MrMacSon

Whoever they were (singular or plural), they likely knew the narrative of the Septuagint.

They could have been one or more descendants of the Jewish Diapsora; they could have been Greeks or Romans in Greece influenced by Jews, or merely influenced by the Septuagint.

A basis for Yeshua of NT could have been a Greek Jew later translocated to another setting, Galilee; or the telling of tales of Jewish messiahs in Greece.

aa5874

That is least likely because the Markan author is NOT aware of Jewish customs. The Markan author appears to be Non-Jewish using the Septuagint and the writings of Josephus to fabricate his Jesus story.

DCHindley

I don't think Tommy is joking (well, not completely). There is a faction among academics of color who think the Israelites were of African origin (there were undeniably Egyptian Pharaohs who were black, and the Israelites did think they had an Egyptian connection).

DCH

James The Least

Still don't understand the presumption that "Jesus" and/or early Christians MUST have been Jewish. It is based, as far as I can tell, entirely on the false premise that anyone who (a) had copies of the Septuagint in the first century, and (b) took it seriously MUST have been (ethnic) Jews. No one else could have a copy of this book or understand it or care about it in the slightest ... even though by the supposed date of the Pauline epistles in the 40s that's exactly what you have! It is astonishing.

Christianity and Gnosticism are names we give to the underground religious movements started by some non-Jewish iconoclasts who had their minds blown when they read the precious secret books of the Septuagint. They wanted to possess this, to control it, to define it, to interpret it, AND they wanted to do it without the input, supervision, or oversight of Jews or the Jerusalem priesthood. And so they invented myths to accomplish that goal.

steve_bnk

Going by the NT and Paul the frst followers or movement would have been Jews. Followed by the gentile converts allowed by Paul's relaxation of hJewish requirements. A Jew is determined by the heart not circumcision or something like that.

Paul at one poit is on the run from Jews. Christians established their own identity and coopted the OT as their own. The evolution rom Jewish heretics to Christians would have carried the Jewish lore with it.

As to ethnic Jews, I don't known that has any meaning.

Samaritans and Judean Jews were at odds as to who was the true inheritor's of the original faith.

James The Least

Yes, it's a nice story. It was invented to fill in the gap in time between when Jesus supposedly lived and the time of the writing, when the rationalization and historicization of the religion among the emerging Catholic sect went into overdrive. In reality, Paul was never "on the run" from the evil Jews who want to kill him and destroy Christians. It's all part of the bizarre and toxic theology that had to simultaneously acknowledge that Jews, once the people of God, were now the enemies of God. Now, only Christians were the people of God. The central totalitarian ideal of monotheism had been established. Only one group could be the chosen ones of God. Goodbye, ethnic Jews.

The meaning of "ethnic" Jews is that Gentiles who converted to the YHWH religion called themselves Joudaioi and Judeans, as Cassius Dio documented.
This transition group was most likely the one who eventually forged new religious strategies of their own, most notably the myth that they were the true inheritors of the Kingdom of YHWH, not ethnic Jews, who "killed the Lord Jesus and are the enemies of all men."

There is no need to state unequivocally that ethnic Jews were the creators of the Jesus cult or Christianity. All that is needed to challenge that idea is the availability of the Hebrew Bible in the common language. And that had been available for 200+ years before the supposed lives of Jesus and Paul.

steve_bnk

I believe in the Acts Paul is said to have taken refuge behind his Roman citizenship from the Jews. True or false, who knows.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_of...y_Jews_in_Acts

'...Several passages in Acts describe St. Paul's missions to Asia Minor and the encounters he had with Diaspora Jews and with local gentile populations. In Acts 13-15, the Jews from Antioch and Iconium go so far as to follow Paul to other cities and to incite the crowds there to violence against him. Paul had already been stoned and left for dead once.[Acts 14:19] In Philippi, a Roman colony, Roman magistrates beat and jailed Paul and his companions on behalf of the Gentiles.[Acts 16:19-40] Clearly at this point, Paul and his companions were still considered to be Jews by those in Philippi who raised protests against them, despite Paul's attempts to tailor his teachings to his audience.[1 Cor. 9:20-23] Later, in nearby Thessalonica, the Jews again incited the crowds and pitted the Christians against the Roman authority..'

The story is based on Jewish mythology. It would seem unusual for someone to invent the story using a Jewish theme. In the gospels the JC character would have been scandalous in Judea.

Paul makes a reference to trying to build a bridge between Jew and gentile.

We have an idea of the political and religious turmoil. We know there were Jews who claimed the mantle of messiah.

A gradual evolution from Jewish to gentile would make sense. Both Christians and Jews use the OT.

I like to say to say Christianity is more Paulism than Christianity, the origins of which we can never know baring some spectacular historical discoveries. There are few actual doctrines attributed to JC. JC appeared to be a Jew preaching to Jews. He never rejected Judiasm.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_the_Apostle

'...Paul's theology of the gospel accelerated the separation of the messianic sect of Christians from Judaism, a development contrary to Paul's own intent.[14] He wrote that faith in Christ was alone decisive in salvation for Jews and Gentiles alike, making the schism between the followers of Christ and mainstream Jews inevitable and permanent.[14] He argued that Gentile converts did not need to become Jews, get circumcised, follow Jewish dietary restrictions, or otherwise observe Mosaic laws to be saved.[14] Nevertheless, in Romans he insisted on the positive value of the Law, as a moral guide...'

The alternative is the gospels being an outright fiction written by non Jews.

gurugeorge

I'm a big fan of the works of the scholar-mystic Peter Kingsley. His big thing is that, even coming at it from a purely scholarly perspective, our understanding of ancient Greek philosophy is somewhat askew. It was more "Asian" than we think, more connected with forms of shamanism and mysticism.

e.g. Parmenides wasn't some greybeard sitting in the ancient greek equivalent of an armchair, he was a "Iatromantis" (as found on a recently-unearthed bust of him), i.e. a healer and a kind of priest. And far from the bit of poetry at the beginning of the text we have of him being a carbuncle, it's an essential part of the writing, a record of an actual vision, and essential to understanding his philosophy (which turns out to be a form of non-dualism, much like Advaita or similar).

Again, Empedocles was a magician, in the sense of a magus - and also a healer. Again, much more like a shaman sort of figure.

In his recent work, he talks about a certain delegation from Mongolia that's recorded in Athenian history, and delves into the hitherto-unsung influence on Western culture coming from that region.

neilgodfrey

Gregory J. Riley argues that Jesus is more Greek than Jewish in One Jesus, Many Christs. His reasons I've posted on here and here. The basic idea is that the values expressed in the life and teachings of Jesus are in essence epitomes of the ancient Classical ideals.

Riley lists six reasons for scholarship's failure to appreciate this:

1. Christian writers seem to quote directly only from the OT and largely ignore Greek literature.

2. Few NT readers would recognize allusions to classical literature in the NT, since few know Greek literature very well.

3. “Biblical studies” has largely been confined to, well, the Bible — and Greek literature is often ignored.

4. Our Bible defines only the OT and NT as “holy” and all else as “profane”.

5. This reinforces the idea that Christianity is Jewish and not Greek, and that Jewish is good and godly, while Greek is pagan and devilish.

6. We need not look at Greek and Roman causes for Christianity’s rise, since Christianity was a Jewish off-shoot and by God’s will overthrew paganism.

Edward Said also identified the reasons for the West's failure to recognize this in his Orientalism. Greek plays that have helped shaped our perceptions of Hellenism as a superior culture to Asia: Aeschylus's "The Persians" and Euripides' "The Bacchae". Europe is delineated as "powerful and articulate; Asia is defeated and distant"; the Orient is the provenance of danger and irrationality.

It's a great pity West's East Face of Helicon: West Asiatic Elements in Greek Poetry and Myth (or via: amazon.co.uk) is so damned expensive. It's the sort of volume that does much to open up our understanding of the Asian-Greek cultural connections -- if only more people could afford to read it.

Cheerful Charlie

Don't think so either. Early 20th century German Nazi consensus was that Jesus was not Jewish, but an Aryan. It all depends on whose 'experts' you choose for a consensus, doesn't it?

Cheerful Charlie