Paul and the Judaizers

[Rational Gaze]

The style of writing and the choice of language in which the texts were written.

This tells me absolutely nothing.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

Established religious leaders rarely look favourably on new "upstart heresies"

What "heresies"?

especially when they threaten said leaders positions and social stations.

Are you suggesting Jesus of Nazareth was some sort of proto-Leninist intent on using the proletariat to overthrow the regime?

Rome took little interest in native religious affairs providing those religious behaviours did not threaten the status quo, the peace, or Rome's authority. As an example, and albeit from a Christian text, see Gallio's comments in Acts chapter 18.

However, being acclaimed as, or claiming Messianic status was a political offence [only Rome could install kings within its orbit]. The later gospel stories of Jesus' blasphemy are contrary to m.Sanah 7:5, as Geza Vermes pointed out.

https://www.sefaria.org/Mishnah_Sanh...h=all&lang2=en

One who blasphemes is not liable until he mentions the Name [and "blesses" the Name by the Name (i.e., "May X curse X"), it being written (Leviticus 24:16): "And he who blasphemes the Name … if he blasphemes the Name" — blaspheming the Name by the Name.

I'm not saying anything about wicked Jews as if Jews were monolithic but rather a select group of individuals. In fact, John 18:31 states the Jews were not able to carry out a death sentence.

Purely for information: From Vol II The History of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus Christ, Emile Schürer, Revised and Edited by Fergus Millar, Geza Vermes, and Matthew Black, Bloomsbury, 1973 [my emphasis]:

Although Judaea at the time of the prefects and procurators was not an autonomous but a subject community the Sanhedrin still enjoyed a comparatively high degree of independence. Not only did it exercise civil jurisdiction according to Jewish law [which is obvious for otherwise a Jewish court of justice would be inconceivable] but it also participated to a large extent in the administration of criminal justice. It possessed an independent police force, and consequently the right to make arrests. It could also judge non-capital cases. Whether it was competent to order and execute a capital sentence prescribed by Jewish law without confirmation by the Roman governor is still hotly debated

Scholars who deny that it had such powers point only to the explicit statement in John eighteen, thirty one but also to the general tenor of the account in the Synoptics and to reminiscences preserved in rabbinic writings. Those, on the other hand, who maintain tha tthe Sanhedrin was competent to try cases entailing the death penalty and entitled to execute a convicted criminal: cite [1] Philo's extract from a letter to Agrippa I asserting that entry to the Holy of Holies by Jew, or even a priest, or even the High Priest, when not expressly ordered, constituted a crime punishable by "death without appeal"; [2] literary and epigraphic evidence indicating that a non-Jew, even a Roman citizen, was to be put to death if apprehended in the inner Temple court; [3] the trial and stoning of Stephen; [4] the trial before the Sanhedrin of Paul; [5] the trial and stoning of James the brother of Jesus; [6] the execution by burning of a priest's daughter convicted of adultery.

Neither theory can be effectively proved. The Johannine statement is unparalleled. The talmudic view that the Sanhedrin had lost its capital jurisdiction forty years before the destruction of the Temple is a late and uncertain interpretation of an obscure and otherwise unattested episoed, viz. that the high court had to evacuate its traditional seat, the Hall of the Hewn Stone, and move to the Bazaar. On the other hand, Philo's mention of the High Priest's capital guilt is purely theoretical; the threat to the Gentile to prevent him from entering the forbidden area of the Temple, can be seen as legalised lynching. Similarly, the execution of Stephen is claimed to be illegal popular justice. Lastly, it can always be claimed that none of the arguments advanced in favour of the competence of the Sanhedrin exclude of themselves the eventual need for Roman confirmation of a death sentence. It would be a mistake however to assume, on the basis of a statement in Josephus, that the Sanhedrin was not allowed to meet without the consent of the governor. The words concerned may mean only that the High Priest had not the right to hold a sovereign court in the absence, and without the agreement, of the governor. Nor do we conclude that the Jewish authorities were required to hand over every offender in the first instance to the Romans. This is no doubt what they did, if at any time it seemed to them expedient. But it does not necessarily follow that they were bound to do so. Accordingly, whilst the Sanhedrin was left to enjoy a tolerably extensive jurisdiction, its most serious restriction was that the Roman authorities could at any time take the initiative themselves and proceed independently, as in fact they did when they suspected a political offence.

The only attempt Pilate made to "save" Jesus was to send him to Herod.

From A.N. Sherwin-White Roman Society and Roman Law in the New Testament:

Something must be said about the incident in Luke of the dispatch of Christ to Herod Antipas as the ruler of Galilee. Pilate did this “because Christ came from the region of Herod’s power” in the words of Luke. There is a similar incident in Acts when the Procurator Felix asks Paul from what province he came. Neither Pilate nor Felix nor Gallio Achaea hesitated to deal with a defendant whose place of origin was “outside” their own province when the man was charged with a crime” inside” their province. Why then the question? A rather fine point of Roman criminal law is involved. The answer given by Mommsen was that strictly a man was supposed to be tried by the governor of the province of his permanent home, wherever the offense was committed, and that this was the custom of the earlier Principate. Later according to Mommsen, this usage was changed for practical reasons by a series of ordinances to allow trial in the province where the crime was committed; forum delicti replaces forum domicilii, as the lawyers say. Mommsen was rather unhappy about this notion of forum domicillii, which does not fit the nature of coercitio and cognicio extra ordinem. One does not expect the governor of the late Republic and early Principate, when faced by a malefactor to bother about the very fine question whether his imperium allowed him to deal with a man who was in but not of his province.

Executing a Rabble Rouser who was not a Roman citizen to placate a conquered people claiming the Individual was a threat to Caeser would be a simple thing to do.

Why would Pilate want to "placate" any of the Jews? Have you read the comments by Philo and Josephus on the man?

Despite their remarks [with an understandable bias] I tend to see Pontius Pilate as a Roman military governor doing a difficult job in a difficult province. That he stayed in post for some ten years would indicate that he was getting something right as far as Rome was concerned and that he kept Caiaphas as High Priest for that period again suggests, at the very least, some form of modus vivendi existed between the two men.

Pilate seems less willing to save Jesus from the Jews but rather didn't want to get involved unless absolutely necessary.

As this was a political offence, Pilate could hardly not be involved.

Pilate may found no personal fault, but he had no issue having Jesus crucified.

This is later Christian apologetics. As various commentators have noted the four canonical gospel portrayals of Jewish involvement [and indeed plotting] to remove Jesus along with their portrayals of Pilate as a vacillating and weak character concerned with a desire to "placate a conquered people" [your words] display a distinct bias towards exonerating Rome [in the guise of Pilate] and blaming "the Jews" in general.

However, once again these texts have to be considered in their socio-historical context. After 70 CE anything with known Jewish antecedents was regarded in the Roman sphere with hostility and suspicion. For Christians the fact that their own founder was yet another Jew crucified by Rome on a political charge [Messianic claims and sedition] reflected negatively upon this clandestine and fledgling cult. Hence the inevitable re-working of the causes behind Jesus' execution. It was not Pilate [IOW Rome] that wanted Jesus dead but the "wicked Jews" who of course had lately rebelled against Rome.

Why? To engage you here? I'd rather read The Very Hungry Caterpillar or IRS publications.

It is of no consequence to me if you have no desire to broaden your somewhat narrow perceptions.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

This tells me absolutely nothing.

Do some reading.

[Diogenes]

What "heresies"?

A heresy would something that simply contradicts "orthodoxy". So Jesus' association with the Messiah would have been a heresy.

Are you suggesting Jesus of Nazareth was some sort of proto-Leninist intent on using the proletariat to overthrow the regime?

Notice how I said what is being threatened is the political and social positions of the leaders.

Rome took little interest in native religious affairs providing those religious behaviours did not threaten the status quo, the peace, or Rome's authority. As an example, and albeit from a Christian text, see Gallio's comments in Acts chapter 18.

Jesus didn't threaten Rome's position as He said render unto Ceaser that which was Caeser's.

However, being acclaimed as, or claiming Messianic status was a political offence [only Rome could install kings within its orbit]. The later gospel stories of Jesus' blasphemy are contrary to m.Sanah 7:5, as Geza Vermes pointed out.

No where does Jesus claim the Kingdom of God is temporal thus no where does He threaten Rome.

Purely for information: From Vol II The History of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus Christ, Emile Schürer, Revised and Edited by Fergus Millar, Geza Vermes, and Matthew Black, Bloomsbury, 1973 [my emphasis]:

Although Judaea at the time of the prefects and procurators was not an autonomous but a subject community the Sanhedrin still enjoyed a comparatively high degree of independence. Not only did it exercise civil jurisdiction according to Jewish law [which is obvious for otherwise a Jewish court of justice would be inconceivable] but it also participated to a large extent in the administration of criminal justice. It possessed an independent police force, and consequently the right to make arrests. It could also judge non-capital cases.

Emphasis mine

This issue at hand is capital punishment.

Whether it was competent to order and execute a capital sentence prescribed by Jewish law without confirmation by the Roman governor is still hotly debate

Per the Avodah Zarah 8b:

Rabbi Yishmael, son of Rabbi Yosei, said to them the following statements that were passed down to him by his father: One hundred and eighty years before the Second Temple was destroyed, the evil Roman Empire stretched forth over Israel and ruled over them. Eighty years before the Temple was destroyed, the Sages decreed impurity on the land of the nations and on glass vessels. Forty years before the Temple was destroyed, the Sanhedrin was exiled from the Chamber of Hewn Stone and sat in the store near the Temple Mount.

Emphasis original

Rabbi Yishmael was born in 90 AD so the claim that the Jews could not deliver capital punishment is much more legitimate.

Scholars who deny that it had such powers point only to the explicit statement in John eighteen, thirty one but also to the general tenor of the account in the Synoptics and to reminiscences preserved in rabbinic writings. Those, on the other hand, who maintain tha tthe Sanhedrin was competent to try cases entailing the death penalty and entitled to execute a convicted criminal: cite [1] Philo's extract from a letter to Agrippa I asserting that entry to the Holy of Holies by Jew, or even a priest, or even the High Priest, when not expressly ordered, constituted a crime punishable by "death without appeal"; [2] literary and epigraphic evidence indicating that a non-Jew, even a Roman citizen, was to be put to death if apprehended in the inner Temple court; [3] the trial and stoning of Stephen; [4] the trial before the Sanhedrin of Paul; [5] the trial and stoning of James the brother of Jesus; [6] the execution by burning of a priest's daughter convicted of adultery.

Neither theory can be effectively proved. The Johannine statement is unparalleled. The talmudic view that the Sanhedrin had lost its capital jurisdiction forty years before the destruction of the Temple is a late and uncertain interpretation of an obscure and otherwise unattested episoed, viz. that the high court had to evacuate its traditional seat, the Hall of the Hewn Stone, and move to the Bazaar. On the other hand, Philo's mention of the High Priest's capital guilt is purely theoretical; the threat to the Gentile to prevent him from entering the forbidden area of the Temple, can be seen as legalised lynching. Similarly, the execution of Stephen is claimed to be illegal popular justice. Lastly, it can always be claimed that none of the arguments advanced in favour of the competence of the Sanhedrin exclude of themselves the eventual need for Roman confirmation of a death sentence. It would be a mistake however to assume, on the basis of a statement in Josephus, that the Sanhedrin was not allowed to meet without the consent of the governor. The words concerned may mean only that the High Priest had not the right to hold a sovereign court in the absence, and without the agreement, of the governor. Nor do we conclude that the Jewish authorities were required to hand over every offender in the first instance to the Romans. This is no doubt what they did, if at any time it seemed to them expedient. But it does not necessarily follow that they were bound to do so. Accordingly, whilst the Sanhedrin was left to enjoy a tolerably extensive jurisdiction, its most serious restriction was that the Roman authorities could at any time take the initiative themselves and proceed independently, as in fact they did when they suspected a political offence.[/box]

Between Rabbi Yishmael and Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak, the idea that the Sanhedrin was not able to execute and thus individuals who wanted to get rid of Jesus concocted the narrative of Jesus being a threat to Rome in order for Rome to execute Jesus seems reasonable. 90 AD is not that far removed, especially considering the oral nature of the Torah.

Why would Pilate want to "placate" any of the Jews?

Given that the Jews were a troublesome conquered peoples, as evidence by the various revolts, Pilate would do well to placate the religious leaders.

Despite their remarks [with an understandable bias] I tend to see Pontius Pilate as a Roman military governor doing a difficult job in a difficult province. That he stayed in post for some ten years would indicate that he was getting something right as far as Rome was concerned and that he kept Caiaphas as High Priest for that period again suggests, at the very least, some form of modus vivendi existed between the two men.

Executing a Rabble Rouser to maintain the peace would easily fit into that.

As this was a political offence, Pilate could hardly not be involved.

Seeing as Jesus was apolitical, it was not a political offence.

This is later Christian apologetics. As various commentators have noted the four canonical gospel portrayals of Jewish involvement [and indeed plotting] to remove Jesus along with their portrayals of Pilate as a vacillating and weak character concerned with a desire to "placate a conquered people" [your words] display a distinct bias towards exonerating Rome [in the guise of Pilate] and blaming "the Jews" in general.

It's not my fault that the area in question was full of Jews when the Romans conquered it or that Jesus was subverting the religious authority of the Jewish religion. Emphasising "the Jews" as if I'm being anti-Semitic is a red herring as I haveand a reasonable interpretation of Christian theology would similarly exonerate the Jews as a means to God's ends.

However, once again these texts have to be considered in their socio-historical context. After 70 CE anything with known Jewish antecedents was regarded in the Roman sphere with hostility and suspicion. For Christians the fact that their own founder was yet another Jew crucified by Rome on a political charge [Messianic claims and sedition] reflected negatively upon this clandestine and fledgling cult.

I'm aware that it would be in the interest of Christians to distance themselves from Jews due to various revolts.

Hence the inevitable re-working of the causes behind Jesus' execution. was not Pilate [IOW Rome] that wanted Jesus dead but the "wicked Jews" who of course had lately rebelled against Rome.

No where have I considered the Jews to be wicked.

It is of no consequence to me if you have no desire to broaden your somewhat narrow perceptions.

You seem particularly concerned. What useful benefit would I gain by reading any of your suggested works over The Very Hungry Caterpillar or IRS publications?

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

A heresy would something that simply contradicts "orthodoxy". So Jesus' association with the Messiah would have been a heresy.

Why would any claim regarding Jewish messianic status be a "heresy"? Israelite kings [as was Cyrus of Persia] were deemed to be messiahs.

Nor was there any orthodoxy in Judaism at that particular time. Orthopraxy is another issue.

As for your comment about "heresy" this would only have involved preaching against the teachings of Judaism, and none of the gospel narratives, as they have come down to us, show that Jesus ever did any such thing.

I therefore consider the word "heresy" to be inappropriate.

There were several mass movements from the late first century BCE that were composed of Jewish peasants from villages and towns who rallied around charismatic leaders that were considered to be the anointed kings of the Jews [Messiahs].

In 4 BCE Sepphoris [just a few kilometres from where Jesus was presumably born] was destroyed and its inhabitants sold into slavery. Likewise Emmaus was destroyed by Varus following those uprisings against Archelaus. One cannot but consider that the young Jesus would have heard about such events and may even have had relatives who had fought in those uprisings, or suffered the consequences.

Notice how I said what is being threatened is the political and social positions of the leaders.

A potential uprising would threaten the Sadducean political and social positions, as well as the Roman province of Judaea [after 6 CE] and also the territories of its client kingdoms.

And as noted there were uprisings in the late first century BCE and into the first century CE [to wit the uprising of Judas of Gamala against the census of Quirinius in 6 CE] Hence uprisings and revolts were hardly unknown.

However, some thirty years or so after the death of Jesus of Nazareth [and in the account that has come down from Josephus] the behaviour of Menahem clearly shows he considered himself a messiah. As the leader of a group of Jewish insurgents who murdered the High Priest, Menaham then appeared in the Temple dressed as a king [clearly a messianic statement]

Jesus didn't threaten Rome's position as He said render unto Ceaser that which was Caeser's.

There could be a double-edged meaning in those verses.

Furthermore and something you seem reluctant to accept is that being acclaimed as, or claiming, messianic status [kingship] was a political offence. I repeat, only Rome could appoint kings within its orbit, as it had done [some time previously in that region] with the appointment of Herod the Great

No where does Jesus claim the Kingdom of God is temporal thus no where does He threaten Rome.

That is later Christian apologetics. See my above remarks on the political aspect of a kingdom of God.

It has also been suggested that for Jews in that region at that time [early first century CE] politics and religion were synonymous. Hence could any Jew from that region be religious without being political?

Nor do we know what the man himself actually intended as he has left us no authentic personal writings.

This issue at hand is capital punishment.

Again, I repeat that the political offence of claiming [or being acclaimed as] a Jewish Messiah was a capital offence.

Per the Avodah Zarah 8b:

Rabbi Yishmael, son of Rabbi Yosei, said to them the following statements that were passed down to him by his father: One hundred and eighty years before the Second Temple was destroyed, the evil Roman Empire stretched forth over Israel and ruled over them. Eighty years before the Temple was destroyed, the Sages decreed impurity on the land of the nations and on glass vessels. Forty years before the Temple was destroyed, the Sanhedrin was exiled from the Chamber of Hewn Stone and sat in the store near the Temple Mount.

Emphasis original

Rabbi Yishmael was born in 90 AD so the claim that the Jews could not deliver capital punishment is much more legitimate.

Which means that the good rabbi was not writing until at least the early second century CE. And as Millar, Vermes, and Black noted in the extract that I supplied:

The talmudic view that the Sanhedrin had lost its capital jurisdiction forty years before the destruction of the Temple is a late and uncertain interpretation of an obscure and otherwise unattested episode, viz. that the high court had to evacuate its traditional seat, the Hall of the Hewn Stone, and move to the Bazaar.

Between Rabbi Yishmael and Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak, the idea that the Sanhedrin was not able to execute and thus individuals who wanted to get rid of Jesus concocted the narrative of Jesus being a threat to Rome in order for Rome to execute Jesus seems reasonable. 90 AD is not that far removed, especially considering the oral nature of the Torah.

https://www.myjewishlearning.com/art...he-oral-torah/

The Oral Torah refers to the later works of the rabbinic period, most prominently the Mishnah and the Gemara, jointly known as the Talmud, that explain and expand on the statutes recorded in the Written Torah.

See also my above remarks on when Rabbi Yishmael would have been writing; and do not forget the events of 132-136 CE.

Given that the Jews were a troublesome conquered peoples, as evidence by the various revolts, Pilate would do well to placate the religious leaders.

Such a comment can only have been written by someone with absolutely no knowledge of Rome's historical involvement in the region as well as the history of that region from the second century BCE.

Executing a Rabble Rouser to maintain the peace would easily fit into that.

Given my earlier comments on the contemporary military situation and given that the gospel narratives have this event taking place during Passover, it would seem more than likely that Pilate decided to proverbially nip any potential uprising in the bud by executing those he considered to be the ringleaders. And I repeat, messianic claims were political offences and carried the death penalty.

Seeing as Jesus was apolitical, it was not a political offence.

We do not know that. You are referring to much later tendentious accounts found in the four canonical gospels of a pacific Jesus. However, all four gospel narratives have Pilate asking Jesus "Are you the King of the Jews?”

It's not my fault that the area in question was full of Jews when the Romans conquered it or that Jesus was subverting the religious authority of the Jewish religion. Emphasising "the Jews" as if I'm being anti-Semitic is a red herring as I haveand a reasonable interpretation of Christian theology would similarly exonerate the Jews as a means to God's ends.

My remark was not addressed directly to yourself, although it seems to have touched a nerve.

I'm aware that it would be in the interest of Christians to distance themselves from Jews due to various revolts.

You appear to have conceded my point with regard to the bias against the Jews found in all four passion narratives.

No where have I considered the Jews to be wicked.

Again, that was not intended as a reference to your good-self.

You seem particularly concerned. What useful benefit would I gain by reading any of your suggested works over The Very Hungry Caterpillar or IRS publications?

You seem confused between someone making a suggestion and someone expressing concern.

However, if your future replies are going to be in a similar vein, with continued references to later gospel texts as the basis of your contentions, along with a reluctance to understand the complexities of this region's historical, social, and political history [i.e. the two hundred years or so leading up to the first century CE] there seems little point in continuing this exchange.

[Rational Gaze]

Do some reading.

So, basically, you can't explain your own position.

[Diogenes]

Why would any claim regarding Jewish messianic status be a "heresy"? Israelite kings [as was Cyrus of Persia] were deemed to be messiahs.

Nor was there any orthodoxy in Judaism at that particular time. Orthopraxy is another issue.

Jesus teaching against the Pharisees would have been heretical in His day.

As for your comment about "heresy" this would only have involved preaching against the teachings of Judaism, and none of the gospel narratives, as they have come down to us, show that Jesus ever did any such thing.

I therefore consider the word "heresy" to be inappropriate.

Something need not be actually heretical to be considered heretical by religious authorities, hence why I used quote marks.

In 4 BCE Sepphoris [just a few kilometres from where Jesus was presumably born] was destroyed and its inhabitants sold into slavery. Likewise Emmaus was destroyed by Varus following those uprisings against Archelaus. One cannot but consider that the young Jesus would have heard about such events and may even have had relatives who had fought in those uprisings, or suffered the consequences.

Seeing as Jesus was in Egypt for a time shortly after His birth and then retuned to Joseph's town of Nazareth , it would be unlikely Jesus would so closely identify with the history of the region around His birth location. I assume would actually be familiar the biblically narratives.

A potential uprising would threaten the Sadducean political and social positions, as well as the Roman province of Judaea [after 6 CE] and also the territories of its client kingdoms.

No where did Jesus preach an uprising.

And as noted there were uprisings in the late first century BCE and into the first century CE [to wit the uprising of Judas of Gamala against the census of Quirinius in 6 CE] Hence uprisings and revolts were hardly unknown.

Again, Jesus did not preach political resistance.


[QUOTE]However, some thirty years or so after the death of Jesus of Nazareth [and in the account that has come down from Josephus] the behaviour of Menahem clearly shows he considered himself a messiah. As the leader of a group of Jewish insurgents who murdered the High Priest, Menaham then appeared in the Temple dressed as a king [clearly a messianic statement]

So, not Jesus.


There could be a double-edged meaning in those verses.

Furthermore and something you seem reluctant to accept is that being acclaimed as, or claiming, messianic status [kingship] was a political offence. I repeat, only Rome could appoint kings within its orbit, as it had done [some time previously in that region] with the appointment of Herod the Great

Seeing as Jesus did not claim any political status, He was not a political threat.

That is later Christian apologetics. See my above remarks on the political aspect of a kingdom of God.

It's not merely "later Christian apologetics", it's what's considered the actual teachings of Jesus. Are you saying Jesus really preached a political message?

It has also been suggested that for Jews in that region at that time [early first century CE] politics and religion were synonymous. Hence could any Jew from that region be religious without being political?

Nor do we know what the man himself actually intended as he has left us no authentic personal writings.

Socrates also had not "authentic personal writings".

However, if your future replies are going to be in a similar vein, with continued references to later gospel texts as the basis of your contentions, along with a reluctance to understand the complexities of this region's historical, social, and political history [i.e. the two hundred years or so leading up to the first century CE]

No where have I denied any of the complexities you have offered

We do not know that. You are referring to much later tendentious accounts found in the four canonical gospels of a pacific Jesus. However, all four gospel narratives have Pilate asking Jesus "Are you the King of the Jews?”

And in John 18:36 Jesus states:

Jesus answered, “My kingdom is not from this world. If my kingdom were from this world, my followers would be fighting to keep me from being handed over to the Jews. But as it is, my kingdom is not from here.”


Jesus denies any temporal kingship and thus not a threat to Roman rule.

[tabibito]

Jesus teaching against the Pharisees would have been heretical in His day.

Seems unlikely. Many spoke against the Pharisees - the Sadducees included. Jesus also spoke against the Pharisees' actions (as a group, with exceptions), not so much against their teachings.

Something need not be actually heretical to be considered heretical by religious authorities,

True that.

Seeing as Jesus was in Egypt for a time shortly after His birth and then returned to Joseph's town of Nazareth , it would be unlikely Jesus would so closely identify with the history of the region around His birth location. I assume would actually be familiar the biblically narratives.

Joseph's hometown was Bethlehem. He had to go to Bethlehem to register for the census for that reason (Luke 2:3). Whether descendant of David or not, going to one's hometown to register was required: "Descendant of David" provides a reason for Bethlehem being Joseph's home town (Luke 2:4)*, not the reason for the requirement that he register in Bethlehem. On their return from Egypt, by which time Jesus may have been between five and eight years of age, the family intended to return to Judah but turned toward Nazareth, Galilee because it was not in Archelaus' bailiwick (Matt 2:21-23).

* This does not deny that Joseph was in Nazareth, but Nazareth was not his hometown.

No where did Jesus preach an uprising.

Again, Jesus did not preach political resistance.

Sadly, it does need saying.

However, some thirty years or so after the death of Jesus of Nazareth [and in the account that has come down from Josephus] the behaviour of Menahem clearly shows he considered himself a messiah. As the leader of a group of Jewish insurgents who murdered the High Priest, Menaham then appeared in the Temple dressed as a king [clearly a messianic statement]

So, not Jesus.



Seeing as Jesus did not claim any political status, He was not a political threat.




It's not merely "later Christian apologetics", it's what's considered the actual teachings of Jesus. Are you saying Jesus really preached a political message?

I think it would be fair to say that Jesus' teachings were a threat to the status quo. The crowds turning aside from the temple to go to Jesus and Lazarus (John 12:9-11,17-20) drew a response from the temple hierarchy and Pharisees.

Socrates also had not "authentic personal writings".

And not only Socrates; the same specious objection could be raised with regard to any biographical comment in any writing where the person referred to hasn't recorded the comment himself.

And in John 18:36 Jesus states:

Jesus answered, “My kingdom is not from this world. If my kingdom were from this world, my followers would be fighting to keep me from being handed over to the Jews. But as it is, my kingdom is not from here.”


Jesus denies any temporal kingship and thus not a threat to Roman rule.

It is a denial made while he was before Pilate, in whose thought there may have been some doubt about its veracity.

[Diogenes]

Joseph's hometown was Bethlehem. He had to go to Bethlehem to register for the census for that reason (Luke 2:3). Whether descendant of David or not, going to one's hometown to register was required: "Descendant of David" provides a reason for Bethlehem being Joseph's home town (Luke 2:4)*, not the reason for the requirement that he register in Bethlehem. On their return from Egypt, by which time Jesus may have been between five and eight years of age, the family intended to return to Judah but turned toward Nazareth, Galilee because it was not in Archelaus' bailiwick (Matt 2:21-23).

* This does not deny that Joseph was in Nazareth, but Nazareth was not his hometown.
.

I'm not meaning "hometown" as in the one of Joseph's ancestors and in Jewish context but rather in a more modern sense of where he was born, raised, and made a living. My apologies. The point was more the Jesus never lived in Bethlehem for any significant amount of time to become emotionally attached to the region's history as Hypatia suggested. It would be like saying an "army brat" had some emotional connection to where they [were] born.

[tabibito]

I'm not meaning "hometown" as in the one of Joseph's ancestors and in Jewish context but rather in a more modern sense of where he was born, raised, and made a living. My apologies. The point was more the Jesus never lived in Bethlehem for any significant amount of time to become emotionally attached to the region's history as Hypatia suggested. It would be like saying an "army brat" had some emotional connection to where they [were] born.

The biblical meaning of hometown is essentially the same as ours - either the primary place of residence, or where a person was born or raised. For the purposes of a Roman census, the place of residence applies (in extremely rare circumstances, a person might have had two or more places of residence). For Joseph to be required to register in Bethlehem, Bethlehem had to be his home town (by both definitions). Joseph would have merely been sojourning in Nazareth prior to the journey to Jerusalem with Mary, though after returning from Egypt, it would have become his home town (by the first definition).

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

So, basically, you can't explain your own position.

Looking briefly through your oevre [presumably self-published] on Amazon you seem to present yourself as something of an expert on philosophy and religion.

Unfortunately no customer reviews have been posted for your selection of short texts and looking through what was available for each [courtesy of Amazon] they all appear to be little more than a mélange of personal opinion.

However, as you have an academic background you should not find it difficult to obtain some appropriate texts to enlighten you.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

I'm not meaning "hometown" as in the one of Joseph's ancestors and in Jewish context but rather in a more modern sense of where he was born, raised, and made a living. My apologies. The point was more the Jesus never lived in Bethlehem for any significant amount of time to become emotionally attached to the region's history as Hypatia suggested. It would be like saying an "army brat" had some emotional connection to where they [were] born.

My reference to

[just a few kilometres from where Jesus was presumably born]

Was with regard to Nazareth. We do not know the man as Jesus of Bethlehem and the two birth narratives contradict one another.

[Diogenes]

The biblical meaning of hometown is essentially the same as ours - either the primary place of residence, or where a person was born or raised. For the purposes of a Roman census, the place of residence applies (in extremely rare circumstances, a person might have had two or more places of residence). For Joseph to be required to register in Bethlehem, Bethlehem had to be his home town (by both definitions). Joseph would have merely been sojourning in Nazareth prior to the journey to Jerusalem with Mary, though after returning from Egypt, it would have become his home town (by the first definition).

At most, Luke places Joseph in Nazareth and the reason to go to Bethlehem is due to being in the House of David, not that Joseph was born there.

[rogue06]

Goodness me! Two occasions.

As to the rest. Nobody cares.

Two that immediately spring to mind and which you should as well recall. Moreover, more than sufficient to put the lie to your specious claims.

[rogue06]

A rather far-fetched notion! Or are we back once again to the "wicked Jews"?

I suppose you do realise that only the Roman governor possessed imperium?

Furthermore historical context has to be considered...

And now for yet another round of H_A's favorite game -- I knows stuff. Even if it is all largely irrelevant she'll use the excuse of providing "context" to display what she had just finished Googling.

I recommend you do some serious reading on these topics.

How many articles Googled do you consider "serious reading"?