Make Sure Purchase And Postmark Dates Are Valid: Fill & Download for Free

This answer makes no effort at all to address the issue of Christ’s possible divinity. That is a subject both for faith and for another answer. What I have tried to do is to stick closely to established facts and secular accounts. I also wanted to explore what might reasonably be inferred from the non-supernatural information contained both in the canonical Gospels as well as some of the numerous unorthodox Gospels. I have also tried to apply some of the copious information that we possess about the Romans and how they ran their empire. While some of this information and some of these inferences may not be widely known to the general public, they are widely known and generally accepted among leading scholars in the field of comparative religion. I have also appended a short bibliography for anyone who might want to pursue the topic in more detail.JESUS CHRIST, KING OF THE JEWS?Jesus Christ is famously quoted as having said, “Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and unto God the things that are God’s.” In examining the very limited biographical information we possess about him it will serve us well to similarly render unto Faith the things that demand belief and to History the things we can verify as fact or reasonably infer from facts. Ironically, there are few secular historical sources for facts about Jesus, when one considers his importance in the history of the world over the last 2,000 years. There are only two roughly contemporaneous and independent references to Christ outside of Scripture and the first is contained in the writings of Flavius Josephus (see below), a Jewish historian writing in the 1st century C.E.Josephus is a rather shady and interesting character of ancient times; a Jew, he originally fought as a general against the Roman occupation of Palestine in the first of several Jewish-Roman wars. A “survivor,” Josephus personally chose to surrender in 67 C.E. while extolling the virtues of those who fought to the death and even committed suicide rather than give in to the Romans. Josephus was able to curry favor with the Roman commander Vespasian by claiming that Jewish Messianic prophecy had predicted that Vespasian would become emperor. Two years later, in 69 C.E., Vespasian did in fact march on Rome and ultimately succeeded in making himself emperor. Vespasian was of the Flavian gens (clan) which is how his sycophantic Jewish slave got the Roman-sounding name of Flavius Josephus. After taking the throne, Vespasian freed him and circa 93 C.E., Josephus wrote a book called Antiquities of the Jews which makes two references to Jesus and one to John the Baptist. So for any who suspect the validity of the Gospels and other religious writings this at least provides an independent secular corroboration that they lived.A second secular reference is provided by the Roman historian Tacitus (see below) in his Annals, which covered the reigns of the Roman Emperors from Tiberius to Nero. In it he provides a short reference Jesus and his trial by Pilate. He also implies that Nero blamed the Christian sect unfairly for the Great Fire of Rome.Most, but not all, scholars and historians agree on the following details: Christ was a Galilean baptized by John the Baptist and he was crucified by the Romans. In between he raised followers in Galilee and Judea and he was involved in some religious controversy at the Temple in Jerusalem. After his death some of his disciples were persecuted. This is a pretty stark outline, but at least its one that most of us can accept, regardless of our religious persuasions, or the lack of them. But perhaps there’s more that can be logically inferred from existing texts without taking a daring “leap of faith.”The most ironic thing about Jesus is that we can easily learn more about him simply by reading the four gospels of the New Testament literally and without preconceptions. The four Gospels were all composed some forty-plus years after the death of Christ. Most Christian religions impose their own specific interpretation of these books. Many Christians and Catholics today are largely unaware that there are some thirty-odd other gospels in existence, a few of which may actually be older than the accepted Four Gospels. Some of these support the narratives of the New Testament, but others tell very different stories.These alternative Gospels have intriguing titles such as The Gospel of Thomas, The Gospel According to Mary (Magdalene), and even The Gospel of Judas. Many of these texts are known collectively as the Gnostic Gospels, after an early Christian sect known as the Gnostics, who believed in seeking and finding a direct knowledge of the Savior. These alternative gospels were all eliminated from the wider Christian canon in 325 C.E. by the famous Council of Nicaea, called by the Emperor Constantine to standardize the Bible. But back then clerics were men, flawed as they are today, and the scriptures they rejected were eliminated not just for religious reasons, but also for considerations which today we might consider arbitrary or even political. All are worth reading, whether your interest is history, philosophy, or theology.Most people today know little or nothing of the obscure miracle-worker of Galilee, except for what is found in the writings of the four Evangelists; Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. But we do know much of the Jews of that day, their home in what had become the Roman Province of Palestine, and thanks to their durable empire, the Romans themselves. Palestine, in the time of Jesus, and indeed for a number of years afterwards, was a hotbed of seething violence and political intrigue, much as the region is today. About 60 years earlier, suffering through a civil war, one Jewish faction had foolishly invited the powerful Romans in to resolve the issue. Predictably, Julius Caesar’s colleague and rival Pompey the Great (see below) responded by invading the region and converting the free state of Israel into the new Roman province of Palestine. By the Romans it was considered a filthy and inhospitable backwater; its people stubborn and rebellious. Worst of all it wasn’t very profitable, particularly as compared to the neighboring province of Syria, with its cosmopolitan capital of Damascus.The Romans were compulsive record keepers, so today we know much about how they administered Palestine and the other provinces which comprised the mightiest empire the world has known until the British formed their own over a thousand years later. In addition to being warlike, the Romans were above all a practical people given to incorporating practices, techniques, and innovations from all over their empire and adopting them as their own. Ruthless in quashing rebellion, the Romans were quite tolerant of local customs, as long as the provincials were peaceful and paid their taxes. They were particularly forbearing in matters of religion, simply adding each provincial god and goddess to the ever-growing pantheon back in Rome. Essentially the Romans were content to leave religious matters in the hands of the locals, a fact that will become important later in the story of Jesus.It’s clear right from the start that the authors of the New Testament had a conflicting agenda. The primary information they were working with and composing the gospels from clearly painted Jesus as a revolutionary figure of immense religious significance, but the same sources also identified Christ as a king (see below). For many reasons the early Church would have been desperate to downplay this second but equally important aspect of Christ. In order to understand this existential conflict about Jesus’ nature we must first define some terms.2,000 years ago Palestine was permeated with Messianic prophecies based on the teachings of Daniel, Elijah, Zechariah, Jeremiah, and others. Overlaid by the bitter resentment caused by the Roman occupation, these prophecies took on a new immediacy. It’s no exaggeration to say that revolution was in the air. Jewish freedom fighters called zealots were abroad in the land and political assassins called Sicarrii (“knife men”) lurked in the darker alleyways of Jerusalem. A messiah (“anointed one”) was expected to appear daily, at the hour of the Chosen People’s greatest need, and deliver or save the Jews from their enemies. But just who or what was a messiah?To Christians of all stripes the question is an easy one. To them a messiah is a supernatural savior or redeemer; he is an earthly manifestation of God; he is Christ. But a messiah was originally a Jewish concept and their definition is quite different. To Jews a messiah is not a supernatural figure. To them he is a “priest-king,” selected by God to lead his people in triumph over their enemies. After Jesus, several messiahs appeared in Palestine during the Jewish wars with Rome. The most telling fact is that although a minority, many Jews did accept Jesus as the Messiah in his lifetime. From this we know that its likely that he at least appeared to fit their definition of the predicted priest-king.It’s worth looking at a list of at least some of these prophecies. Micah predicted that the Messiah would be born in Bethlehem. The Old Testament Book of Genesis states that the Messiah would be descended of Eve (a mortal man), Abraham (a Jew), and Judah (of this specific tribe of Israel). Jeremiah tells us that the Messiah would be descended from King David (a king). Zechariah predicted that the Messiah would enter Jerusalem riding on a donkey, be sold for 30 pieces of silver, and that he would be forsaken by his disciples. Isaiah says that the Messiah would be born of a virgin, heal the blind and deaf, be beaten, mocked, and spat upon, and crucified with criminals. The Psalms tell us that the Messiah would be the Son of God, that kings would pay him homage, but that he will be mocked, pierced hands and feet, accused by false witnesses, and betrayed, men would gamble for his clothing, and he would be crucified, die, be resurrected, and ascend to heaven.Historically, there were a number of other messiahs in the Holy Land before, during, and after the life of Christ. One of the most notable, approximately 150 years before Jesus, was Judas Maccabeus who led a successful military revolt against the Seleucid Empire then dominating the region. A loose contemporary of Jesus was Judas of Galilee, who led his own unsuccessful revolt against the Romans. Menahem Ben Judah was reportedly his son and a leader of the vicious and highly political Sicarrii during the first Judeo-Roman War. But the Sicarrii spent more time assassinating their Jewish political rivals than they did fighting their Roman oppressors. Eventually Ben Judah was tortured and killed by Eleazar, a leader of the zealot faction. About 100 years after Jesus, one of the most famous messianic candidates was Simon bar Kokhba, who led another revolt against the Romans; but it was short-lived and he too, was executed. In the present day, the now deceased Hasidic Rebbe Schneerson (see below) of the Lubovitcher sect of Brooklyn, is viewed as the Messiah by at least some of his former congregation. Many devout Jews today still await the coming of the Messiah, and a minority actually reject the legitimacy of the State of Israel. In their belief its formation was premature; requiring first the appearance of God’s anointed one.After Jesus’ death its clear that various facts were added to his narrative to bolster his claim to have been the Messiah. For example, we know that the Romans would regularly take censuses in their provinces as part of their essential system of collecting taxes. But at no time, in any province, did they ever resort to the needless and highly expensive expedient of making the people report to the towns and cities of their birth to be counted. That would have made as much sense as the IRS requiring that your tax returns be postmarked from the town where you were born. So the portions of the Bible that describe Joseph and Mary returning to Bethlehem at the time of her pregnancy for a census are almost certainly untrue. They were quite likely included later to fulfill the prophecies that the Messiah would be born in the town of Bethlehem.Prior to the advent of Christianity there was a Persian religion that worshiped a savior called Mithras (see below).Adherents of this cult actually performed a recognizable version of the Mass where the priest sacrificed a bull and the congregants all partook of the flesh. In the traditional Mass, of course, participants symbolically partake of the flesh and blood of the crucified and sacrificed Christ. Mithraism later became extremely popular as the worship of Roman legionaries. Mithras was born in a shepherd’s hut or stable on a starry night one December 25th. And during the last week of December the Romans traditionally celebrated an important religious feast called the Saturnalia. Most scholars believe that Christ was actually more likely to have been born in the spring rather than at the end of the year. (The lambs carried by shepherds in stories and many depictions are always born in the spring.) They also believe that the time of year of Christ’s birth was moved to deliberately coincide with pre-existing religious traditions as mentioned above. So at least some of the details of Jesus’ birth and nativity story are not likely to be literally true, instead they were fudged to establish him as a divine king, as did the story of the visitation of the Magi. Who would kings worship and gift but another and greater king?Equally unlikely is the dramatic story of King Herod’s “Slaughter of the Innocents,” (see below) along with the Holy Family’s providential flight into Egypt. The story is that Herod ordered the deaths of all recently born males, in order to foil the prophecy that a king had been born with a greater right to the throne than he—specifically an heir to the famous King David. But there are simply no historical references to these events and the Romans would surely have reacted to the wholesale butchery of their citizens. Herod was ultimately answerable to the Romans and they would hardly have viewed a bloody, wide-spread slaughter of tiny children as an exercise in good government.But these stories not only further establish Jesus as a king, but more importantly they reinforce his claim as the heir of King David. They also provide a parallel to the story of the infant Moses and his providential escape from the wrath of pharaoh.Words in the Bible count for much; as has been remarked, “All translators are betrayers.” The New Testament was originally written in Aramaic, the language of Jesus himself, before being translated into Latin and other languages. One of the first things we learn is that Jesus’ step-father Joseph was a carpenter and we are left to assume that he passed his profession on to his son. But that’s not what the Bible actually says. The Aramaic word used for Joseph’s occupation is a more generalized term, denoting only that he was someone who worked with his hands. So we don’t actually know what either father or son did for a living.Catholicism describes two cousins of Jesus—John the Baptist, an older cousin who was the son of Mary’s older sister Elizabeth, and a younger cousin, James. But that’s not what the Bible actually says. The word used to describe James is quite clear and it is “brother.” Some Protestant sects accept Jesus and James as siblings, but the Catholic Church has always steadfastly insisted that James was only a close relative such as a cousin. Why? Well, it is a basic tenet of Catholicism and Anglicanism that Jesus was “immaculately” conceived; fathered supernaturally by the Holy Spirit and born of a virgin. This was predicted of the Messiah and bolsters the claim that Jesus is divine. But if Mary were to have had other children, fathered by Joseph, while it wouldn’t directly contradict the divine nature of Christ’s birth, it would certainly spoil Mary’s reputation as a “perpetual” virgin. The specific phrase “Immaculate Conception” is usually applied to Mary, but ironically it is not a reference to her literal conception. By all accounts she was born in an entirely normal way to Joachim and Anne in the town of Nazareth. Instead the phrase refers to the belief that Mary was mysteriously born without original sin. Mary’s miraculous qualities serve to reinforce the claim of Jesus’ divinity.Today there are many translations and versions of the New Testament with many of them unfortunately resorting to vernacular language to make them more “accessible.” Much is lost in this process. For example in the earliest versions Jesus’ followers often address him as “rabbi” (‘Master,” teacher of the Torah). But two thousand years ago and even today, there is powerful custom stemming from the Torah that a rabbi should be married. Of course this implication is only circumstantial, and at this late date we are unlikely to know definitively if Jesus was ever married, and if so, to whom. But speculation is powerfully tempting.Not many women are mentioned in the gospels in connection with Jesus. Aside from his mother, two who are named are Mary and Martha, the sisters of Lazarus. But even more important is Mary Magdalene, who was definitely not a prostitute although Christ may have healed her by casting seven demons from her. Afterwards she seems to have become a member of his inner circle of disciples and to have followed him in his wanderings. Most significantly of all, and uniquely, she was present at the two most important events of his career, the Crucifixion and the Resurrection.In the unorthodox Gospel According to Mary, it is stated that Christ loved her more than other women. She is also described as being privy to secret or private teachings of Jesus, which Peter asks her to share. Most suggestive of all, Christ is described as kissing her, but the key portion of this page is missing so it could be a reference to her hand or forehead or lips. For these reasons Mary Magdalene is the most popular candidate to have been the bride of Christ, presuming that he had one. From the New Testament we know that Peter was married and other early church writings suggest that all of the Apostles were married, at least originally. So the celibacy of clerics is clearly a later construct of the Church.In Jesus’ time, Jews were divided into several distinct sects, the most famous of whom were the Sadducees and the Pharisees (see below), both of which are repeatedly mentioned in the Gospels.The Sadducees were a powerful group comprised of the upper social and economic ranks of then-current Jewish society. They were the “aristocracy” in so far as they had one. The Pharisees were also a political party but additionally they had a distinct religious identity. In fact, after the destruction of the Second Temple, Pharisaic thought became the basis of Rabbinic Judaism, and hence the future of the religion. A smaller but important religious group with mystic and messianic overtones was the Essenes. They sought to return to older, traditional values and practiced asceticism, celibacy, and purified themselves with daily, ritual baths. Religious scholars have long commented that many of Jesus’ teaching have much in common with those of the Essenes.To a degree hard to comprehend today, in the First Century the center of Jewish religion, culture, and even of their sense of nationalism was the Second Temple (see the model below).The First Temple which preceded it was Solomon’s Temple, built by the king of the same name about one thousand years before the birth of Christ. It was constructed to house the Ark of the Covenant and Yaweh, the God of the Jews, resided deep inside a walled sanctum called the Holy of Holies. Fabulous stories and legends surround its creation. Solomon was said to have had a magical ring inscribed with the ineffable name of God, which gave him tremendous power. With it he enslaved Asmodeus, the king of the demons, and he was able to force this dread lord and his minions to build this amazing edifice. Nonetheless, the Temple was razed by the Babylonian King Nebuchadnezzar II in 587 B.C.E., before taking the Jews into captivity. Fifty years later the Second Temple was built and eventually it was enriched and remodeled by King Herod of infamous name.The Temple complex was enormous (almost like a theme park of today) and included a stupendous Court of the Gentiles where nonbelievers could congregate. Jews would travel from all over the world to visit the Temple and to make their sacrifices to God. There was an elaborate and highly ritualized system concerning these sacrifices and how they were conducted. Only “pure” animals, without flaw, were considered to be appropriate and to ensure their qualities supplicants had to purchase them in the Temple from “authorized” dealers. But first the pilgrims’ “dirty” money had to be replaced by “clean” Temple money for a fee, (very similar to buying House chips in a casino). Lastly, the priests themselves were paid a fee for conducting the sacrifices, so everyone made a buck except the worshipers. Considering the crowds and the profits at stake, if Jesus did overturn the tables of the “money changers” and accuse them of turning his father’s house into a “den of thieves,” he quite likely caused a major riot.After the Romans destroyed the Second Temple in 70 C.E., the nature of Judaism permanently changed. In it’s original form, Jewish monotheism likely supported some form of human sacrifice; see the story of Abraham and Isaac for corroboration. With Moses this was replaced by animal sacrifice at altars in the desert and the countryside, and later managed exclusively at the Temple. But the Jewish universe lost its center when the Roman general Titus burned it (perhaps accidentally) and Judaism had to reinvent itself. The hereditary priests, going back to Moses’ brother Aaron, would lose their primary function. Henceforward the faith would be decentralized and devolve to individual rabbis and their teaching of the Torah to a wide-flung congregation. Animal sacrifice came to an end. Ironically, theologically Christ’s sacrifice on the Cross did the same thing. It symbolized a new Covenant between God and his new Chosen People and again animal sacrifice became obsolete.Today Christianity universally asserts that Christ’s mission on earth was entirely a religious one—becoming the instrument of the new Covenant. But many aspects of the story make this unlikely. Most historians today believe that the Romans would never have executed Christ unless he posed a serious political threat to their social order. And crucifixion was a form of execution reserved for those who attempted to overturn the Roman social order; slaves who had rebelled and leaders of revolts. It was used when they wanted to make an example. The Romans would go on to crucify thousands of Jewish rebels in the three Romano-Jewish wars the last of which resulted in the Diaspora.The situation in Jerusalem was quite tense by the time of Jesus’ final Passover. The Zealots were fomenting revolution and miracle workers were abroad in the land, stoking the population’s expectations that the Messiah would appear imminently. Following Gospel accounts, if Jesus entered Jerusalem on a donkey on Palm Sunday to widespread acclaim and in fulfillment of Old Testament prophecy, you can be sure that the Romans took notice.As mentioned before, its quite possible that Jesus had caused a riot by his earlier antics in the Temple. He was reputed to be the heir of King David, which would have made him the legitimate king of Israel. And if he spoke them, Christ’s own words were double-edged. While he stated, “My kingdom is not of this world,” he also sternly admonished, “I come with fire and a sword!” Jesus also ran with quite a rough crowd. One of the Apostles is known to us as Simon Zealotes (see below); which is much like saying “Joe the Terrorist?”When the Romans, along with a detachment of Temple guards came to the Garden of Gethsemane to arrest Christ, the Gospels tell us that they sent a “cohort.” This was a “band” of soldiers. In the Roman world, a cohort (see below) was one-eighth of a legion—at least 80 soldiers! You wouldn’t send this many troops for someone only accused of a mild or strictly religious offense any more than today you would send several SWAT teams to arrest a traffic scofflaw. And we are told that in defense of Jesus that Peter drew a sword and actually hacked an ear off one of the soldiers. It sounds like he was trying to split the guy’s head like a melon. And if their purpose was strictly religious, then just what was he Peter doing with a sword? Were the other disciples armed as well?According to the Gospels, at his trial Jesus was mocked as a king and responded ambiguously to Pilates queries (see below). But suggestively he never denies it.Jesus was mockingly crowned by a wreath of thorns, just as a pretender would have been. Lastly Pilate made sure an identifying sign was placed on the cross that Jesus was either nailed or tied to. He didn’t want this brutal example to be in vain. “INRI” the placard read. It translates to, “Jesus of Nazareth, King of the Jews.” Is this likely to have been merely spite or sarcasm? The Romans didn’t just crucify common criminals, they also reserved this particularly brutal and very public punishment for political prisoners and rebels against the established order.For close to two thousand years Christians have blamed the Jews for killing their Savior, even though the Bible clearly identifies the Romans as his executioners. Why? The answers are simple. If the Romans crucified Christ, and we know that they did, it was done because Jesus had in some way egregiously broken the Roman peace. If Jesus’ only crime had been to offend Jewish religious mores, then the Romans would happily have stayed out of it and allowed the Jews to handle the offense. But if the early Christians had patently blamed the Romans, the Empire would have had no choice but to crush them! And regarding the possibility of Christ’s having actually been King David’s heir, if Jesus was noble, would that make him less divine? And if he were divine, would that make him less noble?Selected BibliographySome of the books which informed this answer are as follows:The Annals - TacitusThe Jewish War - Flavius JosephusAntiquities of the Jewish People - Flavius JosephusA History of God: The 4,000-Year Quest of Judaism, Christianity, Islam by Karen ArmstrongThe Gnostic Gospels - Elaine PagelsAdam, Eve and the Serpent: Sex and Politics in Early Christianity - Elaine PagelsThe Power of Myth - Joseph CampbellThe Mysteries: Papers from the Eranos Yearbooks - Ed. Joseph CampbellJesus: A Life - A. N. WilsomThe Day Christ Died - Jim BishopKing Jesus - Robert Graves