Amedeo

This should be the last portion of my exposition of the Gospels as the interwoven biography of Jesus the born-king, son of Joseph, son of David, and the biography of Jesus the messiah, born of God and the virgin Mary (even in different calendar years).

The duality of Jesus is clearly manifest in the last days of his life, during the trials that led to his crucifixion.

Matthew and Mark speak of two trials; Luke refers to three trials. At the end, by popular acclaim, Jesus was condemned to death, and he was executed by Pilate, the Roman governor, neither by the Judaean Sanhedrin, nor by the Galilean Herod. Hence, the condemnation of Jesus may not be logically denied on the ground that it was a national law not to execute anybody during the Passover; Pilate was not a Judaean.

The captured Jesus was brought before the Sanhedrin, which asked him if he was the MESSIAH, the son of God. Jesus answered Yes. This was blasphemy unto their ears, worthy of death. But they did not execute him; they sent him to Pilate. This may have been done precisely because it was the Passover time.

Pilate asked Jesus whether he was the KING of the Judaeans, and Jesus answered Yes, but Pilate himself did not find this claim to be worthy of death; he did not find Jesus guilty of any crime and wanted to release him. The claimed messiahship and claimed royalty of Jesus were not the concerns of the Roman protectorate in Palestine.

Unwittingly, the Sanhedrin and Pilate addressed the Double Jesus, the Messiah and the King. The importance of Jesus as the claimant king can be seen in little background details: When Jesus was seized secretively at night, he complained, "Am I LEADING A REBELLION, that you have come out with swords and clubs to capture me?..." Meanwhile some of Jesus men were carrying swords. One drew his sword and struck the servant of the high priest! Also, when the Galilean Herod met Jesus, he remarked that he wanted to meet Jesus for a long time.... for Jesus had been the infant-king during the reign of Herod the Great, who feared for his throne in Judaeah. Finally, when Pilate asked the crowds whether they wanted Jesus or Barabbas released, the crowd opted for Barabbas. And who was the notorious Barabbas? He was in prison with the INSURRECTIONISTS who had committed murder in an uprising. The royal Jesus was not a common insurrectionist; he wanted to replace the Herodian dynasty in his own peaceful way. (Undoubtedly he was competing with the leaders of the Judaean insurrectionists in seizing the throne of Jerusalem. And undoubtedly the high priests did not want a Galilean to rule over Judaeah. Obviously at this time, no insurrectionist had as yet turned against the protectors of the Herods, namely the Roman contingents in Palestine -- which they will do before 70 A.D.) Need I say more? The cross meaninfully bore the inscription, "Jesus of Nazareth King of the Judeans."

P.S. Pilate wife did not want the innocent Jesus executed either. So, I would say that the crucifixion took place when hardly anybody was around. Arrangements were made with Joseph of Arimethea to deposit Jesus in one of his tombs. When the Marys found an empty tomb -- an evangelist reports -- the bands that would have wrapped Jesus's body were there as if he had slipped out of the cacoon, but the head band was still rolled up next to it. Jesus' head was never wrapped... so that he could breathe. As I noted in another post, when Jesus was on the road to Emmaus, some of his very disciples did not even recognize him, and after a few other private appearences, he vanished from circulation: he was supposed to be dead and buried.

The conversation that Jesus on the cross had with the two crucified robbers is very instructive: According to a crucifixion narrator, Jesus assured them that they would be with him TODAY in paradise. The narrator did not know that Jesus was supposed to arise from the dead and linger amongst humans for some weeks! Perhaps the piercing of the hands and feet is also part of a made-up story.

Amedeo

From: "jesusneverexisted.com"


Quote:
There are various archeological reasons to believe that a Galilean town of Nazareth existed long before the Gospel references to it. The question that I would be concerned with is whether the Gospel Jesus, who is said to have lived in Nazareth, etc., was a person who ever lived in Nazareth. For instance, he is said to have been born in Bethlehem -- IN ORDER THAT A PROPHESY MAY BE FULFILLED -- but was he really born there or was a myth built around the name of a real town and a prophesy?

Matthew:2-19ff. says that Joseph, the father of Jesus, was told by an angel to return to the land of Israel now that King Herod had died [4 B.C.] and the danger [for Jesus, the newborn king] was over. So, Joseph and his family were heading back to Judea, but they were warned again, and Joseph stopped in Galilee, in the town called Nazareth -- AND SO WAS FULFILLED THE PROPHESY THAT JESUS WOULD BE CALLED NAZARENE. (Indeed, in the Gospels Jesus is called the Nazarene, whether "nazarene" means "of Nazareth" or "of the sect of the Nazarenes.")

In other posts, I pointed out that the biography of Jesus the Messiah is built out of the prophesies or pre-figurations made in the Old Scriptures. But now I find also that various episodes of the life of Jesus the King were also built on prophesies or were newly contrived, as in the case of the Magi coming from the East to bring gifts to a new-born king (Jesus, in the bloodline of David). Is Matthew's genealogy of Jesus a contrived one? Luke genealogy is partly different and, most importantly, Luke says that Jesus was thought to be the (natural) son of Joseph, while Luke himself wants to expound on the idea that Jesus the Messiah was the son of God and Mary.

What is realistic in the biography of Jesus the king is that he was born under Herod and that he was tried and crucified (by popular request) under Pilate. What is realistic in the biography of Jesus the Messiah is that he preached the imminent end of the world and told parables about the Kingdom of Heaven or of God. Everything else is wrapped in myths.

Peter Kirby

What is "realistic"? And is it a sufficient criterion of historicity?

Amedeo

What is realistic or verisimilitudinal is NOT a sufficient criterion of historicity.

My opinion, not dogma, in the matter is that there was a real person by the name of Jesus who claimed to be a descendant of David and was involved in "regaining" the throne from the Herodian dynasty, just as rebels wanted to get rid of the Herod. Thus Jesus fencied himself as the liberator or messiah, which he made explicit by the use of the Scriptures.

If you consider just they synoptic Gospels, you can seen that in part they drew from another account, which has been called the Proto-Gospel. Now, this Proto Gospel was either somebody's literary composition OR a collection of anecdotes and reports made in Hebrew/Aramaic about a Jesus.

My view has been that there were oral anecdotes or reports, many of which were compliled into a "proto-Gospel." So, the question arises: WHO composed the anecdotes about ONE PERSON, Jesus the Nazarene? Maybe there has never been a real Jesus, but there are many anecdotes about a SINGLE PERSON called Jesus.

Who was or who were the composers of the ANECDOTES??? Not eye/ear-witnesses of a real Jesus, BECAUSE various Gospel anecdotes are about events in the life of Jesus which could NOT have been witnessed by anybody. I would say that he, in the Gospels, who occasionally speaks in the first person [Jesus], is the NARRATOR of the episodes of his life -- where he was taken by the devil; where he was born, because the Scriptures said where the Messiah was to be born; etc. etc. Most of the content of the Gospels was narrated by a man, Jesus, who actually imagined that HE was the expected Messiah. HE PREACHED HIS OWN AUTOBIOGRAPHY, MORAL SERMONS, AND PARABLES ABOUT THE KINGDOM OF GOD.

The author of the proto-Gospel stories is the rabbi king/messiah who actually got into political conflicts, wherefore others wanted him out of the way. Undoubtedly, various anecdotes were modified by the listeners, and others were contrived in the style of the teacher.

The fact that the miracle-working Jesus never existed is demonstrated by his complain, in John, to the effect that he was an unbelieved prophet. His brother said to him: If you really do the things that YOU SAY you do, go to Jerusalem for the Passover and do them in front of the crowds. (They will believe you!) Of course, Jesus di NOT take up the challenge and kept on demanding FAITH IN HIS WORD!

This incident strongly suggests that there was a real preacher, Jesus, who confused his own reality with the messiah-character he preached; an Essene who preached the imminent end of the world; etc. And he must have had real followers who, after his death and in conjunction with Paul, drew Gentiles into Judaism... apparently for the royal cause which the Apostles were still intent on pursuing. In other words, the proto-Gospel was not a purely literary work or novel.

Amedeo

AT THE TIME OF THE CRUCIFIXION...:

Matthew28:32-56, and Mark15:24-41

As the soldiers led Jesus away, they met Simin from Cyrene.
When they crucified him, two robbers were crucified with him.
Many women were watching from a distance, including MARY MAGDALENE and two other Marys (not including his mother).

Luke23:26-49
Simone from Cyerene.
A large number of people followed him, including women who mourned and wailed.
The women who knew him watched from a distance.