How much of Christianity came from Jesus, and how much came from other sources?

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

You are curiously fond of that phrase. Part of national heritage, perhaps?

That is how they been described in some of the earliest Christian writings. Here are some extracts from Justin Martyr [100-165 CE] in his Dialogue with Trypho [a Jew] My emphasis.

For this is the symbolic significance of unleavened bread, that you do not commit the old deeds of wicked leaven. But you have understood all things in a carnal sense, and you suppose it to be piety if you do such things, while your souls are filled with deceit, and, in short, with every wickedness.

For other nations have not inflicted on us and on Christ this wrong to such an extent as you have, who in very deed are the authors of the wicked prejudice against the Just One.

So that, as in the beginning, these things were enjoined you because of your wickedness, in like manner because of your steadfastness in it, or rather your increased proneness to it, by means of the same precepts He calls you to a remembrance or knowledge of it. But you are a people hard-hearted and without understanding, both blind and lame, children in whom is no faith, as He Himself says, honouring Him only with your lips, far from Him in your hearts, teaching doctrines that are your own and not His.

But impute it to your own wickedness, that God even can be accused by those who have no understanding, of not having always instructed all in the same righteous statutes.

And I replied, "I would not bring forward these proofs, Trypho, by which I am aware those who worship these[idols] and such like are condemned, but such[proofs] as no one could find any objection to. They will appear strange to you, although you read them every day; so that even from this fact we understand that, because of your wickedness, God has withheld from you the ability to discern the wisdom of His Scriptures;

But you were never shown to be possessed of friendship or love either towards God, or towards the prophets, or towards yourselves, but, as is evident, you are ever found to be idolaters and murderers of righteous men, so that you laid hands even on Christ Himself; and to this very day you abide in your wickedness, execrating those who prove that this man who was crucified by you is the Christ.

And though all the men of your nation knew the incidents in the life of Jonah, and though Christ said amongst you that He would give the sign of Jonah, exhorting you to repent of your wicked deeds at least after He rose again from the dead, and to mourn before God as did the Ninevites, in order that your nation and city might not be taken and destroyed, as they have been destroyed;

For you neither suffer Him when He calls you, nor hear Him when He speaks to you, but have done evil in the presence of the Lord. But the highest pitch of your wickedness lies in this, that you hate the Righteous One, and slew Him

There is no mention by Justin of it it being only the Jewish leaders who brought about the death of Jesus - now it is the Jews as a people through the generations who are responsible for killing the Christ.

[tabibito]

We also note how the crowd gets steadily larger or more impressive according to each narrative:

Mark:
Many people spread their cloaks on the road, and others spread leafy branches that they had cut in the fields. ⁹ Then those who went ahead and those who followed were shouting,

Matthew:
A very large crowd^[b] spread their cloaks on the road, and others cut branches from the trees and spread them on the road. ⁹ The crowds that went ahead of him and that followed were shouting,

Luke:
Now as he was approaching the path down from the Mount of Olives, the whole multitude of the disciples began to praise God joyfully with a loud voice for all the deeds of power that they had seen,

John:
The next day the great crowd that had come to the festival heard that Jesus was coming to Jerusalem. ¹³ So they took branches of palm trees and went out to meet him, shouting,

[/I]

Just the usual farrago on the part of your source(s). But they don't need to worry over much: they know that their audience is unlikely to actually check whether their (dis)information is accurate.
Matthew, Mark, and Luke make no mention of any but Jesus' disciples laying clothing and leaves on the road. Matthew's account must be read with care to avoid being trapped by its ambiguity. Mark only mentions what the disciples were doing. Matthew has crowds going before the group, but makes no mention of members of the crowds laying items on the road. Luke - as underscoring shows - only speaks of the disciples and their actions. John's focus is on other things and he gives no more than a short precis of the event, which results in hyperbole.

[Mountain Man]

That is how they been described in some of the earliest Christian writings. Here are some extracts from Justin Martyr [100-165 CE] in his Dialogue with Trypho [a Jew] My emphasis.

For this is the symbolic significance of unleavened bread, that you do not commit the old deeds of wicked leaven. But you have understood all things in a carnal sense, and you suppose it to be piety if you do such things, while your souls are filled with deceit, and, in short, with every wickedness.

For other nations have not inflicted on us and on Christ this wrong to such an extent as you have, who in very deed are the authors of the wicked prejudice against the Just One.

So that, as in the beginning, these things were enjoined you because of your wickedness, in like manner because of your steadfastness in it, or rather your increased proneness to it, by means of the same precepts He calls you to a remembrance or knowledge of it. But you are a people hard-hearted and without understanding, both blind and lame, children in whom is no faith, as He Himself says, honouring Him only with your lips, far from Him in your hearts, teaching doctrines that are your own and not His.

But impute it to your own wickedness, that God even can be accused by those who have no understanding, of not having always instructed all in the same righteous statutes.

And I replied, "I would not bring forward these proofs, Trypho, by which I am aware those who worship these[idols] and such like are condemned, but such[proofs] as no one could find any objection to. They will appear strange to you, although you read them every day; so that even from this fact we understand that, because of your wickedness, God has withheld from you the ability to discern the wisdom of His Scriptures;

But you were never shown to be possessed of friendship or love either towards God, or towards the prophets, or towards yourselves, but, as is evident, you are ever found to be idolaters and murderers of righteous men, so that you laid hands even on Christ Himself; and to this very day you abide in your wickedness, execrating those who prove that this man who was crucified by you is the Christ.

And though all the men of your nation knew the incidents in the life of Jonah, and though Christ said amongst you that He would give the sign of Jonah, exhorting you to repent of your wicked deeds at least after He rose again from the dead, and to mourn before God as did the Ninevites, in order that your nation and city might not be taken and destroyed, as they have been destroyed;

For you neither suffer Him when He calls you, nor hear Him when He speaks to you, but have done evil in the presence of the Lord. But the highest pitch of your wickedness lies in this, that you hate the Righteous One, and slew Him

There is no mention by Justin of it it being only the Jewish leaders who brought about the death of Jesus - now it is the Jews as a people through the generations who are responsible for killing the Christ.

His commentary strikes me as rather pointed, being directed explicitly at Tycho as opposed to being a broad condemnation of all Jewish people.

I also notice he doesn't employ your favorite phrase "the wicked Jews" anywhere in this example.

[tabibito]

That is how they been described in some of the earliest Christian writings. Here are some extracts from Justin Martyr [100-165 CE] in his Dialogue with Trypho [a Jew] My emphasis.

For this is the symbolic significance of unleavened bread, that you do not commit the old deeds of wicked leaven. But you have understood all things in a carnal sense, and you suppose it to be piety if you do such things, while your souls are filled with deceit, and, in short, with every wickedness.

For other nations have not inflicted on us and on Christ this wrong to such an extent as you have, who in very deed are the authors of the wicked prejudice against the Just One.

So that, as in the beginning, these things were enjoined you because of your wickedness, in like manner because of your steadfastness in it, or rather your increased proneness to it, by means of the same precepts He calls you to a remembrance or knowledge of it. But you are a people hard-hearted and without understanding, both blind and lame, children in whom is no faith, as He Himself says, honouring Him only with your lips, far from Him in your hearts, teaching doctrines that are your own and not His.

But impute it to your own wickedness, that God even can be accused by those who have no understanding, of not having always instructed all in the same righteous statutes.

And I replied, "I would not bring forward these proofs, Trypho, by which I am aware those who worship these[idols] and such like are condemned, but such[proofs] as no one could find any objection to. They will appear strange to you, although you read them every day; so that even from this fact we understand that, because of your wickedness, God has withheld from you the ability to discern the wisdom of His Scriptures;

But you were never shown to be possessed of friendship or love either towards God, or towards the prophets, or towards yourselves, but, as is evident, you are ever found to be idolaters and murderers of righteous men, so that you laid hands even on Christ Himself; and to this very day you abide in your wickedness, execrating those who prove that this man who was crucified by you is the Christ.

And though all the men of your nation knew the incidents in the life of Jonah, and though Christ said amongst you that He would give the sign of Jonah, exhorting you to repent of your wicked deeds at least after He rose again from the dead, and to mourn before God as did the Ninevites, in order that your nation and city might not be taken and destroyed, as they have been destroyed;

For you neither suffer Him when He calls you, nor hear Him when He speaks to you, but have done evil in the presence of the Lord. But the highest pitch of your wickedness lies in this, that you hate the Righteous One, and slew Him

There is no mention by Justin of it it being only the Jewish leaders who brought about the death of Jesus - now it is the Jews as a people through the generations who are responsible for killing the Christ.

Happily, Justin Martyr wasn't writing scripture.
Dialogue with Trypho is hardly a polemic against Jews, and though it does slate charges against Jews generally, that is hardly an unknown process which, until fairly recently, was readily understood for what it was. The accusations are no more than sweeping generalisations. That fact should be readily apparent to anyone reading Dialogue with Trypho, because Trypho is not being personally accused or attacked: the discussion is cordial and at the conclusion, the two part of friendly terms.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

His commentary strikes me as rather pointed, being directed explicitly at Tycho as opposed to being a broad condemnation of all Jewish people.

I also notice he doesn't employ your favorite phrase "the wicked Jews" anywhere in this example.

The Jews are nonetheless "wicked".

[Mountain Man]

The Jews are nonetheless "wicked".

Did you perform a snappy Nazi salute as you wrote that?

[tabibito]

An exercise that I throw at Bible study groups when I act as facilitator.



The sentences below say different things; what are they?

The Jews, who were wicked, crucified our lord.
The Jews who were wicked crucified our lord.

Which sentence do the authors have in mind in the Bible narratives?

[RumTumTugger]

..... and somehow this was there in the early 1st century AD?

I don't think that there was ANYBODY or ANYTHING at Nazareth circa 2BC, and there certainly was nothing on the slopes of Nazareth Hill.
The early communities chose Nazareth for security which was on the top of the hill.

Although human habitation has been discovered to date back beyond bronze age I don't think anything was there circa 2BC. When the Roman Legions and a cohort came to the area at that time they expelled the bandit Judas BarEzekias, his followers and all others from Sepphoris, sold all the women and children in to slavery and executed all the men after they had taken the place apart. During this time the Romans needed to feed off the entire surrounding area and any habitations within a day's travel would have been foraged, pillaged, looted ...... ravaged and raped. The Roman Legate was furious about all the trouble that he had to clear up, and the cost, and any hilltop in the district would have been cleared out just as Sepphoris was.

And so when Antipas took power and decided to rebuild that 'city' then the workers would have started to return, and the working peasants of the North would have brought tents..... why build houses?

I know that you want your Nazareth to be a quaint little town with houses but it was a barren place which offered some security for working families.

Citation please preferably a link that does not lead to page not found or I'll have to assume you are just making this up in order not to admit you are biased researcher who only accepts what agrees with what you want to believe.

[One Bad Pig]

Have you tried doing some serious reading on Judaea under Roman governance?

I have not 'tried'. I have actually done so.

You asked:

How many other accounts do we have?

.

I gave you a reply to that question.

And your reply rather more bore out my position than yours.

Vague phrases such as "the ancients" mean precisely nothing without a context. Which precise "ancients" are being referenced and at what specific historical period?

In this case, precision is rather immaterial; the separation of politics and religion is a very recent phenomenon.

They were not being asked to recant - merely to offer their pinch of incense. After that they could go away and continue to practise their religion. And clearly many did make their sacrifice while others laid low. Nor were these persecutions of great duration and at other times they were localised. To wit the comments about Christians being blamed for bad harvests etc.

Offering a pinch of incense IS recanting - which is why so many people opted to die rather than do so.

You wrote:

The high priest, who accused Jesus of blasphemy, was very likely a Sadducee

.

I merely corrected you.

No, you merely dogmatically stated something I somewhat hedged (in the process, validating my point).

Then you are ignoring the known history of the period in preference for early Christian apologetics.

lolno.

That is something of an understatement if those gospel narratives recount an actual event. Being acclaimed as a king was a political act and given the situation in Jerusalem [the Passover] it could lead to a serious insurrection. I repeat, only Rome had the power to appoint kings in its orbit.

We also note how the crowd gets steadily larger or more impressive according to each narrative:

Mark:
Many people spread their cloaks on the road, and others spread leafy branches that they had cut in the fields. ⁹ Then those who went ahead and those who followed were shouting,

Matthew:
A very large crowd^[b] spread their cloaks on the road, and others cut branches from the trees and spread them on the road. ⁹ The crowds that went ahead of him and that followed were shouting,

Luke:
Now as he was approaching the path down from the Mount of Olives, the whole multitude of the disciples began to praise God joyfully with a loud voice for all the deeds of power that they had seen,

John:
The next day the great crowd that had come to the festival heard that Jesus was coming to Jerusalem. ¹³ So they took branches of palm trees and went out to meet him, shouting,

Others have already adequately addressed this.

Your comment on Judas is interesting but as for the rest, again all this is apologetics to distance the pacific Christ from those Jews who had recently rebelled.

Your assumption is duly noted. Given its endpoint, Luke-Acts dates from before the rebellion, while by nearly all accounts John was written well after it.

Hence the caricature of Pilate which is very much at odds with the accounts of the man provided by both Philo and Josephus [acknowledging a degree of bias on the part of both writers].

The gospel narratives depict Pilate as weak and vacillating, and a man who eventually acquiesces to a bloodthirsty mob despite finding no fault in Jesus.

Meh. Pilate's acts can also be read as entirely cynical and jaded, entirely in line with Philo and Josephus.

This neatly removes direct blame from Rome [in the guise of Pilate] for the death of Jesus and places it squarely with the Jews whose leaders connive and plot to kill him. And that anti-Judaic trope comes right down into our present times. The Jews encouraged and urged on by their leaders killed the Christ.

Pffft. Perhaps it's escaped you, but nobody in this thread is blaming his death on The Jews.

Then your gospel accounts of the entry are incorrect. None of them describe the people hailing a priest.

Given your initial ignorant remark:

Why would Pilate give two figs about a Messiah?

That is quite amusing. It is also a volte face on you part.

There was current at that time the idea of two Messiahs - one a king and the other a priest. Again, perhaps it escaped your notice, but Pilate never asked Jesus anything about being a messiah.

And of course you accept all these as accurate and eye-witness accounts?

One has to wonder where exactly all four gospel writers were hiding during these incidents. Was each lurking under a table or behind a pillar, tabulae and stylus in hand ready to take notes? One also has to wonder why the accounts contradict one another.

Eyewitness accounts vary according to what stuck out to the eyewitness, which is why even today multiple eyewitnesses are sought to understand what happened in an incident; one needs to look at the whole to get a complete picture. Of the four gospel accounts, only John is a possible direct eyewitness; Luke seems to have been most careful in investigating eyewitnesses. While Matthew may have been a disciple, only John appears to have been there for everything. Peter, Mark's ostensible source, appears to have slunk off once he realized he'd denied Christ while he was being examined by the Sanhedrin.

I am not entirely certain what point you are making. Perhaps you are merely trying to:

prove you knows stuff

I was adding to your 'knows stuff'.

He was captured. According to the gospels he was arrested. He did not voluntarily walk up to the Antonia and hand himself in.

By the Romans? Hardly.

Of course they are unanimous in that respect because these accounts are written post 70 CE.

I'm not sure what that has to do with anything, even assuming its accuracy. Their leader had been killed; every other revolt quickly ended once the leader was dead. Trajan did investigate some of Jesus' family later, but quickly concluded that they were no threat.

I am not casting aspersions on the accounts I am assessing them in their socio-religious and historical context.

Something you are clearly unable or unwilling to do.

They can have no flaws and have to be accurate for you because "The Bible tells me so".

Well, no. They are not perfect and they're incomplete, but they've generally been proven reliable in the decades I've spent studying them and their context. I plan to keep studying and critically evaluating what I read.

[tabibito]

Well, no. They are not perfect and they're incomplete, but they've generally been proven reliable in the decades I've spent studying them and their context. I plan to keep studying and critically evaluating what I read.

You will be held to the stereotype regardless of how often you say it or demonstrate that your claim is true. To date, nothing offered has been able to break her conception of a Christian's inability to subject the scriptures to an honest appraisal.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

No apologies for font issues. This was typed in Word.

I have not 'tried'. I have actually done so.

Judging from your previous comments and those that follow in this post, it seems that whatever you read was not retained. Perhaps you suffer from the same problem as rogu06..

And your reply rather more bore out my position than yours.

And precisely what is your position?

In this case, precision is rather immaterial; the separation of politics and religion is a very recent phenomenon.

You may consider vague references to be acceptable. I do not.

What I stated with regard to early Christian persecution was correct. It was not solely their religious beliefs that were at issue it was their refusal to participate in civic ceremonies and to accept the authority of the state. These actions would have included open defiance towards legal magisterial direction, which in itself constituted a criminal offence of contumacia. All of these actions therefore were considered to be both subversive and dangerous. The pax deorum was extremely important to Roman society.

In his Roman History Cassius Dio wrote of how religious subversion could lead to danger and chaos for the state, and he presents this in the form of an imaginary speech given by Maecenus to his friend Octavian in 29 BCE. [Cassius Dio LII 36 1-3].

I would have thought someone who was reasonably well informed concerning Roman religions and society would have understood all that. However, perhaps you thought I intended the word political in its more general modern application.

Offering a pinch of incense IS recanting - which is why so many people opted to die rather than do so.

However, it seems that many did make their sacrifice. Or they laid low. Or used legal means of evasion, or bribed lesser officials.

No, you merely dogmatically stated something I somewhat hedged (in the process, validating my point).

Given that nowhere in the gospel narratives is it written that Jesus ever uses the tetragrammaton, he therefore did not commit blasphemy. Your point therefore is somewhat irrelevant.

Your assumption is duly noted. Given its endpoint, Luke-Acts dates from before the rebellion

You may hold that view but the endpoint of that particular narrative text cannot be used to establish its date of composition

while by nearly all accounts John was written well after it.

On that point we are in agreement.

Meh. Pilate's acts can also be read as entirely cynical and jaded, entirely in line with Philo and Josephus.

Do elucidate.

Pffft. Perhaps it's escaped you, but nobody in this thread is blaming his death on The Jews.

A rather defensive remark.

Although CP did write:

The Jewish leaders were always trying.

There was current at that time the idea of two Messiahs - one a king and the other a priest.

Although these ideas had been current for some time previously whether they had permeated popular thought is open to question.

However, the interpretation of those Qumran documents is in itself another very large subject and, as such, is somewhat tangential to the narratives found in the gospels

Again, perhaps it escaped your notice, but Pilate never asked Jesus anything about being a messiah.

In each gospel Pilate asks Jesus "Are you the king of the Jews?" A king was anointed - Messiah.

Eyewitness accounts vary according to what stuck out to the eyewitness, which is why even today multiple eyewitnesses are sought to understand what happened in an incident; one needs to look at the whole to get a complete picture.

This is the excuse regularly proffered that eye witness accounts of an event offer differing recollections. All of which is nothing but an apologetical position that attempts to reconcile significant differences in all four gospel narratives of those events.

Even read in translation it is evident that the four accounts of those events are contradictory.

Of the four gospel accounts, only John is a possible direct eyewitness

You consider that John was present at the interrogation in the house of Annas and again in the house of Caiaphas? Who let him in?

Luke seems to have been most careful in investigating eyewitnesses.

Who did he interview?

While Matthew may have been a disciple, only John appears to have been there for everything.

So again, you think John was present at the interrogation by Pilate as well? Again, who let him in?

Peter, Mark's ostensible source, appears to have slunk off once he realized he'd denied Christ while he was being examined by the Sanhedrin.

I realise what you intended in this sentence but the syntax did cause a smile.

By the Romans? Hardly.

Really?

Given that you consider:

only John is a possible direct eyewitness

&

only John appears to have been there for everything

The narrative in John chapter 18 verse 3 refutes your comment concerning the Romans.

ὁ οὖν Ἰούδας λαβὼν τὴν σπεῖραν καὶ ἐκ τῶν ἀρχιερέων καὶ ἐκ τῶν Φαρισαίων ὑπηρέτας ἔρχεται ἐκεῖ μετὰ φανῶν καὶ λαμπάδωνκαὶ ὅπλων

σπεῖραν occurs three times in the gospels [Mark chapter 15 verse16, Matthew chapter 27 verse 27] and here in John. On each occasion it refers to soldiers.

And in verse 12 of that same chapter John writes:

Ἡ οὖν σπεῖρα καὶ ὁ χιλίαρχος καὶ οἱ ὑπηρέται τῶν Ἰουδαίων συνέλαβοντὸν Ἰησοῦν καὶ ἔδησαν αὐτόν.

Again χιλίαρχος is a military position. The Temple did not have any military personnel but the Roman army did.

I'm not sure what that has to do with anything, even assuming its accuracy. Their leader had been killed; every other revolt quickly ended once the leader was dead.

Once again your remarks belie your claims to have read anything of serious merit on these matters.

Titus' Triumph was held in early 71 CE following the official end of the war in 70 CE but mopping up operations continued until 72/73 CE with the capture of Herodium, Machaerus, and Masada. All of which indicates that the insurgency continued for some time after the war's official end, with Jews still fighting against Rome and continuing to rely on raiding local areas to support themselves. Those local raids, according to Josephus, had previously in 67/68 CE, included the massacre of some seven hundred Jewish villagers at Ein Gedi during the Passover by the sicarii. One might assume that was not an isolated incident if local villagers were less than willing to supply the various insurgents.

Trajan did investigate some of Jesus' family later, but quickly concluded that they were no threat.

I fail to see the relevance of Trajan to the events during, or shortly after, the First Jewish War. Why did you mention him?

Well, no. They are not perfect and they're incomplete, but they've generally been proven reliable in the decades

[R]eliable in what regard? Or is that comment premised entirely on your religious beliefs?

I've spent studying them and their context. I plan to keep studying and critically evaluating what I read.

Based on these and your previous comments I disagree with your contention that you engage in any critical evaluation of these texts. You certainly appear unable [or unwilling] to assess them solely as ancient texts, and nothing more.

[tabibito]

John 18:12 So the cohort and the commander and the officers of the Jews, arrested Jesus and bound Him ...

Perhaps a little attention to detail is in order - {the cohort, commander, and officers} of the Jews. Precious little there to make a Roman contingent likely.

From LSJ
= θίασος , religious college or guild , gen. σπείρης IG 14.925 (Portus Trajani); dat. σπείρῃ ib.977 ( Rome ), Inscr.Perg. 319,320; nom. σπεῖρα AEM 14.28 ( Roumania ); Lat. spira , CIL 6.261 ( Rome ), al. (cf. σπειράρχης ).

So, the term speira could be used interchangably with thiasos.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

John 18:12 So the cohort and the commander and the officers of the Jews, arrested Jesus and bound Him ...

Perhaps a little attention to detail is in order - {the cohort, commander, and officers} of the Jews. Precious little there to make a Roman contingent likely.

From LSJ
= θίασος , religious college or guild , gen. σπείρης IG 14.925 (Portus Trajani); dat. σπείρῃ ib.977 ( Rome ), Inscr.Perg. 319,320; nom. σπεῖρα AEM 14.28 ( Roumania ); Lat. spira , CIL 6.261 ( Rome ), al. (cf. σπειράρχης ).

So, the term speira could be used interchangably with thiasos.

Self evidently a little more attention to textual evidence and known history is in order. The author of John does not use the word θίασος, so your attempts to, yet again, torture the text to fit your preconceptions are noted. Secondly, the Temple had no military personnel but Rome did.

[tabibito]

Self evidently a little more attention to textual evidence and known history is order. The author of John does not use the word θίασος, so your attempts to, yet again, torture the text to fit your preconceptions are noted. Secondly, the Temple had no military personnel but Rome did.

I have yet to torture any text ... I leave that kind of thing to people who have axes to grind.

Give that σπειρα could be used in the same sense as θίασος, the author didn't need to use θίασος.

And military terms were not necessarily used exclusively of military personnel.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

I have yet to torture any text ... I leave that kind of thing to people who have axes to grind.

Give that σπειρα could be used in the same sense as θίασος, the author didn't need to use θίασος.

And military terms were not necessarily used exclusively of military personnel.

We cannot speculate on what the author might have intended, or what he really meant.

We have to accept the text as it has come down to us.