Added more about the Persian influence.

An excellent account. Thank you.

But there is difference here between Jewish receptivity to the message of Jesus of Nazareth vs. Jewish receptivity to the Christian message. As already noted, Jesus was a Jew, who was preaching the Jewish faith, and an interpretation of the Jewish faith that wasn't unique or particularly radical at the time (we know of other Jewish apocalypticists at the time, including, notably, Jesus's mentor/associate John the Baptist). So no real problem there. The real problem, as far as theology goes, appears with Jesus's death and the distinctively Christian message of a crucified messiah: a concept that was antithetical to most Jewish understanding, for the reasons already mentioned. — Seppo

Agreed.

No, not just the religious authorities, and not just because they were worried about protecting their positions or privileges: the concept of a crucified messiah was, to most Jews, a contradiction in terms. The messiah was, quite literally, the King of Israel. And under the geopolitical circumstances at that time, being the messiah meant throwing off the Roman occupation and re-establishing Israel as a sovereign nation under the Davidic kingship. Which Jesus not only failed to do, but worse, he was crucified- a particularly shameful way to die.

So there were plenty of ordinary Jews who dismissed Christianity out of hand simply because the Christian message was, to their mind, completely absurd: a crucified criminal could NOT be the messiah, simply as a matter of definition. — Seppo

I think we must look at James, Jesus' brother to see how the original group acted and thought. The Ebionites are a group to look at, which is "evionim" or "poor ones" in Hebrew. This may represent the original beliefs before Paul.

An excellent account. Thank you. — Paine

No problem, thank you! :up:

@Seppo

And now Caesar, upon hearing the death of Festus, sent Albinus into Judea, as procurator. But the king deprived Joseph of the high priesthood, and bestowed the succession to that dignity on the son of Ananus, who was also himself called Ananus. Now the report goes that this eldest Ananus proved a most fortunate man; for he had five sons who had all performed the office of a high priest to God, and who had himself enjoyed that dignity a long time formerly, which had never happened to any other of our high priests. But this younger Ananus, who, as we have told you already, took the high priesthood, was a bold man in his temper, and very insolent; he was also of the sect of the Sadducees, who are very rigid in judging offenders, above all the rest of the Jews, as we have already observed; when, therefore, Ananus was of this disposition, he thought he had now a proper opportunity. Festus was now dead, and Albinus was but upon the road; so he assembled the sanhedrin of judges, and brought before them the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James, and some others; and when he had formed an accusation against them as breakers of the law, he delivered them to be stoned: but as for those who seemed the most equitable of the citizens, and such as were the most uneasy at the breach of the laws, they disliked what was done; they also sent to the king, desiring him to send to Ananus that he should act so no more, for that what he had already done was not to be justified; nay, some of them went also to meet Albinus, as he was upon his journey from Alexandria, and informed him that it was not lawful for Ananus to assemble a sanhedrin without his consent. Whereupon Albinus complied with what they said, and wrote in anger to Ananus, and threatened that he would bring him to punishment for what he had done; on which king Agrippa took the high priesthood from him, when he had ruled but three months, and made Jesus, the son of Damneus, high priest. — Flavius Josephus: Antiquities of the Jews Book 20, Chapter 9, 1[100] For Greek text see [3]

I think we must look at James, Jesus' brother to see how the original group acted and thought — schopenhauer1

Also the older creeds and poems/hymns Paul occasionally mentions, as these represent probably the earliest Christian traditions that survive (quite possibly going back to the early-mid 30s CE). The lack of available/surviving information is still extremely frustrating.

My rough theory is thus...

Jesus may have actually been a part of the pharisees, in a more liberal sect like Hillelites. He was also influenced by the John the Baptist movement, and consequently became more of an apocalyptic miracle-working teacher.

His interpretation of Jewish law (halacha) represents that of a Hillel-influenced pharisee (more inclusive, less strict, ethics-oriented). His ability to hold his own and quote at will against other pharisees also to me (if ANY of this is true) seems to give more credibility here. An illiterate peasant with no training, would probably not be able to do that. However, I do recognize this can all be interpolation and perhaps he quoted nothing, and was just a sort of local miracle-worker with later sayings. In this case, he would have represented more the "am ha-aretz" or "people of the land" in perhaps contradiction to the pharisees.

His apocalypticism represents the influence of John the Baptist. Thus his Son of Man imagery, and Kingdom of God being at hand

His goal was to show he was the messiah by "cleansing" the Temple of foreign influence (including the Sadducees, the priestly/elite party that ruled the Temple and more aligned with political Roman status quo of Rome rule over Judea). He probably hoped for a miracle to occur and perhaps thought he would somehow make it through any punishment like crucifixion. He didn't, he died.

His actual brother James took over the sect after he died and led this reformist pharisee/apocalyptic hybrid in Jerusalem. Hillelite pharisees and some zealots (extreme anti-Romans/Saducees) in Jerusalem probably sympathized with this group as well. Ananus I believe was related to Caiaphas, and remembered Jesus opposing him, and thus makes sense that he would want to destroy the remnant of this reformist/rebellious group that represented an affront to the current authority, and the family of priests that were running the Temple.

This is an interesting theory. Truthfully I have never ever in my life believed in the whole substitutionary view of atonement, where Jesus gets what we deserve, a punishment by God and, if we don’t accept Jesus’ death in our place, we end up in Hell. David Bentley Hart, despite his brash and at times crude attitude, suggests that Patristic Christianity did not believe in an eternal Hell; it was temporal. It is probably because of my interest in ancient history and ancient philosophy (in this case Greek thought) that I can’t believe in substitutionary atonement. The Bible condemns the very idea: “The fathers shall not be put to death for the children, neither shall the children be put to death for the fathers: every man shall be put to death for his own sin” (Deuteronomy 24:16).

This of course does not make the death of Jesus irrelevant. There just needs to be a different view in agreement with what ancient historians and biblical scholars find.

Jesus may have actually been a part of the pharisees, in a more liberal sect like Hillelites. He was also influenced by the John the Baptist movement, and consequently became more of an apocalyptic miracle-working teacher. — schopenhauer1

Yeah I've heard this suggestion before, that Jesus was involved with the Pharisees. Its certainly plausible and has some merit, the problem is the lack of positive evidence that this was indeed the case... as with so many other aspects of Jesus's life (hence my comment about how frustrating it is).

But the influence of John the Baptist on Jesus's ministry is difficult to doubt, and we can trace a line through John the Baptist as as sort of mentor figure at the beginning of Jesus's ministry, to the apocalypticism of early Christians like James and Paul, making this one of the few things we can know with a reasonable degree of confidence.

Yeah I've heard this suggestion before, that Jesus was involved with the Pharisees. Its certainly plausible and has some merit, the problem is the lack of positive evidence that this was indeed the case... as with so many other aspects of Jesus's life (hence my comment about how frustrating it is). — Seppo

Of course. Hence my conjecture based on what I see presented and the context of the time, place, culture, etc.

But the influence of John the Baptist on Jesus's ministry is difficult to doubt, and we can trace a line through John the Baptist as as sort of mentor figure at the beginning of Jesus's ministry, to the apocalypticism of early Christians like James and Paul, making this one of the few things we can know with a reasonable degree of confidence. — Seppo

True. While the Jesus Movement may have been a smaller branch from the bigger JTB branch, the JTB sect eventually had its own evolution into Mandeanism which also mixed with Zoroastrianism most likely around Iraq and Iran. Some of this branch didn't even know who Jesus was, or barely mentions him, so this just shows how influential even JTB was at the time. Of course I don't think the Mandeans were any more representative of the original JTB group than the gentile Christians were. It probably had its own interpolations and mixing over time, especially with Syrian gnostic sects.

Perhaps you would find this passage from Mack’s book The Lost Gospel interesting:

“We tend to think of Galilee as a natural part of the land of Israel because the kingdoms of David and Solomon included it, and because the extent of their kingdoms became the ideal realm for any Jewish state centered in Jerusalem. But Galilee belonged to the kingdom of David and Solomon for less than one hundred years. After that it was part of the kingdom of Israel with its own ‘northern’ traditions and its capital at Shechem, the provincial center later to be known as Samaria. Then it was annexed as a province by Assyria, transferred to Neo-Babylonia, and invaded by the Persians. The stories of the Jews who returned from deportation to Babylon belong to the history of Jerusalem and Judea, not to Samaria and the district of Galilee. The stories say that the Jews found the Samaritans unworthy to help build the temple at Jerusalem because they had intermarried with the people of other cultures. And as for Galilee, it was known among Jews as ‘the land of the gentiles.’

After Alexander, the hellenizing programs of the Ptolemies and Seleucids dotted the landscape on all sides of Galilee with newly founded cities on the Greek model. Greek cities were founded in Phoenicia, southern Syria, the Decapolis (region of ‘ten cities’ to the east of the Sea of Galilee), northern Palestine, and the coastlands to the west. Theaters, schools, stadia, porticoed markets, administrative offices, foreign legions, and transplanted people with franchise as ‘citizens’ took their place as signs of the hellenistic age. Samaritans and Galileans did not resist. They did not generate a revolution like that of the Maccabees in Judea.”

I think the idea that Galilee was a melting pot in the Middle East makes the connection between Jesus and the Hellenic tradition much more interesting.

After Alexander, the hellenizing programs of the Ptolemies and Seleucids dotted the landscape on all sides of Galilee with newly founded cities on the Greek model. Greek cities were founded in Phoenicia, southern Syria, the Decapolis (region of "ten cities" to the east of the Sea of Galilee), northern Palestine, and the coastlands to the west. Theaters, schools, stadia, porticoed markets, administrative offices, foreign legions, and transplanted people with franchise as ‘citizens’ took their place as signs of the hellenistic age. Samaritans and Galileans did not resist. They did not generate a revolution like that of the Maccabees in Judea.”

I think the idea that Galilee was a melting pot in the Middle East makes the connection between Jesus and the Hellenic tradition much more interesting. — Dermot Griffin

I think what I said previously encapsulates what you present here. I am not unaware of what you are saying. I think this passage summarizes the region nicely:

L. Michael White:

Professor of Classics and Director of the Religious Studies Program University of Texas at Austin
POLITICS OF GALILEE

Galilee, throughout the time of Jesus, was ruled by one of Herod's sons. So it was ruled much as his father's kingdom had been, as a kind of small client kingdom. This means that local politics in Jesus' home region were a little different than those in Judea under the Roman Governors.

...In a client kingdom, the King, himself, is the absolute overlord. He's given a lot of freedom by Romans, insofar as all he has to do, basically, is raise his own taxes. And then he's in charge of everything else. So the control of the north was, in some ways, more independent, and indeed the trade and commerce that we see in this northern region shows us the degree to which the intersection of the different cultures of the north were really starting to become very important in the developing life of that region.

People use the word Galilean in a special way. What was the connotation of being a so-called Galilean?

The term Galilean seems to have been used in a variety of ways in this period. To some, it just might mean an outsider, or someone who's not really an old Jew of the traditional sort. Precisely because the Galilee had traditionally not been Jewish at the time of the Maccabean Revolt a hundred or 150 years before Jesus. But from another perspective, "Galilean" also took on the coloration of being rebellious, or insurrectionist. Precisely because we know of some people in that region who resisted first, Herod's rule, and then that of his sons and the Romans themselves. So for some, the term Galilean might also mean something political.

POLITICAL UPSTARTS AND THE ROMAN RESPONSE

Social dissent?

... Because of its position away from Jerusalem, Galilee may have become a center of, not only social dissent, but economic protest. There seems to be a rise of what we might describe as social banditry. One of the most famous characters this sort is a fellow by the name of Judas the Galilean.

What happened to him?

Judas the Galilean, himself, was eventually captured and executed by Herod's sons, but his own family continued his tradition. We hear of two more of his sons in the mid-40's A.D. who were captured and crucified by the Roman Governor, Tiberius Julius Alexander. This is kind of an ironic story. Here is this ongoing tradition of protest against Roman rule, but the Governor, himself, Tiberius Julius Alexander, is actually a Jew by birth. He is the nephew of Philo, the Jewish philosopher of Alexandria. And yet, he's the one who orders them executed because of their political rebellion.

[Who was] The Egyptian?

We hear of a number of other characters during this period who reflect this growing social banditry and political protest. One of the most interesting, and famous cases is a character known as The Egyptian. We don't know his real name. He seems just to have come from Egypt. But according to Josephus, he's someone who had magical powers and garnered an enormous following among the popular folk. It seems that at one point he led a mass of people up on the Mount of Olives, literally looking down into the Temple from across the way. And Josephus says that as a kind of false prophet ... and that's Josephus' favorite way of putting it ... as a kind of false prophet, this Egyptian promised them that he would lead these common people into Jerusalem, to take the Temple. They would make him their King, and they would, in turn, become his royal honor guard.

And what happened to him?

Well, the Romans have a fairly standard response to this kind of individual. They immediately dispatch the cavalry, and any support units of the military that are at hand. Their response is quick and certain. Go first for the leader, and disperse the rest. The leader is usually arrested, or executed on the spot. The rest of the mob, as they appeared to be to the Romans, would have been dispersed, in some cases with a great deal of brutality.

Is that what they did to the Egyptian?

The Egyptian seems to have escaped in this case. Most others did not. And so, the Egyptian is a kind of a namesake of someone who lives on in the memory for a number of years, precisely because he wasn't executed. — https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/religion/portrait/galilee.html#:~:text=Galilee%2C%20throughout%20the%20time%20of,Judea%20under%20the%20Roman%20Governors.

Also just an interesting descriptio here:

On the whole, the Galileans are said to have been strict in their religious observances (M. Ḳ. 23a; Pes. 55a; Yer. R. H. iv. 6; Yer. Soṭah ix. 10). Measures and weights were peculiar in Galilee: 1 Judean se'ah = 5 Galilean se'ah; 5 Judean sela = 10 Galilean sela (B. B. 122b; Ḥul. 137b). The Galilean Sicarii were dreaded (Tosef., Giṭ. ii.). Study of the traditions was not one of the Galilean virtues, neither was their dialectic method very flexible ('Er. 53a). But it is for their faulty pronunciation that the Galileans are especially remembered: 'ayin and alef, and the gutturals generally, were confounded, no distinction being made between words like '"amar" (= "ḥamor," uss), "ḥamar" (wine), "'amar" (a garment), "emar" (a lamb: 'Er. 53b); therefore Galileans were not permitted to act as readers of public prayers (Meg. 24b). Still, according to Geiger ("Orient," iv. 432), to the Galileans must be ascribed the origin of the Haggadah. Galilee was very rich in towns and hamlets (Yer. Meg. i. 1), among which were Sepphoris ( or ) Asha, Shephar'am, BetShe'arim, Tiberias, Magdala, Kefar Ḥananyah, 'Akbara, Acco, Paneas, Cæsarea. On Galil, a place of the same name as the province, see Hildesheimer, "Beiträge zur Geographic Palästinas," P. 80. — https://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/6475-galilee

Also note that Sepphoris was a Greek-like city near Nazareth here:

After Herod's death in 4 BCE, a rebel named Judas, son of a local bandit, Ezekias, attacked Sepphoris, then the administrative center of the Galilee, and, sacking its treasury and weapons, armed his followers in a revolt against Herodian rule.[29][30] The Roman governor in Syria, Varus is reported by Josephus - perhaps in an exaggeration, since archaeology has failed to verify traces of the conflagration - to have burnt the city down, and sold its inhabitants into slavery.[29][30] After Herod's son, Herod Antipas was made tetrarch, or governor, he proclaimed the city's new name to be Autocratoris, and rebuilt it as the "Ornament of the Galilee" (Josephus, Ant. 18.27).[31] An ancient route linking Sepphoris to Legio, and further south to Samaria-Sebastia, is believed to have been paved by the Romans around this time.[32] The new population was loyal to Rome.

Maurice Casey writes that, although Sepphoris during the early first century was "a very Jewish city", some of the people there did speak Greek. A lead weight dated to the first century bears an inscription in Greek with three Jewish names. Several scholars have suggested that Jesus, while working as a craftsman in Nazareth, may have travelled to Sepphoris for work purposes, possibly with his father and brothers.[33][30] Casey states that this is entirely possible, but is likewise impossible to historically verify. Jesus does not seem to have visited Sepphoris during his public ministry and none of the sayings recorded in the Synoptic Gospels mention it.[30]

The inhabitants of Sepphoris did not join the revolt against Roman rule of 66 CE. The Roman legate in Syria, Cestius Gallus, killed some 2,000 "brigands and rebels" in the area.[34] The Jerusalemite Josephus, a son of Jerusalem's priestly elite had been sent north to recruit the Galilee into the rebellion's fold, but was only partially successful. He made two attempts to capture Sepphoris, but failed to conquer it, the first time because of fierce resistance, the second because a garrison came to assist in the city's defence.[35] Around the time of the rebellion Sepphoris had a Roman theater – in later periods, bath-houses and mosaic floors depicting human figures. Sepphoris and Jerusalem may be seen to symbolize a cultural divide between those that sought to avoid any contact with the surrounding Roman culture and those who within limits, were prepared to adopt aspects of that culture. Rejected by Sepphoris and forced to camp outside the city Josephus went on to Jotapata, which did seem interested in the rebellion, – the Siege of Yodfat ended on 20 July 67 CE. Towns and villages that did not rebel were spared and in Galilee they were the majority.[36] Coins minted in the city at the time of the Great Revolt carried the inscription Neronias and Eirenopolis, "City of Peace". After the revolt, coins bore depictions of laurel wreaths, palm trees, caduceuses and ears of barley, which appear on Jewish coinage albeit not exclusively.[37]


Remains of Zippori synagogue
George Francis Hill and Peter Schäfer consider that the city's name was changed to Diocaesarea in 129/30, just prior to the Bar Kokhba revolt, in Hadrian's time.[20] This gesture was done in honour of the visiting Roman emperor and his identification with Zeus Olympias, reflected in Hadrian's efforts in building temples dedicated to the supreme Olympian god.[20] Following the revolt in 132–135, many Jewish refugees from devastated Judea settled there, turning it into a center of Jewish religious and spiritual life.[citation needed] Rabbi Yehuda Hanasi, the compiler of the Mishnah, a commentary on the Torah, moved to Sepphoris, along with the Sanhedrin, the highest Jewish religious court.[38] Before moving to Tiberias by 150, some Jewish academies of learning, yeshivot, were also based there. The Galilee was predominantly populated by Jews from the end of the 2nd century to the 4th century CE.[39] As late as the third-fourth centuries, Sepphoris is believed to have been settled by one of the twenty-four priestly courses, Jedayah by name, a course mentioned in relation to the town itself in both the Jerusalem Talmud (Taanit 4:5) and in the Caesarea Inscription.[40] Others, however, cast doubt about Sepphoris ever being under a "priestly oligarchy" by the third century, and that it may simply reflect a misreading of Talmudic sources.[41] Aside from being a center of spiritual and religious studies, it developed into a busy metropolis for commerce due to its proximity to important trade routes through Galilee. Hellenistic and Jewish influences seemed blended together in daily town life while each group, Jewish, pagan and Christian, maintained its distinct identity.[42] — https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sepphoris

Mainly speculation, but based on a lot of this, I would say that Jesus represented families of Jews who inhabited the region after the Maccabean takeover. There was a sort of "pioneer" element to Galilee.. the Jewish inhabitants were probably mainly newcomers for the last 200 years or so from the southern areas around Judah. The Hellenists, and Samarians were thus to be avoided for these folks. They probably also developed a bit different Hebrew/Aramaic than their southern neighbors based on John the Baptist and Judas the Galilean messianic claimant, it was indeed a hotbed of Jewish rebellion as opposed to the more tenuous situation in Jerusalem where any outward rebellion can be identified and crushed easily.

Sorry, it’s hard to follow all this at work.

I never considered the actual change in dialect of Aramaic in the region of Galilee. To my knowledge Hebrew was whitewashed in various parts of Judea by Jesus’ day hence why I strongly believe the lingua franca of religion during the time of Christ was Greek (at least in his circle). I like to think that Jesus was somewhat familiar with the Septuagint but I’m sure there is debate regarding this.

you are possibly glossing over even stronger outside influences than the Greek culture, and that is the often overlooked influence of the Persians on Second Temple Judaism. — schopenhauer1

Not really. I have always been of the opinion that there was considerable outside influence on Judaism, which however, points back to some key elements of Ancient Jewish (Hebrew) religion.

Judaism seems to be seen, and it tends to see itself, as an utterly exceptional religion. IMO, this perception is simply overblown and must be met with a large dose of skepticism.

The fact is that every religion regards itself as “special” and, in a way, this is justified. But this doesn’t change anything about the fact that religions, no matter how different from one another, do have certain aspects in common.

To begin with, the idea that Jews have always been “monotheistic” is unsupported by historical or archaeological evidence (Finkelstein & Silberman, The Bible Unearthed). Even culturally, it doesn’t make sense to have a single monotheistic population appearing out of the blue in a polytheistic world.

The truth of the matter is that most cultures in the ancient world had one deity that held a higher rank among others. Nations were divided into cities or city-states, each with its own main deity.
If we look at the culture of the region in pre-biblical and even biblical times, one major deity was the Sun God. This was the case in Israel’s neighbors, Egypt and Mesopotamia (especially the city-state of Babylon).

Moreover, in addition to having sun-worshiping Egyptians and Babylonians as close neighbors, the ancestors of the Jews are said to have lived in captivity for some time first in Egypt, and then in Babylon, and their homeland itself was under Egyptian and Babylonian occupation. This means that the influence of “foreign” solar cults on Jewish religion cannot be ruled out.

In Israel itself, we find solar deities like Yarhibol and Shapash, worshiped among local populations like the Canaanites:

Canaanite religion was strongly influenced by their more powerful and populous neighbors, and shows clear influence of Mesopotamian and Egyptian religious practices. Like other people of the Ancient Near East Canaanite religious beliefs were polytheistic

Canaanite religion – Wikipedia

What is of particular interest is that references linking the deity with the Sun can be found in Jewish scripture itself:

For the LORD God is a Sun and shield: the LORD will give grace and glory (Psalm 84:11).

For, behold, the day cometh, that shall burn as an oven; and all the proud, yea, and all that do wickedly, shall be stubble: and the day that cometh shall burn them up, saith the LORD of hosts, that it shall leave them neither root nor branch. But unto you that fear my name shall the Sun of righteousness arise with healing in his wings; and ye shall go forth, and grow up as calves of the stall (Malachi 4:2).

The OT also relates that the Kings of Judah had horses and chariots dedicated to the Sun and worshiped images of the Sun (2 Kings 23:5, 11).

King Solomon himself married the Egyptian pharaoh’s daughter in order to cement a political alliance between the United Monarchy of Israel and Egypt and, significantly, built the First Jewish Temple:

And Solomon became allied to Pharaoh king of Egypt by marriage, and took Pharaoh's daughter, and brought her into the city of David, until he had made an end of building his own house, and the house of the Lord, and the wall of Jerusalem round about (1 Kings 3:1).

We are further told that the temple was filled with the light of God following the dedication ceremony:

And the temple, the house of the LORD, was filled with a cloud so that the priests could not stand there to minister because of the cloud; for the glory of the LORD filled the house of God (2 Chronicles 5:14).

It is hard if not impossible to distinguish here between an Egyptian temple to the Sun God and the Jewish Temple:

And he brought me into the inner court of the house of the LORD; and behold, at the door of the temple of the LORD, between the porch and the altar, were about twenty-five men, with their backs to the temple of the LORD, and their faces toward the east, worshiping the sun toward the east … (Ezekiel 8:16).

Another interesting detail is that the Jewish menorah, the seven-branched candelabrum or lamp stand, has a central lamp that is used to light the other six, and that is called “shemesh”, the Hebrew word for Sun which is cognate with Babylonian “shamash” (the name of the Sun God) and Arabic “shams”.

I think it is clear that the Gospel of John did not need to borrow the “light of the world” from the Greeks, though there were obvious parallels between Greek and Jewish religion going back to OT times. This is precisely what facilitated the Roman-era syncretism that culminated in Jewish synagogues displaying mosaics depicting the Greek Sun God Helios being built until the 600’s AD when Islam began to take over, and Christian representations of Jesus modeled on Helios or Apollo (as a beardless, long-haired youth).

IMO this syncretism was an entirely natural result of the cultural developments of the time and does not represent an artificial “adulteration” of the original movement somehow intended to “paganize” or
"distort" Christianity.

Yes, no doubt that Judaism started as a henotheistic religion (pantheon with El-Yaweh and variation on Canaanite/Midianite religions), that then had a contingent of "Yaweh-alone" prophets (still not the mainstream but starting to become a thing.. kind of reformist prophetic movement), and then kind of reconstituted with Yaweh alone with Second Temple Period. The people who held these beliefs were possibly the pastoralists who didn't settle in city-states, that occupied the hill country areas. They thus started making more and more demarcations between themselves and the city-state Canaanites (with practice of abstaining from pig and circumcision being probably the earliest traditions that marked differences).

As far as what I was saying with Galilee region earlier, my summation was here:

Mainly speculation, but based on a lot of this, I would say that Jesus represented families of Jews who inhabited the region after the Maccabean takeover. There was a sort of "pioneer" element to Galilee.. the Jewish inhabitants were mainly newcomers for the last 200 years or so from the southern areas around Judah. The Hellenists, and Samarians were thus to be avoided for these folks. They probably also developed a bit different Hebrew/Aramaic than their southern neighbors. Based on John the Baptist and Judas the Galilean messianic claimant, it was indeed a hotbed of Jewish rebellion as opposed to the more tenuous situation in Jerusalem where any outward rebellion can be identified and crushed easily.

In other words, Jews in this region would have possibly been fierce separatists to the syncretism you might be thinking. We are both speculating really.

I strongly believe the lingua franca of religion during the time of Christ was Greek (at least in his circle). I like to think that Jesus was somewhat familiar with the Septuagint but I’m sure there is debate regarding this. — Dermot Griffin

Aramaic is still the consensus. Even Josephus stated:

I have also taken a great deal of pains to obtain the learning of the Greeks, and understand the elements of the Greek language, although I have so long accustomed myself to speak our own tongue, that I cannot pronounce Greek with sufficient exactness; for our nation does not encourage those that learn the languages of many nations, and so adorn their discourses with the smoothness of their periods; because they look upon this sort of accomplishment as common, not only to all sorts of free-men, but to as many of the servants as please to learn them. But they give him the testimony of being a wise man who is fully acquainted with our laws, and is able to interpret their meaning; on which account, as there have been many who have done their endeavors with great patience to obtain this learning, there have yet hardly been so many as two or three that have succeeded therein, who were immediately well rewarded for their pains. — — Antiquities of Jews XX, XI

Yes, no doubt that Judaism started as a henotheistic religion (pantheon with El-Yaweh and variation on Canaanite/Midianite religions) — schopenhauer1

I think that assumption is questionable. See Exodus 3:15: "God also said to Moses, "Say to the Israelites, `The LORD, the God of your fathers--the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob--has sent me to you.' This is my name forever, the name by which I am to be remembered from generation to generation."

Why would the author(s) attempt to unify what appears to have been the worship of different gods?

In addition there is the problem of the many names of God:

Moses said to God, “Suppose I go to the Israelites and say to them, ‘The God of your fathers has sent me to you,’ and they ask me, ‘What is his name?’ Then what shall I tell them?”

God said to Moses, “I am who I am. This is what you are to say to the Israelites: ‘I am has sent me to you.’” (3:13-14)

In addition the various names: El, Elohim, El Shaddai, YHWH

I'm not getting your objection.. all of this points to polytheistic origin..

Elohim is plural.. It COULD be that it is like the royal "we", but more likely that it started as a pantheon.

El Shaddai is possibly "God of the Wilderness
El Elyon is probably "God of the High Places" (as in sacred high places where worship took place by ancient Canaanites).
Yahweh corresponds with a warrior god of the Midianites.. this was absorbed as the major God of Hosts and attached to the El deity as one and the same.

I'm not getting your objection.. all of this points to polytheistic origin.. — schopenhauer1

Yes, that is my point. Polytheistic rather than henotheistic. As you say: a pantheon.

It seems as though in time it because henotheistic and eventually monotheistic, but its origins are in polytheism.

You pointed to the Persian influence. I would add the importance of the Ugaritic/Canaanite influence.

Ah ok, then yes I think we are in agreement.

In other words, Jews in this region would have possibly been fierce separatists to the syncretism you might be thinking. We are both speculating really. — schopenhauer1

"Possibly", yes. Which is "speculation", as you say. A degree of speculation is always involved when interpreting historical events.

But how does Josephus show that Greek wasn't spoken at least as widely as Aramaic?

By the way, circumcision appears to have been practiced in Ancient Egypt, so it wasn't quite so "different", after all:

History of circumcision - Wikipedia

So there were plenty of ordinary Jews who dismissed Christianity out of hand simply because the Christian message was, to their mind, completely absurd: a crucified criminal could NOT be the messiah, simply as a matter of definition. — Seppo

I don't think the matter is quite as simple as that.

1. It is not known to what extent all Jews had the same concept of "messiah".

2. Jesus was not necessarily crucified "as a criminal" from a Jewish perspective. He could have been seen as a rebel against Roman rule as well as against sections of the religious establishment.

3. The Christian message was NOT that the crucifixion was the end, but that Jesus would return to reestablish the rule of divine righteousness, which did attribute a messianic role to him.

4. Most early Christians were Jews who formed a Jewish Christian community:

Jewish Christians (Hebrew: יהודים נוצרים, romanized: yehudim notzrim) were the followers of a Jewish religious sect that emerged in Judea during the late Second Temple period (first century AD). The Nazarene Jews integrated the belief of Jesus as the prophesied Messiah and his teachings into the Jewish faith, including the observance of the Jewish law

Jewish Christian - Wikipedia

By the way, circumcision appears to have been practiced in Ancient Egypt, so it wasn't quite so "different", after all: — Apollodorus

Yeah, I'm just saying compared to other Canaanites.

But how does Josephus show that Greek wasn't spoken at least as widely as Aramaic? — Apollodorus

That quote seems pretty definitive to me that it wasn't widely spoken. Also, the NT has a decent amount of Aramaic phrases. It seems to be the main language across the large swath of the Near East from Judea to Babylonia at least since the times of the Neo-Babylonians. Even parts of the Hebrew Bible were written in it towards the end due to its popularity. It was the common language. Greek was the educated one of the cosmopolitans. Look at Bar Kochba's letters.. Interestingly, since he may have thought he was the messiah, he wanted to change the lingua franca to Hebrew and started writing in Hebrew.

But Josephus did write some of his works in Greek. And Aramaic phrases in a Greek text do not show that Greek wasn't spoken.

We need to remember that the Greek spoken by the Jews of Roman Palestine was not exactly the same as that spoken in Athens. And this shows that a version of Greek existed in Palestine that could only have emerged by being spoken by Palestinian Jews.

By the way, what language would you say Jesus used when he spoke with Pilate, and why is he using Greek words like "Hades"?

But Josephus did write some of his works in Greek. And Aramaic phrases in a Greek text do not show that Greek wasn't spoken. — Apollodorus

Yeah but look at that quote again.. He said it was hard for him to write in Greek and that it wasn't usual or encouraged by his countrymen!

We need to remember that the Greek spoken by the Jews of Roman Palestine was not exactly the same as that spoken in Athens. And this shows that a version of Greek existed in Palestine that could only have emerged by being spoken by Palestinian Jews. — Apollodorus

So the question is, "Did Jesus speak Greek?". The definitive answer has to be, "We don't know exactly". However, using various filters, we can try to make the best guess:

Greek was generally used by various people who needed to speak Greek. Who needed to speak Greek? Mainly three types of people: Highborn elite and government officials who spoke with other Greek-speaking leaders in the Empire, and people involved in trade who spoke with Greek-speaking traders across the Empire.

Aramaic was spoken amongst the peoples of the Near East from Judea to Mesopotamia since the time of the Neo-Babylonians. Some of the Hebrew Scriptures are written in Aramaic even, along with some prayers. It is known to be the language of common folk via texts like the Talmud, even though the Talmud itself was actually written in Midrashic Hebrew.

Aramaic phrases were poking out of the Gospels, because that was the lingua franca used. The writers were translating (most likely oral) sources, and simply used the Aramaic original phrases where they saw it most effective to keep.

So knowing this:
A. Was Jesus a high born person?
It seems not. He was definitely not a Herodian or Maccabee descendent as far as we know. He wasn't a Sadducee or in a priestly class. Certainly they would be more likely to have Hellenistic tendencies due to need to speak with Roman overlords and officials.

B. Was Jesus a government official?
It seems not. He wasn't part of the Sanhedrin. He wasn't working on behalf of Roman political hierarchy. He wasn't a government functionary as far as we know.

C. Was Jesus a trader or in commerce?
It seems not. Though, this might be the most likely out of them all. If he was indeed a "tekton" maybe there was some wheeling and dealing with Greek-speaking folks. If so, it's never presented.

So what have we? As far as we know, his birthplace, following, and destinations were all pretty heavily Jewish populated areas where the lingua franca was indeed Aramaic. He probably knew Hebrew too if he was quoting from actual scripture and not just memory. If that was the case, then in my view, he may have been a variety of Pharisee, as it was uncommon for just anyone to know Hebrew without being elite priestly class, Pharisee, etc.

Now, does that mean he may have known Greek, nonetheless? Perhaps. It is not out of the land of possibility. I just think it is less probable, that's all.

By the way, what language would you say Jesus used when he spoke with Pilate, and why is he using Greek words like "Hades"? — Apollodorus

You'd have to give me the quote, but while I think some of the NT has a broad accuracy to the events of Jesus [mainly the "gist" of some of his sayings (very much parallel to things found in the Talmud by the way), his stance on halacha, his being known as a miracle-worker, and his trying to "cleanse" the Temple], I don't think a lot of exact words in there were what was said and transpired. In other words, the Greek-speaking writers took liberties.. either simply filling it in or hearsay traditions. I don't read the gospels like they're gospel or anything.. Just some crude accounts with a lot of interpolations.

1. It is not known to what extent all Jews had the same concept of "messiah". — Apollodorus

I mean, it sort of is: in the OT, the literal translation of the word "messiah" is "anointed one", and refers to the kings of Israel, who were anointed with oil by the high priest. So this would have been the common/general understanding of the term among Jews at the time, if not a universal one.

2. Jesus was not necessarily crucified "as a criminal" from a Jewish perspective. He could have been seen as a rebel against Roman rule as well as against sections of the religious establishment. — Apollodorus

Crucifiction was a Roman practice, not a Jewish one. But Jews under Roman occupation certainly knew its significance, that it was a shameful punishment reserved for criminals.

From the Jewish perspective, it actually might have been worse, since to be hung from a tree (including a wooden cross) was a terrible curse (Deut 21): this was such a problem that Paul had to come up with a neat theological explanation for why this happened and why its OK, actually (Galatians 3).

3. The Christian message was NOT that the crucifixion was the end, but that Jesus would return to reestablish the rule of divine righteousness, which did attribute a messianic role to him. — Apollodorus

Right, because they had to come up with some explanation for how this was all supposed to work, since the concept of a messiah who wasn't actually the anointed king of Israel was a total non-starter... But as Paul noted, this continued to be a problem for the Jewish audience, since the expectation was that the messiah, being the anointed King of Israel, would throw off the Roman occupation and re-establish the Davidic line in accordance with scripture. Jesus did the literal exact opposite of this: he was squashed like a bug by the Romans, and killed in a most shameful manner.

4. Most early Christians were Jews who formed a Jewish Christian community: — Apollodorus

Right, Jesus's closest disciples were Jews. The earliest Christians were those disciples, and their friends and family that they managed to convert... also mostly Jewish, probably. But I'm talking about the period where the Christian church went from a handful of Jewish radicals to a genuine religion; and, as Paul reports, they had trouble converting Jews, but more success converting pagans.

Yeah that is interesting. But I do wonder about the degree to which such influence and culture would have spread to rural areas, like where Jesus grew up and spent most of his ministry- probably not many theaters or stadiums in the small fishing villages and the like that Jesus frequented prior to his trip to Jerusalem.

Of course, maybe he was more widely travelled during the "lost years", or maybe the other Jewish sects he's speculated to have studied with during this years acted as a vehicle of such influence, but this is all very speculative.

Pierre Grimes is an insightful man. However due to my piety as a Christian, I must disagree with him when he says that the teaching of Jesus comes directly from the “Greek tradition.” — Dermot Griffin

With all of these conditions observed regarding the mixture of language and culture in such a time of extreme violence, it is difficult to say what actually happened, So I am curious why you make it a matter of faith when you reject Grimes who suggests Jesus received an education from one of the Hellenistic schools. How is that an article of faith rather than a question of fact?

We simply don't know if he actually did have an education like that. Perhaps the “lost years” may suggest he went to a Greek gymnasium in order to receive a correct education. This can be mixed with the tenets of faith, however. I am convinced, by my own experiences and intellectual pursuits, that Christianity is true. I just think that a certain strand of it is very misguided in the modern age. But this does not make other religions or philosophies any less true than Christianity.

So, if Grimes turned out to be correct, you would have no problem with that?

He said it was hard for him to write in Greek and that it wasn't usual or encouraged by his countrymen! — schopenhauer1

But he did write in Greek, for people who could read Greek, no?

Aramaic phrases were poking out of the Gospels, because that was the lingua franca used. — schopenhauer1

Not necessarily. There could have been a number of other reasons. The text may be simply rendering what was actually said in Aramaic, etc.

You would have to give me the quote — schopenhauer1

I don't read the gospels like they're gospel or anything.. Just some crude accounts with a lot of interpolations. — schopenhauer1

Well, by that logic, we might as well ignore the Gospels altogether. PLUS the fact they were written in Greek. In which case, there wouldn't be much point in me giving you any quote .... :smile:

But here it is, anyway:

33Then Pilate entered into the judgment hall again, and called Jesus, and said unto him, Art thou the King of the Jews? 34Jesus answered him, Sayest thou this thing of thyself, or did others tell it thee of me? 35Pilate answered, Am I a Jew? Thine own nation and the chief priests have delivered thee unto me: what hast thou done? 36Jesus answered, My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence. 37Pilate therefore said unto him, Art thou a king then? Jesus answered, Thou sayest that I am a king. To this end was I born, and for this cause came I into the world, that I should bear witness unto the truth. Every one that is of the truth heareth my voice. 38Pilate saith unto him, What is truth? (John 18)

What language did Jesus and Pilate use? I doubt it was Aramaic.

13When Jesus came into the coasts of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, saying, Whom do men say that I the Son of man am? 14And they said, Some say that thou art John the Baptist: some, Elias; and others, Jeremias, or one of the prophets. 15He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am? 16And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God. 17And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven. 18And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter (Petros), and upon this rock (petra) I will build my church; and the gates of hell (lit. Hades) shall not prevail against it. 19And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven (Matthew 16)

Note the Greek term "Hades" and the Greek wordplay involving "Petros" and "petra". Aramaic?

Crucifiction was a Roman practice, not a Jewish one. But Jews under Roman occupation certainly knew its significance, that it was a shameful punishment reserved for criminals. — Seppo

Of course it was a Roman practice. And of course it was reserved for criminals. It wouldn't have been reserved for law-abiding citizens, would it? But "criminals" included those that rebelled against Roman rule. It doesn't make sense for Jews to treat one of their own as a "despicable criminal" just because he was crucified by the Romans.

as Paul reports, they had trouble converting Jews, but more success converting pagans. — Seppo

Sure. But they still converted sufficient numbers to start a movement ....