(November 25, 2016 at 10:02 pm)abaris Wrote:(November 25, 2016 at 9:33 pm)Minimalist Wrote: No. The jesus that emerges from the fucking gospels tells slaves to be good little slaves, tells the sheep to obey their masters because they are appointed by fucking god, tells them to render unto caesar, yada, yada, yada. The idea of jesus as a "revolutionary" figure is from Reza Aslan, not Ehrman. J. D. Crossan sees him as a "social revolutionary." Ehrman sees him as a failed apocalyptic prophet.
The idea is not as far fetched if you go by the narrative. According to the gospels he's inciting unrest, calls himself King of the Jews, throws the money lenders out of the temple. If that had been true, the Romans would have done away with him swiftly. If it had been true, that is. But it wouldn't have gone down in accordance with the narrative, since for one there wouldn't have been any involvement of the priests, who were just Roman puppets, and secondly it would have left at least some traces in Roman records. Other, again according to the narrative, less important figures have. Also the grave story is entirely out of the window, since someone deserving of cruzifixion would have been thrown into the nearest ditch. After having been left to rot for a few months at the very least.
The Romans rarely mentioned anyone that they crucified, out of the many thousands who they put to death. Jesus was a trouble-maker, an inciter of riots during the Passover, an out-of-town stranger with delusions of grandeur. It did not take the Romans long to make an example out of him, something that they did almost daily.
