Claude Bertin on the Christian Origins

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
Post Reply
User avatar
Giuseppe
Posts: 13912
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Claude Bertin on the Christian Origins

Post by Giuseppe »

There is a pdf in archive.org authored by Claude Bertin, ''How Christianity was invented''.

The thesis of the author is that Christianity started after the 70 CE (Paul and Hebrews being late forgeries), when, under the strong expectation of the Messiah (''Christ''), an artificial hybrid was created deliberately from the memories of the violent Jesus son of Saphat and the memories of the apocalyptic (but innocent) Jesus son of Ananias.
The invented hybrid - Jesus the Christ - was placed under Pilate, just at the time of the founder of the Fourth Philosophy (Judas the Galilean) and the Samaritan Prophet, working as antithesis against them (and their message of violence).

In the words of Bertin:
The Messianic enthusiasm hailed chiefly from Galilee,
and was the source of great crimes and much evil to the
state. A passage from Gibbon will at this stage be
appropriate: — “At the distance of sixty years, it was the
duty of the annalist [He is referring to Cornelius Tacitus]
to adopt the narratives of contemporaries; but it was
natural for the philosopher to indulge himself in a
description of the origin, the progress, and the character
of the new sect, not so much according to the knowledge
or the prejudices of the age of Nero, as according to those
of the time of Hadrian. Tacitus very frequently trusts to
the curiosity or reflection of his readers to supply those
intermediate circumstances and ideas which, in his
extreme conciseness, he has thought proper to suppress.
We may, therefore, presume to imagine some probable
cause which could direct the cruelty of Nero against the
Christians of Rome, whose obscurity as well as
innocence should have shielded them from his
indignation, and even from his notice. The Jews, who
were numerous in the capital [There were about 8,000]
and oppressed in their own country, were a much fitter
object for the suspicions of the Emperor and of the
people; nor did it seem unlikely that a vanquished nation,
who already discovered their abhorrence of the Roman
yoke, might have recourse to the most atrocious means of
gratifying their implacable revenge. But the Jews
possessed very powerful advocates in the palace, and
even in the heart of the tyrant, his wife and mistress, the
beautiful Poppaea, and a favourite player of the race of
Abraham, who had already employed their intercession
in behalf of the obnoxious people. In their room it was
necessary to offer some other victims, and it might easily
be suggested that, although the genuine followers of
Moses were innocent of the fire of Rome, there had
arisen among them a new and pernicious sect of
Galileans, which was capable of the most horrid crimes.

Under the appellation of Galileans two distinctions of
men were confounded, the most opposite to each other in
their manner and principles — the disciples who had
embraced the faith of Jesus of Nazareth, and the zealots
who had followed the standard of Judas the Gaulonite.
The former were the friends, the latter were the enemies
of humankind
, and the only resemblance between them
consisted in the same inflexible constancy, which in the
defense of their cause rendered them insensible of death
and tortures" (Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,
Vol I. chap. 16)
This testimony is of great weight, justifying, as it does,
the condemnatory judgment we have pronounced on the
Galilean Jesus and his associates, whose character and
principles were so diametrically opposed to those of the
meek Jesus and his followers. The former were the
enemies of mankind, and the latter were the friends, and
the friendly and unfriendly principles of both are sought
to be united into one by the four Greek writers. And the
incongruity of the amalgam must be as obvious to the
philosopher as to the historian. The friendship
exemplified was of a beautiful type, full of selfabnegation
and charity, and the meekness evinced a piety
and devotion the very opposite of what proceeds from
enmity.
(my bold)

The author says that Jesus son of Ananias would be the true ''historical Jesus'''.
"A voice
from the east, a voice from the west, a voice from the
four winds, a voice against Jerusalem and the holy house,
a voice against the bridegrooms and the brides, and a
voice against this whole people." (Book of the Wars,
book VI.)
Revelation 7:1-3, "And after these things I saw four
angels standing on the four corners of the earth, holding
the four winds of the earth, that the wind should not blow
on the earth, nor on the sea, nor on any tree. And I saw
another angel ascending from the east, having the seal of
the living God, and he cried with a loud voice to the four
angels, to whom it was given to hurt the earth and the
sea, saying, Hurt not the earth, neither the sea, nor the
trees, till we have sealed the servants of our God in their
foreheads."
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.
User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 8994
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: Claude Bertin on the Christian Origins

Post by Ben C. Smith »

Giuseppe wrote:The invented hybrid - Jesus the Christ - was placed under Pilate, just at the time of the founder of the Fourth Philosophy (Judas the Galilean) and the Samaritan Prophet, working as antithesis against them (and their message of violence).
Judas the Galilean was not under Pilate.
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ
User avatar
Giuseppe
Posts: 13912
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: Claude Bertin on the Christian Origins

Post by Giuseppe »

Judas the Galilean was not under Pilate.
Surely this is a weakness of the book (in my view, the census affair under Quirinius in Luke seems only pure anti-marcionism).

The author writes:

This new philosophy of Judas of Galilee, which was in
reality opposed to true Mosaic principles, had exercised a
great influence over the younger people, who took it up
enthusiastically, and, among the rest, this Jesus [son of Saphat], who
preached it forth prophetically, got multitudes to follow
him, and essayed to propagate it by the sword, with such
zeal that his name, and not Judas's, who was now dead,
was handed down to posterity as that of the founder of
the new faith. That Judas was the founder we know on
the unimpeachable authority of Josephus, but it was
perfectly natural his name should in the traditional
reports be merged and lost in that of his zealous disciple,
so that it is as easy to account for the change of name as
for the chief error in the chronology, and the blending
into one of this fiery enthusiast for the law [Jesus ben Saphat] and the meek
martyr of Jerusalem [Jesus ben Ananias].
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.
davidbrainerd
Posts: 319
Joined: Wed Mar 22, 2017 7:37 pm

Re: Claude Bertin on the Christian Origins

Post by davidbrainerd »

Or maybe Jesus is Jesus the son of Sirach. After all, the Didache attributes the saying from Sirach 12 to Jesus, in paraphrased form, "let your alms sweat in your hand until you know who to give them to", rather than the "lend to everyone who asks" we expect from the gospels. (I mean only that sayinng Jesus is some other historical Jesus is basically a non-starter, even in a case where we actually have conflation in a source, as here, its easy to explain away: i.e. the didache writers were embarassed by Jesus' marxism and attributed the more conservative teaching of Jesus ben Sira to him because they found "lend to everyone who asks" to be insane.)
User avatar
Giuseppe
Posts: 13912
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: Claude Bertin on the Christian Origins

Post by Giuseppe »

Clearly when the first guy says "the true HJ is x" we don't believe him because it's impossible to assume a causal link of cause/effect between x and the Gospels.

But I find surely more useful and interesting the reversal: what if x was used and coopted as midrashical source to invent the Gospel Jesus?

In this sense the Bertin's view may be corrected and not rejected totally. My interest is always that: what moved the first euhemerizer?
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.
User avatar
MrMacSon
Posts: 8881
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 3:45 pm

Re: Claude Bertin on the Christian Origins

Post by MrMacSon »

Giuseppe wrote:
There is a pdf in archive.org authored by Claude Bertin, ''How Christianity was invented''.

The thesis of the author is that Christianity started after the 70 CE (Paul and Hebrews being late forgeries), when, under the strong expectation of the Messiah (''Christ''), an artificial hybrid was created deliberately from the memories of the violent Jesus son of Saphat and the memories of the apocalyptic (but innocent) Jesus son of Ananias.

The invented hybrid - Jesus the Christ - was placed under Pilate, just at the time of the founder of the Fourth Philosophy (Judas the Galilean) and the Samaritan Prophet [30s AD; Josephus, Jewish Antiquities 18.85-89], working as antithesis against them (and their message of violence).
It would seem likely that if the pacifist NT-Jesus [the Christ, supposedly of Nazareth] was a creation post 70 AD/CE, he would have been created to counter both the stories of violent zealots of recent generations and the consequences of their actions. And it is interesting that the start of the NT-Jesus story coincides with the peak time of the alleged founder of the 'Fourth Philosophy' or sect that Josephus associated with zealotry, Judas the Galilean (Jewish War 2.433; Jewish Antiquities 18.1-10 and 18.23).

Several scholars, such as Gunnar Haaland and James S. McLaren, have suggested that Josephus's description of the fourth sect does not reflect historical reality, but was constructed to serve his own interests. According to Haaland, the part covering the sect acts as a transition and an introduction to the excursion concerning the Jewish schools of thought, all of which Josephus presents to portray the majority of Jews in a positive light, and to show that the Jewish War was incited by a radical minority.[5] Similarly, McLaren proposes that Judas and his sect act as scapegoats for the war that are chronologically, geographically and socially removed from the priestly circles of Jerusalem (and Josephus himself).[6]
  • < . . snip . . >
The story of Judas the Galilean has been severely cut from Josephus' War book and now only exists in his Antiquities. This is shown by the later statement in the War book about Judas 'as we have shown earlier' when there is no earlier reference. And the statement in his Antiquities book 'as we have shown in a foregoing book' when again there is much less than in Antiquities itself. [A] possible reason for Christians editing Judas from the 'War book is that it contradicted the story of Christ[9]. As the death of Judas has [possibly] been cut from both books it [has been] argued the reason is that it is Judas who was crucified by Pilate as his crime was rebellion, while Jesus' was blasphemy which is nothing to do with the Romans.

Judas is referred to in Acts of the Apostles [Acts 5:36-37], in which a speech by Gamaliel, a member of the Sanhedrin, identifies Theudas and Judas as examples of failed Messianic movements, and suggests that the movement emerging in the name of Jesus of Nazareth could similarly fail: -

Acts 5:36-37

Some time ago, Theudas appeared, claiming to be somebody, and about four hundred men rallied to him. He was killed, all his followers were dispersed, and it all came to nothing. After him, Judas the Galilean appeared in the days of the census and led a band of people in revolt. He too was killed, and all his followers were scattered
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judas_of_ ... d_Zealotry

5. Gunnar Haaland (2009) 'A Villain and the VIPs: Josephus on Judas the Galilean and the Essenes.' In Anders Kolstergaard et al. (ed.), Northern Lights on the Dead Sea Scrolls. Proceedings of the Nordic Qumran Network 2003-2006. Studies on the Text of the Deserts of Judah v. 80. Leiden: Brill. pp. 241-244.

6. James S. McLaren (2004) 'Constructing Judaean History in the Diaspora: Josephus’s Accounts of Judas.' In John M.G. Barclay (ed.), Negotiating Diaspora: Jewish Strategies in the Roman Empire. London: T&T Clark. pp. 90-108.
.
Last edited by MrMacSon on Thu Apr 27, 2017 2:16 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
MrMacSon
Posts: 8881
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 3:45 pm

Re: Claude Bertin on the Christian Origins

Post by MrMacSon »

davidbrainerd wrote:
Or maybe Jesus is Jesus the son of Sirach. After all, the Didache attributes the saying from Sirach 12 to Jesus, in paraphrased form, "let your alms sweat in your hand until you know who to give them to", rather than the "lend to everyone who asks" we expect from the gospels. (... saying Jesus is some other historical Jesus is basically a non-starter...)
or maybe the NT narrative writers used memes from the Book of Sirach, as they seem to have from other pre-NT books.

Interestingly,

Sirach is accepted as part of the Christian biblical canons by Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, and most of Oriental Orthodox. ... the Lutheran Churches include it in their lectionaries, and as a book proper for reading, devotion, and prayer. It was cited in some writings in early Christianity. There are claims that it is cited in the Epistle of James, and also the non-canonical Didache (iv. 5) and Epistle of Barnabas (xix. 9). Clement of Alexandria and Origen quote from it repeatedly, as from a γραφή, or holy book.[6] The Catalogue of Cheltenham, Pope Damasus I, the Councils of Hippo (393) and Council of Carthage (397), Pope Innocent I, the second Council of Carthage (419), and Augustine all regarded it as canonical, although the Council of Laodicea, of Jerome, and of Rufinus of Aquileia, ranked it instead as an ecclesiastical book.[6] The Apostolic Canons (not recognized by the Catholic Church) stated as venerable and sacred the Wisdom of Sirach.[7] The Roman Catholic Church declared it to be canonical in 1546 during the fourth session of the Council of Trent.[6]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sirach

some Jews in the diaspora considered Sirach scripture. For instance, it was included in the canon of the Septuagint, the 2nd century BCE Greek version of the Jewish scriptures used by Diaspora Jews, through which it became part of the Greek canon. The multiplicity of manuscript fragments uncovered in the Cairo Genizah evidence its authoritative status among Egyptian Jewry until the Middle Ages.[12]

[Previously] Sirach is not part of the Jewish canon, once thought to have been established at the hypothetical Council of Jamnia, perhaps due to its late authorship,[8] although it is not clear that the canon was completely "closed" at the time of Ben Sira.[9] Others have suggested that Ben Sira's self-identification as the author precluded it from attaining canonical status, which was reserved for works that were attributed (or could be attributed) to the prophets,[10] or that it was denied entry to the canon as a rabbinical counter-reaction to its embrace by the nascent Christian community.[11]

[Then] Because it was excluded from the Jewish canon, Sirach was excised from the Protestant canon following the Reformation.
Post Reply