Toto

Was Jesus a liberal democrat?

From an upcoming Jesus Seminar on the road:

The Historical Jesus in a [Post-] Modern World

The book is not listed on Amazon, but is available from Westar:

Joseph Bessler, PhD

Vorkosigan

Sure is interesting. Though democracy and civil society predate the HJ quest....

Onias

Was Jesus a liberal democrat?

Yes, and a cultural Marxist too in the extant gospels.

But I think the original Jesus of the earliest version of the gospels was a militant revolutionary like Thomas Paine or Patrick Henry.
Onias

aa5874

We have the earliest Canonised story of Jesus and he was not a militant revolutionary.

Jesus of Nazareth in the earliest Canonised version told the Jews to pay tribute to Caesar.

Jesus of Nazareth was not a militant revolutionary and Pilate found NO fault with him.

Mark 12 In the earliest Canonised story of Jesus Pilate did not know that he did anything evil.

If Jesus was a militant revolutionary it would be expected that Pilate would have known that Jesus was Evil and most likely would have him executed without a trial.

Mark 15:14 KJV

Onias

What you say is true of the Jesus of the extant gospels, the ones the Romans allowed to survive. But in keeping with the spirit of the times, I think the real Jesus (whatever his name may have been) was a revolutionary in the tradition of Judas the Galilean and many other zealots. Yes, I realize this is speculation, but it is far more plausible than the extant gospel whitewash of the events of those days. We must learn to start thinking outside the box if we are to see those times in the proper historical context.
Onias

aa5874

Speculation has NO real historical value.

It is not of any historical value to admit you are speculating and still attempt to apply plausibility.

Plausibility is not directly related to history.

DCHindley

Onias,

I agree with you.

Unfortunately, in BC&H, most members think Jesus either never existed (Mythical Jesus) or was a misunderstood sage (Crossan et al.). Those, of course, are conveniently "boxed" interpretations of the evidence.

IMHO, any initial Jesus movement was oriented towards a coming kingdom of God on earth, and probably headed by members of his family. Evidently, the leaders of the movement were open to the idea of righteous gentiles participating in it (maybe this was part of the historical Jesus's actual preaching), and a significant number of gentiles in the Greek cities in Samaria, Galilee, and southern Syria seem to have actively associated themselves with it. There were other righteous Gentiles associating with Judaism who were not part of the Jesus movement (those who were slaves or clients of the various Herodian households and others who associated with thoroughly Hellenized synagogues as patrons, etc.). All of these associates became quite familiar with the Greek translations of Jewish sacred books.

My thinking is that these righteous gentiles associated with the Jesus movement encountered a series of events caused them to largely sour to Judaism, and decisively severed their association with Judeans. That series of events, I am pretty sure, was the polarization of Jews and Gentiles during the Rebellion with Rome. Jews slaughtered gentiles and Jews who supported the Romans in their regions, and Gentiles slaughtered Jews and those who freely associated with them in their regions.

A group of gentiles (and I'm sure a certain number of full converts) actively associating with Jews was between a rock and a hard place. Josephus' Jewish War describes this situation in nasty detail that exactly corresponds with the situation that developed between Serbians, Croats, Checks & Bosnians in the Yugoslavian civil war of the 1990s, or the equally horrendous Hutu - Tutsi conflict in Rwanda (also in the 90s).

The gentile associates and converts decided that Judeans in general had thrown them under the bus by rebelling against the Romans.

They responded by deciding that Judeans had violated their covenant with their God, and reasoned that God's blessing was transferred to them. Jesus' family-led movement may or may not have participated in the rebellion, but these gentiles lumped them with all the other Judeans.

The Gentile associates with the Jesus movement, in this break, could not give up the special community bond they felt, their reverence for the just God of the Jews, or their admiration of Jesus. The gospels were apologetic literature to "explain" to fellow Gentiles (Romans, Greeks) why they still reverenced Jesus in spite of his execution as a rebel.

DCH

PS: Are you Onias I, II, III or IV?

outhouse

I follow some Crossan, but I dont want my work to reflect his, or use it as a crutch.

I actually disagree with him in many ways.


Im definately not following a "boxed" interpretation as much as one from cultural anthropologist, and not Just Crossans partner Johnathon Reed.





And there is such a huge debate as to exactly how "The coming kingdom of god" translates too.

Cannot agree.


While I do understand the movement factually evolved in this group, I think there is a reason why in the scripture Jesus is said to have stayed in these small Jewish villages.

Had he been a Hellenistic teacher healer, he may been placed in Sepphoris and Tiberius.


I think the movement only appealed to Hellenism after his death, and we know these are the people who compiled wrote and redacted the final compositions.

DCHindley

Are you talking about the "Context Group"? I find their POV is, well, a little peculiar. They portray life in antiquity in horribly nasty terms, I think, to suggest that our modern age is so much better because of Jesus' teaching. So, in a manner, it is apologetic for a somewhat liberal Christian interpretion of things.

I am not disputing this. In the revised English Translation of Emil Schürer's History of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus Christ: 175 BC - AD 135* (4 vols, 1973-1987) there are a couple sections dedicated to the various flavors of Jewish Messianic expectations and how Gentiles might fit into it. Basically, opinions expressed in Jewish literature about both these subjects vary widely. You should be able to find these volumes in any good county or major city public library, or college/university library.

In light of the early Christian's close familiarity with Jewish sacred books in Greek translation, it is easier to assume that God-fearing gentiles intensively studied these books under guidance offered by synagogues. The motivation would be to understand when and how the blessed messianic age to come would be initiated. I think some of these God-fearers followed Jesus' ideas about that age to come. I find it hard to believe that a gentile group formerly unassociated with a historical Jesus movement would adopt him as their idol and then clean up his image. But I can find gentile Jesus movement followers finding it necessary to "explain (away" their association with his movement after the Jewish rebellion.

There were quite a lot of gentiles who lived in Judaea, Samaria and Galilee, and not just the ones in Greek cities or Roman colonies established over several centuries. There was a lot of "Royal" land gifted to gentiles by Herod, Archelaeus, and various Roman Governors. These would not restrict their land tenancy to Jews only. In fact, some of those archeological studies you refer to have excavated Galilean village cluster dwellings (usually 4) surrounding a central courtyard, with physical remains indicating these clusters were occupied by both Jews and gentiles.

DCH

*This edition is NOT the same as the 5 volume 1885-1891 English translation of the 1886-1890 German 2nd edition. It is rather a completely new revision/retranslation based on the “3rd/4th” German edition of 1901-1909, that has also been updated in conformation with modern scholarship since the publication of the 3rd German edition.

Each volume ("three", really four, labeled I, II, III.1 & III.2) is unique, packed with valuable information.

At this time the book is out of print and copies of individual volumes are getting rarer and rarer. The remaining volumes are often exorbitantly priced. Be really careful with searching for new and used volumes for sale. The name may be spelled Schürer, Schuerer, or Schurer (missing the umlaut over the "u"), so be sure to try all possible variations of spelling. Also, book dealers, new and used, frequently confuse volumes III.1 & III.2. It is best to confirm the ISBN before purchase.

Volume I (or via: amazon.co.uk) (ISBN 0 567 02242 0): A New English Edition, revised and edited by Geza Vermes & Fergus Millar, Literary Editor Pamela Vermes, Organizing Editor Matthew Black, 1973, Jewish History.

Volume II (or via: amazon.co.uk) (ISBN 0 567 02243 9): A New English Edition, revised and edited by Geza Vermes, Fergus Millar, Matthew Black, Literary Editor Pamela Vermes, Organizing Editor Matthew Black, 1979, Jewish Culture, Political & Social Institutions, Messianism.

Volume III.1 (or via: amazon.co.uk) (ISBN 0 567 02244 7): A New English Edition, revised and edited by Geza Vermes, Fergus Millar, Martin Goodman, Literary Editor Pamela Vermes, Organizing Editor Matthew Black, 1986, Jewish-Gentile relationships in the Diaspora, Jewish literature in Hebrew, Aramaic & Greek.

Volume III.2 (or via: amazon.co.uk) (ISBN 0 567 09373 5): A New English Edition, revised and edited by Geza Vermes, Fergus Millar, Martin Goodman, Literary Editor Pamela Vermes, Organizing Editor Matthew Black, 1987, Jewish literature such as Apocrypha & Pseudepigrapha (including some that may by Christian revisions of originally Jewish works), Philo, and finally a complete index of all volumes.

I'm really surprised that these volumes have not come out in paperback!

Horatio Parker

Hi DC, why is HJ essential to this analysis? Why could not the same split have occurred with an MJ movement? Or is HJ a separate consideration?