maryhelena said
You missed my reply to Greg I don’t have a cat….
spiker said
No, I saw it and Antigonus had one.
And my post had nothing to do with popcorn. It was dealing with reflections. and themes
What your post was dealing with was mockery. If that is all you have to offer regarding the OP then please don’t post in this thread. All you are doing, besides embarrassing yourself, is being an annoyance to people who don’t care to be subjected to kindergarten behavior on this thread – or on this forum.
maryhelena said
What your post was dealing with was mockery. If that is all you have to offer regarding the OP then please don’t post in this thread. All you are doing, besides embarrassing yourself, is being an annoyance to people who don’t care to be subjected to kindergarten behavior on this thread – or on this forum.
Yet the OP care’s enough to both read and respond to my posts EXCEPT with evidence, logic, insight. Now since you’re enamoured of quotes, we’ll leave you with the words of the estimable Mr. Ikechukwu Izuakor
Without evidence, seeds of mockery blossoms and thrives[sic] ”
―
spiker said
maryhelena said
What your post was dealing with was mockery. If that is all you have to offer regarding the OP then please don’t post in this thread. All you are doing, besides embarrassing yourself, is being an annoyance to people who don’t care to be subjected to kindergarten behavior on this thread – or on this forum.
Yet the OP care’s enough to both read and respond to my posts EXCEPT with evidence, logic, insight. Now since you’re enamoured of quotes, we’ll leave you with the words of the estimable Mr. Ikechukwu Izuakor
Without evidence, seeds of mockery blossoms and thrives[sic] ”
―
spiker, as long as you respond to my posts with ridicule and mockery I will call you out on it….
spiker said
spiker said
maryhelena said
The gospel crucifixion story is about Rome executing a ‘King of the Jews’ – the gospel figure not denying the title – and this execution was brought about through money changing hands.
Actually, it was brought to you by Nabisco!
I think, spiker, that you are the only one getting a kick out of the mockery that you are defiling this thread with.
Steefen said
The Temple Authorities had Jesus killed.Herod the Great had Antigonus killed.
Herod the Great did not betray Antigonus, they were rivals.
Judas betrayed Jesus, they were not rivals.
The two stories do not have shared themes.
Parallels might just be the shibboleth here. Its instructive that Dennis MacDonald, in My Turn ** you do not have permission to see this link **
Argues “These parallels may at first seem forced or arbitrary, but I use six criteria to test the relationship of any text to another….”
Even if wrong, Mac Donald, at least, understands there is more to making the case than just pointing to similarities and going
AHA! Even if the stories had common themes, the observation is utterly meaningless without alot more evidence.
We’ve all heard the expression you can’t compare Apples and Oranges. But you certainly can. Both are fruit, both get used to make juice(If I have time later, I will make a table!) etc. The difference here is that mythicists seem to think this is the basis for making apple pie with oranges; want to declare that the debate is open over how to make apple pie.
spiker said
Steefen said
The Temple Authorities had Jesus killed.Herod the Great had Antigonus killed.
Herod the Great did not betray Antigonus, they were rivals.
Judas betrayed Jesus, they were not rivals.
The two stories do not have shared themes.
Parallels might just be the shibboleth here. Its instructive that Dennis MacDonald, in My Turn ** you do not have permission to see this link **
Argues “These parallels may at first seem forced or arbitrary, but I use six criteria to test the relationship of any text to another….”
Even if wrong, Mac Donald, at least, understands there is more to making the case than just pointing to similarities and going
AHA! Even if the stories had common themes, the observation is utterly meaningless without alot more evidence.
We’ve all heard the expression you can’t compare Apples and Oranges. But you certainly can. Both are fruit, both get used to make juice(If I have time later, I will make a table!) etc. The difference here is that mythicists seem to think this is the basis for making apple pie with oranges; want to declare that the debate is open over how to make apple pie.
My my – an interesting quote from your reference pdf.
Methinks it needs to be coloured in bright red so that it’s point may stand out….
”….it should come as good news that the Gospels are literary fictions created by first century intellectuals…”
—————————
Since I’ve not read McDonald’s book, The Homeric Epics and the Gospel of Mark, I’ll link to a review by Richard Carrier.
That spiker chose to reference McDonald is highly amusing to say the least….
** you do not have permission to see this link **
maryhelena said
My my – an interesting quote from your reference pdf.
Methinks it needs to be coloured in bright red so that it’s point may stand out….
”….it should come as good news that the Gospels are literary fictions created by first century intellectuals…”
Do you ever miss an opportunity to dive off the deep end?
You could increase the font and bold it if you’d like. I cited Mac Donald to the extent
that he views the use of parallels in the way I do. I didn’t cite him as proof and then pretend it didn’t matter like some people.
It’s instructive that your “table” is missing any reference, knowledge, understanding or awareness of the importance or even existence of those six tests. That you think this is a cause celebre is utterly amazing!
Not sure why you find citing Mac Donald, hillarious. He is not a mythicist [never let it be said that maryhelena doesn’t know what she is talking about]
In Carrier’s words
“I do not believe that this entails that Jesus was a myth, however-and MacDonald himself is not a mythicist, but assumes that something of a historical Jesus lies behind the fictions of Mark. Although MacDonald’s book could be used to contribute to a mythicist’s case, everything this book proves about Mark is still compatible with there having been a real man, a teacher, even a real “miracle worker” in a subjective sense, or a real event that inspired belief in some kind of resurrection, and so on, which was then suitably dressed up in allegory and symbol.”
In sum, the Mac Donald quote does nothing for you, if the Gospels are fiction(and I have never claimed they weren’t), it does nothing to disprove the central historicist contention- a contention shared even by GA Welles, that Jesus was a real, historical person. Quoting Mac Donald also belies your contention that I just look for people with different views to ridicule. Though it does demonstrate yet again, that you haven’t the faintest clue.
spiker said
maryhelena said
My my – an interesting quote from your reference pdf.
Methinks it needs to be coloured in bright red so that it’s point may stand out….
”….it should come as good news that the Gospels are literary fictions created by first century intellectuals…”
Do you ever miss an opportunity to dive off the deep end?
You could increase the font and bold it if you’d like. I cited Mac Donald to the extent
that he views the use of parallels in the way I do. I didn’t cite him as proof and then pretend it didn’t matter like some people.
It’s instructive that your “table” is missing any reference, knowledge, understanding or awareness of the importance or even existence of those six tests. That you think this is a cause celebre is utterly amazing!Not sure why you find citing Mac Donald, hillarious. He is not a mythicist [never let it be said that maryhelena doesn’t know what she is talking about]
In Carrier’s words
“I do not believe that this entails that Jesus was a myth, however-and MacDonald himself is not a mythicist, but assumes that something of a historical Jesus lies behind the fictions of Mark. Although MacDonald’s book could be used to contribute to a mythicist’s case, everything this book proves about Mark is still compatible with there having been a real man, a teacher, even a real “miracle worker” in a subjective sense, or a real event that inspired belief in some kind of resurrection, and so on, which was then suitably dressed up in allegory and symbol.”
In sum, the Mac Donald quote does nothing for you, if the Gospels are fiction(and I have never claimed they weren’t), it does nothing to disprove the central historicist contention- a contention shared even by GA Welles, that Jesus was a real, historical person. Quoting Mac Donald also belies your contention that I just look for people with different views to ridicule. Though it does demonstrate yet again, that you haven’t the faintest clue.
Good, we at last find some common ground – ”..if the Gospels are fiction(and I have never claimed they weren’t)..’
So – the gospels are fiction and you want to use fiction to support a historical Jesus. Oh, well….that’s one for the books….
As for quoting George Wells. Methinks the Jesus historicists have a very big problem there….Why? The Galilean preacher that Wells references was not crucified! Let me repeat that. Wells has no crucified flesh and blood Jesus figure.
George Wells: Can We Trust the New Testament.
This Galilean Jesus was not crucified and was not believed to have been resurrected
after his death. The dying and rising Christ—devoid of time and
place-of the early epistles is quite different figure and must have a different origin.
In the gospels, the two Jesus figures–the human preacher of
Q and the supernatural personage of the early epistles who
sojourned briefly on Earth as a man and then, rejected, returned
to heaven-have been fused into one. The Galilean preacher of
Q has been given a salvific death and resurrection and these
have been set not in an unspecified past (as in the early epistles), but in a historical context consonant with the date of the Galilean preaching.
So then, it looks as though we might be getting somewhere. 1) gospels are fiction 2) the Galilean preacher of Wells was not crucified. Well done spiker…
Neither Wells, nor my own theory, deny historical figures being relevant to the gospel story. The question is who were these historical figures? The historicists claim some version of a gospel Jesus – i.e. theological top-dressing removed is supposed to reveal a flesh and blood human – a flesh and blood Jesus for which there is no historical evidence. My theory, as set out in the OP, seeks to identify historical figures that were relevant to the gospel writers in the creation of their Jesus story.
Yes, fiction can be created around historical figures. That some ahistoricist/mythicists theories avoid this reality is their loss not a historicists gain. The historicists have to support historicity with history not with assumptions of historicity.
Mary Helena:
The chart below has set out Josephan Hasmonean history for Antigonus.
It also presents the Josephan history for Philip the Tetrarch.
Philo’s story about the mocking of Carabbas and Agrippa I is also used.
This chart is the historical backdrop that allows the gospel literary, mythological JC, a veneer of historicity, an ability to reflect historical events.
Steefen:
Jesus’ story and theme do not reflect Antigonus as already mentioned above.
Mary Helena:
It is this reflection, this veneer of historicity, that has allowed the assumption that the gospel JC figure is a historical figure.
Steefen:
Really? What reputable scholar has gained traction with that line of reasoning?
spiker said
Steefen said
The Temple Authorities had Jesus killed.Herod the Great had Antigonus killed.
Herod the Great did not betray Antigonus, they were rivals.
Judas betrayed Jesus, they were not rivals.
The two stories do not have shared themes.
Parallels might just be the shibboleth here. Its instructive that Dennis MacDonald, in My Turn ** you do not have permission to see this link **
Argues “These parallels may at first seem forced or arbitrary, but I use six criteria to test the relationship of any text to another….”
I didn’t see in the original post evidence of six criteria that would be used by Dennis MacDonald. I read his book on Mark and the Homeric epics. It’s in the bibliography of my book and some of what he says is in my text.
As Hermes puts on the sandals to travel and as Athena puts on the sandals to travel, Jesus also must walk on water.
Dennis McDonald: Mythologizing Jesus: From Jewish Teacher to Epic Hero.
At the core of these studies is a methodology that has come to be
called Mimesis Criticism, which tests for literary influence of one text on
another by applying seven criteria:
- The criterion of accessibility pertains to the likelihood that the author
of the later text had access to the putative model.
The base of the chart in the OP is history. Historical evidence, via coins, that the figures referenced in the chart were indeed historical figures.
- Analogy likewise pertains to the popularity of the target. It seeks to
know if other authors imitated the same proposed literary model.
History is an open book for all those living at the time specific events occurred.
- Density: Simply stated, the more parallels one can posit between two
texts, the stronger the case that they issue from a literary connection.
Specific details regarding the historical figures referenced in the OP chart are taken from the writing of Josephus – and Philo.
- The criterion of order examines the relative sequencing of similarities in the two works. If parallels appear in the same order, the case strengthens for a genetic connection.
McDonald is dealing with literary texts. The OP deals first with history and then with the text of Josephus and then the text of the gospel story. The criterion McDonald is using applies to written texts. McDonald is not dealing with history. The primary focus of the OP chart is Hasmonean/Jewish history. It deals with historical figures from that history – historicity being established by the Hasmonean/Herodian coins. Without that historical core, the Hasmonean/Herodian coins, the chart would not have it’s historical base. Looking for parallels in literary texts is one thing – looking for reflections, echoes, allusions of history within a literary text, i.e. the gospel story, is a very different exercise than the one undertaken by McDonald when he compares one text with another text. It really is apples and oranges here.
- A distinctive trait is anything unusual in both the targeted model and
the proposed borrower that links the two into a special relationship.
In the case of the OP chart – the distinctive trait is that both figures, the historical figure of Antigonus and the gospel literary Jesus figure, were a King of the Jews – and executed by Rome for this ‘trait’.
- Interpretability assesses what, if anything, might be gained by viewing
one text as a debtor to another. As often as not, ancient authors emulated their antecedents to rival them, whether in style, philosophical adequacy, persuasiveness, or religious perspective.
In the case of the OP chart much can be gained re how the gospel writers created their Jesus story i.e. by using historical figures as the base of their story.
I applied these six criteria in my previous publications, but The Gospels and
Homer and Luke and Vergil employ yet another that pertains primarily to
Gospel narratives:
- Often Greek readers prior to 1000 C.E. were aware of affinities between New Testament narratives and their putative classical Greek models. Such ancient and Byzantine recognitions often suggest imitations in the original composition of the Gospels.
Indeed, as there are ‘affinities’ between the text of the OT with that of the NT. Intertextuality has become a major avenue of research:
Thomas Brodie: Beyond the Quest for the Historical Jesus.
Researchers are recognizing precise ways in which New Testament texts are explained as depending not on oral tradition but on older literature, especially older scripture. The New Testament books are Scripture reshaping Scripture to speak to a changed situation, and they may also reshape one another. Yet, whatever its source, each text is worked
into something distinctive, and in that sense is independent. The dependence
of the gospels on the Old Testament and on other extant texts is incomparably clearer and more verifiable than its dependence on any oral tradition-as seen, for instance, in the thorough dependence of Jesus’ call to disciples (Lk. 9.57-62) on Elijah’s call ( 1 Kgs 1 9). The sources supply not only a framework but a critical mass which pervades the later text.
The Old Testament, especially the Greek Septuagint, is being reborn in
new books. God’s down-to-earth word is finding new expression. N.T.
Wright (2005: 7) speaks of recent Pauline research as taking place ‘in a world
with its eyes newly opened by contemporary literary study. . .and now all
kinds of aspects of Paul are being tested for implicit and explicit [Old Testament] storylines’. Aspects of Paul, and equally aspects of the gospels.
But Ehrman’s study does not take account of this new research. It does not
concentrate on discerning the literary nature of the various documents and so
breaks Rule One of historical investigation. It summarizes the criteria
developed in the 1950s for tracing the historical Jesus, but makes no mention
of the criteria developed since the 1980s for detecting literary dependence.
So it cannot deal adequately with Price and Thompson, and shows little
awareness that – whatever some of their opinions – their work has a place in
a central new field of biblical research.
In another thread the question of political allegory came up. Since this is the thread that deals with that subject in more detail – I’ll repost my reply here.
============================
Literature like Animal Farm is of interest when viewing the gospel story as basically a political allegory.
Animal Farm is an ** you do not have permission to see this link **
Other allegorical narratives such as The Wizard of Oz, Pilgrim’s Progress and The Crucible come to mind.
Wikipedia: The Pilgrim’s Progress from This World to That Which Is to Come; Delivered under the Similitude of a Dream is a ** you do not have permission to see this link ** has been translated into more than 200 languages, and has never been out of print.
Wikipedia: Baum did not offer any conclusive proof that he intended his novel to be a political allegory. Historian Ranjit S. Dighe wrote that for sixty years after the book’s publication, “virtually nobody” had such an interpretation until ** you do not have permission to see this link **
Not only did Baum draw inspiration from the American land around him, but he also created Oz to display an American utopia where the issues of the day were solved.
Wikipedia:The Crucible is a 1953 play by the American playwright ** you do not have permission to see this link ** accused communists.
A political allegory approach to the gospel narrative offers, to my mind, a more rational explanation of it’s content. The options are not just some sort of mythic fantasy or literal history…
History, reality, the world they lived in, was very important to both the OT writers and the NT writers. As Ehrman recently wrote in a blog post, historical context was very important.
Now I need to explain why the “prophetic” views came to change. To make sense of the change I have to sketch a set of historical events that the people of Israel had to live through. Some people find these kinds of historical sketches fascinating; others find them dull as dirt. But in either event, you really have to know what happened among ancient Jews in order to make sense of what their theological beliefs were, since these beliefs were molded by and informed by nothing so much as the historical context out of which they emerged.
** you do not have permission to see this link **
What was the gospel political allegory about? It’s a story set during the time of Roman occupation of Judea. The Romans had executed the last King and High Priest of the Jews, Antigonus in 37 b.c.e. Under Roman occupation any remembrance of Antigonus would be curtailed. Whatever were the prophetic views of the Antigonus history would have to be recounted via a story. Writing stories, writing historical fiction or pseudo-history, was what OT prophets did. i.e. they interpreted their history as such and such – and recorded their prophetic interpretations as ‘history’. The pattern was set long before NT writers put ink on parchment. History, Jewish history, is mixed up with salvation history, with prophetic history, interpretations of history.
The Roman execution of Antigonus was not, of course, the only history that concerned the NT writers. But that history is the foundation, as it were, for the political allegory the NT writers wrote. Yes, there is theology, philosophy and mythology within the gospel narrative. But what comes first is, as Ehrman has expressed in that blog post, history. History was primary for the gospel writers – just as history is primary for Jews to this day. Ideas might come and go – historical facts – such as can be objectively ascertained – are primary.
As to further content of the gospel political allegory – I put up a chart on another thread.
Historical chart of Hasmonean/Jewish history as reflected in the gospel story.
** you do not have permission to see this link **
——————————–
maryhelena said
Good, we at last find some common ground – ”..if the Gospels are fiction(and I have never claimed they weren’t)..’
So – the gospels are fiction and you want to use fiction to support a historical Jesus. Oh, well….that’s one for the books….
We do!? I’ve also never argued the earth is flat. More common ground Maryhelena?
“The OP deals first with history and then with the text of Josephus and then the text of the gospel story. The criterion McDonald is using applies to written texts.”
FINALLY, you make an actual argument with out resorting to undercurrents or the OH YEAAA, well…. defense. No one, as far as I know, is asserting that Antigonus, et al didn’t exist. The question is about whether your claims about them can withstand scrutiny.That is whether or not the parallels you mention are meaningful in the way you
Please explain how the text of Josephus and then the text of the gospel stories aren’t written texts (a bit redundant, don’t you think? when was the last time you saw an unwritten text?)
spiker said
maryhelena said
Good, we at last find some common ground – ”..if the Gospels are fiction(and I have never claimed they weren’t)..’
So – the gospels are fiction and you want to use fiction to support a historical Jesus. Oh, well….that’s one for the books….
We do!? I’ve also never argued the earth is flat. More common ground Maryhelena?
“The OP deals first with history and then with the text of Josephus and then the text of the gospel story. The criterion McDonald is using applies to written texts.”
FINALLY, you make an actual argument with out resorting to undercurrents or the OH YEAAA, well…. defense. No one, as far as I know, is asserting that Antigonus, et al didn’t exist. The question is about whether your claims about them can withstand scrutiny.That is whether or not the parallels you mention are meaningful in the way you
Please explain how the text of Josephus and then the text of the gospel stories aren’t written texts (a bit redundant, don’t you think? when was the last time you saw an unwritten text?)
spiker, I don’t seek to engage anyone in a discussion who uses mockery and ridicule as tools of engagement. I’ve no intention of lowering my standards in order to accommodate your mockery and ridicule…
maryhelena said spiker, I don’t seek to engage anyone in a discussion who uses mockery and ridicule as tools of engagement. I’ve no intention of lowering my standards in order to accommodate your mockery and ridicule…
It hasn’t stopped you yet, maryhelena. If your standards were any lower, you would be working for ISIS
spiker said
maryhelena said spiker, I don’t seek to engage anyone in a discussion who uses mockery and ridicule as tools of engagement. I’ve no intention of lowering my standards in order to accommodate your mockery and ridicule…
It hasn’t stopped you yet, maryhelena. If your standards were any lower, you would be working for ISIS
I’m certainty not stopping calling you out on your mockery and ridicule. I’m not furthering any discussion or debate with you.
Your comment above – ”if (my) standards were any lower, (I) would be working for ISIS” is disgraceful. You are dishonoring the privilege of posting on this forum.
maryhelena said Your comment above – ”if (my) standards were any lower, (I) would be working for ISIS” is disgraceful. You are dishonoring the privilege of posting on this forum.
Me thinks I detect an undercurrent of disdain
I’m certainty not stopping calling you out on your mockery and ridicule.
So you’re the one leaving flowers on my car
BDEhrman
FreedomBen
evgendob
Robert