04-13-2004, 12:08 PM
It is a book by italian writer Franco Mimmi. I have it in french, it is also translated in german but I haven't seen it in english.<br>
It is only a novel, a work of fiction; but with the interesting twist of Jesus being an agent of the Romans sent to try to calm down things in a region where they cannot be calmed down.<br>
It is pretty well documented and gives a vivid description (I think..) of Judea then.<br>
The nazarean/nazirean theory is there. It comes, according to the author, from the word "nazara", which means the truth, and not from Nazareth, a city that indeed may have not existed, or existed under another name, during that period, round 753 AUC.<br>
The Nazireans were a jewish sect. It seems that there was then as many sects, or almost, as they were Jews..<br>
Mimmi cites a few: besides the Zealots and the Essenians, there were the Saducceans, two factions of Pharisians (the conservatives of Shammai and the liberals of Hillel) the Baptists (of John), the Ebionists, the Hellenophiles, the Masbotheans, Galileans, Herodians, Samaritans, Hemerobaptists and some we probably don't know about.<br>
That means a lot of prophets preaching all over the place and most of all preaching the deliverance --or the messiah-- soon, since they considered that the Romans, who ruled them with an iron hand, were "unpîous" and "impure" persons worshipping "false gods" and that God the One and Only, certainly would not allow that for long..<br>
Today we'd call these prophets mollahs..<br>
People with beards, self proclaimed sole depositors of "the Truth". Usually violent... As Churchill said, a fanatic is someone who won't change his mind and won't change the subject.<br>
Apparently, Jesus did a little more than preach. It is evident, even if only for the Scriptures, that he had numerous followers.<br>
The episode of the merchants of the Temple is proof of that.<br>
Had he been alone he would not have been able to kick the merchants out. It's like a single person making trouble in St Peter of Rome. It lasts one minute and the pertubator is quickly led away. End of the incident..<br>
The more so since we know what "the merchants" were: The Jews had an obligation to sacrifice at the Temple. A lamb for the rich and a pigeon for those that couldn't afford the lamb.<br>
Of course you needed a blessed lamb, or pigeon, for that.<br>
Only the priests at the Temple sold consecrated lambs and pîgeons...<br>
Of course they are more expensive than the non consecrated variety...<br>
Moreover, you have to buy them with consecrated money too. That money had to be changed and I let you imagine the rate of exchange. All in all a good profitable business.<br>
This was THE system. And Jesus and his mob --because it was a mob, it couldn't materially be anything else-- attacked THE system and most probably set up a fine riot inside the Temple grounds, taking down the changers' booths and so on...<br>
He attacked the high priests' unprescribable way of making a buck. He struck where it hurts the most, then and now: he struck at the wallet. And that, then and now, is a no no..<br>
Of course that bothered the high priests more than it did the Romans.<br>
For Pilate, Jesus was just another one of the numerous jewish troublemakers he had to deal with on an everyday basis. For the high priests he was a threat to their very existence, a threat to THE system..<br>
He had to die, whether Pilatus wanted it or not; and I suspect Pilatus was torn between two feelings. On one hand the rare pleasure of seeing the high priests in trouble and on the other the absolute necessity of maintaning law and order, lest Tiberius Caesar, over there in Capri, be informed of yet more troubles in Judea...<br>
And Divus Tiberius Caesar, as we know, was not generally in a good mood..<br>
So he "washed his hands" and the message to the high priests was clear, very concise, very roman. It meant: this guy was right to do what he did because your system is nothing else but a gigantic rip off. However I'll sacrifice him in the name a public peace, because politically, I cannnot do otherwise. But believe me I wish I could.<br>
As for who's guilty of killing "The son of God", no one is. Those responsible for the man's execution died two thousand years ago. There is a statute of limitations.<br>
As for accusing the ones or the others it seems very un-christian to me.<br>
"Father forgive them for they know not what they do", remember?<br>
Selective forgiveness maybe?<br>
A last word about faith and knowledge: someone said his brother was an atheist and had a lot of faith. Wrong word: believers have faith, atheists have knowledge.<br>
And may Minerva, Goddess of Wisdom, protect you all. <p></p><i>Edited by: <A HREF=http://pub45.ezboard.com/bromanarmytalk.showUserPublicProfile?gid=antoninuslucretius@romanarmytalk>Antoninus Lucretius</A> <IMG HEIGHT=10 WIDTH=10 SRC="http://lucretius.homestead.com/files/Cesar_triste.jpg" BORDER=0> at: 4/13/04 2:13 pm<br></i>
It is only a novel, a work of fiction; but with the interesting twist of Jesus being an agent of the Romans sent to try to calm down things in a region where they cannot be calmed down.<br>
It is pretty well documented and gives a vivid description (I think..) of Judea then.<br>
The nazarean/nazirean theory is there. It comes, according to the author, from the word "nazara", which means the truth, and not from Nazareth, a city that indeed may have not existed, or existed under another name, during that period, round 753 AUC.<br>
The Nazireans were a jewish sect. It seems that there was then as many sects, or almost, as they were Jews..<br>
Mimmi cites a few: besides the Zealots and the Essenians, there were the Saducceans, two factions of Pharisians (the conservatives of Shammai and the liberals of Hillel) the Baptists (of John), the Ebionists, the Hellenophiles, the Masbotheans, Galileans, Herodians, Samaritans, Hemerobaptists and some we probably don't know about.<br>
That means a lot of prophets preaching all over the place and most of all preaching the deliverance --or the messiah-- soon, since they considered that the Romans, who ruled them with an iron hand, were "unpîous" and "impure" persons worshipping "false gods" and that God the One and Only, certainly would not allow that for long..<br>
Today we'd call these prophets mollahs..<br>
People with beards, self proclaimed sole depositors of "the Truth". Usually violent... As Churchill said, a fanatic is someone who won't change his mind and won't change the subject.<br>
Apparently, Jesus did a little more than preach. It is evident, even if only for the Scriptures, that he had numerous followers.<br>
The episode of the merchants of the Temple is proof of that.<br>
Had he been alone he would not have been able to kick the merchants out. It's like a single person making trouble in St Peter of Rome. It lasts one minute and the pertubator is quickly led away. End of the incident..<br>
The more so since we know what "the merchants" were: The Jews had an obligation to sacrifice at the Temple. A lamb for the rich and a pigeon for those that couldn't afford the lamb.<br>
Of course you needed a blessed lamb, or pigeon, for that.<br>
Only the priests at the Temple sold consecrated lambs and pîgeons...<br>
Of course they are more expensive than the non consecrated variety...<br>
Moreover, you have to buy them with consecrated money too. That money had to be changed and I let you imagine the rate of exchange. All in all a good profitable business.<br>
This was THE system. And Jesus and his mob --because it was a mob, it couldn't materially be anything else-- attacked THE system and most probably set up a fine riot inside the Temple grounds, taking down the changers' booths and so on...<br>
He attacked the high priests' unprescribable way of making a buck. He struck where it hurts the most, then and now: he struck at the wallet. And that, then and now, is a no no..<br>
Of course that bothered the high priests more than it did the Romans.<br>
For Pilate, Jesus was just another one of the numerous jewish troublemakers he had to deal with on an everyday basis. For the high priests he was a threat to their very existence, a threat to THE system..<br>
He had to die, whether Pilatus wanted it or not; and I suspect Pilatus was torn between two feelings. On one hand the rare pleasure of seeing the high priests in trouble and on the other the absolute necessity of maintaning law and order, lest Tiberius Caesar, over there in Capri, be informed of yet more troubles in Judea...<br>
And Divus Tiberius Caesar, as we know, was not generally in a good mood..<br>
So he "washed his hands" and the message to the high priests was clear, very concise, very roman. It meant: this guy was right to do what he did because your system is nothing else but a gigantic rip off. However I'll sacrifice him in the name a public peace, because politically, I cannnot do otherwise. But believe me I wish I could.<br>
As for who's guilty of killing "The son of God", no one is. Those responsible for the man's execution died two thousand years ago. There is a statute of limitations.<br>
As for accusing the ones or the others it seems very un-christian to me.<br>
"Father forgive them for they know not what they do", remember?<br>
Selective forgiveness maybe?<br>
A last word about faith and knowledge: someone said his brother was an atheist and had a lot of faith. Wrong word: believers have faith, atheists have knowledge.<br>
And may Minerva, Goddess of Wisdom, protect you all. <p></p><i>Edited by: <A HREF=http://pub45.ezboard.com/bromanarmytalk.showUserPublicProfile?gid=antoninuslucretius@romanarmytalk>Antoninus Lucretius</A> <IMG HEIGHT=10 WIDTH=10 SRC="http://lucretius.homestead.com/files/Cesar_triste.jpg" BORDER=0> at: 4/13/04 2:13 pm<br></i>
