Roland

How plausible is it that a preacher from Galillee with a fairly sizable following would be able to engineer events so successfully that he would wind up being "sacrificed" on Passover Week so he could become the symbolic "Lamb of God" who takes away the sins of the world?

I understand why fundamentalist Christians believe this (after all, God can do anything), but I don't get why more serious, secular-minded historians accept the story.

It seems to me that much of what happens to Jesus in the Passion account would actually be out of his (or any other human being's) control. He would have to make sure to arrive in Jerusalem at just the right moment, be seen by and offend just the right people, get himself arrested and put on trial, then be sentenced to death and executed all before the end of Passover. Now, all this would be easy to achieve in the realm of fiction, but for an actual person to be able to orchestrate these events so precisely - frankly, I have a hard time buying it. Life just doesn't work this way. (People who commit suicide don't usually rely on so many external forces to help them accomplish it).

So, do HJers, who don't believe in all the miraculous, supernatural elements of the story, still think the Passion events are largely historical? Or could Jesus just have been executed at any old time and in any old fashion with his followers providing the symbolic details later on? And if this is the case, what are we really talking about when we make reference to a "historic Jesus"? I mean, what's left of the story after that?

Chris Weimer

What if it wasn't on purpose? What if the alignment was coincidental, and thus, like the alignment of the factors leading to life on earth, led to Christianity?

You seem to think that scholars have adopted the "Intelligent Design" position of Christian origins - nope, not at all, that's a strawman. It's all natural.

Roland

I guess it boils down to, then, which is the more likely scenario - that this amazing "alignment" took place or that an author brought it all together in a carefully crafted literary creation (as authors are wont to do). The second option seems much more likely to me (just as miracles stories are abundant and easy to accomplish in fiction but highly improbable as historical events).

Chris Weimer

Oh yes, adopt the conspiracy theory! That's always the rational explanation!

Chris Weimer

I'm not sure why we adopt the conspiracy theories - how likely was it that a democracy grew in upper Latium that turned into the history of Rome? Think about the slim thread we walked during WWII. No conspiracies involved. Hundreds of books have been written detailing what life would have been like if such and such never happened - if the French and Prussian forces never helped the Americans, if the Spartans died according to their statistical probability of being killed, of the statistical odds that Alexander the Great overcame.

We might as well say that all of that was an invention of literary sources. After all, there's about as much evidence that all of that was invented (scilicet none) as there is for the Jesus story (also none). The front runner is Doherty's twisted reading, which has more holes in it than does the story surrounding the Talmud Jmmanuel. Well, perhaps not near as much (see: hyperbole) but you get my point. Doherty has reverted to a Dohertian apologist in order to keep his theory breathing, and those who can't read Greek and rely on "intuition" (oh geez, just like how fundies say that so-and-so passage feels right) take it up and think they're defending truth and reason and secularism when in fact all they're doing is moving from one spectrum to another - forsaking reason for the idealogical hatred which results in them easily gullible in accepting these conspiracy theories.

GakuseiDon

Swarms of people in Jerusalem at Passover, unrest amongst the populace about Roman occupation, and toey Roman officials. How much would it take to get someone crucified? Not a lot, I'd think. Passover would be the most likely time for someone to get themselves crucified, if they wanted to plan it. Or even if they didn't want to plan it. All they'd need to do is bare their bum or complain about the prices of birds in the Temple grounds.

Antipope Innocent II

The events, sure. The post-factum explanations that it was all what Jesus "planned", no. Exactly what he expected to happen when he went to Jerusalem isn't clear. But I'd say getting arrested and crucified wasn't part of it.

Roland

Why is it a "conspiracy theory" to think someone wrote a fictional story? A story whose characters' names alone give away the whole show (Barabbas=Son of the Father, Judas=Judah, Jesus=Yahweh saves). Actually, by arguing that the story is a literary creation, I'm taking it OUT of the realm of a conspiracy theory. Perfectly choreographed coincidences and allegorical names are par for the course in literature.

Roland

I guess what I don't get is where you draw the line as to what you think happened and what you think didn't since the only accounts we have seem to portray it this one way.

Chris Weimer

It's also "par for the course" for the whole ancient world - how many times is it pointed out that Yeshua is a very, very common name.

Finally, the "story" that you find in the gospel accounts is much later than the earliest Christian sources - namely Paul, and even then he describes a thriving religion already. It's like saying that Lincoln's assassination was modeled from Kennedy's.