How did the myth of Jesus' resurrection originate?

[Minimalist]

Asserting as evidence of absence that Justin does not mention other "authors" seems a stretch.

Baloney. "Paul" is not just another "author." Supposedly he was the guy who brought jesus to the gentiles. Xtianity is littered with concepts like "Apostolic Authority" but you blithely suggest that the greatest apostle of all was not cited once in a major work?

Perhaps you should begin by figuring out exactly how much of the story you find credible?

[rightcoaster]

Asserting as evidence of absence that Justin does not mention other "authors" seems a stretch.

Baloney. "Paul" is not just another "author." Supposedly he was the guy who brought jesus to the gentiles. Xtianity is littered with concepts like "Apostolic Authority" but you blithely suggest that the greatest apostle of all was not cited once in a major work?

Perhaps you should begin by figuring out exactly how much of the story you find credible?

Of the story I find credible that Jesus was born, was working-class, that he became after he was thirty or so some sort of a charismatic leader to a lower-class, probably uneducated bunch, after having become a John-the-Baptist groupie. That the oratorical sway went to his head, to a degree, as is often the case with new celebrities, however small the celebrity may be. That he went to Jerusalem for a Passover, got into a fight in the Temple over something trivial, thereby both insulting the Temple cult and damaging the lawful and proper businesses of a couple of the scores of moneychangers and a birdseller or so of the dozens of them. That upon a proper complaint by the merchants and the Temple he was arrested and, it being the Holy Day and the Jewish courts thus were not in business, he was processed in a magistrate's proceeding wherein the eyewitnesses identified him as the perp. He was promptly handed over to the Romans, who did whatever passed for a judicial proceeding, and he was promptly executed. The removal from the cross was because he only committed property crimes and insulted the Temple, and notwithstanding the latter the Jewish authorities would not deny a Jew the proper burial, not let him be accursed for hanging overnight. This proves it was not for sedition. The temporary entombment, etc., I have laid out elsewhere in this thread. That's all I find credible, and much of that little I have inferred; the rest is invention.

[xpastor]

a few inscriptions are found in both Israel and Judah referring to the goddess Asherah as the consort of YHWH, Of Judah too the authors say, "the idolatry of the people of Judah was not a departure from their earlier monotheism. It was, instead, the way they had worshiped for hundreds of years."

X-P, have you ever read "Did God Have A Wife" by Bill Dever?

No, I've seen the title before. I assume it goes into this topic in greater detail. Maybe I'll get to it some day, but I too have dogs to walk, not to mention horses to feed.

---

We can know and agree about the generalities, however, and still be out-of-focus on the particular situation to which this thread was addressed: the origin of the Jesus-resurrection myth, as distinct (the way I see it) from the myth of divinity. The NT gospel stories have about zero (before John, anyway) to do with divinity, and a lot to do with the mortal human guy Jesus. Do you say that the original group, the very first followers, the mostly Galilean Jews, those who invented and spread the resurrection story, ascribed divinity to Jesus?

No, I don't think there are any divinity claims emanating from the historical Jesus. I don't think he even thought of himself as the Son of Man. The three synoptic gospels do have a few traces of deifying JC and certainly of having him claim to be the Son of Man. However, I doubt that comes from the original disciples.

[rightcoaster]

... Do you say that the original group, the very first followers, the mostly Galilean Jews, those who invented and spread the resurrection story, ascribed divinity to Jesus?

No, I don't think there are any divinity claims emanating from the historical Jesus. I don't think he even thought of himself as the Son of Man. The three synoptic gospels do have a few traces of deifying JC and certainly of having him claim to be the Son of Man. However, I doubt that comes from the original disciples.

"Son of man" ... what meaneth it????

Ezekiel 3:

"1And He said unto me: ‘Son of man, eat that which thou findest;... 3And He said unto me: ‘Son of man, cause thy belly to eat,
4And He said unto me: ‘Son of man, go, get thee unto the house of Israel, ...
10Moreover He said unto me: ‘Son of man, all My words ..."

Tehillim (Psalms) 8:
...
5. what is man that You should remember him, and the son of man that You should be mindful of him?
ה. מָה אֱנוֹשׁ כִּי תִזְכְּרֶנּוּ וּבֶן אָדָם כִּי תִפְקְדֶנּוּ: ..."

Ezekiel 28:
2. "Son of man, say to the prince of Tyre: So said the Lord God: Because your heart is proud, and you said, 'I am a god, I have sat in a seat of God, in the heart of the seas,' but you are a man and not a god, yet you have made your heart like the heart of God.

And there are other uses of "ben adam" in the Tanakh. So what if Jesus did or did not, or his immediate followers did or did not, use the phrase? Master, or "lord" (adon), are also likely ascriptions. Not any of them has any connection with divinity whatsoever, ditto mashiakh (anointed one).

[xpastor]

No, I don't think there are any divinity claims emanating from the historical Jesus. I don't think he even thought of himself as the Son of Man. The three synoptic gospels do have a few traces of deifying JC and certainly of having him claim to be the Son of Man. However, I doubt that comes from the original disciples.

"Son of man" ... what meaneth it????

In your quotes you missed the relevant one, Daniel 7:13-14

In my vision at night I looked, and there before me was one like a son of man, coming with the clouds of heaven. He approached the Ancient of Days and was led into his presence. He was given authority, glory and sovereign power; all nations and peoples of every language worshiped him. His dominion is an everlasting dominion that will not pass away, and his kingdom is one that will never be destroyed.

Jesus frequently uses the term Son of Man and in the apocalyptic pronouncements with the phrase "with the clouds of heaven." It usually appears to be a third person reference, but in a few places the term is identified with Jesus as in Matthew 8:19 "Foxes have dens and birds have nests, but the Son of Man has no place to lay his head." I think these were inserted by the gospel writers.

[rightcoaster]

"Son of man" ... what meaneth it????

In your quotes you missed the relevant one, Daniel 7:13-14

In my vision at night I looked, and there before me was one like a son of man, coming with the clouds of heaven. He approached the Ancient of Days and was led into his presence. He was given authority, glory and sovereign power; all nations and peoples of every language worshiped him. His dominion is an everlasting dominion that will not pass away, and his kingdom is one that will never be destroyed.

Jesus frequently uses the term Son of Man and in the apocalyptic pronouncements with the phrase "with the clouds of heaven." It usually appears to be a third person reference, but in a few places the term is identified with Jesus as in Matthew 8:19 "Foxes have dens and birds have nests, but the Son of Man has no place to lay his head." I think these were inserted by the gospel writers.

Oops, did omit Daniel, and there are yet others. Daniel, like Revelation, is a fiction of the apocalypse genre, right? And Jesus was an "apocalyticizer", also right? So, son of man might well have been used, it would have been in a messianic sense without any need for or hint of divinity.

Hebrew doesn't have capital letters, BTW. Using caps in connection with a word phrase in this context implies sumthin speshul but has no basis.

[Minimalist]

Of the story I find credible that Jesus was born, was working-class, that he became after he was thirty or so some sort of a charismatic leader to a lower-class, probably uneducated bunch, after having become a John-the-Baptist groupie. That the oratorical sway went to his head, to a degree, as is often the case with new celebrities, however small the celebrity may be. That he went to Jerusalem for a Passover, got into a fight in the Temple over something trivial, thereby both insulting the Temple cult and damaging the lawful and proper businesses of a couple of the scores of moneychangers and a birdseller or so of the dozens of them. That upon a proper complaint by the merchants and the Temple he was arrested and, it being the Holy Day and the Jewish courts thus were not in business, he was processed in a magistrate's proceeding wherein the eyewitnesses identified him as the perp. He was promptly handed over to the Romans, who did whatever passed for a judicial proceeding, and he was promptly executed. The removal from the cross was because he only committed property crimes and insulted the Temple, and notwithstanding the latter the Jewish authorities would not deny a Jew the proper burial, not let him be accursed for hanging overnight. This proves it was not for sedition. The temporary entombment, etc., I have laid out elsewhere in this thread. That's all I find credible, and much of that little I have inferred; the rest is invention.

As far as "is it possible" is concerned it is hard to oppose much of the early part of that.

The whole "money-changer" thing though reeks of xtian influence which seems to derive from Hellenistic ideals much of the time. Even Aristotle spoke against money lenders but would a Jew going to the temple who knew that the temple tax had to be paid in the half-shekel coin have been so upset? Moreover, if he had only committed property crimes why the sudden rush to violate every rule in the book by holding a trial on Passover? They couldn't have locked him up for a night and then dealt with him? And why would the Romans have given a rat's ass, either way? A common criminal like that did not need the expensive and public spectacle of a crucifixion. A simple sword thrust would suffice.

I use the euphemism of The Great Xtian Paradox for this: "Jesus was so dangerous and had so many followers that it was absolutely vital for the Jews to violate their own rules to hold a arrest him and hold a trial on the High Holy Day yet at the same time he was so insignificant that not a single writer alive at the time paid the slightest attention to him."

So I'll grant you that your version is "possible." Will you grant mine that this story was written later to make the Jews look like the bad guys to a Greco-Roman audience which already has a piss-poor opinion of them?

[rightcoaster]

RC:... That he went to Jerusalem for a Passover, got into a fight in the Temple over something trivial, thereby both insulting the Temple cult and damaging the lawful and proper businesses of a couple of the scores of moneychangers and a birdseller or so of the dozens of them. That upon a proper complaint by the merchants and the Temple he was arrested and, it being the Holy Day and the Jewish courts thus were not in business, he was processed in a magistrate's proceeding wherein the eyewitnesses identified him as the perp. He was promptly handed over to the Romans, who did whatever passed for a judicial proceeding, and he was promptly executed. ...

MIN: The whole "money-changer" thing though reeks of xtian influence which seems to derive from Hellenistic ideals much of the time. ... would a Jew going to the temple who knew that the temple tax had to be paid in the half-shekel coin have been so upset?

RC: The half-shekel tax was not the only reason for the moneychangers, since they had been collecting that tax all over the place for some weeks before -- their tables were set up in the provinces from the 15th of the previous month, and in the Temple from the 25th. There are good records of Jews from all over the world willingly paying their half-shekel tax.

I understood that moneychangers were needed to facilitate the sale of sacrificial items -- birds, etc. -- in coins without forbidden images. However, since the half-shekel-collectors working far away were entitled to change their shekels into darics, which bore an image of an archer, to lighten the load for transport to J'lem, perhaps the avoidance of images on coins is not quite accurate as a rationale. Perhaps moneychangers were necessary for the same reason cambios operate everywhere: foreign Jews on pilgrimage would have had foreign currency, and the offerings-vendors can't be expected to do foreign exchange. Since offerings transactions likely had to be in the local currency, moneychangers were needed at least in some cases before buying offerings.

MIN: Moreover, if he had only committed property crimes why the sudden rush to violate every rule in the book by holding a trial on Passover?

RC: 1. It was not only property crimes: the Temple was insulted. Consider Jesus Van Winkle waking up in Rome and going to St. Peter's and seeing all the idols there, and smashing one or two since they so obviously violate the Commandments. The insult to the cult would be the bigger crime than the value of the damaged idols.
2. There was no Jewish trial held at all, there was not more than a magistrate's proceeding; it was the Holy {Good} Day, the Yom Tov, magistrate unhappy at having to do anything. Validating the charges by having witnesses identify the perp should have sufficed for a magistrate to hand over the perp, with a bill of particulars, to the Romans. Perhaps the perp just pissed off whomever did the Roman proceeding -- Pilate if you wish. Certainly he, a penniless Galilean, could not have paid the damages, and it is plausible that the Temple complainants insisted on a severe penalty for the insult. So, away with him, a nudnik.

MIN: So I'll grant you that your version is "possible." Will you grant mine that this story was written later to make the Jews look like the bad guys to a Greco-Roman audience which already has a piss-poor opinion of them?

Yes, it is possible that it was made up later, but only if everything else was also made up -- that is, only if your position of 2nd C CE whole-cloth novelty for the entire NT is true. You are not the first person to have suggested to me that the Temple fracas was invented, but that first person still wants to have the rest of her cake to eat and publish about.

The Temple fracas would have been appalling, highly unfavorable to Jesus, to a Jewish audience of the 1st C CE, like idol-smashing in St., Pete's today to a devout RC. So, having the fracas included in all four gospels and then any natural consequence thereof utterly and completely ignored is what led me to ponder this in the first place. From that ponder I have evolved this far more plausible story of the entire "passion week". That is, one only needs to accept that there was a historical Jesus and that he was actually crucified. Then asking why he was hung up and examining the Mishnah (mostly Shekalim) and some internet-found writings on the practices of the Temple era, and assuming human nature is invariant, the rest follows.

The NT version of why he was hung up is definitely an invention made to have the Jews look bad, to make Jesus the victim of the unbelieving, venal, entrenched, corrupt Authorities, rather than the perp that he was, of various crimes, acts that would be criminal today. As for the death penalty, recall that in 18th C England even children were hanged for stealing http://www.capitalpunishmentuk.org/child.html, and the British colonies were no less severe.
http://www.history.org/Foundation/journa...branks.cfm