Fernando Bermejo-Rubio

[StephenGoranson]

As far as the ones mentioned above that I know, your specific interpretation is accepted by none.

[maryhelena]

As far as the ones mentioned above that I know, your specific interpretation is accepted by none.

Interpretation is not a static exercise. In fact it's the very essence of Christianity. Are you seriously attempting to close the door on interpretation? To put a stop to heresy, to, in modern terms, cancel ideas you find beyond the pale. Let me remind you, Stephen, such attempts have never worked..? You have now read what I have posted in this thread - if you don't care for my ideas - then why bother posting here? Attempt to refute my arguments by all means - but I've not seen you do that. Your latest offering ''your specific interpretation is accepted by none.''. So - what is that supposed to mean? That numbers are the primary judge of what is relevant as an interpretation of the Jesus story - then, Stephen, heaven help us all...

You might be interested in a new book being released tomorrow:

Amazon: ‘In the beginning was the Word,’ says the Gospel of John. This sentence – and the words of all four gospels – is central to the teachings of the Christian church and has shaped Western art, literature and language, and the Western mind.

Yet in the years after the death of Christ there was not merely one word, nor any consensus as to who Jesus was or why he had mattered. There were many different Jesuses, among them the aggressive Jesus who scorned his parents and crippled those who opposed him, the Jesus who sold his twin into slavery and the Jesus who had someone crucified in his stead.

Moreover, in the early years of the first millennium there were many other saviours, many sons of gods who healed the sick and cured the lame. But as Christianity spread, they were pronounced unacceptable – even heretical – and they faded from view. Now, in Heresy, Catherine Nixey tells their extraordinary story, one of contingency, chance and plurality. It is a story about what might have been.

[StephenGoranson]

I am interested in the study of heresy, history of heresy, names for heresy, etc.
I discussed such, for example in
"Others and Intra-Jewish Polemic as Reflected in Qumran Texts"
https://people.duke.edu/~goranson/Essenes_&_Others.pdf
Everyone--sure, me too--from one point of view of another, is a heretic.
In trying to understand history, I have indeed critiqued some proposals. (And have my proposals critiqued, of course.)
For example, that two unrelated events 100 years apart are not necessarily the cause of a historical change.
I have mentioned that knowledge of Greek is sometimes relevant, e.g., in not mixing up two very differently-spelled names.
That claiming to have a sense of history and story and the way forward may not suffice.
But not censorship, surely.

[maryhelena]

I am interested in the study of heresy, history of heresy, names for heresy, etc.
I discussed such, for example in
"Others and Intra-Jewish Polemic as Reflected in Qumran Texts"
https://people.duke.edu/~goranson/Essenes_&_Others.pdf
Everyone--sure, me too--from one point of view of another, is a heretic.
In trying to understand history, I have indeed critiqued some proposals. (And have my proposals critiqued, of course.)
For example, that two unrelated events 100 years apart are not necessarily the cause of a historical change.
I have mentioned that knowledge of Greek is sometimes relevant, e.g., in not mixing up two very differently-spelled names.
That claiming to have a sense of history and story and the way forward may not suffice.
But not censorship, surely.

The gospel writers had a sense of history and wrote a story... A story that has survived for around two thousand years. Stories sell, today as in years gone by.....Although the stories have staying power our interpretation of them changes as we grow in understand science and history.

The push for a new interpretation of the gospel story is ongoing.... From Richard Carrier to Bermejo-Rubio. We might fault these two scholars on various points. - but it would be unwise to fault their insistantance that change in the current, widespread, interpretation of the gospel story is needed. Nothing can stop intellectual progress....

[maryhelena]

This afternoon, while watching rugby with one eye and following google with the other, I came across this interesting pdf. here

I've not read it all - 185 pages. Searched for 'seditious'.......

The Crucifiable Jesus

Steven Brian Pounds

Peterhouse
Faculty of Divinity University of Cambridge

This dissertation is submitted for the degree of
Doctor of Philosophy

February 2019

============
Abstract:

In recent decades, scholars have both used Jesus’ crucifixion as a criterion of historicity and employed the rhetoric of a “crucifiable Jesus”– suggesting that some historical reconstructions of Jesus more plausibly explain his crucifixion than others. This dissertation tests the grounds of these proposals, whilst offering its own reconstruction of a crucifiable Jesus.
=============


Justin Meggitt proposes that the “King of the Jews” motif is rooted in the taunting and mistreatment of Jesus as insane.107 I shall argue, however, that though some may have thought Jesus was delusional, this does not in and of itself explain the particular form of their taunting or why he was crucified in the first place. In part, Meggitt's proposal is undermined by the fact that there are not other ancient accounts of crucifixion being used purely as a form of mistreating the mentally ill. A more basic and longstanding view concerning the origins of the “King of the Jews” motif is that it is a post-Easter invention rooted solely in the christological confession of the early church.108 However, I shall argue that the lack of the title's confessional use elsewhere, along with its potentially seditious connotations (an implicit appeal that it goes “against the grain of the tradition”) make this an unlikely explanation for its ultimate origins. I shall propose that the motif more plausibly originates from an indictment against Jesus and that the use of the placard to record the indictment finds sufficient analogy in other ancient accounts of Roman executions.

If the account of a titulus and the “King of the Jews” motif originates in an indictment that led to Jesus' crucifixion, the question remains as to the cause of the accusation. N. A. Dahl, whose work led to more scholars taking a positive view of the historicity of the titulus, emphasised its origins in the accusations of Jesus' opponents.109 However, Dahl did not offer an in depth explanation concerning the impetus behind the accusation. Paula Fredriksen has recently proposed that a messianic acclamation of Jesus by mistaken Passover pilgrims led to the joint decision of Caiaphas and Pilate to have Jesus crucified as “King of the Jews” in order to squelch the messianic hope of these pilgrims.110 However, I shall argue that Fredriksen's proposal does not plausibly account for the transferal of these mistaken messianic acclamations over to the core convictions of Jesus' closest disciples following his crucifixion. James D. G. Dunn goes a step further by suggesting that Jesus' disciples considered him Messiah against his own protests.111 However, I shall suggest that, according to this scenario, we remain without plausible explanation for why the disciples should continue on after the crucifixion with a misinformed messianic attribution if Jesus himself had protested against it.

I shall argue that the best explanation for the cause of the indictment that Jesus had made a seditious royal claim lies in the interplay between Jesus' activities and his disciples' initial interpretation of those activities. Jesus' self-assigned central role in the arrival of the kingdom of God probably led the disciples to interpret his identity in a royal messianic way. Jesus may have even come to see himself as the Messias designatus. I shall conclude that a messianic acclamation by Jesus' disciples coupled with Jesus' own view of his central role in the arrival of the kingdom of God, together explain how he came to be crucified as one who seditiously claimed to be “King of the Jews”. Furthermore, they together help to explain how the messianic hopes attached to Jesus survived his very un-messianic manner of death.
-----------
1.4 “King of the Jews” as an Indictment

In view of the seditious connotations of the title “King of the Jews” and the lack of probability for other explanations of its origins, the most probable view is that the title originates from an accusation against Jesus.
======
Lending further plausibility to the titulus crucis is the fact that the charge fits well within the range of offences for which others were crucified.751 In sum, the most probable historical conclusion to draw concerning the origin of the “King of the Jews” motif in the gospels and the specific mention of a titulus bearing that inscription is that Jesus was executed on the charge of making a seditious royal claim.75
===========

(colouring mine)

[StephenGoranson]

" Nothing can stop intellectual progress...."
One hopes.

Remembering the end of WWI 100 years later is different than remembering the last Hasmonean civil war causing remnant 100 years later.

[StephenGoranson]

And a claiming a "sense" about history and story and future is not different from what a carnival fortune-teller might say.

[maryhelena]

And a claiming a "sense" about history and story and future is not different from what a carnival fortune-teller might say.

Well, at least those carnival fortune-tellers, with the passing of time, can be exposed as wrong headed.....but the peddlers, the fortune-tellers, of resurrection, of life after death, get away scot-free. Strange old world is it not .....

[StephenGoranson]

Except, I, in those last two posts, did not mention resurrection, but addressed your history proposals.

[maryhelena]

Except, I, in those last two posts, did not mention resurrection, but addressed your history proposals.

You sought to compare my position, words, to carnival fortune-tellers. I responded with an example of those who peddle a far more dangerous idea than mine.....life after death. A scientifically implausible scenario that holds millions of Christians in its grasp. False hope verse the possibility that ideas, dealing with life on terra firma, might produce something of value.

Methinks, Stephen, that the seditious Jesus hypothesis is not to your liking. So be it...