Interesting texts regarding the Man from heaven

[Ben C. Smith]

But if they weren't subtle he wouldn't have been rejected, and thus no resurrection and salvation. And on the MJ side if they weren't subtle it wouldn't have take 500 years to construct such a story and have it be believable.

I think we are working from very different premises here. I do not think that an historical Jesus ever even made a claim to the Messiahship, at least not in the sense that we are accustomed to thinking of such claims. My suggestion is that an historical Jesus attempted something at Passover that went wrong and got him crucified; and then a template was laid over him, as it were, as a means of salvaging his memory for those who had followed him.

That makes sense. I was just proposing the possibility that he may have over time come to orchestrate his death - if the entry into Jerusalem on a donkey is true then that would evidence of that - but that if he was TOO overt about demonstrating that he was the prophecied Messiah then he possibly wouldn't have succeed at getting killed. So in this scenario too it would help for the prophecies to be too subtle to be easily recognized.

I have played around with different scenarios involving which orchestrations an historical Jesus may have planned. Yes, if he entered Jerusalem in such a conspicuous way, it could be that he was planning his own demise; but I believe there probably other options there. At any rate, my confidence in the historicity of that episode is not very strong. The temple incident seems a bit more likely to me, but that does not in any way have to entail a death wish on his part; it could have been a failed attempt at whatever he was planning. The secrecy of his movements in Jerusalem (aside from these activities) may speak to the opposite motive: namely, that he was avoiding contact so as not to get caught. Overall, my confidence in any exact reconstruction, based on the gospel evidences, is going to be pretty low, which is why I have so far kept my comments quite general on that score (he was planning "some kind of Passover mischief," for instance).

ETA: I argued a while ago in another thread that the blasphemy charge at the trial in Mark makes it look like Jesus brought his own fate down on himself: the witnesses were gathered, their stories were not matching up, and so bam, Jesus drops some open, unmistakable blasphemy into the mix, thus guaranteeing a verdict of guilty ("what need have we of witnesses?"). Trouble is, it is very hard for me to view such a scenario as historical fact; it look so much more like an attempt to make Jesus seem fully in control (when really he was not). John does this, too, when he makes an entire cohort of Roman soldiers fall to the ground at the arrest. I believe all of the gospels engage in this sort of thing at various points. So anything in the tradition that makes it look like Jesus is engineering his own fate or is in control of the proceedings is highly suspect for me. More believable, in my judgment, are those indications that he was acting covertly (sending disciples to meet a man carrying a jug, giving what amounts to a password in exchange for a donkey) but got caught anyway; but even here there is no certainty on my part, at least not yet.

[TedM]

ETA: I argued a while ago in another thread that the blasphemy charge at the trial in Mark makes it look like Jesus brought his own fate down on himself: the witnesses were gathered, their stories were not matching up, and so bam, Jesus drops some open, unmistakable blasphemy into the mix, thus guaranteeing a verdict of guilty ("what need have we of witnesses?"). Trouble is, it is very hard for me to view such a scenario as historical fact; it look so much more like an attempt to make Jesus seem fully in control (when really he was not).

Why is it hard to think that Jesus may have in fact thought himself to be someone special? A lot of people are delusional - cult leaders come to mind...

John does this, too, when he makes an entire cohort of Roman soldiers fall to the ground at the arrest. I believe all of the gospels engage in this sort of thing at various points. So anything in the tradition that makes it look like Jesus is engineering his own fate or is in control of the proceedings is highly suspect for me.

I don't find this to be all that unbelievable - just an exagerration. It isnt' a stretch to me to think that Jesus knew they were coming and that they were shocked when he told them that he was the one they were looking for. However, in light of the secrecy he employed elsewhere my leniency here does require me to have to reconcile the two seeming contradictions. The temple incident is IMO evidence more in support of his being in control than a desire to evade. Maybe he was just impulsive though...And of course there is the idea that it is all made from scripture - he does quote scripture during 'cleansing'..

[Ben C. Smith]

ETA: I argued a while ago in another thread that the blasphemy charge at the trial in Mark makes it look like Jesus brought his own fate down on himself: the witnesses were gathered, their stories were not matching up, and so bam, Jesus drops some open, unmistakable blasphemy into the mix, thus guaranteeing a verdict of guilty ("what need have we of witnesses?"). Trouble is, it is very hard for me to view such a scenario as historical fact; it look so much more like an attempt to make Jesus seem fully in control (when really he was not).

Why is it hard to think that Jesus may have in fact thought himself to be someone special? A lot of people are delusional - cult leaders come to mind...

It is not a psychological issue that I have with the idea; it is the fact that Jesus is presented as "in control" in all circumstances throughout the gospel of Mark (as well as the others). His predictions always come true; he knows people's motives; he always gets the best of the argument (except for one occasion with a woman); he is a healer and a prophet and an exorcist of great power. His control over his own death seems like an extension of that same idea; as such, I am not sure how credible it is, not because cult leaders cannot be deluded, but rather because, if the tradition can invent his control over the very elements (stilling the storm, walking upon the sea, multiplying bread and fish), why not invent his control over his own death, as well? It would be inconsistent not to do so.

[TedM]

Ok, I understand what you are saying here. I would suppose that you might find it difficult to believe ANYTHING written about what kind of person he was or the kinds of things he talked about and did then, if those things are consistent with what one might expect of the Messiah.

ETA: I argued a while ago in another thread that the blasphemy charge at the trial in Mark makes it look like Jesus brought his own fate down on himself: the witnesses were gathered, their stories were not matching up, and so bam, Jesus drops some open, unmistakable blasphemy into the mix, thus guaranteeing a verdict of guilty ("what need have we of witnesses?"). Trouble is, it is very hard for me to view such a scenario as historical fact; it look so much more like an attempt to make Jesus seem fully in control (when really he was not).

Why is it hard to think that Jesus may have in fact thought himself to be someone special? A lot of people are delusional - cult leaders come to mind...

It is not a psychological issue that I have with the idea; it is the fact that Jesus is presented as "in control" in all circumstances throughout the gospel of Mark (as well as the others). His predictions always come true; he knows people's motives; he always gets the best of the argument (except for one occasion with a woman); he is a healer and a prophet and an exorcist of great power. His control over his own death seems like an extension of that same idea; as such, I am not sure how credible it is, not because cult leaders cannot be deluded, but rather because, if the tradition can invent his control over the very elements (stilling the storm, walking upon the sea, multiplying bread and fish), why not invent his control over his own death, as well? It would be inconsistent not to do so.

[Ben C. Smith]

Ok, I understand what you are saying here. I would suppose that you might find it difficult to believe ANYTHING written about what kind of person he was or the kinds of things he talked about and did then, if those things are consistent with what one might expect of the Messiah.

That is correct. It is not that I relentlessly believe with all certainty that those things must not have happened; it is just that I do not possess the tools to sift the ideal from the real in those cases.

What do you think of the messianic secret? I will grant that it is not impossible for Jesus to have thought he was the Messiah and told his followers to keep it a secret, but does it not, on the other hand, appear to be a pretty good way to designate him as the Messiah only after the fact? Which goes pretty well with the idea that he tried something at Passover and failed: his followers and then their followers might welcome ways of thinking that, instead of having wasted their lives on a putz, they were actually part of the groundwork of a much better plan, a messianic one.

[TedM]

Ok, I understand what you are saying here. I would suppose that you might find it difficult to believe ANYTHING written about what kind of person he was or the kinds of things he talked about and did then, if those things are consistent with what one might expect of the Messiah.

That is correct. It is not that I relentlessly believe with all certainty that those things must not have happened; it is just that I do not possess the tools to sift the ideal from the real in those cases.

I understand.

What do you think of the messianic secret? I will grant that it is not impossible for Jesus to have thought he was the Messiah and told his followers to keep it a secret, but does it not, on the other hand, appear to be a pretty good way to designate him as the Messiah only after the fact? Which goes pretty well with the idea that he tried something at Passover and failed: his followers and then their followers might welcome ways of thinking that, instead of having wasted their lives on a putz, they were actually part of the groundwork of a much better plan, a messianic one.

I'll get back to you on that.

[TedM]

hat do you think of the messianic secret? I will grant that it is not impossible for Jesus to have thought he was the Messiah and told his followers to keep it a secret, but does it not, on the other hand, appear to be a pretty good way to designate him as the Messiah only after the fact? Which goes pretty well with the idea that he tried something at Passover and failed: his followers and then their followers might welcome ways of thinking that, instead of having wasted their lives on a putz, they were actually part of the groundwork of a much better plan, a messianic one.

Ok, GMark aside, if you are asking about the possibility that the idea that Jesus had kept his divinity a secret could have been embraced by the early disciples or their followers, then sure - it's a given to me if the reality was that he never indicated he was the Messiah to them. But that's not how GMark presents it so it would have had to go through an evolution to get to the GMark stage. Certainly possible.

Was just thinking if GMark was 'fiction' why would he have portrayed the pillars of the Church - Peter, James, and John as ignorant and as having abandoned Jesus? If he was intentionally trying to make them look bad, for what purpose? Wouldn't it make sense to make some other group he favors - say Paul look good in comparison by showing that they - and not just a Roman Centurion - understood Jesus to be the Messiah? Seems odd. Bigger question than what this thread is about, I guess.