So did Jesus live or what?

[ceo_esq]

You’re playing semantic games. Let us look at a different translation.

...

Sounds like domestic violence.

Each of those other translations lends itself equally well to the interpretation Rufo, davefoc and I offered, which is the most plausible interpretation in the light of the rest of Matthew's Gospel.

But even if these images sound like domestic violence to you, Matthew's Jesus obviously does not urge anyone to engage in domestic violence or to make any particular person their enemy (and again, remember what Jesus taught about how to treat your enemies if you have any).

Would Martin Luther King, Jr. be urging violence by noting that the values of the civil rights campaign would divide families and communities, and generate some enmity?

I took the whole passage as yet another example of biblical inconsistency. Jesus the one that is to save the world says that he’s here to break up families.

Nothing intrinsically inconsistent there. Abraham Lincoln saved the country, but on the way to doing it he was responsible for bitterly dividing many American families.

A teaching (whether a very good or a very bad one) that indirectly provokes discord and even violence is not the same thing as a violent teaching.

Is there any disagreement of what I’ve been repeating, that Jesus was a dooms day prophet?

I don't know what credentials are required to qualify as a "doomsday prophet". If it simply means a religious visionary at least some of whose teachings are eschatological, then the Jesus of Matthew's Gospel certainly fits the bill.

 

[Ossai]

ceo_esq

But even if these images sound like domestic violence to you, Matthew's Jesus obviously does not urge anyone to engage in domestic violence or to make any particular person their enemy (and again, remember what Jesus taught about how to treat your enemies if you have any).

Insult them.

Ossai

 

[ceo_esq]

Insult them.

Heh heh. Seriously, though, I had in mind the following: "Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you" (Mt 5:44).

 

[CapelDodger]

... and the fact that we know that myths can be formed without actual historical reference ...

Can we know that? It involves proving a negative in most cases, certainly in those as distant in time as Jesus or, say, Mithras. Even modern nationalist myth-makers base their myths on real events.

The history of Palestine at the time is well-established, from Pompey's visit through the Herodians, the Maccabean reaction, Vespasian, and so on. Set in the wider context of Roman Empire replacing Republic, the decay of the Seleucids and Ptolemies, all that stuff. Could a core-character of Jesus have existed in that context, and subsequently accrued the stories of more-or-less contemporary characters? Most certainly. I think it very unlikely that the stories would accrue to an entirely imaginary character.

 

[CapelDodger]

What was Matthew trying to accomplish by including this in his story?

Is this one of the Jesus quotes that might be original or at least trace back to an original tradition and Matthew threw it in because he was moved to include what he knew of the original traditions into his story even if it didn't quite fit with his overall theme.

I suspect he was obliged to include what was widely known (in his target audience) of the original traditions. Given the destruction of Jerusalem (home to the original, pre-Pauline cult) traditions about a Jesus must have been well-established before 71CE. IMO, that's strong evidence of a Jesus individual existing only thirty or forty years prior.

 

[CapelDodger]

Geez, you sure know how to interpret things the worst way possible, don't you?
I've always interpreted this more as a comment to his new teachings. Of course the young ones who are supposedly more interested in his teachings will get in conflict with their parents who sticks with the old ones. Jesus understood that he would cause conflict - and I'm not talking about divination here, but simple common sense, since he was indeed radical. "Not to send peace, but a sword." Also fits in. Of course there was going to be a mess, and Jesus knew that. Domestic violence? Aren't you making your conclusions a bit too fast here?

I'm not saying Jesus is all peace, love and understanding, though.

"“For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law.”

These are the sayings of a cultist, such as Paul. If Jesus existed he would not have said these words. The religious climate he grew up in did not preach revolution and disruption, but rebellion and expulsion of the disruptive forces. The aim was to free the people of Yahweh to re-form their essential unity and purity. Violence was inherent in the whole Maccabean period, but not within families. Between nations and classes.

(The violence within the Maccabean family is inherent in dynasties. )

 

[Complexity]

Whether this Jesus lived or not is of little consequence.

His followers will claim that he did live.
Some will claim that he did not live.

Nothing in the present will change, even if the facts were to be widely established.

I simply don't care.

 

[CapelDodger]

Whether this Jesus lived or not is of little consequence.

No doubt, but I find it an interesting question. Intriguing even. On a larger scale, the existence of Christianity is of great consequence, and the reason for it is also intriguing. I doubt it has much to do with any actual Jesus's philosophy, it's far more to do with Graeco-Roman society in the relevant period, but how did this pseudo-Judaic element muscle its way onto the stage?

Apart from which, what actually happened in Palestine around that time? It's a mystery with many clues and false leads. That has to be intriguing.

 

[Ossai]

ceo_esq

Heh heh. Seriously, though,

I was serious.

Turn the other cheek was something of an insult at the time.
Wikipedia.


Complexity

Whether this Jesus lived or not is of little consequence.

His followers will claim that he did live.
Some will claim that he did not live.

Nothing in the present will change, even if the facts were to be widely established.

I simply don't care.

If you were not interested, you would not be posting.

Ossai

 

[ceo_esq]

I was serious.

Turn the other cheek was something of an insult at the time.
Wikipedia.

Er... where in the article is that established?

 

[davefoc]

Rough scenario for the formation of the development of the early Christian church assuming the existence of a real life Jesus:

Numerous Jewish cults exist at around the time of the supposed life of Jesus. At least some of these consist of people whose first or second language is Greek. The notion that a messiah is on the way is part of the theology of some of these cults.

Jesus is prominent in and perhaps the founder of one of these cults.

Jesus is killed by the Romans for reasons not known for sure. Perhaps because he pissed off the Jewish priestly hierarchy, but more likely because he pissed off the Romans.

James, the brother of Jesus, leads and develops a Jewish based cult after the death of Jesus. The James cult seems to still respect Jewish customs and Jewish religious laws. It is possible that some of the members of the John the Baptist cult fold into the Jewish Jesus cult at this time. The John the Baptist cult seems to have been a pretty big thing at this time given the 19 references to JtB by Josephus.

Paul, pitches a new religion to Hellenized Jews and probably gentiles with a fictionalized Jesus as a key component. Paul makes a variety of trips where he pitches his ideas to various congregations. The letters of Paul, at least four of which are judged to be absolutely authentic, provide some documentation of these trips. Acts provides some more documentation, unfortunately, Luke, the presumed author of Acts, does not have good credibility as an historical source. Paul may have been well placed to fulfill this role as the founder of a religion based on Judaism to non-Jews. It is believed that he was not born a Jew but rather was a Greek that converted to Judaism.

Paul and the leaders of the Jewish oriented Jesus cult have disputes about the nature of the new relgion that Paul is creating. Eventually Paul and the Jewish Jesus cult split completely.

Paul may have been killed in Rome. Different dates are estimated for this but apparently the death is around 64 ce.

It is possible that the Jewish Jesus cults are dealt a significant setback with the destruction of Jerusalem by Rome in 70 ce. At any rate there is no writing by the founders of this movement that have survived. However it is possible that some of their writings were preserved in the writing of some of the early Christian Church fathers. There are not contemporaneous descriptions of the movement. The closest are the few mentions by Josephus of Jesus. At least some of these Jewish Jesus sects existed into the second century ce. It is possible that these Jewish Jesus sects are referred to as Ebionites by early Christian writers.

Sometime around the death of Paul, people begin to write Gospel type stories of Jesus. These may capture oral traditions from earlier times, but their lack of historical consistency together with other problems suggest that they are of limited value as historical documents.

These Gospel type stories, have considerable traction with people and a variety of early Church leaders come forth to interpret them and to develop the theological details for a new religion.

OK, that's my cut at it, comments?

A few things I think are interesting, and seem to provide clues but I don't know quite what to make of them.

The Ebionites supposedly had as their one and only Gospel a truncated version of Matthew (no birth story). It makes sense that they would use Mathhew since that it is the Gospel that is most correct with respect to Judaism. But what to make of the fact that Matthew supposedly was written after Mark. Is the theory that the Ebionite religion was cross pollinated from the Gentile Gospel writers? Or did a truncated and perhaps quite different early Matthew serve as a source for the later Gospels?

Another area of interest to me is exactly who was Paul teaching to initially. Had Judaism in some form spread to non-Ethnic Jews in a significant way? Or are these early congregations that Paul is preaching to made of mostly Hellenized Jews?

The anti-semitic element in the Gospels indicates to me that the target audience for the Gospel writers was Gentiles. So exactly what is going on here? Somehow, even before the writing of the Gospels a some non-ethnic Jews have been recruited into a Jewish Jesus religion. Now the Gospel writers set the hook by coming up with the anti-semitic angle?

 

[ceo_esq]

The anti-semitic element in the Gospels indicates to me that the target audience for the Gospel writers was Gentiles.

I see two related problems (at least) with that thesis: first, any anti-semitic element actually present in the Gospels is very restrained at most; and second, there's arguably a stronger anti-Gentile element in the Gospels.

 

[davefoc]

I see the story about how the crowd chose Barrabas over Jesus as a story designed to shift the blame for the execution of Jesus from the Romans to the Jews. It seems like the purpose here is to give a gentile audience a sense of superiority over the Jews who had the messiah in their midst and rather than recognize him for the devine being he was chose to have him killed.

That was what I meant be anti-Semitic, although perhaps that was not the right term.

The other reason I had for believing the target audience of the Gospels was Gentile is that Mark is said to have made a number of errors with respect to Jewish Law in his Gospel. So Mark appears not to have been a Jew. Matthew is said to have corrected these. So the Gospel believed to be the first written,Mark, seems to have been written by a non-Jew and so I inferred that his target audience was probably non-Jewish.

 

[Ossai]

ceo_esq

I was serious.

Turn the other cheek was something of an insult at the time.
Wikipedia.

Er... where in the article is that established?

The second interpretations: Historical, figurative interpretation – trying to get the other person to break the law.

 

[ceo_esq]

The second interpretations: Historical, figurative interpretation – trying to get the other person to break the law.

That seems to relate to the other verses rather than cheek-turning. At any rate, even if that interpretation is accurate, it certainly doesn't seem to be an insult as such, particularly in comparison with, say, striking someone in the face. Part of the point of passive resistance is to place the aggressor in circumstances such that he must desist or be shamed.

 

[CapelDodger]

I see the story about how the crowd chose Barrabas over Jesus as a story designed to shift the blame for the execution of Jesus from the Romans to the Jews. It seems like the purpose here is to give a gentile audience a sense of superiority over the Jews who had the messiah in their midst and rather than recognize him for the devine being he was chose to have him killed.

It's widely thought that Mark was written in Rome not long after Titus's triumph in 71CE. This was not a good time and place for a cult to be associated with Jewish rebels, or Jews generally. Nor was it a good idea to be accusing the Roman state of killing the only true god and creator. So blame was transferred (via Pilate's reluctance) from Romans to corrupt Temple-huggers. Jesus is also distanced from the rebellion by the "Give unto Caesar" scene; Roman taxation of a god-given land was a religious as well as economic grievance. Mark portrays Jesus as being above such things.

The effect was, of course, to accuse Jews of killing the one true god and creator, and the result was Christian anti-semitism.

 

[CapelDodger]

Another area of interest to me is exactly who was Paul teaching to initially. Had Judaism in some form spread to non-Ethnic Jews in a significant way? Or are these early congregations that Paul is preaching to made of mostly Hellenized Jews?

There was much interest in religion in the Graeco-Roman world at this time. Greeks (with Alexander) and Romans (with the Empire) had been exposed all these sophisticated mystical cults of the East, and to a world that was clearly too big for their old gods. Religion was all the rage for the fashionable and rich - think Madonna and such-like air-heads - and to the philosophically-minded.

Jews became widespread in the Western Med after the destruction of the Phoenician trade-system (somebody had to take up the slack and the Romans didn't have the expertise or the contacts) so Judaism attracted some attention. Greek and Jewish scholars found they had a lot in common, not so much in their answers as in their questions and the way they argued them. This led to a variety of efforts, mostly in Alexandria, to form a synthesis of Greek and Jewish thought. None succeeded, but to philosophers the journey is more important than the arrival.

Synagogues attracted a gentile "congregation" that didn't fully convert (live by the Torah) but accepted many of the precepts. They were known as "God-Fearers". This, I suspect, was the audience that Paul was playing to.

 

[Marc L]

What level of evidence will suffice?

A real, verified mention by anyone living in Jerusalem or Galilee during that era.



It's [the New Testament-Marc] a foundation.
[/QUOTE]


And a very shaky one at that. Matthew puts him at the time of Herod, who commits a deed not referred to by anyone during that era. I find it odd that a king ordered the slaughter of a large group of one year old boys, and no one said anything. Luke puts him at the time of Quirinis (???), who, if I recall correctly, was governer about 10 years later. Both of them claim that he lived in a town that didn't even exist at the time!

Beyond that, there were well known people (Philo, Gamilel, Saul of Tarsus...) who lived in Jerusalem at the time Jesus is said to have cleared the temple, entered the city on a donkey, been arrested, and then cruicified, and no one said anything!

The silence is especially odd considering what a travesty of Roman justice Jesus' "trial" was. A Roman governer finding a man innocent, but sentencing him to death anyways? Not likely.

Even Paul doesn't seem to be aware that Jesus was a real human. He never once mentions his life, his miracles, or his preachings. No Sermon on the Mount, the Lord's Prayer, anything. In addition, there's at least one time that Jesus' words in the Gospels could have bolstered Paul's argument, and he doesn't say anything.

Marc

 

[ceo_esq]

And a very shaky one at that. Matthew puts him at the time of Herod, who commits a deed not referred to by anyone during that era. I find it odd that a king ordered the slaughter of a large group of one year old boys, and no one said anything.

What makes you think the number of male children of the relevant age living in the relevant village was very large? It might have meant a dozen victims; it might have meant a half-dozen. Josephus indicates that Herod was responsible for putting a great many people to death during his reign, and at the time Herod's atrocity, if it occurred, might not have seemed that unusual. And of course, we don't know if the event was recorded or not; only that no record apart from the Gospels survives.

Even Paul doesn't seem to be aware that Jesus was a real human. He never once mentions his life, his miracles, or his preachings. No Sermon on the Mount, the Lord's Prayer, anything."
Marc

Surely this is an exaggeration. Paul refers to the Incarnation, the Last Supper, and the Resurrection, for example. He also cites sayings attributed to Jesus.

 

[Melendwyr]

What makes you think the number of male children of the relevant age living in the relevant village was very large? It might have meant a dozen victims; it might have meant a half-dozen.

Since the village didn't exist, the number of victims was probably even smaller.