Historical Jesus

[No Robots]

^Jesus gradually realized that the Jews would not embrace him overnight, but that he was getting a hearing among non-Jews, so his preaching become more universalist. After the crucifixion, Paul completely rewrote the playbook specifically to recruit Gentiles. The Greco-Roman world was spiritually exhausted and willingly sought to adopt Judaism, but the strictures were too difficult. The loosening of these strictures in the new movement opened the door for mass adoption. Of course, this also opened the door to pagan contaminants, and the principle trajectory of history over the last two millennia has been to purge these contaminants and return to pure Judaism, albeit a Judaism that is less reliant on strictures and more reliant on spiritual commitment.

 

[ideologyhunter]

Right, like Trump going down to Brownsville to welcome incoming Somalians. It could happen.

 

[Swammerdami]

So, I guess the biggest question to the whole discussion is the central arc:

Did a guy throw a tantrum at a temple over commercialization of religion and get executed for it because his friend turned him in? [Swammi's emphasis]

I think that's the real core here; the temple incident.

I think the real question here is whether there is a "historical kernel" and what it is.

Probably. Reasons:
(1) The Cleansing of the Temple shows a Jesus very different from that in most of the Gospels' fictional events.
(2) It's one of very few Jesus actions in the Gospels which is NOT accompanied by a miracle.
(3) The violence of the Cleansing might justify capital punishment, which would otherwise be unusual for a benign preacher.

Recall that the pacifist John the Baptist was executed shortly before Jesus was executed; but John's unjust execution was not well-received, as Josephus writing decades later tells us:

Now some of the Jews thought that the destruction of Herod's army came from God, and was a very just punishment for what he did against John called the Dipper. For Herod had him killed, although he was a good man and had urged the Jews to exert themselves to virtue, ...

(The existence of John the Baptist is of course one of several clues pointing strongly toward Jesus' historicity. Why worship a FICTIONAL disciple of the Baptist, when the Baptist himself was available as a famous and highly esteemed martyr?)

 

[Jarhyn]

So, I guess the biggest question to the whole discussion is the central arc:

Did a guy throw a tantrum at a temple over commercialization of religion and get executed for it because his friend turned him in? [Swammi's emphasis]

I think that's the real core here; the temple incident.

I think the real question here is whether there is a "historical kernel" and what it is.

Probably. Reasons:
(1) The Cleansing of the Temple shows a Jesus very different from that in most of the Gospels' fictional events.
(2) It's one of very few Jesus actions in the Gospels which is NOT accompanied by a miracle.
(3) The violence of the Cleansing might justify capital punishment, which would otherwise be unusual for a benign preacher.

Recall that the pacifist John the Baptist was executed shortly before Jesus was executed; but John's unjust execution was not well-received, as Josephus writing decades later tells us:

Now some of the Jews thought that the destruction of Herod's army came from God, and was a very just punishment for what he did against John called the Dipper. For Herod had him killed, although he was a good man and had urged the Jews to exert themselves to virtue, ...

(The existence of John the Baptist is of course one of several clues pointing strongly toward Jesus' historicity. Why worship a FICTIONAL disciple of the Baptist, when the Baptist himself was available as a famous and highly esteemed martyr?)

Well, the question is whether the temple tantrum was thrown by John or Jesus, then.

Also, John classically was written as overly self-important. If John threw the temple tantrum, it could actually be a case of misattributed glory.

I can definitely believe in the temple tantrum as having been a real event, and the subsequent execution.

 

[steve_bank]

^Jesus gradually realized that the Jews would not embrace him overnight, but that he was getting a hearing among non-Jews, so his preaching become more universalist. After the crucifixion, Paul completely rewrote the playbook specifically to recruit Gentiles. The Greco-Roman world was spiritually exhausted and willingly sought to adopt Judaism, but the strictures were too difficult. The loosening of these strictures in the new movement opened the door for mass adoption. Of course, this also opened the door to pagan contaminants, and the principle trajectory of history over the last two millennia has been to purge these contaminants and return to pure Judaism, albeit a Judaism that is less reliant on strictures and more reliant on spiritual commitment.

Where do you derive this from, other than your imagination?

Where in the gospels does JC put aside his Jewish faith? You are confuting the gospel Jesus with Paul.

Jesus reinforced Mosaic Law, Paul despised with it. Circumcise does not make a Jew Jewish....paraphrasing.

OMG!! Now ot is about purging consonants from 'pure Judaism'?

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Right, like Trump going down to Brownsville to welcome incoming Somalians. It could happen.

And it should be common knowledge that Robert E Lee intentionally lost the battle of Gettysburg. In another two thousand years the truth will come out and the great mystery will be revealed.

 

[ideologyhunter]

^Jesus gradually realized that the Jews would not embrace him overnight, but that he was getting a hearing among non-Jews, so his preaching become more universalist. After the crucifixion, Paul completely rewrote the playbook specifically to recruit Gentiles. The Greco-Roman world was spiritually exhausted and willingly sought to adopt Judaism, but the strictures were too difficult. The loosening of these strictures in the new movement opened the door for mass adoption. Of course, this also opened the door to pagan contaminants, and the principle trajectory of history over the last two millennia has been to purge these contaminants and return to pure Judaism, albeit a Judaism that is less reliant on strictures and more reliant on spiritual commitment.

Where do you derive this from, other than your imagination?

Where in the gospels does JC put aside his Jewish faith? You are confuting the gospel Jesus with Paul.

Jesus reinforced Mosaic Law, Paul despised with it. Circumcise does not make a Jew Jewish....paraphrasing.

OMG!! Now ot is about purging consonants from 'pure Judaism'?

Well, exactly. Matthew 19, near the end of his ministry, has him telling the disciples they will sit on twelve thrones and judge the twelve tribes of Israel (except that Judas...who knows...) In Matthew 20, en route to Jerusalem, he tells them that he will be 'delivered to the Gentiles to be mocked and scourged and crucified.' In Matthew 26, he spends his last night with them, celebrating Passover, like zero Christians today. In Matthew 28, the resurrected Jesus now tells them to 'make disciples of all nations.' So, a ministry full of teachings that his people are not like the Gentiles, but then a complete turnaround after the crucifixion. Bruce into Caitlyn is less jarring. And then all the stuff about he's coming back, except 20 centuries have come and gone, and wasn't that supposed to happen in his listeners' lifetimes? No wonder the theologians act like script doctors.

 

[lpetrich]

Here is Amy-Jill Levine:

[T]he Gospels tell us about women’s substantial rights: owning homes, having use of their own property, having freedom of travel, worshipping in synagogues and the Jerusalem Temple, and so on. Women did not join Jesus because Judaism oppressed them, and the Jewish women who followed him did not cease to be Jews.

Empty assertions. All she is doing is making the Gospels in her moral likeness. A certain Xenophanes of Colophon (~570 - ~478 BCE) would understand her very well.

(10) Since all at first have learnt according to Homer. . . .

(11) Homer and Hesiod have ascribed to the gods all things that are a shame and a disgrace among mortals, stealings and adulteries and deceivings of one another. R. P. 99.

(12) Since they have uttered many lawless deeds of the gods, stealings and adulteries and deceivings of one another. R. P. ib.

(14) But mortals deem that the gods are begotten as they are, and have clothes like theirs, and voice and form. R. P. 100.

(15) Yes, and if oxen and horses or lions had hands, and could paint with their hands, and produce works of art as men do, horses would paint the forms of the gods like horses, and oxen like oxen, and make their bodies in the image of their several kinds. R. P. ib.

(16) The Ethiopians make their gods black and snub-nosed; the Thracians say theirs have blue eyes and red hair. R. P. 100 b.

Jesus Christ himself has been made in the likeness of many of his worshippers, not only physical but also moral.

Black Jesus, Mediterranean Jesus, Nordic Jesus, Eastern Asian Jesus, ... Jesus the great social worker, Jesus the great entrepreneur, Jesus the great peacemaker, Jesus the great fighter, ...

But Jesus Christ wsan't known as a great strophium-burner. Yes, bra burning is an urban legend, but it's a funny one.

 

[No Robots]

^Weird how you just can't force yourself to say it: Jewish Jesus.

 

[lpetrich]

^Weird how you just can't force yourself to say it: Jewish Jesus.

What difference is that supposed to make? Seriously.

 

[No Robots]

^The one that you can't mention is the one that is generally agreed upon.

In fact, no one in mainstream New Testament scholarship denies that Jesus was a Jew.--William Arnal

 

[lpetrich]

^The one that you can't mention is the one that is generally agreed upon.

In fact, no one in mainstream New Testament scholarship denies that Jesus was a Jew.--William Arnal

So what? I didn't think that it was worth mentioning in the context of people depicting him in their likeness.

 

[No Robots]

Amy-Jill Levine is depicting the New Testament as a document that illuminates the history and essence of Judaism, and specifically the status of women within Judaism. Is it because she is a Jew that you say she is representing the New Testament in her own likeness? If so, then I'm sure she would agree. As Arnal points out, no one in mainstream New Testament scholarship denies that the New Testament is a document that illuminates the history and essence of Judaism.

 

[steve_bank]

I was just thinking there are only a handful of sayings attributed to Jesus.

What did he sa that we do not know?

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

Matthew 5
17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.
18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.

This seems pretty Jewish to me. If we trust Matthew to correctly quote Jesus.

 

[TomC]

Matthew 5
17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.
18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.

This seems pretty Jewish to me. If we trust Matthew to correctly quote Jesus.

I read an interesting article many years ago.
Some scholars discussing the likely intended audience of the 4 Gospels (Acts was treated as part of Luke), the Epistles, and Revelation.
My vague recollection is that Matthew was written for the most traditional Jewish audience.
Tom