How Much of the Gospel is Actual History

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
outhouse
Posts: 3577
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 6:48 pm

Re: How Much of the Gospel is Actual History

Post by outhouse »

Secret Alias wrote:[- the gospel portrait of an idiotes arguing with the erudite simply wasn't a historical happening. It was a made up story. These sorts of things didn't happen.

So you don't think this was literally blown out of proportion from different sects arguing over Judaism much like all jews still do today?


I have no problem believing the gospel account was fictional, no argument there what so ever.

Jews arguing over details of first century Judaism, FK we know they did. Even the same sects.
Secret Alias
Posts: 18362
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: How Much of the Gospel is Actual History

Post by Secret Alias »

To demonstrate that these things we are talking about are a hot topic

https://syndicatetheology.com/commentar ... ate-jesus/
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote
Secret Alias
Posts: 18362
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: How Much of the Gospel is Actual History

Post by Secret Alias »

And only part of the difficulty is addressed in the article - not only where did Jesus get these ideas if he was illiterate but, as the gospel itself states at the very beginning by what authority? Remember unlike modern American heresies (like Crespo Dollar for instance) in antiquity they were aren't arguing over HUMAN interpretations of scripture but rather which chain of interpretation actually went back to God. That's what was at stake for the Pharisees and Sadducees - who properly preserved God's exegesis (if you will) of scripture? Just like the whole idea of the genealogy of Jesus is laughable (i.e. Matthew vs Luke) what is the genealogy as it were of Jesus's exegesis of scripture? How could an idiotes, an illiterate peasant have laid claim to a tradition of exegesis that dated back through to Moses and the Sinai revelation? It's ridiculous.

So what are the options here? Well, an illiterate Jesus could have believed that Ezra was responsible for the creation of the Pentateuch. But that is contradicted by the statement 'Moses did this etc.' I will say time and time again, the only viable explanation is Jesus was originally envisioned as Ishu God's 'cosmic' Man described in Genesis 1.27 (the manuscripts simply read IC = 'Man').

Under this scenario this second God descended to earth as man (he was already Man). He debates with the authorities knowing the truth because he established the law (= this is not a human interpretation but the true interpretation) and finally and perhaps most importantly, all the theological business about humanity being reshaped in his image (= Jesus's) through baptism is a reflection of him being Man, the perfect Man, Adam Kadmion according to the Jews.

All the weird bits from the core of Christianity start to make sense.
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote
Secret Alias
Posts: 18362
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: How Much of the Gospel is Actual History

Post by Secret Alias »

And then the next level of understanding. In the gospel of Clement of Alexandria and others (= Marcion) the antitheses in Matthew seem to have been developed within the framework of the discussion with the rich man (you know where the question of 'what do I have to do to inherit [eternal] life) etc. In the original Jesus offers up a shocking interpretation of the commandment 'do not covet' (Ex 20:17, Matt 5:28). Instead of merely commanding the Israelites not to lust after certain things (the list which now appears in the Pentateuch) Jesus develops his theology from a short form of the commandment where God originally said cut lust out of your life, period. Basically to castrate yourself (while stopping short of saying take out the knife or scissors).

This understanding of Exodus 20:17 is clearly as old as Philo and many have argued that it must have developed from a 'short form' of the commandment (which I have suspected derives from a distinct version of the ten commandments which was different from the ones which appear in Exodus and Deuteronomy - i.e. a monumental 'short form' of the commandments which was developed for public viewing). Again we see the CONTEXT of Jesus the (apparent) idiotes - i.e. he reflects the interest or understanding of the am ha-aretz. So that much everyone I think can agree on. But did the 'people of the Land' have this pre-existent interpretation of the short-form of Exodus 20:17? In other words, was it already established that God told the Israelites to cut lust out of their hearts ENTIRELY?

I don't think so. This seems to me to be a philosophical, educated ideal. Not the ideal for a man working in the field doing hard labor.

I think the short-form of the commandment was developed for public view. The specific application of the 'do not covet' commandment in terms of the women and things of one neighbor was quite natural (i.e. Ezra was faithful to the intent of the original short-form which was passed down before his efforts to further define it). But the gospel application specifically developed under the influence of the Greek text (= LXX) or at least the influence of Greek philosophy. In other words, we see the author of the gospel basically take Philo's re-interpretation of the short form and then apply it to God in the form of an (apparent) idiotes debating with the authorities.

One more thing, the application of the suffering servant to the gospel narrative presupposes that God took the form of a loser. Think about that for a moment. It's not, Jesus - a man of flesh and blood - was a wretch but according to the original theology, God appeared as a wretch. Not an idiotes. True. But the sense of the original application of Isaiah gets lost in the over-emphasis of the Passion. What was originally being marveled at (in theological terms) is that God would come as a peasant (one of the 'wretched' as Philo would describe them). Again not that a wretch would come as God but that God would appear as a wretch. An important distinction.
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote
Secret Alias
Posts: 18362
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: How Much of the Gospel is Actual History

Post by Secret Alias »

And we can see that the research into the historical Jesus is improving. Undoubtedly owing to pressure from mythicists, this is a growing field. They've started to take the cultural background for Jesus seriously and for the most part associated him and Christianity in general with the People of the Land. But it is difficult for someone who begins with the assumption that there must have been a 'historical Jesus' to see the obvious difficulties of following the thread of logic back to the real absurdity at the core of the formulation. We all do this on a personal level (i.e. ignore paradoxes or difficulties). But in this case we have the alternative staring at us in the face too.
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote
outhouse
Posts: 3577
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 6:48 pm

Re: How Much of the Gospel is Actual History

Post by outhouse »

Secret Alias wrote:To demonstrate that these things we are talking about are a hot topic

https://syndicatetheology.com/commentar ... ate-jesus/
Thank you, good perspective.

I would note he is not implying "here in the article" anywhere near the certainty on the lack of Judaic knowledge in peasant class as you seem to. Maybe he does in his book?

not only where did Jesus get these ideas if he was illiterate but, as the gospel itself states at the very beginning by what authority?
From John, IMHO.

It would not be hard to understand what your oppressors, and or the corrupt political religious position of your enemy actually was.

Combine that with a few common Galilean parables and there you go, nothing out of the ordinary.


I was unfamiliar with any book-length study specifically focused upon the earliest days of Jesus’ ministry and how he went from being a presumable “nobody” to being a recognized teacher. In terms of topic, and to be blunt, many scholars considered (and still consider) the issue of Jesus’ literacy and education to be a joke of a topic. I was convinced otherwise, that Jesus’ literate status was directly linked to the controversy surrounding his emergence onto the authoritative pedagogical scene. Far from being a joke, I saw the topic as quite a crucial aspect of his ministry.

I find he is assuming here.

I find this as part of the martyrdom after death.


I personally do not see him as a recognized teacher in reality. So maybe his view Stephens view and my view are similar ONLY in that he was not a scribal teacher, agreed.


But that doesn't mean he was ignorant of Judaism either. Or that typical Aramaic peasants only followed the 10 laws.
Last edited by outhouse on Wed Oct 14, 2015 4:15 pm, edited 1 time in total.
John2
Posts: 4309
Joined: Fri May 16, 2014 4:42 pm

Re: How Much of the Gospel is Actual History

Post by John2 »

I wrote:

"So the DSS refer to people who were simple and liken them to animals -like the am ha-aretz in Pesachim 49- yet they are said to "observe the Torah""

To which Stephen replied:

"I don't see any relevance to this. You just like seguing to the DSS whenever you get the chance and warp it out of its original context."

How have I taken anything I've cited from the DSS on this forum out of context? In the broadest context, given the assumption that Christianity started in pre-70 E Judea, I think it's relevant to look for its roots in writings that come from pre-70 CE Judea, including the Dead Sea Scrolls.

Regarding the reference in the Habakkuk Pesher to "the simple ones of Judah who observe the Torah," I said the same thing that Eschel says about it in the link I provided. As he puts it, "In other words, God will punish the Wicked Priest for what he did to 'the Council of the Community' (that is, the sectarians) and the 'simple ones,' namely people associated with the sect."

And Swarup says, "1QpHab identifies the 'animals' as the 'simple ones of Judah' and as the 'poor' who keep the law."

https://books.google.com/books?id=Ex55C ... up&f=false

And what kind of people are the "simple" (or petayim)? Naive people.

http://biblehub.com/hebrew/6612.htm

E.g., http://biblehub.com/interlinear/proverbs/8-5.htm

And they are associated with the poor and likened to animals in the DSS using the same word for "animals" that the rabbis use to describe the am ha-aretz in Pes. 49. The only difference here is in attitude; in the DSS the "simple" are nevertheless capable of observing the Torah and being saved along with the rest of the sect, and in the Talmud they are lawless losers.
Last edited by John2 on Wed Oct 14, 2015 7:14 pm, edited 2 times in total.
You know in spite of all you gained, you still have to stand out in the pouring rain.
John2
Posts: 4309
Joined: Fri May 16, 2014 4:42 pm

Re: How Much of the Gospel is Actual History

Post by John2 »

And however you interpret "this Torah" in Dt. 31, the examples I gave of hakhel or hakhel-like Torah readings (Neh. 8, 2 Kings 23 and M. Sot. 7:8) say that more than the Ten Commandments were read out loud.
You know in spite of all you gained, you still have to stand out in the pouring rain.
Secret Alias
Posts: 18362
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: How Much of the Gospel is Actual History

Post by Secret Alias »

But pty doesn't mean the same thing as 'ignoramus.' It comes from an underlying association with 'openness' and 'enticement' and 'persuasion.' The Midrash on Psalms notes that pethi in Psalms 15:14 should be translated 'youth.' Getting back to the Qumran group the sect distinguished themselves from the Pharisees who were 'seekers of smooth things.' So the 'simpleness' here means 'openness' (to God's truth) and self-consciously contrasted with cleverness in a way that parallels IMO Ishmael's peshat or adherence to the 'simple' or plain meaning of the text. Ishmael would teach that raz is an anagram for zar (= strange), for a text should be interpreted according to its plain meaning. But Akiva would teach that peshat is an anagram for tippesh (= foolish). In other words, this is a Sadducee versus Pharisee dynamic rather than anything to do with the 'people of the Land.'
Last edited by Secret Alias on Wed Oct 14, 2015 3:58 pm, edited 1 time in total.
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote
Secret Alias
Posts: 18362
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: How Much of the Gospel is Actual History

Post by Secret Alias »

As an aside, I think that the most intelligent people marvel at simpleness and austerity. The stupid however delight in complexity.
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote
Post Reply