spamandham

Why do you assume this? Why can it not be a story by Hellenized Jews for Hellenized Jews? Why can it not be a story by someone straddling the fence between Judaism and paganism for other people straddling that fence? Why can it not be a story by one sect of Jews backhandedly slamming a different sect of Jews? Why must it be a story written by Romans to undermine Jews? I don't get that at all. Where are you getting this from. It doesn't follow.

A non-Jewish Roman writer would not base damn near the entire story on symbolism from Jewish scriptures, so I don't see how that would make any sense at all. It is not a story written by a Roman intended to blast Jews.

Are you willing to consider other scenarios?

Koyaanisqatsi

I have given my reasons in great detail repeatedly. Why do you keep asking me this?

A story written by Jews who get basic Jewish practices and customs and OT prophecy wrong, that is designed to blame "the Jews" for killing a messenger from their own god sent to free all Jews? Why would you assume this?

To what end? To convince them of doing what? Become more paganesque Jewish than the Hellenized Jews already were?

Well, if it were some sort of anti-orthodox story written by one sect of Jews to "slam" another sect, then why would they get so many basic facts about Judaism wrong and, again, why have Pilate be the one who actually kills Jesus, only to then apologize for it in the same story to make it seem as if it is the San Hedrin (i.e., the "orthodox") and the Passover crowd who ultimately are to blame for killing a Jewish messiah? How could any Jew write such a story, knowing as they do that there isn't just one Jewish messiah and that when Jehovah sends a messiah, it is as a destroyer of Jewish enemies and certainly not someone who could be captured and/or killed?

Because it exonerates Rome and undermines Jews written and circulated during a time of mounting Jewish revolt against the Roman occupation.

It "doesn't follow?" What are you talking about? It follows perfectly and makes far more historical sense than a sect of Hellenized Jews writing a passion narrative for other Hellenized Jews that exonerates Pilate, depicts a Jewish messiah who does not free the Jews (that would include Hellenized Jews) from their enemies and is instead killed by the Romans, but the Jews get blamed all in some sort of hope to add more paganism into an already paganistic Jewish cult.

Yes, he would if (a) he had no choice (the martyrdom mythology was already in place as I wrote extensively about previously), and/or (b) his intention was to convince all Jews (Hellenized or not) that his story was about a Jewish messiah that is killed by the Jews.

There's no question that Mark's story seeks to blame "the Jews" (not just the San Hedrin, but all of the Jewish people who would have been in Jerusalem for the Passover festival; aka, "the festival crowd" who are ultimately to blame for Pilate ordering Jesus to his death) and there's absolutely no question that Mark consistently, consciously and in ridiculous, tortured ways exonerates the Romans of any wrong doing in the process.

All of which is written and circulated during a time of Jewish revolt against Roman occupation. Just look to modern history; we still do this whenever we invade a country. In WWII and Korea and Vietnam and Iraq we dropped tons of propaganda pamphlets into the area before and during any of our onslaughts trying to convince the indigenous population that we were about to slaughter that their leaders were all corrupt and that any stories they were told about us were lies their leaders told them and that their leaders are the bad guys and we are the good guys.

Hell, we did much the same thing to the native American Indians; destroyed their religion before finally concluding we'd have to destroy the Indian culture completely, much less destroy them directly in wave after wave of brutal, genocidal attacks.

The modern phrase for it is, "Winning of hearts and minds" and we got all of that from the Romans.

Funny then that it gets so many things about Judaism completely wrong as if it were written by a Roman, exonerates the Romans of all wrong doing as if it were written by a Roman, basically instructs its audience to do whatever Roman authority tells it to do as if it were written by a Roman and it concludes with a tortured, illogical, impossible trial and criminal release sequence that blames the Jews (not just the San Hedrin; not just the orthodox, but an entire Passover festival of Jews, which would have necessarily included Hellenized Jews) for what the Romans actually did. As if it were written by a Roman with the intention of revising history in order to "blast Jews."

Only ones that make some kind of consistently logical, historical sense in context. And I did consider your alternate and don't find it meets these criteria, so by all means, expound away and lay it out in more detail as I have mine.

aa5874

I hope you realise that you could be totally wrong.

EthnAlln

The sources that I read (back in the 1950s) said that he was indeed crucified, a century before Jesus. I don't know if that is the current view, however.

Koyaanisqatsi

I hope you realise that I could be totally right...

Though some re-research into Pompey has made me reconsider my perhaps too vituperative response to spamandham. My apologies.

Pompey's context in 67 (ish) B.C.E. shouldn't be casually dismissed. And this would coincide with EhtnAlln's sources, if they do indeed record a crucifixion. Ethn, are you sure it was a crucifixion and not some apologetic semblance of one? And if you can source it, that would be very interesting.

Though I still have problems with the consensus of literary chronology and the overrall intent. Intent is the key to all of this, IMHO, because we all know we're dealing ultimately with a fiction; whether it is applied to a real world event or a purely made up scenario is ultimately irrelevant, or, at best, trivial. Who created it and when and why? Those are the only important questions and none of us should be content with merely flippant responses. Beyond, of course, that it's "real."

spamandham

I guess I'm just dense. I can't find where you have explained why you think that, if it's fictional, the purpose of the story is antisemetic. What I see you keep repeating, is to start with that assumption and then show why it doesn't make sense.

What I'm asking is, where are you getting the idea that it's an antisemetic work (assuming it's fictional)?

I really don't see anything odd about this. People straddling the fence between Judaism and paganism might be more than happy to make a case for ditching burdensome Jewish customs, practices, and ideas, in favor of pagan ideas.

I think it's a bit too coincidental that the theme of the story seems to be the beginning of a new age/change of guard, and it happens at the dawn of the new age of pisces, and fish symbolism is plastered all over early Christianity.

My own idea regarding the crucifixion, is that the author wanted to work a cross into a central part of the story, because pagan mystics would recognize this as a solar symbol, and so came up with the crucifixion. But the author is also following the formula from 2 Samuel, and so goes out of his way to keep Rome's hands clean. I can't support this idea with references, since it's my own.

Sure, why not? Is that really so far fetched?

Perhaps for the same reason most Catholics have no idea what the church actually teaches. If the author gets basic Jewish facts wrong, then it seems reasonable to assume the author is not a devout orthodox Jew.

Don't assume to know what the author knew and believed, outside what you can determine from the writing itself. Is it really so hard to accept the idea of a somewhat ignorant Hellenized pagan/Jew? Why? Why assume that whoever wrote this stuff was an orthodox expert of Judaism, when we can tell from the writings they were not.

Koyaanisqatsi

Well, then, perhaps that's the problem right there. I never said "antisemetic;" I said anti-Judaic, as in it was meant to undermine Judaism (i.e., the theology) as part of a propaganda campaign by the Romans as part and parcel to their occupation and attempts at quelling the growing Jewish revolution that they eventually had to just send in whole legions to wipe out and dissipate, so perhaps you and I have been arguing at cross-purposes?

True, but then, again, why the convoluted apologetic nonsense written by Mark (the fictional passion narrative) of Pilate and the Roman role in killing Jesus, but not blamed for killing Jesus?

Presumably you're talking about "reformed" Jews concocting a story to convert other "fence-sitting" Jews (meaning, they aren't yet "reformed," but more orthordox absent a push of some kind, or a better theology). These Jews would be just as persecuted as any other Jews under Roman occupation and would still have the same overrall allegiance to the sanctity of the Temple, etc., so, again, I don't see why the story would be so exonerative of Romans and so punative toward "the Jews." Yes, it is the San Hedrin who collude with Pilate, but they fail and are publicly exposed as such. Then, inexplicably and frankly impossibly the same San Hedrin rile up the festival crowd (which would necessarily include Jews of all kinds, Hellenized or not) and it is this faceless mass of "the Jews" that are to blame for killing their own messiah.

That simply cannot be a story written by a first century Jew, pagan-leaning or no.

I don't think its coincidental at all. My question is, who wanted the pro-Roman/anti-Judaic change?

It was first plastered all over Judaism (particularly in that region as a fishing port) and, again, who would do such plastering? Jews for Jesus?

That's all right; I can't either, other than with what we have.

I still don't see how (or why) a Jewish story about two warring Jewish Kings in 2 Samuel could ever be supplanted by one of those Jewish Kings being the utterly non-Jewish, enemy of the Jew, and Caesar of the Roman Empire in the persona of a local prefect named Pilate.

Except that, Mark would represent a church leader, not a follower. It is what the church actually teaches written down, not merely the scribblings of some random parishioner who thought it might be fun one day to transcribe the oral stories onto papyrii for no particular reason.

Orthodoxy would have no bearing on getting basic Jewish facts wrong and it certainly wouldn't have any bearing on the incongruous exoneration of the enemies of all Jews, the Romans at that time and in that region that includes the blaming of all Jews for killing their own messiah.

I'm sorry, but I just don't see how that could be accounted for in any way (even if it were Josephus). If the purpose was for a pagan-Jew to write a story that supported a neo-pagan-Jewish cult, the purpose of which was to convince the more orthodox-leaning Jewish fence-sitters to come on over to their team, then hiring the one guy among you who has little to no understanding of basic Jewish messianic prophecy, let alone such a twisted and tortured understanding of it, to write your cult screed seems profoundly stupid and destined to fail.

As, indeed, history records is the case, because it only seems to have worked on already "paganized" (aka, "Hellenized") Jews and Gentiles.

You are.

:huh:

Being assigned to write down the story of their neo-pagan-cult as a means to try and convert non-ignorant, non-Hellenized, non-pagan Jews?

Yes.

Paul precedes him and Paul is not that stupid to let such things slide unless there was no choice; unless certain events actually happened that had to be spun.

Once again, I do not make any such assumption, which is further proof of my contention that it was a Roman and not a Jew, hellenized or other that wrote Mark for a specific, Roman-revisionist/anti-Judaic purpose.

Look, again, we both agree the purpose of the passion narrative is to scuttle Judaism; you believe it was done by Hellenized Jews and I believe it was done by Roman operatives.

I just think I have a stronger "case" for all the reasons given.

:huh:

jackal5096

The problem is in attributing what the disciples may have known. The disciples never likely saw the gospels we know today in the NT, most were already dead when they were written. The Jesus they died for could have been the mystical one alluded to by Paul. To assume they knew, talked and walked with a corporeal Jesus who was crucified by Pilate, and then argue that they wouldn't have died if they knew the gospel story was a lie is merely being circular.

spamandham

I'm not claiming to know what purpose the writer had in mind with this scenario. I could speculate that Jesus represents religious Judaism, Rome represents the state, and the crowd of Jews respresent militant Jews.

If this were the case, then the story is symbolic of how the militant Jews forced the wrath of Rome on them all, effectively killing even religious Judaism. The resurrection is then an appeal to the conquored people still alive, to give up the struggle.

I'm not claiming this IS what it's all about, but merely putting this forth to demonstrate that if the story is symbolic, which I would say all the references to Isaiah23 and Psalm22 prove it to be, then we should be looking to see what the symbolism might be, rather than trying to pan a few nuggets of history out of a river of legend.

If a Roman crony had written this story, they would not have put together such a convoluted story, I agree, which is why it doesn't make sense to claim "if it's a work of fiction, it was written by a Roman crony". If it's a work of fiction, we should be looking for someone OTHER than a Roman crony as the author.

I don't see how the fact that it makes little sense implies it's rooted in a historical event. If it were rooted in a historical event, the author would be less inclined to add a fictional aspect that makes no sense, and that would certainly be challenged. If Jesus had actually been crucified by Rome...

- a Roman author would have listed the actual crime to show that the execution was just
- A Christian author would have explained what the crime was as well, but would have further claimed Jesus was falsely accused of that crime
- A Jewish author would have listed the crime the same as a Roman author, and would not have included the part about the Jews being guilty

So who would write such a convoluted story, if it was rooted in a real crucifixion?

Koyaanisqatsi

Well, that's just it. I'm not claiming it is a work of total fiction; I'm claiming (positing, if you will) that the convoluted apologetics evident in the trial sequence is a strong indication that an actual event happened that the Romans needed to spin in their favor and against the Jews. Which in turn implies that the "original" event was one in which the Romans were to blame and "the Jews" had little to nothing to do with, that resulted in a serious problem for which the Romans felt compelled to act in this manner.

And that serious problem would logically/most likely be that in killing a popular seditionist leader of a young revolutionary movement, they turned him into a martyr that served to strenghthen the movement, not quell it. Add in thirty or forty years of this movement growing with a martyrd Jesus as their rallying/recruiting cry and you have a situation where someone like a Paul and a Mark need to spin it so that Jesus wasn't a martyr created by the Romans, but rather he was a Jewish messiah betrayed and killed by "the Jews" of that day, i.e., the fathers and grandfathers of those current young recruits who thought they were fighting against Rome to avenge their martyrd leader.

That would be a logical reason for revising history and concocting a convoluted propaganda story about Jesus being a messiah (not a martyr; there's a difference) and trying to blame his death on "the Jews" instead of on who actually killed him.

See what I mean? If the Romans killed him, he's a martyr for a cause. If "the Jews" killed him, he is not a martyr for a cause and the "elders" of the current revolution were liars telling their recruits false history. Classic occupying propaganda technique; turn the young (particularly those antagonistic toward the occupiers) against their parents/culture/history so that the occupiers are at least not the "real" problem.

:huh:

Unless that was the whole purpose of the story; to revise history and paint a different picture of what actually happened thirty or forty years ago, so that the Romans are exonerated and "the Jews" blamed for what the Romans actually did.

Typically, crucifixion was used for seditionists and murderers in order to be a very public, very brutal example for any who would commit treason against Rome or murder someone (presumably that would mean murder a Roman citizen). Obviously, it my theory is correct, a Roman author would want to remove or revise any indication that Jesus was a seditionist against Rome; quite the contrary. They would want to depict him as being as much a friend to Rome as would be possible, but still be historically plausible to the intended audience and Mark couldn't have done that better, IMO. By simply bypassing Rome's involvement all together and having a Jewish messiah basically tell his followers that earthly authority doesn't matter and to turn one's cheek when struck, etc., you not only exonerate Pilate, but also instruct the intended audience (from the mouth of their messiah) to be docile sheep under Roman rule.

Again, classic occupier propaganda.

And since the Romans were the ones who tried and crucified Jesus, it would only make sense that the ones falsely accusing him of that crime would be Pilate/the Romans.

So we can effectively rule out a Jewish author, which, considering when it was written, would mean any "early christians" (since they were Jewish) or any Hellenized Jews. Which leaves the Romans.

Well, again, by the process of elimination above, the Romans and they would have written it because the actual trial and crucifixion of Jesus backfired thirty years prior, resulting in more "recruits" into a seditionist movement that the crucifixion was meant to dissuade, but failed.

Instead, the Romans inadvertantly created a martyr for a revolutionary cause, whose legend/divinity grew (as such martyrs do in that region especially) to a point where the Romans felt it necessary to try and revise the actual history into one where it was "the Jews" who killed their messiah, not the Romans who created a martyr, as part and parcel to the Romans anti-revolution progrom, for lack of a better term, that culminated in the Jewish revolt and sacking of the Temple in 70 C.E.

The timeline for this type of propaganda attempt is spot on and logical and, again, is at least evident in the subsequent legacy of Western/Roman governance (we do this kind of propaganda all the time prior to and during wars that we have fought, going all the way back to the native American Indians up to today, where the term is "winning of hearts and minds").

Unfortunately, that's not exactly concrete proof, but compelling enough, IMO, to establish the most likely perspective as a starting point for more in depth investigation as to what might have actually happened and how it all historically "fits."

Let me put it this way; of the two groups, which would have the more compelling reason to write such a story at that particular time? The Romans or some sort of paganized Jewish sect? For all the reasons I've provided, obviously I think it is the Romans who had the most to gain and historically, that's been proved correct.