Lena Einhorn's ideas

[Jax]

I remain curious as to where the 'love and pacifism' Jesus came from, in either possible scenario (Einhorn's concealed 'actual rebel figure', or a completely invented figure).

I find it hard to imagine that it was just thought up as a foil (in the first scenario), or 'just thought up' in the second.

Why do I say that? I guess because it's actually rather philosophically profound stuff, and arguably rather beautiful.

Too well-formed to have been 'just thought up' during the writing of a deception.
.

It wouldn't necessarily be a straight-up deception. All it might have taken is a later generation believing a narrative that had grown from previous generations.

There is something to be said for the idea that, at least Mark, may have been a play and not intended to be taken literally. Perhaps it is just an extension of a passion ritual. Perhaps intended for new members.

viewtopic.php?f=3&t=3807

Or maybe even just flat out entertainment.

[MrMacSon]

It wouldn't necessarily be a straight-up deception. All it might have taken is a later generation believing a narrative that had grown from previous generations.

There is something to be said for the idea that, at least Mark, may have been a play and not intended to be taken literally. Perhaps it is .. an extension of a passion ritual. Perhaps intended for new members.

Well, what eventuated was intended for new members. I'd go for a book like Mark being based on a passion ritual more than being based on a play.

But I think the likes of Dennis MacDonald (The Homeric Epics and the Gospel of Mark) is likely be more correct. He says Mark composed a prose anti-epic, presenting Jesus as a suffering hero modelled after but far superior to traditional Greek heroes.

I'm presently wondering if aspects of the NT Jesus is based on Joshua ben Hananiah http://www.earlywritings.com/forum/view ... 002#p82002 and Akiva (who was 'martyred' just a few yrs after Joshua ben Hananiah died; the day of Akiva's death is said to be the same day of Judah ha-Nasi's birth); and possibly aspects of Simon Bar Kokhba, too.

[MrMacSon]

Perhaps it is just an extension of a passion ritual.

See http://www.earlywritings.com/forum/view ... 086#p82086

[archibald]

I remain curious as to where the 'love and pacifism' Jesus came from, in either possible scenario (Einhorn's concealed 'actual rebel figure', or a completely invented figure).

I find it hard to imagine that it was just thought up as a foil (in the first scenario), or 'just thought up' in the second.

Why do I say that? I guess because it's actually rather philosophically profound stuff, and arguably rather beautiful.

Too well-formed to have been 'just thought up' during the writing of a deception.
.

It wouldn't necessarily be a straight-up deception. All it might have taken is a later generation believing a narrative that had grown from previous generations.

Ok, but I was referring to the 'love and pacifism' Jesus appearing in either Einhorn's thesis or an alternative 'time shift' one, both of which would imply deliberate deception.

[archibald]

One more thought before I hit the sack.

This idea that a pacifist or non-politically partisan Jesus would be an oddity during a time of troubles.

I think this can be taken too far. As someone who lived, from age 12 onwards, in Belfast, in the middle of 'The Troubles', I can say that not only is there PLENTY of room in day to day life for such people, but that in fact, troubles can throw them up, as a reaction, (Google 'The Peace People').

This is actually one of the reasons that I think Paul is writing to people after the wars of the 1st century BCE. It would have struck home with people worn down with war and death.

Ok but you presumably have that as at least partly a ploy.

What I was alluding to, perhaps as a counterfoil to all the 'alternative' speculation I am happy to indulge in, I am, equally, and without naivety, still not averse to the idea that there was a sincere and non-violent 'sage type' at the start of all this.

Such people, if there is division all around, can get caught in the crossfire (or 'cross' fire as the case may be) precisely because they are in the middle, an unpopular place in a fight. Or, they can be on the fringes of one side and be mistaken for a hardliner or lumped in with those more extreme.

Just sayin'.

I don't understand the highlighted.

I was guessing that you had opportunist Paul preaching a (relative) peacenik because it would play well with his audience.

I read that at least at one time, Einhorn suspected that 'Paul' was actually 'Jesus'. Which would at least explain how he fits into her thesis.

If he wasn't Jesus, I'm wondering how else he could fit into her thesis? On the face of it, not very readily, I think.

[MrMacSon]

Ok, but I was referring to the 'love and pacifism' Jesus appearing in either Einhorn's thesis or an alternative 'time shift' one ...

Like [Rabbi] Joshua ben Hananiah? (d. 131 a.d)

[archibald]

Ok, but I was referring to the 'love and pacifism' Jesus appearing in either Einhorn's thesis or an alternative 'time shift' one ...

Like [Rabbi] Joshua ben Hananiah? (d. 131 a.d)

I am unfamiliar. Would he fit the bill?

I suppose, because I am inclined to prefer the idea that this apparently more 'humane' philosophy based on love and tolerance (in contrast to Einhorn's concealed rebel militancy) seems quite well-developed, I was looking for a group, or a source from before. Perhaps Gnostics, or some other 'non mainstream' bunch. Essenes? Or, something Greek, perhaps? What about Buddhist influence?

Or what about that rabbi Hillel chap? Mr Golden Rule.

I suppose in a way the question still arises no matter what Jesus thesis we are talking about, even if it were a traditional one where he existed in 1st C Judea along the (non-violent) lines described in the NT etc.

I am not of course suggesting that this aspect of early christianity would necessarily impress us with its humanity if we encountered it today, only that it would seem to be comparitively benign and non-judgemental for its time (and place). Also quite socialist, and possibly even gender egalitarian.

All relatively-speaking of course, and allowing for the 'burning in eternal hell if you don't love my dad' thing, which I tend to think was (probably) pretty much part of the original pitch.

Nor am I saying it's an either/or thing. At least up to a point, violence/intolerance on the one hand and pacifism/tolerance on the other could be contrasting aspects of the same figure, group or outlook. They are, after all, part of our dual human nature.

[Paul the Uncertain]

archibald

I should say up front that I hold no brief for Dr Einhorn, but have the highest respect for her domain independent skill in reasoning about evidence.

In trying to understand how a bandit might be remembered as an icon of peace and love (albeit with a whip in his hand), you might look for other, better documented, models of "reconcilers of opposites."

For example, in modern times, think of the American John Adams, a rebel leader who was devoted to the rule of law and a democrat who feared mob rule. In one of his letters to his wife Abigail, John wrote:

I must study politics and war, that our sons may have liberty to study mathematics and philosophy. Our sons ought to study mathematics and philosophy, geography, natural history and naval architecture, navigation, commerce and agriculture in order to give their children a right to study painting, poetry, music, architecture, statuary, tapestry and porcelain.

A warrior patron of the arts, for whom bloody conflict was a means to a genteel harmony. He reconciles the two by a shift in time, no less.

Our contradictions are part of us, as nice as it would seem to be one thing only, and not its opposite as well.

[archibald]

Paul the Uncertain,

I agree. I hope my belated final short paragraph above (about dual natures) made it on-screen before you replied.

I could also cite our local political party Sinn Fein, with whom there are many parallels, not least that they are and have always beeen about freeing their little country (Ireland) from the oppression of an outside power, at times readily espousing both violent and non-violent methods. And into the bargain, being very progressive in terms of social and gender issues.

Jesus, to me, could also easily have been a moderate within or having associations with such a movement, even perhaps while being at the same time somewhat independent of it. We would not therefore have to be reconciling opposites.

Such a 'nationalist sympathiser' Jesus has a lot of explanatory power when it comes to the texts, imo, including that he appeared to have disciples with titles associated with anti-establishment Jewish nationalism. It could also help to explain the anger that seeps in, and the occasional references to war and swords, etc.

[Paul the Uncertain]

archibald

Maybe it is simply inherent in the role of "Rebel, the archetype" to combine in one figure:

- a vision of a better world if the rebellion succeeds, with
- a gritty realism about what needs to be done to "make the world safe for" whatever the vision is

Religion is the playground of the archetypes, after all.