JESUS \u200b\u200b'& JESUS'
a rebel jew;
challenged Rome
died on a cross
the Church and turned it into a god.
Hypothesis New Series on the History of Christianity
A new book appears in the book scene in Italian. This is the translation of an interesting book of Daniel T. Unterbrink who analyzed in depth the writings of the historian jew in the first century, Josephus . Two major works of the historian, the Jewish War and Jewish Antiquities, works fundamental comprede the history of that time. In
Jewish War, which is the main historical source for the events surrounding the war against Rome, he argued that the uprising was the work of a small band of zealots and not, as generally believed, a popular uprising. He also described the last days of the Jewish fortress of Masada, where most of those who were defending committed suicide. In Jewish Antiquities
there are quick glimpses Jesus (the so-called Testimonium Flavianum ). Although these references are now considered by some historians, including E. Schürer and H. Chadwick , in whole or in part, of the Christian interpolations, in any case they ensure the preservation of the greek text of Joseph by the Christian Church. These writings are extremely important from a historical point of view because they contain valuable information about religious movements of Orthodox Judaism as the Essenes, the Pharisees, the Zealots, etc..
From these historical analysis, Unterbrink can beam series tracks that allow you to highlight a revolutionary hypothesis: the Jesus of the Christian religion is the transfer of a real character who lived at the time and fought against the Romans. His name was Judas the Galilean.A strong book, it's Unterbrink. And that certainly will into question the very foundations of Christianity. But a book should be read with an open mind.
******
Presentation of the Italian
In this way, it is immediately clear the area where you place this historical research, namely the revisionist trend linked to the origins of Christianity. In recent years, in fact, we have witnessed an unprecedented publishing products devoted to Jesus, helped undoubtedly by the great success of The Da Vinci Code of Dan Brown , in which the author assembles myths and theories more or less verified and verifiable, creating a mysterious ambience and certainly suitable for a novel.
The Book of Daniel T. Unterbrink is, by contrast, a non-fiction. Jesus and Jesus is a distinctly and avowedly historical research. Far from proposing one of the many usual "alternative routes" in between reality and legend, the author submits to the attention of readers a hypothesis that, although part in the wake of the theories formulated long ago by researchers and critics of Christianity , has an almost absolute novelty, ie the elements support. It is not, in fact, only a "rational assumption, but of true historiography and textual analysis, based on works by known and documented, although so far never used for such a work of comparison.
According to the hypothesis proposed by Unterbrink, the figure of Jesus is nothing but the end product of "revision" in the key of a mystical character really lived, that is a patriotic Jew who, in an attempt to oppose Roman occupation of Palestine, between 6 and 19 AD headed a resistance movement closely tied to Jewish traditions, paying in the end her death with courage crucifixion.
sense, then, is clear. There are two Jesus: first, the historical one, in the flesh, the rebel who dared to challenge Rome paying a price in life and on the other hand, the Jesus of the Gospels and the Church, the "son of God" sent from heaven to redeem mankind and in this capacity has come down to us. Well, according to the hypothesis of the author, the Jesus of the Church is nothing but a reinterpretation of the spiritual real Jesus in the flesh, to ensure that the patriot who attempted to establish the "Kingdom of Heaven", but only in the sense of a return a Jewish nation free from foreign rule, submissive to the one, true "Lord" the God of Moses.
is no doubt that the author is formulating a hypothesis, as such, subject to criticisms and complaints totally legitimate. Any opinion, however, can not fail to take account of the great novelty of this work, namely that the hypothesis of Unterbrink is based on facts and historical documents . As such, it fits into the trend of historical revisionism, which states that you must consider Jesus in a new perspective, ie as a real historical figure, concrete, but totally different from that that the Church and Christianity have presented to nearly two thousand years. No longer, therefore, uncritical acceptance of the Son of God of the Gospels, but even a total denial of her as a myth or "invention" of the early church, but rather, make their way the hypothesis that the identity of Jesus in fact coincide with that of another historical figure, entirely human, the myth that time and have gradually cloaked in a robe divine. Unterbrink comes to this conclusion by utilizing a methodology of "historical", ie using the sources available and completely ignoring the preconceived ideas, hagiography and historical contexts are not verifiable. Sources are mentioned, the steps, references always clear, there, available to anyone.
As mentioned above, according Unterbrink this "historical Jesus" would not be other than a Jewish patriot who lived in the first century AD Well, the analysis of historical texts of the period allows the author to give a name to this patriot: he was called Judas the Galilean : a name which, no doubt, will attract the most immediately to mind Judas Iscariot, the apostle who betrayed Jesus is not the case. It is therefore necessary that the reader forget the traitor Judas and focus their attention on the Judas Galileo: the rabbi, the patriot, the rebel who challenged the power of Rome, in an attempt to rid Judea foreign oppression.
is not a new approach, particularly in Italy, where other scholars have already suggested that Jesus was indeed a revolutionary, finished on the cross at the hands of the Romans and later mythologized and turned into a god by his followers to give life to a true religion professed in the name of a new church and its clergy. We want to recall here, in particular, the assumption that Jesus was none other than John of Gamala (son of "our" Judas the Galilean), mentioned by David Donnini in New Hypothesis on Jesus (Macroedizioni, 2004) and proposed by Louis Cascioli forcefully in his book The Fable of Christ (2002, from the author). The limit of this hypothesis, however, is that there is no direct historical evidence of the existence of John of Gamala.
The existence of Judas the Galilean, by contrast, is very well documented in the works of Jewish historian Josephus , on the basis of which Unterbrink takes several surprising similarities between Judah and, indeed, Jesus is made plausible to assume that Judas and Jesus were the same person, however, these are not only similarities, but also a curious difference, which has not escaped the attention of the author. Unterbrink has pointed out that, while speaking in detail of Judas the Galilean in his works Josephus does not mention the reasons or at the time of his death, in contrast, this town does not spend a single word about the life and acts of Jesus, yet he speaks of his crucifixion at the hands of Pilate.
Now, most scholars have always doubted the authenticity of the passage of Josephus speaks of Jesus and Unterbrink shares the view that this is a fake, posted by a hand Christian early fourth century. But he goes further and says that this step has been forged to art not only to create a "proof" of the historicity of Jesus, but also to replace the passage in which Josephus would have mentioned the death of Judas the Galilean. The silence of Josephus about the death of Judas, however, is even more strange when one considers that, in contrast, the Jewish historian records the crucifixion of two of the children of Judah ( James and Simone in 45-47 AD), the stoning of another child or grandchild, Menahem (who had made his entry into Jerusalem, in the manner of Jesus in 66 AD) and suicide a grandson of Judah, Eleazar , during the siege of Masada 73. It therefore seems incomprehensible that Josephus may have "forgotten" the death of Judas the Galilean.
Unterbrink's conclusion is a real bomb: "Jesus" was nothing more than a nickname, a title of Judas the Galilean. After the Christian legend of the patriot Judas was transformed into "Son of God" Jesus, the early church did everything possible to separate him from his real past.
Because this assumption is so explosive? As ever, the orthodoxy Christian, all this would be a real earthquake, capable of shaking the entire building from the foundation of Christianity? The answer is simple: because they assume that Jesus of Nazareth and Judas of Galilee were the same person means that when the Gospels and the Acts of the Apostles speak of Jesus, in fact refer to events that occurred a generation earlier than the chronology traditional and have always maintained that everything has been moved forward two decades its abundance in an effort to avoid any overlap between Judas and Jesus: a real "scandal" for the doctrine of the Church, that the Bible is inspired by God and truth, as such, may contain errors.
Right on the historical side, however, seems indisputable that Jesus' return (ie, Judas the Galilean) would actually lived at the time makes it finally possible to compare the events of the early Christian community (as well as presents the Church) and the historical accounts of Josephus. The result is amazing. The hero of traditional Christianity, St. Paul, according to the picture that there give the same Joseph and other ancient writings, it becomes an impostor and the introduction ad hoc character of Judas Iscariot by the authors of the Gospels appears as an attempt of take the blame fall on the shoulders of Paul an apostle of Jew and, therefore, the entire Jewish people.
Unterbrink's hypothesis is supported by a number of elements shared by Judas of Galilee and Jesus of Nazareth, the first of the founding of a new movement. Judas, in fact, gave birth to a new philosophy, called by Josephus "Fourth Philosophy" in the same way, the Bible attributes to Jesus the foundation of Christianity (though in fact the Christianity of today is a product of the teachings of Paul ).
However, this is just one of many examples of the "similarities" that bind Jesus to Judas the Galilean. Appendix 1, Unterbrink lists several other points of contact, demonstrating that the affinity between the two characters are nothing short of remarkable, and that the movement led by Judah was very similar to the early church: a report that, to date, no had never adequately detailed and can not leave indifferent the leaders of Christian churches.
Jesus and Jesus is ultimately an attempt to respond logically to a question as difficult as legitimate: Who was the historical Jesus? Our goal-as well as that of the author- is not convincing at all costs the reader that Judas the Galilean and Jesus of Nazareth were the same person, but allow him to revisit, through a lens different and original, the figure of Jesus, to Paul and the history of the early church.
Even he does not agree with the hypothesis of Unterbrink, his research can only be of benefit for all fans and open-minded scholars.
* * * * *
Jesus & Jesus is not a text easy to read, as it takes for granted knowledge of certain fundamentals, including:
· the composition of Bible and, in particular, the content, authors and date of composition of books of the New Testament ;
· the historical and political context of Judea at the time he lived Judas the Galilean (first century BC to first century AD);
· the person and work of Josephus.
in the introduction that follows, are presented in short all the information necessary for even the novice and the simple passionate, curious about the possibility of Unterbrink but little or poorly informed about the biblical and historical context in which it is located, are enabled to approach the reading of this book.
