Bermejo-Rubio: Jesus and the Anti-Roman Resistance

[MrMacSon]

70 c.e. was 100 years from 30 b.c.e. when Herod put Hyrcanus II to death - 7 years after the Roman execution of Antigonus.....

The Lukan writer is not the only writer to fit his story into specific time-slots. Josephus does likewise. The death of James between 62/63/64 c.e. is 100 years from the Roman execution of Antigonus in 37 b.c.e. The war of Antipas with Aretas in 36/37 c.e. is 100 years from 63 b.c.e.

What's the significance of the 100 yr time-frame / shift / gap ?

[maryhelena]

I sent an email to prof BR (fortunately, he can speak Italian!) because I want to ask him this my question:

since he writes in his article :

Although there is every indication that Jesus had a strong personality and some idiosyncratic views, and one can surely assume that there were differences between him and his disciples (just as there were probably differences within the group of his disciples themselves), establishing a yawning chasm between him and his disciples is utterly counter-intuitive. Jesus was the leader and master of his group, so his guidelines must have been followed. It was he indeed who chose the group, who held them as his disciples throughout his public life, and who sent them to preach in his name, so he must have checked that they were not too obtuse. Therefore, what the disciples wanted and did must have agreed, at least in general terms, with Jesus’ own goals and expectations, at least during his lifetime.

(p. 42, my bold)

my question is this: I recognize rightly that Mark, Matthew or Luke or any another pious Jew (devout to god of Jews) would have no interest in ''establishing a yawning chasm between him and his disciples'' (since even Mark, in his final, gives Peter the opportunity to redeem himself following Jesus in the Galilee ''of the Gentiles'' where Paul is waiting for him) and to that extent the prof's argument is very strong.

But what happens if Marcion is the author of the first Gospel?

Marcion had all the theological interest in ''establishing a yawning chasm between him and his disciples'', and so in view of that goal he could have described deliberately Jesus as a seditious Jewish messiah according to his disciples, to condemn the same his disciples as enormously distant from Jesus and traitors of his authentic message.

The embarrassment of our Synoptics about a seditious Jesus would be therefore embarrassment of Marcion's gospel.

Well, best of luck with the email.......

Bermejo-Rubio:

• A simple thought experiment suffices to grasp the extent of the mystification prevailing in Jesus studies. What would happen if the referent of the available seditious material were any other first-century Jew? The answer is obvious. If only half of the evidence which we have got about Jesus were evidence concerning any other Jew of his age, the scholarly world would have long ago unanimously reached the conclusion that he was an insurrectionist, and would have excluded as the most improbable thing—not to say as ridiculous and crazy—any idea of him being a sort of pacifist. The unfortunate fact, however, is that the religious significance of Jesus for millions of our contemporaries (including most of those who boast about doing historical research on him) makes him a very different kettle of fish. History is still, for most in the guild, the handmaiden of theology, to such an extent that hosts of scholars have not removed—and presumably will never remove—the theological wax from their ears. This suffices to explain why the hypothesis that would have otherwise been deemed the most plausible one is deemed to be the most improbable and outlandish

Attempts to bring Marcion's theology into a discussion re a seditious Jesus is an attempt to get theology to trump history. Whether or not the gospel Jesus was historical (of some variant) is besides the point here. Bottom line is that the gospel story has seditious elements attached to it's central character.
That's the gospel story - and it's a story that makes sense of the gospel Roman crucifixion story.

And of course, it's also a gospel story that raises serious questions for the Carrier mythicists - why on earth would a Pauline celestial christ figure be euhemerized as a Jewish insurrectionist, as a seditious figure....Yes, the gospel writers sought to, as it were, limit the damage a seditious Jesus was to their Prince of Peace ideal - but what justification would be on hand for euhermerizing a Pauline celestial christ figure as a seditious Jesus? Why create an euhemerized seditious Jesus only to have to side-line this element.....

Obviously, only an actual historical insurrection/seditious activity can do justice to the seditious elements in the gospel Jesus story - a historical insurrection that the gospel writers found necessary to accommodate within their Jesus story: Rome executed, hung on a cross, a flesh and blood Hasmonean/Jewish King for insurrection, for sedition against Rome.

[MrMacSon]

... - why on earth would a Pauline celestial christ figure be euhemerized as a Jewish insurrectionist, as a seditious figure....Yes, the gospel writers sought to, as it were, limit the damage a seditious Jesus was to their Prince of Peace ideal - but what justification would be on hand for euhermerizing a Pauline celestial christ figure as a seditious Jesus? Why create an euhemerized seditious Jesus only to have to side-line this element.....

b/c the initial narrative was a reactionary one? one steeped in adversary for the aggressive Roman suppression?

Later editing changed the nature of the narrative to be 'good news' ?? -- to be more constructive (less antagonistic) ??

[maryhelena]

70 c.e. was 100 years from 30 b.c.e. when Herod put Hyrcanus II to death - 7 years after the Roman execution of Antigonus.....

The Lukan writer is not the only writer to fit his story into specific time-slots. Josephus does likewise. The death of James between 62/63/64 c.e. is 100 years from the Roman execution of Antigonus in 37 b.c.e. The war of Antipas with Aretas in 36/37 c.e. is 100 years from 63 b.c.e.

What's the significance of the 100 yr time-frame / gap / shift?

The significance? Remembrance. History is remembered, those who died are remembered. 2014 was 100 years since World War I - and large remembrance events were held.

Did you not see the field of ceramic red poppies planted at the Tower of London to remember every single man and woman, 888,246, who died in fighting for freedom in that conflict.





I'm not into numerology - I just notice when numbers are being used in the gospel story - and in Josephus.

[maryhelena]

... - why on earth would a Pauline celestial christ figure be euhemerized as a Jewish insurrectionist, as a seditious figure....Yes, the gospel writers sought to, as it were, limit the damage a seditious Jesus was to their Prince of Peace ideal - but what justification would be on hand for euhermerizing a Pauline celestial christ figure as a seditious Jesus? Why create an euhemerized seditious Jesus only to have to side-line this element.....

b/c the initial narrative was a reactionary one? one steeped in adversary for the aggressive Roman suppression?

Later editing changed the nature of the narrative to be 'good news' ?? -- to be more constructive (less antagonistic) ??

So the insurrectionist/seditious euhemerized Pauline celestial christ figure was created to take on the Romans - and when that failed - the euhemerized Pauline celestial christ figure was transformed into a Prince of Peace....

But history tells us that a Jewish insurrectionist movement did not fail - it succeeded, albeit for 3 short years of freedom from Rome. An euhemerized insurrectionist/seditious Pauline celestial christ figure that does not succeed against Rome fails to do justice to Jewish history. Viewing the gospel Jesus figure as a composite figure allows Jewish history center stage....it allows the gospel story to be viewed as reflecting Jewish history. It allows the gospel crucifixion story to be viewed as reflecting the Roman execution of Antigonus in 37 b.c.e. - an execution that followed a successful insurrection against Rome in 40 b.c.e.

[MrMacSon]

I just notice when numbers are being used in the gospel story - and in Josephus.

How are the numbers being used? Similarly?

[MrMacSon]

But history tells us that a Jewish insurrectionist movement did not fail - it succeeded, albeit for 3 short years of freedom from Rome.

What 3 yrs are you referring to here?

An euhemerized insurrectionist/seditious Pauline celestial christ figure that does not succeed against Rome fails to do justice to Jewish history.

Maybe they had hope it would succeed? eg. before the Third Jewish Revolt - the Bar Kokhba revolt !!

Viewing the gospel Jesus figure as a composite figure allows Jewish history center stage....it allows the gospel story to be viewed as reflecting Jewish history. It allows the gospel crucifixion story to be viewed as reflecting the Roman execution of Antigonus in 37 b.c.e. - an execution that followed a successful insurrection against Rome in 40 b.c.e.

Maybe that's what the Resurrection narrative is about? or the proposed Second Coming? or both?

.

[maryhelena]

I just notice when numbers are being used in the gospel story - and in Josephus.

How are the numbers being used? Similarly?

As listed above - so many years from such a date = remembrance in one way or another...

[maryhelena]

But history tells us that a Jewish insurrectionist movement did not fail - it succeeded, albeit for 3 short years of freedom from Rome.

What 3 yrs are you referring to here?

40 - 37 b.c.e.

[MrMacSon]

The gospel crucifixion story may well reflect "the Roman execution of Antigonus - the last real *King of the Jews* - in 37 b.c.e"; regardless of the other NT narratives, or the way they developed.