Just think of the historical irony, if the so-called betrayer Judas, was the real person betrayed, and Jesus was fictitious. Somehow, I think, given the want of Flavian historians to strain the truth to and beyond its limits, that had to be the case. The Roman historians arranged for one of their own to fix the betrayal. I mean, they couldn't possibly have allowed the enemy to be seen as plotting, subverting the state, and causing civil unrest, independently, all in the face of Roman power. That would have been been really bad news to spread around. So again, one must look to propagandist reversion for the answer as to who the real betrayers of the prophet, and enemies of the Romans, were. They were the messianic high priests against whom the Romans went to war, starting at Masada. The consensus wisdom is that the high priests were accepting of Roman rule. The exact opposite was true.
If anyone thinks that the 'betrayal' of the prophet had nothing to do with the Roman intervention of 66 in Judea, they could well be mistaken.
A fundamental omission of New Testament scholarship is the way ALL scholars go on about christianity and the meanings of this that and the other language, as though the Roman intervention in Judea in 66 had nothing to do with the earliest christianity. They all go on about meanings of Greek, Aramaic, Hebrew etc. with heads in the sand ignoring the fundamental social happening of the first century in Judea.
It is fairly obvious that the remit imposed on the editors of the NT was that they should do their work without reference to the war of 66, or why it occured. Yet they could have their newly created saviour forecasting the destruction of the temple, and they could write as though trouble was expected, but there could be nothing explicit about the events of the war that had occured a few years before.
2 comments:
Just think of the historical irony, if the so-called betrayer Judas, was the real person betrayed, and Jesus was fictitious. Somehow, I think, given the want of Flavian historians to strain the truth to and beyond its limits, that had to be the case. The Roman historians arranged for one of their own to fix the betrayal. I mean, they couldn't possibly have allowed the enemy to be seen as plotting, subverting the state, and causing civil unrest, independently, all in the face of Roman power. That would have been been really bad news to spread around. So again, one must look to propagandist reversion for the answer as to who the real betrayers of the prophet, and enemies of the Romans, were. They were the messianic high priests against whom the Romans went to war, starting at Masada. The consensus wisdom is that the high priests were accepting of Roman rule. The exact opposite was true.
If anyone thinks that the 'betrayal' of the prophet had nothing to do with the Roman intervention of 66 in Judea, they could well be mistaken.
A fundamental omission of New Testament scholarship is the way ALL scholars go on about christianity and the meanings of this that and the other language, as though the Roman intervention in Judea in 66 had nothing to do with the earliest christianity. They all go on about meanings of Greek, Aramaic, Hebrew etc. with heads in the sand ignoring the fundamental social happening of the first century in Judea.
It is fairly obvious that the remit imposed on the editors of the NT was that they should do their work without reference to the war of 66, or why it occured. Yet they could have their newly created saviour forecasting the destruction of the temple, and they could write as though trouble was expected, but there could be nothing explicit about the events of the war that had occured a few years before.
Post a Comment