Convince me that 1 Clement knew a Gospel

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
User avatar
MrMacSon
Posts: 6683
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 3:45 pm

Re: Convince me that 1 Clement knew a Gospel

Post by MrMacSon » Mon Jan 04, 2021 2:40 am

GakuseiDon wrote:
Mon Jan 04, 2021 1:51 am
I think you mean texts that Dr Carrier thinks was written by 'historicists', not 'mythicists'.
You wrote "Of the 4 texts considered not written by Mythicists" so I followed your terminology. I had missed the not and edited to add it while you were writing your post -
MrMacSon wrote:
Mon Jan 04, 2021 1:21 am

You considered 4 non-Gospel texts not written by Mythicists
  1. Acts of the Apostles
  2. 1 Timothy
  3. 2 Peter
  4. 1 John

GakuseiDon wrote:
Mon Jan 04, 2021 1:51 am
Here is what I wrote in my NT analysis thread:
Of the 4 texts considered not written by Mythicists:
  1. Acts of the Apostles seems to have included Mythicist material, to the extent that Carrier considers that Acts supports mythicism rather than historicity. Best/worst case according to Carrier: 18/25 to 1/5 (e.g. Acts is 5 times more likely to support mythicism than historicity). It contains few statements supporting an 'earthly' Jesus.
  2. The single 'earthly' statement in 1 Tim may be an interpolation. If that is the case, then 1 Tim would fall into the pattern of 'mythicism' (e.g. no historical details about Jesus, no Gospel details, vague statements not supporting time and place such).
  3. 2 Peter contains a single 'earthly' statement about being 'eye witnesses' to the glory of Jesus. If that is an interpolation, then 2 Peter would fall into the pattern of 'mythicism' (e.g. no historical details about Jesus, no Gospel details, vague statements not supporting time and place such).
  4. 1 John contains a single 'earthly' statement 'we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled, of the Word of life'. Otherwise, it seems to fall into the pattern of 'mythicism', as above.
Yes, I decided to only address 2 Peter on the basis of what you had in your table and what Carrier said

The epistles of James and 1 Peter are also oddly silent about a historical Jesus—an oddity later rectified by the forgery of a second letter from Peter (see Chapter 8, §12)

GakuseiDon wrote:
Mon Jan 04, 2021 1:51 am
... 2 Peter, according to Carrier, was written by 'historicists' ...
I didn't see anywhere where Carrier calls the writers of 2 Peter 'historicists'.


GakuseiDon wrote:
Mon Jan 04, 2021 1:51 am
... 2 Peter, according to Carrier, was written...as 'a fabricated historical report'.
Yes, he says parts of it were.


GakuseiDon wrote:
Mon Jan 04, 2021 1:51 am
you can see [2 Peter] isn't much different to the other 'mythicists' letters. No teachings, no miracles, no Mary, no Pilate, no cross, no crucifixion, no Jerusalem (though 'the mount' is mentioned), etc.

Think of the implications of this. 'Historicists' writing a fabricated historical report would be free to put in whatever 'historical' details they wanted. Instead there is just a vague statement that "we were eye-witnesses" and "we heard the voice from heaven" and that's about it. The rest of it reads pretty much like any other of the so-called 'mythicist' texts.
So why did you have it 'H' ?

GakuseiDon wrote:
Mon Jan 04, 2021 1:51 am
And really, this is not even about 'mythicism' vs 'historicism'. It's about setting expectations on what we should find in the earliest layers of Christian writings.
I don't think it's about 'setting expectations'.

I think it's more about expectations not being met, as you subsequently seem to indicate .

GakuseiDon wrote:
Mon Jan 04, 2021 1:51 am

The implications are that the earliest 'historicists' [Christian authors] either didn't know any Gospel-like details or weren't interested in reporting Gospel details.

As rg price wrote in his OP (my emphasis):
rgprice wrote:... 1 Clement has multiple opportunities to reflect on the life of Jesus [but] never shows any sign of such knowledge.
1 Clement doesn't have those things? Well, that's unexpected. 2 Peter doesn't have those things? Well, that's unexpected. 1 John doesn't have those things? Well, that's unexpected. 1 Timothy doesn't have those things? Well, that's unexpected. Other texts outside the NT like the Shepherd of Hermas doesn't have those things? Well, that's unexpected. And so on.

At a certain point, it stops being unexpected. Unexplained perhaps, but not unexpected. The implications of that seem to be overlooked.
Yes, many seem to have overlooked the implications, but, from what I've read of On the Historicity of Jesus, I get the impression Carrier hasn't.

User avatar
MrMacSon
Posts: 6683
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 3:45 pm

Re: Convince me that 1 Clement knew a Gospel

Post by MrMacSon » Mon Jan 04, 2021 4:24 am

MrMacSon wrote:
Mon Jan 04, 2021 2:40 am
I didn't see anywhere where Carrier calls the writers of 2 Peter 'historicists'.
The words 'historicist' or 'historicists' appear 84 times in OHJ 84.

Carrier mainly uses them to refer to people today, but he occasionally uses to describe Christians of antiquity, eg. -


.
we do have hints that some sectarian Christians were indeed gainsaying the new historicist reliance on the exoteric myths as actual histories. A hint of the existence of doubters of Jesus’ historicity appears in the character of the Jewish opponent created by Justin Martyr in his fictional Dialogue with Trypho in the mid-second century:

But the Christ, if he has indeed been born, and exists anywhere, is unknown, and doesn’t even yet know himself, and has no power until Elijah comes to anoint him, and make him appear to all. But you, on the basis of groundless hearsay, invent a Christ for yourselves, and for his sake you are now irresponsibly doomed.



The Ascension of Isaiah is another example of this: we can tell the original redaction had Jesus die in outer space (it therefore was composed by a Christian sect who clearly adopted what I am calling minimal mythicism), but later, some historicizing Christians inserted a section that had Jesus incongruously die on earth at the hands of Pilate in a summary of their own fabricated Gospel (see Chapter 3, §1). This appears to be what typically happened to the evidence. It was erased, doctored or rewritten to support a historicist party line against a mythicist one (see, again, Element 44; as well as Chapter 7, §7).


43. [The Epistle of Barnabas] could reflect an early example of historicist theology, but as such it is no less expected on myth as on historicity ...


Carrier says two or three times words to the effect that Luke "was clearly a historicist"


chapter 9
... the speeches and sermons in Acts are conspicuously historicist; but when Paul is on trial, where in fact historicist details are even more relevant and would even more certainly come up, they are suddenly completely absent.


Paul’s Eucharist does not look like a historicist’s account of a Last Supper but a celestial vision of an instruction from their Lord, directed to future generations and not to present dinner guests.


.
Weighing the Evidence

When Shirley Jackson Case responded in the early twentieth century to scholars then advocating the Jesus myth theory he summarized his own take on the Pauline Epistles. He claims they are not lacking references to a historical Jesus but in fact: (1) they refer to his ‘human ancestry and family connections’ (but as we saw, only in ways entirely strange, highly theological or oddly nonspecific, and in no case clearly referring to an actual ancestry or family); (2) and to his ‘association with disciples’ (but as we saw, Paul in fact never mentions disciples; such personages as Peter he knows only as apostles like himself, and he only mentions Jesus ‘associating’ with anyone after his death); (3) and to his ‘righteous life’ (but as we saw, in fact Paul only ever mentions a single righteous act, nothing more, and credits Jesus as being a sinless being, as any cosmic archangel would be); (4) and to the fact that he ‘lived in worldly poverty’ (but as we saw, Paul doesn’t mention ‘worldly’ poverty but only a vague lowering and loss of status, which in the Philippians gospel is wholly cosmic); (5) and they refer to his ‘self-sacrificing service’ (which even celestial beings could provide); (6) and to his ‘heavenly exaltation as a reward for obedience’ (ditto); (7) and to the ‘circumstances of his death’ (but none placing that death on earth); (8) and include ‘numerous references to his crucifixion’ (which was not necessarily terrestrial); (9) as well as to an ‘awakening of faith through his appearances’ (yet only in revelations); (10) and also include such things as references to his future coming (none of which mention his having been on earth before—e.g. not once does Paul say Jesus will ‘return’), his present significance (which a cosmic being can also have), and his teachings (which as we saw even Paul seems to believe came only by revelation or scripture).

In short, none of the ‘evidence’ Case could adduce requires Jesus to have lived on earth. Such an existence is conspicuously absent from all of Paul’s authentic letters. That is simply strange. Case can avoid that conclusion only by imagining all kinds of things are in Paul’s letters that in fact are not there.

Case insists Paul thought Jesus was as ‘historical’ as Adam (though of course we know Adam is mythical), but Paul thought God and angels and Satan and his demons were ‘historical’, too, so this has no bearing on where Paul thought Jesus had lived or died. Case says Paul shows Christians ‘remembered’ Jesus’ Last Supper, but as we saw, that’s not what Paul says: he learned of this event (Paul never calls it a ‘last’ supper or in fact even a supper) directly by revelation, not anyone’s memory (Paul never refers to anyone else being there or anyone ‘recollecting’ it, other than himself). Case likewise says Paul calls upon Christians to imitate Jesus’ earthly career, but Paul never mentions an earthly career. He only calls for imitating Christ in his loving subservience and self-sacrifice, all represented by just a single event (his submission to death), which need not have been performed on earth.

Overall, it’s the mythicists who were right, and not Case. They argued that (1) some passages in Paul’s letters are exactly what we would expect on their theory but not as expected if Jesus actually existed; that (2) the scant few passages in the Epistles that might refer to a historical Jesus are not only vague or problematic but also no less expected on the mythicist hypothesis; and that (3) the absence of more, clearer and more detailed references to a historical Jesus is strange and unexpected on any sound understanding of history and human nature. The excuses made up to explain away these facts are (1) not intrinsically probable and (2) not confirmed in any evidence (they are literally just ‘made up’).

Yes, we lack a smoking gun, such as an Epistle wherein Paul explicitly says Jesus was known to exist only by revelation, but we fully expect no such evidence to have survived for us to see it: the victorious sect did not preserve such things and even actively suppressed them (see Chapters 6, §7; 7, §7; and 8, §12; and Elements 20-22 and 44). Paul may well have said such things in the letters we know he wrote but that we do not have or in unpreserved parts of the letters that survive inside the present canon. Many other letters must have existed, written by many apostles in his generation (see Chapter 8, §4). Yet we conspicuously don’t have even a mention of them, much less their contents. That is profoundly suspicious. But more importantly, this fact rules out the argument that we ‘should’ have more evidence supporting minimal mythicism.

To the contrary, that a historicist sect won out and was so avid at altering and fabricating documents, as well as throwing out or destroying them, entails we are lucky even to have the evidence we do. Romans 16.25-26 outright says the ‘gospel’ and ‘preaching’ of Jesus Christ was discovered by revelation and finding secrets hidden in scripture. We should conclude that’s indeed exactly what happened. We should not try to import into this or any other passage in Paul things invented by the authors of the Gospels decades later.
.


43. Even the gospel declared in 1 Timothy is odd: though the author of 1 Timothy may have been a historicist[/i] (as suggested, e.g., by 1 Tim. 6.13; although see note below), the gospel he summarizes (in 1 Tim. 3.16) looks pre-historicist in origin (see discussion in Chapter 8, §6).


User avatar
GakuseiDon
Posts: 1052
Joined: Sat Oct 12, 2013 5:10 pm

Re: Convince me that 1 Clement knew a Gospel

Post by GakuseiDon » Mon Jan 04, 2021 3:14 pm

MrMacSon wrote:
Mon Jan 04, 2021 2:40 am
Yes, I decided to only address 2 Peter on the basis of what you had in your table and what Carrier said

The epistles of James and 1 Peter are also oddly silent about a historical Jesus—an oddity later rectified by the forgery of a second letter from Peter (see Chapter 8, §12)

Yes, "an oddity later rectified by the forgery of a second letter from Peter". As Dr Carrier writes on page 351: "we get a forged 'eyewitness testimony' cleverly designed to refute the claim that the Gospel was a myth".
MrMacSon wrote:
Mon Jan 04, 2021 2:40 am
GakuseiDon wrote:
Mon Jan 04, 2021 1:51 am
... 2 Peter, according to Carrier, was written by 'historicists' ...
I didn't see anywhere where Carrier calls the writers of 2 Peter 'historicists'.
...
GakuseiDon wrote:
Mon Jan 04, 2021 1:51 am
you can see [2 Peter] isn't much different to the other 'mythicists' letters. No teachings, no miracles, no Mary, no Pilate, no cross, no crucifixion, no Jerusalem (though 'the mount' is mentioned), etc.

Think of the implications of this. 'Historicists' writing a fabricated historical report would be free to put in whatever 'historical' details they wanted. Instead there is just a vague statement that "we were eye-witnesses" and "we heard the voice from heaven" and that's about it. The rest of it reads pretty much like any other of the so-called 'mythicist' texts.
So why did you have it 'H' ?
:confusedsmiley: Are you serious? Do you think that Dr Carrier is suggesting that mythicists wrote a fabricated historical report of Peter being an eye-witness to Jesus in order to attack mythicists who were claiming that the Gospels were myths? I guess it might be possible, but it seems unlikely. Mythicists forging 'historicists' texts to combat mythicists? What have I missed from Carrier's book?

davidmartin
Posts: 735
Joined: Fri Jul 12, 2019 2:51 pm

Re: Convince me that 1 Clement knew a Gospel

Post by davidmartin » Thu Jan 07, 2021 5:27 am

so what does this mean, that those who didn't mention historical details were mythicists themselves?
the aversion to presenting any historical details at all in these texts seems to indicate that for them the earthly life of the Christ was utterly unimportant and not worth even presenting in such a way as to be in harmony with their beliefs
to deny a historical character an existence is as much a myth as to give a fictional character a historical existence
this is the complete opposite of the gospels and totally incompatible, and it fell to the later 2nd century church fathers to bridge this gap

rgprice
Posts: 364
Joined: Sun Sep 16, 2018 11:57 pm

Re: Convince me that 1 Clement knew a Gospel

Post by rgprice » Thu Jan 07, 2021 6:20 am

so what does this mean, that those who didn't mention historical details were mythicists themselves?
Of course not. But there are also distinctions one has to make about not including historical details. For example, Tertullian produced writings that have no discussion of the life of Jesus, but its because they aren't a relevant topic to what he's talking about. We obviously know that Tertullian knew the Gospels and believed Jesus was a real person. The fact that, when laying out a defense of church organization or something he never touches on the life Jesus isn't a hard thing to explain.

But when Paul and 1 Clement and James, etc. are talking explicitly about teachings, the sources of those teachings, and setting out examples of how one should live their life, and they use examples from the Old Testament and, in the case of 1 Clem, even other apostles, and they never put forward the life of Jesus as an example to follow, that's really hard to explain on the assumption that Jesus was known to these people as a real person who went about espousing virtuous teachings and leading a ministry.

The modern historicist model for Jesus holds that Jesus was worshiped because his teachings and deeds were so virtuous or so well received or whatever, that he developed a devout following of people who loved him and worshiped him during his lifetime, and it was their devotion to him that caused them to deify him and worship him as the Son of God after he died. So, on this model, the life of Jesus should be front and foremost. The life and teachings of Jesus should be quite prominent in the early writings about him, because that is what is supposed to be the thing that inspired the deification of him. On this model what we should see are early advocates of Jesus saying, "Let me tell you about how great Jesus was, he did X and said Y!"

Now, the ancient belief in the human Jesus, however, even by early church fathers, was that Jesus had to be human for theological reasons. Even for them Jesus was believed to be human, not because of his teachings or deeds, but because the prophecies said so, and because their (Roman) concept of how sacrifices worked required that real human flesh be sacrificed.

But what we find in the earliest accounts of Jesus is a straight-up divine figure. There is no reference to a human life of Jesus, there are no appeals to his teachings, his life is not set out as an example of anything. There are, in 1 Clement and some places in Paul, some appeals to what "the Lord Jesus said," but these are no different than the thousands of references to what, "the Lord said" littered throughout the Jewish scriptures and other Jewish stories.

And I think its notable that the millstone reference in 1 Clem sounds so much like the OT God:
Remember the words of Jesus our Lord: for He said, Woe unto that
man; it were good for him if he had not been born, rather than that
at he should offend one of Mine elect. It were better for him that
a millstone were hanged about him, and be cast into the sea, than
that he should pervert one of Mine elect.
While this quote is not found in the OT, it sounds so much like the OT God. In the OT almost everything "the Lord said" is some kind of declaration of punishment or retribution, just as this is. This is hardly a "teaching" to build a devotional movement around.

In the early writings Jesus is just a straight up divine sacrifice. He's not a teacher, he's not a role model. He's a figure who was sacrificed and raised from the dead, whose coming from heaven will herald the end times.

davidmartin
Posts: 735
Joined: Fri Jul 12, 2019 2:51 pm

Re: Convince me that 1 Clement knew a Gospel

Post by davidmartin » Thu Jan 07, 2021 8:15 am

OK RG i think we're on the same page on your basic point but there are 2 possible explanations
One is what your suggesting that the gospel Jesus is a fiction and wasn't there in the first gospel

The other is that there was a gospel Jesus but the early church writings (Paul, Hebrews, etc) purposely excluded or were ignorant of the gospel Jesus

I really enjoy the second option, it's more fun, they didn't have a clue who he was! I've met a few Christians like that over the years :)
Then the "Jewish fables" of Titus are the gospels
I realize this is the opposite to what your saying!

rgprice
Posts: 364
Joined: Sun Sep 16, 2018 11:57 pm

Re: Convince me that 1 Clement knew a Gospel

Post by rgprice » Thu Jan 07, 2021 8:43 am

Also, I'll note the Epistle of 3rd Corinthians, which is believed to have been written in the late 2nd century. 3rd Corinthians, an obvious Pauline forgery, makes the case quite clear. It shows that even second century Christians understood the problem with the Pauline letters.

https://www.christian-history.org/3rd-corinthians.html
Paul, a prisoner of Jesus Christ, unto the brethren which are in Corinth, greeting.

Being in the midst of many tribulations, I do not marvel if the teachings of the evil one spread quickly. For my Lord Jesus Christ will hasten his coming, and will set at nought (no longer endure the insolence of) them that falsify his words.

For I delivered to you in the beginning the things which I received of the [holy] apostles which were before me, who were at all times with Jesus Christ: namely, that our Lord Jesus Christ was born of Mary [who is] of the seed of David [according to the flesh], the Holy Spirit being sent forth from heaven from the Father to her [by the angel Gabriel], so that he might come down into this world and redeem all flesh by his flesh, and raise us up from the dead in the flesh, just as he has shown us in himself as an example.
So this forgery makes it clear that others in the 2nd century saw this problem too. The real Pauline letters say noting about the human Jesus, so of course the thing to do is create a Pauline letter that spells out all of the details that one would expect to find in the Pauline letters on the assumption that the Gospel Jesus really existed.

User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 8643
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: Convince me that 1 Clement knew a Gospel

Post by Ben C. Smith » Thu Jan 07, 2021 9:11 am

rgprice wrote:
Thu Jan 07, 2021 8:43 am
Also, I'll note the Epistle of 3rd Corinthians, which is believed to have been written in the late 2nd century. 3rd Corinthians, an obvious Pauline forgery, makes the case quite clear. It shows that even second century Christians understood the problem with the Pauline letters.

https://www.christian-history.org/3rd-corinthians.html
Paul, a prisoner of Jesus Christ, unto the brethren which are in Corinth, greeting.

Being in the midst of many tribulations, I do not marvel if the teachings of the evil one spread quickly. For my Lord Jesus Christ will hasten his coming, and will set at nought (no longer endure the insolence of) them that falsify his words.

For I delivered to you in the beginning the things which I received of the [holy] apostles which were before me, who were at all times with Jesus Christ: namely, that our Lord Jesus Christ was born of Mary [who is] of the seed of David [according to the flesh], the Holy Spirit being sent forth from heaven from the Father to her [by the angel Gabriel], so that he might come down into this world and redeem all flesh by his flesh, and raise us up from the dead in the flesh, just as he has shown us in himself as an example.
So this forgery makes it clear that others in the 2nd century saw this problem too. The real Pauline letters say noting about the human Jesus, so of course the thing to do is create a Pauline letter that spells out all of the details that one would expect to find in the Pauline letters on the assumption that the Gospel Jesus really existed.
To be fair, the only portions in 3 Corinthians which are not discussed in the epistles which a forger in late century II would have accepted as Pauline relate to his birth from Mary. (Later in 3 Corinthians there is also another reference to the spirit visiting Mary.) Strictly speaking, then, 3 Corinthians is not evidence that anybody perceived, say, Jesus' ministry, miracles, or sayings to be missing from Paul. In fact, a gospel saying is referred to ("generation of vipers") without attribution in this same epistle; does this mean that the forger did not know that this saying originally belonged to John the Baptist (Matthew 3.7) or to Jesus himself (Matthew 12.34)?

User avatar
Giuseppe
Posts: 8627
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: Convince me that 1 Clement knew a Gospel

Post by Giuseppe » Thu Jan 07, 2021 9:35 am

rgprice wrote:
Thu Jan 07, 2021 8:43 am
so that he might come down into this world and redeem all flesh by his flesh, and raise us up from the dead in the flesh, just as he has shown us in himself as an example.
It is evident here that the presumed Jesus's entire life on earth is "shown us as an example", not only his resurrection.

This makes your point very well, thanks.

ADDENDA:

Also this is clearly missing in Paul:

the things which I received of the [holy] apostles which were before me, who were at all times with Jesus Christ


Bernard Muller
Posts: 3754
Joined: Tue Oct 15, 2013 6:02 pm
Contact:

Re: Convince me that 1 Clement knew a Gospel

Post by Bernard Muller » Thu Jan 07, 2021 1:56 pm

I think general rules for mythicists are:
1) If a Christian early text does not mention Jesus was a human on earth, that text is mythicist, even if that text makes no mention of Jesus having NOT been of earth as a human.
In other words, if a text is neutral about Jesus' historicity, it is declared a mythicist text.
That's very biased.

2) The main source for the mythicist evidence is the writings (often contradictory) of modern mythicist authors (like Doherty, Carrier, Case). But that cannot be acknowledged as evidence.
Some mythicists said the mythicist evidence existed in early text but was wiped out later by historicists. That's just unfounded speculation.


What follows are some remarks about the recent posts by others:
the original redaction had Jesus die in outer space

The original redaction does NOT have "Jesus die in outer space".

Yes, we lack a smoking gun, such as an Epistle wherein Paul explicitly says Jesus was known to exist only by revelation

YES
that's really hard to explain on the assumption that Jesus was known to these people as a real person who went about espousing virtuous teachings and leading a ministry.
According to my research, Jesus was not considered a teacher and leading a ministry. In the gospels, most of his (miraculous) deeds were either invented or greatly embellished (with spectacular divine stuff added) from true facts.
a devout following of people who loved him and worshiped him during his lifetime, ... that caused them to deify him and worship him as the Son of God after he died
Absolutely not true

In case you wonder about what I found about the historical Jesus:

1) Right after Pilate took over as procurator (and/or prefect) in Judea (fall of 26CE), there is an unprecedented series of events in Jerusalem & Cesarea (Josephus' Wars II, IX, 2-3 & Ant., XVIII, III, 1) , with exceptionally good outcomes, inviting the Jews to think God is back looking after them. Also, this episode weakens Pilate's rule, allowing for John the Baptist (JtB) and the many Jews going to him (and later a certain royal welcome near Jerusalem)).

2) JtB attracts large crowds for a few months (spring of 27CE), preaching God's Kingdom (of the old prophecies) is near, better to be "cleansed" in order to avoid the accompanying God's wrath.

3) Jesus enters here, so far as a lower class, uneducated, rural Jew from Galilee. He stays around JtB, among others.

4) Jesus goes to Capernaum right after JtB's arrest. Then two small successive events happen on Sabbath day, creating a short-lived hysteria around Jesus' alleged healing power.

5) After Jesus is credited to have healed a man with skin disease (in the nearby villages), another hysteria takes hold and gets known all the way to Jerusalem (80 miles away) and beyond.

6) Peripherally, Jesus talks about a (down to earth) message well adapted to the times (right after JtB's one: "Kingdom to come") and his milieu (rural Galilee): the Kingdom is coming soon (on earth) and it will benefit only the poor (Jews).

7) At that time, JtB, rumored to be the future (human) ruler (king) of the Kingdom (HJ-1b), is executed by Herod Antipas.

8) Then, some Judean/Hellenist activist Jews interpret the healings by Jesus as a Sign; and he is thought to be the One, replacing (or possessed by) JtB (that's not a leap of faith, this part is multi-documented in GMark).

9) So, next spring, Jesus gets a "royalish" welcome by some near Jerusalem, days before the Passover.

10) He feels encouraged enough to do the disturbance ("cleansing" in the temple).

11) Because of that (and the welcome), he is soon arrested (abandoned by the Galileans) and crucified (without trials and as a deterrent) with a mocking sign, "the king of the Jews" (spring of 28CE).

12) Later, another event (Josephus' Wars II, IX, 4 & Ant., XVIII, III, 2) will make most Jews doubt the Kingdom (to come soon) and re-establish Roman full authority (and fear) over Judea. But some hellenized Jews will keep the hope alive by looking at certain recent events, the Scriptures, Pharisaic beliefs, Philo of Alexandria's writings, etc. ... (see HJ-3b for the post-crucifixion beginning of Christianity).

Cordially, Bernard

Post Reply