Biblical Criticism & History Forum - earlywritings.com

MrMacSon wrote: ↑Thu Jun 08, 2023 4:04 pm Jesus was situated in the early first century to overcome all the other deified supreme deities

lclapshaw wrote: ↑Thu Jun 08, 2023 10:58 am

neilgodfrey wrote: ↑Thu Jun 08, 2023 12:17 am
But I agree with the author that it is going too far to dispense with Judaism entirely as the birthplace. Maybe more attention needs to be given to the fact that there were many Jews in educated circles and even high political places in the times of the Julio-Claudians and then the Flavians, especially under Domitian's rule -- and the Diaspora Judaism and associated proselytes and god-fearers acting as a bridge between the gentile and Jewish world may be seen as a collective "dark horse". If only we could recover how those people ere talking with both their Jewish and gentile associates.

In Josephus, we have at least one prime example of a wealthy, educated, upper crust Jewish person becoming a permanent fixture in Roman society post war. I don't consider it a stretch that this was relatively common under the Flavians.

Peter Kirby wrote: ↑Thu Jun 08, 2023 4:32 pm Is the contrast with the imperial cult accidental or the point?

MrMacSon wrote: ↑Thu Jun 08, 2023 4:04 pm Jesus was situated in the early first century to over[whelm] all the other deified* supreme deities* [including Augustus]

• ( *the tautology was deliberate )

Peter Kirby wrote: ↑Thu Jun 08, 2023 4:32 pm
Luke 2:1 has Jesus explicitly being born in the reign of Caesar Augustus. References to Jesus being 30 years old (apocryphal), or not yet fifty (John), or born in the time of Herod (Matthew) also put his birth in the long reign of Augustus (16 January 27 BC – 19 August AD 14), given that his death is in the reign of Tiberius (17 September 14 – 16 March 37) and when Pilate was prefect of Judea (26/27 to 36/37). The birth of Caesar Augustus was considered particularly auspicious, and the emperor himself made sure to publicize astrological information about himself that confirmed his destiny as emperor. Augustus put the sign of the capricorn on his coins, and poets published on the theme.

All of them have Jesus die under Tiberius ... Tacitus' first emperor in the Annals is Tiberius:

https://www.britannica.com/biography/Ta ... -historian

Yet he did not begin with Augustus, except by cold reference to his memory. The modern world tends to think of Augustus as the founder of the empire. The Romans—one may cite Appian of Alexandria and Publius Annius Florus alongside Tacitus—regarded him, at least during the first part of his career, as the last of the warlords who had dominated the republic.

In the gospels, Jesus comes preaching a "kingdom," this one a "kingdom of God." Crucified, but still the Son of God. His followers, later, refuse to sacrifice to the gods or to the emperor.

Peter Kirby wrote: ↑Thu Jun 08, 2023 4:32 pm

MrMacSon wrote: ↑Thu Jun 08, 2023 4:04 pm Jesus was situated in the early first century to overcome all the other deified supreme deities

Luke 2:1 has Jesus explicitly being born in the reign of Caesar Augustus. References to Jesus being 30 years old (apocryphal), or not yet fifty (John), or born in the time of Herod (Matthew) also put his birth in the long reign of Augustus (16 January 27 BC – 19 August AD 14), given that his death is in the reign of Tiberius (17 September 14 – 16 March 37) and when Pilate was prefect of Judea (26/27 to 36/37). The birth of Caesar Augustus was considered particularly auspicious, and the emperor himself made sure to publicize astrological information about himself that confirmed his destiny as emperor. Augustus put the sign of the capricorn on his coins, and poets published on the theme.

All of them have Jesus die under Tiberius. Regarding Tacitus, his first emperor in the Annals is Tiberius:

https://www.britannica.com/biography/Ta ... -historian

Yet he did not begin with Augustus, except by cold reference to his memory. The modern world tends to think of Augustus as the founder of the empire. The Romans—one may cite Appian of Alexandria and Publius Annius Florus alongside Tacitus—regarded him, at least during the first part of his career, as the last of the warlords who had dominated the republic.

In the gospels, Jesus comes preaching a "kingdom," this one a "kingdom of God." Crucified, but still the Son of God. His followers, later, refuse to sacrifice to the gods or to the emperor. Is the contrast with the imperial cult accidental or the point?

MrMacSon wrote: ↑Thu Jun 08, 2023 4:04 pm But denying Jesus' ethnicity as a Jew does not mean that he was not Jewish. Here Zelinsky slips another curious thought, not expressed directly, but implied. He reminds historians of the fact: on the very eve of the first century, Galilee was subjected to forced Judaization, which took place very cruelly - with forced circumcision and the forced introduction of the Law of Moses [6. C. 16-17]. Zelinsky does not continue this idea, but there is a natural assumption that Jesus was born into a family subjected to such forced Judaization and, therefore, became a Jew "involuntarily." This means that we may well ascribe to him not just a cold, but a profoundly negative attitude towards the religion to which his parents and himself were forcibly converted