point and willingly surrenders himself to these men.

Why would you--or anyone in the church--then desert him (and what would that even entail), let alone flee? You haven't done anything wrong. You've just been listening to the guy's sermons about love and obedience to authority and rejoicing in being beaten, etc.

Again, those are words and actions that a group of insurrectionist soldiers would do during a raid, but certainly not what a group of spiritual fishermen would do if their pastor had just surrendered himself to a bunch of guys supposedly sent from the pastor's Bishop or the like.

Then, of course, there's the whole tortured nonsense regarding Pilate, but this alone is strong evidence--imo--that in GMark we are seeing a Roman propagandist revising (whitewashing) an actual story that would have been recorded by Roman officials in Jerusalem--if not Pilate himself--and reported to Rome as a successful thwarting of an insurrectionist movement that had been planning some form of larger scale attack and that's when Pilate sprung the trap.

And then we get the publicly held trial and torture and mockery and crucifixion of a caught insurrectionist leader as a warning to ALL the Jews in Judea. And because those events actually happened--Jesus was in fact betrayed and arrested (by undercover Roman soldiers, not a San Hedrin "crowd") and then publicly tried by Pilate--the author was not just making anything he wanted up. It had to follow at least the known aspects of what actually happened. What needed to be changed was who was to blame for it all.

And why would that be necessary? Well, again, it was written right at the same time that the Jews are just starting to openly rebel. A nascient insurrectionist movement from thirty or forty years prior grew as a result of its adherents deserting and fleeing and telling and retelling and embellishing a marytyr mythology about how the Romans killed a warrior messiah sent from Jehovah to free us all from Roman oppression, such that it helped to form and spur on a much larger movement that ultimately becomes the first Jewish revolt.

But before that happens, efforts are undertaken to infiltrate this secondary movement (just like the first movement) with other agents, like Saul of Tsarsus, who is a Roman and (allegedly) a Jew and was a confirmed agent provocateur supposedly engaged by the San Hedrin (which faction not entirely established) to hunt down and persecute (whatever that actually meant) "Christians."

And what does he do? He tells of a "vision" he had that "converted" him and that's his entire entryway. That's it. A "vision." Why? Because the smarter ones knew how gullible cult members can be. But the other "disciples" do not trust Paul and relegate him to those on the fringe that are more adherents to the mythology than to the real cause (insurrection).

And Paul then immediately sets about to rise up within the organization to the best he can and all the while desperately tries to turn the story--the Jesus martyr story, that becomes the "passion narrative"--into something supernatural rather than natural (in perfect keeping with everything the Romans have put into practice in their propaganda "psy ops" agendas). Even to the point of writing letters to his burgeoning "flock" insisting that HIS version of the Jesus story MUST be the only true version or else they have nothing and it's all meaningless.

Jesus wasn't a martyrd insurrectionist leader--warrior messiah as the other "disciples" are saying--no, according to my vision sent from Jehovah, he was a man of peace and love who was ALL MANKIND's savior messiah! The Jews got it all wrong! Their fathers and grandfathers are the ones who killed God's son and our savior! The Jews are wrong! The Jews, the Jews, the Jews, not the Romans!

All of the components are literally right there, including in the written document of GMark.

 

[Tharmas]

[snip]...
It seems to me that at the time of writing the epistles, Paul had not yet become the main player. It seems very clear indeed he was not the main player in Judea. He may have been getting close to being the main player in the Roman provinces, but I'm not even sure about that, given that in a number of his letters he appears to be aghast that his small, new 'flock' are straying as a result of listening to other 'travelling shepherds'. Imo, it probably took quite a while for Pauline Christianity to fully displace and supersede the original Jewish one (and offshoots of it). That said, his version probably got at least the upper hand before the end of the 1st C or early in the 2nd. I think. I'm not sure. I dare say the devastation of the Jewish nation, and the destruction of Jerusalem in particular, played a very big part in weakening the progress of the original Jewish/Jerusalem version, at home and abroad, after 70 CE.

If I am not mistaken, I think you will find that the most popular form of Christianity in the second century was not the "proto-orthodox" Pauline version, but rather Marcion's version of Gnosticism, and that by a long shot. Incidentally Marcion took Paul's letters and put out the first "bible" consisting of Paul's letters and Luke, I think, all heavily edited by Marcion.

 

[ruby sparks]

If I am not mistaken, I think you will find that the most popular form of Christianity in the second century was not the "proto-orthodox" Pauline version, but rather Marcion's version of Gnosticism, and that by a long shot. Incidentally Marcion took Paul's letters and put out the first "bible" consisting of Paul's letters and Luke, I think, all heavily edited by Marcion.

Ok. If that was the case, it would still be the pauline version having the upper hand, it would just be a different pauline version than the one that became orthodox later.

Given that Marcion was, I believe, excommunicated by the Rome church around 144 CE (having joined it in about 130 CE, or so I read), I myself am not sure which pauline version, if any, was ahead by a long shot at that time (mid 1st C). But from what I know, Marcion was popular and important among Christians in the early part of the 2nd C, yes. But it seems he was very pauline.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

If I am not mistaken, I think you will find that the most popular form of Christianity in the second century was not the "proto-orthodox" Pauline version, but rather Marcion's version of Gnosticism, and that by a long shot. Incidentally Marcion took Paul's letters and put out the first "bible" consisting of Paul's letters and Luke, I think, all heavily edited by Marcion.

Ok. If that was the case, it would still be the pauline version having the upper hand, it would just be a different pauline version than the one that became orthodox later.

Given that Marcion was, I believe, excommunicated by the Rome church around 144 CE (having joined it in about 130 CE, or so I read), I myself am not sure which pauline version, if any, was ahead by a long shot at that time (mid 1st C). But from what I know, Marcion was popular and important among Christians in the early part of the 2nd C, yes. But it seems he was very pauline.

Considering the fact that we see the GMark “passion narrative” being repeated at least two more times over the following few decades (with the exact same propaganda elements and tortured exoneration/blame shifting going on), it seems very clear to me that the propaganda efforts continue throughout the Roman/Jewish wars. And those “gospels” are all expanding the Pauline version, not correcting the mistakes of GMark.

Iow, we see the author of GMark taking Paul’s “theology” and putting it into a tortured, pro-Roman/anti-Jewish (not anti-Semitic) propaganda piece written and disseminated right at the time of open Jewish revolt against Rome. As those wars continue, so grows the propaganda, with the same tortured/exonerative/blame-shifting components.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

If I am not mistaken, I think you will find that the most popular form of Christianity in the second century was not the "proto-orthodox" Pauline version, but rather Marcion's version of Gnosticism, and that by a long shot. Incidentally Marcion took Paul's letters and put out the first "bible" consisting of Paul's letters and Luke, I think, all heavily edited by Marcion.

Ok. If that was the case, it would still be the pauline version having the upper hand, it would just be a different pauline version than the one that became orthodox later.

Given that Marcion was, I believe, excommunicated by the Rome church around 144 CE (having joined it in about 130 CE, or so I read), I myself am not sure which pauline version, if any, was ahead by a long shot at that time (mid 1st C). But from what I know, Marcion was popular and important among Christians in the early part of the 2nd C, yes. But it seems he was very pauline.

Considering the fact that we see the GMark “passion narrative” being repeated at least two more times over the following few decades (with the exact same propaganda elements and tortured exoneration/blame shifting going on), it seems very clear to me that the propaganda efforts continue throughout the Roman/Jewish wars. And those “gospels” are all expanding the Pauline version, not correcting the mistakes of GMark.

Iow, we see the author of GMark taking Paul’s “theology” and putting it into a tortured, pro-Roman/anti-Jewish (not anti-Semitic) propaganda piece written and disseminated right at the time of open Jewish revolt against Rome. As those wars continue, so grows the propaganda, with the same tortured/exonerative/blame-shifting components.

I have never looked at GMark the way you explained it. To be honest I've never known anyone to point out all the internal inconsistencies, not necessarily as a propaganda piece but just as literature. Gotta admit it sure doesn't make a lot of logical sense. Has anyone else not seen this before and does anyone know where such a take is refuted?

 

[ruby sparks]

If I am not mistaken, I think you will find that the most popular form of Christianity in the second century was not the "proto-orthodox" Pauline version, but rather Marcion's version of Gnosticism, and that by a long shot. Incidentally Marcion took Paul's letters and put out the first "bible" consisting of Paul's letters and Luke, I think, all heavily edited by Marcion.

Ok. If that was the case, it would still be the pauline version having the upper hand, it would just be a different pauline version than the one that became orthodox later.

Given that Marcion was, I believe, excommunicated by the Rome church around 144 CE (having joined it in about 130 CE, or so I read), I myself am not sure which pauline version, if any, was ahead by a long shot at that time (mid 1st C). But from what I know, Marcion was popular and important among Christians in the early part of the 2nd C, yes. But it seems he was very pauline.

Considering the fact that we see the GMark “passion narrative” being repeated at least two more times over the following few decades (with the exact same propaganda elements and tortured exoneration/blame shifting going on), it seems very clear to me that the propaganda efforts continue throughout the Roman/Jewish wars. And those “gospels” are all expanding the Pauline version, not correcting the mistakes of GMark.

Iow, we see the author of GMark taking Paul’s “theology” and putting it into a tortured, pro-Roman/anti-Jewish (not anti-Semitic) propaganda piece written and disseminated right at the time of open Jewish revolt against Rome. As those wars continue, so grows the propaganda, with the same tortured/exonerative/blame-shifting components.

Koy, I am not sufficiently convinced by your theory to have it as my own 1st preference.

I am wary of discussing it with you because I fear we would just come to pointless verbal blows. For example, I might start by saying there’s just a bit too much conspiracy theory in it for my liking. And I say that while not being averse to some of your ideas about Jesus’ possible militancy (and Paul’s possible insincerity).

I will say this, I think your theory is in some ways fairly plausible as an option, and imo more plausible than several published ones. As you know, we have discussed it at length previously.

By the way, have you ever read, ‘James the brother of Jesus’ by Robert Eisenman? If you haven’t, I think you would enjoy it. I’m not saying you would agree with it, but there is some overlap between some of its controversial ideas and yours, to some extent, as I recall (it’s been a while since I read it).

Then there’s, ‘zealot: the life and times of Jesus of nazareth’ by Reza Aslan. Not quite as thorough or as academic, but interesting.

 

[ruby sparks]

If I am not mistaken, I think you will find that the most popular form of Christianity in the second century was not the "proto-orthodox" Pauline version, but rather Marcion's version of Gnosticism, and that by a long shot. Incidentally Marcion took Paul's letters and put out the first "bible" consisting of Paul's letters and Luke, I think, all heavily edited by Marcion.

Ok. If that was the case, it would still be the pauline version having the upper hand, it would just be a different pauline version than the one that became orthodox later.

Given that Marcion was, I believe, excommunicated by the Rome church around 144 CE (having joined it in about 130 CE, or so I read), I myself am not sure which pauline version, if any, was ahead by a long shot at that time (mid 1st C). But from what I know, Marcion was popular and important among Christians in the early part of the 2nd C, yes. But it seems he was very pauline.

Whoops.

Mid 2nd C I should have said, not mid 1st.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

Considering the fact that we see the GMark “passion narrative” being repeated at least two more times over the following few decades (with the exact same propaganda elements and tortured exoneration/blame shifting going on), it seems very clear to me that the propaganda efforts continue throughout the Roman/Jewish wars. And those “gospels” are all expanding the Pauline version, not correcting the mistakes of GMark.

Iow, we see the author of GMark taking Paul’s “theology” and putting it into a tortured, pro-Roman/anti-Jewish (not anti-Semitic) propaganda piece written and disseminated right at the time of open Jewish revolt against Rome. As those wars continue, so grows the propaganda, with the same tortured/exonerative/blame-shifting components.

I have never looked at GMark the way you explained it. To be honest I've never known anyone to point out all the internal inconsistencies, not necessarily as a propaganda piece but just as literature. Gotta admit it sure doesn't make a lot of logical sense.

None of it makes any sense absent my theory. Over a two day time period, the San Hedrin decide to collude with their conquerors (the Romans) to have them kill Jesus for them, because they fear “the festival crowd of Jews” will riot against them. Will kill them, iow, because Jesus is evidently that popular among all the Jews that are in Judea for Passover that colluding with the Romans is believed to be their only option.

Why the San Hedrin want to kill Jesus is never really explained. It’s always some vague notion of losing their authority, which would not ever be the case even if Jesus were one of the prophesied messiahs (there wasn’t just one after all; that would likewise be a Roman misinterpretation of messianic prophecy, but that’s whole ‘nother part I won’t get into). And then when that apologetic doesn’t hold, it becomes a variation on “they knew he was God/Son of God and was there to punish them, so they had to kill him no matter the risk.”

I’m pretty sure that if you asked any Jew then or today, “If Jehovah (or his son) were standing here on earth before us, would it be possible to kill him?” The answer would be, “No.”

So they “arrest” Jesus and take him before Pilate who asks him a couple of stupid questions, finds no crime that he’s committed, figures out, of course, what the San Hedrin are doing but doesn’t tell them he’s going to betray them publicly in front of the exact same “festival crowd” that they all feared two days prior would riot against them if they even tried to kill Jesus.

What happens? A Roman Prefect holds a “tradition” of committing treason against Rome by allowing conquered subjects to determine which convicted criminal he will set free in order to please them. They choose Barabbas, who supposedly actually is an insurrectionist leader and murderer of Roman soldiers/citizens. Convicted, no less (and of course the name gives it all away, because that’s how arrogant Romans were, even in their propaganda they sign their crime).

So now Pilate says, but don’t you want me to free Jesus (in spite of the fact that Pilate has found him completely innocent and therefore Jesus should already be free)? And now that their collusion has been revealed (and they stand betrayed), the San Hedrin no longer fear the crowd and somehow horse whisper the entire crowd into demanding Pilate KILL Jesus. KILL a man you just found innocent and let the convicted insurrectionist leader and murderer of Roman soldiers/citizens to go free so that he can once again plot sedition against Rome and murder more of your soldiers and citizens!

And Pilate—so desperately wanting to please Jews, because that’s his m.o.—right in front of his own soldiers lets the man who actively committed sedition against Rome and killed their friends go free while at the same time ordering a completely innocent man the Jews now suddenly and for no reason whatsoever (other than the power of San Hedrin whispers) be killed because Jews.

And what do the solders do? They torture and mock Jesus with a crown of thorns and purple royal gowns while they take turns beating the “King of the Jews”! Why? Set aside all the other stuff, why would Roman soldiers mock and beat Jesus like this? They JUST witnessed their own treasonous leader Pilate publicly declare his innocence and that Pilate has inexplicably ordered his death to please the Jews that most Roman soldiers hate and subjugate. It is the crowd of Jews that want an innocent man they supposedly loved two days ago murdered for no reason. So why would any Roman soldier do anything at all to Jesus other than pity him?

Now, boot up my theory. NOW it makes perfect sense that the Roman solders would take Jesus aside for their own special torture and mockery party. Because, as a seditionist leader the phrase “King of the Jews” makes ironic sense. As a seditionist leader, Jesus would have ordered or caused Roman soldiers to be killed.

Iow, they would treat him the way they likely treated Barabbas, who their superior just released back into freedom to murder again.

Has anyone else not seen this before and does anyone know where such a take is refuted?

Some have tried (Poli, ruby, for example), but to date, no one has presented anything to counter it that I haven’t been able to address, given the limitations of documentation and historically accuracy, of course.

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

What do forum-dwellers view as the best evidence for a historical (as opposed to mythical) Jesus?

I don't see it as a binary choice. It is quite possible that there was an actual character that was a religious preacher and then all sorts of mythical stories were attached to him.

Gautama Buddha comes to mind as an example of that.

No miracle stories were attached to him until after several centuries later. Or at least nothing written and recorded. If no one near his time thought it worthwhile to record it, it means they didn't take any such claims seriously.

And then there are actual known historical figures that had myths of 'magical powers' attributed to them... Like the leaders of the Kim family in North Korea.

Those holding widespread life-and-death power over millions of subjects whom they dispose of at will are able to establish and instill myths into their subject populations, and enforce obedience and submission to the myths, especially with modern communication and brainwashing technology. But Jesus in the 1st century had no power to brainwash the population and impose myths onto them. So this analogy is illegitimate.