Jesus from Outer Space

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
Giuseppe
Posts: 13732
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: Jesus from Outer Space

Post by Giuseppe »

I believe that this was the old cover up:Image

...of which the new "improved" would be in the first post of this thread.

Nothing of new under the moon.
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.
User avatar
maryhelena
Posts: 2903
Joined: Tue Oct 08, 2013 11:22 pm
Location: England

Re: Jesus from Outer Space

Post by maryhelena »

Giuseppe wrote: Sun Aug 23, 2020 12:23 am I believe that this was the old cover up:Image

...of which the new "improved" would be in the first post of this thread.

Nothing of new under the moon.
OK - you might well be right.....new one an improvement on the old one....oh well....
Tread softly because you tread on my dreams.
W.B. Yeats
User avatar
maryhelena
Posts: 2903
Joined: Tue Oct 08, 2013 11:22 pm
Location: England

Re: Jesus from Outer Space

Post by maryhelena »

Richard Carrier, above quote:

Bermejo-Rubio’s book essentially defends the zealot hypothesis (that Jesus was a violent revolutionary, and the Epistles and Gospels whitewash this fact). Which is one of the most fringe positions to take in the historicity market. His methodology is also mind-bogglingly illogical.

Strong words indeed towards a fellow scholar.

In the article referenced below Bermejo-Rubio does not mention Carrier - but he does mention 'outer space'.

This cluster of evidence allows us to glimpse a Jesus whose physiognomy
as a preacher displaying an earthly-centered thinking greatly differs from the
usual view of him as a visitant of the outer space, an ethereal being focused on
otherworldly realities (“my kingdom is not of this world”). Although a systematic
exposition of the “Kingdom of God” concept does not appear anywhere in a clear
and sequential form in the extant text of the Gospels, there are still several
traces thereof.14 Even as disiecta membra, those traces indicate that Jesus’ original
expectation of the kingdom of God, in full accordance with widespread eschatological
Jewish hopes, was that of a renewal of the world, which envisages an ideal life
endowed with concrete and earthly goods.


5. Conclusion
Unlike the wholly fictitious lives of so many legendary figures, which offer
relatively harmonious portrayals, the Gospels are not a seamless tunic. As I have
argued, we find in them many scattered pieces of information that do not fit well
into their main story-line of a universal savior bringing peace and love, and alien
to contemporary political conflicts. The convergence of these and many other
related items constitutes a pattern that is obviously at odds with the overall
impression conveyed by the evangelists and the Christian tradition, according
to which Jesus had nothing to do with the dirty matters of politics in
first-century Judaea and the current expectations of a kingdom of God on earth.
Thus the presence of this pattern means that the inconsistent character of the Gospel
accounts is not a random or an enigmatic phenomenon. As Joel Carmichael put it,
“the Gospel narrative […] gives us a general impression of incoherence, which is
reinforced by a study of the details. Nor is this merely the incoherence of an imperfectly
remembered event; the incoherence is the result of dynamic factors –it is tendentiously incoherent”
(Carmichael, 1982, p. 41 [italics original]). The fact that an underlying story can be glimpsed
behind the Gospels means, in turn, that in these writings not everything is reducible to sheer fiction.
Beyond the mythical biography with which Jesus was equipped, it is still possible to envisage a
very historical figure. He expected the arrival of a promised land here on earth,
which –as ever– for better or worse never arrived.

Perhaps Bermejo-Rubio would do well to consider Hasmonean history as a backdrop to the gospel story. In that history he will find many a 'zealot' ready to take up arms to free the land of Israel from Roman domination. He might even find that the statement of Cassius Dio of considerable interest.

Roman historian Cassius Dio says that he was crucified and records in his Roman History: "These people [the Jews] Antony entrusted to a certain Herod to govern; but Antigonus he bound to a cross and scourged, a punishment no other king had suffered at the hands of the Romans, and so slew him.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antigonus ... of%20Judea.

A linkage of the gospel story to Hasmonean history allows the Jesus figure to be view as reflecting that history. Not just the history of Antigonus but Hasmonean history in general. It is that history that has been side-lined in the gospel story. Yes, the NT puts the focus on spiritual matters, the kingdom of god as heavenly (intellectual, philosophical). If that NT intellectual/philosophical kingdom, with it's neither Jew nor Greek, was to move on, as it were, it had to side-line the nationalistic elements of Hasmonean history. Thus the conflict within the gospel story of whether it's literary Jesus figure reflects political revolutionary elements or was simply an itinerate man of peace. Consequently, if it's christian origins that interests one - then the 'zealot' Jesus has to be faced.

Is the Kingdom of God/Heaven a Promised Land? Traces
of a Material View in Jesus of Nazareth’s Eschatology

Fernando Bermejo-Rubio


Unfortunately, this article seems to have a problem on academia.edu - only one page downloaded. However, typing in the article full name to google brings it up - an automatic download of 18 pages.
Tread softly because you tread on my dreams.
W.B. Yeats
Charles Wilson
Posts: 2100
Joined: Thu Apr 03, 2014 8:13 am

Re: Jesus from Outer Space

Post by Charles Wilson »

Hello maryhelena --

I wanted to take a moment to second your comments. See below. I agree with the Thesis even if we disagree on the details as we shall probably see. What we get in the NT is Hasmonean History and, though it was thought to be hidden, is still discernable.
maryhelena wrote: Sun Aug 23, 2020 2:43 amPerhaps Bermejo-Rubio would do well to consider Hasmonean history as a backdrop to the gospel story.
The problem is that you must provide a "hook" that the reader may understand and then consider. "Existence is not a predicate saith Kant" and when you rewrite a character with a different name, "Existence" transfers to the new character and, in this case, the old Historical Figure is lost. To say nothing of rewritten History being undertaken in a different Language. As always, see the automatic Word-Play between "Immar"/"Immer" that is lost once "Lamb" has been rendered in the Greek. GJohn absolutely falls on his face here. His "Lamb of God" is a a Transvalued creature. "Immar-Yah" is Semitic and goes back a thousand years prior to this in Sumer (See: Pettinato, Ebla) - as does "You must be born again". "Amargi" (See: Kramer, History begins at Sumer.)
In that history he will find many a 'zealot' ready to take up arms to free the land of Israel from Roman domination. He might even find that the statement of Cassius Dio of considerable interest.

Roman historian Cassius Dio says that he was crucified and records in his Roman History: "These people [the Jews] Antony entrusted to a certain Herod to govern; but Antigonus he bound to a cross and scourged, a punishment no other king had suffered at the hands of the Romans, and so slew him.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antigonus ... of%20Judea.

True again. Dio has another importance in the NT History: Epitome 64 carries a Proto-Eucharist story with just the right flavor.
A linkage of the gospel story to Hasmonean history allows the Jesus figure to be view as reflecting that history. Not just the history of Antigonus but Hasmonean history in general. It is that history that has been side-lined in the gospel story.
Yes, yes and as a change of pace, yes. I believe I can find a large amount of Hasmonean History in the NT and that level of discovery has been a somewhat bitter point of disagreement between us. Perhaps better to merely agree with you here. The point, however, is still important.
Yes, the NT puts the focus on spiritual matters, the kingdom of god as heavenly (intellectual, philosophical). If that NT intellectual/philosophical kingdom, with it's neither Jew nor Greek, was to move on, as it were, it had to side-line the nationalistic elements of Hasmonean history.
Here is a moment of discovery: If "Jesus" could be created and Transvalued what else could suffer that same fate?

The Kingdom of Heaven (Moffatt: "Realm of Heaven") has been Transvalued from a Real, Physical Place into "Somewhere, Over the Rainbow".

Matthew 23: 13 (RSV, then Moffatt):

[13] "But woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! because you shut the kingdom of heaven against men; for you neither enter yourselves, nor allow those who would enter to go in.

[13] Woe to you, you impious scribes and Pharisees ! you shut the Realm of heaven in men's faces;
you neither enter yourselves, nor will you let those enter who are on the point of entering.

Scribes and Pharisees were real, physical people, not Spirit-Beings. The door to the Realm of Heaven is being shut in MEN's faces. Notice a subtle point brought out by Moffatt: There are those who are "...at the point of entering" The Realm of Heaven and they are prevented from doing so.

This is the description of a Physical Event. I believe it was a very VIOLENT event.
Thus the conflict within the gospel story of whether it's literary Jesus figure reflects political revolutionary elements or was simply an itinerate man of peace. Consequently, if it's christian origins that interests one - then the 'zealot' Jesus has to be faced.
True and that Zealot was not a savior/god but Hasmonean.
Take a moment plz everyone and consider, at least, maryhelena's position.

CW
User avatar
maryhelena
Posts: 2903
Joined: Tue Oct 08, 2013 11:22 pm
Location: England

Re: Jesus from Outer Space

Post by maryhelena »

Thanks, Charles, for your comments.

Yes, we do have a point of agreement over Hasmonean history being relevant to the gospel story. Searching for OT links to the gospel story is all well and good - but that is only part of the gospel story. After all, if it's an understanding of early christian origins we seek, then adding two interpretations together, one from the OT and another from the gospels, is of no help. That way is admiring the dressing and closing ones eyes to the blood and guts of the historical framework underlying the gospel story.

I think Bermejo-Rubio is doing good work. While the 'zealot' Jesus theory has been around for some time, his work on this issue is bringing the issue forward. The issue is not going away - so maybe he will be the scholar to take it to it's logical conclusion. Hasmonean history is the context from which the gospel Jesus story arose.


Fernando Bermejo-Rubio

Why is the Hypothesis that Jesus Was an Anti-Roman Rebel Alive and Well?

Despite the endless attempts to discredit the hypothesis that Jesus of Nazareth was involved in seditious activities (and to discredit also its proponents), it provides the best explanation of the available evidence. This article does not merely advance a view to be put along with other reconstructions of Jesus, but argues that any reconstruction of the Galilean preacher that does not consistently integrate the seditious aspects is strongly prejudiced and lacks scholarly soundness.

https://www.bibleinterp.com/articles/20 ... 8008.shtml

Bermejo-Rubio has even used his 'zealot' Jesus theory to challenge the so called neutral interpretation of the TF.



Fernando Bermejo-Rubio

"Was the Hypothetical Vorlage of the Testimonium Flavianum a 'Neutral' Text? Challenging the Common Wisdom on Antiquitates Judaicae 18.63-64", Journal for the Study of Judaism 45 (2014) 326-365.

Abstract

Even if one accepts the most widespread view about the so-called Testimonium
Flavianum (Ant. 18.63-64)—i.e., that the text is basically Josephus’s but with some
Christian interpolations—a decision on the nature of the alleged original text is still
pending. Although a number of scholars have asserted that it contained some unfavorable
references to Jesus, the overwhelming majority assert nowadays that it was originally neutral
. The aim of the present discussion is to reassess the contemporary
discussion on Josephus’s text in order to ascertain which is the most plausible hypothesis
regarding the nature of its Vorlage. This article contends that the arguments
advanced to support the view of a “neutral” text do not stand up to close examination,
and it offers several reasons indicating that the Vorlage must have been at least implicitly negative.

Conclusions and Further Remarks

Our systematic survey has allowed us to debunk the widespread claim that a
neutral reconstruction of the TestFlav is the most compelling one and to draw
the conclusion that a different kind of text must have underlain the editing
of the paragraph. Although certainty is not possible and every reconstruction
remains hypothetical, I have offered a cumulative series of arguments supporting
the case that the original text must have been at least implicitly negative.
But if the neutral version is far from being more plausible than the opposing
stance and the arguments supporting it show significant shortcomings, why
has it become established as common wisdom?
It has been surmised that theological and apologetic constraints have substantially
conditioned the history of research on the TestFlav.176 This is not
surprising, because the research of Jesus and the beginnings of Christianity
has too often been skewed by theological constraints.177 I am afraid that in the
contemporary discussion on Josephus’s text extra-epistemic factors might also
be at work.
This is all the more plausible when the image of Jesus involved in the discussion
is taken into account. As I have argued, if Josephus’s stance towards Jesus
can be labeled as negative, the most probable explanation is that it was due to
the fact that the historian viewed him as a kind of seditionist.

https://www.academia.edu/8139663/_Was_t ... 14_326_365

Methinks a pretty logical argument that stems from his 'zealot' Jesus theory. i.e. the Romans did not crucify a pacifist, a gentle Jesus. Living under occupation - so turn the other cheek? That's never been the way the world works. Yep, the 'zealot's often fail but their efforts can light the flame of independence. (just been watching the history of my countrymen in their desperate 'rising' of Easter 1916. ..... :) )

And what do we get from Richard Carrier ?



Richard Carrier


The Josephus Testimonium: Let’s Just Admit It’s Fake Already

Especially with all the other evidence stacked on: its uncharacteristic narrative style (including its bizarre brevity and naive simplicity); the narrative illogic of its position in the text; its not being known to Origen or anyone else before Eusebius a century later; its containing patently ridiculous and fawning remarks only a Christian would make.

So just get over it already.

It’s fake

https://www.richardcarrier.info/archives/7437

Wishful thinking......
Tread softly because you tread on my dreams.
W.B. Yeats
Giuseppe
Posts: 13732
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: Jesus from Outer Space

Post by Giuseppe »

:( A sad news. The book will arrive after 25 october.
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.
User avatar
maryhelena
Posts: 2903
Joined: Tue Oct 08, 2013 11:22 pm
Location: England

Re: Jesus from Outer Space

Post by maryhelena »

Giuseppe wrote: Mon Aug 24, 2020 10:26 pm :( A sad news. The book will arrive after 25 october.
Amazon UK are still saying the hardcover is released on 1 September.

£23.75
This title will be released on September 1, 2020.
Available as a Kindle eBook. Kindle eBooks can be read on any device with the free Kindle app.
Pre-order now.
Dispatched from and sold by Amazon.

The Kindle edition (which I have pre-ordered) will be released on 20th October.

Print List Price: £26.99
Pre-order Price: £10.68
Save £16.31 (60%)
View Order
This title will be auto-delivered to your Kindle and you will be charged on 20 October 2020

Amazon UK possibly making a mistake re 1 September for the hardcover book.
Tread softly because you tread on my dreams.
W.B. Yeats
User avatar
maryhelena
Posts: 2903
Joined: Tue Oct 08, 2013 11:22 pm
Location: England

Re: Jesus from Outer Space

Post by maryhelena »



Fernando Bermejo-Rubio

Prolegomena to a Dispassionate Plea for the Historicity of Jesus the Galilean

Although a minority in the field of New Testament scholarship, some authors maintain the idea that Jesus the Galilean did not exist.1 This is what has been called a “mythicist” position.2 As is well known, the debate among these scholars and those clinging to the idea that Jesus really existed is not infrequently heated and even riddled with disparaging comments about the other side. In this brief paper I am going to establish my own position in a very elementary way, thereby trying to tackle this issue in a rather irenic and respectful attitude.

To start with, let me make some preliminary –and perhaps not superfluous– comments. Firstly, given that the discussion related to the historical figure of Jesus is often conditioned by extra-epistemic factors (it is usually dictated by religious/theological commitments, sometimes by antireligious ones), let me say that I have no vested interest in the matter. In this issue, nothing essential is at stake for me. I am not a faith-based scholar, and I am not intellectually or emotionally committed to the existence of Jesus the Galilean. If someone could provide compelling reasons to make me draw the conclusion that Jesus did (probably) not exist, that would not be a personal tragedy. In fact, I would even be greatly amused by such an outcome.

http://www.bibleinterp.com/opeds/2013/1 ... otnote1sym




Richard Carrier

On Bermejo-Rubio's Dispassionate Plea for a Historical Jesus


Fernando Bermejo-Rubio is one of the most impressive new scholars in biblical studies. His work on the “quests” for the historical Jesus is paradigm-challenging and superb (see The Fiction of the Three Quests). It is thus no surprise that he would publish the only defense of the historicity of Jesus against its opponents that is actually worth reading. Usually such tracts are awash with errors, distortions, a substitution of assumptions for facts, or blatant fallacies, or bundles of all of these–even when coming from experts who ought to know better (like Erhman, McGrath, and so on and so on and so on–and on and on–even Goodacre, a little, who otherwise did the best job I know short of Bermejo-Rubio, and indeed the two together make the strongest case overall).
.......................................................

Like historicist Phillip Davies (whose editorial I linked above), Bermejo-Rubio wants to elevate mythicism, or at least agnosticism regarding historicity, to a position that can be at least treated as a respectable, honestly debatable position within the field, even if he personally isn’t persuaded by it. That requires effort from both sides: from establishment scholars, it demands attitudes like those of Davies and Bermejo-Rubio; from mythicists, it demands more rigor, caution, and humility.

https://www.richardcarrier.info/archives/5085


Indeed, more humility from mythicists please...... :)
Tread softly because you tread on my dreams.
W.B. Yeats
User avatar
maryhelena
Posts: 2903
Joined: Tue Oct 08, 2013 11:22 pm
Location: England

Re: Jesus from Outer Space

Post by maryhelena »

In ending his article Bermejo-Rubio said the following:


Fernando Bermejo-Rubio

Prolegomena to a Dispassionate Plea for the Historicity of Jesus the Galilea
n

Let me finish with a brief remark. Precisely because I am quite aware of the extent to which the Canonical Gospels are the result of a process of doctoring the historical figure of Jesus – a process which has had wide-ranging distorting effects –, I think I can better understand at least one of the reasons which lead some scholars (and also other readers) to deem these sources as desperately unhelpful and to remove them completely from the available evidence to recover a historical being. I think, however, that this is not only an unwarranted conclusion, but also a tragic mistake, because the critical energy of several intelligent people –as many “mythicists” undoubtedly are– devoted to “prove” the non-existence of Jesus seems to be both misguided and wasteful. In my opinion those scholars opt to cut the Gordian knot, instead of tackling the –by far harder– task of disentangling it. In this way, and despite the insights of some of their works, they leave the problem of the Gospels unresolved, the nature of their distortions ultimately untouched, and the embarrassing history these biased sources try to veil unfortunately unrecovered.

http://www.bibleinterp.com/opeds/2013/1 ... otnote1sym

Richard Carrier, in his critique of Bermejo-Rubio article, said this:


Richard Carrier

On Bermejo-Rubio's Dispassionate Plea for a Historical Jesus


Thus, prima facie doesn’t work. We can only reach a valid conclusion secunda facie. We cannot easily explain Paul’s (authentic) letters on historicity, but we can easily explain them on mythicism. We cannot easily explain the incredibly rapid and massive legendary development around Jesus in the Gospels on historicity (as well as, already in Paul, his immediate quasi-deification), but we can on mythicism. We cannot easily explain the complete absence of such a rapidly glorified man in the historical record (outside the cult of mythmakers recording his stories) on historicity, but we can on mythicism. We cannot easily explain how two different branches of Christianity placed Jesus in history in different periods a hundred years apart on historicity, but we can on mythicism. On historicity, we cannot easily explain why Jesus’s entire family (including his mother and all his brothers and sisters, even James) vanish from the entire history of the church in Acts as soon as the cult goes public, whereas on mythicism, that’s exactly what we would expect. And so on.

Historicity might look sound prima facie. But secunda facie, not so much

https://www.richardcarrier.info/archives/5085

For mythicists the answer to understanding the gospel story is Paul. But understanding Paul is a matter of interpretation. A NT figure whose historicity has been questioned: Thomas Brodie: Beyond the Quest for the Historical Jesus: Memoir of a Discovery

Consequently, the only possible route to early christian origins is what we have - the gospel story. Whether that story supports a historical Jesus figure, or supports a literary composite figure, remains an open question. Yes, Bermejo-Rubio has decided for a historical Jesus figure. However, his arguments related to the behaviour of his historical Jesus figure, can also be used to support a literary composite Jesus figure. Bermejo-Rubio's arguments revolve around finding a historical core to the gospel story. A core he maintains is a 'zealot' type Jesus, a figure of a seditious approach to Rome. In other words, Bermejo-Rubio, like a lot of NT scholars, is unable, unwilling, to write the gospel story off as being devoid of history. The gospel writers placed their Jesus story in history - it is not, surely, our place to deny those writers a historical relevance to their story.

Mythicists, says Bermejo-Rubio, ''they leave the problem of the Gospels unresolved, the nature of their distortions ultimately untouched, and the embarrassing history these biased sources try to veil unfortunately unrecovered.''
Tread softly because you tread on my dreams.
W.B. Yeats
Giuseppe
Posts: 13732
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: Jesus from Outer Space

Post by Giuseppe »

maryhelena wrote: Tue Aug 25, 2020 5:46 am Mythicists, says Bermejo-Rubio, ''they leave the problem of the Gospels unresolved, the nature of their distortions ultimately untouched, and the embarrassing history these biased sources try to veil unfortunately unrecovered.''
If only we had an independent confirmation of his seditious Jesus, then I would be his more eager apostle in this forum! :!:
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.
Post Reply