when will we ride into jerusalem?

[sab]

I suck at the New Testament. Anything beyond Pharoahs and asps and it's too modern for me, or, in the words of Louis from Angels in America, any religion less than 2000 years old is a cult! (He said it in 1986; it had more punch then.)



And I know there's the thing where we joke that you think we killed your Lord ("we" being us Jews and "you" being you Christians, for the purposes of this sentence), and that's fine when it's for fun, but the thing is, everything I know about the New Testament and the gospels I learned from Jesus Christ Superstar (and some Godspell -- my Christian friends have informed me in the past that Godspell is a more accurate/more revelatory musical theatre interpretation of the Jesus story, and that JCS leaves a lot more open to artistic interpretation. Would you say that's true? Maybe I just have to listen to Godspell more -- anyone have .mp3s for me?) -- everything I know about the New Testament I learned from anecdotal evidence, popular culture, and Jesus Christ Superstar, and I've been thinking about this a lot in the past few days, driving back and forth from Pasadena in dead traffic with JCS on the stereo, and I have concluded that I don't see Judas having any other choice! Had I been in Judas' position, in the Gospel according to Andrew Lloyd Webber, I would have done exactly the same thing.

There are so many places along the way where I could have become misinformed that I'm making it a point to learn more about the Gospels, which is where I turn to the internets for help. I'm looking for any secular type gospels -- I think we in the secular world call it "historical fiction" -- that describe the Jesus/Judas/Gethsemane/blood money/Caiphas/Annas betrayal. I have Norman Mailer's The Gospel According to the Son which was, if nothing else, more straightforward than Gore Vidal's gospel, but I would like more, particularly about Judas Iscariot. All the biographies/gospels I've found on Judas tend to be lifted from the Christian Inspiration area of the bookstore, rather than the fiction area or history area, which makes me nervous, and I sat for a long time in Barnes & Noble carefully dismissing any gospel that had red letters or Los or Thees or Thous or O Lord!s in them -- and was left with Mailer, Vidal, and Anne Rice. Good thing Anne Rice is crazy (and good thing her big Jesus tetrology hasn't reached the Gethsemane chapter yet) or I'd have come home with more books than three.

I'm trying to get a handle on the political environment of the day, on the conflict between the Romans and the Jews of the Middle East, Caesar feeling threatened by the rise of other powers, the desert populus of Jews just trying to survive day to day in the hot unforgiving sand, local lords and governors paying tribute to Caesar and charged with keeping their flocks in line. I mean -- Caesar was a force to be reckoned with, no? I wouldn't go up against the Roman Empire without good backup either, and even then I'd be careful where I stepped. It's like trying to mount a revolution under an oppressive dictator. You gotta be cunning!

So -- let me see if I've got this right? And you tell me where I'm wrong, or lead me to texts where I can expand my knowledge? This is me retelling JCS, trying to squeeze fact from interpretive dance.

Jesus and Judas start a nonprofit, basically, in Galilee, stirring up grassroots support to help the poor and suffering. Judas is eager to help his fellow suffering Jews, and hopes they can continue their work under the radar for as long as possible before Caesar comes stomping in demanding tribute.

The poor and meek and so forth really take to Jesus, and for a couple of years their nonprofit does great work around Galilee, healing the sick and feeding the poor in the desert! Then Jesus's popularity grows to such a degree that the local leaders, folks with a real fear of Caesar and their ears to the ground, folks who have been at war before, people like Caiaphas and Annas, start getting nervous that Mr. Nazareth's cult of personality will bring the attention and the wrath of Rome upon their little struggling neck of the desert.

Judas, meanwhile, wonders how his well-meaning and humble nonprofit somehow launched into a one-man Jesus Revue, and also worries that with all the singing and dancing Jesus is doing, and with all the crowds that have flocked to Jesus, the wrath of Rome will come to Galilee and see Jesus as a threat and take out the whole lot of 'em. Judas wonders why Jesus is spending their group's hard-raised money on fine ointments and massage oils for him to use with his prostitute girlfriend, when insteaad they could use that money to feed and clothe the poor. Jesus replies that he will only be on this earth for a short time, and that they should all make the most out of having him here, and that he'd be more useful to the organization if he were relaxed, which Mary understands, hence all the deep-tissue massaging. Jews continue to flock from miles around, and everyone starts calling Jesus the King of the Jews for some reason.

Judas now seriously bugs out, because all he wanted to do was help his fellow Jews in Galilee, not throne a King. Caiaphas comes to Judas and says, we know this isn't what you signed up for, we need to take care of Jesus ourselves before Rome smites us. Judas says no WAY, he's my BEST FRIEND, I'm not turning him over to you. Meanwhile, Judas watches as Jesus gets the whole country to sing and dance his praises. Judas, for the good of the Jews, agrees that Jesus is a threat that must be stopped.

Then there's dinner and some more singing, and then there's the betrayal with a kiss. Judas, appropriately, can't live with himself, can't take the blood money, after all that, kills himself and dies a villian. Elsewhere, Pilate doesn't want to have to make a ruling regarding Jesus's case, because whoever chooses to punish Jesus is going to be, among many things, supremely unpopular with the groundswell of Jesus fans, and Pilate had a dream where they all hated him. So he sends Jesus to Herod, figuring it's up to one Jew to deal with another. Herod ALSO doesn't want to punish Jesus, and gives Jesus every opportunity to admit he's not the King of the Jews and get out of there unscathed, but Jesus refuses to admit it. Sure, he says, "you named me that," but he also proposes that there might be a kingdom for him somewhere. All this talk of being the son of god makes Herod think Jesus is in fact just crazy, but Herod can no more punish a crazy man than he can punish an innocent man. There's 40 lashes, because the crowd INSISTS that Jesus be punished some way and the crowd's getting restless. Then they send Jesus back to Pilate, because the crowd keeps insisting that JEsus be killed or else they'll be stuck facing the wrath of Rome, and Jews don't have capital punishment. Pilate goes ahead and nails Jesus up, hating himself for it all the while.

I feel -- if Jesus was indeed a real guy who walked around Israel 2000 years ago -- which is quite likely -- I feel he really put his friends in a tough position, put his people in a tough position, sold out the needs of the many in exchange for his own cult of personality, got high on fame and was a threat to Judaism everywhere. And then of course, he was a threat to Judaism, because after all that, we get Christianity. Judas, on the other hand, strikes me as the type who never wanted fame, but wanted to find a way to help his people -- more of a Socialist than a King.

And I lose control here. I don't know why a new religion sprung up because of this one guy. I don't know what we did that was so wrong. I don't know what Jesus did that was so great.

I don't get out much, so I read. I will tell you more after I've finished Mailer. Any clarifications or pointing out where I'm completely all wet eagerly appreciated.

Comments

[ubixtiz.livejournal.com]

I'm on my way out and thus don't have time for in-depth response right at this moment, but I'd just like to say that Jesus Christ Superstar is wonderful, and I want to go to fringey heaven.

[gamesiplay.livejournal.com]

Me, I get all my Jesus from musical theater and literature, too (and an Intro to World Religions class, once, and a little Huston Smith, and my Opus-Dei-indoctrinated brother), so the subtleties escape me. I do agree, though, that from what I know Godspell is much more faithful to the gospels, at least lyrically speaking. When I finally got around to reading (most of) the Bible, I ended up singing it. Stephen Schwartz is more melodic than God.

I had a couple of recommendations for "historical fiction," but then I got to the latter part of this entry and I got the sense you actually want, like, the Real Story? In which case I'm not much help, because I'm more into the biblical reinterpretation, the sort of heretical gospels: Saramago's The Gospel According to Jesus Christ, the Pilate sections in The Master and Margarita, etc. Which, you know, is fantastic stuff, but doesn't claim to be accurate or factually informative, and I seem to recall that you're not a Saramago fan anyway.

--Do let us know more about the Mailer book, though. I've been meaning to read that for ages, but I haven't been in the mood for Mailer lately.

[iamsab.livejournal.com]

Yeah, I want...like, History. Of people in Israel 2000 years ago. And yes, Saramago makes me uncomfortable because of his resistance to the "quotation mark." But I love Bulgakov, and M&M is an awesome book. *g*

I will keep you posted! And now I must find Godspell.

[noelleleithe.livejournal.com]

Setting aside the theological implications (because I'm Christian and thus biased on that front), the only part of the story that looks funky to me is the part where Jesus and Judas started up this group. Actually, Jesus founded the group and hired on 11 assistants, including Judas. (The Gospels actually portray Jesus as being closest to Simon Peter.) Jesus was always the head of the party, so to speak, and he told the rest of the crew from day one who he was and what he was going to do. They didn't always believe him, but that was their issue, not his.

[iamsab.livejournal.com]

Oh, Simon! Who three times denies him! I want to read more about Simon, too. Thank you.

As for the second part, that's a whole other question. As far as "fact" (or as close as we can get to it, 2000 years later), you say Jesus said from the beginning he was the son of god and was here to...save Israel? Just for those three years, right? I found some books that looked like good bios of Jesus before he was 30, but I tabled them for now, thinking I'd focus on one story at a time, but this is very interesting! I am clearly dumb for not knowing the answer to this but -- what happened to Jesus at the beginning of those three years that set him on this path? Did he get a burning bush or something?

[noelleleithe.livejournal.com]

John the Baptist baptized him when he was 30 (Matthew 3:12-17), then Jesus was led off by God and spent 40 days and 40 nights in the wilderness alone (well, alone with God). At the end, Satan came and tempted him, and he said "get thee behind me." Then he went off to Galilee and kicked off his ministry. Simon Peter and his brother, Andrew, both fishermen, were the first two he called to go with him.

He knew who he was long before all that, though. One of the few stories in the Bible about him between birth and age 30 was when he was 12 and started teaching in the temple (Luke 2:41-49). When his parents found him, he said, "Don't you know I must be about my Father's business?"

I don't think he knew exactly how long his ministry would last. He knew he'd be betrayed and killed and all that, and he knew the prophecies leading up to that, but not all the specifics.

(I'm not quoting passages off the top of my head, BTW. Highly recommended resource: <a href="http://www.blueletterbible.org>Blue Letter Bible</a>. Has several different translations, plus commentaries.)

[noelleleithe.livejournal.com]

Gah. My link disappeared. Trying again: Blue Letter Bible (http://www.blueletterbible.org). Has several versions, plus commentaries. :)

[channe.livejournal.com]

everything I know about the New Testament I learned from anecdotal evidence, popular culture, and Jesus Christ Superstar

It's high time for you to go out and read 'em for yourself, then. Try the New International Version; that's the one we use in our church, and it's a really good translation. When you read it, remember that you're not reading a literal history -- you're reading Jesus' story as told by evangelists that wanted to reach their flocks. What's different about the four Gospels that made it into the Bible than the trillion of others that were written is that these were the closest to the Truth that we can get (long story; read about the 'synoptic Gospels' if you can). Start with Mark, go to Matthew, then Luke, and then hit John.

JCS is a great musical, but it's not complete. There's this guy called Roger Karban that does a lot of commentary about the Gospels in terms of history that you would be interested in; let me get back to you with some links a little later.

I don't know why a new religion sprung up because of this one guy. I don't know what we did that was so wrong. I don't know what Jesus did that was so great.

If you're a Christian, you believe that Jesus was both God and human at the same time, and that he voluntarily gave up his life in a sacrifice to save all humanity from the curse of original sin. What makes him different than other prophets and social activists is that he was the Son of God. He rose from the dead. He was the Messiah. That's what he did differently.

A lot of that you just have to take on faith.

Jesus was never out to become a King of this world. He consistently talks in metaphors and parables, which means that his talk about 'kingdom' cannot be taken literally; he means the Kingdom of God, which is (depending on your denomination) heaven, or God's work on earth, etc. The Pharisees, Romans, etc., thought, however, that he was talking about a kingdom right then, and he had a number of followers who wanted that, too, who followed a literal translation of 'Messiah' as someone who would deliver them from the Romans. So when you say that people like Caiaphas and Annas, start getting nervous that Mr. Nazareth's cult of personality will bring the attention and the wrath of Rome upon their little struggling neck of the desert. you are absolutely and completely right.

Throughout the Gospels, Jesus continually denies this, though. You don't get that in Godspell and JCS. There are many points where he tries to get away from the crowds, etc., etc., and he always, always, always telling people that he does not mean to be a political leader. Always, always, always, which was probably pretty dissappointing to people who were hoping he was going to kick out the Romans.

I see Judas as someone who saw Jesus as the promised political leader, and when Jesus turned out to not want to oust the Romans but concentrate on people's souls, that's when things started to go bad.

Also remember: Jesus was, to the end, a faithful Jew. His followers were faithful Jews. Jesus' mission during his life was a Jewish reform movement. He wasn't out to found a new religion, and his followers weren't out to worship him when they were around him while he was alive -- he wanted to reform the one he had. His first followers were Jewish, and the first Christians had Passover and kosher and circumcision as well as Easter; it was only when the Christian message spread to non-Jewish lands that Christianity as we know it today began to change. There are records of councils in Jerusalem where the Christian leaders argued strongly that Christians HAD to be Jewish.

...ok, this is totally gone off strangely, but there's absolutely no way I can explain it in a LJ comment.

OH OH OH. And I will upload the Antje songs 'Judas' and 'Long Way' as soon as I get access to them on the other computer; I don't have any others, but I can hook you up with them. :)

[noelleleithe.livejournal.com]

Excellent response. That part about Jesus continually saying he wasn't there or take charge politically, totally on the nose. (And I think Judas was among those very put out about that.)

The new religion was what resulted when the old one refused to change, really. Jesus didn't turn his back on Judaism; Judaism turned its back on him.

[iamsab.livejournal.com]

That is great stuff, thank you! And thank you for the songs! ;)

What I'm learning here (among many other things) is that there's a bit where Judas really needed a political leader to challenge the Romans, and instead got a spiritual leader, and got frustrated by that. That is very cool and I had not looked at it that way before; now I need to learn more about Caiaphas and other Middle Eastern leaders at the time. So much to learn!

[samdonne.livejournal.com]

Read the Bible Gospels, then read the Gnostic ones. Those are a lot cooler and more sophisticated. It's also clear from the start why they got left out of the Bible^TM: way too progressive and anti-hierarchical, downright revolutionary. Priests and kings couldn't have it.

The way I like to look at organized religion, Christianity in particular, is historiographical. Tells you a lot less about gods, but so much more about men.

[ratcreature]

I have nothing enlightening to contribute, but then even several years of Christian religion classes as a kid both at school and in church still left me confused about key points (not just about the Judas issue, but there too), like why did they need an informant to find and identify Jesus with a kiss in the first place when the guy was apparently preaching all over the place and ought to have been moderately well known? The whole thing with the sermons, followers and miracles didn't seem all that clandestine to me, so that it had to be infiltrated to find the leader.

[gingerwood.livejournal.com]

Between reading between the lines, and the history channel, I've come to believe that Jesus planned to get arrested in Jerusalum that week, and at least Judas, if not all of the rest of the gang were in on it. In the passage describing the last supper Jesus announces that one of the apostles was about to betray him. They go around the table asking 'Who Me?', until they get to Judas, then its 'Yup, off you go'. He gets up, leaves, the others just sit there till he's gone, then talk turns to other things. I speculate that everyone assumed that Jesus would talk his way out of the situation (as he did a few other times), make whatever point he was planning to make, and walk away. When it didn't turn out that way, Judas hangs himself in a fit of guilt for his part in the scheme.

[channe.livejournal.com]

By that point -- and I'm speaking from a Christian perspective, here -- Jesus knew what he had to do, and knew how it was all going to go down. So he let Judas go. There are a number of points at which Jesus could have just said something and changed his situation, but he didn't.

Who knew what the other disciples thought at that point? :)

[se-parsons.livejournal.com]

I am kind of an original text sort of girl, to the N-th power.

Get the "New Jerusalem Bible". It is scholarly re-translation of original texts with heavy annotation. I own a copy and it is the ONLY source to find out what's actually in the original texts, because it corrects all the bad translations of the past that end up with Moses having horns, etc.

It lists what order the books were written in, what the orginal texts were, what other texts are ommitted, etc. etc. It gives a pretty good list of bible fanfic written during contemporary periods.

If you really want to know why Jesus cult got so huge, you have to look to Paul and his extensive hard work to build a church from nothing. He's a total dick, but he was a hard worker and a prolific traveler and writer. And here's the MOST special thing. Paul never ever met Jesus while Jesus was alive. He didn't know him at all. Which is a great point made in "The Last Temptation of Christ."

Jesus was an interesting dude, but Paul built the religion.

There's a lot of very old Bible fanfic out there, some is about Judas. I don't have a handle on the names of the books, though. M. Sebasky has most of my stuff for research.

There's "Lost Books of the Bible" and some other compilations of Gnostic gospels and other things that have more stories in.

Amazon.com
In 1956, scholars from L'Ecole Biblique in Jerusalem set their minds to translating the Scriptures from the original Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek texts, hoping they could preserve the most sacred Christian traditions and stories. By 1966, the first English-language Jerusalem Bible was published. Since then it has become a favored text for lay readers and scholars alike. The accessible language and richly recounted stories, poetry, and letters in this edition is consistent with previous versions. However, this latest version stands out because of its clear format--clean double columns with easy-to-read type and quick reference headings.

From Library Journal
Catholic readers have made The Jeru salem Bible (1966) a perennially popu lar study Bible. The Jerusalem-based French scholars, upon whose transla tion the work is based, published a re vised French edition in 1973, incorpo rating recent research. General editor Wansbrough and his colleagues base The New Jerusalem Bible on this revi sion, though they have depended less on the French version and more on the original languages than did the English translators. They have thoroughly re vised everything. The biblical text is loftier, more literal, and less colloquial. It is also less gender-specific, when this approach does not do violence to the original. A worthwhile purchase wher ever the earlier edition is popular. Richard S. Watts, San Bernardino Cty. Lib., Cal.
Copyright 1986 Reed Business Information, Inc. --This text refers to the Hardcover edition.

[samdonne.livejournal.com]

se_parsons got it in one. Paul was a dick, and from a psychiatric perspective, a mentally disordered dick at that, who's got a lot to answer for.

maybe this time...

[wearemany.livejournal.com]

everything i know about Jesus i learned the day after i read "the old man and the sea" in 9th grade and came to class and said, yeah, that was kind of boring. because of course i had MISSED the metaphor of the crucifixion, because i didn't know the story.

ok, but, you are a crazy beautiful girl. and i'm going to take some kind of new testament and/or intro to christianity or intro to evangelism or something this summer/fall. you will join me.

[fourteenlines.livejournal.com]

You're adorable. The Gospels according to Andrew Lloyd Webber!

noelleleithe covered the more interpersonal stuff - to be honest, there is not a great deal of background offered on Judas Iscariot, if I remember correctly. Of what was offered, it looks like JCS, in its quest for a rollicking good story, left out the part where Judas was stealing from the cash box, being the accountant for Jesus of Nazareth's nonprofit. That is also offered as an explanation for why he got het up about the anointing with oil thing - he didn't want to use it for the benefit of the poor so much as he wanted to skim off the top. (As for Jesus' response, I think it was supposed to be symbolic of his impending death; something about preparing him for burial - although, obviously, symbolically rather than literally.) If I'm remembering, all the more explanation for Judas' actions was that he was influenced by the Devil.

For historical and political perspective, the only thing I could point you toward are the works of Josephus, the first-century Jewish historian, though I don't know if there are translations that are in any way readable in modern English.

There's evidence that Jews at the time were looking for the Messiah - for example, they thought maybe John the Baptist was the Messiah before Jesus started his ministry. So then Jesus comes along and says, yes, I'm the Messiah; only some of the Jews think this means that Jesus is going to end Roman rule and restore kingship in Jerusalem, like hasn't been seen since the exile in Babylon. When Jesus says - actually - no, it isn't like that, I'm not restoring kingship to Jerusalem, some people aren't too pleased. There was a group that came to him in the Temple and tried to crown him king, and he ran away. Some people were looking for overthrow of Caesar, and Jesus never wanted that, never claimed that. That wasn't what he was there for. Except that, you know, mob rules, and the idea took root.

I think Pilate did what he thought he had to do; Judas, not so much. (Rome did, of course, eventually come and lay the smackdown on the Jews, but that was 35 years after Jesus had died, and had little if anything to do with the Christians and a lot to do with the political restlessness of secular Jews.) I think it makes a good story to say that Judas was just looking out for his fellow Jews, but when you consider that there aren't, that I know of, any primary sources on Judas other than the Gospels, there aren't any facts to support that interpretation, even if you're considering the Gospels to be biased in favor of Jesus. At that point it's all speculation. The Gospels paint people like Judas, Caiaphas, and Annas as self-righteous, more concerned with how they look than how they actually are, or how they treat people. Caiaphas, for example, had a great deal of contempt for the common Jewish people. And if I'm remembering, the fear wasn't so much that Rome would come bearing down with an army if Jesus were to continue to live, as that they'd just replace Pilate, Herod and Caiaphas (who was, if I recall, appointed by Caesar as high priest in violation of all sorts of Jewish rules.) Replace them, supposedly, with people better able to control their citizens. Which does not do a lot for the argument that Judas was acting for the good of his people.

(sigh. comment continues below.)

[fourteenlines.livejournal.com]

Anyway, of course I do have a bias with regard to this subject, but I hope that's only in the way I worded it and not in the substance of the thing.

If you were, by chance, interested in having a look at the text of the Gospels, the first thing to do is get a modern translation, and the second thing I'd suggest is trying the book of Luke. Luke was well-educated, a physician, and he did not personally know Jesus, so when he wrote his book he was trying to get the facts together as accurately as he could. The book opens with, "Whereas many have undertaken to compile a statement of the facts that are given full credence among us, [...] I resolved also, because I have traced all things form the start with accuracy, to write them in logical order." He was of course a follower, a Christian, otherwise I doubt he'd have bothered. But if you're looking for the most disinterested party, I think Luke's your man.

(Also, I'm tired of the thing where Christians say the Jews killed Jesus. Even in jest! Jesus was Jewish. Get over it, fundies!)

[iamsab.livejournal.com]

Yeah, you did good, thank you -- this is great stuff. I will read Luke. What I want, of course, is a history written by someone who was alive at the time and didn't think Jesus was the son of god, but wasn't vehemently opposed to Jesus either. It is very hard to find, um, texts by that hypothetical person.

[fourteenlines.livejournal.com]

Yeah, I don't know that such a thing exists. Josephus was Not Happy with the Christians, if I'm remembering correctly, and I don't know how extensively he wrote about Jesus. Where he did touch on the subject, I think about the only thing you can say of Josephus' attempt at non-bias is, "Well, he never claimed Jesus wasn't actually a real person."

[epj.livejournal.com]

Several people have said much of what I would've said already, so just a minor point of clarification:

"Judas wonders why Jesus is spending their group's hard-raised money on fine ointments and massage oils for him to use with his prostitute girlfriend, when insteaad they could use that money to feed and clothe the poor."

The story is, the woman comes to Jesus with the oil (in the Gospels, there are lots of unnamed women running around; it's pretty unclear who she might be) and anoints him, and Judas gets pissed because Jesus doesn't make the woman stop, take the oil from her, and sell it and give the proceeds to the poor. Jesus, recognizing the woman's need to do something for him, tells Judas to shut up.

[iamsab.livejournal.com]

Oh! Interesting, thank you, I did not know the details on that and that's just the kind of info I was looking for!

[rahaeli.livejournal.com]

Actually, there's an even deeper layer than that. The act of anointing Jesus with oil was the woman's recognition of Jesus as the heir of David's line and the ruler of the Jewish people, and the reason Judas got so snitty about it was because he was most likely a Pharisee, the group of rabbinical Jews who denounced the old temple-based religion. Putting it into historical context, Judas was probably involved in the Jesus Movement because he thought Jesus should be a political revolutionary (freeing the Hebrew people from Roman oppression) rather than a religious one, and felt betrayed that Jesus wasn't taking that attitude at all. You can't say for sure from the text, but that's the generally-accepted theory.

[fourteenlines.livejournal.com]

Oh, yes! I totally missed that part of it. That's a good explanation.

[rahaeli.livejournal.com]

Pointed here via wearemany :)

And ... aha! I knew I'd given the lecture on Christological titles and The Jesus Movement as opposed to the Early Christian Church before! Please ignore the parts of this that are me slapping down the troll our discussion had acquired, but the information's still sound: and the thead is pretty long, too (http://ladysisyphus.livejournal.com/243468.html?thread=2599436#t2599436). If you'd like me to expand or elucidate on any of that, I'd be happy to when I get back from vacation!

You'll find some tolerable stuff in fiction, but to actually and honestly understand the time period we're talking about, you're going to need to turn to nonfiction. A really good author to start with is John Dominic Crossan, specifically "The Historical Jesus". The Gospels make a lot more sense once you go through them on a text-criticism and historical-criticism basis.

(I was fortunate enough to take a two-year class cycle on pretty much the entire Bible, one year on OT and one year on NT, during the course of my religious studies degree -- from a pluralist Jew.)

[iamsab.livejournal.com]

Oh, that's terrific, I will run over and read your post as soon as I can. And, yes, as I was just saying to Shaye above, what I really want is a book by a secular or political individual -- if we're talking primary sources, then a secular individual who knew Jesus, or was at least alive at the time, and all the books I can find have been (understandably) by religious scholars and Christian theologians, and they interpret Jesus as the son of god.

Is Satan really involved, also? And, are there political biographies of Caiaphas and Annas?

[rahaeli.livejournal.com]

See, any time you get into this discussion, you start running into the problem that there really are no primary sources. The historical Jesus was -- and I'm approaching this simply from a historical standpoint, not a religious one at all, so I'm going to probably offend people, and I'm sorry, but I've had it so thorougly drilled into my head that the academic study of religion is a significantly different beast from the theological study of religion, so I'm going to ask everyone's indulgence in separating the two - a backwater revolutionary in a tiny occupied kingdom that nobody gave two shits about at the time. Hell, even the first Gospel we have, the earliest text dealing with the historical-Jesus in any way as opposed to the theological teachings, is probably the gospel of Mark, and Mark was probably written at least thirty years after Jesus's death. (I refer you to Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synoptic_problem) again for the problems inherent in discussing texts here...)

There is nothing left from people who were actual eye-witness observers, and the closest we get are the Gospels -- but the Gospels are, themselves, inherently unreliable sources. They were written with at least the remove of decades of conflation -- I mean, ask anyone, how well do they remember things that happen thirty years ago? -- and by the time you get to the later gospels, Luke and John, they're being told by people who weren't even there at all. (In fact, there's debate about whether or not any of the Gospels were ultimately written by people who ever met Jesus.)

So the only way to reconstruct what actually happened around the Jesus Movement is to turn to historical criticism and text criticism. Bart Ehrman is another really good author for reading about this, since he takes a very no-nonsense, pragmatic attitude; one of his main approaches to the text is: is this statement flattering? If a statement in the Gospels paints a flattering picture of Jesus in the historical context, it might be true or might not, but if something doesn't make logical sense to fit into the world and the time, it's probably true, because there's no other reason it would have been included. But I digress.

There's a difference between Satan and ha-Satan, but that's another lecture entirely. *g* For that one, look up Elaine Pagels and her book "The Origins of Satan".

[myalexandria.livejournal.com]

(It is really hard to respond to comments using lynx. sorry if my formatting sucks.) ...yeah, the "historical Jesus" thing is kind of a scholarly swamp. Have you read Luke Johnson's "The REal Jesus"? He, uh, does not present an unbiased opinion about the Jesus Seminar, but despite his tone I found a fair amount of what he had to say valid.

[smallbeer.livejournal.com]

two of the better "biblical scholarship for non-biblical scholars" books I've come across are by Thomas Cahill; they're well-written and thought provoking, not at all dry. He describes some of the things you're asking about--the political climate of the times, etc., and goes into the differences between the individual gospels in the way the life of Jesus is portrayed.

Desire of the Everlasting Hills
The Gifts of the Jews

[mandysbitch.livejournal.com]

everything I know about the New Testament and the gospels I learned from Jesus Christ Superstar (and some Godspell)

I hear these are good resources - although it leads me to suspect jesus was a hippy. I'm not sure I can get behind that...

anyway, have you seen Jesus of Montreal. I don't think it's going to enlighten you on the Judas subject but there's a lot of theological and historical theory in there which is all pretty enlightening. Also, it's a *really* good film. And it stars Lothaire Bluteau - which is fun to say.

[noelleleithe.livejournal.com]

jesus was a hippy

He kinda was, in some ways. Peace, love, and brotherhood. I love Jackson Browne's song "The Rebel Jesus" for just that reason. :)

[mandysbitch.livejournal.com]

He kinda was, in some ways. Peace, love, and brotherhood.

And all that time in the desert seeing visions? Drugs, man. ;)

[apathocles.livejournal.com]

Jesus was totally a hippie. (When he wasn't being goth (http://www.shanmonster.com/jesus/proof/index.html), anyhow.)

[coffeeandink.livejournal.com]

I think we should start a movement of Jews for Judas. Because I too was corrupted by Andrew Lloyd Weber in my youth. Not to mention Emma Goldman.

now we're cooking with gas

[iamsab.livejournal.com]

Count me in! If I can't dance I don't wanna be part of your revolution!

I always loved Judas, and Judas-archetypes, like Javert in Les Miz.

[quasiradiant.livejournal.com]

dude, the NT is totally short and really interesting. the gospels rock, and you get to yell at paul in the rest. some of paul's stuff is really crazy--like, he took all this nice stuff Jesus said and, like, decided it was going to be about all kinds of other things that are only tangentally related. as i recall, galatians and romans really got under my skin. but seriously, it's an excellent book, no matter how you see it religiously.

there are various books of the ilk of which you speak. i cannot attest to the quality of all (i've read some and skimmed others or never touched others yet) like: graves' "king jesus," wangerin's "jesus," etcetcetc.

[sinquepida.livejournal.com]

I would like to second the recommendation above for Thomas Cahill's books, Desire of the Everlasting Hills (http://search.barnesandnoble.com/booksearch/isbnInquiry.asp?z=y&isbn=0385483724&itm=1), and Gifts of the Jews (http://search.barnesandnoble.com/booksearch/isbnInquiry.asp?z=y&isbn=0385482493&itm=1). Everlasting Hills is the most directly relevant- the subtitle is "The World Before and After Jesus," but it is in large part a close, close reading of the Gospels and the Paulian epistles. There's also a very helpful bibliography in both books that recommends translations of the Bible (although in Everlasting Hills, Cahill translates his own Greek) and notes which schools of thought Cahill was most influenced by. The only caveat I have is that Cahill's books are very colloquial- they're popular, not academic history, but I still think they're incredibly worthwhile. (Also, Cahill is Jesuit-educated, and that makes my heart swoon.)

You should definitely try the Gospels. I would recommend Mark- it's the briefest and earliest of the accepted Gospels. Mark, Matthew, and Luke are the synoptic Gospels; they tell essentially the same story, and you'll find most of the same parables and anecdotes in each Gospel. John is the rogue Gospel; it's much more literary and bloody.

Oh, man, I am fighting the urge to tell you everything I know about the New Testament. One of the important things to remember about the Gospels is that a certain amount of the material (some scholars claim, you know, all of it) has been massaged and rearranged. Sometimes, that was because of the intended audience; one of the biggest reasons that "we" believe Jews killed Jesus is that Luke's Gospel was written for Greek-speaking Gentiles wouldn't understand the distinctions between Pharisees and Sadducees and the other sects and classes within Judiasm- the political subtleties were glossed over. Also, there's a lot of symbolic stuff that Jesus does or is called that is meant to tie into prophetic Jewish Scripture, mostly Isaiah- the idea is to prove that Jesus is the Messiah. How much of that is reliable? We don't know. (Although the birth narratives are wholesale fiction (http://minisinoo.livejournal.com/277412.html); actually, Minisinoo is a great resource for information on the development of the early Church- she can definitely help answer your questions about how Christianity became so powerful.)

Even the issue of whether Jesus thought of himself as divine is murky- he elicits the title from others at times, but refers to himself as the "Son of Man." Also, "Son of God" was (drawing directly on Cahill, here) not an uncommon title- it was used for the Emperor by the Romans and for prophets or angels (those who spoke the word of God, basically) by the Jews. Again, it's Paul who gets his hands on the title and wrestles it into the theology Christians abide by today.

[wordsofastory.livejournal.com]

Here via coffeeandink!

This is knowledge gleaned from my years of Catholic school education, so I'm not sure how entirely accurate it is (after all, I'm sure they had a certain investment in promoting Jesus's side of things, not to mention that at the time I was more concerned with being a pissy know-it-all teen than in actually learning anything, so I may have forgotten some details).

Judas was, most likely, a member of the Zealots (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zealot), which was a radical Jewish sect interested in overthrowing the Romans. They believed that the Messiah was due to show up anytime now: the Romans were controlling the Holy Land, the Temple had been destroyed, obviously these were the end times. But they expected the Messiah to be a military, political leader, who would drive the Romans out of Jerusalem.

So it was natural for Judas to start following Jesus. However, as time went on and all that Jesus seemed interested in doing was running their little non-profit, Judas started to get anxious. The Messiah was supposed to overthrow the Man! He was supposed to be gathering an army to lead a revolution! He was not supposed to be curing little blind girls and whatnot. Little blind girls were all well and good, but there were bigger fish to fry.

Judas followed Jesus for a few years, but was getting more and more annoyed with all the spiritual stuff. When he betrayed Jesus to the authorities, he was doing it to force Jesus's hand. He thought that Jesus would surely not allow himself to be taken prisoner, and that at last he would show off his true powers. When it finally became clear to him that, uh no, Jesus was going to die, Judas kills himself.

Oh, and by the way, don't be scared of a gospel just because it has red letters. A lot of Bibles are doing that now to higlight Jesus's actual words from all the things written about him by other people (of course, given how long it took the gospels to be written, and how often they've been translated and hand-copied since, I doubt anything in them are literally Jesus's words, but at least they're trying, I guess).

[menin-aeide.livejournal.com]

Here via coffeeandink. Re: Jesus as King of the Jews. Jesus claimed descent from the House of David through his mother, and Christian exegetes have taken him to be the Bethlehem-born messiah foretold in the Old Testament (i.e. the Torah).

Robert Graves has an interesting take on this in King Jesus (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0374516642/sr=8-1/qid=1142678171/ref=pd_bbs_1/102-2466645-5327364?%5Fencoding=UTF8), where he argues that Jesus was killed for political reasons (besides being slightly off his rocker).

[delicate-sass.livejournal.com]

Just happened to come along, and this is a really interesting discussion to take a peek at. I'm an atheist myself, so you know, I can't help you too much. Years of a Catholic upbringing really fade away fast.
But anyway, just had to give a driveby recommendation of Lamb: The Gospel According to Biff, Christ's Childhood Pal. Because it was mostly hilarious and wonderful, although I didn't completely love the ending.

[delicate-sass.livejournal.com]

by Christopher Moore

[ciderpress.livejournal.com]

totally unhelpful to your quest of knowledge but i saw your cut-tag text and couldn't resist:

i peeked at the end, frank; the devil did it.

um, yeah. other than that, if you're looking for actual historical persepective, thomas cahill wrote two excellent books (Desire of the Everlasting Hills: The World Before and After Jesus, and what is considered a prequel of sorts, Gift of The Jews) about the socio-political climate and the unfolding of christianity.

one of the things that really strikes me from what i've skimmed in the replies of your post is that it never occured to me that Jesus wasn't portrayed as a social reformist (as opposed to revolutionary) and partial anarchist in the new testament. it's pretty much how every church i've been to interpreted and preached the gospels. then again, i am church of england and we are pretty godless free and easy of any sort of firm morals as far as the really religious bit of religion goes.

[projectjulie.livejournal.com]

dude, I'm amazed at how many people have ideas about this. I guess I shouldn't be. do you remember that documentary that came out around Xmas, focusing on the 40-year gap between Jesus' death and the first gospel? I forget the name of it (something polemical), but it might answer some of your questions about how this all went from cult of personality to world religion.

This just in

[bexxa.livejournal.com]

Found this link today at CNN.com - http://www.cnn.com/2006/TECH/science/04/06/gospel.judas.ap/index.html

Thought you might be interested, since it's about the Judas/Jesus relationship.

[se-parsons.livejournal.com]

Look what they found!

The gospel of Judas!

you might want that National Geographic