HJ and Christian origins plausibility

[TedM]

In another thread Peter wrote:

No thesis is without its difficulties. Taking an HJ hypothesis shifts those difficulties away from "how did he get to be human" and towards "how did he get to be divine." So we get all these big books analyzing the mind of Paul and how he turned a crucified peasant into the fulcrum of history and the way to salvation for both Gentile and Jew. Perhaps we're simply more comfortable with the difficulties that the historicity of Jesus position throws up.

In response I wrote the following. I believe the following represents a plausible explanation of the origins of Christianity and that the evidence that we do have does not present difficulties for it


Perhaps I have misunderstood, but do you see difficulty in the following?:

1. Israel was desperately seeking their long-predicted Messiah, and expecting him during their generation

2. A religious teacher arose who was thought by some to be the Messiah, and was possibly known of by many people.

3. Seen as a threat to Rome and/or the religious establishment, He got crucified during Passover, possibly due in part to his own anti-Roman actions.

4. Because He and his followers were seen by some as a potential threat to Rome, as would be any Messiah claimant, some initially thought of his death as a way to save Israel from Rome's wrath.

5. Some of his followers thought his spirit was resurrected, and so he went to live with God, whom he had called 'Father'.

6. Some of those that thought of him as a good man or Prophet unjustly killed, began to see his death during Passover as more than just a military sacrifice, but also as a spiritual sacrifice for the sins of Israel -like the sacrificial lambs of Passover, since their domination by Rome and previous nations had always been a direct result of Israel's sins.

7. A mixture of all of the above led religious thinkers to see connections to Messiac scriptures - most powerfully Isaiah 53, resulting in 'insights', maybe even visions, which confirmed to them the idea that Jesus had been the Messiah who had died for the salvation of the people, and so the Christian movement was quickly born.

8. Paul, one of the more gifted of those thinkers, dramatically converted through spiritual 'revelation', and profoundly spread the message throughout the surrounding countries, with an entire arsenal of Jewish scriptures to back him up, promising the same eternal life that Jesus had to those who believe, and was helped by like-minded Hellenistic Jews throughout those lands. His movement was opposed by many of the Jews.

9. About 40 years later, the destruction of the Temple and scattering of the Jews, in conjunction with the failure of Jesus to return with God and his Angels to pronounce Judgement on Rome as many initial believers had expected based on scriptures, caused more to see the 'salvation' as being a personal salvation from sins which results in eternal Life and available not just to Jews, but to Romans and all the Gentiles, both concepts which Paul had been preaching for decades.

Which of these is difficult to swallow?

[TedM]

Peter responded with:

Which of these is difficult to swallow?

4, 5, 6, 7, and 8.

I'd like to know your reasons, Peter.

[ficino]

At first glance, the hypothesis that after Jesus' crucifixion, some of his followers interpreted his death as a "military sacrifice," "a way to save Israel from Rome's wrath," seems to have no evidence behind it. It also seems misplaced to think that the Romans would be appeased by the death of a wandering preacher who seems to have had only a rag-tag band of minimally armed followers (if we're going with the gospel story at all). Given the many earlier texts that explain Jewish defeats as results of disobedience to Yahweh, and which raise the importance of appeasing Yahweh's wrath, I would think you don't need the "his death appeased Rome" piece. How about jettisoning your #4 and the first half of #6?

[perseusomega9]

2. A religious teacher arose who was thought by some to be the Messiah, and was possibly known of by many people.

Matt 13 Now when Jesus came into the district of Caesarea Philippi, He was asking His disciples, “Who do people say that the Son of Man is?” 14 And they said, “Some say John the Baptist; and others, [a]Elijah; but still others, Jeremiah, or one of the prophets.” 15 He *said to them, “But who do you say that I am?” 16 Simon Peter answered, “You are [c]the Christ, the Son of the living God.”

Mark 27Jesus went out, along with His disciples, to the villages of Caesarea Philippi; and on the way He questioned His disciples, saying to them, “Who do people say that I am?” 28They told Him, saying, “John the Baptist; and others say Elijah; but others, one of the prophets.” 29And He continued by questioning them, “But who do you say that I am?” Peter answered and said to Him, “You are the Christ.” 30And He warned them to tell no one about Him.

Luke 18And it happened that while He was praying alone, the disciples were with Him, and He questioned them, saying, “Who do the people say that I am?” 19They answered and said, “John the Baptist, and others say Elijah; but others, that one of the prophets of old has risen again.” 20And He said to them, “But who do you say that I am?” And Peter answered and said, “The Christ of God.” 21But He warned them and instructed them not to tell this to anyone,

Matt And when John had heard in prison about the works of Christ, he sent two of[a] his disciples 3 and said to Him, “Are You the Coming One, or do we look for another?”

Luke 20 When the men came to Him, they said, “John the Baptist has sent us to You, to ask, ‘Are You the [a]Expected One, or do we look for someone else?’”

[outhouse]

1. Israel was desperately seeking their long-predicted Messiah, and expecting him during their generation

Difficulty is that Israelites did not make him a deity.

Hellenist in the diaspora who could care less about a messiah made him a "form" of deity. One who would compete with the living emperors divinity.

2. A religious teacher arose who was thought by some to be the Messiah, and was possibly known of by many people.

Not what we see though.


He was not a teacher long enough to become well known or noticed, possibly "only" traveling in small villages for a meal with a few followers.

He took over Johns movement and teachings he probably learned from John.

There is no indication before his martyrdom at Passover he was anyone to be noticed.

3. Seen as a threat to Rome and/or the religious establishment, He got crucified during Passover, possibly due in part to his own anti-Roman actions.

Correct

There were many reasons for a Aramaic Jew to rebel. Perversion of Judaism by Hellenist, Oppression including over taxation, and temple coins with a pagan deity Melqart in gods own house

4. Because He and his followers were seen by some as a potential threat to Rome, as would be any Messiah claimant, some initially thought of his death as a way to save Israel from Rome's wrath.

He did not have to be known before the temple incident to be a threat. In 400,000 people there could have been hundreds of his types, but there is no indication he was viewed a messiah by any Aramaic Jews. He probably had very few followers, and even his inner circle are portrayed as cowards in the temple.

Actions in the temple get you noticed and placed on a cross rather quickly though.

5. Some of his followers thought his spirit was resurrected, and so he went to live with God, whom he had called 'Father'.

That's what I think, spiritual resurrection later turned into a physical one. Obviously Mark does not get all wound up about it in any real way as if he believed people witnessed a body going up like later pseudepigrapha.

6. Some of those that thought of him as a good man or Prophet unjustly killed, began to see his death during Passover as more than just a military sacrifice, but also as a spiritual sacrifice for the sins of Israel -like the sacrificial lambs of Passover, since their domination by Rome and previous nations had always been a direct result of Israel's sins.

Yes Hellenist martyred him for his perceived selfless actions in the temple when his own apostles were cowards fighting against corruption on his own.

Aramaic Jews looked at his actions as a failure as he liberated nothing for them.

7. A mixture of all of the above led religious thinkers to see connections to Messiac scriptures - most powerfully Isaiah 53, resulting in 'insights', maybe even visions, which confirmed to them the idea that Jesus had been the Messiah who had died for the salvation of the people, and so the Christian movement was quickly born.

Yes

But evolved in Hellenistic communities for decades before the mythology took on complex ideas for those wanting to divorce Judaism.

8. Paul, one of the more gifted of those thinkers, dramatically converted through spiritual 'revelation', and profoundly spread the message throughout the surrounding countries, with an entire arsenal of Jewish scriptures to back him up, promising the same eternal life that Jesus had to those who believe, and was helped by like-minded Hellenistic Jews throughout those lands. His movement was opposed by many of the Jews.

Yes but Paul spread nothing really as much as he just joined a movement in progress, and wrote a too a few houses who saved and spread his epistles to others who found importance in his words.

He may have went out and proselytized, but there were many other teachings and scripture in existence, and he tells us this.

9. About 40 years later, the destruction of the Temple and scattering of the Jews, in conjunction with the failure of Jesus to return with God and his Angels to pronounce Judgement on Rome as many initial believers had expected based on scriptures, caused more to see the 'salvation' as being a personal salvation from sins which results in eternal Life and available not just to Jews, but to Romans and all the Gentiles, both concepts which Paul had been preaching for decades.

Possible.

The fall of the temple sealed in the divorce of Hellenist from Judaism and the need for Hellenist and gentiles to further themselves from pesky trouble making cultural Jews, who had found importance in the teachings of Judaism and knew them well as this Hellenistic Judaism had gone on for hundreds of years to the point the Hellenist had their own text.

[Bernard Muller]

Peter Kirby wrote:

TedM wrote:
Which of these is difficult to swallow?

4, 5, 6, 7, and 8.

I am close to TedM understanding on the matter.
I wonder what Peter or others on this forum would find hard to swallow on this abstract:

My reconstruction is as such:

1) Right after Pilate took over as procurator (and/or prefect) in Judea, there is an unprecedented series of events in Jerusalem & Cesarea (Josephus’ Wars II, IX, 2-3 & Ant., XVIII, III, 1), with exceptionally good outcomes, inviting the Jews to think God is back looking after them. Also, this episode weakens Pilate’s rule, allowing for John the Baptist (JtB) and the many Jews going to him (and later a certain royal welcome near Jerusalem).

2) JtB attracts large crowds for a few months (spring of 27CE), preaching God’s Kingdom (of the old prophecies) is near, better to be “cleansed” in order to avoid the accompanying God’s wrath.

3) Jesus enters here, so far as a lower class, uneducated, rural Jew from Galilee.
He stays around JtB, among others.

4) Jesus goes to Capernaum right after JtB’s arrest. Then two small successive events happen on Sabbath day, creating a short-lived hysteria around Jesus’ alleged healing power.

5) After Jesus is credited to have healed a man with skin disease (in the nearby villages), another hysteria takes hold and gets known all the way to Jerusalem (80 miles away) and beyond.

6) Peripherally, Jesus talks about a (down to earth) message well adapted to the times (right after JtB’s one: “Kingdom to come”) and his milieu (rural Galilee): the Kingdom is coming soon (on earth) and it will benefit only the poor (Jews).

7) At that time, JtB, rumored to be the future (human) ruler (king) of the Kingdom, is executed by Herod Antipas.

8) Then, some Judean/Hellenist activist Jews interpret the healings by Jesus as a Sign; and he is thought to be the One, replacing (or possessed by) JtB (that’s not a leap of faith, this part is multi-documented in GMark).

9) So, next spring, Jesus gets a “royalish” welcome by some near Jerusalem, days before the Passover.

10) He feels encouraged enough to do the disturbance (“cleansing” in the temple).

11) Because of that (and the welcome), he is soon arrested (abandoned by the Galileans) and crucified (without trials and as a deterrent) with a mocking sign, “the king of the Jews” (spring of 28CE).

12) Later, another event (Josephus’ Wars II, IX, 4 & Ant., XVIII, III, 2) will make most Jews doubt the Kingdom (to come soon) and re-establish Roman full authority (and fear) over Judea. But some hellenized Jews will keep the hope alive by looking at certain recent events, the Scriptures, Pharisaic beliefs, Philo of Alexandria’s writings, etc. … (see for the post-crucifixion beginning of Christianity)

More details here: http://historical-jesus.info/digest.html

Cordially, Bernard

[TedM]

At first glance, the hypothesis that after Jesus' crucifixion, some of his followers interpreted his death as a "military sacrifice," "a way to save Israel from Rome's wrath," seems to have no evidence behind it. It also seems misplaced to think that the Romans would be appeased by the death of a wandering preacher who seems to have had only a rag-tag band of minimally armed followers (if we're going with the gospel story at all). Given the many earlier texts that explain Jewish defeats as results of disobedience to Yahweh, and which raise the importance of appeasing Yahweh's wrath, I would think you don't need the "his death appeased Rome" piece. How about jettisoning your #4 and the first half of #6?

4. Because He and his followers were seen by some as a potential threat to Rome, as would be any Messiah claimant, some initially thought of his death as a way to save Israel from Rome's wrath.

My thinking is that as a Messiah claiment he was seen by Rome as a potential threat to the stability of maintaining control during Passover, and thus was a threat to the people that were at the Passover--ie if his followers incited more people to rally behind this rebel-rouser Messiah who both entered the city like a -'King of the Jews' and raised a ruckus against Roman corruption in the temple, then the sheer number of people would have concerned the Romans, and made possible an ugly showdown. The idea then that his death would have been a way to save Israel from Rome's wrath makes sense to me, and IS supported by a statement in GJohn.

11:49But one of them, Caiaphas, who was high priest that year, said to them, "You know nothing at all, 50nor do you take into account that it is expedient for you that one man die for the people, and that the whole nation not perish."

I think this matter-of-fact political motivation on both sides is an important piece as it presents a concept of salvation that was then subject to evolution as people continued to consider what had happened to a beloved Messiah claimant, and -very importantly- WHEN it happened. It was an unusual confluence of events that provided the framework out of which everything could happen.

[TedM]

1. Israel was desperately seeking their long-predicted Messiah, and expecting him during their generation

Difficulty is that Israelites did not make him a deity.

Hellenist in the diaspora who could care less about a messiah made him a "form" of deity. One who would compete with the living emperors divinity.

I don't see the difficulty. The Israelites didn't have to make their Messiah a deity, and as you point out the others weren't as concerned about Jewish 'restrictions' on what a 'Savior' was.

2. A religious teacher arose who was thought by some to be the Messiah, and was possibly known of by many people.

Not what we see though.


He was not a teacher long enough to become well known or noticed, possibly "only" traveling in small villages for a meal with a few followers.

He took over Johns movement and teachings he probably learned from John.

There is no indication before his martyrdom at Passover he was anyone to be noticed.

not true. The gospels ARE that indication and common sense would say that since John was so popular, someone who 'took over' would also have been noticed, possibly widely. How many people do you think would have to have known of him prior to Passover to have created some concern? I would think maybe a few hundred would have been enough.

4. Because He and his followers were seen by some as a potential threat to Rome, as would be any Messiah claimant, some initially thought of his death as a way to save Israel from Rome's wrath.

He did not have to be known before the temple incident to be a threat. In 400,000 people there could have been hundreds of his types, but there is no indication he was viewed a messiah by any Aramaic Jews. He probably had very few followers, and even his inner circle are portrayed as cowards in the temple.

Actions in the temple get you noticed and placed on a cross rather quickly though.

While you may be right, I think it makes the rest of the points more difficult to believe with regard to the evolution of the origins. Otherwise it would have been more likely that he was seen as a dead Messiah-claiment and that's that. I think it makes more sense that he had already been seen as a possible Messiah by some, and may well have been somewhat like the Jesus we see in the gospels.

6. Some of those that thought of him as a good man or Prophet unjustly killed, began to see his death during Passover as more than just a military sacrifice, but also as a spiritual sacrifice for the sins of Israel -like the sacrificial lambs of Passover, since their domination by Rome and previous nations had always been a direct result of Israel's sins.

Yes Hellenist martyred him for his perceived selfless actions in the temple when his own apostles were cowards fighting against corruption on his own.

Aramaic Jews looked at his actions as a failure as he liberated nothing for them.

But there was so much more that would have appealed to all Jews. Paul, a Jew, seems to have put together a brilliant theology, which starts with timing of the event -- the Paschal sacrifical lamb. The idea of sacrifice for sins would have been instantly recognizable to any Jew, and the idea of resurrection as possible only for a sinless man -- which was not possible because of Adam and therefor required that man be like God himself -- was pretty a pretty strong idea and would have appealed also to the Jews Paul spoke to. So surely some of the Jews would have been tempted to re-interpret the traditional concept of a military Messiah. And, that is what is stated happened in the various writings.

7. A mixture of all of the above led religious thinkers to see connections to Messiac scriptures - most powerfully Isaiah 53, resulting in 'insights', maybe even visions, which confirmed to them the idea that Jesus had been the Messiah who had died for the salvation of the people, and so the Christian movement was quickly born.

Yes

But evolved in Hellenistic communities for decades before the mythology took on complex ideas for those wanting to divorce Judaism.

Dunno that it took very long-- Paul's theology was quite developed fairly early--salvation to all nations was a common Messianic concept but Paul simply interpreted it along spiritual lines as opposed to military.

[outhouse]

Messiah who both entered the city like a -'King of the Jews'

Because this was OT prophecy, it is not historically likely.

If anything, it could have been mocking Pilates entry into the city. As Crossan states

[ficino]

Yes, after I posted I thought of that verse in John, too. Of course, the evangelist goes on to insist that Jesus' death is of world salvific significance. We don't know that the reasoning attributed to Caiaphas was that of Jesus' followers right after his death. I would be chary about basing historical conclusions on John -- the only gospel, as I recall, that has Roman soldiers - a whole σπεῖρα - going along to arrest Jesus. Along with the many other anomalies in the fourth gospel.

Anyway, what creates difficulty for your #4, to my armchair amateur's mind, is that it seems unlikely that Jesus' followers would have taken the "military sacrifice" step in their thinking. Appeasing Roman wrath by crucifying one guy can only be a temporary expedient. Roman wrath will blaze anew at the next provocation. But certainly, the first proponents of the Jesus cult believed that his mission was unique and eschatological. It seems to me that in seeking to understand and "wrap their heads around" his death, they would attach ultimate significance to it from the outset, without the lame, intermediate step of "Well, his death stopped the Romans from killing more of us."

Speculating about intentions of people who we might think were prone to visions etc., who knows what they may have thought. Certainly some of them were, at the least, PR geniuses.