Does the ʺearthly kingdomʺ hypothesis imply necessarily a historical Jesus?

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
Giuseppe
Posts: 13732
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Does the ʺearthly kingdomʺ hypothesis imply necessarily a historical Jesus?

Post by Giuseppe »


Although an increasing number of scholars dispute the parting of the ways between Jews and Christians in the first century, in my opinion there was an early parting of the ways, though very different from what other scholars examine. Israel at that time was divided into at least two different camps. Those who raised Holy Wars, and those who were able to realise that those wars would lead nowhere.

(Georgios Sidirountios)




Abstract
The present thesis explores and tests the validity of the hypothesis raised by Reimarus (1694-1768) that the first Christians aimed at establishing an earthly and not a heavenly kingdom.
The INTRODUCTION presents the problem and how this has been approached by previous scholars. It also outlines the aim and scope of the thesis and the methodology employed. CHAPTER 1 is a critical presentation of the main sources upon which the findings of the thesis are based, namely Maccabees I-IV, Josephus (fl. 1st c.) and the New Testament. It examines the issues of authenticity, dating, reliability, alterations and interpolations of the texts. CHAPTER 2, examines the case that the Early Christians were continuators of certain pre-existing Messianic traditions and perceived themselves as original Israelites. It also explores the validity of the hypothesis that the first Christians were Essenes. CHAPTER 3 covers the historical period from the reign of the Greek Antiochos IV Epiphanēs (175-164 BCE), when according to a certain Church tradition the first "Christians" do appear in history as martyrs. It ends with the last years of the Hasmonean dynasty (c.37 BCE). This chapter also investigates the rise of religious anti-Hellenism. CHAPTER 4 starts with the war Herod the Great (c.73-4 BCE) raised against certain Galileans and ends with the last events of the Great Revolt. Also, it questions what did the first Christians do during this period of repeated conflicts? How did the Gentiles perceive the Christians and who were the Greeks in the Early Church? The CONCLUSIONS summarise the findings on the validity of the "earthly kingdom" hypothesis, and the thesis ends with APPENDICES.
https://pure.royalholloway.ac.uk/portal ... a0e2).html
Last edited by Giuseppe on Sat Nov 27, 2021 1:12 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
GakuseiDon
Posts: 2295
Joined: Sat Oct 12, 2013 5:10 pm

Re: Does the ʺearthly kingdomʺ hypothesis implies necessarily a historical Jesus?

Post by GakuseiDon »

I don't know if the question you posed in the thread heading is relevant to the info you posted, but NO: an earthly kingdom does not imply in any way a historical Jesus.

Jesus is coming soon! Those timeless words are as true today as they were when first spoken 2000 years ago. And when he does, the firmament will be rolled up like a scroll, and the metaphysical realm of the heavens -- incorruptible, eternal -- shall extend to earth, burning all corruption and impermanence from the earth. There will no longer be any difference between heaven and earth as it will all be one place. The heavenly Jerusalem will descend to earth, and it is from there God will rule.

None of that requires an originally historical, or perhaps more accurately, an originally earthly Jesus. My amateur 2 cents!
Giuseppe
Posts: 13732
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: Does the ʺearthly kingdomʺ hypothesis implies necessarily a historical Jesus?

Post by Giuseppe »

It is obvious the difference between modern apocalypticism and old apocalypticism.
What escapes your attention is apparently that the early Christians expected that Jesus comes back to destroy all the Romans. While modern apocalypticists expect that Jesus comes back to destroy only generic "evil" people.

Hence the early Christian apocalypticism was nationalistic, xenophobic. Accordingly Tacitus talked justly about odium generis humani.

Hence my question is:

Did this form of early apocalypticism imply necessarily a historical Jesus?
User avatar
MrMacSon
Posts: 8798
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 3:45 pm

Re: Does the ʺearthly kingdomʺ hypothesis implies necessarily a historical Jesus?

Post by MrMacSon »

Giuseppe wrote: Fri Nov 26, 2021 10:00 pm ... the early Christians expected that Jesus comes back to destroy all the Romans ...
Where do you get this idea from? (what passages?)
User avatar
GakuseiDon
Posts: 2295
Joined: Sat Oct 12, 2013 5:10 pm

Re: Does the ʺearthly kingdomʺ hypothesis implies necessarily a historical Jesus?

Post by GakuseiDon »

Giuseppe wrote: Fri Nov 26, 2021 10:00 pm It is obvious the difference between modern apocalypticism and old apocalypticism.
What escapes your attention is apparently that the early Christians expected that Jesus comes back to destroy all the Romans. While modern apocalypticists expect that Jesus comes back to destroy only generic "evil" people.
I don't think any early Christians expected Jesus to come back and destroy all the Romans. The whole point of Paul preaching the gospel to the Gentiles was the idea that the Gentiles have come into the inheritance of the seed of Abraham via adoption. God had looked on the Romans and went: :thumbup:
Giuseppe wrote: Fri Nov 26, 2021 10:00 pmHence the early Christian apocalypticism was nationalistic, xenophobic.
Could you provide textual support for this claim, please?
Giuseppe wrote: Fri Nov 26, 2021 10:00 pmDid this form of early apocalypticism imply necessarily a historical Jesus?
No, I can't see how.
Giuseppe
Posts: 13732
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: Does the ʺearthly kingdomʺ hypothesis implies necessarily a historical Jesus?

Post by Giuseppe »

I invite you to read Turmel's commentary on Paul. He claims that 'Satan' is for Paul a codeword for the Romans. I don't talk here about Philippians's Hymn or 1 Cor 2:6-11, since that text in my view places beyond any doubt the crucifixion in outer space, only it is probably a late Gnostic interpolation, hence it doesn't count to know the true thought of the historical Paul.

Even in Acts the Christian Paul is accused of seditious propaganda.

Even if Paul was pro-Roman and invited to pay tributes, the detail is interesting because it reveals that the Christians living in Rome were rebels against the authority, hence they hated all the other Romans.

Obviously, as you know, the Book of Revelation is sufficient to make my point about early apocalypticism being nationalistic, xenophobic, anti-Roman, pro-Zealot, etc.

Definitively,
Tacitus was right to accuse the Christians of odium generis humani.

Hence I repeat the question: did the early xenophobic, nationalistic, anti-Roman apocalypticism imply a historical Jesus ?
User avatar
GakuseiDon
Posts: 2295
Joined: Sat Oct 12, 2013 5:10 pm

Re: Does the ʺearthly kingdomʺ hypothesis implies necessarily a historical Jesus?

Post by GakuseiDon »

Giuseppe wrote: Sat Nov 27, 2021 12:31 amEven in Acts the Christian Paul is accused of seditious propaganda.

Even if Paul was pro-Roman and invited to pay tributes, the detail is interesting because it reveals that the Christians living in Rome were rebels against the authority, hence they hated all the other Romans.

Obviously, as you know, the Book of Revelation is sufficient to make my point about early apocalypticism being nationalistic, xenophobic, anti-Roman, pro-Zealot, etc.
Nope, I don't know that I'm afraid. From what I've heard, the Book of Revelation is anti-Roman Imperial cult, and one of the beasts is supposed to be Nero. The early Christians were anti-Roman Imperial cult, for obvious reasons. If you have a thread showing how the Book of Revelation is nationalistic, xenophobic, anti-Roman, pro-Zealot, then I'd appreciate it if you can link it and I'll have a look. Thanks.

Were early Christians rebels against the Roman authority? I'm not aware of evidence for that, so I'd like to see it if there is any evidence. Early Christians were against the worship of Roman gods; but not against Roman authority AFAICS.

Justin Martyr addressed his First Apology to the Roman emperors of his time, and called them "guardians of justice and lovers of learning". He then went on to blast the stories of the Roman gods as inspired by demons. If earlier Christians had a different view of the Romans, I'd like to see the evidence for it.
Giuseppe
Posts: 13732
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: Does the ʺearthly kingdomʺ hypothesis imply necessarily a historical Jesus?

Post by Giuseppe »

Quasi in answer to your question, Neil has started a thread about the Book of Revelation being pro-Zealot and anti-Vespasian propaganda. Read in particular the comments of Gmirkin and Doudna on Vridar.

Hardly one can deny that Revelation is bloodthirsty, more precisely thirsty for Roman blood.

The idea is not new, for me, since the mythicist Couchoud would agree with Doudna/Gmirkin about Revelation being so pro-Zealot and being dated very early around 70.

Only the idea that this form of aggressive anti-Roman apocalypticism implies only and exclusively historicity is new for me.
User avatar
GakuseiDon
Posts: 2295
Joined: Sat Oct 12, 2013 5:10 pm

Re: Does the ʺearthly kingdomʺ hypothesis imply necessarily a historical Jesus?

Post by GakuseiDon »

Giuseppe wrote: Sat Nov 27, 2021 1:34 am Quasi in answer to your question, Neil has started a thread about the Book of Revelation being pro-Zealot and anti-Vespasian propaganda. Read in particular the comments of Gmirkin and Doudna on Vridar.
Thanks, I'll have a look.
Giuseppe wrote: Sat Nov 27, 2021 1:34 amHardly one can deny that Revelation is bloodthirsty, more precisely thirsty for Roman blood.
Well, I'll deny the "bloodthirsty for Roman blood" part, until I see evidence otherwise. Perhaps we can look at some numbers:

(1) How many explicitly Romans (gentiles) die in Revelation? Are victims divided by nationality (e.g. gentile, jew, christian), or are they divided by being for-God and against-God?

(2) How many Romans who are Christians die in Revelation?
Giuseppe wrote: Sat Nov 27, 2021 1:34 amThe idea is not new, for me, since the mythicist Couchoud would agree with Doudna/Gmirkin about Revelation being so pro-Zealot and being dated very early around 70.

Only the idea that this form of aggressive anti-Roman apocalypticism implies only and exclusively historicity is new for me.
Well, I don't see it myself, but that doesn't mean much, since I don't claim any great knowledge. I'll have a read through those threads you mentioned. Thanks.
ABuddhist
Posts: 1016
Joined: Wed Jul 21, 2021 4:36 am

Re: Does the ʺearthly kingdomʺ hypothesis imply necessarily a historical Jesus?

Post by ABuddhist »

GakuseiDon wrote: Sat Nov 27, 2021 2:00 am
Giuseppe wrote: Sat Nov 27, 2021 1:34 am Quasi in answer to your question, Neil has started a thread about the Book of Revelation being pro-Zealot and anti-Vespasian propaganda. Read in particular the comments of Gmirkin and Doudna on Vridar.
Thanks, I'll have a look.
Giuseppe wrote: Sat Nov 27, 2021 1:34 amHardly one can deny that Revelation is bloodthirsty, more precisely thirsty for Roman blood.
Well, I'll deny the "bloodthirsty for Roman blood" part, until I see evidence otherwise. Perhaps we can look at some numbers:

(1) How many explicitly Romans (gentiles) die in Revelation? Are victims divided by nationality (e.g. gentile, jew, christian), or are they divided by being for-God and against-God?

(2) How many Romans who are Christians die in Revelation?
Giuseppe wrote: Sat Nov 27, 2021 1:34 amThe idea is not new, for me, since the mythicist Couchoud would agree with Doudna/Gmirkin about Revelation being so pro-Zealot and being dated very early around 70.

Only the idea that this form of aggressive anti-Roman apocalypticism implies only and exclusively historicity is new for me.
Well, I don't see it myself, but that doesn't mean much, since I don't claim any great knowledge. I'll have a read through those threads you mentioned. Thanks.
Well, by presenting Nero/the Roman Emperors as wicked, demonic beasts, and by allegorically conflating Rome and Babylon (a city whose defeat is presented as a good thing within the Jewish scriptures over all - excepting Ezekiel), the Revelation to John is implicitly anti-Roman. Explicit anti-Roman sentiments would have gotten the text and its communities of believers severely punished.
Post Reply