The Real Bottom Line in the Mythicism Debate

[pakeha]

Could you expand on how the Roman trial and execution of Jesus fit into the framework of The Divinity of the OT?
If you've already blogged about this, I'd appreciate links to your articles.
Thanks!

In brief for now: [ respectfully snipped for space]

Thanks very much for pointing me in these directions.
You've given me a lot to learn!

At the end of the day, though, we're talking about a literary devise using the "ironical Roman triumph" and "prophecied Suffering Servant" rather than describing an actual event?

[neilgodfrey]

At the end of the day, though, we're talking about a literary devise using the "ironical Roman triumph" and "prophecied Suffering Servant" rather than describing an actual event?

Yes. Or rather the actual event was the Jewish War culminating in the destruction of Jerusalem and its Temple. Jews basically appear to have reacted in two different ways: one that led to orthodox Christianity and the other that led to rabbinic Judaism.

[The Crow]

At the end of the day, though, we're talking about a literary devise using the "ironical Roman triumph" and "prophecied Suffering Servant" rather than describing an actual event?

Yes. Or rather the actual event was the Jewish War culminating in the destruction of Jerusalem and its Temple. Jews basically appear to have reacted in two different ways: one that led to orthodox Christianity and the other that led to rabbinic Judaism.

I think that the real bottom line here is simple. Mythicists choose to go outside the Bible and Bible believers choose to stay in it. I do have two questions. How do you justify an historical person that is mentioned some 100-200 years after the fact? Does the mear mention of a name like jesus some 200 years later really support an historical person? In a court of law this hear say but apparently it does not hold standard when it comes to a jesus.

[PhilosopherJay]

Hi all,

Just a thought here, the process of authority recognition would have reflected the way the emperor gained his authority. After the temple's destruction, Vespasian had authority due to recognition by the army. Titus (81-83) and Domitian (91-96) got their authority from their natural father Vespasian. This natural kinship ended in 96, when Nerva got his authority from the Senate. The next five emperors were all adopted sons of the prior emperor starting with Trajan in 98. It was not until Commodius (177-189), the natural son of Marcus Aurelius, that natural kinship again because a mark of legitimate authority. This would suggest that the gospel of Mark and John with their adoptive authority code were written between 98 and 177. Matthew and Luke with authority derived derived from sonship would have to have been written either before Nerva, before 96, or after Commodius 177. Since Matthew and Luke are familiar with the adoptive mode of authority transfer evidenced in Mark and John, one may suppose that they were written after Commodius in 177.
Thus we can date Mark and John (the adoptive gospels) between 98 and 177 and Matthew and Luke (the post adoptive, natural son gospels) post 177.

I agree totally with Stephen's bottom line position that the gospels are there to explain the fall of the Temple, i.e. the Jewish-Christian defeat at the hands of the Romans in numerous wars.

Warmly,

Jay Raskin

[The Crow]

Hi all,

Just a thought here, the process of authority recognition would have reflected the way the emperor gained his authority. After the temple's destruction, Vespasian had authority due to recognition by the army. Titus (81-83) and Domitian (91-96) got their authority from their natural father Vespasian. This natural kinship ended in 96, when Nerva got his authority from the Senate. The next five emperors were all adopted sons of the prior emperor starting with Trajan in 98. It was not until Commodius (177-189), the natural son of Marcus Aurelius, that natural kinship again because a mark of legitimate authority. This would suggest that the gospel of Mark and John with their adoptive authority code were written between 98 and 177. Matthew and Luke with authority derived derived from sonship would have to have been written either before Nerva, before 96, or after Commodius 177. Since Matthew and Luke are familiar with the adoptive mode of authority transfer evidenced in Mark and John, one may suppose that they were written after Commodius in 177.
Thus we can date Mark and John (the adoptive gospels) between 98 and 177 and Matthew and Luke (the post adoptive, natural son gospels) post 177.

I agree totally with Stephen's bottom line position that the gospels are there to explain the fall of the Temple, i.e. the Jewish-Christian defeat at the hands of the Romans in numerous wars.

Warmly,

Jay Raskin

Well Jay if thats the case why involve a trumped up god man? I fail to see where a jesus plays any role in this.

[Stephan Huller]

Because the myth whether developed from a historical individual or invented fiction serves a social need. What purpose does Jesus the crazy Jewish law breaking magician serve? How does it explain God's role in the destruction of Judaism?

[Charles Wilson]

Because the myth whether developed from a historical individual or invented fiction serves a social need. What purpose does Jesus the crazy Jewish law breaking magician serve? How does it explain God's role in the destruction of Judaism?

Look at Herod's Ascension. Nicholas of Damascus created a fake Genealogy for Antipater so that if Herod had wanted, he could have been King and High Priest. This MAY be the Genealogy seen in Matthew 1. How? Herod's manufactured credentials have Herod's forebears being members of the "Principal Jews" Jews that came through the Babylonian Captivity. LO! The Matthean Genealogy shows:

[11] and Josi'ah the father of Jechoniah and his brothers, at the time of the deportation to Babylon.
[12] And after the deportation to Babylon: Jechoni'ah was the father of She-al'ti-el, and She-al'ti-el the father of Zerub'babel,

As listed in another Post in another thread from today, Josephus marks the deck in telling how Cestius left Jerusalem as he was on the verge of ending the Jewish War before it fully began. This after God has decided to allow the end of Jerusalem, the Temple and the Parking Garage because God was sick of it all.

How convenient! God decides to go shopping while His People get powdered - "Well, might as well let those Romans take over the Worship business. They're so good at running Empires and they get everybody to pay their taxes. Now there's social need, right there..."

Good point, SH...

CW

[Stephan Huller]

Wtf does any of this have to do with Herod?

[Charles Wilson]

Wtf does any of this have to do with Herod?

"How do we legitimize Herod? Hell, if he wants to be King and High Priest, I'll just make up a Genealogy showing that his family came through the Babylonian Captivity..."

"How do we legitimize Jesus? Hell, we'll make'im King and High Priest. Don't matter none if he's disfigured or a human sacrifice. We'll just show that he's Chosen by God. Where's that Genealogy that ol' Nick drew up..."

[Stephan Huller]

But this has nothing to do with this thread. Please stop bringing this Herod obsession of yours into this thread