Biblical Criticism & History Forum - earlywritings.com

• Historicist option: "king of the Jews" was the earliest written witness about the historical Jesus.

• Allegorical but innocent option: by crucifying the "king of the Jews", the Jews crucify the political independence of their country.

• Allegorical but malevolent option: "king of the Jews" means polemically what Jesus was not: the Jesus Son of an Unknown Father ("Bar-Abbas").

• Historicist option: "king of the Jews" was the earliest written witness about the historical Jesus.

Lord.

• Allegorical but malevolent option: "king of the Jews" means polemically what Jesus was not: the Jesus Son of an Unknown Father ("Bar-Abbas").

Liar.

• Allegorical but innocent option: by crucifying the "king of the Jews", the Jews crucify the political independence of their country.

Lunatic.

Actually Epiphanius in Panarion seems to suggest both a historical and a metaphysical reason. Jesus was the seed of David and combined the two roles of king and high priest, and then passed those roles onto the Church. So the Church has had the role of both King and High Priest continually since then:

And do you... believe to Epiphanius??!

No, I'm not a Christian, if that's what you mean by "believe Epiphanius". If you mean do I think that the early Church had the belief as per Epiphanius, then yes. Paul wrote that Christians were adopted into Christ as heirs of David; Book of Hebrews wrote that Jesus was a High Priest. Both those roles -- descent from David and High Priest -- constituted the roles for the King of the Jews. But in the Gospels Jesus was called that only by gentiles -- magi, Pilate and Roman soldiers. It was a political label and so dangerous. He never claimed it for himself. But it would have been less dangerous if the label was claimed metaphorically by an organisation I guess.

If you are not a Christian, then the your interpretation falls entirely under what I have named:

• the historicist option: "king of the Jews" was the earliest written witness about the historical Jesus.

Giuseppe wrote: ↑Sun Aug 11, 2024 12:02 am If you are not a Christian, then the your interpretation falls entirely under what I have named:

• the historicist option: "king of the Jews" was the earliest written witness about the historical Jesus.

To be honest I don't know what you meant by your options. It just reminded me of CS Lewis's Trilemma.

What do you mean "king of the Jews" was the earliest written witness about the historical Jesus?

GakuseiDon wrote: ↑Sun Aug 11, 2024 1:57 am

Giuseppe wrote: ↑Sun Aug 11, 2024 12:02 am If you are not a Christian, then the your interpretation falls entirely under what I have named:

• the historicist option: "king of the Jews" was the earliest written witness about the historical Jesus.

To be honest I don't know what you meant by your options. It just reminded me of CS Lewis's Trilemma.

Only a Christian can say that the historicist option (see above) is labelled as: 'Lord'.

GakuseiDon wrote: ↑Sun Aug 11, 2024 1:57 am What do you mean "king of the Jews" was the earliest written witness about the historical Jesus?

I mean that if you think that

GakuseiDon wrote: ↑Sat Aug 10, 2024 10:15 pm It was a political label and so dangerous.

...then the titulus crucis precedes chronologically all the epistles of Paul and all the gospels.


I wonder about this:

GakuseiDon wrote: ↑Sat Aug 10, 2024 10:15 pm He never claimed it for himself.

are you aware that the Jesus of Bermejo-Rubio is the current best portrait of a hypothetical historical Jesus ? Why do you de-politicize him by proposing a pacifist Jesus? It seems that you are still influenced by Christian schemas.

Giuseppe wrote: ↑Sun Aug 11, 2024 4:03 am

GakuseiDon wrote: ↑Sun Aug 11, 2024 1:57 amWhat do you mean "king of the Jews" was the earliest written witness about the historical Jesus?

I mean that if you think that

GakuseiDon wrote: ↑Sat Aug 10, 2024 10:15 pm It was a political label and so dangerous.

...then the titulus crucis precedes chronologically all the epistles of Paul and all the gospels.

Can you explain why it precedes the epistles of Paul? It is absent in Paul and first used in the Gospels AFAIK.

"King of the Jews" was a political title, one granted by Rome to Herod the Great, and then to his successors. "Christ" is anointed by God (not by the Romans!) who was king and high priest as well. Paul doesn't use "king of the Jews" to describe Christ, and in the Gospels Jesus is called that by non-Jews like Pilate, the magi and Roman soldiers.

Giuseppe wrote: ↑Sun Aug 11, 2024 4:03 amI wonder about this:

GakuseiDon wrote: ↑Sat Aug 10, 2024 10:15 pm He never claimed it for himself.

are you aware that the Jesus of Bermejo-Rubio is the current best portrait of a hypothetical historical Jesus ? Why do you de-politicize him by proposing a pacifist Jesus? It seems that you are still influenced by Christian schemas.

I don't know any early source that had Jesus claim for himself that he was "King of the Jews". Nothing to do with a pacifist Jesus.

GakuseiDon wrote: ↑Sun Aug 11, 2024 2:26 pm I don't know any early source that had Jesus claim for himself that he was "King of the Jews".

under the historicist paradigm, the titulus crucis was probably historical because it reflected probably what Jesus wanted to become himself. As such, the titulus preceded the writing of epistles and gospels.