lmbarre

The term "historical Jesus" in the title above may require some explanation. With the work of New Testament scholar Hermann Samuel Reimarus (1694-1768), it became working methodology to recognize that most of the sayings and actions of Jesus reported in the New Testament (and elsewhere) is fictional. Indeed, most of it is a non-historical, "Christianized" version of the life of Jesus. This working realization regarding the New Testament presentation of Jesus came to crystallization with a work of Albert Schweitzer, which he entitled, The Quest of the Historical Jesus: A Critical Study of Its Progress from Reimarus to Wrede, translated from German in 1906. Thus, the scholarly quest for the historical Jesus is in its fourth century and continues to this day unabated, largely unknown to the general population and in my view at great odds with the Christian faith.

***

It does not take long before a graduate student in New Testament studies encounters the formulation, "The Jesus of history verses the Christ of faith." This formulation acknowledges the long forgone conclusion by mainstream biblical scholarship that the actual identity of the historical Jesus is quite different from what later tradition made of him. Most notably, the apostle Paul was the primary formulator of a view of Jesus that came to be known as Christianity. Jesus himself came from and moved among a rural population and practiced a traditional, conservative and popular form of Judaism. Paul advocated a religion of urbane, Hellenistic Judaism with a decidedly cosmic perspective on Jesus. The historical Jesus would find Paul's teachings about him odd at best.

***

Reconstructing the historical Jesus begins with his alleged words rather than alleged deeds of Jesus simply because as words are comparatively less ambiguous. Over the course of historical Jesus research, scholars have developed criteria by which to decide if a given saying goes back to Jesus or not. Among these is a certainly sound criterion known as "The Criterion of Embarrassment." It states that the later church would not invent statements of Jesus that prove to be self-embarrassing. Therefore, an embarrassing statement in the tradition is early and most likely goes back to Jesus. I suggest that the most embarrassing thing that Jesus allegedly said is found in Mark 15:34:

'eloi 'eloi lama sabachtani

"My God, My God, why have you forsaken me?

On the face of it, the question and its implication is most embarrassing, even scandalous, and many desperate Christian explanations rush to cover its embarrassing character. Even so, it remains an embarrassing item for the church and to the traditional story of Jesus to this day--Jesus thought his God forsook him!

The above text is actually a butchered, partial translation of Psalm 22:1. The word, ‘eloi is neither Hebrew nor Aramaic. The psalm reads, ‘eli while another form of "my god" in Hebrew is 'elohi with the Aramaic equivalent being 'alahi. It appears that Jesus failed to remember the correct Hebrew form of “My God.” He tried but failed to quote accurately. This is why the remainder of the quote is in good Aramaic, his native vernacular. Jesus knew that he butchered the Hebrew word for "My God" and so abandoned the attempt and resorted to a translation.

The form that Jesus came up with moments before he died not only proves to be embarrassing, but also satisfies another criterion used to isolate the authentic words of Jesus--Orality. If we seek to account for the unattested form, 'eloi, the conclusion is at hand that Jesus mistakenly conflated two Hebrew words, 'eli, which is the form in Ps 22:1, and 'elohi, a common form in Hebrew for "my god." Accordingly, Jesus took the holem (long o vowel in Hebrew) and unconsciously inserted it into 'eli, thereby producing and indeed inventing the form as we have it in Mark. Thus, it appears that we have here an oral expression since it is highly unlikely that some scribe would misquote Ps: 22:1 who would have had the correct form before him. That this is true is clinched by the fact that Matthew, working form Mark's written form, corrects Mark to the Psalm. Matthew was embarrassed by Mark's form. Therefore, that the fact that these words strongly satisfy two of the criteria for isolating the words of Jesus.

***

We may now proceed to the second stage of this reconstruction. Informally, we may describe the content of Jesus' last words as evincing extreme disappointment toward his deity for abandoning him, a conclusion which Jesus drew because he felt death coming on. In other words, Jesus experienced cognitive dissonance. This term is found technically applied to apocalyptic groups whose cosmic expectations fail and to how they cope with their disturbing situation. What Jesus was expecting is made abundantly clear from the episode of his interrogation from the second question put before him by the high priest recorded in Mark 14:

Again the high priest asked him, "Are you the Messiah, the Son of the Blessed One?" 62 Jesus said, "I am; and "you will see the Son of Man seated at the right hand of the Power,' and "coming with the clouds of heaven.' " 63 Then the high priest tore his clothes and said, "Why do we still need witnesses? 64 You have heard his blasphemy!

The high priest's question marks the climax of the story of Jesus. What does Jesus think about himself? The question implies that Jesus has never clearly spoken on the question as to whether he regards himself as the expect Messiah of God. Here he is now under formal circumstances and appears to be forced to make a statement that he has previously avoided. Most of all, he thought that his hour had finally come to mount an apocalyptically produced throne to rule over the entire world. His answer to the question is unequivocal--"I am." But what is more telling is that he claims that the high priest will [soon] see for himself that Jesus' fantastic claim is true. What is it that the high priest will soon see? Nothing less than the miraculous establishment of the promised messianic kingdom! This is made clear from the allusion that Jesus makes here to a prophesy in Daniel 7:13-14:

13 I was gazing into the visions of the night, when I saw, coming on the clouds of heaven, as it were a son of man. He came to the One most venerable and was led into his presence.

14 On him was conferred rule, honour and kingship, and all peoples, nations and languages became his servants. His rule is an everlasting rule which will never pass away, and his kingship will ever come to an end.

Here now is Jesus' expectation, an expectation that was so severely and painfully disappointed by his confusing and unexpected death. The Messianic Kingdom did not materialize as Jesus fully expected that it would. This contradiction provides the basis for the cognitive dissonance of this disappointed, apocalyptic idealist.

***

Two actions performed by Jesus during his fateful visit to the Passover in confirm Jesus' apocalyptic expectations. These are the cleansing of the temple and the "triumphal entry" into . To understand the significance of Jesus' cleansing of the temple, we turn to an earlier episode in the history of of intense, apocalyptic expectation--the building of the the second temple was built in during 521-520 BCE under the aegis of one Zerubbabel, a Judean puppet ruler of the Persian authority who ruled over at that time. We know from the prophet Haggai that the building of the temple exited an intense apocalyptic fever:

2 Speak now to Zerubbabel son of Shealtiel, governor of , and to Joshua son of Jehozadak, the high priest, and to the remnant of the people, and say, 3 Who is left among you that saw this house in its former glory? How does it look to you now? Is it not in your sight as nothing? 4 Yet now take courage, O Zerubbabel, says Yahweh; take courage, O Joshua, son of Jehozadak, the high priest; take courage, all you people of the land, says Yahweh; work, for I am with you, says Yahweh of Armies, 5 according to the promise that I made you when you came out of Egypt. My spirit abides among you; do not fear. 6 For thus says Yahweh of Armies: Once again, in a little while, I will shake the heavens and the earth and the sea and the dry land; 7 and I will shake all the nations, so that the treasure of all nations shall come, and I will fill this house with splendor, says the Yahweh of Armies. 8 The silver is mine, and the gold is mine, says Yahweh of Armies. 9 The latter splendor of this house shall be greater than the former, says Yahweh of Armies; and in this place I will give prosperity, says the Yahweh of Armies.

And also this prophecy from Haggai:

20 The word of the LORD came a second time to Haggai on the twenty-fourth day of the month, 21 "Speak to Zerubbabel, governor of Judah, saying, I am about to shake the heavens and the earth, 22 and to overthrow the throne of kingdoms; I am about to destroy the strength of the kingdoms of the nations, and overthrow the chariots and their riders; and the horses and their riders shall go down, every one by the sword of his fellow. 23 On that day, says the LORD of hosts, I will take you, O Zerubbabel my servant, the son of She-al'ti-el, says the LORD, and make you like a signet ring; for I have chosen you, says the LORD of hosts."

Needless to say, the apocalyptic expectation of under Zerubbabel did not materialize.

***

It appears that we have a text that relates to the apocalyptic movement discussed above in the famous text, Isaiah 53:

1 Who has believed what we have heard? And to whom has the arm of Yahweh been revealed? 2 For he grew up before him like a young plant, and like a root out of dry ground; he had no form or majesty that we should look at him, nothing in his appearance that we should desire him. 3 He was despised and rejected by others; a man of suffering and acquainted with infirmity; and as one from whom others hide their faces he was despised and we held him of no account. 4 Surely he has borne our infirmities and carried our diseases; yet we accounted him stricken, struck down by God, and afflicted. 5 But he was wounded for our transgressions, crushed for our iniquities; upon him was the punishment that made us whole, and by his bruises we are healed. 6 All we like sheep have gone astray; we have all turned to our own way, and Yahweh has laid on him the iniquity of us all. 7 He was oppressed, and he was afflicted, yet he did not open his mouth; like a lamb that is led to the slaughter, and like a sheep that before its shearers is silent, so he did not open his mouth. 8 By a perversion of justice he was taken away. Who could have imagined his future? For he was cut off from the land of the living, stricken for the transgression of my people. 9 They made his grave with the wicked and his tomb with the rich, although he had done no violence, and there was no deceit in his mouth. 10 Yet it was the will of Yahweh to crush him with pain. When you make his life an offering for sin, he shall see his offspring, and shall prolong his days; through him the will of Yahweh shall prosper. 11 Out of his anguish he shall see light; he shall find satisfaction through his knowledge. The righteous one, my Servant, shall make many righteous, and he shall bear their iniquities. 12 Therefore I will allot him a portion with the great, and he shall divide the spoil with the strong; because he poured out himself to death, and was numbered with the transgressors; yet he [actually] bore the sin of many, and made intercession for the transgressors.

A key observation I wish to make is that Zerubbabel is called, "my Servant," a term that is applied in Isaiah to several other parties. I would identify this servant with Zerubbabel because the literary genre of this Isaiah text seems to be one of an official, state eulogy over the fallen ruler. Verse 8 most clearly indicates that the subject of the eulogy was arrested, tried and executed for sedition by the Persians just as Jesus was treated by the Romans. Thus, as with Jesus, we have an earlier instance of failed messianic Apocalypticism that is remarkably similar. In both cases, the temple played an important and necessary role. While for Zerubbabel, the building of the second temple signaled the fulfillment of their apocalyptic expectations of world ruled and dominated by a Jewish king, for Jesus the temple did not need to be rebuilt but rather cleansed. In both cases, the readiness of the temple was a prerequisite for the coming messianic rule.

The Isaiah eulogy not only provides a parallel experience to that of Jesus, it also significantly contributed to the Christian view of Jesus. According to Isaiah, the messianic age failed to materialize because of the sins of the people. As a result, Zerubbabel significance was not to be found ultimately in his life but in his death. The Isaiah text explains that he died to compensate for the sins of his people, and while these sins stopped the coming of the messianic kingdom, it removed an important obstacle, making the way clear for the coming of the kingdom at some other future time. The whole experience has left the author of 2 Isaiah with hope, although no longer an urgent hope. His emphasis is rather upon the certainty of the realization of that hope, rather than its imminence, a shift in thought that is entirely understandable in light of these historical circumstances.

From this perspective, it is understandable how the early disciples of Jesus utilized Isaiah's eulogy to formulate their understanding of Jesus. It is a small move to see the Messiah as a figure who removed the sins of the people as an obstacle to the coming of the apocalypse to one in which he makes expiation for the sins of the world, a concept taken from 's cultic traditions.

We can understand how Jesus' life and death, in conjunction with Isaiah and cultic traditions, came to be regarded as the savior of the world. However, as we have seen, the historical Jesus did not want to die, nor did he expect to die. On the contrary, as he said to the high priest, he expected the messianic age to appear with him installed as the king of the world ruling from , very much in conformity with the political propaganda found in Psalm 2:

1 Why do the nations conspire, and the peoples plot in vain? 2 The kings of the earth set themselves, and the rulers take counsel together, against Yahweh and his anointed, saying, 3 "Let us burst their bonds asunder, and cast their cords from us." 4 He who sits in the heavens laughs; Yahweh has them in derision. 5 Then he will speak to them in his wrath, and terrify them in his fury, saying, 6 "I have set my king on , my holy hill." 7 I will tell of the decree of the Lord: He said to me, "You are my son; today I have begotten you. 8 Ask of me, and I will make the nations your heritage, and the ends of the earth your possession. 9 You shall break them with a rod of iron, and dash them in pieces like a potter's vessel." 10 Now therefore, O kings, be wise; be warned, O rulers of the earth. 11 Submit to Yahweh with fear, with trembling 12 kiss his feet, or he will be angry, and you will perish in the way; for his wrath is quickly kindled. Happy are all who take refuge in him.

The aggressive attitude that one detects in Jesus' answer to the high priest stems from his particular concept of what his messianic kingdom would be like. According to the Psalm, it would be a rule of iron fist, an angry demonstration of divine, political rule. This is what Jesus expected and this is what failed to be materialized. He regarded himself as the "My Son," of the Psalm in which the coronation literally begets a divine king.

My reconstruction of the last days of Jesus also includes and regards as historical the so-called "Triumphal Entry." While any story that related to a prophetic scripture is suspect for obvious reasons, I think that in this case, the tradition of the triumphal entry fits hand-in-glove with the other episodes that I have discussed:

1 When they were approaching , at Bethphage and Bethany, near the , he sent two of his disciples 2 and said to them, "Go into the village ahead of you, and immediately as you enter it, you will find tied there a colt that has never been ridden; untie it and bring it. 3 If anyone says to you, "Why are you doing this?' just say this, "The Lord needs it and will send it back here immediately.' " 4 They went away and found a colt tied near a door, outside in the street. As they were untying it, 5 some of the bystanders said to them, "What are you doing, untying the colt?" 6 They told them what Jesus had said; and they allowed them to take it. 7 Then they brought the colt to Jesus and threw their cloaks on it; and he sat on it. 8 Many people spread their cloaks on the road, and others spread leafy branches that they had cut in the fields. 9 Then those who went ahead and those who followed were shouting, "Hosanna! Blessed is the one who comes in the name of the Lord! 10 Blessed is the coming kingdom of our ancestor David! Hosanna in the highest heaven!"

Regarding assessing the historicity of this alleged action of Jesus, we may point out that the expected event has been embarrassed by history. The last line of the story states the significance of Jesus' symbolic action: the messianic kingdom is being inaugurated by the coming of the Messiah. Since the Messiah has arrived, the miraculous establishment of his kingdom would soon follow. That there were "many people" who understood the significance of Jesus' action, tells us that they also to some degree also suffered the same cognitive dissonance along with their hero. This is the prophesy alluded to by the peoples' enthusiastic response to Jesus' symbolic act:

9 Rejoice greatly, O daughter of ! Shout aloud, O daughter of ! Lo, your king comes to you; triumphant and victorious is he, humble and riding on an ass, on a colt the foal of an ass. 10 I will cut off the chariot from Ephraim and the war horse from ; and the battle bow shall be cut off, and he shall command peace to the nations; his dominion shall be from sea to sea, and from the River to the ends of the earth. 11 As for you also, because of the blood of my covenant with you, I will set your captives free from the waterless pit. (Zechariah 9:9-11)

Thus, we regard Jesus' last words, his interrogation before the high priest, his cleansing of the temple and his Triumphal Entry as all realistic, historical, coherent events.

***

Jesus' cleansing of the temple was obviously a very disturbing action. It is entirely realistic that the question of Jesus' authority to do such a thing should arise as he not only usurped the authority of the high priest and the Jerusalem priesthood, he actions must have been regarded as very disturbing indeed by the many pious Jews who were celebrating the Passover in Jerusalem, Jesus was asked by the Jewish authority about the authority by which he cleansed the temple:

27 Again they came to . As he was walking in the temple, the chief priests, the scribes, and the elders came to him 28 and said, "By what authority are you doing these things? Who gave you this authority to do them?" 29 Jesus said to them, "I will ask you one question; answer me, and I will tell you by what authority I do these things. 30 Did the baptism of John come from heaven, or was it of human origin? Answer me." 31 They argued with one another, "If we say, "From heaven,' he will say, "Why then did you not believe him?' 32 But shall we say, "Of human origin'?"—they were afraid of the crowd, for all regarded John as truly a prophet. 33 So they answered Jesus, "We do not know." And Jesus said to them, "Neither will I tell you by what authority I am doing these things." (Mark 11:27-33)

In this story about Jesus, we have Jesus evading the question of the authorities regarding his authority. According to my reconstruction, if we were able to ask Jesus to tell us straight out the basis of his authority, he would have responded that it was because he was indeed the Messiah of God (as he announced in his triumphal entry) and that his cleansing of the temple was a necessary task to inaugurate the messianic age just as building the temple was a prerequisite for Zerubbabel and Haggai. According, I would not characterize Jesus as an apocalyptic prophet as others have done, a tradition that is based on the Jewish Eschatology of the prophetic tradition rather than the Jewish Apocalypticism of Haggai. The essential distinction here is that while Jewish Eschatology address a nation that is politically autonomous as and were fro a time, apocalypticism emerges from dispossessed groups who have no political autonomy and regard themselves as deeply alienated from world society and politics.

Apocalypticism regards the world as so corrupt that it cannot be reformed but rather must be replaced by the divine introduction of a new world order. Furthermore, as apocalyptic movements are often persecuted, people subscribing to apocalypticism expect their suffering at the hands of the world to be relieved during their lifetime since they regard themselves as living in "the last days." This is their great hope and this is why the book of Revelation has Jesus promising three times that his coming will be "soon," (Rev 22:7, 12, 20), that is, during the lifetime of these oppressed.

If we understand that writings from the Jewish apocalyptic tradition promise relief from oppression in one's lifetime, we also know that apocalypticism has a 100% failure rate to this day. This is because apocalypticism is actually a (false) mythological construct so clearly demonstrated by history.

From this perspective, Jesus' disappointed, messianic apocalypticism is typical, even expected by those who are intellectually familiar this phenomenon. Furthermore, I would submit that Jewish messianism is likewise mythic, unreal, and will not be realized for that reason. Jewish messianism, based on the alleged promise of an eternal dynasty to David, smacks very much of being Davidic, political propaganda and does not in fact spring from a divine force nor has it been nor will it be realized by a miraculous intervention into human affairs.

If we can accept that both apocalypticism and messianism are entirely human constructs, then we can understand why Jesus' god allegedly "forsook" him. Jesus simply made the mistake of subscribing to a primitive, unreal religious mindset just as Zerubbabel had done before him and so also suffered the same deep disappointment. What strikes me as remarkable is that we have had two figures in history who would be the Messiah, who sought to fulfill a myth and who expected the in-breaking and realization of a mythological, apocalyptic reality.

The essential thing to realize about the essential thinking of the historical Jesus is that he was essentially wrong about his "identity" and his "mission." Increased knowledge, but especially history itself renders the verdict that Jesus was not the Messiah, that he had no right to mount a donkey, that he had no authority to cleanse the temple, and that he was wrong to tell the high priest that the was imminent. He also wrongly quoted his Scriptures. All of this is true because we know from history that apocalypticism is a bogus, mythological, human construct. Jesus was wrong to subscribe to it.

From this perspective, Jesus emerges as a admirable but most pathetic figure, a man of high intelligence and of great moral conviction but who was caught up and betrayed by the primitive, mythological, non-historical thinking of his time. Just how pathetic the story of Jesus is lies indicated his last words quoted previously. According to my understanding of Jesus, the most pathetic thing was not only that he was convinced that he was inscrutably forsaken by his god, but that he "blotched" the name of his god with his last words . . . and knew it. Here I can only say that the more one might know about the historical Jesus, the more one will appreciate how mortifying it was for him to misquote not only Scripture, but the very word for God! In the form, ‘eloi, we witness Jesus' greatest shame and despair, a shame and despair much greater than being crucified naked.

If my reconstruction of the essential Jesus is anything, it is highly dramatic. I would also submit that it finds a better Jesus than the traditional one. For according to it, the story of Jesus is still "good news" but it is so insofar as Jesus emerges as an ideal human being, revealed essentially in why and especially in how he died.

'eloi (sic) 'eloi (sic)
lama sabachtani

aa5874

You have really EXPOSED the fiction story.

Please explain how is it the author of gJohn did NOT state that Jesus said "My God, My God, why have you forsaken me?

The author of gJohn IMPLIED that Jesus commended his Spirit into the hands of His Father, God.

The author of gJohn claimed Jesus BASICALLY told God to KILL him NOW. Just KILL ME (Glorify Me). Jesus in gJohn claimed he Finished the work that he was SENT to do so God his Father can have him gloriously CRUCIFIED

In gJohn 19, Jesus absolutely WANTED to die but in gLuke 22.44 Jesus was SWEATING BLOOD before he was arrested

What we have are invented stories about a character that could NOT have possibly existed as described or had ZERO historical or theological value.

In gLuke 22.41-44, Jesus was supposedly LITERALLY DRENCHED in BLOOD
and in Agony.

It is the story itself that is significant in gMark.

Up to the time it was claim that Jesus did many miracles, fed the hungry Jews, healed their sick and raised their dead Jesus was STILL rejected by the Jews and Abandoned by his own disciples.

Peter DENIED ever knowing Jesus after the Embellishments, the Miracles and Hocus-Pocus.

Surely If we remove all the Embellishments, the Miracles and Hocus-Pocus from the Jesus story in gMark, it is NOT likely that such a character could even have disciples.

Doug Shaver

It appears to me that your reconstruction really begins with the assumption that there was a historical Jesus.

Vorkosigan

This criterion is crap.

(1) it is a totally subjective criterion

(2) an embarrassing lie might be covering up an even more embarrassing truth, like "The usurper is the king's bastard" -- how embarrassing! but then inventing a lie of bastardy is preferable to the truth that he was never related to the king at all.

(3) the gospels were written by individuals so we have no idea what they might have been thinking except where they copied and altered each other. Matthew frequently corrects Mark because the writer of Matthew was a hidebound conservative idiot who never understood the text he was reading. It never occurred to the writer of Matthew that the writer of Mark might have changed the text to represent something he wanted to point out, namely, that Jesus = Elijah, hence v36 "And some of the bystanders hearing it said, "Behold, he is calling Eli'jah."


(4) there was no "early Church" to be embarrassed, just heaps of different beliefs about Jesus.

(5) It assumes historicity, it does not demonstrate it. Clearly The Return of the King is a true story about Frodo, since it shows he failed to throw The Ring into the fire at the end. How embarrassing!

Bingo the Clown-O

Hi Lloyd.

Are you really Lloyd? Or are you an imposter?

Your post is difficult to read. It would have been better if you would have given us a little synopsis – or introduction, or something up front. As it stands it’s almost as bad as a Stephan Huller post.

Doug Shaver

I'm still waiting for someone to explain how we know what it would take to embarrass a Christian.

Stringbean

Nothing. Their hypocrisy knows no bounds.

lmbarre

An example of fixing an embarassing idea is illustrate in Matthew where Matthew corrects Mark to the Psalm. Psalm 22:1 has 'eli while Mark has 'eloi. Matthew was "embarassed" by the discrepency and so corrected it.

lmbarre

I take the words of Jesus in Mark 15:34 to belong to an early tradition extending back to an oral stage of the tradition:

Mark 15:34 (Oral tradition)-->gMark-->Gospel of Mark (c. 70 CE).

Vorkosigan

Since an alternate and far more credible idea already exists, namely, it is taken from an extant text, this position is neither necessary nor supportable.

Matthew's correction shows he was dissatisfied with Mark's text. It says nothing about whether Jesus ever uttered it. Matthew corrected lots of stuff in Mark.