Freethought & Rationalism Archive

andrewcriddle · 07-27-2011, 02:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PhilosopherJay

Hi All,

Quote:

Caiaphas:
I see bad things arising
The crowd crown him King
Which the Romans would ban
I see blood and destruction
Our elimination because of one man
Blood and destruction
Because of one man

Voices:
What can we do about this Jesusmania?
How can we deal with the carpenter king?
Where do we start with a man who is bigger
Than John was when John did his baptism thing?

Caiaphas:
Fools! You have no perception
The stakes we are gambling
Are frighteningly high
We must crush him completely
So like John before him
This Jesus must die
For the sake of the nation
This Jesus must die
Must die, must die
This Jesus must die

From "Jesus Christ Superstar" by Andrew Lloyd Webber and Tim Rice

This song gives us an explanation for why Jesus must die. It does so from within the narrative, what is called the diegesis in literary and movie theory. In the story world, Caiaphas is worried that Jesus' popularity will cause a revolution that will lead to the death of many of the Jewish People. We can call this a diegetic explanation.

We can also give an explanation on what Gerard Genette calls the extradiegetic level. A believer in the historical Jesus would say that the author believed or knew that Jesus had been crucified in real life and wanted to tell the truth about it. Jesus had to die in the narrative because the narrative is following the true history. We can call this an extradiegetic historical explanation.

We can ask if this is the best or only extradiegetic historical explanation? I propose a different extradiegetic historical explanation:

Let us suppose that Jesus was not crucified, what would have happened? Jesus would have rallied the people to him and he would have established the Kingdom of God on Earth. The Romans and Greeks would have all prayed to the true Jewish God and there would have been peace on Earth. The Roman-Jewish Wars would not have taken place, the Temple would not have been burnt down, the Jews would not have followed Bar Kokhbar, Jerusalem wouldn't have been leveled and the Jews would not have been
expelled from Jerusalem. Yet we know that the wars and destruction and expulsion did take place.

If Jesus did not die in the story, then we would have a fairy tale, a non-historical story, but a fairy tale with a strange moral. The moral would be that only in an invented world does a God send a Messiah to save his people - in the real historical world a God does not care enough to send a Messiah to save his people. God and his heartlessness is to blame for the catastrophe that happened to the Jews. This was not the message the authors wanted to deliver.

By having Jesus die, we get a different moral - God did try to save his people by sending a Messiah, but the stupidity, self-righteousness, and selfishness of the Jewish leadership thwarted God's plan.

Jesus had to die because the authors wanted to shift the blame for the Jew's terrible defeat at the hands of the Romans away from their God and onto the Jews (or at least the Jewish leadership) themselves.

I propose that this is the real extradiegetic historical reason that Jesus has to die in the story.

As for his crucifixion, that is explained by the fact that the son-of-man character is described in Hebrew Scriptures as a suffering servant as well as a messiah. Certainly a death by crucifixion is a suffering death appropriate for a suffering servant (slave). Thus the Hebrew scriptures determined what kind of death the Jewish Messiah (called son-of-man in apocalyptic literature) in the narrative would have.

The authors of the narrative were constrained by real history in their choice that Jesus must die, but not because the narrative had to follow the history of Jesus, but because the narrative had to follow the history of the Jewish people (loss and destruction).

In choosing that the Jesus character die by crucifixion, they were constrained by the Hebrew Scriptures.

Warmly,

Jay Raskin

Hi Jay

Does this argument, (which links the narrative need for the death of Jesus to the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 CE), assume a post 70 CE date for the Epistles of Paul ?

Andrew Criddle

PhilosopherJay · 07-27-2011, 04:51 PM

Hi andrewcriddle,

Yes and No.

There certainly appears to be a lot of pre-70 material in the epistles where snipping foreskins of Jewish converts is a big issue. I do not think that it would be a burning issue after the Temple's destruction. There are at least three hypotheses that I think that can explain the High Christology in the epistles.

1. Earl Doherty's sublunar Neo-Platonic Paul Cult hypothesis.

2. Something I and others proposed a while ago that Jesus is just another name for the Jewish creator God, At the same time, it is used as the name for an angelic messiah. Finally, there are also some references to Joshua of Nun. All these names and references get confused pre-70.

3. the hypothesis that DCHindley recently proposed that Paul's Jewish letters have been reworked in the Second century. All mentions of Jesus Christ, Christ Jesus and Lord Jesus are super impositions to the original Jesus Christless text.

The first two allow for the main epistles to be all pre-70. The third one does suppose a Second Century layer. There might be something to all these hypotheses, they may not be mutually exclusive.

Warmly,

Jay Raskin

Quote:

Originally Posted by andrewcriddle

{Snip}

Hi Jay

Does this argument, (which links the narrative need for the death of Jesus to the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 CE), assume a post 70 CE date for the Epistles of Paul ?

Andrew Criddle

andrewcriddle · 07-28-2011, 11:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PhilosopherJay

Hi andrewcriddle,

Yes and No.

There certainly appears to be a lot of pre-70 material in the epistles where snipping foreskins of Jewish converts is a big issue. I do not think that it would be a burning issue after the Temple's destruction. There are at least three hypotheses that I think that can explain the High Christology in the epistles.

1. Earl Doherty's sublunar Neo-Platonic Paul Cult hypothesis.

2. Something I and others proposed a while ago that Jesus is just another name for the Jewish creator God, At the same time, it is used as the name for an angelic messiah. Finally, there are also some references to Joshua of Nun. All these names and references get confused pre-70.

3. the hypothesis that DCHindley recently proposed that Paul's Jewish letters have been reworked in the Second century. All mentions of Jesus Christ, Christ Jesus and Lord Jesus are super impositions to the original Jesus Christless text.

The first two allow for the main epistles to be all pre-70. The third one does suppose a Second Century layer. There might be something to all these hypotheses, they may not be mutually exclusive.

Warmly,

Jay Raskin

Hi Jay

IIUC the first two options have Jesus supposedly dying in texts written before 70 CE. (Not necessarily dying on earth but still dying.) Hence the idea of the death of Jesus would predate the fall of Jerusalem.

Andrew Criddle

steve_bnk · 07-28-2011, 12:23 PM

From past net searches on the topic the Jesus myth fits nicely with a common mythical theme across time and cultures.

The earthly human saviour of divine parentage who shoulders the troubles of 'the world', dying and returning to the heavens in the act of saving the people.

Having the son of god hanging around would be rather inconvienient.

aa5874 · 07-28-2011, 01:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by andrewcriddle

....IIUC the first two options have Jesus supposedly dying in texts written before 70 CE. (Not necessarily dying on earth but still dying.) Hence the idea of the death of Jesus would predate the fall of Jerusalem.

Andrew Criddle

Papyrus 46, the Pauline writings, is dated between the last quarter of the 2nd century to the 1st quarter of the 3rd century c 175-225 CE.

It makes ZERO sense to accept the words of the Pauline writers when it has been deduced that many of the writings under the name "Paul" were written by more than one person and at different times.

People who argue that the Pauline writings are LATE, that is, AFTER the Fall of the Jewish Temple require FAR MORE than assumptions.

We require EVIDENCE and Papyrus 46 [c 175-225 CE] is nowhere close to a time BEFORE the Fall of the Jewish Temple.

People who argue that the Pauline writings are LATE inherently PREDICT that there will be NO writings of Paul that can be dated to the time BEFORE the Fall of the Jewish Temple.

So far, the Prediction still stands.

Tom Sawyer · 07-28-2011, 01:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by steve_bnk

Having the son of god hanging around would be rather inconvienient.

That reminds me of a t-shirt I used to have with the caption "Jesus is coming - hide the porn".

If you had the guy looking over your shoulder all the time, it would make it decidedly inconvenient to go around doing all the things that he doesn't want you to do. Which is odd, because all the people who think that Jesus is looking over their shoulder all the time tend to go around doing all the things he wouldn't want them to do.

PhilosopherJay · 07-28-2011, 07:59 PM

Hi Andrew Criddle,

Good point.

If we take the first two theories and there is no Second Century forged layer, then we have to conclude that the gospel writers developed their idea of a human crucifixion of a human Jesus from the idea from Paul of a crucifixion of a non-human Jesus in Paul. I think we can't see the two sources as independence and a coincidence.

This does not mean that the gospel writers got anything directly from Paul's epistles or vicer-versa.

One might think of it as the way that certain similar gags appear in the movies of Buster Keaton and Harold Lloyd throughout the 20's.

David Pearson has a wonderful list. Here are some examples:

Quote:

In From Hand to Mouth (1919), Harold is chased by hordes of policemen, much like the armies that chase Buster in Convict 13 (1920), Cops (1922), Daydreams (1922), and Seven Chances (1925).

In Mouth and Sherlock Jr., they both rescue the heroine from a gang of criminals.

Speaking of armies, Why Worry? (1923) casts Harold fighting off the rebel Paradisian army. In The Navigator (1924), Buster defends his ship against bands of cannibals.

In High and Dizzy (1920) and The Goat (1921), they both throw horse shoes over their shoulders for good luck, only to hit respective law enforcement officers in the face.

In The Three Ages, Buster finds that the girl he loves is about to marry a bigamist, so goes to the wedding and steals the bride. Lloyd's Girl Shy, made a few months later, has an identical climatic plot.

In Haunted Spooks (1920), Lloyd tries to kill himself by standing in a trolley's path, only to see it pass at the last moment onto a nearby track. In Hard Luck (1921), the same thing happens to Keaton. Footnote: Later in Hard Luck, Keaton attempts suicide by drinking alcohol he thinks is poison, getting himself drunk. A Langdon gag parallels this in The Chaser (1927), where Harry's drinking "poison" castor oil leaves him dying to get to a bathroom.

In the opening shot of Cops, Keaton is behind bars, appearing to be in prison. But the reverse angle reveals that bars are to his girl's estate, thereby locking him out, not in. Harold expands upon this idea in Safety Last.

In order to marry the girl in Day Dreams (1922), Keaton must prove himself a success in business. While failing miserably, Buster writes home of his success. In Safety Last, Lloyd does the same with his girl.

In Daydreams, Buster dresses as a mannequin to avoid the police. In Safety Last, Harold dresses as a mannequin to avoid the store manager...

This might seem as if the two comedians deliberately stole each other's material. In fact, their gags and story-lines are different 95% of the time and neither wanted to be accused of copying the other. Even when they do the same gag, it seems completely natural to them and it does not seem at all that they are copying anything they have seen.

The solution is that both relied on gag-writers as well as their own talents in coming up with material. Naturally, one has to expect that a comedy gag writer would see every Lloyd or keaton film and would remember a funny bit. They would propose the bit, and Lloyd or Keaton supposing it to be original would use it.

It is possible that the writers of the gospels had only heard of a few ideas from Paul second or third hand and used them, or the reverse is possible.

Warmly,

Jay Raskin

Quote:

Originally Posted by andrewcriddle

Snip
Hi Jay

IIUC the first two options have Jesus supposedly dying in texts written before 70 CE. (Not necessarily dying on earth but still dying.) Hence the idea of the death of Jesus would predate the fall of Jerusalem.

Andrew Criddle

steve_bnk · 07-28-2011, 08:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tom Sawyer

Quote:

Originally Posted by steve_bnk

Having the son of god hanging around would be rather inconvienient.

That reminds me of a t-shirt I used to have with the caption "Jesus is coming - hide the porn".

If you had the guy looking over your shoulder all the time, it would make it decidedly inconvenient to go around doing all the things that he doesn't want you to do. Which is odd, because all the people who think that Jesus is looking over their shoulder all the time tend to go around doing all the things he wouldn't want them to do.

From a past PBS show on Christianity, the gospels were likley written specificaly as promtional literature and appropriatly embellished.

From my Oxford commentary, the gospels were written in a recognizable literary form of the times. It was a tradgedy, the hero dies in the end.

Given that the writers/followers were removed from any possible actual events, having JC die was important. They were then free to form at will.

I'd have to look up chapter and verse. I recall conflict betwwen Peter and Paul with Peter asserting hey, I was there!

From Paul there were references to Christian offshoot groups he declraed inauthentic. Poiint being, having the son of god around or having specific dictated rules from JC would be inconviebient all the way around. Even today with the diversity of interpretaiton.

Horatio Parker · 07-28-2011, 08:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by steve_bnk

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tom Sawyer

That reminds me of a t-shirt I used to have with the caption "Jesus is coming - hide the porn".

If you had the guy looking over your shoulder all the time, it would make it decidedly inconvenient to go around doing all the things that he doesn't want you to do. Which is odd, because all the people who think that Jesus is looking over their shoulder all the time tend to go around doing all the things he wouldn't want them to do.

From a past PBS show on Christianity, the gospels were likley written specificaly as promtional literature and appropriatly embellished.

From my Oxford commentary, the gospels were written in a recognizable literary form of the times. It was a tradgedy, the hero dies in the end.

Given that the writers/followers were removed from any possible actual events, having JC die was important. They were then free to form at will.

I'd have to look up chapter and verse. I recall conflict betwwen Peter and Paul with Peter asserting hey, I was there!

From Paul there were references to Christian offshoot groups he declraed inauthentic. Poiint being, having the son of god around or having specific dictated rules from JC would be inconviebient all the way around. Even today with the diversity of interpretaiton.

Granted, having JC hang around would make it more difficult for the church to do what they wanted in his name.

But still he didn't have to die. He could've ascended.

Sheshbazzar · 07-28-2011, 09:01 PM

The worse possible thing that could ever happen to Christianity, would be for its alleged founder to actually show up.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

07-28-2011, 12:23 PM	#14
steve_bnk Contributor Join Date: Sep 2008 Location: Seattle Posts: 27,602	From past net searches on the topic the Jesus myth fits nicely with a common mythical theme across time and cultures. The earthly human saviour of divine parentage who shoulders the troubles of 'the world', dying and returning to the heavens in the act of saving the people. Having the son of god hanging around would be rather inconvienient.

07-28-2011, 09:01 PM	#20
Sheshbazzar Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: On the path of knowledge Posts: 8,889	The worse possible thing that could ever happen to Christianity, would be for its alleged founder to actually show up.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.