continued....
The phrase ho Christos was a used title, is not a name but more like a title. Thus, "Jesus Christ", in the Greek text Iêsous ho Christos, simply means "Jesus the Anointed [one]". (Sometimes, the Greek NT text has a different word order, ho Christos Iêsous, "the Anointed Jesus".) It seems that non-Jews didn't relate to the word CHRISTOS , considering the letter from Pliny the Younger to Trajan about 112 AD and several similar blunders. The latin word Christus however was in play and recognized, but not specifically in the manner which the Jewish messiah was defined. Was the word in relation to the Jewish Messiah, a word formed by the Jewish-Roman writers as a variation to the word Christ”u”s, to describe this new Jewish Messiah and label him in Greek terms later? In this case Bart would be correct in claiming that the new testament term would not be known to the Greeks of that day, however Bart fails to detail the etymology surrounding the term and instead misleads the reader to accept that the Jews knew of the word and the Greeks did not; or that the word was only associated with anointing and not with a God; which Bart then tries to connect to lead the reader to believe it was a Jewish origin. The Judean Jews would not have known this word either, the Hellenized Jewish-Romans created it.
The Greek word Messias appears only twice in the Greek Old Testament of the promised prince (Daniel 9:26; Psalm 2:2); yet, when a name was wanted for the promised one, who was to be at once King and Savior, this title was used to refer to an annointed king. The Greek text of John 1:41 and 4:25 contains the word Messias. That is a transliterated form of the Hebrew mashiyach, "anointed". That Greek transliteration messias was used for the purpose of explaining the meaning of that Hebrew word. In the Greek text of the New Testament, the phrase ho Christos is a translation of the Hebrew ha-Mashiyach (whence "Messiah") which likewise meant "the Anointed".
Unfortunately, most bible-translators have left christos ("anointed") untranslated, and have instead used that Greek word, in the form "Christ". Only a few bible-versions properly render it as "anointed", or, when it refers to Jesus, as "the Anointed [one]". Bart does not consider that the Romans did not want to use the word Messias, and did not use it further, but instead used a new word Christ to link the term already known to the Roman-Greeks and make it more familiar to them.
The word Christos was used in link with gods/kings well before the Jesus era. Prior to Jesus one of the gods the Greeks worshipped was "Christos Helios" which means something like, "Christ-The-True-Sun." “Helios” is the Greek God of the sun. Greeks called all of their gods "Christos" from Apollo to Zeus and it did mean "anointed” God. They were familiar with the term Christos in relation to their God and for this reason it would make sense that it was the likely choice for the Roman/Grecian writers to use to bridge the gap between the word Messias, which word the Romans were not familiar with and was too Jewish, and blend it with a word they were familiar with in context with the King/Savior and thereby Hellenize the Jewish Messiah concept with a Greek word that was already familiar in context with Gods and Kings as being anointed ones.
For Bart to say that the Greeks weren’t familiar with the title Christos, or Christus, is a grave error for a historian of his book-selling caliber. Confusion is the key theme in Bart’s work.
Roman emperor Julius Caesar , born 100 bce – 15 March 44 bce, was known to many as the Christos Helios. The name Christos to refer to annointed king/god was in place and well known – not known in a Jewish/Roman reference or a Judea Jewish Hebrew/Aramaic reference though until the new testament coined a reference. Some scholars believe that Jesus was Julius Caesar.
http://www.carotta.de/eindex.htmlI just now happened upon an author named Francesco Carotta, from the above link of his book, “ Jesus was Casesar. I have not read the book, but based on the small information I have read it would seem that I inadvertently have arrived at the same conclusions as Francesco Carotta. I had not gotten as afar back as Julius Casesar until now and noticed Carotta tracing a similar question and pattern although I arrived at the conclusion that Caligula was a Jesus archetype I can now see how Caligula got his idea as a Christos Helios, and the similarities of themes and dates surrounding the Jesus storyline.
Excerpt from book: >>quote: Julius Caesar, son of Venus and founder of the Roman Empire, was elevated to the status of Imperial God, Divus Julius, after his violent death. The cult that surrounded him dissolved as Christianity surfaced.
A cult surrounding Jesus Christ, son of God and originator of Christianity, appeared during the second century. Early historians, however, never mentioned Jesus and even now there is no actual proof of his existence.
On the one hand, an actual historical figure missing his cult, on the other, a cult missing its actual historical figure: intriguing mirror images.
Is Jesus Christ really the historical manifestation of Divus Julius? Are the Gospels built on the life of Caesar, just as the first Christian churches were built on the foundations of antique temples?
Corruptions in the copying of texts, misinterpretations in translations—Gallia transposed to Galilaea or Caesar’s murderer, the conspirator (Cassius) Longinus, becoming the centurion Longinus stabbing Jesus on the cross—and the transformation of iconography from Roman to Christian have been traced to their origins: the Gospel proves to be the history of the Roman Civil War, a ‘mis-telling’ of the Life of Caesar—from the Rubicon to his assassination—mutated into the narrative of Jesus: from the Jordan to his crucifixion. >>end quote.
The interesting thing is that my research led me to look at Julius Caesar as the Christos Helios, to determine if the word Christos/Christus was recognized in early Grecco-Roman era as opposed to only in the Jewish culture, which Bart claimed, and to my amazement I discovered that others have also discovered and questioned the road that led back to Rome. I guess when all research and questioning is done the pattern emerges for many of us as there are only so many texts that one can analyze and question; it is inevitable that eventually we all draw similar conclusions. The thing I find quite fascinating from a social cultural perspective is that Bart Ehrman is a popular million dollar book seller on the best sellers list and his errant and confusing opinions about the name Christus but someone like Franscesco Carotta, who shows the Grecco-Roman use of the term and title Christ/Christus in relation to Caesar, is not well known.
Getting back to research into this matter about the Grecco-Roman use of the term Christus/Christos has produced some revealing similarities between Christos and certain pagan names and titles and at this point I would like to research them more:
F.D. Gearly, writing in The Interpreter's Dictionary of the Bible, vol. 1, pp. 571-572, says, "the word Christos ... was easily confused with the common Greek proper name Chrestos, meaning 'good'." He also quotes a French theological dictionary which says, "It is absolutely beyond doubt that Christus and Chrestus, Christiani and Chrestiani, were used indifferently by the profane and Christian authors of the first two centuries of our era." He continues, "in Greek, 'e' and 'i' were similarly pronounced and often confused, the original spelling of the word should be determined only if we could fix its provenance (origin). ... The problem is further complicated by the fact that the word Christianos is a Latinism ... and was contributed neither by Jews nor by the Christians themselves." He quotes various scholars to support his proposition that the word Christianos was introduced from one of three origins: (a) The Roman police (b) The Roman populace (c) Unspecified pagan provenance (origin)," he then proceeds, "The three occurrences of 'Christian' in the NT suggest that the term was at this time primarily used as a pagan designation. Its infrequent use in the NT indicates not so much lateness of origin as pagan provenance (origin)."
If the Jewish word Christ and Christians wasn’t coined until later in Antioch, as the n.t. claims, what were the followers of Jesus called? Certainly not Essenes, as there is no Jewish record of them in Judea (not counting the Jewish record of Josephus and Philo, which I have previously addressed.) They had to be called something, as Stephen and Jesus and other disciples were killed based on that “something” they followed. There is no record of a title given to the Jesus followers, or of the word anywhere in any culture other than the Roman clergy writing later dated. There was however a record of the basic term in connection with pagan origin prior to that time era and during that time era; which also shows another way in which Christianity stole from pagan terminology prior to that era.
While Bart would be correct that the Greeks would have difficulty identifying the new testament specific usage of the word, everyone would have difficulty, but it certainly wasn’t a Aramaic-Hebrew-Jewish word but it appears to have been a Jewish-Roman word, which again takes me back to question the early Jewish-Roman writers discussing the Romanization of the Jews.
It is correct in saying that most people had difficulty understanding how cults were using the term to apply to their beliefs, and the almost sensational admission as to the confusion and uncertainty between Christos and Chrestos, Christus and Chrestus, Christiani and Chrestiani, is well documented and shared and published by other scholars too, as well as by the Early Roman Church Fathers: Justin Martyr, Tertullian, Lanctantius and others. yes the early Greeks wouldn’t have known the n.t. reference, but neither would the Judean Hebrews, nor would the Grecco-Romans, but they did most certainly know the name Christus in reference to an anointed God King Ruler. The Jewish-Hebrew world in Judea, the land of Jesus, did not know the term, they had never heard of the name Jesus as Christ or the greek term Messias, they were familiar with a Jewish term mashiyach meaning Messiah, but not familiar with Jesus or Yeshua of 0 ce to 33ce in relationship with this Messiah title.
**Also important to note that the confusion of these early fathers such as Justyn Martyr is dated to 150ce, not to 0 ce to 33 ce or even to 70ce.
Who was this Chrestos or Chreston with which Christos became confused with? We have already noted that Chrestos was a common Greek proper name, meaning "good", further, we note in Pauly-Wissowa, Realencyclopaedie, under "Chrestos", that the inscription Chrestos is to be seen on a Mithras relief in the Vatican. We also read in J.M. Robertson, Christianity and Mythology, p. 331, that Osiris, the Sun-deity of Egypt, was reverenced as Chrestos. We also read of the heretic Gnostics who used the name Chreistos. As previously mentioned noted Julius Casear as Christus of Helios. The confusion, and syncretism, is further evidenced by the oldest Christian building known, the Synagogue of the Marcionites on Mt. Hermon, built in the 3rd century, where the Messiah's title or appellation is spelt Chrestos. Justin Martyr (about 150 C.E.) said that Christians were Chrestoi or "good". Tertullian and Lactantius inform us that "the common people usually called Christ Chrestos". Clement of Alexandria, in the same age, said, "all who believe in Christ are called Chrestoi, that is 'good men.'"
Perhaps the word Christos was easier to convert the pagans with than the word "Messiah", especially because of the anti-semitism that prevailed among the pagans. The syncretism between Christos and Chrestos (the Sun-deity Orsiris), is further elucidated by the fact of emperor Hadrian's report, who wrote, "There are those (in Egypt) who worship Serapis; and devoted to Serapis, are those who call themselves 'Bishops of Christ'." Serapis was another Sun-deity who superseded Osiris in Alexandria.
These are more examples showing that the word Christ was known in Grecco-Roman pre-Jesus days to refer to anointed one/king/leader. Did the Grecco-roman vocabulary have the word Messias prior to Jesus? This would be an interesting question, and if not, when did the word Messias arrive in the Greek vocabulary? Did it coincide with the 2nd and first century church writers?
Those details could add more information as to clarification for or against Jesus Messiah storyline in 30 to 100ce. Certainly these unique people who were crucified by Roman officers and fled Judea must surely have had a name prior. But they did not. My own commentary would tell me that this, along with other information and lack of information, is because they did not exist until the early 2nd century in which time all the stories also rose up with no prior knowledge of a name for these people who followed Jesus during the most amazing preaching and miracles to the masses of Judea.
On page 59 I like Bart’s phrasing, >>quote: “Given the incredible following that Jesus amasses, the amazing teachings that he delivers, and the miraculous deeds that he performs, one would think that he would become immediately and widely acknowledged for who he is, a man specifically endowed by God, the Son of God who provides divine assistance for those in need. Ironically, as the careful reader of the Gospel begins to realize, nothing of the sort is destined to happen. Jesus, this authoritative Son of God, is almost universally misunderstood by those with whom he comes in closest contact. Even worse, despite his clear concern to help others and to deliver the good news of God, he becomes hated and opposed by the religious leaders of his people. Both of these characteristics are major aspects of Mark’s portrayal of Jesus. He is the opposed and misunderstood Son of God.” >>end quote.
One misleading sentence is that Jesus is almost universally misunderstood by those with whom he comes in closest contact. I think the word “universally” is an inappropriate word in this context. First of all, again, there is no record of him being misunderstood by any of these people during his era, in fact, no one seemed to care enough to even remember him until the Romans came on the scene and brought the story. Certainly the great misunderstanding would have warranted some worthwhile mention – but none other than Roman backed agendas and later inserts. Jesus came in closest contact with his disciples, whom he sent to preach his word, therefore the disciples were trained in his word and teachings to go out and teach it likewise unto the gentiles and “set them straight” so to speak. That also never happened as much as the Catholic clergy says that they taught the correct doctrine they certainly had a difficult time parsing out what that correct doctrine was even though there were disciples of Jesus to set them straight. The n.t. records do not show the disciples doing this; instead the writers claim they were taught by Jesus or his disciples and yet the confusion continues in their own texts.
I realize that Bart previously tried to defend that by over-riding the fact that the religious leaders of that era, or the Roman police-state era, have no verbal account of this man, by Bart claiming that they must have had an account, even though Bart always uses the focus on the Jewish-Judea verbal record and later written record of other men prior to, during and after that era in defense that the Jews knew there were such God-Men and were familiar with the concept -- just not Jesus as a God man.
Although Bart is describing the story as recorded by Mark, in this incident Bart does point out Marks comments and recognize that he was not immediately recognized and known for his teachings, crucifixion, etc, but explains and defends it by saying that Jesus is an opposed and misunderstood Son of God, as a reference to how and why Bart believes he and others could be confused and misunderstood. If Mark says they were confused, and certainly they were, then somehow Bart jumps to a conclusion that since there were confusions written about in Mark, and verified later in history, it must support his idea that there were early oral stories about him from the beginning of his life – only confused stories, because we certainly have proof that there were many LATER stories which were different and confused, and that in spite of Jesus greatness he must have been misunderstood as to explain the lack of knowledge about him. Again I am more prone to use Occam’s razor in this incidence where the most simplest conclusion that have common patterns emerging is likely the real conclusion. Bart tends to innocently review Marks words as though they did happen – and by his own previous admission will not take Jewish accounts even though they were written during the same datelines because the Jews were written later. These are only a few reasons I have nausea while reading Bart’s work.
Bart goes on to explain how the Jewish leaders did not recognize Jesus.
Bart writes: >>.quote: “…after Jesus performed healing and told the healed leper to go to the priests and make an offering as Moses commanded…. Why, then, do the Jewish leaders, the scribes and Pharisees in Galilee and the chief priests in Jerusalem oppose him? Do they not recognize who he is? In fact, they do not recognize him, as we will see momentarily. Even more seriously, they are gravely offended by the things that he says and does, stories conflict, stories that show a crescendo in the tension between Jesus and the Jewish leaders, the scribes and Pharisees. At first these leaders merely question his action (2:7), they then take offense at some of his associations (2:16) and his activities (2:18), then protest the actions of his followers (2:24) and finally take serious exception to his own actions and decide to find a way to put him to death . (3:6)>>end quote.
Not only did the Jewish leaders not recognize him, they thought that the miracle was not valid enough to keep record of, even though they had recorded lesser miraculous men before and after. Trying to give Bart every benefit and try to play with his line of thinking, I had wondered if it might be because Jesus was a rebel and the leaders didn’t want to link to him, but this wouldn’t explain why they didn’t make mention of him. To the contrary one would think it would have given them more reason to make a mention of this rebel who performs miracles – but there is none.
Speaking about his previous comment Bart writes:
>>quote: “This basic information about Jewish groups should make us curious about certain aspects of Mark’s Gospel. We know from other sources that the Pharisees were not numerous in the days of Jesus; there certainly were not enough to stand at every wheat field to spy out itinerant preachers on the Sabbath. Nor, evidently, were they influential in the politics of Palestine at the time, or even concerned that everyone else conforms to their own rules and regulations for purity. And yet, they appear as Jesus’ chief adversaries in Mark’s narrative, constantly hounding him and attacking him for failing to conform to their rules and regulations for purity. Can this be historically accurate? >>end quote.
I like Bart’s question. It should be interesting to see how he tries to answer it while still defending a historical Jesus.
How could it possibly be historically accurate? It sounds more like the era from the mid to end of the 2nd century.
Bart continues:
>>quote: “Scholars have long known that some decades after Jesus’ death, nearer the end of the first century, the Pharisees did become more prominent in Palestinian life. After the destruction of Jerusalem in 70ce they were given authority by the Romans to run the civil affairs of Palestinian Jews. Indeed, the one Jewish persecutor of the church about whom we are best informed was Paul, a self-proclaimed Pharisee.
Is it possible that the opposition leveled against the church by Pharisees after Jesus’ death affected the ways that Christians told stories about his life? That is to say, because of their own clashes with the Pharisees, could Christians have narrated stories in which Jesus himself disputed with them (usually putting them to shame), even though such disputes would have happened only rarely during his own lifetime?” .>>end quote.
If Bart is again calling them liars for the Lord, or excusable embellishment for religious cause, as he did a few pages back, then what part of it all can we believe as a truth God canon? Bart is forgetting one important thing, the disciples who lived with him knew the correct doctrine at the time Jesus told them to preach it and they could have/should have set it right since they were there. They did not, because they did not exist until a century later.
As a matter of fact, thinking about it now I’m wondering if this wasn’t a reflection on the mid 2nd century battle with doctrines and 2nd Judean war, in that there were so many variations of the belief system during the mid 2nd century that this canon could have easily been an attempt to put an end to the dispute and comment on the conditions of the 2nd century.
Rather than Bart’s theory that it’s possible that the Pharisees later rule affected the way the Christians told stories about Jesus life I would go with his other vaguely attempted theory that it was indeed possible that the similar later 2nd century incidents created the storyline rather than affecting the storyline. Although Bart will not concede that it created the story line, but that it only affected it, then we have him defending lying in the name of the lord again, etc.
Consider it this way, many people in the mid and later 2nd century have no real link with any disciples who could ‘set them right” and they made up a story that started by a few Roman backed writers and orators, Ignatius, Polycarp etc . Let’s take an example like world war 1. Nobody from my generation was there, and we only have stories to back it up. Even if some stories might be later embellished a little in the telling, or new stories from diaries might arise, the main concepts around the original story remains the same. To make such egregious errors in a foundational storyline is like saying that there was a man in United States who was a miracle worker trying to overthrow the German government. He attempted to bring down the Germans and there were German spies on every corner watching him in America. The spies finally caught him and executed him. Nobody from that era recorded him and suddenly a hundred years later word springs up of such a man. Let’s say that Britain took it and turned him into a religion savior claiming that this man had a group working with him who gave Britain all the exact details and information as they were with this man and knew it all correctly. Let’s say that later the German spies did indeed gain more access and power causing a threat for a second world war. We are then to believe that there was such a man as this and that the stories that came about were due to people who weren’t there, but that the stories were about the later surge of activity which the people confused for Jesus era because they were under such duress. Bart is making this impossible for me to swallow. To think that they could not separate their life era from the era of Jesus suggests that they were mentally ill or idiots. I’m not sure about the mentally ill part, but I read their bio’s and they were anything but idiots. They were trained Grecian writers and orators who had an agenda toward a Romanized Jewish community and a religion of their own; for others they were just swept up in the hysteria of a belief system, which although does make many believers say and do crazy things we are led back to square one again by questioning how much is accurate by sane people and if it is that twisted why do we want to believe it?
>>quote: “In the end, however, the chief priests triumph, convincing the Roman governor that Jesus has to die. Why, ultimately, do they do so? The short answer is that they find Jesus threatening because of his popularity and find his words against their Temple cult offensive, as shown in his violent and disruptive actions in the temple itself…..The Jewish authorities do not seek Jesus’ death merely because they are jealous or because they disagree with him over legal, theological, or cultic matters. They oppose Jesus because he is God’s unique representative on earth – God’s authoritative Son – and they, the leaders of Israel, cannot understand who he is or what he says. In this, however they are not alone, for virtually no one else in Mark’s narrative can understand who he is either.” >>end quote.
I like Bart’s statement that no one else in Mark’s narrative can understand who he is either, but Bart had already previously tried to explain why no one else has – not by asking questions, but by drawing assumptions based on filling in gaps where there is no information to support it but information quite to the contrary. In this way I believe that Bart does indeed care and is confused rather than agnostic as all his statements show that he does know and supposes how it all happened, based on his reference to Roman backed texts of course, while omitting other texts that confuse him. Bart’s question is an attempt to make sense of the Roman texts through questions which already imply that the texts are correct – he’s simply trying to validate how they could be correct. The problem with his technique is that he overlooks the questions that might really cut to the chase and invalidate the entire Roman theory and storyline.
First of all, there is no reference from the above mentioned Pharisees, priests or Roman officers that there were courts held against him. Certainly if they had put the other Rabbi’s to death that Bart refers to there would have been some mention, as they did mention the other Rabbi’s who were not as miraculous or controversial as Jesus by any stretch. Bart jumps to the assumption by filling gaps in Jesus storyline, “Jesus of the Gaps”, wondering if it is possible that Jesus death, and the later opposition against the church by Pharisees affected the ways that Christians told stories about his life long after Jesus died; while failing to place the known text into scenarios that would reject his theory. He is not able to determine how this could contribute to the 5 or so decade gap of Jesus life and death when the stories would have been preached by his disciples who were with Jesus and there to correct them or set them right through their close contact with them. Remember, there were Jesus disciples in Judea whom Paul conferred with.
Bart’s last question tries to find an alternate theory as to why there were no records of Jesus preaching from Judea, yet the later new testament records were flawed. Even if Bart’s examination of the later clash with how Pharisees explained the problems in the Gospel storylines, that they inserted stories based on later events, can’t possibly support that the book is true, but would rather support it as extremely questionable. Is this why Bart refuses to accept the Jewish texts about the Sanhedrin even though it was written in the same era as the Roman backed texts which he upholds?
Since the gospels were written by men claiming to have been taught by Jesus or his disciples, the leap to suspect that Jesus disciples didn’t know Jesus doctrines, or know who he was, but were commanded by Jesus to preach what they didn’t know about a man whom they didn’t understand , is quite an extraordinary leap and one that makes no sense whatsoever…… doomed to failure from the get-go. At first, during Jesus ministry, the disciples were described in the Gospels as being confused and Jesus told them not to preach. Then at some point Jesus discovered that the disciples understood he was the Son of God and they were told to preach to the gentiles; meaning that they understood the correct information and taught it.
The convenient element is that Jesus was put to death by Jewish Priests who have no record of the extraordinary event orally from that era or written from that era, even though it was said to be a very big problem. The absence of any correct information is then later explained by Bart saying that the stories were based on later inserts from a later time but must have had origin in oral stories from whence they got their confusion. The only way one could make sense of it is to start assuming in the same manner which Bart does - hobbling pieces of assumptions together based on information that isn’t textually supported, and overlooking large pieces of textual information that is there, and of course only referring to Roman based texts without actually tracing the pattern of the Roman based texts back to Rome with a Romanization agenda. Bart takes a lot of information and smears it around blurring the information further in the mind of anyone who wants clarity. The reader is to suppose that all the people whom Jesus and the disciples taught during their era, including Paul and the people who wrote the gospels, also were not bright enough to understand the disciples teachings, (or that somehow the disciples got it wrong too even though this would defy the very accuracy of the text and teachings themselves, ) and hence later came many confusing stories in the name of Christ Jesus. His ability to notice some evident flaws supports the readers opinion that Bart is an open minded agnostic and therefore his words should be read with great interest. His inability to review it in any way that would go against a historical Jesus makes him an unworthy historian.
As certainly the forum members here have continuously bowed to Bart as the end-all be-all reference in all things involving Jesus. My opinion of Bart couldn’t be farther from that. The later 2nd century Jewish-Roman-Greco writers continued to be massively confused, cannot get the stories straight, and yet in spite of that Bart insists on believing that the stories had an origin from an era that has no record other than the Roman-Jewish-Greco writers who wrote later books which he’s referencing.
Since Bart is willing to claim that the writings of Mark is a reference to later Pharisees accounts that did not happen during Jesus time (one which I’d agree with him on) why wouldn’t Bart also question if the problem with Jesus disciples confusion over Jesus teachings could be a similar later parallel and comparison, for example, it is well documented that later Christians were confused, did the writers parallel that to the Jesus years as well? Why will Bart question an obvious later insertion that is impossible to deny based on many scholars understanding of lack of Pharisees during Jesus era to corroborate the Jesus/Mark storyline, (as though Bart acknowledges he has no choice but to accept it and incorporate it into his information) but Bart will find ways to excuse it and not make the same question account for the Jesus 12’s and all the Jews who allegedly heard Jesus message, not to understand, but only later did the 12 understand even though they still couldn’t manage to get the rest of the population to ever understand, hence the confusion. It’s suspicious that if Jesus was a radical member of the essenes, and the essenes were in the thousands and well known by the likes of Philo and Josephus, the information presented wouldn’t be so unknown and unfamiliar to the group of men he enlisted as his disciples, who lived in Galilee where there had to be some talk about the behavior of these people prior to them meeting Jesus.
In other words, all the information couldn’t have been so completely confusing to these Jews who lived in Judea, all lower class struggling with the same plight, rubbing elbows in society, some of them must of heard such information that Jesus spread considering that the belief of the essenes ranked in the thousands. Was Jesus the only one who knew he was the Son of God in all the essenes? If anyone discovered that Jesus was the son of God Mark said that he told them to speak nothing of it. This is what Bart claims is known as the “messianic secret”. He says in chapter 15 he will revisit this issue and take up questions about the historical Jesus, but for now he is only interested in how the messianic secret functions literarily in the context of Mark’s story of Jesus.
Again I ask the question, how can anyone keep that kind of secret when he preached to multitudes and the officers who held his court knew him and based his court on the very problems that were supposed to be secret? Bart forgets that Jesus did tell them to preach after this and still there was no record. Also, in this context Bart omits that the likeliness of thousands of people keeping secret about something as grand as this would be quite a stretch….yet they did keep secret, so secret that no one spoke of it even though it went to trial. Bart can accept the later Pharisee story insert to the time of 0 ce to 33 ce, but he can’t accept the later Jesus storyline insert on the same premise that he accepts the Pharisee later storyline insert. For now Bart is only interested in asking parts of the questions that he explains in supporting the assumptions that help corroborate the story in Mark. It is a very strange way of writing a book and lay a foundation that causes the reader to support it and then 10 chapters later perhaps question it, but by that time the foundation he has laid is sneaky and will be difficult to shake as has been seen in the forum members who wish me to read Bart’s books to help answer all my questions.
I have not forgotten how the Jewish-Grecco-Roman writers were of the wealthy group, not the uneducated lower class who Bart mentioned consisted of 90% of the population and was likely that this lower class did not read or write….no, the writers I researched who wrote for Rome were Grecian trained by some of the best Greek play-writes and orators and came from wealthy families. The Grecian training did not go to waste on their writing it would appear as they obviously knew how to turn a good story. They knew how to make a person root for an underdog and put in just the right fear – hope combinations mixed with threat tactics so well known in religion, “those who reject these words will have no part of Christ at the end of the age (8:34-38), exaltation comes from pain, salvation through crucifixion; to gain one’s life one must lose it; the greatest are the most humble; the most powerful are the slaves; prosperity is not a blessing but a hindrance; leaving one’s home or field or family brings a hundredfold homes and field or families; the first will be last and the last first.
Bart says that “These lessons provide hope for a community that is in the throes of suffering, experiencing the social disruptions of persecution and that they make particular sense for a community that knows that its messiah, the Son of God, was rejected and mocked and killed, only to be vindicated by God who raised him from the dead. “
I would say that these writings definitely appealed to a community of people who were poor and desperate in need of hope and a clever approach to Romanize the Jews. These tactics still appeal to the depressed and hopeless and needy of the world. It would help them identify with Jesus personally and even though they did not know him personally it might ignite them to want to believe the story based on their own similar problems – finding a messiah similar to them who could give them hope, who was a Christ savior as described by the new testament newly enmeshed definitions. In any case, the whole thing proved to be very challenging as they later tried to get on the same page with the same story and it has obviously proved to continue to be challenging for them all to get on the same page as Bart himself has presented yet another different perspective on his own pages. The other point to remember is that once they did get their story straight Catholicism stuck with it rather closely for thousands of years, which indicates how stories do not necessarily change through the years as much as Bart would like us to believe that was the problem in the lost century of 0 ce to 120 ce.
Reading page 67 of his book, it is impossible to comprehend Bart’s explanation to support Mark’s error…..
Bart describes that Mark discusses the condemnation of the Sanhedrin against Jesus on grounds that Jesus was blasphemous claiming he was the Messiah, but Bart notes that scholars point out other rabbis proclaimed to be the long awaited messiah, and no charges of blasphemy were brought against him. Nor was it blasphemous to claim to be the son of God. Why did Mark claim in his narrative that Jesus was charged for blasphemy? Bart writes,
>>quote: “from a historical point of view, Jesus does not appear to have committed one (a blasphemy). But it is possible that Mark THOUGHT that Jesus’ committed one, at least in the eyes of the Jewish high priest. Remember that Mark understood Jesus to be the Son of Man. Perhaps Mark projected his own Christian understanding of Jesus back onto the high priest, so that in the narrative, when Jesus spoke about the Son of Man being seated on the throne next to God, the high priest ‘realized” (as the author of Mark himself believed) that Jesus was referring to himself. If so, then the high priest (in Mark’s narrative, not in real life) would have understood that Jesus was claiming to be divine in some sense. This claim would be a blasphemy. Perhaps this is why the high priest in Mark finds Jesus’ words blasphemous, even though technically speaking, no blasphemy had occurred.” >>end quote.
How does this explanation make any sense to Bart? Bart is willing to try to support Mark’s new testament storyline and errors to the point that he is willing to make up any possibility and assumption even if they do not make any sense from any way one looks at it! Bart claims that Mark was projecting his own belief upon the Jewish high priest, or that the Jewish High Priest was actually Mark in some type of writers transfer of character by saying, “the high priest in Mark finds Jesus words blasphemous”.
In this context I have to ask the same question again, if Mark was taught by disciples who knew the doctrine and story of Jesus (as Jesus said they should go out and teach the correct doctrine which they now understood) how could Mark believe it was blasphemous when it was not and then project that blasphemy onto a Jewish priest who knew it was not blasphemous. This is an extreme stretch to excuse Mark’s error for getting a very big piece of information wrong.
I challenge you to read Barts above paragraph 10 times and try to make sense of it.
In my case it has left my head spinning.
If Mark believes the words of the new testament, in that Jesus is the Savior/King/Messiah son of God, which was not a Jewish blasphemy, why then would Mark believe it is a blasphemy to claim to be the son of God when he is writing as a disciple who knows Jesus role?
If Bart were to lay a foundation that Mark obviously knew nothing of the Jewish tradition and yet wrote the Jesus story as if he knew it all, and indeed was the expert chosen to write due to his connection with the disciples, that foundation would not bode well for the authenticity of the new testament and Jesus storyline as anything other than fabricated by a non-Jew who claimed to write the authentic story.
Mark obviously got this storyline wrong therefore what other parts of the story did he get wrong and again, where were the original apostles to correct this incorrect error that was floating around?
If as Bart says, Mark had a poor understanding of Jesus and projected that back onto the high priest, that meant he also had a poor understanding of Jewish law and of the actual history and yet it is this history record that people draw on, Bart included, as extant texts to validate a historical Jesus which would of course look nothing like Mark’s, but who Mark was obviously given the authorization to tell Jesus real story even though he knew nothing about it while claiming he knew about it and while being the secretary of Peter. It would be different if Mark wasn’t the secretary of Peter who was supposed to be the head leader after Jesus died. Did Mark know Jesus or just Peter? Mark couldn’t have been too stupid since he was educated enough to write and read, something Bart says the lower class bulk of population could not do; but his inability to grasp Peter’s instruction and story of Jesus is overwhelming to say the least and to put it mildly. More importantly, the absence of Peter’s instruction to correct the huge errors is suspicious in its absence.
Yet Mark was told to write about something that he would have been instructed by Peter on the details (peter was after all the head disciple put in charge after Jesus death and who had come to know Jesus truths and doctrine) but Mark ended up not knowing any of it yet writing about it as though he not only knew it but as though it was the TRUTH. (edit as I think I repeated myself in this paragraph.)
In this case how can Bart’s earlier attempt to use the explanation of the telephone story to explain how stories change from one person to the other over decades but have seeds of truth in them – how can this explanation apply to Mark who was Peters secretary? I want to take a moment to digest the magnitude of this all.
Since Mark devoted considerable effort to demonstrate that the disciples never could understand what Jesus meant when he talked about dying and rising again, and that they never do understand, to the very end, why on earth would Jesus ask them to go out and preach his message to the gentiles and about what it means for those who believe in him to be his disciples, and why would Jesus claim they knew enough to be sent out, when they had no real clue about this concept of dying and rising again. Also, as I mentioned in my article, why would the church fathers claim that the correct information was known.
Remember Valentinus and Bassilides and Clement2 were writing a jesus storyline that was very, very descriptive much later and somehow the earlier placed stories had the least clarity even though they were written by a man Mark who would have had the closest access and who was well educated enough to write and read.