'Judas of Nazareth' by Daniel Unterbrink

[archibald]

I bet the 'N'orn Irre'and' (sic) conflict was very complicated: so many intersections within and between both major categories.

Yes. Nuances upon nuances. as a result, I tend to listen to news reports from, say, Israel, or Syria, or wherever, with a pinch of salt.

I saw an article recently that a Protestant family was told by police to get out of their house that day and not come back b/c intelligence said they were about to be attacked (ie. in the last 18 mths). No reason.

It's mostly peaceful here now, but the old issues haven't gone away and they bubble under. Brexit has caused a few to resurface too. I don't want to derail. Even my personal views on NI are...my personal views.

Cheers. I've seen various comments that terms like 'The Poor' were initially either pejorative or sarcastic. Information that might fully elaborate on things like that are likely lost.

Hm. I hadn't really come across that angle before.

[MrMacSon]

.
I think archibald's comments about Unterbrink's proposals about Paul are interesting -

.. I am finding Unterbrink's ideas about 'Paul' almost more interesting and convincing that his ideas of 'Jesus'. It is of course possible that he is in some ways right about 'Paul' and wrong about 'Jesus'.
.

... I can't help feeling he [Daniel Unterbrink] is on to something, or 'some things' if you like (particularly about Paul, as it happens) ...

. . < . . snip . . > . .

His other 'starting premise' (imo a very reasonable and non-controversial one) is that in the very early days of the cult, Paul's preachings were at odds with those of an original and prior Jerusalem group of followers and that after Paul's version became the 'winner', the conflict was papered over.
.

.. our 'Paul' was Josephus' Saul, a Herodian and a cousin of Agrippa I.
.

Unterbrink, incidentally, suggests that the original Jewish Jesus/Judas Movement was decimated in the 66-73AD war with the Romans, which is partly why (he says) it lost out to Paul's Hellenical Christianity. But Unterbrink goes on to say that the remnants may have survived as Ebionites.

My understanding of Ebionites is that they were...by and large.....peaceable rather than militant, which....may amount to a sort of contra-indicator to what Unterbrink is saying about the original movement (that it was very militant).
.

[Jax]

Yes, the sources for Judas (including the Jewish Encyclopedia) are basically Josephus' writings (and Acts of the Apostles).

From what you say, he is not mentioned by Tacitus. I admit I am not familiar with Tacitus' writings on 1st C Judea. But from skimming your link, it appears.....as if Tacitus just does not mention many (any?) specific names (just 'Jews') when it comes to those responsible for the troubles and uprising.

If that were the case, it would not detract much from what Josephus says, would it? It would not cast much doubt on Judas' existence, I mean?

I agree that Tacitus's lack of mention of specific names does not detract from what Josephus says, other than what McLaren or Haaland might say about Josephus embellishing or concocting accounts. And, even then, it might just be a question of degree or weighting given to Judas the Galilean and the Zealots versus other groups in Jerusalem in terms of agitation leading to the First Roman Jewish War 66-70 AD; and possibly whether it was predominantly a Roman v Jewish war or a Jewish Civil War (or if, like the recent was in Syria, it was a layered and complicated affair).

Does it seem reasonable that Tacitus had not read Josephus?

[MrMacSon]

[One of Unterbink's starting premise's is that,] in the very early days of the cult, Paul's preachings were at odds with those of an original and prior Jerusalem group of followers and that after Paul's version became the 'winner', the conflict was papered over.
.

That is the basis of a premise and argument of the Dutch Radicals. And a few others recently (who may not have known the Dutch Radicals).

This is a summary of Dutch Radical AD Loman's position by Hermann Detering [rather than a direct quote of a translation of Loman's writings] -

.
"Christianity in its origin was nothing else than a Jewish-Messianic movement .... the figure of Jesus..represented a symbolization and personification of thoughts that could only make full headway in the second century. A gnostic messianic community later appeared alongside the Jewish-Christian messianic community. In the period between 70 and 135 CE the two groups opposed one another with bitter animosity.

"Only in the middle of the second century did they achieve a reconciliation, in which the gnostic community had Paul as its representative and the Jewish-Christian community had Peter. The result of this process of reconciliation was the formation of the Roman Catholic Church¹. ... the letters of Paul are all inauthentic and represent the product of the newly-believing, gnostic-messianic community."
.

¹ I would contend the Roman Catholic church did not come until after the formation of an Eastern Orthodox Church under Constantine (in Constantinople, formerly Byzantium; and now Istanbul). So what people propose as 'early-catholic' would really be 'early-Orthodox'.

[Jax]

It would be interesting to know if Reza Aslan read Gunnar Haaland and McLaren. There could be an element of truth to all accounts: Jospehus's, McLaren's and Haalands', and Aslans.

I have just finished Aslan's book, 'Zealot'. It is in my opinion, very sympathetic to gospel Jesus. He doesn't even really claim that Jesus was much of a militant at all, being at pains to stress that his term, 'zealot' is only loosely applied and not the same as what it came to mean later. Aslan's Jesus, it seemed to me, was basically the reasonable sage/preacher/faith healer/messiah in the gospels who got cross in a zealot sort of way at times or shared some grievances with zealots.

I myself haven't read Gunnar Haaland or McLaren.

Cheers. I haven't read Aslan's book either, or Haaland or McLaren.

It's interesting what you say, as Aslan's book was, as I recall, publicised as being about a full zealot character (lol). There's almost scope for a meta-book - how Jesus has been portrayed through the years especially recently - a chapter on a comparison of Aslan and Unterbrink's commentaries would be interesting.

Does the bibliograpahy or list of references in Aslan's book list Haaland or McLaren? Does he refer to them or cite them?

Personally, I was very disappointed in Zealot by Aslan as were most historians. His proclivity to absolute statements without actual historical validity was very annoying and made it all but impossible to trust his data.

[MrMacSon]

Does it seem reasonable that Tacitus had not read Josephus?

Yes, that seems reasonable. But it also suggests a few different scenarios, such that the early first century history of Judea (and possibly other Roman outposts) was (were) not well recorded or preserved, either via official govt records or via 1st century historians' accounts. Of course, the fires in Rome are a factor in actual destruction of records, too (the biggest fire in Rome was about 81 AD, I believe).

[Jax]

I have wondered if he would not have wanted to upset the pro-Christian demographic he lives in -ie. the USA (particularly as a Muslim: if he had done a Carrier he might have had to leave the country).

Possibly. Hard to say. As an immigrant...it's plausible.

He says his family background was liberal muslim verging on atheism, and that he only 'discovered' Jesus in the USA as a young man.

I don't really want to get into Carrier. Because I don't really want the discussion to devolve into a mythicist versus historicist dichotomy (aka 'a stupid pointless ding dong'), as, in my experience, it too often does on internet fora.

I will say this though. While I am not, in principle, averse to the mythicist or ahistoricist thesis, it's my personal opinion that Carrier specifically, in the words of Bruce Springsteen (in the song 'Hungry Heart'), 'took a wrong turn and just kept going'. Imho, Carrier is, unfortunately, polishing a turd made by Earl Doherty.

I don't know whose standpoint that might upset here (being new) but It's my considered opinion. Getting an outer space Jesus from the epistles is, imho, tenuous at best.

Carrier, or mythicist/ahistoricist theses generally, might even be a slight derail from this particular OP.

Is Carrier a mythicist? It seems to me that he has been very careful to not take a stance on this issue. As far as I can tell, he states that Paul and others like Philo may have thought the Christ was a celestial being but Carrier himself doesn't take a side.

[archibald]

Paul.

Hm.


Regarding the degree of arguably thinly-disguised emnity between his Preachings and the 'super apostles' ('super' as Koine Greek 'Aian' = eminent or very) one need only look at 2 Corinthians 11 v1-15, where he ends up going as far as to suggest that they are satan in disguise.

[archibald]

Does it seem reasonable that Tacitus had not read Josephus?

I don't know. As I said I am not familiar with Tacitus on 1st C Judea. He may not have been particularly interested in the nuances. Which Jews does he cite?

[archibald]

Is Carrier a mythicist? It seems to me that he has been very careful to not take a stance on this issue. As far as I can tell, he states that Paul and others like Philo may have thought the Christ was a celestial being but Carrier himself doesn't take a side.

Imo, yes.

I think he has been smart enough not to seem committed, but I think he bought into Doherty early on and has essentially been ploughing that furrow.

As I understand it, he 'mathematically' estimates historicity at 35%. That's essentially mythicist. As is his (imo dubious) emphasis on (inflated) Raglan scores.

I feel Carrier would have been wiser to explore other options. 'Outer space' (his term) Jesus is...imo.....implausible as a reading of the epistles.