A reasonable assessment
What is to be made of the Jesus legend? I hold that the most reasonable supposition is that Jesus, like Frankenstein, was
pieced together from parts out of the common stories and expectations of that period.
This process has numerous examples, even for historical figures such as Alexander the Great. What collected about Jesus
lacked consistency, since different people and groups with differing beliefs contributed to the legend, and Mark fashioned
the first Gospel from those parts. Thus we have a Jesus of love and a Jesus
of hell fire and damnation. Early sects many of them held that Jesus was the
greatest of profits, while some held him to be the son of god, which given the heavenly pantheon of that day does not entail
the son of the one and only god.
The Gnostic held to such a pantheon. Many if them held that Yahweh was one of the lower deities. Yahweh disobeyed Sophia, for She knew that a mixture of spirit and earth would be a very imperfect product.
The Jews were looking for a Messiah
to come, one greater than the Maccabees. They would lead the Jews in a struggle,
aided by Yahweh, in which the covenant would be fulfilled: The Jews would conquer
the world, there seed would be more numerous than sand at the beach. Christians,
who looked to the Old Testament for guidance, conveniently changed the meaning of messiah
to fit their huffing about Jesus.
On the Jewish responsibility for the crucifixion of
Jesus
It was popular with the audience for to tell less than flattering
tales about unpopular people and groups. The obstinacy of the Jews as to conversion
to Christianity, their doctrine that he who claims to be the son of God is to be stoned, and the stories that they circulated
about Jesus are sufficient reasons for them to be cast in the role of Christ killers.
There were disturbances with the Christians in Rome sufficient for Jews to
be barred from the city.
Reasoning back, they would have concluded that the high priest
during the traditional date for Jesus’ death would bring him before Pilate. Expanding
upon the Gospel of Mark, Matthew and John wrote of two trials, one before the High Priest Caiaphas, the other before Pilate. The motif in Mark as to the corruption in the house of their god (Jesus and the money
changers) is extended to the role of the High Priest at the trial of Jesus. He
was not capable of recognizing the true god. Being so set in the Gospels, most
Christians assume the Jews guilty as recorded in the book.
