Freethought & Rationalism Archive

PhilosopherJay · 04-11-2013, 09:00 AM

Hi James the Least, MaryHelena, et al.,

I would suggest that the current gospel texts does suggest that there was a prior story of Pilate (or some Roman office) killing Jesus (or some Jewish prophet/messiah figure. It is not being introduced as a new idea, but seems to be a background to the new ideas of Jewish betrayal and Trial tampering that are being introduced.

If correct, we should be able to find, hopefully in the future if not now, some texts that indicate this. So this is just a hypothesis in need of more proof.

The question is if this background story represents some historical truth or just earlier fiction. MaryHelena suggests with some justification that it might come from the Antigonus, Anthony, and Herod history. Other people have found Josephus' Jesus Ananus, wailing prophet story as the basis of the story. G.R.S. Mead and Alvar Ellegard suggests that the just priest of the Essenes were the historical basis.

Fictional stories and characters often have elements of history or real people in them, but that does not stop them from being quite fictional. Let us take the super-hero character of Iron Man seeing as "Iron Man 3" is opening in movie theaters around the world next month. The character of Iron Man (Tony Stark) may be considered based on the historical character of Howard Hughes. Howard Hughes was a 20th Century, wealthy Playboy, CEO involved with the military industrial complex as Iron Man/Tony Stark is in his stories. It is fair to say that Howard Hughes did not do 99.99% of the things that Iron Man has done in the comic book and movies. Yet, it is correct to say that there is some absurdly small historical element in "Iron Man"

We can take practically any fictional character and say the same thing. We can take "Batman" for example. We can see that the multiple different interpretations of him by many different comic book writers, artists and movie actors are based on Bob Kane's May 1939, Detective Comics, character; although, there are enormous differences between them. Yet Bob Kane based his character on the 1926 and 1930 movie versions of "The Bat" by Roland West. These were based on Mary Roberts Rhinehart play "the Bat" (co-written with Avery Hopwood). "The Bat" was influenced by the French serial film "Phantomas" (1913) based on the novels started in 1911 by Marel Allain and Pierre Souvestre. Phantomas was somewhat based on the character Arsène Lupin by Maurice Leblanc created in a short story for a magazine called "Je Sais Tout" in July, 1905. This gentleman thief character who battles criminals was strongly influenced by Octave Mirbeau's "Arthur Lebeau" who first appeared in 1901 in "Les 21 jours d'un neurasthénique." Lebeau was based on a number of anarchists of the time, including Duval, Pini, Ortiz, and Marius Jacob. Jacob was an anarchist thief who advocated stealing from the rich as a moral principal. You can read his work "Why I Was a Buglar" here. It is ironic that Jacob, an historical element in Batman would have certainly despised millionaire Bruce Wayne/Batman.

It is hard to determine how many changes the fictional Jesus character underwent from any historical element that might have been put in the character. The historical element could well have been quite opposite to the Jesus character/s as now presented.

Warmly,

Jay Raskin

Quote:

Originally Posted by James The Least

Quote:

Originally Posted by PhilosopherJay

When I wrote movie scripts many years ago, I noticed that whenever I changed one element in the middle of a script, it would cause contradictions in earlier elements which also had to be changed. These, in turn, caused their own contradictions.

These kinds of contradictions are frequent in any kind of improvised writing. For example, in the movie, "Mabel at the Wheel" (1914), Charlie Chaplin gets introduced as Mabel Normand's motorcycle riding, suave suitor. However, after one brief scene, Chaplin's character changes and he is simply the over-the-top villain in the movie. The improvisational nature of the filming accounts for the contradiction. When they filmed the opening shots, they did not have a story and did not know what the later scenes would be like. At a later time, they shot the rest of the movie at a race track and improvised the large section of the movie where Chaplin is simply the villain of the piece. Unfortunately, the editors saw that if they did not use the opening scene between Mabel and Chaplin, the Mabel character would not have an introduction in the movie and also a great shot of Mabel falling off the back of Chaplin's motorcycle into a mud puddle would be wasted. The editors had to use the opening footage in order for the movie to make any sense. However by using this footage, the fact that Chaplin was playing a character at the beginning of the movie in contradiction to the character he played later became obvious.

It is apparent that the passion text introduces two motifs. The first one is that the Jews betrayed Jesus to the Romans and turned him over to be executed. The second motif is that when it looked like Pilate might free Jesus, the Jews subverted Roman law and forced the Romans to execute Jesus.

The introduction of the first motif created the contradiction that the Romans were really responsible for Jesus' death. This forced the creation of the second motif of blaming the Jews for fixing the trial and causing the death of Jesus. However, if the Romans may have exonerated Jesus, as the second motif suggests, then the Jews were simply following the prescribed custom of allowing the Romans to judge ambiguous cases. They did not betray Jesus. If I turn a criminal suspect over to a judge, I am simply following the law and not betraying him/her.

On the other hand, if the Jews were going to subvert justice anyway by forcing Pilate to execute Jesus through blackmail, as the gospel of John indicates, then why do the Jews turn him over in the first place. Why not just break the law and kill Jesus themselves?

The best explanation for this over-determination in Jesus' death, this double guilt of the Jews (betrayal and trial-fixing causing execution), is that the two ideas came into being sequentially. The first idea was that the writers would show the evil nature of the Jews by having them betray Jesus to Pilate. The problem is that this simply shows the Jews as obedient to Roman law. This necessitates the need for the second motif of having the Jews fix the trial.

However, the second motif now renders the first motif suspect, in that it shows the Jews as not respecting Roman law and judgment and if they don't respect Roman law and judgment, why turn Jesus over, to the Romans in the first place? If the Jews had the desire and ability to subvert the Roman law after the trial begins, why bother with turning Jesus over at all and not just execute him straight away?

Both of these motifs are introduced into the text as sudden and arbitrary story elements. There is nothing about Jews betraying people or fixing trials before this in any of the gospel text. We should have expected an explanation of the relationship of the Jews to Pilate if they were actually thought out in advance or historical elements.

The text suggests that turning prisoners over to Pilate was a well-known practice. The fact that the Jews just show up at Pilate's residence and ask him to judge Jesus, which he immediately does, indicates that this was a known practice as opposed to a once only event.

Warmly,

Jay Raskin

Good analysis, but I think you're over-thinking this and treating it as history. None of this actually happened. It's a figment of Mark's imagination and the myth he inherited and tried to turn into a sacred narrative.

Regarding the bolded part, one of the myths that Mark inherited was that "the Jews killed all the prophets." This appears in 1 Thessalonians so Mark had his backstory right there: Jesus is a prophet; the Jews have killed all the prophets; ergo, they must kill Jesus. How will they kill him? On a cross, just like they sacrifice the paschal lamb every Passover. But Mark isn't stupid. He knows that "the Jews" do not execute people, even prophets, via crucifixion.
So he brings in the pseudo-historical detail of a Roman trial and governor whom he plucked out of Josephus or Philo (not historical memory). He then invents the hand washing scene and makes sure that his readers get the point that in no way were the Romans responsible. "The Jews killed Lord Jesus" would be repeated for the next 1,900 years. So successful was his myth that only in the last couple of decades have people even considered that it was actually the Romans responsible for the whole thing. But of course that too is a myth.

Chili · 04-11-2013, 09:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PhilosopherJay

Hi James the Least, MaryHelena, et al.,

I would suggest that the current gospel texts does suggest that there was a prior story of Pilate (or some Roman office) killing Jesus (or some Jewish prophet/messiah figure. It is not being introduced as a new idea, but seems to be a background to the new ideas of Jewish betrayal and Trial tampering that are being introduced.

If correct, we should be able to find, hopefully in the future if not now, some texts that indicate this. So this is just a hypothesis in need of more proof.

This may sound pretty cruel but you can just ask the stork as he cannot tell a lie.

The legend that 'storks bring babies' is based on the idea that you must feed them an impostor first who wants to die to bring a better life about. For this this all they have to do is break his legs and put him on a pole and you will soon see a stork right next to him to make its nest right then and there to set the inner man free.

This would be based on [material] John 19:32-33 where the church-Millitant did not have to break his legs because he freely died as Jew, from which follows that if he wants to die but will not die you better break his legs [and feed him to the stork to bring this [idol of] new life about].

Iow, just breaking his legs does not make him die, does it?

maryhelena · 04-11-2013, 11:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PhilosopherJay

Hi James the Least, MaryHelena, et al.,

I would suggest that the current gospel texts does suggest that there was a prior story of Pilate (or some Roman office) killing Jesus (or some Jewish prophet/messiah figure. It is not being introduced as a new idea, but seems to be a background to the new ideas of Jewish betrayal and Trial tampering that are being introduced.

If correct, we should be able to find, hopefully in the future if not now, some texts that indicate this. So this is just a hypothesis in need of more proof.

The question is if this background story represents some historical truth or just earlier fiction. MaryHelena suggests with some justification that it might come from the Antigonus, Anthony, and Herod history. Other people have found Josephus' Jesus Ananus, wailing prophet story as the basis of the story. G.R.S. Mead and Alvar Ellegard suggests that the just priest of the Essenes were the historical basis.

Hi, PhilosopherJay

Since the historical existence of the Josephan Jesus Ananus is not established - and, likewise, the historical existence of the 'just priest of the Essenes' is not established - we are left with Antigonus...

Toto put up a thread referencing an article on the Bible and Interpretation site - an article that perhaps throws some light upon the whole gospel crucifixion/execution story.

Quote:

Why is the Hypothesis that Jesus Was an Anti-Roman Rebel Alive and Well?

Fernando Bermejo-Rubio

I will argue that a reconstruction of Jesus in which the aspect of anti-Roman resistance is seriously and consistently contemplated is the most plausible – in fact the only plausible – view of the Galilaean preacher.

http://bibleinterp.com/articles/2013/ber378008.shtml

Basically, to my thinking, the gospel figure of JC is a composite figure. One of its components is that of a 'man of war', ie a figure that was in conflict with Rome. Hasmonean/Jewish history details such a figure.

Yes, the 'man of peace' element is also in the gospel Jesus figure - but to deny the 'man of war' element is to make interpretations - or understanding if one wants - of the gospel crucifixion story border on the implausible.

PhilosopherJay · 04-11-2013, 12:52 PM

Hi maryhelena,

Thank you for your points and the article by Fernando Bermejo-Rubio.

I thought the article was excellent and nicely brought together what are scattered, but strong and clear patterns supporting the idea of an insurrectionist Jesus.

My principle disagreement is the idea that this tells us of a real, historical Jesus, rather than a prior version of the Jesus character.

Here is the passage where Bermejo-Rubio argues for this being the historical Jesus:

Quote:

There are several ways of establishing with a reasonable degree of certainty that the material forming this pattern substantially goes back to Jesus. Firstly, as several scholars have convincingly argued,8 the all-pervasive character of an aspect in the sources makes its historicity more likely, because removing such a great amount of material should leave us wholly sceptical about the mnemonic competence of the tradition. Secondly, to many items of the cluster the so-called criterion of embarrassment can be (and has been) applied: Christians would never have gratuitously concocted such material, which not only does not advance their kerygmatic interests, but directly runs counter them.9 Thirdly, we can further add a criterion of historical plausibility: the material we have surveyed corresponds to the very concrete socio-political situation which actually existed in Jesus’ lifetime, that of a Palestine under Roman control; more concretely, Jesus is understandable in the wake of that movement which was called by Josephus “the Fourth Philosophy”.10 The material pointing to a seditious Jesus has accordingly the best guarantees of historicity.

The three arguments here are:

1) the oral tradition had "mnemonic competence."
2) Criteria of Embarrassment
3) Historical plausibility

Regarding the oral tradition, I am skeptical of all oral traditions being able to carry retain truth for any length of time. Story tellers change their story depending on the reaction of their audience or even the expected reaction of their audience. This isn't even exclusive to oral story telling. If one looks even at the movie "Argo" which won the Academy Award for best picture last month, one sees that the story telling of even a simple historical event that happened just 34 years has been drastically altered. At least a dozen incidents in the film have been wholly invented for the sole purpose of increasing suspense and tension in the audience. For a discussion of the fabrications and distortions in the film read this or this. We may presume that the transmission of any oral story taking place in the First century would have involved far greater distortion.

The Criteria of Embarrassment is no longer seriously regarded as proof of anything.

While it is historically plausible that Jesus was a rebel Jewish Gang leader, that hardly makes it likely. Most fiction stories, or at least the ones without supernatural or science fiction elements are historically plausible, but that does not make them historical. Many of the episodes of "Zena, Warrior Princess" was historically plausible and even based on characters from Greek and Roman history, including Julius Caesar and Cleopatra. However, there was no history there.

So, while I agree that the text seems to indicate that there was a prior text with a zealous pro-nationalist Jewish insurrection, I don't see that as being historical bedrock that we can rely upon, but simply an earlier character incarnation.

Warmly,

Jay Raskin

Quote:

Originally Posted by maryhelena

Quote:

Originally Posted by PhilosopherJay

Hi James the Least, MaryHelena, et al.,

I would suggest that the current gospel texts does suggest that there was a prior story of Pilate (or some Roman office) killing Jesus (or some Jewish prophet/messiah figure. It is not being introduced as a new idea, but seems to be a background to the new ideas of Jewish betrayal and Trial tampering that are being introduced.

If correct, we should be able to find, hopefully in the future if not now, some texts that indicate this. So this is just a hypothesis in need of more proof.

The question is if this background story represents some historical truth or just earlier fiction. MaryHelena suggests with some justification that it might come from the Antigonus, Anthony, and Herod history. Other people have found Josephus' Jesus Ananus, wailing prophet story as the basis of the story. G.R.S. Mead and Alvar Ellegard suggests that the just priest of the Essenes were the historical basis.

Hi, PhilosopherJay

Since the historical existence of the Josephan Jesus Ananus is not established - and, likewise, the historical existence of the 'just priest of the Essenes' is not established - we are left with Antigonus...

Toto put up a thread referencing an article on the Bible and Interpretation site - an article that perhaps throws some light upon the whole gospel crucifixion/execution story.

Quote:

Why is the Hypothesis that Jesus Was an Anti-Roman Rebel Alive and Well?

Fernando Bermejo-Rubio

I will argue that a reconstruction of Jesus in which the aspect of anti-Roman resistance is seriously and consistently contemplated is the most plausible – in fact the only plausible – view of the Galilaean preacher.

http://bibleinterp.com/articles/2013/ber378008.shtml

Basically, to my thinking, the gospel figure of JC is a composite figure. One of its components is that of a 'man of war', ie a figure that was in conflict with Rome. Hasmonean/Jewish history details such a figure.

Yes, the 'man of peace' element is also in the gospel Jesus figure - but to deny the 'man of war' element is to make interpretations - or understanding if one wants - of the gospel crucifixion story border on the implausible.

maryhelena · 04-11-2013, 01:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PhilosopherJay

Hi maryhelena,

Thank you for your points and the article by Fernando Bermejo-Rubio.

I thought the article was excellent and nicely brought together what are scattered, but strong and clear patterns supporting the idea of an insurrectionist Jesus.

My principle disagreement is the idea that this tells us of a real, historical Jesus, rather than a prior version of the Jesus character.

Hi, PhilosopherJay

It's not a case of there being a real, historical Jesus. It's a case of the gospel Jesus figure, a literary creation, being used to reflect historical situations that were deemed to be relevant to the gospel writers.

Jay, if this historicist/ahistoricist JC debate is ever to get resolved it will only be when that gospel JC figure is torn apart ie it's composite elements have to be put on the table. Yes, that will reveal which historical figures were important to the gospel writers (or why use their histories....?). But surely, if we seek to understand early christian history we have to immerse ourselves with the political situation of those days. And that means Roman occupation of Judea and the end of Hasmonean rule.

The gospel theological/philosophical dressing might well have some value - but that value cannot supersede the harsh realities of the social/political environment in which that story is set: That is the ground zero here - real people in real time. Attempts to sideline Jewish history are not the way forward....

From the above article:

Quote:

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.

The simplest explanation? The gospel JC figure is a composite figure that has been designed to reflect specific events in Hasmonean/Jewish history. From real life, from history with it's tragedy and it's joy, it's war and it's peace - a theological/philosophical salvation story was created.

Yes, of course, for that theological/philosophical salvation story - names no longer have any relevance. Neither Jew nor Greek etc. However, for a historical understanding of early christian history - names have to be named.

James The Least · 04-11-2013, 05:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by semiopen

Quote:

Originally Posted by James The Least

But Mark isn't stupid. He knows that "the Jews" do not execute people, even prophets, via crucifixion.
So he brings in the pseudo-historical detail of a Roman trial and governor whom he plucked out of Josephus or Philo (not historical memory). He then invents the hand washing scene and makes sure that his readers get the point that in no way were the Romans responsible. "The Jews killed Lord Jesus" would be repeated for the next 1,900 years. So successful was his myth that only in the last couple of decades have people even considered that it was actually the Romans responsible for the whole thing. But of course that too is a myth.

You mentioned this before, and I mentioned that there is no evidence that Jews did not use crucifixion as an execution method.

I also mentioned that the word hang in the bible can be translated as impale which sounds a little like crucifixion.

Talah Strong's 8518

JPS_Tanakh translates Talah as impale every single time it appears in an execution context.

Quote:

The New Jewish Publication Society of America Tanakh, first published in complete form in 1985, is a modern Jewish translation of the Masoretic Text of the Hebrew Bible into English. It is based on revised editions of earlier publications of subdivisions of the Tanakh such as the Torah and Five Megillot which were originally published from 1969-1982. It is unrelated to the original JPS Tanakh translation, which was based on the King James Version but emended to more strictly follow the Masoretic text, beyond both translations being published by the Jewish Publication Society of America.

This translation emerged from the collaborative efforts of an interdenominational team of Jewish scholars and rabbis working together over a thirty-year period. These translators based their translation on the Masoretic Hebrew text, and consistently strove for a faithful, idiomatic rendering of the original scriptural languages.

This is the second time I've challenged your assertion that the Jews did not use crucifixion as an execution method. Perhaps your position can be defended, but your argument is seriously damaged if you don't respond to this. Of course, your argument isn't very convincing anyway.

As I mentioned before, the only thing that suggests the Jews didn't execute this way is the Talmud, which was written hundreds of years after the events. As we've discussed in recent threads, there is very little in the Talmud that is historically accurate.

Fine, I'm always open to evidence. What are the ancient sources that state, unequivocally, that Jews executed by crucifixion?

"There's no evidence that they didn't do it" is not an argument.

James The Least · 04-11-2013, 05:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chili

Quote:

Originally Posted by James The Least

[
Good analysis, but I think you're over-thinking this and treating it as history. None of this actually happened. It's a figment of Mark's imagination and the myth he inherited and tried to turn into a sacred narrative.

Regarding the bolded part, one of the myths that Mark inherited was that "the Jews killed all the prophets." This appears in 1 Thessalonians so Mark had his backstory right there: Jesus is a prophet; the Jews have killed all the prophets; ergo, they must kill Jesus. How will they kill him? On a cross, just like they sacrifice the paschal lamb every Passover. But Mark isn't stupid. He knows that "the Jews" do not execute people, even prophets, via crucifixion.
So he brings in the pseudo-historical detail of a Roman trial and governor whom he plucked out of Josephus or Philo (not historical memory). He then invents the hand washing scene and makes sure that his readers get the point that in no way were the Romans responsible. "The Jews killed Lord Jesus" would be repeated for the next 1,900 years. So successful was his myth that only in the last couple of decades have people even considered that it was actually the Romans responsible for the whole thing. But of course that too is a myth.

Bolding mine.

Sure, good points, but are you not over-thinking too if you call it all myth and then conclude that the Romans were responsible for it all and then call that myth too?

My point here is that 'inside the myth' the Jews laid the charge for they alone can stand convicted by their own Law and need the faculty of reason without religion to crucify the Jew in him. These are the Romans in this story wherein Pilate is local (or provincial in TOK), and Herod was supreme ruler in motion (or 'united state' as TOK and TOL combined) of the man called Joseph who was 'the' Jew that this transformation happened to.

I haven't concluded that Romans were responsible for the execution of Yeshua, I was just restating a fashionable opinion among some Christians and Jews nowadays. I didn't mean to imply that I agreed with them. The point was that Mark was very successful with the core point he wanted to get across.

James The Least · 04-11-2013, 05:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PhilosopherJay

Hi James the Least, MaryHelena, et al.,

I would suggest that the current gospel texts does suggest that there was a prior story of Pilate (or some Roman office) killing Jesus (or some Jewish prophet/messiah figure. It is not being introduced as a new idea, but seems to be a background to the new ideas of Jewish betrayal and Trial tampering that are being introduced.

If correct, we should be able to find, hopefully in the future if not now, some texts that indicate this. So this is just a hypothesis in need of more proof.

I would say the backstory was this: Gentiles converting to the Jewish religion, to the point that a schism breaks out and eventually, they (or their children) form a sect of Gentile Judaism. It's not a new religion at first. It's individuality evolves over years, decades ... so you have a couple of generations of people, at least, who are not Jewish, reading and worshipping what were popularly understood as "Jewish" scriptures. So they have a chip on their shoulder, and they begin reading into the texts emphases that ethnic Jews never would. They seize upon the theme of the Prophetic books of the Israelites being a "stiff-necked people" who constantly backslide against God. They underline all those passages. They seize upon figures in the Bible who are not venerated as patriarchs -- instead of Moses, Abraham, and Jacob, they find obscure figures like Seth, Melchizedek, and Christos and venerate them as their prophets. Real Jews knew that "Christ" was a title, not an actual person, but these Gentiles didn't know that. You then begin imagining a "life" of Christ ... buried in secret code throughout Isaiah and the Psalms. What did the Christ say? Where did he live? How did he die? The scripture reveals all, if you know how to read it. And they convinced themselves and their audience that God's plan was for the Gentiles to be his chosen people all along, he just kept it hidden until now. What a shock! And you can easily see how intoxicating this could be to people who were disillusioned with their current religious choices and found great wisdom and mystery in the "ancient scriptures of the prophets." All that was needed was a device to totally disenfranchise the Jews from what had been their intellectual property rights, and Mark with his Jesus mythology filled that need perfectly. Too perfectly to reflect an actual person.

Chili · 04-11-2013, 06:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by James The Least

[

Fine, I'm always open to evidence. What are the ancient sources that state, unequivocally, that Jews executed by crucifixion?

"There's no evidence that they didn't do it" is not an argument.

Good question James, and the same goes for the flood, and physically rising from the dead, and all those fat heifers burned in churches, and that Moses thing.

To me it is all allegory except where the word 'real' is used to say that it is not allegory. Such as in John 6 where "my body is real food and my blood is real drink." . . . and lets not forget all the violence because Judaism in not about violence but is about love.

Obviously, the transformation must take place in the mind to say that we are equal . . . and is there something wrong with that?

Chili · 04-11-2013, 06:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by James The Least

I haven't concluded that Romans were responsible for the execution of Yeshua, I was just restating a fashionable opinion among some Christians and Jews nowadays. I didn't mean to imply that I agreed with them. The point was that Mark was very successful with the core point he wanted to get across.

More than anything, I am in agreement with what you write.

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

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.