Biblical Criticism & History Forum - earlywritings.com

to outhouse,

provided as much as you attribute to him, how long do you think it takes to learn enough Judaism to take over an apocalyptic movement?

Learn enough Judaism? Jesus started in life as a Jew. He did not have to learn Judaism from John.

do you think someone just walks in and takes over Johns work?

How do you know Jesus took over John's work and his movement?

Or would it be Johns right hand?

What next? John's boss!

This statement would ONLY apply in Mark was not a compilation, and the story originated like fiction from this one author.

Yes, true for alleged most Jesus' sayings and all his parables.

While the Roman audience was important to the author. many of these traditions even though plagiarized from the OT text, show agrarian backgrounds and poverty typical of Galilean and other locations. There is also a lot of anti tax rhetoric in its themes which should have an Aramaic core.

Well, fairly easy to concoct even if you are a city folk in the Greek speaking world. Even a city dweller would be aware on what was going on in the countryside when walking outside the city walls.
What anti tax rhetoric? "Mark" had Jesus approving to pay tax to the emperor.
BTW, I take as mostly authentic some sayings by Jesus, sayings incorporating some agrarian & apocalyptic bits as an uneducated rural Jew would tell them: http://historical-jesus.info/86.html

Cordially, Bernard

Bernard Muller wrote: Learn enough Judaism? Jesus started in life as a Jew. He did not have to learn Judaism from John.



Cordially, Bernard

Faulty methodology


I was a Christian, for 35 years raised in a private church school by nuns until the 5th grade. But I literally knew nothing and could not teach until taking classes from a teacher.

Being a peasant day laborer in small satellite village does not mean one day you decide you can teach Judaism with a change in attitude.

Bernard Muller wrote: How do you know Jesus took over John's work and his movement?


Cordially, Bernard

Jesus sought out John out of all the places and teachers he could have learned from, he sought out John. Makes him a follower of John.

Jesus ministry starts exactly at Johns death. It also shows Jesus doing the opposite of John so he would not end up beheaded like John

Jesus followers, some anyway, were Johns followers

Their teachings, can you tell me how they were different?

What makes you think both movements were not political in nature? There is a reason why Hellenist labeled Aramaic Galileans as Zealots.

What next?

Jesus was "next" in line.

Do you think that the heated oppressed Aramaic people in Galilee who looked up to John, just stopped after Johns death.

OR was Johns Aramaic movement so popular that upon his death a vacuum was formed that needed to be filled by a new leader?

to outhouse,

Being a peasant day laborer in small satellite village does not mean one day you decide you can teach Judaism with a change in attitude.

Where did you get that Jesus became a teacher of Judaism?

Jesus sought out John out of all the places and teachers he could have learned from, he sought out John. Makes him a follower of John.

Many Jews sought out John to be baptized, not necessarily to be taught Judaism. Remain to see if John ever taught Judaism to anyone. According to Josephus and the gospels, his message was very limited, centered on the near arrival of the Kingdom of God necessitating a complete cleansing. Not a central theme of Judaism.

Jesus ministry starts exactly at Johns death. It also shows Jesus doing the opposite of John so he would not end up beheaded like John

That's what make me believe Jesus stayed around John up to his arrest, instead of, according to the Synoptics, going through that mythological temptation in the desert.
I agree that Jesus was afraid of attracting crowds for various reasons, not necessarily only to escape Antipas' attention. Once again, that does not make him a long term student, nor the leader of the alleged John's movement.

Jesus followers, some anyway, were Johns followers

I accept that.

Their teachings, can you tell me how they were different?

Their so-called teachings were very limited.
John & Jesus believed in the soon to arrive Kingdom.
John thought better to be cleansed (body & mind) in order to avoid God's wrath, by way of immersion in water (baptism).
Jesus never became a baptizer. For him, the poor Jews will be, almost systematically, the only beneficiaries of that Kingdom.
So there were differences.

What makes you think both movements were not political in nature?

I think both Jesus & John avoided to be political, at least up to their last days as free men. That would have been suicidal otherwise.
What put Jesus into trouble, in his last days only, the fact he was acclaimed a would be king near Jerusalem AND he did the disturbance in the temple.
What put John in trouble was that Antipas thought John (who attracted huge crowds then) may turn these crowds against his impending wedding with Herodias, through mass opposition in Galilee.
So some politics right before their respective arrest, but hardly none before.

There is a reason why Hellenist labeled Aramaic Galileans as Zealots.

But I think that was well after Jesus & John's times. Anyway, according to Josephus, at the start of the 66-70 war, few of these Aramaic Galileans were zealots.

Here are a short webpage with the links between Jesus & John, how Jesus was seen as the future King by some, what made him locally popular, why he got executed, etc.: http://historical-jesus.info/digest.html

Cordially, Bernard

Bernard Muller wrote: But I think that was well after Jesus & John's times.


Cordially, Bernard

Well it was not.

Zealot already existed with the leveling of Sepphoris with Judas the Galilean.

to outhouse,

Jesus was "next" in line.

It is a gross exaggeration that Jesus replaced John in the eyes of many.

Do you think that the heated oppressed Aramaic people in Galilee who looked up to John, just stopped after Johns death.

People in Judea were also oppressed, but no revolt for decades. I do not see evidence these Galileans were so "heated". At the onset of the 66-70 war, while Judea had already revolted, Galilee did not yet. It took some times for Josephus to raise an army which was a lot more interested in pillages of Galilean cities rather than fighting the Romans.

OR was Johns Aramaic movement so popular that upon his death a vacuum was formed that needed to be filled by a new leader?

John's prophecy of the Kingdom to come soon was indeed popular for a long time after his arrest and Jesus was one among other Jews to believe in that. There was no need for a new leader for that. If Jesus were the new leader, he would have kept the baptizing going on in the Jordan valley, replacing John.

Cordially, Bernard

to outhouse,

Zealot already existed with the leveling of Sepphoris with Judas the Galilean.

But it is agreed the zealot movement was dormant during Jesus & John's times.

Cordially, Bernard

To outhouse:
Maybe Bernard has me on ignore, and you need to remind him of the long quote I cited from Charlesworth's review of the 2013 book by Bock and Webb. I posted it here May 15:
'Turns out to be true. At least per James H. Charlesworth in "A Review of Darrell L. Bock and Robert Webb (eds.), Key Events in the Life of the Historical Jesus", pp. 203-223 in Journal for the Study of the Historical Jesus, 2013 (3). At page 207:
"The Evangelist Mark correctly indicated that John's baptism of Jesus was most likely the key event in Jesus' life....'

Bernard Muller wrote:to outhouse,

Zealot already existed with the leveling of Sepphoris with Judas the Galilean.

But it is agreed the zealot movement was dormant during Jesus & John's times.

Cordially, Bernard

No.

Zealot was a description of Aramaic Galileans, by Hellenist more so then a political movement.


And the sicarii were active