Onias

Perhaps, but in GJohn Jesus declares he and God are one and the same, and that is worth a ton of Mark's everyday miracles!

maryhelena

Both the 'man of war' and the 'man of peace' are elements of the gospel composite JC. It's not that the 'man of war' element has been watered down via a mild and gentle Jesus element - both elements are relevant to that composite gospel JC figure. It is not a choice between these two elements - both elements reflect historical figures from Hasmonean/Jewish history. The top dressing, as it were, is the meek and mild Jesus - but that does not lessen the importance of either the 'man of war' element nor the 'man of peace' element. History moves along - the earlier element of the 'man of war' is placed in the archives of history.(bottom layer of the gospel story) The 'man of peace' appears later. A man that was not executed by Rome. (and interestingly, it is this man, the 'man of peace', that in Slavonic Josephus, is set free by Pilate......).

In other words: two historical figures, from Hasmonean/Jewish history, are being reflected in that composite gospel figure of JC. Two historical figures, from different time zones, fused together to create the composite gospel figure of JC. Producing a dynamic, a tension, within that composite JC figure.

[T2]Luke: 24:19, 21

"The things about Jesus the Nazarene, who was a prophet mighty in deed and word in the sight of God and all the people,"

"But we were hoping that it was He who was going to redeem Israel".
[/T2]


Slavonic Josephus:

[T2]And many from the folk followed him and received his teachings. And many souls became wavering, supposing that thereby the Jewish tribes would set themselves free from the Roman hands..............But when they saw his power, that he accomplished everything that he would by word, they urged him that he should enter the city and cut down the Roman soldiers and Pilate and rule over us...... And thereafter, when knowledge of it came to the Jewish leaders, they gathered together with the High-priest and spake: "We are powerless and weak to withstand the Romans. .... But as withal the bow is bent, we will go and tell Pilate what we have heard, and we will be without distress, lest if he hear it from others, we be robbed of our substance and ourselves be put to the sword and our children ruined." And they went and told it to Pilate......And he sent and had many of the people cut down. And he had that wonder-doer brought up. And when he had instituted a trial concerning him, he perceived that he is a doer of good, but not an evildoer, nor a revolutionary, nor one who aimed at power, and set him free. He had, you should know, healed his dying wife......And he went to his accustomed place and wrought his accustomed works. And as again more folk gathered themselves together round him, then did he win glory through his works more than all. The teachers of the Law were [therefore] envenomed with envy and gave thirty talents to Pilate, in order that he should put him to death. And he, after he had taken [the money], gave them consent that they should themselves carry out their purpose......And they took him and crucified him according to the ancestral law.

http://www.sacred-texts.com/chr/gno/gjb/gjb-3.htm
[/T2]

Actually, now that I think about it........the gospel Barabbas story has echoes of the Slavonic Josephus story. In Slavonic Josephus, the wonder-doer is set free by Pilate. (later to be executed via another appeal, and money given to Pilate - reflection of the Josephan story about Herod giving a great deal of money to Marc Antony). The gospel story has Pilate offering to free either Barabbas or Jesus. The Jews choose Barabbas and Jesus gets executed. The 'man of peace' gets executed and the 'man of war' goes free - a reversal of the historical Hasmonean/Jewish reality behind the composite gospel figure of JC.


Barabbas

Onias

aa asked
The earliest story of Jesus would not have a figure by the name of Jesus, as 'Jesus' is just a generic name for the one who would attempt to deliver salvation to Israel.

maryhelena

Yes indeed. Someone on JesusMysteries used the term - or something like it - a serial composite figure. History moves along - and, likewise, the make up of the composite gospel JC figure. A figure that is reflecting Hasmonean/Jewish history from a longer period of time than that of Pilate.

maryhelena

Onias - please provide historical evidence for the Josephan character, and story, of Judas the Galillean. If you cannot do that - and I don't think you can - then your referencing this Josephan character has no value for a historical search for the roots of early christian history. Onias, it's Hasmonean/Jewish history that is relevant - not stories in Josephus - nor gospel stories for that matter. History is primary. Storytelling about that history, interpreting that history as 'salvation history, prophetic history as in interpreting the OT, is secondary. History is primary.

While the narrative of history is indeed written by the victors - narratives of history are meaningless unless the figures those narratives are referencing can be identified as historical figures.

As to the Romans *ridiculing* Judaean messianic ideas re the gospel story: The Jews already had a historical messiah figure in Antigonus - executed by Marc Antony. Surely, it would be a case of the Romans being hoist upon their own petard were they to create, 100 or so years later, a JC story. Igniting Jewish nationalism is surely not what Rome would be seeking to be doing.

Yes, of course, for people reading the gospel story today - the Antigonus history is not remembered - but during Roman times in Palestine that Roman execution of a Jewish King and High Priest would be common knowledge. It would make no sense for Rome to seek to inflame the Jews through any ridicule or satirizing of this sad event in Jewish history. Not to mention not wanting to incur any open hostility to the Herodians. The victor does not, needlessly, stir the pot of rebellion.

mountainman

Doesn't anyone else find this suspicious?

Moreover when we examine what little data that we do have, we find that it was also generated from the same scriptoria that the publisher (Constantine) used to publish the bible. The editor-in-chief of the greek bible codices (Eusebius) is the sole historical researcher for the epoch prior to Nicaea. Eusebius and Eusebius alone provides the names and dates of characters before the official publication, of which he was its editor-in-chief.

Should we not ask the obvious questions?





Yes of course this may be true. Hence the value of looking at looking and examining and investigating this material. The converse however is not often investigated, namely the question of how late could these forerunners be?

The evidence mitigating the existence or non existence of the greek new testament, or the Christian churches, or even Christians, before the first official publication of the bible codices is not exactly compelling.

We have Eusebius, we have paleographical attestations, we have the Vatican Christian Archaeology references and we have the lone "house-church" at Yale-Dura-Europos. None of these items of evidence are unambiguous.




εὐδαιμονία | eudaimonia

MrMacSon

Yes, I hypothesize that the Jesus figure reflects changing "belief-philosophies" from before the time of Pilate; reflecting increased story-telling exacerbated by the development of the Septuagint, and the Maccabean Revolt.


This comment by Onias is interesting

as is this

MrMacSon

Yes, I should have also said "or there is either little remaining "


We have the apocryphal / gnostic gospels; many variations of the canonical gospels (eg. the Gospel according to Thomas); and some included in the first codices - Vaticanus & Sinaiticus

aa5874

Please examine your own words from an earlier post.

You are suggesting the story of Jesus was based on a figure of history.

However, the Jesus cult suggests no such thing.

They have BOLTED the words of the Prophets to their story of Jesus.

The OT is bolted to the NT.

The Jesus cults have specifically and deliberately left the evidence for the fabrication of their Jesus.

The story of Jesus was fundamentally a product of supposed Prophecies of the Word of God in Jewish Scriptures.

Essentially, without the Word of God according to the Prophets there would be no story of Jesus and NO Jesus cult.

aa5874

How can you presume such a thing? May I remind you that presumptions are not evidence.

The earliest stories in the Canon about Jesus do not show he was a Savior to the Jews.

It is the complete REVERSE.

Jesus did NOT want the Jews, the Populace, to be saved.

Jesus wanted them to REMAIN in Sin.

1. Jesus was NOT a Savior.


Mark 42. Jesus was NOT known as Christ to the Jewish Populace

Mark 8 3. The earliest story of Jesus is that the Jews delivered up the Son of God to be Killed but that he resurrected.

Mark 9:31 KJV4. The earliest Jesus story was to expose the Jews as Evil.

Mark 8:38 KJV The earliest Jesus story was essentially Anti-Jewish propaganda to explain the Fall of the Temple and had Nothing whatsoever to do with Universal Salvation or any new religion or cult.