Zealot

[Lorizael]

At work, we are required to read books from our inventory so that we can sound informed when talking to customers. I do the former, but never the latter because I'm a rebel like that. Anyway, currently reading Zealot: The Life and Times of Jesus of Nazareth by the evil Muslim Reza Lion Jesus. The book attempts to paint a picture of the historical Jesus by placing him in the context of Roman-occupied Israel.

So, at the time, there was a lot of political agitation by Jewish dissidents claiming the end was near and a messiah was coming, culminating in a rebellion that was mercilessly crushed and left Jerusalem in ruins. Jesus, then, was probably one of these dudes, a laborer who heard about this cool guy John the Baptist and took up John's work after he was executed. But then Jesus made the mistake of leading a minor assault on the money changers in the Temple, leading to his arrest and crucifixion because (a) claiming to be the King of the Jews was treasonous and (b) disturbing the apparatus by which taxes were sent back to Rome threatened Roman control of the region.

One of the large points the book seems to be making is that reconciling the seemingly contradictory aspects of Jesus (hippy pothead/guy who comes to bring a sword, not peace) has to be done in the light of the aforementioned crushed rebellion. The Gospel writers had to make Jesus' message appear acceptable to Roman authorities but also appealing to gentiles and pagans. So the message of Jesus gets transformed from one of rebellion against enslavers of the Jewish people to one of peace and love and bringing about a metaphorical/spiritual Kingdom of God.

Anywho, thoughts? Specifically, how reasonable a claim is this, and if it's not reasonable, how does one piece together a consistent Jesus from the Gospels?

[Elok]

Passing over the futility in general of theories built entirely by rearranging the sources with scissors and paste, this account would mean the bulk of the Gospel--in which the overwhelming majority of Jesus's ire is directed towards religious, not secular, authorities--was made up. And to little effect, because while the extent of persecution has been exaggerated in the past, we were not in any sense "acceptable" to Roman authorities. We were second-class citizens for about three hundred years, from the start onwards. Indeed, we were treated more harshly while spouting this ostensibly pacifying offshoot creed than the surviving mainstream Jews of the diaspora, who were suffered to continue being Jewish without giving any incense to Caesar.

[Elok]

Simple secular explanation for Jesus's complex and contradictory nature: the Gospels were written many years later, based on the combined recollections of many people, and likely incorporating any number of distinct oral and/or written traditions that had appeared in the meantime. Less probable: an underground, thoroughly decentralized cult managed to suppress the truth by force, and did such a sloppy-ass job of it that there were still oodles of weird little idiosyncrasies sticking out.

[Proteus_MST]

Simple secular explanation for Jesus's complex and contradictory nature: the Gospels were written many years later, based on the combined recollections of many people, and likely incorporating any number of distinct oral and/or written traditions that had appeared in the meantime. Less probable: an underground, thoroughly decentralized cult managed to suppress the truth by force, and did such a sloppy-ass job of it that there were still oodles of weird little idiosyncrasies sticking out.

In extenstion to this:
"True" accountgs about Jesus could also have been mingled together with accounts of other people who claimed to be Prophets or the Messiah during this timeframe, so that, like the Artus saga, the gospels may not be about one person, but actually about several ones

[Lorizael]

I haven't finished reading the book yet (lame ass customers keep calling), so I'm not sure how much of the Gospels he thinks were made up after the fact. As far as railing against religious authorities, that does fall within the thesis presented so far. That is, the priests running the Temple were corrupt officials who got rich at the expense of their poor Jewish brethren by currying favor with Roman overlords.

Aslan also suggests that after the destruction of the Temple, the Jewish religion was treated way more harshly than other religions in the Empire. Jews were not allowed to worship their weird god in Rome and a new tax was imposed on them.

[Elok]

In chronicling the history of the Roman administrators in Judaea, ancient Jewish writers Philo and Josephus describe some of the other events and incidents that took place during Pilate's tenure. Both report that Pilate repeatedly caused near-insurrections among the Jews because of his insensitivity to Jewish customs.

Josephus notes that while Pilate's predecessors had respected Jewish customs by removing all images and effigies on their standards when entering Jerusalem, Pilate allowed his soldiers to bring them into the city at night. When the citizens of Jerusalem discovered these the following day, they appealed to Pilate to remove the ensigns of Caesar from the city. After five days of deliberation, Pilate had his soldiers surround the demonstrators, threatening them with death, which they were willing to accept rather than submit to desecration of Mosaic law. Pilate finally removed the images.[32][33]

Philo describes a later, similar incident in which Pilate was chastened by Emperor Tiberius after antagonizing the Jews by setting up gold-coated shields in Herod's Palace in Jerusalem. The shields were ostensibly to honor Tiberius, and this time did not contain engraved images. Philo writes that the shields were set up "not so much to honour Tiberius as to annoy the multitude". The Jews protested the installation of the shields at first to Pilate, and then, when he declined to remove them, by writing to Tiberius. Philo reports that upon reading the letters, Tiberius "wrote to Pilate with a host of reproaches and rebukes for his audacious violation of precedent and bade him at once take down the shields and have them transferred from the capital to Caesarea."[34]

Josephus recounts another incident in which Pilate spent money from the Temple to build an aqueduct. Pilate had soldiers hidden in the crowd of Jews while addressing them and, when Jews again protested his actions he gave the signal for his soldiers to randomly attack, beat and kill – in an attempt to silence Jewish petitions.[35]

In describing Pilate's personality, Philo writes in the 1st century that Pilate had "vindictiveness and furious temper", and was "naturally inflexible, a blend of self-will and relentlessness". Referring to Pilate's governance, Philo further describes "his corruption, and his acts of insolence, and his rapine, and his habit of insulting people, and his cruelty, and his continual murders of people untried and uncondemned, and his never ending, and gratuitous, and most grievous inhumanity".[34][36]

From Jewish sources, our only significant non-Christian source of info about Pilate. It sure doesn't sound like he was very cozy with the Temple hierarchy. It's the (secular) tax collectors who are generally held to be the pariah class in ancient Judaea, as they not only collaborated but were licensed to skim. I don't know how much historical background that account has, but if it's false, the Parable of the Publican and the Pharisee doesn't make a lot of sense. Nor the rest of the Gospels where tax collectors are consistently shown as the epitome of evil, while the Sanhedrin et al are publicly virtuous.

You can fit the Gospel accounts within the context of the (much later) uprising with much less violence to the text than Aslan would require. Simply change Pilate from sympathetic to irritated, and have him crucify Jesus simply to shut up the rabble he was disturbing. That would also explain why the tradition exists of Jesus being taken down from the cross in the first place--actual rebels were left to rot. The part in the Gospels about the Jews spreading the story of a stolen corpse would fit if Pilate allowed the body to be taken down to spite the Jewish authorities he is recorded as despising. If he actually viewed the man as a genuine danger, it would make more sense to leave him up, and then why would the gospels trouble to counter an objection the writers/obfuscators themselves made up?

[Elok]

(nb Aslan's notion of Jesus aligns more closely, albeit far from exactly, with a Muslim conception of how a prophet should be; while he is still allowed to die shamefully, this Jesus is a significant military and political figure, like Muhammad himself)

[Lorizael]

Simple secular explanation for Jesus's complex and contradictory nature: the Gospels were written many years later, based on the combined recollections of many people, and likely incorporating any number of distinct oral and/or written traditions that had appeared in the meantime. Less probable: an underground, thoroughly decentralized cult managed to suppress the truth by force, and did such a sloppy-ass job of it that there were still oodles of weird little idiosyncrasies sticking out.

I somehow entirely missed this post. I don't think Aslan is making the second claim. The first explanation seems quite likely to me, but it also seems likely that a gospel writer's intrinsic biases and beliefs would play into the account of Jesus that they wrote, even if entirely unconsciously. People do this all the time, with a process that goes something like this: I really admire person A; person A said weird thing X that doesn't accord with my beliefs; since I admire person A, person A probably meant the slightly different Y that I do agree with, and I'll justify my interpretation based on carefully selected evidence Q; now I'll say that person A said Y so that others won't be confused. All of this can happen entirely within a person's head without any form of conscious deceit occurring.

[Lorizael]

It sure doesn't sound like he was very cozy with the Temple hierarchy.

My understanding is that the high priests of the Temple were installed by Roman governors, which doesn't necessarily preclude an antagonistic relationship. Said high priests could have genuinely believed that the best way to protect the Jewish people was to play nice with the Romans whenever possible, even if they despised them.

I think I should make a note here about the intentions of this thread. Obviously, I don't believe any of the supernatural claims about Jesus. And the point of this thread is not to challenge those who do believe by pointing out inconsistencies. I am not at all well versed in the history of this period, and my main aim is in seeking to understand how a religion grew up around the sayings of a random Jewish preacher who was executed decades before anyone started to think of themselves as belonging to a new religion. He was not the only messianic figure at the time, nor even the most popular or noteworthy one, so why is there a worldwide religion centered on him and not any of the other figures? I think it's an interesting question. (Obviously, one answer is that he was the Son of God and the others weren't.)

[Elok]

But this isn't making any sense. The priesthood are a quisling collaborator class for an occupying power which explicitly denies the rationale for their power. Said power, in the form of the governor, delights in annoying and offending them but still identifies with them enough to feel threatened by attacks on them. So he executes the political dissident. The hierarchy, having betrayed the cause of Jewish independence when it threatened their self-interest, continue to be revered by their followers. Then at some point the whole story gets flip-flopped and the dissident is completely reinvented to appeal to gentiles and look less threatening, even though he's dead and his whole political cause has obviously collapsed, and it doesn't work anyway, because the Romans still hate them.

What about this is supposed to be convincing?

[Bereta_Eder]

That's an interesting take on things.
I don't have a problem seeing jesus as pissed at occupation and not some peaceloving hippy. It's a very nice tribute to his human side.
As to why that religion spread like wildfire an anecdotal information I 've heard was that the ancient world was tired of the dodecatheon but also of the morals of the times.
Having a god that is allegendly based on love and compassion was radically different to having human like gods that had whims, fury fits, mischeavus behaviors etc

Which is why the swift to monotheism was regarded as a process of maturing for the human race (of that period in those parts)

[Proteus_MST]

...

I think I should make a note here about the intentions of this thread. Obviously, I don't believe any of the supernatural claims about Jesus. And the point of this thread is not to challenge those who do believe by pointing out inconsistencies. I am not at all well versed in the history of this period, and my main aim is in seeking to understand how a religion grew up around the sayings of a random Jewish preacher who was executed decades before anyone started to think of themselves as belonging to a new religion. He was not the only messianic figure at the time, nor even the most popular or noteworthy one, so why is there a worldwide religion centered on him and not any of the other figures? I think it's an interesting question. (Obviously, one answer is that he was the Son of God and the others weren't.)

Actually I think that this doesn't have to do with the person of Jesuis himself, but rather with those that came after him.
Especially with 4 things IMHO:
1. Their very active missionary works throughout the roman empire (with missionaries travelling to major towns tpo spread the faith) making it harder to suppress the religion
2. That the religion was (at least in certain branches) aimed at the lower classes
3. That christians were very able at converting pagan holidays into their own ones (like Easter (Eostre), Christmas (Dies natalis solis invicti) and so on), making it easier for pagans to convert to christianity
4. And of course, that Emperor Constantine supported christianity (in order to appease to his soldiers, of which a large percentage were christians)

[loinburger]

3. That christians were very able at converting pagan holidays into their own ones (like Easter (Eostre), Christmas (Dies natalis solis invicti) and so on), making it easier for pagans to convert to christianity

IIRC they were also successful at converting pagan deities/spirits/whatever into angels and demons

[Lorizael]

The hierarchy, having betrayed the cause of Jewish independence when it threatened their self-interest, continue to be revered by their followers.

I'm not sure that the priesthood was necessarily revered, given that they were targeted for assassination by rebel groups such as the Zealots and Sicarii.

What about this is supposed to be convincing?

I suspect I'm not explaining the book well. However, it paints a broad picture of Judea in the century or so surrounding the time of Jesus and isn't focused solely on the confrontation between Pilate, Jesus, and the Jewish authorities.

[Bereta_Eder]

the feasts coinciding with ancient gods feasts are surely apt.
I think the ancient religion was very much based on soil. Demetra, the harvest, farmers getting scared that the crops won't push out or that there will be a catastrophic blizzard. Just pay some dues to the gods to be safe.

The elements. Appease poseidon or your little trireme will get sunk like a brick by the waves. which has passed to the saints.

Saint Nicholas in a way is poseidon.

However, coming back to the compassion vs human hissy fits.

In the iliad gods were very much taking sides between the greeks and the trojans (effectively almost deciding the outcome). Eachone had a favorite fraction. That's not how "god" should work.

Also woman spite. It is very reasuring I guess to have a godess that is every bid alike like some jealous girl (hell has no fury like a woman spurrned??? etc etc).
It is "funny" to torture mortals simply because they didn't fancy a shag with a godess but prefered another mortal but again not very god like