Bermejo-Rubio: Jesus and the Anti-Roman Resistance

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
maryhelena
Posts: 1482
Joined: Tue Oct 08, 2013 11:22 pm
Location: England

Bermejo-Rubio: Jesus and the Anti-Roman Resistance

Post by maryhelena » Fri Feb 26, 2016 1:39 am

Fernando Bermejo-Rubio has just uploaded Jesus and the Anti-Roman Resistance. A Reassessment of the Arguments to the academia.edu website. It’s a long article – over 100 pages. Download pdf available.


https://www.academia.edu/10232441/_Jesu ... 2014_1-105
Tread softly because you tread on my dreams.
W.B. Yeats

Giuseppe
Posts: 2686
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Vicenza (Italy)

Re: Bermejo-Rubio: Jesus and the Anti-Roman Resistance

Post by Giuseppe » Fri Feb 26, 2016 8:50 am

I have read rapidly the article. Very interesting and worthy of further reading.
It is infinitely easier to account for the above-mentioned if it goes back to Jesus, than to claim that it is due to a misunderstanding or later additions. In Loofs’ words, written a century ago for a different pattern: ‘The assumption that the faith of the later Christians first created all these words…is surely very difficult even from a historical point of view. For from nothing, nothing comes’.58 Therefore, paraphrasing Dodd,59 we may surely say, on strictly critical grounds, that, in the light of the above-mentioned pattern, the evidence that Jesus was involved in sedition is well-attested, and stands independently of the historical status of the several stories in detail. If the seditious material were to be rejected in toto as unhistorical, so should every other Gospel tradition about him.
(p. 18, my bold)


Especially that passage:
Put otherwise, the seditious Jesus is also a remembered Jesus. This, in turn, means that if Jesus was not a seditionist, the Gospels—as far as they contain much evidence which is otherwise unintelligible—would be desperately absurd and meaningless texts. Unless the Gospels are tales told by an idiot, the involvement of Jesus in antiRoman activities is an inescapable corollary.
(p. 99, my bold)

Question: and if that 'idiot' was just Marcion, how do you explain the pattern of seditious dissepta membra found in the Gospels?

The point of Marcion was that Jesus was misunderstood by his same idiot disciples even when Jesus himself said things apparently in odor of sedition, talking of Christ, Son of Man, swords, division, tributes, kingdoms, etc.
Was the confusion with a zealot Jesus a deliberate move to represent negatively the Christians meant by Marcion behind the fictitious 12 disciples?

In that case, prof Bermejo-Rubio is right: if Jesus existed, then he was probably a seditionist.
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.

maryhelena
Posts: 1482
Joined: Tue Oct 08, 2013 11:22 pm
Location: England

Re: Bermejo-Rubio: Jesus and the Anti-Roman Resistance

Post by maryhelena » Sat Feb 27, 2016 3:06 am

Giuseppe wrote:I have read rapidly the article. Very interesting and worthy of further reading.
It is infinitely easier to account for the above-mentioned if it goes back to Jesus, than to claim that it is due to a misunderstanding or later additions. In Loofs’ words, written a century ago for a different pattern: ‘The assumption that the faith of the later Christians first created all these words…is surely very difficult even from a historical point of view. For from nothing, nothing comes’.58 Therefore, paraphrasing Dodd,59 we may surely say, on strictly critical grounds, that, in the light of the above-mentioned pattern, the evidence that Jesus was involved in sedition is well-attested, and stands independently of the historical status of the several stories in detail. If the seditious material were to be rejected in toto as unhistorical, so should every other Gospel tradition about him.
(p. 18, my bold)


Especially that passage:
Put otherwise, the seditious Jesus is also a remembered Jesus. This, in turn, means that if Jesus was not a seditionist, the Gospels—as far as they contain much evidence which is otherwise unintelligible—would be desperately absurd and meaningless texts. Unless the Gospels are tales told by an idiot, the involvement of Jesus in antiRoman activities is an inescapable corollary.
(p. 99, my bold)


In that case, prof Bermejo-Rubio is right: if Jesus existed, then he was probably a seditionist.

Good quotes!

If, as Bermejo-Rubio suggests, the gospel Jesus was seditious - how then does that position impact upon Richard Carrier's version of mythicism? Why would a celestial Pauline christ figure be euhemerized as a seditious figure? Why involve theology with politics? Particularly so if the intent was to have the Jesus figure unjustly crucified by Rome. A blasphemy charge by the Jewish leaders and a Pilate willing to do their bidding would be sufficient for the Jewish leaders to get a crucifixion verdict. As it is Pilate, in the gospel story, finds no fault with Jesus.

Thus: 1) the gospel writers could not deny a seditious Jesus so had to add this feature to their story. 2) this could indicate a historical gospel Jesus (of some variant) 3) this could indicate that the gospel writers were reflecting, remembering, earlier than 30/33 c.e. history in their seditious Jesus account i.e. the historical event of 37 b.c.e. when a King of the Jews was executed by Rome. (70 years earlier).
Tread softly because you tread on my dreams.
W.B. Yeats

User avatar
MrMacSon
Posts: 4860
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 3:45 pm

Re: Bermejo-Rubio: Jesus and the Anti-Roman Resistance

Post by MrMacSon » Sat Feb 27, 2016 1:14 pm

maryhelena wrote: If, as Bermejo-Rubio suggests, the gospel Jesus was seditious - how then does that position impact upon Richard Carrier's version of mythicism? Why would a celestial Pauline Christ figure be euhemerized as a seditious figure? Why involve theology with politics? Particularly so if the intent was to have the Jesus figure unjustly crucified by Rome. A blasphemy charge by the Jewish leaders and a Pilate willing to do their bidding would be sufficient for the Jewish leaders to get a crucifixion verdict. As it is Pilate, in the gospel story, finds no fault with Jesus.

Thus: 1) the gospel writers could not deny a seditious Jesus so had to add this feature to their story. 2) this could indicate a historical gospel Jesus (of some variant) 3) this could indicate that the gospel writers were reflecting, 'remembering', earlier than 30/33 c.e. history in their seditious Jesus account i.e. the historical event of 37 b.c.e. when a King of the Jews was executed by Rome. (70 years earlier).
There's a number of good points here, yet also a number of things to unpack and consider.


It is universally accepted that the canonical gospels were written after the start of the Roman-Jewish Wars.

After the start of the Roman-Jewish Wars - especially after the routing of Jerusalem - one can understand that a Jewish community (or various communities) anywhere may have been wanting to narrate a Jewish seditious hero (or two, three, four, etc) eg. a pre-66 AD/CE hero. They could have borrowed various figures to help develop such a hero-character (or characters). They may have borrowed contemporary figures; contemporary narratives; and they may have considered key texts available in this period - 66 AD/CE onwards - which would have included, among others, the Jewish texts (the Septuagint/LXX, etc; Philo's texts; Aristides texts; and then newly available Josephus's War & Antiquities with their accounts of various people. -- (there may have been other texts used thus - analogous to or similar to the Dead Sea Scroll texts, the Nag Hammadi texts. etc; texts since lost, texts we today have never known about).

Surely a 'seditious Jesus' would be more likely after the start of Jewish-Roman antagonism.

Some gospel narratives or characters may have developed concurrent to the Josephus narratives eg. John the Baptist; some gospel characters & narratives may have developed later.

It's possible - probable, even - that the Pauline corpus was written mostly or fully separate to the 'gospel set' (as Stephan has put it on another thread).

When these two sets of texts were eventually selected to be put together, out of a milieu of variants and other texts, they would have been redacted to align (as the Dutch Radical AD Loman has proposed/argued) - a human Jesus could have been somewhat inserted in the Pauline texts to align with the human-Jesus narratives in the gospels (ie. the gospel Jesus was inserted in the Pauline texts as both sets were evolving and gaining popularity, rather than the human Jesus being mostly developed later).
Last edited by MrMacSon on Sat Feb 27, 2016 1:47 pm, edited 4 times in total.

maryhelena
Posts: 1482
Joined: Tue Oct 08, 2013 11:22 pm
Location: England

Re: Bermejo-Rubio: Jesus and the Anti-Roman Resistance

Post by maryhelena » Sat Feb 27, 2016 1:43 pm

MrMacSon wrote:
maryhelena wrote: If, as Bermejo-Rubio suggests, the gospel Jesus was seditious - how then does that position impact upon Richard Carrier's version of mythicism? Why would a celestial Pauline Christ figure be euhemerized as a seditious figure? Why involve theology with politics? Particularly so if the intent was to have the Jesus figure unjustly crucified by Rome. A blasphemy charge by the Jewish leaders and a Pilate willing to do their bidding would be sufficient for the Jewish leaders to get a crucifixion verdict. As it is Pilate, in the gospel story, finds no fault with Jesus.

Thus: 1) the gospel writers could not deny a seditious Jesus so had to add this feature to their story. 2) this could indicate a historical gospel Jesus (of some variant) 3) this could indicate that the gospel writers were reflecting, 'remembering', earlier than 30/33 c.e. history in their seditious Jesus account i.e. the historical event of 37 b.c.e. when a King of the Jews was executed by Rome. (70 years earlier).
There's a number of good points here, yet also a number of things to unpack and consider.


It is universally accepted that the canonical gospels were written after the start of the Roman-Jewish Wars.

After the start of the Roman-Jewish Wars - especially after the routing of Jerusalem - one can understand that a Jewish community (or various communities) anywhere may have been wanting to narrate a pre-Roman-suppression Jewish seditious hero (or two, three, four, etc) ie. a pre-66 AD/CE hero. They could have borrowed various figures to help do that; to help develop such a hero-character (or characters). They may have borrowed contemporary figures; contemporary narratives; and they may have considered key texts available in this period - 66 AD/CE onwards - which would have included, among others, the Jewish texts (the Septuagint/LXX, etc; Philo's texts; Aristides texts; and then newly available, Josephus's War & Antiquities with their accounts of various (there may have been other texts - analogous to or similar to the Dead Sea Scroll texts, the Nag Hammadi texts. etc; texts since lost, texts we today have never known about).

Surely a 'seditious Jesus' would be more likely after the start of Jewish-Roman antagonism.
That idea fails to do justice to the whole of Roman and Jewish history - and the impact that whole history would have had on the gospel writers. The Lukan writer placing a crucifixion story around 70 years from 37 b.c.e. The Lukan writer putting a birth narrative in 6 c.e. - around 70 years from 63 b.c.e.

SETTING THE STAGE: THE EFFECTS OF THE ROMAN
CONQUEST AND THE LOSS OF SOVEREIGNTY

Nadav Sharon

A Neglected Era

Despite the enormous amount of scholarly work on the Second Temple Period it seems to me that the period of 67–37 bce, and the dramatic change it brought upon Judea, have been somewhat neglected in modern historical study. The events of this period brought about the end of the eighty-year-old independent and sovereign Judean state, established by the Hasmoneans in the aftermath of Antiochus Epiphanes’ religious decrees and the ensuing revolt. In fact, these events resulted in the almost complete annihilation of that prestigious priestly house. In 63 bce the independent Hasmonean state, with its large territorial gains, found itself suddenly under the domination of the expanding world empire, Rome, and downgraded to a small semiautonomous vassal state.

...........

It seems to me safe to assume that a change such as the loss of sovereignty must have had a tremendous impact on Judean religion and society. However, as already observed, historical study has relatively neglected this period, and has focused on the destruction of the Temple, not on the loss of independence, when reflecting upon the evolution of ancient Judaism.

..........

Finally, I hope that this paper has shown the great effect of the end of independence and the importance of the early Roman era in Judea, not only for the background of Christianity and the Great Revolt, but also for a better understanding of post-Destruction Judaism and how it was able to adapt and survive. Further study may uncover additional ways in which this period set the stage for developments that came to fruition after the Destruction.

https://www.academia.edu/2501352/Settin ... overeignty
Tread softly because you tread on my dreams.
W.B. Yeats

User avatar
MrMacSon
Posts: 4860
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 3:45 pm

Re: Bermejo-Rubio: Jesus and the Anti-Roman Resistance

Post by MrMacSon » Sat Feb 27, 2016 1:57 pm

maryhelena wrote:
MrMacson wrote: It is universally accepted that the canonical gospels were written after the start of the Roman-Jewish Wars.

After the start of the Roman-Jewish Wars - especially after the routing of Jerusalem - one can understand that a Jewish community (or various communities) anywhere may have been wanting to narrate a Jewish seditious hero (or two, three, four, etc) eg. a pre-66 AD/CE hero. They could have borrowed various figures to help develop such a hero-character (or characters). They may have borrowed contemporary figures; contemporary narratives; and they may have considered key texts available in this period - 66 AD/CE onwards - which would have included, among others, the Jewish texts (the Septuagint/LXX, etc; Philo's texts; Aristides texts; and then newly available Josephus's War & Antiquities with their accounts of various people. -- (there may have been other texts used thus - analogous to or similar to the Dead Sea Scroll texts, the Nag Hammadi texts. etc; texts since lost, texts we today have never known about)..

Surely a 'seditious Jesus' would be more likely after the start of Jewish-Roman antagonism.
That idea fails to do justice to the whole of Roman and Jewish history - and the impact that whole history would have had on the gospel writers.
Huh?? I acknowledge 'the impact that whole history would have had on the gospel writers' !!

I am seguing on what you wrote.

In writing what I did, I acknowledged the concepts espoused by Nadav Sharon in 'Setting The Stage: the Effects of the Roman Conquest and the Loss of Sovereignty' -
A Neglected Era

... it seems to me that the period of 67–37 bce, and the dramatic change it brought upon Judea, [may] have been somewhat neglected in modern historical study. The events of this period brought about the end of the eighty-year-old independent and sovereign Judean state, established by the Hasmoneans in the aftermath of Antiochus Epiphanes’ religious decrees and the ensuing revolt. In fact, these events resulted in the almost complete annihilation of that prestigious priestly house. In 63 bce the independent Hasmonean state, with its large territorial gains, found itself suddenly under the domination of the expanding world empire, Rome, and downgraded to a small semiautonomous vassal state.

...........

It seems to me safe to assume that a change such as the loss of sovereignty must have had a tremendous impact on Judean religion and society. However, as already observed, historical study has relatively neglected this period, and has focused on the destruction of the Temple, not on the loss of independence, when reflecting upon the evolution of ancient Judaism.


https://www.academia.edu/2501352/Settin ... overeignty
maryhelena wrote: The Lukan writer placing a crucifixion story around 70 years from 37 b.c.e. The Lukan writer putting a birth narrative in 6 c.e. - around 70 years from 63 b.c.e.
So what??
Last edited by MrMacSon on Sat Feb 27, 2016 5:08 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
MrMacSon
Posts: 4860
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 3:45 pm

Re: Bermejo-Rubio: Jesus and the Anti-Roman Resistance

Post by MrMacSon » Sat Feb 27, 2016 2:17 pm

A seditious Jesus may have been a real person; or based on a real person, or several real people.

A 'seditious Jesus' may be 'fully fictional'; and even based on accounts of Roman people (whether those Romans were seditious or not)

.
Last edited by MrMacSon on Sat Feb 27, 2016 5:08 pm, edited 2 times in total.

Ulan
Posts: 1026
Joined: Sat Mar 29, 2014 3:58 am

Re: Bermejo-Rubio: Jesus and the Anti-Roman Resistance

Post by Ulan » Sat Feb 27, 2016 2:29 pm

maryhelena wrote:The Lukan writer placing a crucifixion story around 70 years from 37 b.c.e. The Lukan writer putting a birth narrative in 6 c.e. - around 70 years from 63 b.c.e.
The standard explanation is actually quite similar to yours, in that it places the crucifixion 40 years before the fall of the temple. Which pretty much makes your point in this regard moot (not in the sense that it doesn't make sense at all, but in the sense that it is not a unique explanation).

maryhelena
Posts: 1482
Joined: Tue Oct 08, 2013 11:22 pm
Location: England

Re: Bermejo-Rubio: Jesus and the Anti-Roman Resistance

Post by maryhelena » Sat Feb 27, 2016 2:37 pm

Ulan wrote:
maryhelena wrote:The Lukan writer placing a crucifixion story around 70 years from 37 b.c.e. The Lukan writer putting a birth narrative in 6 c.e. - around 70 years from 63 b.c.e.
The standard explanation is actually quite similar to yours, in that it places the crucifixion 40 years before the fall of the temple. Which pretty much makes your point in this regard moot.
Why choose between them? The tragedy of 37 b.c.e. and the tragedy of 70 c.e. are both significant dates in Jewish history.

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.....

Hyrcanus II
In 36 BC, Herod I, who had vanquished Antigonus with Roman help and feared that Hyrcanus might induce the Parthians to help him regain the throne, invited the former High Priest to return to Jerusalem. Hyrcanus accepted and Herod received him with every mark of respect, assigning to him the first place at his table and the presidency of the state council.

However, in 30 BC Herod charged Hyrcanus with plotting with the Nabateans and put him to death..
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Added later....

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.
Tread softly because you tread on my dreams.
W.B. Yeats

Giuseppe
Posts: 2686
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Vicenza (Italy)

Re: Bermejo-Rubio: Jesus and the Anti-Roman Resistance

Post by Giuseppe » Sat Feb 27, 2016 11:29 pm

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.
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bernard Muller, Bing [Bot], Blood, JoeWallack, Kapyong, MrMacSon and 50 guests