"Namaste" — worse than "harijan"? Both bad, but both Christian

 "Harijan" was Gandhi's popularization and reinvention with a twist of a term for the Outcasts or Untouchables. It means, "the lord's person(s)." The first half is cognate, I believe, with German "Herr" and English "sir." Some encyclopedias define it as "Vishnu's person," but I think that is not fully right.

And, it is offensive, not just because the Supreme Court of India said so. Calling the Dalit's the 'lord's children" while ignoring the Hindu caste structure that puts them there? Offensive.

I say the same for "namaste." Claiming to recognize the divine in someone else when said in a pitying way? Offensive.

Both words in some way, to me, seem to say that "god considers you a child of his, and your disability shows god at work and challenges us."

But, it's not Hinduism alone, or eastern religions alone, that hold this.

Jeebus himself, in John 9:2-3:

2 His disciples asked him, “Rabbi, who sinned, this man or his parents, that he was born blind?” 3 “Neither this man nor his parents sinned,” said Jesus, “but this happened so that the works of God might be displayed in him.

There you go.

Waxing science, waning religion

Note: Per the tagline, I wrote this 12 years ago. While doing a search on my computer recently, I came across it and realized I'd never posted it here.

The slimmest clarion of new crescent moon 

Strives against being horizontally swallowed 

By a modern, urbanized mix 

Of haze, smog, high-rise skyline and near-solstice summer sunset. 

A totem of a more simplistic time 

(Whether simple or not) 

When times were measured by moons 

Along with sacrifices and other aspects of worship 

As the stench of old, dried, burnt blood 

Coated stones, steles, tabernacles and temples; 

Nasty, brutish, short and simplistic, even if not simple. 

Nor bygone. 

Yet today several million lobster loathers, 

And a billion followers of an illiterate itinerant peddler, 

Mark their calendars by that same crescent, 

While well more than a billion adherents 

Of a dead rebel Jew they cluelessly deify 

Mark his death by that same lunar orb. 

What would Earth by like without that Moon? 

No science of Galileo and Apollo landings, 

But no madness of Middle Eastern myths. 

 — May 31, 2009

Per the last stanza, a lot of people have written about how astronomy might be far different without Earth having a satellite, especially one as close as our Moon. And, that sets aside the issue of how the biology of our plant would be different without that.

But, given the centrality of lunar issues to many world religions, even if lunar month observances were secular, as a way of marking time, as well as endowed with religious import, I don't think you can talk about how science would be changed without talking about how religion would as well.

Judas kisses a shape-changing Jesus

No, really!

A newly-deciphered Coptic gospel-type text tells us exactly like that, and should reignite discussions about whose interpretation of the recently translated and interpreted Gospel of Judas is correct.

Here's the nut graf:

(T)he ancient text tells of Pontius Pilate, the judge who authorized Jesus' crucifixion, having dinner with Jesus before his crucifixion and offering to sacrifice his own son in the place of Jesus. It also explains why Judas used a kiss, specifically, to betray Jesus — because Jesus had the ability to change shape, according to the text.

Note TWO bizarro things there.

One is a shape-shifting Jesus, which is actually the less bizarre of the two.

The more notable one is Pilate offering his own son in place of Jesus.

First, why is the shape-shifting less bizarre?

In canonical gospels, in post-resurrection appearances, Jesus appears to have powers at least vaguely similar. In Luke, the Emmaus disciples don't recognize Jesus until he seemingly allows it. And in John 20, in the "upper room appearance," he pops in out of nowhere. And in the apocryphal, but early, Gospel of Peter, Jesus becomes mega-giant sized.

Here's the specifics of the shape changing here:

"Then the Jews said to Judas: How shall we arrest him [Jesus], for he does not have a single shape but his appearance changes. Sometimes he is ruddy, sometimes he is white, sometimes he is red, sometimes he is wheat coloured, sometimes he is pallid like ascetics, sometimes he is a youth, sometimes an old man ..."  

That said, the story notes that this idea goes back at least to the Egyptian Christian Origen, who died in 254. So, even if the text is "newer," the tradition is not THAT new. That said, as the story notes, the text is written pseudepigraphally in the name of St. Cyril of Jerusalem. Cyril  lived during the fourth century, so this text is surely at least 100 years later than Origin's death. That said, it may have a "history," beyond the Judas kiss, that goes back earlier.

More on this, and the Pilate offer, after I mention it.

As for Pilate?

"Without further ado, Pilate prepared a table and he ate with Jesus on the fifth day of the week. And Jesus blessed Pilate and his whole house," reads part of the text in translation. Pilate later tells Jesus, "well then, behold, the night has come, rise and withdraw, and when the morning comes and they accuse me because of you, I shall give them the only son I have so that they can kill him in your place."

That said, in the story about this text, a scholar notes Pilate had higher, even much higher, standing in early Coptic Egyptian and Ethiopian Christianity than elsewhere, even being regarded as a saint.

As for the tie-ins with the Gospel of Judas and its interpretation? It may bear some light as to whether that Gospel should be interpreted as Judas being Jesus' enemy rather than a being, a person, specially enlightened by Jesus. The fact that at least one quasi-semi-Gnosticizing text, the one at hand, points to Judas as an enemy means that this interpretation of the Gospel of Judas, contra a Bart Ehrman, is more likely.

As for the reality of the existence of Judas (operating on the assumption of the existence of Jesus) and Jesus' betrayal by Judas?

That's below the fold.

Joe Hoffmann again overstates case for historical Jesus

Once again, R. Joseph Hoffmann feels the compulsion to do battle against the evil "mythicists" who reject the historicity of Jesus.

Well, Hoffmann has Ph.D.-level scholarship in New Testament studies, as well as a level of philosophical education I don't. But I have more than enough academic and personal education in New Testament, and enough in philosophy, to know that his latest argument once again doesn't stack up.

First is the old fallacy of the excluded middle, or, the false dilemma. I, for one, don't outrightly state that Yeshua bar Yusuf never existed, but I do at the same time state the question of his historicity is one that's academically legitimate for study. Hoffmann rejects that, wrongly.

Second is that "mythicist" is arguably a pejorative term; it certainly is for those of us in his excluded middle.

Third, this particular argument of his has its individual weaknesses.

First, the analogy from the semi-empty tomb of John Henry Newman to the allegedly empty one of Jesus is at best weak, and really, from where I stand, a non sequitur.

But, that's nothing compared to this howler:

And even though the dying/rising god cults differed pointedly from each other and from Christianity, it is pretty clear that Christianity after the time of St Paul fit the description of a salvation cult pretty well. It is hard to imagine Christianity surviving and spreading on the basis of Jesus’ teaching alone.

Why is it "hard to imagine"? Buddhism, like Christianity, traces its origin to a single alleged founder (whether historic or not, like Christianity). But, Buddhism is based indeed on just the teaching of the Buddha.

(OTOH: Mahayana clearly developed beyond "just the teaching" of Buddhism. Even Theravada has, even if not considering the Buddha quasi, or fully, divine.)

Beyond that, the question of the nature of Jesus' mission is a separate issue from his historicity. A Q/Gospel of Thomas Jesus is just as historical, or ahistorical, as an empty tomb one.

And, beyond THAT, the issue relates to Paul's role in the development of the Jesus tradition, author priority and related issues, which Hoffman partially admits is involved. Noetheless, the "type of Jesus" and historicity is independent of that, too.

That's followed by another misfire:

The political and religious conditions of the time of Jesus plausibly give us characters like Jesus.

So? The "Jesus" of the New Testament could be a composite character! Or, as Hoffmann says purely for rhetorical effect, be Theudas, or my argument, Jesus the Pharisee of a century earlier. The claim that the New Testament statements about historical datum related to Jesus have a higher strength sounds like hand-waving.

The claim that the gospel writers got context right even though they made many mistakes about specifics? I could say that, in Old Testament studies, about the Yahwist and the patriarchs. Depends on how wide you want to draw the lasso of margin of error.

====

Darwin had his "bulldog" in Huxley. Hoffmann has one, too, in "Steff."

Here's an excerpt from my reply to here, with editing.

She claimed I focused my "fail" too much on logical grounds and that, my rhetorical "opening" aside, I didn't have the scholastic background necessary to have a dog in this hunt.

Tosh.

That said, I didn’t say that it failed only on logical grounds (if that’s not enough). Your arguments in favor of his claims fairly well parallel those I’ve see hurled against the “minimalists” on the Old Testament side of biblical scholarship. They’ve generally been well refuted there, too.

That said, there is another philosophical angle, and that’s the question of in whose court the matter of proof lies when evidence is tenuous. And it doesn’t all lie in the court of those who question the historicity of Jesus.

Anyway, I’ve been down this road before. I’m far from the only person, and indeed not the only non “mythicist” to question Hoffmann’s reasoning. (Other people do on this blog, though, not in as much detail and as specific to Hoffmann, so far, on this post, as me.)

I’ve also said more than once before, as do the ahistoricists, that it’s quite arguable Paul knew zero of a historical Jesus. Paul's “born of a woman” comment can easily be read as nothing more than an “anti-docetist” claim and nothing else. And, it probably should be read as nothing more than that, and I think Hoffmann knows that himself. From there, its easy to see how Paul’s particular accretion of a pagan custom, the Eucharist, tweaked for Judaism, could have accreted. It’s also easy to see how a misreading of the middle voice of παραδίδωμι (hey, Steff, there’s scholarship!) could have been misread as a passive, and then, the growth of “tradition” required an agent for that passive voice, and hence the invention of a mythic Judas, and we go on from there.

Indeed, I have blogged in more depth about that, here.

In 1 Corinthians 11, Paul gives us the first extant written account of the Lord’s Supper. He starts with the well-known phrase, “On the night our Lord Jesus was betrayed…”

But, “betrayed” may well not be the right translation.

Many Greek verbs have three voices — the active and passive ones we know in English, and a “middle” voice, a sort of reflexive voice.

Now, the Greek verb παραδίδωμι looks the same in middle and passive voice. But, it has different meanings.

In the passive, it does mean “betray.” But, in the middle, it normally means “hand over,” as in hand over someone to authorities. A similar meaning is “hand up.”

Critical New Testament scholarship believe this is what Paul means. He never, in the epistles he clearly wrote, talks about a Passion Plot, a Roman arrest, or the melodramatic literary angle of a turncoat named Judas.

And, from there,I do believe it's easy to see how myth could develop further. Or, legend, technically, since we're talking about the existence of a human being, conservative Christianity aside.

For more on παραδίδωμι see Liddell and Scott. In the NT, per Strong's, note that all translations of "betrayed" or "handed over" in other passages involve an agent, unlike here.

And, I’ve mentioned this particular bit on other posts of Hoffmann’s and he’s never adequately refuted it.

So, "sorry," Joe, and even more, Steff, there’s a good scholarly keystone for how “Pauline priority” could fit will with the development of myths about a historic Jesus.

Whether it did or not is still an open question. But it IS an open question of legitimate academic discussion, not, contra Hoffmann, something to be rudely dismissed in narrowmindedness, or in personal pique because many mythicists also happen to be Gnu Atheists.

And yes, at least vis-a-vis Richard Carrier, Hoffmann has indeed fused the historicity debate with that of Gnu Atheism, and also with past personal and professional "issues" with Carrier. I blogged extensively about that, here.

===

Postscript and sidebar: I feel kind of sorry for Steff. I think she's living vicariously through Hoffmann a bit, perhaps combined with frustration at not having yet achieved a career standing that may reflect on her academic study to date. I don't know how else to explain the depth and tenor of her attacks on me, in defending Hoffmann, to claim I don't know anything about either textual criticism or historical criticism, or about Greek. (Without bragging, my undergrad degree is in classical languages, and I also read Hebrew already at that level. At divinity school, I had classes specifically on both textual and higher criticism.)

That said, I see a bit of myself ... I didn't know what to do after I had gotten my M.Div. degree only to realize that I wasn't a conservative Lutheran, and not only that, wasn't even anything to the "right" of Unitarianism, at the least. I wasn't ready to launch into a Ph.D., yet, and especially not if I would be expected to do a full M.A. first.

But, per what I have heard, the nature of her attacks is such that they're not just against me, and not just with that exact angle.

Anyway, along with a friend of a friend leaving Facebook for now, and a friend sharing a link about "online simplification," and some things happening in my "meatspace" life, this issue has made me kind of sad. Pensive, even.

==

Elsewhere, Hoffman has claimed the Toledoth Yeshu is more historical than the Christian gospels. In reality, per this extensive critical commentary, it was a "book" that relied on oral tradition as much as the Mishna if not the Talmud, and even after something close to its final state was put in book form, was extensively added to by Christians and Jews both. 

A pox on Gnu Atheist and non-Gnu houses alike

P.Z. Myers, aka Pharyngula, gives space to "Jesus mythicist" Richard Carrier for bashing liberal Jesus scholar Bart Ehrman, who is somewhere between deism and agnosticism himself, for nothing more than upholding the historicity of Jesus.

And, in return, self-appointed defender of secular humanism against the hordes of Gnu Atheism R. Joseph Hoffmann, bashes Myers, Carrier, and "mythicism" (a term I reject as much as "accommodationism" when used by Gnus).

And, I've come to the conclusion that what we have is Carrier and Ehrman (we'll see what reply Ehrman may have to Carrier) as authors of dueling books with dueling propositions. Between their stances, there is no room for compromise.

And, above that level, we have Myers willing to give a platform to anyone who might advance the Gnu Atheist agenda and help recruit cadres (his Chairman Mao word from a couple of years ago), while Hoffmann, in part because he's a Jesus historicist, sees P.Z.'s "using" of Carrier as another excuse to attack him.


First, my reply to Hoffmann, since I just wrote it;

I disagree with your take on mythicism, starting with the word. (That said, I'm not a Gnu by any means.) Were I to offer Bayesian-like odds, based on current levels of scholarship, I'd offer 10 percent odds, maybe 20 percent, that Yeshua bar Yusuf never lived. In other words, high enough probability for it to be legitimate discussion. That said, PZ is really ridiculous here. While Ehrman believes in the actual existence of Jesus, he's always, from what I've seen, been cordial about the issue. And, I know that from personal experience

And, quoting Paul? The only thing he says in an authentic letter is that Jesus was "born of a woman." That says nothing about his historicity, and could be interpreted as nothing more than an anti-Gnostic statement. [Calling James "the brother of the Lord" can be seen as nothing but stating his leadership in the Christian movement.]

Q?  Q says nothing historically grounded about Jesus' existence other than his baptism, and thousands of people were baptized by him. [Q is the putative source behind the wisdom sayings of Jesus common to Matthew and Luke.]

As for mentions of Caiphas, etc.? Well, Matthew mentions a likely non-historic "massacre of infants." Mark has no birth account. Luke of course botches the historicity of Jesus' birth and in a royal way, enough to argue AGAINST anything else he claims that is alleged to be historical.

Besides, as I've said, there's option 3: Yeshua was the Pharasaic Yeshua crucified by Alexander Jannai. That gives more than a century for the myth to develop and the history to be replaced.

And, yes, I believe that is at least in the 5 percent range, if not 10 percent. So, let's discuss it more.

Second, let's look at what Carrier says. The reality? Hoffmann overstates Carrier's tone vis-a-vis Ehrman, and ignores some of Ehrman's own tone in his original article. Carrier notes he has appreciated Ehrman's previous books, and even that many mythicists of the past have been kind of nutso. Otherwise, it's a general arguement against some of Ehrman's claims for historicity.

And, , yes, Ehrman DOES overstate his case. And, per my comment to Hoffmann, does so with a vitriol I've not seen from him before. Although, from what I've read, Carrier's now book-to-be is probably very overrated, Ehrman's, which I want to read, may well be, too.

And, just as Myers and his ilk are ruining the word "atheist," Gnu or otherwise, Hoffman and his "acoylte," Steph, are coming closer to ruin the phrase "secular humanism."

Paul, Passover, Jesus, Gnosticism

In 1 Corinthians 11, Paul gives us the first extant written account of the Lord’s Supper.

He starts with the well-known phrase, “On the night our Lord Jesus was betrayed…”

But, “betrayed” may well not be the right translation.

Many Greek verbs have three voices — the active and passive ones we know in English, and a “middle” voice, a sort of reflexive voice.

Now, the Greek verb παραδίδωμι looks the same in middle and passive voice. But, it has different meanings.

In the passive, it does mean “betray.” But, in the middle, it normally means “hand over,” as in hand over someone to authorities. A similar meaning is “hand up.”

Good and real critical New Testament scholarship believe this is what Paul means. He never, in the epistles he clearly wrote, talks about a Passion Plot, a Roman arrest, or the melodramatic literary angle of a turncoat named Judas.

For more on παραδίδωμι see Liddelland Scott. In the NT, per Strong's, note that all translations of "betrayed" or "handed over" in other passages involve an agent, unlike here. More from other lexicons.

That gets us to the first “pseudo-Paul.” In addition to it being quite certain that Paul never wrote the “Pastoral Epistles” of 1 Timothy, 2 Timothy and Titus, which weren’t written until the end of the first century CE, or even early in the second, an earlier pseudo-Paul (or two) is believed to have written Colossians and Ephesians. Relations between these two books are unclear, but both likely were written no later than 30 years after Paul’s genuine books, by someone closer to the Pauline mileau than the Pastoralist of another 20-40 years later.

Well, both Colossians and Ephesians discuss what can certainly be called “esoterica,” whether they are talking about issues that can clearly be labeled Gnostic or not.

In Colossians 2:20, “Paul” tells his readers, “Since you died with Christ to the basic principles of this world….” The word in Greek, στοιχεια, is a word with plenty of use in Gnosticism, although it has plenty of pre-Gnostic use as well. As an “elemental principle,” it can be understood as a stage to be overcome by the Gnostic initiate’s battle to return to the All.

NOTE: "Gnosticism" is a handy hook in the headline, more than "proto-Gnostic," "pre-Gnostic," "quasi-Gnostic," or "Gnosticizing." I know that the question of when Gnosticism started, what "full blown" Gnosticism entails, ie, a philosophically "necessary" minimum list of items, and related issues are a minefield. And, you have folks like some from Westar/Polebridge land who claim that Gnosticism never existed, which I reject.

So, tying together Colossians and 1 Corinthians, did Paul mean that Jesus was actually “handed up” to the “elemental powers”? In other words rather than the soteriology of the Pastoral Epistles, themselves connected with similar soteriology stances of dying-and-rising eastern Mediterranean savior gods, was Paul instead talking about Jesus as a sacrifice to Gnostic powers? Also, whether "Gnosticizing" or not, see this commentary that suggests the option that God, not Judas, was the one doing the handing up.

It seems likely. Mystery religions, after all, we know had their own mystery-fellowship dinners, from which it is believed Paul borrowed ideas that he fused into Passover concepts to produce his “Last Supper.”

If that’s the case, the genuine Paul was more a proto-Gnostic than later followers, let alone conservative Christians today, might want to accept.

Update, Oct. 17, 2022: Per the one good idea I got from a Westar book I read earlier this year, I no longer think that mystery religions were the main non-Jewish source of ideas for Paul to develop the Eucharist, setting aside that Synoptic-Johannine division means we don't know that Jesus was eating a Passover meal anyway. Rather, I see Paul as being influenced by the symposium-like meals that Hellenstic guilds held, usually monthly or so, in cities of any size, devoted to their patron deity as part of that. In other words, Ephesian silversmiths met and had a "symposium," and likely with Artemis as patron. Per the likes of some scholars dividing the Pauline church's observations into a "Eucharist" and an "agape meal," this idea isnn't brand now.

But, such borrowing does not undercut the possibility of Paul being a proto-Gnostic.

Also, if that’s the case, pseudo-Paul of Colossians either didn’t understand the genuine article that well, or else thought that others’ interpretation of him had gone too far, or else did understand him well and deliberately reinterpreted him.

How, then, did we get to Mark, the first gospeller, creating the "betrayal" story?

A combination of misreading Paul plus creative reading of the Old Testament, namely something like Psalm 69:22-28, and Psalm 109:6-12.

Peter allegedly took these verses that way in Acts 1.

In Gnostic and semi-Gnostic Christianity, the idea of Judas as Jesus' twin, as in Judas Thomas (Aramaic for "twin") certainly added to Gnosticizing takes on the idea of Jesus' betrayal.

As for "who was Judas"? Well, his second name, "Iscariot," has caused critical scholars puzzlement as well. It has sometimes been considered to be "Ish Kerioth," or "man of Kerioth." Problem — that is a village in what is today the Kingdom of Jordan, or biblical Transjordan, and all of Jesus' other disciples are described as coming from Galilee. Others claim it derives from the Latin "sicarius," which in the plural came to be used for dirk-wielding Jews knocking off Romans and collaborators and hoping to start the revolution. After all, all three Synoptics have Simon the Zealot as a follower, one of the Twelve. ("Cananaean" in Mark is simply the Aramaic word for the Greek "Zealot," and either an indication that Mark was trying to hide something, or, along with some of his geographical befuddlement, an indication of how clueless he was.) Problem — Josephus says the Sicarii didn't arise until the late 50s CE. However, Mark could have used it anachronistically.

In any case, it should also be noted that Paul created the Eucharist. And, he had no Judas in it. And, Jesus likely wasn't betrayed. Indeed, as an interlinear clearly shows, earlier in that same chapter of I Corinthians 11, where Paul claims the direct revelation of the Eucharist to him (he does, and critical NT scholars who claim he got this information from the Jerusalem gang are full of it), another form of the verb παραδίδωμι is used by Paul to talk about the revelation he is "handing on" to the Corinthians.

And, I'm nowhere near alone on the issue. Fitzmyer, among "name" biblical scholars, believes Paul invented the Eucharist. See more on this issue, including what the Didache may or may not tell us, and more, on base-level discussion, at Wiki. Among other scholars of modern times seeing the Eucharist as an invention by Paul, and even more "radically" than Fitzmyer, are Robert Funk and Roy Hoover in "The Five Gospels." See especially pages 139-40. See more specific to Paul from this blog site citing Hyam Maccoby, among others.

Bible study – Jesus was anti-capitalist

OK, in a previous Bible study, I said Jesus was clearly a socialist, not a capitalist.

But, Luke 16 takes it further; middle management gets the green light to cheat the “owners of the means of production.” Verses 1-9 have the details:

1Jesus told his disciples: "There was a rich man whose manager was accused of wasting his possessions. 2So he called him in and asked him, 'What is this I hear about you? Give an account of your management, because you cannot be manager any longer.'

3"The manager said to himself, 'What shall I do now? My master is taking away my job. I'm not strong enough to dig, and I'm ashamed to beg— 4I know what I'll do so that, when I lose my job here, people will welcome me into their houses.'

5"So he called in each one of his master's debtors. He asked the first, 'How much do you owe my master?'

6" 'Eight hundred gallons[a] of olive oil,' he replied.
"The manager told him, 'Take your bill, sit down quickly, and make it four hundred.'

7"Then he asked the second, 'And how much do you owe?'
" 'A thousand bushels[b] of wheat,' he replied.
"He told him, 'Take your bill and make it eight hundred.'

8"The master commended the dishonest manager because he had acted shrewdly. For the people of this world are more shrewd in dealing with their own kind than are the people of the light. 9I tell you, use worldly wealth to gain friends for yourselves, so that when it is gone, you will be welcomed into eternal dwellings.

But then (assuming there was an actual Jesus and these were, approximately, his actual words, some “law and order” editor, now called “Luke,” has to go spoil the whole parable, in verses 10-15:

10"Whoever can be trusted with very little can also be trusted with much, and whoever is dishonest with very little will also be dishonest with much. 11So if you have not been trustworthy in handling worldly wealth, who will trust you with true riches? 12And if you have not been trustworthy with someone else's property, who will give you property of your own?

13"No servant can serve two masters. Either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve both God and Money."

14The Pharisees, who loved money, heard all this and were sneering at Jesus. 15He said to them, "You are the ones who justify yourselves in the eyes of men, but God knows your hearts. What is highly valued among men is detestable in God's sight.

Sorry, but Jesus the anti-capitalist didn’t say that at all.

Instead, let’s say you’re working for EDS as a middle manager. You electronically pencil-whip a bunch of doctors’ and clinics’ Medicare billings. In exchange, you get free plastic surgery for life, including a new boob job for that blonde bimbo you’re cheating on your wife with.

Bible study – Jesus was a SOCIALIST! (I think)J

No, don’t let the success theologians, or the fundamentalists and others who are willfully wedded at the hip to the GOP, tell you Jesus is a capitalist.

Beyond the fact that capitalism as we know it today didn’t exist 2,000 years ago, the bible clearly shows us Jesus is a socialist. Or even a communist, for doorknob’s sake!

Matthew 20:1-16 clearly shows that:

1"For the kingdom of heaven is like a landowner who went out early in the morning to hire men to work in his vineyard. 2He agreed to pay them a denarius for the day and sent them into his vineyard.

3"About the third hour he went out and saw others standing in the marketplace doing nothing. 4He told them, 'You also go and work in my vineyard, and I will pay you whatever is right.' 5So they went.

"He went out again about the sixth hour and the ninth hour and did the same thing. 6About the eleventh hour he went out and found still others standing around. He asked them, 'Why have you been standing here all day long doing nothing?'

7" 'Because no one has hired us,' they answered.
"He said to them, 'You also go and work in my vineyard.'

8"When evening came, the owner of the vineyard said to his foreman, 'Call the workers and pay them their wages, beginning with the last ones hired and going on to the first.'

9"The workers who were hired about the eleventh hour came and each received a denarius. 10So when those came who were hired first, they expected to receive more. But each one of them also received a denarius. 11When they received it, they began to grumble against the landowner. 12'These men who were hired last worked only one hour,' they said, 'and you have made them equal to us who have borne the burden of the work and the heat of the day.'

13"But he answered one of them, 'Friend, I am not being unfair to you. Didn't you agree to work for a denarius? 14Take your pay and go. I want to give the man who was hired last the same as I gave you. 15Don't I have the right to do what I want with my own money? Or are you envious because I am generous?'

16"So the last will be first, and the first will be last."

While Jesus doesn’t use Marx’s phrase, it’s arguable that Jesus had some version of “each according to his needs” in mind.

On the other hand, it’s arguable that he was an unregulated Gilded Age capitalist. If he says he has the right to pay whatever he wants, he obviously doesn’t believe in a minimum wage. By rebuking one of the early workers, he clearly doesn’t believe in unionism.

By hiring day laborers in the marketplace, he probably does believe in exploiting labor. Would probably have been OK with unrestricted illegal immigration by the Nabatean Arabs into Roman Palestine.

It’s certainly NOT arguable, though, in reference to the success theologians, that trying to make modern economic arguments and justifications from the bible is almost as inane as trying to do that by ID/creationism.

Imagine there was a Jesus born 100 years early

Let’s say there was a “Jesus,” but it was the Yeshua put to death as a Pharisaic religious and political rebel by Hasmonean king Alexandar Jannai in the 70s BCE, per the Jewish historian Josephus.

Huh, you may say, if you’re not familiar with this.

But, if there is any sort of Jesus of history behind both the Christian gospels and rabbinic legends, he may have lived 100 years earlier than claimed. Wiki has a brief synopsis here.

Then, per Rodney Stark’s theory that Christianity, without miracles, and based on the 175-year history of the Mormons, could grow at 40 percent a year, with a starting point of 100 Christians at the time of Jesus the Pharisee’s death, we would have had about 12,000 at the time of the great fire of Rome in 64 CE.

Stark’s book that explains his growth rate idea in more detail is here.

Given that Rome’s population was about 1/50th of the empire, this would have put about 240 Christians in Rome. That would have been 1/5,000th of the city’s population, or 0.05 percent. Would that have been enough to catch Nero’s eye, whether or not they were actually troublemakers?

Per the original view of when Jesus lived, and Stark’s theory of Christian growth, the empire would have had about 1,500 Christians at the time of the fire of Rome. A mere 30 Roman Christians probably wouldn’t have been enough to draw a letter from the apostle Paul. It certainly, as 1/40,000th of the city’s population, would have been below Nero’s notice.

See this June 2008 blog post for thoughts on how a newly-discovered Jordanian building, alleged to be a Christian church and alleged to date from the middle of the first century CE, would support my contention, setting aside obvious Jordanian tourism reasons to stretch the truth here.

THE STABLE IN BETHLEHEM

A mythical child-god
Poops his pants in a stable;
Shit-stained swaddling clothes
Give lie to pristine legends
About an almighty become cuddly child.
Persian astrologers
Have shit-strewn straw flung in their faces
By the laughing, sinless son of god
As they describe their horoscopes
About the purported inscrutableness
Of it all.

The Titanic, yes; Jesus’ tomb, I don’t think so

James Cameron of Titanic discovery fame claims he has found the tomb of Jesus as well as a son, Judah.

He claims he has verified the discovery in part through DNA analysis. Supposedly it took 20 years.

First, with whom did he compare DNA? If you’re Catholic, he didn’t have anybody in his lineage, so Cameron has no point of comparison.

Speaking of this, he claims Mary Magdalene is the momma of Judah, but says here this isn’t some Da Vinci Code nonsense.

But, out of 10 stone caskets supposedly found 27 years ago when construction workers were cutting out space to lay a foundation for an industrial park building. Those 10 caskets were named: “Jesua, son of Joseph, Mary, Mary, Mathew, Jofa and Judah, son of Jesua.”

But:

Israel's prominent archeologist Professor Amos Kloner didn't associate the crypt with the New Testament Jesus. His father, after all, was a humble carpenter who couldn't afford a luxury crypt for his family. And all were common Jewish names.

I totally agree. Why Cameron would be peddling this, I don’t know. And I can’t believe the DNA comparison part of it, period.

Superheroes, Jesus and infancy gospels

What do they have in common? Well, a writer in my office was mentioning childhood “miracles” of Superman. Sounds similar to how the “authentic/canonical” gospels’ material developed into infancy gospels of Boy Wonder Jesus.