NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #27/NN_1992_27.iso/spool/sci/skeptic/19695

Text File | 1992-11-17 | 4.1 KB | 64 lines

Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Path: sparky!uunet!munnari.oz.au!newsroom.utas.edu.au![e-mail]
From: [e-mail] (Tim O'Neill)
Subject: Re: What did Judas betray?
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail]
Organization: University of Tasmania (Australia)
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 01:05:56 GMT
Lines: 52

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Robert Sheaffer) writes:
>
> In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Tim O'Neill) writes:
> >(i) The gospel-fictions tie themselves into bizarre knots to get the Romans off the hook
> >and put the blame for Yeshua's execution on the jews. The one point that they couldn't
> >deny was that Yeshua was crucified, so they came up with this elaborate story about
> >how the jews couldn't execute him themselves so they presurred poor weak little
> >Pilate into doing it, a story which is demonstrable nonsense on several grounds.
> >If, as the Talmud claims, Yeshua *was* executed by the Jews using a jewish method
> >(ie stoning) then they would not have had to go to such lengths to make it look like
> >the jews were responsible for his execution by a Roman method. Indeed, they wouldn't
> >have mentioned crucifixion at all.
>
>    In a nutshell, the argument I propose in "The Making of the Messiah"
>    is: It is well-known that for about 20-25 years after Jesus' death,
>    Christianity was exclusively a Jewish sect, and sought members solely among
>    Jews. During this time it probably taught that Jesus was stoned to death,
>    then hanged on a tree afterward. That story "sold" quite well among Jews who
>    had a gripe against the religion's leadership, but non-Jews would not care
>    about this purely internal dispute among Jews.
>
>    However, the new religion split into factions,
>    one of which wanted to go out an evangelize EVERYBODY, not just Jews.
>    These evangelists found that their story "sold" far better among dissident
>    Gentiles if they blamed Jesus' death on the despised Romans (actually,
>    on both Romans and Jews), instead of on the less-powerful Jews. Paul
>    was associated with this faction; he calls himself "the apostle to
>    the Gentiles", and he seems to have unique in making a Really Big
>    Deal out of this cross (Paul "theologized" the cross, it is sometimes
>    said). It is tempting to conclude that Paul may have been the one
>    who made up the cruci-fiction story; the time is right, and the
>    motivation was right. Unfortunately, we cannot place the suspect at
>    the scene of the crime!  :)

An interesting theory Bob, and I wouldn't mind reading your book sometime, but I'm
afraid I'm still unconvinced. I can't see any evidence that Pauline christianity tried to
cash in on the unpopularity of the Romans. Indeed, Paul made quite a bit of the fact that
he was a Roman citizen. Most organisations who set themselves up in opposition to the
Imperial administration usually didn't last very long anyway. I still think that it was
early christianity's associations with radical Judaism which was the problem for the
fledgling cult. Far from making a virtue of the cross, early christianity tried very hard to
forget about the shameful way their leader was executed. It almost never appears in early
chrisitan iconography, and only began to do so after Constantine banned crucifixion and
therefore after crucifixion began to lose some of it unfortunate overtones. A famous
Pompeian graffitio ridicules christianity by depicting a crucified man with a donkey's
head. Small wonder early christians were sensitive about it.The crucifixion
only became a prominent part of christian art and devotion in the early Middle Ages.
I'd still say that the fact that Yeshua died a traitor's death was an enormous problem for
the early church, and find it very difficult to believe it was a problem they deliberately
cultivated.
Tim O'Neill
Tasmanian Devil