#deconstructed top | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

likeabxrdinflight · 6 months

Text

Because it's holy week and easter is upon us, I kind of want to talk more about that story and what I think is the historical context that people really ought to understand about it. Because I think it's too easy to forget who the historical Jesus likely was and where he came from.

(this got so long and I'm not sorry)

I'm going to start off by saying this is coming from an ex-catholic who no longer believes in the divinity of Jesus. I'm only interested in the historical figure, who I believe was a man and only a man. I am, however, operating under the assumption that he and the key characters surrounding him did actually exist (this is the predominant historical view and so unless convincingly refuted, this is what I'm going with.)

So the historical and sociocultural context of the figure that is Jesus is that of Second Temple Judaism in the Roman-occupied land once known as Judea. This context matters because without these circumstances, there is no Jesus or anyone like him.

Now Second Temple Judaism was slightly different from the Rabbinical Judaism that exists today, because Second Temple Judaism was focused on just that- the Temple. This Temple was grand and beautiful, and was the center of Jewish worship in Jerusalem. But the Temple existed in a city controlled by Rome.

Now Rome took a somewhat...quid pro quo approach to its conquest. The Roman powers allowed the Jews to live and practice their faith and culture, but it was with the understanding that they not challenge Roman rule. Rome would assign a prefect to govern the area (enter Pontius Pilate), but Jewish authorities were allowed to maintain their roles as well- think figures like Herod Antipas, who governed Galilee, and the High Priests of Jerusalem. They were allowed to govern Jewish law and life, but it was with the understanding that at the end of the day, they were still answerable to Roman authority. As such, these figures tended to be more sympathetic to Rome, or at the very least, deferential to it. I'm certain they were not a hivemind and there were likely vastly differing opinions among them, but as a general rule, the Roman authorities were more likely to tolerate Jewish authority figures who at the bare minimum tolerated the occupation in return.

That, however, did not mean that the Jewish people did. And this is where figures like Jesus come in. Now, what we know about Jesus is limited, and most of it is coming from the most obviously biased sources in existence- the gospels. But if we take the gospels as at least possessing some elements of the true history, we can do some extrapolating. So during the Second Temple period, there were multiple schools of Jewish thought. There were the Sadducees, who favored Hellenization, the Pharisees, who resisted it (and later became the foundation for Rabbinic Judaism), the Zealots, which was largely a political movement aimed at freeing Judea from Roman occupation, and the Essenes, who were a mystic and fairly apocalyptic sect. Jesus probably started off as an Essene, or at the very least, he was heavily influenced by them. John the Baptist likely was as well.

I mean, let me describe some aspects of Essene practices and theology for a moment: they valued service to others and refused to own slaves, their priests were often celibate, they led communal lives, were quite peaceful and non-violent (only carrying weapons for self-defense), did not approve of expressions of anger, and believed in a coming apocalypse. So while there's no hard evidence that Jesus was ever an Essene...you can see the connection.

Notably, the Essenes believed that at the time of the apocalypse, God would establish a new Kingdom on Earth, in which evil (which was likely thought to be Rome and those who support it) would be vanquished and good restored. This was likely the foundation for Jesus' ideas about "the Kingdom of Heaven" as recorded in the gospels. Apocalyptic thinking in this time was a response to Roman occupation, those in power who enabled it, and the long history of conquest and oppression of the Jewish people in that region. You cannot separate Jesus' specific brand of apocalyptic thought from this very specific, very Jewish context.

Now, I don't think Jesus stayed purely an Essene, if he ever really was one (they had a long initiation process so it's entirely possible he never went through that formally). But I suspect that when he began his own ministry in Galilee, the faction that ended up following him was something of an offshoot of the Essenes that incorporated other Jews from other schools of thought (i.e., Simon the Zealot).

What exactly Jesus' followers believed and thought about him in the moment (never mind what Jesus thought about himself,) is likely lost to history. The only sources we have on the man and his followers come from several decades after his death. Some might have considered him a wise man and teacher. Some might have seen him as a mystic, or a healer. Others might have considered him a prophet. But I think it's undeniable that at least some believed him to be the Messiah.

And then Pilate crucifies him.

I can't imagine the trauma of watching a man you believed to be wise, and good, and holy, and possibly the Messiah of your entire people, be murdered in such a cruel and inhuman way. I can't imagine what that does to a person, and I can't imagine how specifically traumatizing witnessing or even hearing about a crucifixion must have been. This was one of the most brutal punishments ever created. It was psychologically torturous to the people the Romans occupied, and it was designed to be this way on purpose. The cruelty was very much the point, as it kept dissenters in line and scared the people into submission. It was so effective that Roman citizens themselves were not allowed to be crucified. Romans didn't talk about crucifixion, it was something so unspeakably horrific that the only way to tolerate its existence was to turn a blind eye and dehumanize the victims.

My point being, and I'll be bold enough to say this- I don't think Jesus ever rose from the dead. But I do suspect that stories about resurrection began to spread as a way of coping with this horrific trauma. Who knows how such stories began- perhaps those closest to Jesus developed hallucinations, or perhaps believed they saw an apparition of him, or someone they mistook as him- there's no way to know. It's possible it was all a lie meant to keep the message alive even when the man was dead. But who could blame them, after something like that? So the stories spread, and they must have given people who'd followed Jesus hope, and something to believe in. If Jesus didn't die after all, and he was still with them, then there was still hope that the Kingdom of Heaven would indeed come to pass- and the horror of Roman occupation would end. The Temple would be free and Jerusalem would once again belong solely to the Jews.

So the Jesus Movement continued to exist, and the message of Jesus continued to spread within the Jewish world- and it got a pretty wide reach throughout the Mediterranean. It is during this period that Paul's letters are written (y'all know Paul). Notably, Paul, who was himself Jewish and likely a former Zealot, documents some of the disagreements among the Jesus followers of the day. Most importantly, I think, is a significant disagreement he has with Peter, in which Paul advocated that Gentiles should be allowed to receive the message of Jesus without needing to convert to Judaism and be circumcised. Peter disagreed, and because Peter was...well, Peter, and had more authority within the movement, it's thought that in this period, most (but certainly not all) followers of Jesus were still Jews.

(like Peter I also have beef with Paul but that's another post).

...and then Peter and Paul are killed. And not 40 years after the crucifixion, the Temple is burned down by Rome after a Jewish revolt in 70 AD. And everything changes. The Essenes, Zealots, and Sadducees all disappear from the historical record following the destruction of the Temple. The Pharisees adopt a different approach to Judaism that is less centered around the Temple and more focused on the study of the Torah, which becomes Rabbinical Judaism. They had never believed Jesus (or anyone else from the Second Temple Period) to have been the Messiah, and why would they? Why would they ever listen to the followers of this one guy who got himself killed 40 years ago? Especially after the Temple burned. The idea that this guy was still the Messiah, no really we promise, would have sounded like total nonsense.

Meanwhile, the followers of Jesus begin to turn away from Judaism entirely. If Jesus really is the Messiah, then his message can't have been so specific to Judaism. It can't have been about the fall of Rome and a re-establishment of God's Kingdom on Earth. Look what just happened to the Temple. So they start evolving into what we know today as Christians, with Jesus positioned as a different kind of savior. So the two groups- no longer Pharisees and Jesus followers, but now Jews and Christians- splinter.

Paul's thoughts begin to dominate, Gentiles are incorporated more into the faith, and Christian practices begin to deviate more and more sharply from their Jewish origins. Different branches of Christianity develop, with significantly different ideas about who Jesus was and what he meant. This, notably, is the period in which the gospels are written, including the non-canonical ones. There are still some Jewish Jesus followers, but as time goes on, they too disappear from the historical record (and no, messianic "judaism" does not count, that's a modern invention). Eventually, it is only the Pauline version of Christianity that survives, which is the Christianity we know today (yes that includes all denominations thereof).

So a figure who started off as a Jew, teaching to Jews and speaking in a Jewish context about Jewish occupation and intra-Jewish theological conflicts, becomes the God of a group of Gentiles.

Primary source: From Jesus to Christ: The First Christians

#seriously though I think former christians should check out the documentary I'm citing as a good starting point to learning this history #because I do think learning the history helps with deconstructing the beliefs and frontline is top tier #when you learn where and how these beliefs originated though you can put them in their proper context #and disentangle them from your own life as a person living over 2000 years later #ex catholic tag

3 notes · View notes