Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Toto · 04-10-2013, 12:46 PM

Not that long ago, Apostate Abe claimed that Jesus was an apocalyptic prophet, based on the Best Explanation of the Evidence. Now we have a competing claim for Best Explanation:

Why is the Hypothesis that Jesus Was an Anti-Roman Rebel Alive and Well? Theological Apologetics versus Historical Plausibility By Fernando Bermejo-Rubio, Departamento de Filología Griega y Lingüística Indoeuropea, Universidad Complutense de Madrid

Quote:

A further argument supporting the hypothesis that Jesus, whatever else he may have been, was a seditionist lies in its great explanatory power. This hypothesis provides the simplest and best explanation for a large amount of data. Firstly, it can account for everything related to his fate. . .

This explanatory power of the hypothesis, which allows us to provide a unifying explanation of the evidence, is a most compelling reason for any independent historian to integrate the seditious aspects in their reconstruction of Jesus. We should also realize that the passages in which Jesus is presented as distancing himself from violence or seditious goals (e.g. John 6:15; Luke 9:51-56) do not refute in the least the hypothesis. Far from it, they can be also understood in the light of this reading. For instance, if Jesus’ engagement in armed resistance was restricted to the final phase in Jerusalem, one possibility is that those passages reflect a former period, or, more simply, that they convey a strategic and temporary stance.

...

The widespread view of Jesus in the field as a harmless and innocent man turns the well-attested fact of the crucifixion into an unfathomable conundrum. In fact, the terminology labeling Jesus’ death “a puzzle”, “an enigma”, or “a mystery”, is all-pervasive.14 Of course, to discard the simplest explanation leads scholars to endorse the most convoluted ones: Jesus was crucified because he overcame Judaism, because he was hated by priests,15 because he had blasphemed, because he was deemed mad, because a misunderstanding took place, because he subverted the unjust and non-egalitary logic of the contemporary society,16 because he was non-violent within a violent Empire,17 or because Pilate was capable of crucifying anyone over the slightest little thing. The fact that in the 21st century such implausible views are still advanced everywhere as respectable scholarship shows to what extent there is something odd (not to say: something rotten) in the state of historical Jesus’ studies.

stephan huller · 04-10-2013, 02:37 PM

delete

steve_bnk · 04-10-2013, 03:00 PM

It is hard to say from the gosplsl, there are multiple personas.

He appars to have been attacking the Jewsh power elite not rhe Romans, and it was the Jews who were after his head mot the Romans, or so the stories go.

Preaching a reward in tne afterlife and suggesting if you are a slave be a credit to your master he would not have been a threat to Rome.

In one of the gospels his party appears armed when JC is taken into custdy in tne garden, and he generalky appears away from main centers, and in one instance requests his where abouts be kept secret.

In Jewish culture he would have been scandalous and raising deep hostilities.

There were Jewish radicals known to exist and I read Jewish bandits would claim to be the messiah to gain support.

The fact that there is no historical Roman references from trhe times would say if an HJ existed he was not on the Roman RADAR who agressivley put down dissent.

I tend to think the JC of the gospels was likely a composite charactacter or based on a an itinerant Jewish rabai who may have had a small following.

Which JC is it? The guy who looses his cool in the temple mixing it up with temple busnessmen, or the serene JC of the Sermon On The Mount.

Either a composite or a JC who was schiztophrenic/manic depressive with multiple personality disorder.

I'd say unlikely he was a major armed radical. He appears more as traditional Jewish reformer prophet calling Jews back to tradional values and rightly predicting the end of world AKA Israel and the temple unless they wised up.

Vorkosigan · 04-10-2013, 04:11 PM

Quote:

esus was crucified because he overcame Judaism, because he was hated by priests,15 because he had blasphemed, because he was deemed mad, because a misunderstanding took place, because he subverted the unjust and non-egalitary logic of the contemporary society,16 because he was non-violent within a violent Empire,17 or because Pilate was capable of crucifying anyone over the slightest little thing. The fact that in the 21st century such implausible views are still advanced everywhere as respectable scholarship shows to what extent there is something odd (not to say: something rotten) in the state of historical Jesus’ studies.

No kidding. Unfortunately he is still stuck in that scholarship.

Vorkosigan

Logical · 04-10-2013, 05:06 PM

The gospels explain that the Roman authorities were reluctant to crucify Jesus but the religious conservatives (clerics and laymen) were causing so much unrest that they decided to execute him. That explains why the Romans executed him.

Also, the men that were executed with him were criminals, not rebels.

Also, the fact that Jesus was pursued by the authorities at the end of his life, the possibility that he encouraged his followers to arm themselves just in case, and that he predicted suffering and misery for himself and his followers, none of those factors contradict the hypothesis that he was overall a pacifist.

steve_bnk · 04-10-2013, 05:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Logical

The gospels explain that the Roman authorities were reluctant to crucify Jesus but the religious conservatives (clerics and laymen) were causing so much unrest that they decided to execute him. That explains why the Romans executed him.

Also, the men that were executed with him were criminals, not rebels.

Also, the fact that Jesus was pursued by the authorities at the end of his life, the possibility that he encouraged his followers to arm themselves just in case, and that he predicted suffering and misery for himself and his followers, none of those factors contradict the hypothesis that he was overall a pacifist.

A pacifist who kicked butt in tne temple?

Toto · 04-10-2013, 05:24 PM

I think that by solving the one problem - why was Jesus crucified? - Fernando Bermejo-Rubio has created another, or others.

If the Romans crucified Jesus as an armed insurrectionist, they would have crucified his followers. So who was left to start Christianity? And why would anyone have followed a religion based on a dead insurrectionist? Those guys were a dime a dozen, and they failed.

The real basis for the belief in a historical Jesus is that Christianity existed, and somebody started it. It seems more probable for a religion to start up around an unfairly crucified charismatic wisdom teacher than around a failed military leader

Bernard Muller · 04-10-2013, 08:03 PM

Quote:

Toto wrote: The real basis for the belief in a historical Jesus is that Christianity existed, and somebody started it. It seems more probable for a religion to start up around an unfairly crucified charismatic wisdom teacher than around a failed military leader

But you do not think that, do you?
In my views, Jesus did not have to be a seditionist, or a teacher, or charismatic or any combination of any of that, in order to start Christianities by his crucifixion.
And it was not for that either:

Quote:

Jesus was crucified because he overcame Judaism, because he was hated by priests,15 because he had blasphemed, because he was deemed mad, because a misunderstanding took place, because he subverted the unjust and non-egalitary logic of the contemporary society,16 because he was non-violent within a violent Empire,17 or because Pilate was capable of crucifying anyone over the slightest little thing

Cordially, Bernard

Logical · 04-10-2013, 08:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by steve_bnk

A pacifist who kicked butt in tne temple?

He lost his temper once. Perhaps the rarity of the incident qualified it to become part of the Jesus story. He was such a calm pacifist that everyone was taken aback by his rage on that day, and so it was a memorable incident.

Logical · 04-10-2013, 08:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

And why would anyone have followed a religion based on a dead insurrectionist?

You're right. There has never been any cults or religions whose members reinterpreted their faith to reconcile it with reality when evidence contrary to their beliefs smacked them right on the head.

Oh wait...

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

04-10-2013, 02:37 PM	#2
stephan huller Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: seattle, wa Posts: 9,337	delete

04-10-2013, 03:00 PM	#3
steve_bnk Contributor Join Date: Sep 2008 Location: Seattle Posts: 27,602	It is hard to say from the gosplsl, there are multiple personas. He appars to have been attacking the Jewsh power elite not rhe Romans, and it was the Jews who were after his head mot the Romans, or so the stories go. Preaching a reward in tne afterlife and suggesting if you are a slave be a credit to your master he would not have been a threat to Rome. In one of the gospels his party appears armed when JC is taken into custdy in tne garden, and he generalky appears away from main centers, and in one instance requests his where abouts be kept secret. In Jewish culture he would have been scandalous and raising deep hostilities. There were Jewish radicals known to exist and I read Jewish bandits would claim to be the messiah to gain support. The fact that there is no historical Roman references from trhe times would say if an HJ existed he was not on the Roman RADAR who agressivley put down dissent. I tend to think the JC of the gospels was likely a composite charactacter or based on a an itinerant Jewish rabai who may have had a small following. Which JC is it? The guy who looses his cool in the temple mixing it up with temple busnessmen, or the serene JC of the Sermon On The Mount. Either a composite or a JC who was schiztophrenic/manic depressive with multiple personality disorder. I'd say unlikely he was a major armed radical. He appears more as traditional Jewish reformer prophet calling Jews back to tradional values and rightly predicting the end of world AKA Israel and the temple unless they wised up.

04-10-2013, 05:06 PM	#5
Logical Senior Member Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: USA Posts: 802	The gospels explain that the Roman authorities were reluctant to crucify Jesus but the religious conservatives (clerics and laymen) were causing so much unrest that they decided to execute him. That explains why the Romans executed him. Also, the men that were executed with him were criminals, not rebels. Also, the fact that Jesus was pursued by the authorities at the end of his life, the possibility that he encouraged his followers to arm themselves just in case, and that he predicted suffering and misery for himself and his followers, none of those factors contradict the hypothesis that he was overall a pacifist.

04-10-2013, 05:24 PM	#7
Toto Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Los Angeles area Posts: 40,549	I think that by solving the one problem - why was Jesus crucified? - Fernando Bermejo-Rubio has created another, or others. If the Romans crucified Jesus as an armed insurrectionist, they would have crucified his followers. So who was left to start Christianity? And why would anyone have followed a religion based on a dead insurrectionist? Those guys were a dime a dozen, and they failed. The real basis for the belief in a historical Jesus is that Christianity existed, and somebody started it. It seems more probable for a religion to start up around an unfairly crucified charismatic wisdom teacher than around a failed military leader

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.