Very very interesting.
I am now waiting for Peter Flemming's jocular article on Muhammad or perhaps a funny travel article on the Haj?

It seems that Mr Fleming takes more influence from his NIDA education than from his 'formal' education. Although there's a strong theme of drama, sensitivity to the cultural setting of 1st Century Judea has gone out the window.

If only every academic could be so dramatic!

I suggest that Mr Fleming should address the source of his fixation on Jesus. No doubt many of his past students, or at least those with a reasonable faith in Christ, would agree with this.

'sensitivity to the cultural setting of 1st Century Judea has gone out the window' I'm sure that the author can defend himself but on this occasion, I will clarify the issues. The fact is that research in the last 50 years has now told us a lot about this period in which Joshua lived. We know that it was a very turbulent period with Jew againts Jew, Jew againts Roman occupier and within that various extremist groups playing poker with the whole lot. We also know that this whole drama was being played out againts a backdrop of popular belief by the Jewish population that the end days as forecast by the prophets was inevitable in their lifetimes.

What we see in Iraq today is not unlike the times of Joshua in Israel 30 AD.

For christians to maintain that this young Jewish talmud scholar / preacher was unaffected by his own background and times is simply not logical or rational.

The knowledge we now have through advances in technology and contemporary study of the testaments and archeological knowledge of the region; show conclusively, that the New Testament is a constructed story which began well after his death.

My interest in this type of study is largely motivated by my concern of the rise of neo right christianity flexing its political muscle. Its insistence on replacing critical thinking with constructs based on literal interpretations of the New Testament is simply intolerable

Netab,

Some interesting comments. Thank you.

1. I don't know about Pilate under Augustus, but Pompey would crucify people for little reason. With captured enemy soldiers his commandes would have a few prisoners stay behind and when the main body of the people were just out-of-sight, he would crucify the the stay-behinds. Repeating the process over and over. The column moving forward didn't see what was happening. Howver, afterwards, future travellers along the road would see victims a space and the more victims a space more victims.

The catch with Pilate and Crucifications is that Pilate would not want to quash a roit. He had been chided for a massacre [even by Roman standards] earlier-on in his career and would have been motivated to keep a lid on things. Hence, the idea of crucifying people during the Jewish passover is problematic.

Regarding Paul/Constantine, we really have a transition of Jesus cults to institutionalisation/modification. A common sociology with the evolution of religions.

Herod was a Roman puppet (not of the House of David). My guess is Herod would not have been able to use capital punishment. A challenge to Rome's decision to support Herod would worry Pilate. Moreover, if Herod wanted JC dead, presumably he could have done this converted. So, there must have politic reason, "if" Jesus was taken Pilate

Wait a minute, Aesop's Fables aren't true stories either but, they are no less truthful. The use of parable is an old, tried and true method of reaching people to illustrate a moral attitude or a religious principle.
If one can't believe the stories in the Bible are true it might not be the fault of the Bible. It might be a dependency on the conforming to the POMOist use of "critical" thinking. Some people are just too clever for their own good and miss the point of such reading all together.

"For christians to maintain that this young Jewish talmud scholar / preacher was unaffected by his own background and times is simply not logical or rational." - Netab

On the contrary, Christian scholars appreciate greatly the cultural landscape of this age, and the challenges that this presents.

Jesus was far from a Talmudic Scholar. His onus was on the Torah, the Prophets and the Writings (the canonical Hebrew Bible). Some of His most scathing criticism was of the Pharisaic praxis. They demonstrated an outward, hypocritical religion and yet neglected true justice, mercy and love.

"The knowledge we now have through advances in technology and contemporary study of the testaments and archeological knowledge of the region; show conclusively, that the New Testament is a constructed story which began well after his death." - Netab

Not true. I would contest this but you seem to filter everything through your deep-seated intolerance towards Christianity. Hopefully you can open your mind to the possibility of truth beyond your own prejudice.