A thought-provoking piece, although based on modern studies of the population genetics of ancient Israel, we now know that the facial reconstruction at the end isn't at all accurate. https://i.imgur.com/0ABAP1Q.jpeg
In your view, do the four gospels present a consistent view of Jesus's philosophy and politics (or lack thereof)? I know there can be substantial differences between them.
A great question that I don't feel I'm qualified to answer. My reading here is very naive (although I made efforts not to go past what I could say with reasonable confidence). I look at the whole gospels and try to get a sense of the total picture that emerges with reasonable consistency. A more learned study would certainly have to get into the differences. Partly my reason for tackling it this way was a lack of expertise, but also partly it was because my project was to understand *the Christian Jesus* as presented by the gospels read as they are on the surface, not the historian's Jesus, as unearthed through careful critical study of the source material seeking an underlying historical reality.
As for the picture, this feels a little blasphemous to say (even to an agnostic like myself), but it's mostly for SEO purposes. I have zero expertise in what Jesus looked like. My only observation on this matter is that it's become politicized, which is a shame because if you wanted to politicize Jesus it's the worst place to start.
Very good stuff thanks. I would quibble with the comrade Jesus speculation though. One thing I think you missed in discussing the unique aspects of Jesus philosophy is how deeply individualistic it is. It's a personal relationship between you and God mediated by Jesus. "The only way to the father is through me."
Consider "the poor shall always be with you." scene where a woman anoints Jesus with Nard (a fragrant oil sourced from the Himalayas), his disciples object saying this stuff could be sold and used to feed the poor. Jesus objects saying the poor will always be with you, but I will not. And in one telling (I can't remember which) Judas is said to be the strongest objector, but not because he actually wants to help the poor, but because he ran the treasury and was using it for himself.
There's a lot of lessons to draw from this short scene and it's open to interpretation, but here's mine. Good deeds are good even if they could be better and it's not up to us to judge others. The primacy of the spiritual over the material. But more relevant here, a clear preference for personal acts of charity over institutional which are quickly corrupted.
This institutional corruption was on display at the temple when it was cleared. The cleansing of the temple was more like the Boston tea party than the Russian revolution. Temple taxes could only be paid in local currency, so the money changers were there to convert foreign currency for the payment of taxes, ditto the oxen and pigeons and what not that were being sold to be sacrificed. He objected to the institutional exploitation by the church not commerce in general.
I am very ignorant in this stuff. This is all based on my unguided reading of the Gospels, which is pretty much the only part of the bible I've ever actually read closely. I am definitely reading this to fit my own pro-market, limited government worldview. I still think I'm right :)
No strong disagreement from me here. I largely agree with your critique that it's not a matter of "comrade Jesus" (although I'm probably a tiny bit closer to thinking that than you, and would quibble with parts of your characterization of the Nard annoting and chasing moneychangers from the temple scenes)- and certainly don't think we can make an equation like "bigger government=more Jesus" or anything like that. My intention was to make this come through in the part where I describe Jesus is apolitical. I think a lot of what you mean by calling Jesus individualistic is equivalent to what I mean by calling him apolitical.
In the sentence “If you won’t forgive someone else, it’s because you regard their sins as fundamentally less bad then your own.” should it be “more bad” rather than “less bad”? I don’t see how someone else’s sins being less bad than ones own could be a motivation not to forgive them those sins.
A few points: "Jesus as political quietist" is incomplete, trailing off after "political", and in your point J) you quote the beatitudes, but "poor in spirit" refers to people who have difficulty maintaining their faith rather than being economically poor. This doesn't actually contract your points, since what Jesus is saying is that people are judged relative to their capabilities, rather than an objective universal standard. So the rich are held to a stricter standard of charity than the poor because they have a greater capacity to enact good, and someone born to a religious family is held to a stricter standard of faith than someone raised by atheists.
Yeah, I meant to quote Luke's beatitudes instead, which does reference the poor. I've fixed it now.
The trailing off is what happens when I write too fast, because I jump around the document adding and trimming different portions, and sometimes I leave halfway through something and never remember to come back.
A thought-provoking piece, although based on modern studies of the population genetics of ancient Israel, we now know that the facial reconstruction at the end isn't at all accurate. https://i.imgur.com/0ABAP1Q.jpeg
In your view, do the four gospels present a consistent view of Jesus's philosophy and politics (or lack thereof)? I know there can be substantial differences between them.
A great question that I don't feel I'm qualified to answer. My reading here is very naive (although I made efforts not to go past what I could say with reasonable confidence). I look at the whole gospels and try to get a sense of the total picture that emerges with reasonable consistency. A more learned study would certainly have to get into the differences. Partly my reason for tackling it this way was a lack of expertise, but also partly it was because my project was to understand *the Christian Jesus* as presented by the gospels read as they are on the surface, not the historian's Jesus, as unearthed through careful critical study of the source material seeking an underlying historical reality.
As for the picture, this feels a little blasphemous to say (even to an agnostic like myself), but it's mostly for SEO purposes. I have zero expertise in what Jesus looked like. My only observation on this matter is that it's become politicized, which is a shame because if you wanted to politicize Jesus it's the worst place to start.
Very good stuff thanks. I would quibble with the comrade Jesus speculation though. One thing I think you missed in discussing the unique aspects of Jesus philosophy is how deeply individualistic it is. It's a personal relationship between you and God mediated by Jesus. "The only way to the father is through me."
Consider "the poor shall always be with you." scene where a woman anoints Jesus with Nard (a fragrant oil sourced from the Himalayas), his disciples object saying this stuff could be sold and used to feed the poor. Jesus objects saying the poor will always be with you, but I will not. And in one telling (I can't remember which) Judas is said to be the strongest objector, but not because he actually wants to help the poor, but because he ran the treasury and was using it for himself.
There's a lot of lessons to draw from this short scene and it's open to interpretation, but here's mine. Good deeds are good even if they could be better and it's not up to us to judge others. The primacy of the spiritual over the material. But more relevant here, a clear preference for personal acts of charity over institutional which are quickly corrupted.
This institutional corruption was on display at the temple when it was cleared. The cleansing of the temple was more like the Boston tea party than the Russian revolution. Temple taxes could only be paid in local currency, so the money changers were there to convert foreign currency for the payment of taxes, ditto the oxen and pigeons and what not that were being sold to be sacrificed. He objected to the institutional exploitation by the church not commerce in general.
I am very ignorant in this stuff. This is all based on my unguided reading of the Gospels, which is pretty much the only part of the bible I've ever actually read closely. I am definitely reading this to fit my own pro-market, limited government worldview. I still think I'm right :)
No strong disagreement from me here. I largely agree with your critique that it's not a matter of "comrade Jesus" (although I'm probably a tiny bit closer to thinking that than you, and would quibble with parts of your characterization of the Nard annoting and chasing moneychangers from the temple scenes)- and certainly don't think we can make an equation like "bigger government=more Jesus" or anything like that. My intention was to make this come through in the part where I describe Jesus is apolitical. I think a lot of what you mean by calling Jesus individualistic is equivalent to what I mean by calling him apolitical.
Should have said "temple authorities" rather than "church" in the second-to-last paragraph.
Small typo: You wrote 'rothers' instead of 'others' in "and give themselves status over rothers."
Thanks, fixed!
In the sentence “If you won’t forgive someone else, it’s because you regard their sins as fundamentally less bad then your own.” should it be “more bad” rather than “less bad”? I don’t see how someone else’s sins being less bad than ones own could be a motivation not to forgive them those sins.
Yes, this is an error, I've fixed it now. Very embarassing!
A few points: "Jesus as political quietist" is incomplete, trailing off after "political", and in your point J) you quote the beatitudes, but "poor in spirit" refers to people who have difficulty maintaining their faith rather than being economically poor. This doesn't actually contract your points, since what Jesus is saying is that people are judged relative to their capabilities, rather than an objective universal standard. So the rich are held to a stricter standard of charity than the poor because they have a greater capacity to enact good, and someone born to a religious family is held to a stricter standard of faith than someone raised by atheists.
Thanks Lizardman. Great points.
Yeah, I meant to quote Luke's beatitudes instead, which does reference the poor. I've fixed it now.
The trailing off is what happens when I write too fast, because I jump around the document adding and trimming different portions, and sometimes I leave halfway through something and never remember to come back.