Historical Jesus: 4 views

[Jayson]

I assume a position that none of them are the authors of what we ended up with.
They may have written something down at some point, possibly, but that's really unlikely to be what anything we have is a text of.
The reason I say this is that the cultural differences in each text, even within the same texts in some cases, are rather radical.
Mark is dry as hell; damn near just the bear bones of what you need to know essentially, with little in the way of elaborations, explanations, reasons, justifications, or contextual aids. It is crude and directly to the point with no "tom-foolery" tossed in for flavor.
John is fucking radically different than Mark culturally; hell, John culturally rolls like a modern day Hollywood film. It is quite epic, and in the Greek theatrical sense (but it's grammar is all over the damn place, from grade school to talented writer).
Matthew's end-caps are really preposterous in Jewish cultural comprehension (especially the nativity), while the rest mostly fits (at least in the Greek and other non-English translations).
Luke is so refined and philosophical that it practically bleeds air comparable to those of Socrates.

If these people were of a tight personal commune and culture, then there's no way such radical differences would be present.
However, if these were written by differing peoples of differing cultures, each taking their perspective of admiration and understanding, then it follows that each text should appear to highlight different concepts more than others and should vary in language, tonality, formatting, prose, and articulate preference.
And that turns out to be what we have.

It seems most people focus on rather technical aspects to determine some of these concepts, but there is an incredibly simple idea that can be used.
What is presented as obvious?
In each circle of people socially, there are terms and phrases which have implicit meaning that do not need to be explained within that circle.
Some are as large as an entire nation, others are as reserved as inside jokes between two friends.
Primetime sitcom fucking uses this feature to extreme as a way to push jokes that they are not allowed to say overtly.

And in each text, a different range of implicit phrasings and concepts are used.
And that's not something that would happen to specific author's all from the same group and culture.
It sure as hell didn't happen between Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle, for example.


So the question of authorship isn't one I look at in regards to a person.
I look at what the texts tell us about which culture speaks this way, thinks this way, and most likely therefore would have produced this version of the text that we have.

Mark, Hebrew; no question.
Which Hebrew culture...that's a bigger question.
I tend to think that it was more the Judean belt line (southern Levant to Egypt) of thinking rather than the Galilean (north) as it lacks any Hellenistic inductions and remains rather barren in flavor and decoration.
These are attributes of Hebrew ascetic followings, which were more notably hovering around the Judean belt line than the Northern line.

Matthew really comes off as Northern considering the (radically) Hellenistic introduction and ending, while rather Hebrew center (mostly).
It also purports to be Hebrew rather emphatically, which means there's a chance of the audience thinking there were other options available.
Up North, such as in Galilee, there were. The Hebrews up there were literally surrounded by the Hellenist world and were among the first to receive the lovely Hellenistic theological invasion of Alexander the Great.
They could look over the Sea of Galilee and see Hellenistic grand buildings all around.
They were also the location of Haifa, one hell of a commercial port city at the time littered with Greeks along the coastline (and still exists today).

Luke really can't be any more clearly Hellenistic if it wanted to. Seriously, it has the most wonderfully written narrative! It's a proper novel.
I mean, it kicks off by using a syntax of creating a word that one would have to have a serious handle on Greek for, Theophilus (θεόφιλος).
Theo-philos.
Lover of God.

That pretty much nails that one down right there. There's no flipping way a Hebrew would have wrote that concept.
Philo- was not a cultural concept of theirs.
No one is referred to in the Hebrew culture as a lover of god, or a lover of Jesus, or a lover of <pick a Rabbi>.
And they certainly did not practice free word creation.
It was not permitted to just up and combine roots and make new words for religious texts in the cultural mindset of the Hebrew peoples. Doing so, even in Greek, would be really out of place.

John...wow...John can't get more campy if it tried.
That text runs like it wanted to be what Luke was, but was less accomplished at doing so, and then was hijacked by a complete amateur that had no educational capacity to even notice the artistic prose that was present and instead was on some kind of agenda to insert explanations and additions to help explain some concepts (some of which aren't present in the "clean" grammar) feverishly.
Almost as if Shakespeare's Hamlet was adjusted by a politically active film producer in Hollywood that favors a given party.
That's about how John reads grammatically.
You just kind of tear your head open and smash it with a hammer and then walk away pissed off...at least, I do.

As to which Hellenistic cultures for Luke and John?
I couldn't say right off; though my hunch (without digging too much) is that John is Asia-Minor and shares a culture with Revelation.
Luke seems more close to cultures in league with Athens or Macedonia at first impression, just from it's professional stance; so across the pond from the culture I would put John coming from.

And in as such, I could see it rolling out from something like the G.o.H. (GH)
If GH split, which it seems to have done, then one form seems to have gone south.
That form seems rather damn literal and harsh: Ebionites.
The other form Nazaret; which would inherently follow North.

Mark could generate so tough and straight down south, removed from the cultures as the dwellings reside in the rather vast Judean Belt - where some monasteries still exist due to the same reasoning.

Matthew could have originated from the Northern Galilean area, then adopted by the local Hellenistic culture and adjusted somewhat to convey the importance of this guy Jesus more than just some Hebrew (hell, if the Persian Magi were interested, then it must be something).

Next could have come John in Asia-Minor regions after getting some of this Matthew and possibly Northern GH stuff.
This could have also later been re-adjusted by Galatians (right next door to the coast of Asia-Minor) who really wouldn't have had too great of a handle on the Hellenistic hand in writing, or any true interest in the prose of it.

And from both the Matthew, and Northern GH stuff, Luke could have rose up.
It is also possible that the authoring of Luke would have investigated the Southern GH/Mark strand since investigating sources and possible other sources is an Athenian (and those areas influenced by Athens) practice of academia.
I would expect that if such were the case, the authorship of Luke - if they would have known of the text regarding John - would have had little respect for that work (if already tampered with), or at best, thought it lesser than the work they were doing.


In a nutshell, I don't buy "simplicity" in the sense of least amount of variables.
If something has that few variables with something regarding circulation and three separate cultures involved....I tend to think there's a fair chance that it's inadequate.

[felix dakat]

I don’t know. Another argument for the priority of Mark emerges by comparing Christological content. Paul is generally thought to have written the Epistle to the Romans before any of the gospels were written. In it he states

“Paul, a bondservant of Jesus Christ, called to be an apostle, separated to the gospel of God 2 which He promised before through His prophets in the Holy Scriptures, 3 concerning His Son Jesus Christ our Lord, who was born of the seed of David according to the flesh, 4 and declared to be the Son of God with power according to the Spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead.”

God was the one doing the declares Jesus to be the Son of God. And it is at the resurrection. This was an early understanding of Jesus’ sonship known as “adoptionism.”

When we go to Mark 1:9-11 it says:

“It came to pass in those days that Jesus came from Nazareth of Galilee, and was baptized by John in the Jordan. 10 And immediately, coming up from[a] the water, He saw the heavens parting and the Spirit descending upon Him like a dove. 11 Then a voice came from heaven, “You are My beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.”

Here we see that God’s declaration of Jesus to be Son of God is moved backward in time to his baptism preceding his ministry. It's still adoptionism, but it is during his life time, before his death.

Proceeding to Matthew 1:20-23 it says:

20 But while he thought about these things, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream, saying, “Joseph, son of David, do not be afraid to take to you Mary your wife, for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Spirit. 21 And she will bring forth a Son, and you shall call His name JESUS, for He will save His people from their sins.”
22 So all this was done that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the Lord through the prophet, saying: 23 “Behold, the virgin shall be with child, and bear a Son, and they shall call His name Immanuel,”[a] which is translated, “God with us.”

So here God uses an unnamed angel to declare to Joseph Jesus Son of God in a dream BEFORE he is conceived. So the declaration of Jesus has moved from the resurrection to his baptism to before he is conceived. So now we have moved beyond adoptionism to incarnation.

Luke confirms Matthew’s pre-conception declaration. However, the declaration is enhanced over the one in Matthew. In Luke’s account the declaration is to Mary. The angel appears to her in a vision not just in a dream. And the angel is named—Gabriel. Again it's incarnation and the virgin birth is affirmed.

As I’m sure you remember, John takes a giant step further in chapter 1 verses 1-14. Jesus as the logos is declared to be God from the very beginning. So now it is pre-existent divinity before incarnation. The divination of jesus is complete.

Thus, when Mark is placed before Matthew chronologically there is evidence of a step-like progressive development of Christology from Paul to Mark to Matthew to Luke to John. If Matthew is placed first among the gospels, Mark is a step backwards to an earlier Christology in what is supposed to be a later book.

[Jayson]

Not if you see Matthew in two parts. You forgot my timeline has Matthew start as GH format without the first two chapters.
Also, I think Matthew and Mark were from GH and not from each other.
This is why I consider them twins.
I don't think the content.placement of declared divinity shows me too much in placement.

There's no real logic to that contents placement order that indicates timelines that I can see.

[felix dakat]

Not if you see Matthew in two parts. You forgot my timeline has Matthew start as GH format without the first two chapters.
Also, I think Matthew and Mark were from GH and not from each other.
This is why I consider them twins.
I don't think the content.placement of declared divinity shows me too much in placement.

There's no real logic to that contents placement order that indicates timelines that I can see.

I didn't forget it, it's not part of the Marken priority theory that I am describing. I'm surprised you don't see the move from Jesus as a man through adoptionism to deification to a co-equal hypostasis in the Godhead as something that happened progressively over time culminating in the 4th century councils. The first followers of Jesus under James and Peter were called Nazarenes. Per Maccoby, their beliefs were indistinguishable from the Pharisees except that they believed in the resurrection of Jesus and that Jesus was still the promised messiah. If this is the case, they did not believed that Jesus was a divine person, but rather that, by a miracle of God ,he had been brought back to life and would would return soon to complete his mission of overthrowing the Romans and setting up the Messianic Kingdom. The process of divinization would have occurred later. Thus one would expect to find a less thoroughly divine Jesus in early texts and a more completely divine Jesus in later texts. Tha's exactly what happens if you accept the Paul-Mark-Matthew-Luke-John chronology. Is it possible that a Gospel of Hebrews pre-dated them all. I suppose so and if so, by this reasoning, one would expect to find a Jesus would was less divine than Paul asserted. but I this point I haven't seen that apart from your statements.

edited for spelling

[Jayson]

I'll pull it for you later (on my phone), but GH was reported to have a section in which Jesus makes clear that he is physically revived and not a spirit of some form; following the Hebrew physical ressurection theology to the letter.
Essentially blessed by god to revival, and not a divine encarnation.

[eyesinthedark]

You're still going on about this felix? i'm telling you, Jesus is a myth, in the myth he is the son of God sacrificed for our sins. That is who Jesus is. The old testament, the laws of the Leviticus were partially anulled, God's justice, his need for bloody vengeance had been satiated, and humanity had been freed from sin, because of Jesus' heorism. Now, we are all righteous in Jehovah's eyes, washed in the blood of the lamb, humanities relationship with Jehovah had been restored, we were out of his favour ever since the fall, ever since Adam and Eve became conscience/conscious and free. Jehovah is merciful, Jehovah sacrificed his spawn, in a sense, himself and his need for justice for our sake. Now, we no longer have to earn his favour, once we accept the sacrifice and cease judging ourselves and others, we are free, we are only made unfree by our own arrogance/ignorace. There was no other way we could earn his favour, for humanity is corrupt. Jehovah is the God of mercy, love and liberty, that is what the story of Jesus is about, the triumph of mercy, love and liberty over vengeance, hate and authority. According to the NT, humanity cannot be it's own God (Autotheism/Luciferianism), nor can we consistently keep God's law, so we had to be saved. Jesus is our only salvation... supposedly.

[Jayson]

Eyes, it's not about whether something is a myth or not.
It's about placement in cultures and the historical placement of the evolution of the context.

[Jayson]

OK Felix,

Here's just the quick wiki:
The Gospel of the Hebrews states that when the Risen Lord came to those with Peter, Jesus said to them, “Take hold of me, handle me, and see that I am not a bodiless demon.”[92][93] Jerome also points out that the Apostles thought the resurrected Jesus to be a spirit, for in the Gospel of the Hebrews Jesus says that he is not a “A bodiless demon”

"Demon" being the word for, "spirit".

Interestingly, you said:

The first followers of Jesus under James and Peter were called Nazarenes. Per Maccoby, their beliefs were indistinguishable from the Pharisees except that they believed in the resurrection of Jesus and that Jesus was still the promised messiah.

And here, we see just above a physical and literal resurrection with no commentary references to divine ascension.
So this fits with your estimate that one would expect the GH to have even less than the other texts in regards to divinity declaration.

Then you have what you said just above, and to it we add:
This Gospel puts a particular emphasis on James the Just, as head of the Jerusalem church, and especially concentrates on arguing for obedience to Jewish law. The gospel contains an independent legend that the first resurrection appearance was witnessed by James.

So here, you have James highlighted as the favored individual in the GH, and in it you have the most reduced version of the resurrection, and you have a resurrection that is in line with the Judaic belief in literal and physical bodily resurrection and a wariness towards spirit incarnations.

[felix dakat]

OK Felix,

Here's just the quick wiki:
The Gospel of the Hebrews states that when the Risen Lord came to those with Peter, Jesus said to them, “Take hold of me, handle me, and see that I am not a bodiless demon.”[92][93] Jerome also points out that the Apostles thought the resurrected Jesus to be a spirit, for in the Gospel of the Hebrews Jesus says that he is not a “A bodiless demon”

"Demon" being the word for, "spirit".

Interestingly, you said:

The first followers of Jesus under James and Peter were called Nazarenes. Per Maccoby, their beliefs were indistinguishable from the Pharisees except that they believed in the resurrection of Jesus and that Jesus was still the promised messiah.

And here, we see just above a physical and literal resurrection with no commentary references to divine ascension.
So this fits with your estimate that one would expect the GH to have even less than the other texts in regards to divinity declaration.

Then you have what you said just above, and to it we add:
This Gospel puts a particular emphasis on James the Just, as head of the Jerusalem church, and especially concentrates on arguing for obedience to Jewish law. The gospel contains an independent legend that the first resurrection appearance was witnessed by James.

So here, you have James highlighted as the favored individual in the GH, and in it you have the most reduced version of the resurrection, and you have a resurrection that is in line with the Judaic belief in literal and physical bodily resurrection and a wariness towards spirit incarnations.

I was referring to James the Just, brother of Jesus who was the first leader of the Nazarenes in Jerusalem. At this point I don't know how much creedence to give to the theory of the Gospel of Hebrews as a source for Matthew and Mark. I don't think it would adversely affect Maccoby's or the other theories much.

[Jayson]

Just for clarification, because text is a bastard, was that statement on James an agreement that you were talking of the same James?

As to Maccoby,
It doesn't inherently cause problems, but a heavy landing on Hebraic standards of Law and Practice would make it a bit more difficult to go with an Apocalyptic variation of Messianic following if that Apocalyptic is meant in terms in league with the Hellenist Apocalyptic tone.

If Maccoby means the term more in specialty to this group's version of what apocalyptic included, and did so in some fashion similar to the Mayan's style of temporal and cyclic apocalypse, then there would pretty much be no contest between Maccoby and a GH influence theory.

[felix dakat]

Just for clarification, because text is a bastard, was that statement on James an agreement that you were talking of the same James?

Yes.

As to Maccoby,
It doesn't inherently cause problems, but a heavy landing on Hebraic standards of Law and Practice would make it a bit more difficult to go with an Apocalyptic variation of Messianic following if that Apocalyptic is meant in terms in league with the Hellenist Apocalyptic tone. If Maccoby means the term more in specialty to this group's version of what apocalyptic included, and did so in some fashion similar to the Mayan's style of temporal and cyclic apocalypse, then there would pretty much be no contest between Maccoby and a GH influence theory.

The Nazarenes did not believe Jesus was a divine person. They believed he was resurrected by a miracle of god. They believed he would return soon to overthrow the Romans and set up his kingdom. They did not believe that Jesus had abrogated the Jewish religion or the Torah.Having known Jesus personally they were aware that he had observed the Jewish religion and never rebelled against it. The Nazarenes were observant of Jewish law themselves. They practiced circumcision, did not eat forbidden foods and respected the temple. I don't know what you mean be Hellenistic apocalyptic tone or the Mayan reference.

[Jayson]

Then I recant my reservations on the term from earlier.
The way that it was written, out of full context - so I easily was not grasping what you are familiar with from the author, came off as suggesting league with the tone of the likes of the Apocalypse of Peter and Revelation (demons, spirits, hell-fire, and the like), rather than a cyclical era based Apocalypse (not of demons, spirits, hell-fire, and the like).

The latter is the style of the Mayan Apocalyptic "texts", and was then the comparison.
It is an older style that is a product of extending the seasonal cycle outward into cycles of mankind on many counts.

This was quite a Hebrew interest of the time, and still is today in some circles.

So far, everything you are discussing seems to line up with everything I'm aware of from what I study.
We approach from different angles, but it seems that even when approaching from opposite directions (you starting later in time and tracing backwards, and I starting earlier in time [10th c BCE] and tracing forward) we both arrive at relatively close proximity of probable early groups that indicate a cultural similarity to that which would be expected to be involved for Jesus.

[felix dakat]

Then I recant my reservations on the term from earlier. The way that it was written, out of full context - so I easily was not grasping what you are familiar with from the author, came off as suggesting league with the tone of the likes of the Apocalypse of Peter and Revelation (demons, spirits, hell-fire, and the like), rather than a cyclical era based Apocalypse (not of demons, spirits, hell-fire, and the like).

Yes, well at that time I was talking about Ehrman's theory, but as far as I have seen Maccobee and Ehrman are pretty close on that issue.

The latter is the style of the Mayan Apocalyptic "texts", and was then the comparison.
It is an older style that is a product of extending the seasonal cycle outward into cycles of mankind on many counts.
This was quite a Hebrew interest of the time, and still is today in some circles.

I haven't encountered a cyclic Hebrew apocalypsism in my reading.

So far, everything you are discussing seems to line up with everything I'm aware of from what I study.
We approach from different angles, but it seems that even when approaching from opposite directions (you starting later in time and tracing backwards, and I starting earlier in time [10th c BCE] and tracing forward) we both arrive at relatively close proximity of probable early groups that indicate a cultural similarity to that which would be expected to be involved for Jesus.

I wouldn't be surprised if our viewpoints converge somewhat since you are approaching the subject anthropologically and historically because that's generally what these theorists do. I working on comparing and contrasting their theories as well as the traditional view on various points and independently verifying which is best supported.

[Jayson]

I haven't encountered a cyclic Hebrew apocalypsism in my reading.

You have, without probably noticing it.
Hebrew cyclical time is more about experience, or event, than "time".
It's not exactly cyclical, but rather more repeating anew.
Their notion of time was event based, and recurring.
"Creation", for instance, was continual and restorative.
Still today, many practice the variety of festivals in the sense of, "now", not, "then".
Meaning, the Christian concept of, "In remembrance of...", is lacking in the ancient Hebrew thought.
Instead, it is more the idea of continual renewal: "It is as it was, and will be as it is".

The basic grammatical structure of ancient Hebrew itself lends an understanding of these issues.
There is no separation between time in a linear sense denoted in that language.
All time is relative to condition, or event.
Event-time dictates response.

The event-line of humanity was divinely generated and with which was mimicked/enacted/responded to by man in accordance.
Meaning, Exodus is akin to Exodus from Eden, and Exodus from Eden is akin to Creation itself.
Or rather, to make it more visible (since departure [exodus] strikes our minds as at odds with creation [entrance], though it does not in ancient Hebrew thought): The entrance to the land of Israel was akin to the entrance to the land of man, which was akin to the entrance to earth itself.

As such, an "apocalypse" would be another creation marker in the spiral-forward event-line of humanity.
And in such a case, creation would be revived in each creation marker in full; not in remembrance.

The best way I can try to convey this...
"Then" is "now", essentially, in the same manner in which I refer to the lunch-event today as the same as before.
To us, we say, "It's lunch time", and immediately understand the marker is the repeating concept; not the event itself.
However, in ancient Hebrew concept, it is the event itself which repeats anew, and does so as a continuation of the previous without loss of a link in time between the two.
So that when you say that it is Sabbath, not only are you referring to "today", but you are inherently referring to all "Sabbath" before, which are now, and all Sabbath after, which are now.
In a manner, it is like each event suspends in time until that event takes place again and continues once more.
As if the lunch-event "now" resumes the lunch-event "before", and the lunch-event "later" will resume the lunch-event of "now" and "before" both.

Just as in walking up a spiral staircase, you pass the same rotational degrees as you did previously, though this degree is "after" the previous.
The old calendar follows this line of thinking in its outline of events.

This is why I disregard any conclusion which attributes "an end of time" to ancient Hebrew mythology; because the ancient Hebrew culture itself didn't have a lexicon or expression which provided the facility for a linear end-mark that flaunts the final act of humanity.

Their only means of expression of time was renewal.
Nothing "ended", it only renewed.

This also happens to be their conceptual expression of what we call, "eternal".
A concept of continual renewed occurrence in count beyond vision; keeping also in mind that space and time were the same references in the ancient Hebraic lexicon - meaning, the ideas of "time" were the conventions of the spacial/physical.

[felix dakat]

Jayson--

I did encounter something that might be like what you describe in the work of John Shelby Spong who bases his understanding on that of New Testament scholar Michael D. Goulder. He says that "the evangelists did not conceive of their writings as history. Rather, they were stories, never intended to be taken literally, which served to illustrate the meaning of Jesus according to a longstanding Jewish practice of midrash. In midrash the writer retells an existing biblical story in a new story and new terms, basing many of its details on specific scriptural passages. In this way, all the significances and associations of the older context would automatically be soaked up by the new one. To the knowledgeable reader or listener, a story or anecdote modelled on an identifiable prototype in scripture would convey a meaning and inspiration far deeper and more detailed than that contained in the simple words themselves."

Spong claims "the Jews filtered every new experience through the corporate remembered history of their people, as recorded in the Hebrew scriptures of the past." For example, "the theme of Moses' parting of the waters of the Red Sea was repeated in Joshua's crossing of the Jordan, then later in Elijah and Elisha's crossing of the same river. Both of the latter were midrashic retellings at later times of the prototype Exodus incident. Then in the Gospels, when Jesus is baptized at the Jordan, Mark makes him part not the waters of the river, but the firmament separating heaven from earth, allowing the passage of God's voice and the descent of the Holy Spirit in the form of a dove."

This was, says Spong, "a Jewish way of suggesting that the holy God encountered in Jesus went even beyond the God presence that had been met in Moses, Joshua, Elijah and Elisha. That is the way the midrashic principle worked. Stories about heroes of the Jewish past were heightened and retold again and again about heroes of the present moment, not because those same events actually occurred, but because the reality of God revealed in those moments was like the reality of God known in the past." Other examples are"Herod's attempt to kill the Christ child through his "slaughter of the innocents", a retelling of Pharaoh's attempt to kill the promised deliverer Moses by slaying the Hebrew first-born in Egypt; or the entry of Jesus, riding a donkey, into Jerusalem on "Palm Sunday", a rendering of the prophet's visionary scene of the Day of the Lord in Zechariah 9:9-11: "Rejoice, daughter of Zion . . . for see, your king is coming to you . . . humble and mounted on an ass . . ."

Does this idea of Midrash correspond with what you mean by the Judaic sense of time cyclic time?

Source: http://jesuspuzzle.humanists.net/spongrev.htm

[Jayson]

Yes. That is the same effect.

[felix dakat]

Yes. That is the same effect.

When I first read about midrash in Spong's books it occurred to me that it has a fractal quality where in there is a succession of recurring iterations of a theme on larger and smaller scales. Perhaps in midrash time is fractal rather than linear.
[speculating smiley]

[Jayson]

Quite.
The Hebrew concept of dimension, in all forms of the term, is radically novel.

A simple example of their "fractal" conceptual thinking style that just explodes into complexity is the names of their god.
Their names are behaviors, and the name which is used then depends on the event and context in question.
It would be akin to having a different name for every major display of their person to the public that a President has, and using them in subjective application dependent on what reference is being discussed.
A different name when discussing liberation, a different name for sustainability, a different name for wrath, another for their status politically ideally, another, and another, and another, and another...

Each doesn't just refer to the concept, but also an event.
Like naming George Bush something in relation to 9-11, and referring to him as that name from that point forward whenever referencing him in context of war on terror.

This is also the other aspect that is interesting.
Unlike the Maya, which I made comparison to previously, the Hebrew culture's prophecy was dictated by event descriptions rather than solid dates or physical arrangements of things tangibly observable (like planetary alignment).

The movement of the human behavior on mass was the "clock" in Hebrew culture, rather than an external mechanic.
Notice that in Daniel, the markers of when things will take place are keyed by events of behavior, and not by a strict adherence to solid dates or secondary objective markers (like planetary alignments).

Notice that in all of the texts, even though the Hebrews had a fantastic calendar, the calendar is not used as the marker of things they forecast (unlike the Maya).
Instead, they use references to events, which themselves are a sort of reenactment of things previous in new form.

They really do seem to have thought quite more-so in terms of within a within which produces the previous within.
A gear within a gear, which moves the outer gear; except far more complex.

[felix dakat]

Quite.
The Hebrew concept of dimension, in all forms of the term, is radically novel.

A simple example of their "fractal" conceptual thinking style that just explodes into complexity is the names of their god.

Their names are behaviors, and the name which is used then depends on the event and context in question.

It would be akin to having a different name for every major display of their person to the public that a President has, and using them in subjective application dependent on what reference is being discussed.

A different name when discussing liberation, a different name for sustainability, a different name for wrath, another for their status politically ideally, another, and another, and another, and another...

Each doesn't just refer to the concept, but also an event.
Like naming George Bush something in relation to 9-11, and referring to him as that name from that point forward whenever referencing him in context of war on terror.

Do you mean names like these?

• Adir—"Strong One"
• Adon Olam—"Master of the World"
• Aibishter—"The Most High" (Yiddish)
• Aleim—sometimes seen as an alternative transliteration of Elohim
• Avinu Malkeinu—"Our Father, our King"
• Boreh—"the Creator"
• Ehiyeh sh'Ehiyeh—"I Am That I Am": a modern Hebrew version of "Ehyeh asher Ehyeh"
• Elohei Avraham, Elohei Yitzchak ve Elohei Ya`aqov—"God of Abraham, God of Isaac, God of Jacob"
• Elohei Sara, Elohei Rivka, Elohei Leah ve Elohei Rakhel—"God of Sarah, God of Rebecca, God of Leah, God of Rachel"
• El ha-Gibbor—"God the hero" or "God the strong one" or "God the warrior"
• Emet—"Truth"
• E'in Sof—"endless, infinite", Kabbalistic name of God
• HaKadosh, Barukh Hu (Hebrew); Kudsha, Brikh Hu (Aramaic)—"The Holy One, Blessed be He"
• HaRachaman-"The Merciful One"
• Kadosh Israel—"Holy One of Israel"
• Melech HaMelachim—"The King of kings" or Melech Malchei HaMelachim "The King, King of kings", to express superiority to the earthly rulers title. Phillip Birnbaum renders it "The King Who rules over kings"
• Makom or HaMakom—literally "the place", perhaps meaning "The Omnipresent"; see Tzimtzum
• Magen Avraham—"Shield of Abraham"
• Ribono shel `Olam—"Master of the World"
• Ro'eh Yisra'el—"Shepherd of Israel"
• YHWH-Yireh (Adonai-jireh)—"The LORD will provide" (Genesis 22:13–14)
• YHWH-Rapha—"The LORD that healeth" (Exodus 15:26)
• YHWH-Niss"i (Adonai-Nissi)—"The LORD our Banner" (Exodus 17:8–15)
• YHWH-Shalom—"The LORD our Peace" (Judges 6:24)
• YHWH-Ro'i—"The LORD my Shepherd" * Tzur Israel—"Rock of Israel"
• YHWH-Tsidkenu—"The LORD our Righteousness"[32] (Jeremiah 23:6)
• YHWH-Shammah (Adonai-shammah)—"The LORD is present" (Ezekiel 48:35)
• Tzur Israel—"Rock of Israel"
• Uri Gol— "The new LORD for a new era" (Judges 5:14)

If so can you show how any of these names reflect an event? I wonder if tying a name of God is a way of pinning it to the original experience. That might indicate recognition of something other than a theistic totalized view of God on the part of the writers of the Hebrew Bible.

This is also the other aspect that is interesting.
Unlike the Maya, which I made comparison to previously, the Hebrew culture's prophecy was dictated by event descriptions rather than solid dates or physical arrangements of things tangibly observable (like planetary alignment).

The movement of the human behavior on mass was the "clock" in Hebrew culture, rather than an external mechanic.
Notice that in Daniel, the markers of when things will take place are keyed by events of behavior, and not by a strict adherence to solid dates or secondary objective markers (like planetary alignments).

Notice that in all of the texts, even though the Hebrews had a fantastic calendar, the calendar is not used as the marker of things they forecast (unlike the Maya).
Instead, they use references to events, which themselves are a sort of reenactment of things previous in new form.

They really do seem to have thought quite more-so in terms of within a within which produces the previous within.
A gear within a gear, which moves the outer gear; except far more complex.

Do you see any of this Hebrew tendency reflected in the New Testament portrait of Jesus? Tillich talks about the difference between chronos and kairos, two Greek words for time used in the NT.

“It was a fine feeling that made the spirit of the Greek language signify chronos, "formal time," with a different word from kairos, "the right time," the moment rich in content and significance. And it is no accident that this word found its most pregnant and most frequent usage when the Greek language became the vessel for the dynamic spirit of Judaism and primitive Christianity—in the New Testament. His "kairos" had not yet come, is said of Jesus; and then it had once at some time or other come, en kairo, in the moment of the fullness of time. Time is an empty form only for abstract, objective reflection, a form that can receive any kind of content; but to him who is conscious of an ongoing creative life it is laden with tensions, with possibilities and impossibilities, it is qualitative and full of significance. Not everything is possible at every time, not everything is true at every time, nor is everything demanded at every moment. Various "rulers," that is different cosmic powers, rule at different times, and the "ruler," conquering all the other angels and powers, reigns in the time that is full of destiny and tension between the Resurrection and the Second Coming, in the "present time," which in its essence is different from every other time of the past. In this tremendous, most profoundly stirred consciousness of history is rooted the idea of the kairos; and from this beginning it will he molded into a conception purposely adapted to a philosophy of history.” Source: "The Protestant Era" by Paul Tillich

Does the kairos sense of time correspond to the cyclic sense of time you are describing in any way? If not, is this a Greek concept of time?


Finally do these nuances in the concept of time pertain to the historical Jesus or how Jesus is portrayed in the NT?

[Jayson]

If so can you show how any of these names reflect an event?

Look over each of those.
Every one of them is based on an event; a way in which the Hebrews experienced an interaction with their god.

The Shield of Abraham, for instance, isn't in the texts, but is in the culture in reference to their god vowing to protect Abraham.
Then there is something as simple as, "The King of Kings".
This is in Daniel. Daniels context is the order of authority, through and through.
Where everyone lines up in order of metaphysical caste.
In this event, their god is, "The King of Kings".

From here on out, the reference always arrives in league with the metaphysical authority ranking and commonly in league with some account of implicit, or explicit apocalypse; typically involving some fashion of cleansing.
Implying the right to the authority to arrange the largest kingdom as seen required.

When you look over those names, try thinking of how they aren't used in each case in reference to implied context.
None of those names arrive void of context, and none of them are employed without implying that context.

I wonder if tying a name of God is a way of pinning it to the original experience.

It is exactly this.
Keep in mind that oral tradition was an extremely large means of historical recording for the larger part of the Hebrew society for an incredible length of time, and as such, names like these allowed for a .zip file access to a length of their cultural history in an incredibly efficiently simple method.

That might indicate recognition of something other than a theistic totalized view of God on the part of the writers of the Hebrew Bible.

What do you mean by, "theistic totalized view of God"?

Do you see any of this Hebrew tendency reflected in the New Testament portrait of Jesus?

Yes.
What you brought up in regards to, "kairos", is possible in notice when we look at it because the Hebrew mind saw time in such a way of placement.
They indeed saw things as taking place according to their required event, so the citation you brought up is understandable.

In fact, every primary decision displayed by Jesus in regards to primary defining events of his character are done quite decisively by Jesus in seeming conscious attention to when things are taking place.

It is this behavior that causes the interpretations of Jesus to be seen as strategically political by some.
That may be, but it also may quite easily be that Jesus is a very devout Hebrew with deep respect for an attention to divine placement of action and event.

[felix dakat]

What do you mean by, "theistic totalized view of God"?

I mean the traditonal metaphysical definition of the personal creator God who is omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent, omni-benevolent and eternal. Giving God different names according to their experiences, they were grounding their understanding the experience in qualities of the experience itself rather then in abstract concepts.

[Jayson]

Absolutely.
Yes, the ancient Hebrew culture clearly does not describe, outline, follow, or discuss their god in any omni-x standard.
Their descriptions are more by way of comparison, such as, "King of Kings".
Specifically of awkwardness to their culture would have been, "omni-benevolent", and "omnipresent".
The Tabernacle was at odds with that latter of the two; they were rather Iron/Bronze age in their thinking of their god showing up to a specific location.
All good, or all charitable, versions of their god would defeat the legend of Moses: which was an important and vital legend to them.

Their god was something that has a difference of behavior depending on which era of the Hebrew culture we're dipping into, but more radically between the pre-3 c BCE writings and the post-3 c BCE writings.

That cultural revolution appears to shift away to some new ideas on the nature of their god; still strict, less temporal, less temperamental to 'his own people', but now more ruthless to those in opposition.
For instance, regarding Sirach:

Wisdom, in ben Sirach's view, is synonymous with the fear of God, and sometimes is identified in his mind with adherence to the Mosaic law. The maxims are expressed in exact formulas, and are illustrated by striking images. They show a profound knowledge of the human heart, the disillusionment of experience, a fraternal sympathy with the poor and the oppressed, and an unconquerable distrust of women.

wiki on Sirach

Regarding Jubilees:

RH Charles in 1913 wrote: "This kingdom was to be ruled over by a Messiah sprung, not from Levi — that is, from the Maccabean family — as some of his (author of Jubilee) contemporaries expected — but from Judah. This kingdom would be gradually realized on earth, and the transformation of physical nature would go hand in hand with the ethical transformation of man until there was a new heaven and a new earth. Thus, finally, all sin and pain would disappear and men would live to the age of 1,000 years in happiness and peace, and after death enjoy a blessed immortality in the spirit world."

wiki on Jubliees

English translation of Community Rule (1QS):

All that is and ever was comes from a God of knowledge. Before things came into existence He determined the plan of them; and when they fill their appointed roles, it is in accordance with His glorious design that they discharge their functions. Nothing can be changed. In His hand lies the government of all things. God it is that sustains them in their needs.

online English copy of 1QS, "Manual of Discipline"

Also included here in 1QS is a tangent summarizing a war between good and evil much in tone as in Daniel, Jubilee, and following New Testament eluded references.


Up until this point, one type of god.
After this point, another type of god.
And between those two seem to be a battle that was being encouraged through tone and setting. The latter had to take over the former; the latter groups are all the ones talking of these battles; referring to many of the former as the perversity.

When you look at it this way, it becomes increasingly less shocking that Jesus came about with the views and assertions that he did (even without being divine).

I think, overall, it's nearly impossible to say who won clearly.
You could make cases for both.

[felix dakat]

Their god was something that has a difference of behavior depending on which era of the Hebrew culture we're dipping into, but more radically between the pre-3 c BCE writings and the post-3 c BCE writings.

So the difference came during the Hellenistic period.To what do you attribute that change?

Are you familiar with Maccoby's theory that Jesus was a pharisee? If so, do you think it is well supported?

[Jayson]

To what do you attribute that change?

Considerably, the Hellenization.
There arose a civil war even at one point between Hellenistic Jews and Orthodox Jews.
This period is effectively what caused the Roman occupation; the Orthodox side calling upon Rome to aid in restoration of order of culture.
It just didn't do what they had hoped and eradicate the Hellenistic Hebrew culture.
No one is really sure when exactly the Hellenistic Hebrew culture died off, but some think it possible to have more or less evolved into becoming early Christianity.
This view makes sense to me personally, as most of the arguments between these two groups are the same arguments that we see Paul having with James later.
This also tied in to the consideration that some have that Paul was possibly a Hellenistic Hebrew; which actually makes sense as well, considering the discussion of things in a more virtual manner (such as circumcision, such as Philo of Alexandria employed it).

Keep in mind this is also the time in which the Septuagint popped up, specifically compiled for Hellenistic Jews.
It's tie, therefore, into Christianity as a respected source ontologically gives weight to the ties between Hellenistic Judaism and early Christianity.
One could nearly say that when a Hebrew practiced Hellenistic Judaism it was Hellenistic Judaism, but when a non-Hebrew practiced it, it was Christianity. It also seems that there is good support for further ties in the supporting Jews recognizing this difference and prescribing a different regiment for non-Hebrews.
Again, causing an argument between Paul and James which seems to have more or less ended with James (paraphrased as) stating, "You know what? Do whatever you want actually. I don't care what you do with non-Hebrew's. That false Jewish practice is for them."

In regards to Jesus as a Pharisee.
I have not yet seen much information tying between the two, and I have not read that book.

So far, what I have seen is understandable as Jesus a Northerner with extremely strong Northern beliefs and yet a strong devotion to the core tenants of the South.
This doesn't rule out the Pharisee possibility, but it should be kept in mind as needing to be satisfied without conflict.

[felix dakat]

One could nearly say that when a Hebrew practiced Hellenistic Judaism it was Hellenistic Judaism, but when a non-Hebrew practiced it, it was Christianity.

Well before the Christians you had the θεοφοβείς or theophobes or God-fearers--gentiles who sympathized with Judaism. Of course, they are considered important to the success of the spread of Christianity. Gregory Riley argues that Jesus had a lot in common with the heroic figures of Greek mythology like Hercules and Achilles. The classical heroes were said to be a mix of divine-human parentage, i.e. usually a virgin human mother and a god father. The heroes often possessed some super-human skill or power like Hercules' strength or Asclepius' ability to heal. They had divine enemies and were hated by powerful humans. They often died young and violently, as martyrs for a principle. Jesus fit that heroic pattern. The argument is that the gospel writers had classical educations which steeped them in heroic lore and influenced their composition of the Gospels. Early converts accepted Christianity's message because it captured the heroic formula that embodied their ideals.

Maccoby's thesis regarding Jesus is as follows:

"Jesus and his immediate followers were Pharisees. Jesus had no intention of founding a new religion. He regarded himself as the Messiah in the normal Jewish sense of the term, i.e. a human leader who would restore the Jewish monarchy, drive out the Roman invaders, set up an independent Jewish state, and inaugurate an era of peace, justice and prosperity (known as 'the kingdom of God,) for the whole world. Jesus believed himself to be the figure prophesied in the Hebrew Bible who would do all these things. He was not a militarist and did not build up an army to fight the Romans, since he believed that God would perform a great miracle to break the power of Rome. This miracle would take place on the Mount of Olives, as prophesied in the book of Zechariah. When this miracle did not occur, his mission had failed. He had no intention of being crucified in order to save mankind from eternal damnation by his sacrifice. He never regarded himself as a divine being, and would have regarded such an idea as pagan and idolatrous, an infringement of the first of the Ten Commandments. "

The assertion that Jesus was a Pharisee seems preposterous on the face of it given that the gospel accounts show the Pharisees vehemently opposed Jesus. But Maccoby claims that Jesus' teachings were entirely consistent with those of the Pharisee of his time making it improbable that they would have opposed him. He argues that Roman hostilities became such that it was important for the "Gospel editors" to represent Jesus as rebelling against the Jewish religion, not against the Romans.