Was Christianity started by born Jews?

Discussion about the Hebrew Bible, Septuagint, pseudepigrapha, Philo, Josephus, Talmud, Dead Sea Scrolls, archaeology, etc.
User avatar
Blood
Posts: 899
Joined: Sun Oct 06, 2013 8:03 am

Re: Was Christianity started by born Jews?

Post by Blood »

Yes, I've noticed the peculiar silence of the Jesus character when it comes to asserting his own assumed ethnicity. At no point is he quoted as saying something like, "I'm a Jew, these Jews here are my people, and I respect the religion and traditions of my fathers." The reason for this is not that the "historical Jesus" was from Galilee and therefore hated his Jewish "oppressors" based on some forced conversion to the YHWH cult centuries before. It's because the Christian mythographers had inherited a form of the Jewish religion in its Hellenistic/Greek variety but had, over time, become bitterly estranged from ethnically Jewish religious groups. They needed a "messiah" for the Gentiles and developed the Jesus character to fulfill that need.
“The only sensible response to fragmented, slowly but randomly accruing evidence is radical open-mindedness. A single, simple explanation for a historical event is generally a failure of imagination, not a triumph of induction.” William H.C. Propp
User avatar
A_Nony_Mouse
Posts: 181
Joined: Fri Dec 20, 2013 3:48 am

Re: Was Christianity started by born Jews?

Post by A_Nony_Mouse »

Blood wrote:Yes, I've noticed the peculiar silence of the Jesus character when it comes to asserting his own assumed ethnicity. At no point is he quoted as saying something like, "I'm a Jew, these Jews here are my people, and I respect the religion and traditions of my fathers." The reason for this is not that the "historical Jesus" was from Galilee and therefore hated his Jewish "oppressors" based on some forced conversion to the YHWH cult centuries before. It's because the Christian mythographers had inherited a form of the Jewish religion in its Hellenistic/Greek variety but had, over time, become bitterly estranged from ethnically Jewish religious groups. They needed a "messiah" for the Gentiles and developed the Jesus character to fulfill that need.
In fact he gives no sign of respecting the cult of Judea. The closest I can think of is the money-changers temple story where he indicates there is something being profaned by them. But that is buried under "the damned priests are letting this happen."

As to the reason why, most every idea is a guess including mine. However it is sort of nice to have a comprehensive narrative which makes some sense which is what I presented simply by including what can be regarded as a known fact of history.

I am not trying to argue there really was a Jesus. I am saying that like most all fiction writers they took their inspiration from real events. It gives the desired note of verisimilitude to fiction. Even so I would not say that the forced conversion per se it what kept the conflict alive but the tyranny and taxation that all normal people would hate and that kept the memory of the forced conversion alive. It is what we see happening in all history and even in modern times.

I am not trying to address how this particular narrative with this character name got started. Simply pointing out a conflict contained in the story makes sense in known historical context. It does not make sense if one assumes the Septuagint is real history. The folks who wrote it and many of those who read it would come to the story knowing of this conflict and it would have been a perfectly plain read to them. Nothing confusing or contradictory to it at all.
The religion of the priests is not the religion of the people.
Priests are just people with skin in the game and an income to lose.
-- The Iron Webmaster
User avatar
Blood
Posts: 899
Joined: Sun Oct 06, 2013 8:03 am

Re: Was Christianity started by born Jews?

Post by Blood »

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:
Blood wrote:Yes, I've noticed the peculiar silence of the Jesus character when it comes to asserting his own assumed ethnicity. At no point is he quoted as saying something like, "I'm a Jew, these Jews here are my people, and I respect the religion and traditions of my fathers." The reason for this is not that the "historical Jesus" was from Galilee and therefore hated his Jewish "oppressors" based on some forced conversion to the YHWH cult centuries before. It's because the Christian mythographers had inherited a form of the Jewish religion in its Hellenistic/Greek variety but had, over time, become bitterly estranged from ethnically Jewish religious groups. They needed a "messiah" for the Gentiles and developed the Jesus character to fulfill that need.
In fact he gives no sign of respecting the cult of Judea. The closest I can think of is the money-changers temple story where he indicates there is something being profaned by them. But that is buried under "the damned priests are letting this happen."

As to the reason why, most every idea is a guess including mine. However it is sort of nice to have a comprehensive narrative which makes some sense which is what I presented simply by including what can be regarded as a known fact of history.

I am not trying to argue there really was a Jesus. I am saying that like most all fiction writers they took their inspiration from real events. It gives the desired note of verisimilitude to fiction. Even so I would not say that the forced conversion per se it what kept the conflict alive but the tyranny and taxation that all normal people would hate and that kept the memory of the forced conversion alive. It is what we see happening in all history and even in modern times.

I am not trying to address how this particular narrative with this character name got started. Simply pointing out a conflict contained in the story makes sense in known historical context. It does not make sense if one assumes the Septuagint is real history. The folks who wrote it and many of those who read it would come to the story knowing of this conflict and it would have been a perfectly plain read to them. Nothing confusing or contradictory to it at all.
One of the many subtexts of Mark is that only Gentiles recognize that Jesus is the Messiah. "The Jews" (and by this Mark and all Christian writers mean all ethnic Jews, not just the inhabitants of Judea or worshippers of the Temple cult) are so blind and lost in their sins that they cannot acknowledge that Jesus is the Messiah even though he is performing miracles right in front of their eyes. A Roman soldier who is healed is pronounced as having greater faith than all of "the Jews." The whole thing is a transparent polemic against Jews written by and for non-Jews who wanted control over the Septuagint.

It is indeed interesting that the Christian Messiah comes from Galilee, which was known as Galilee of the Gentiles. Considering that the Jesus character's enemies are "the Jews" (not Romans), that the Jesus character never once refers to himself as Jewish, and that the people who perpetuated the Jesus religion were all Gentiles, it does suggest that the evangelists searched the scriptures to find a passage that could be misconstrued to mean that the Messiah would come from an area inhabited by Gentiles. None of this is based on a historic memory of religious oppression by Galilean residents.
“The only sensible response to fragmented, slowly but randomly accruing evidence is radical open-mindedness. A single, simple explanation for a historical event is generally a failure of imagination, not a triumph of induction.” William H.C. Propp
User avatar
A_Nony_Mouse
Posts: 181
Joined: Fri Dec 20, 2013 3:48 am

Re: Was Christianity started by born Jews?

Post by A_Nony_Mouse »

Blood wrote:
A_Nony_Mouse wrote: ...
In fact he gives no sign of respecting the cult of Judea. The closest I can think of is the money-changers temple story where he indicates there is something being profaned by them. But that is buried under "the damned priests are letting this happen."

As to the reason why, most every idea is a guess including mine. However it is sort of nice to have a comprehensive narrative which makes some sense which is what I presented simply by including what can be regarded as a known fact of history.

I am not trying to argue there really was a Jesus. I am saying that like most all fiction writers they took their inspiration from real events. It gives the desired note of verisimilitude to fiction. Even so I would not say that the forced conversion per se it what kept the conflict alive but the tyranny and taxation that all normal people would hate and that kept the memory of the forced conversion alive. It is what we see happening in all history and even in modern times.

I am not trying to address how this particular narrative with this character name got started. Simply pointing out a conflict contained in the story makes sense in known historical context. It does not make sense if one assumes the Septuagint is real history. The folks who wrote it and many of those who read it would come to the story knowing of this conflict and it would have been a perfectly plain read to them. Nothing confusing or contradictory to it at all.
One of the many subtexts of Mark is that only Gentiles recognize that Jesus is the Messiah. "The Jews" (and by this Mark and all Christian writers mean all ethnic Jews, not just the inhabitants of Judea or worshippers of the Temple cult) are so blind and lost in their sins that they cannot acknowledge that Jesus is the Messiah even though he is performing miracles right in front of their eyes. A Roman soldier who is healed is pronounced as having greater faith than all of "the Jews." The whole thing is a transparent polemic against Jews written by and for non-Jews who wanted control over the Septuagint.
That is not unexpected either. In those days a Judean for example remained a Judean no matter what he did and his children were Judeans and their children ad infinitum. They were governed by the laws of their "people" no matter where they lived. A Judean could move to Londinium to escape the temple taxes until a rabbi appeared to demand them. Who would offer the local Roman magistrate a share for the use of a couple centurions to enforce collection if there were a problem. Rome would enforce the Judean laws on Judeans any place in the empire. ("But I am not a Jew!" "Lets find out. Drop your loincloth." Such is the real value of circumcision.)

There was no way to say Jew as in religion until maybe 3rd c. AD. The difference in modern gospel translations between Jew and Judean reflects post 3rd c. ideas which did not exist when they were written.

I really can't say they wanted anything specific with regard to the Septuagint beyond the natural desire to be free of the tyranny of the priests who used it as their authority. What rational people would ever create a religion giving priests such authority? As it happened with Christianity the religion was imposed by the civil authority under penalty of death.
It is indeed interesting that the Christian Messiah comes from Galilee, which was known as Galilee of the Gentiles. Considering that the Jesus character's enemies are "the Jews" (not Romans), that the Jesus character never once refers to himself as Jewish, and that the people who perpetuated the Jesus religion were all Gentiles, it does suggest that the evangelists searched the scriptures to find a passage that could be misconstrued to mean that the Messiah would come from an area inhabited by Gentiles. None of this is based on a historic memory of religious oppression by Galilean residents.
I don't see using "came from" without evidence of real existence. Consider the gospel of Thomas. There is no thematic overlay of local ethnic conflict and it is much less interesting to read. Ethnic conflict used for purpose of teaching makes the story more interesting. If you want to give life to a teaching frame it in conflict. It is a standard device of fiction.
The religion of the priests is not the religion of the people.
Priests are just people with skin in the game and an income to lose.
-- The Iron Webmaster
Post Reply