It is indeed remarkable that the central event of the Christian religion (The Passion of the Christ in Mark) utterly lacks any historical memory attached to it, and is instead recreated (or created?) using silent allusions to lines in the Psalms, Isaiah, and the Wisdom of Solomon. This makes great theological literature, for sure, but history? I tend to doubt it.
Consider: The Passion of the Christ in Mark:
Likely the clearest Prophecy about Jesus is the entire 53rd chapter of Isaiah. Isaiah 53:3-7 is especially unmistakable: “He was despised and rejected by men, a man of sorrows, and familiar with suffering. Like one from whom men hide their faces he was despised, and we esteemed him not. Surely he took up our infirmities and carried our sorrows, yet we considered him stricken by God, smitten by him, and afflicted. But he was pierced for our transgressions, he was crushed for our iniquities; the punishment that brought us peace was upon him, and by his wounds we are healed. We all, like sheep, have gone astray, each of us has turned to his own way; and the LORD has laid on him the iniquity of us all. He was oppressed and afflicted, yet he did not open his mouth; he was led like a lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep before her shearers is silent, so he did not open his mouth.”
The only thing is, as Spong points out, Isaiah wasn’t making a prophesy aboout Jesus. Mark was doing a haggadic midrash on Isaiah. So, Mark depicts Jesus as one who is despised and rejected, a man of sorrow acquainted with grief. He then describes Jesus as wounded for our transgressions, bruised for our iniquities. The Servant in Isaiah, like Jesus in Mark, is silent before his accusers. In Isaiah it says of the servant with his stripes we are healed, which Mark turned into the story of the scourging of Jesus. This is, in part, is where atonement theology comes from, but it would be silly to say II Isaiah was talking about atonement. The servant is numbered among the transgressors in Isaiah, so Jesus is crucified between two thieves. The Isaiah servant would make his grave with the rich, So Jesus is buried in the tomb of Joseph of Arimathea, a person of means.
Then, as Dr. Robert Price says
The substructure for the crucifixion in chapter 15 is, as all recognize, Psalm 22, from which derive all the major details, including the implicit piercing of hands and feet (Mark 24//Psalm 22:16b), the dividing of his garments and casting lots for them (Mark 15:24//Psalm 22:18), the “wagging heads” of the mockers (Mark 15:20//Psalm 22:7), and of course the cry of dereliction, “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?” (Mark 15:34//Psalm 22:1). Matthew adds another quote, “He trusts in God. Let God deliver him now if he desires him” (Matthew 7:43//Psalm 22:8), as well as a strong allusion (“for he said, ‘I am the son of God’” 27:43b) to Wisdom of Solomon 2:12-20, which underlies the whole story anyway (Miller, p. 362), “Let us lie in wait for the righteous man because he is inconvenient to us and opposes our actions; he reproaches us for sins against the law and accuses us of sins against our training. He professes to have knowledge of God, and calls himself a child of the Lord. He became to us a reproof of our thoughts; the very sight of him is a burden to us because his manner of life is unlike that of others, and his ways are strange. We are considered by him as something base, and he avoids our ways as unclean; he calls the last end of the righteous happy, and boasts that God is his father. Let us see if his words are true, and let us test what will happen at the end of his life: for if the righteous man is God’s son he will help him and will deliver him from the hand of his adversaries. Let us test him with insult and torture that we may find out how gentle he is and make trial of his forbearance. Let us condemn him to a shameful death, for, according to what he says, he will be protected.”
As for other details, Crossan points out that the darkness at noon comes from Amos 8:9, while the vinegar and gall come from Psalm 69:21. It is remarkable that Mark does anything but call attention to the scriptural basis for the crucifixion account. There is nothing said of scripture being fulfilled here. It is all simply presented as the events of Jesus’ execution. It is we who must ferret out the real sources of the story. This is quite different, e.g., in John, where explicit scripture citations are given, e.g., for Jesus’ legs not being broken to hasten his death (John 19:36), either Exodus 12:10, Numbers 9:12, or Psalm 34:19-20 (Crossan). Whence did Mark derive the tearing asunder of the Temple veil, from top to bottom (Mark 15:38)? Perhaps from the death of Hector in the Iliad (MacDonald). Hector dies forsaken by Zeus. The women of Troy watched from afar off (as the Galilean women do in Mark 15:40), and the whole of Troy mourned as if their city had already been destroyed “from top to bottom,” just as the ripping of the veil seems to be a portent of Jerusalem’s eventual doom.
And so we can at least propose there may not be any historical content with a fairly comprehensive haggadic midrash reading of The Passion of the Christ in Mark.
What do others think?
Here is what I think:
There is no smoke without a fire….
The gospel writers make a historical claim. i.e. that Pilate, a Roman representative, was responsible for the execution, the crucifixion, of a man they deemed to be important to their theological/philosophical ideas. The gospel writers also say that the Roman authorities placed a sign on the cross saying that this man was a ‘King of the Jews’. Now, we can say the Romans were mocking the executed man – or we could think a bit deeper. Why would the Romans mock an itinerant preacher figure – a nobody – with such a ridiculous type of mockery – a mockery that was, as we would say today, way over the top.
Consider the mockery of Carabbas in Philo’s Flaccus: ”……opportunity or excuse for insulting their superiors, and if he had chastised those who dressed him up for having dared both openly and disguisedly, both with words and actions, to insult a king and a friend of Caesar,”. Carabbas was the stand-in, as it were, for the mockery of King Agrippa. Using this idea from Philo – the mockery of the gospel figure of Jesus is aimed elsewhere. It is aimed at an actual King of the Jews.
Who was this King of the Jews? The very last King and High Priest of the Jews. Antigonus. Antigonus II Mattathias. A King of the Jews executed by Rome in 37 b.c.e. (using a 33 c.e. crucifixion date for the gospel Jesus – then one is dealing with a 70 year period between the actual historical execution of a King of the Jews and the reflection of that historical event in the gospel Jesus story.)
How was Antigonus executed. Josephus says he was beheaded. Cassis Dio, in Roman History, says: “These people [the Jews] Antony entrusted to a certain Herod to govern; but Antigonus he bound to a cross and scourged, a punishment no other king had suffered at the hands of the Romans, and so slew him.”
Josephus does tell us that Herod I paid Marc Antony a great deal of money to have Antigonus executed. Josephus also tells us that Antigonus was insulted by the Roman general who called him by a woman’s name, Antigone. Josephus also tells us that earlier Antigonus had bitten off the ear of his uncle. These themes are used in the gospel crucifixion story.
Now, one can say that this execution/crucifixion of Antigonus is outside the gospel Pilate time-frame. But that would be to take the gospel story literally instead of it being a story that has sought to reflect historical events rather than record historical actualities. On that score it is interesting to consider the proposal of Lena Einhorn regarding a time-shift. Einhorn suggests a time-shift forward, post Pilate. My suggestion above, is a time-shift, backward, to the actual historical execution of a King of the Jews. The reason Einhorn suggests a time-shift is that her study of Josephus reveals no record of crucifixion during the time of Pilate (except the TF). In fact no record of crucifixion from 6 c.e. to 46 c.e.
”In addition to this, Josephus makes no note of crucifixions of Jews between 4 B.C.E. and 46 C.E., except in Testimonium Flavianum. He mentions them, however, under Varus (4 B.C.E.), Tiberius Alexander (46 to 48 C.E.), Cumanus (48 to 52 C.E.), Felix (52 to ca. 59 C.E.), and Florus (64 to 66 C.E.), as well as during the Jewish War (66 to 73 C.E.).”
** you do not have permission to see this link **
None of the above should be read as Antigonus = the gospel Jesus. Far from it. However, the history of Antigonus is reflected in the gospel crucifixion story.
One can take this a step further regarding the Dead Sea Scrolls:
Greg Doudna
What has long been overlooked is that a Qumran text, widely acknowledged to have been authored at about this very time, speaks directly of a Jewish ruler being “hung up alive”—just like Dio Cassius’s account of the fate of Antigonus Mattathias. This is found at 4QpNah 3-4 i 8-ii 1, which is a pesher unit consisting of a biblical quotation followed by its interpretation. The text introduces this unit with the words: “concerning the one hanged up alive on a stake it is proclaimed:”, or “to the one hanged up alive on a stake he (i.e. God) proclaims:”.
………..
In what may come to be regarded as one of the more unusual, indeed astonishing, oversights in the history of Qumran scholarship, so far as is known it seems no previous scholar has proposed that Antigonus Mattathias, the last Hasmonean king of Israel, executed by the Romans in 37 BCE, might be the figure underlying the Wicked Priest of Pesher Habakkuk or the doomed ruler of Pesher Nahum. The actual allusion of the figure of these texts, Antigonus Mattathias, remained unseen even though it was always in open view, as obvious as it could be. And in wondering how Antigonus Mattathias was missed in the history of scholarship I include myself, for I too missed this in my 2001 study of Pesher Nahum.
** you do not have permission to see this link **
So, as to your OP:
”It is indeed remarkable that the central event of the Christian religion (The Passion of the Christ in Mark) utterly lacks any historical memory attached to it, and is instead recreated (or created?) using silent allusions to lines in the Psalms, Isaiah, and the Wisdom of Solomon. This makes great theological literature, for sure, but history? I tend to doubt it.”
There is a historical reflection in the gospel crucifixion story – it just may not be the history a Jesus historicist would welcome….
john76 the Passion narratives illustrate not the strength of the mythicist position but one of its glaring weaknesses. Let me explain.
The mythicists contend that the folks who created the jesus “myth” used the Hebrew Bible to construct it and the figure of J himself. But it has been a scholarly commonplace for many decades that the so-called “suffering servant” passages in the Hebrew Bible like Isaiah 53 refer not to the Messiah but to the people of Israel. The expectation in the prophecies was that the Messiah would be a human political religious leader after the model of King David who would lead the people of Israel into the Kingdom of God and defeat foreign political and demonic oppression. Now Jewish historians and scholars (and honest Christians) have also made the somewhat embarrassing point that the figure of Jesus in the New Testament doesn’t really fulfill any of the qualities looked for in the promised Messiah, least of all that he would be condemned and executed as a common criminal.
To hold the position they do the mythicists are forced to go back and reinterpret the “suffering servant” passages to mean that yes they did foretell a suffering Messiah in the face of historical Jewish interpretation. Otherwise how could they maintain that the figure of Jesus was modeled on a Hebrew scriptural Messianic template?
There’s a much simpler explanation that accounts for what we do know, that the early Christians began to believe in a suffering Messiah. They first believed Jesus was the expected Messiah, come to fulfill the expected traditional role of human political and religious leader. But after the unexpected catastrophe of J’s capture and execution they were forced to go back and reinterpret their traditions to explain why J was seemingly defeated by Rome. They fixed on the “suffering servant” motif and began to interpret J’s life and death through that lens.
Part of this reinterpretation was using whatever Hebrew scriptures lent themselves to that interpretation. The author of Mark used Psalm 22 to interpret the Passion. He didn’t invent the Passion using Psalm 22. The mythicists have it ass backward. (As a side note the idea of haggadic midrash gets bandied about a lot by mythicists. This field is highly technical and I’m not even close to being really knowledgeable much less an expert but from the limited reading I’ve done of those who are it appears that the process didn’t really work the way mythicists claim it did.)
I think the fact the mythicists have to go back and reinterpret scripture at almost every turn to get their theories to work should cause little red warning lights to go off. Don’t you?
@Stephen
”There’s a much simpler explanation that accounts for what we do know, that the early Christians began to believe in a suffering Messiah. They first believed Jesus was the expected Messiah, come to fulfill the expected traditional role of human political and religious leader. But after the unexpected catastrophe of J’s capture and execution they were forced to go back and reinterpret their traditions to explain why J was seemingly defeated by Rome. They fixed on the “suffering servant” motif and began to interpret J’s life and death through that lens”.
Let me reword that paragraph for you:
”There’s a much simpler explanation that accounts for what we do know, that ….some Jews began to believe in a suffering Messiah. They first believed Antigonus was the expected Messiah, come to fulfill the expected traditional role of human political and religious leader. But after the unexpected catastrophe of Antigonus‘ capture and execution they were forced to go back and reinterpret their traditions to explain why Antigonus was …….defeated by Rome. They fixed on the “suffering servant” motif and began to interpret Antigonus‘ life and death through that lens”.
With this rewording one is dealing with a historical figure not with assumptions about a figure within the gospel story.
———————————————-
** you do not have permission to see this link **
Hebrew inscription, Mattatayah the High Priest and Council of the Jews, around and between the horns of a double cornucopia; reverse BACIΛEΩC ANTIΓONOY (of King Antigonus),
———————————————
Decry whatever mythicist theory you want – once you have identified just what mythicist theory you are dealing with. Always keeping in mind that discrediting any specific mythicist theory does not discredit the basic, the fundamental premise i.e. that the gospel figure of Jesus is not a historical figure but a symbolic figure. A symbolic figure designed to reflect the lives of historical figures important to the gospel writers.
It is my position that the history of Angitonus is reflected in the gospel crucifixion story. But that crucifixion story is not the whole of the gospel Jesus story. The story itself resolves around the conflict between two basic themes. 1) a rebel, a zealot, against Rome. 2) a man of peace prepared to give Caesar what belongs to Caesar. The history of Antigonus fits the first of these two gospel themes. Antigonus was no man of peace. He was a Davidic man of war. The second category leaves room for a historical figure that was not crucified by Rome.
As to the Antigonus time-frame – consider the words of Tertullian in AD NATIONES:
This name of ours took its rise in the reign of Augustus; under Tiberius it was taught with all clearness and publicity; under Nero it was ruthlessly condemned,
** you do not have permission to see this link **
Augustus dated 27 b.c.e. to 14 c.e. i.e. there were Christians, Jewish Christians, prior to the time of Pilate.
Stephen said
john76 the Passion narratives illustrate not the strength of the mythicist position but one of its glaring weaknesses. Let me explain.The mythicists contend that the folks who created the jesus “myth” used the Hebrew Bible to construct it and the figure of J himself. But it has been a scholarly commonplace for many decades that the so-called “suffering servant” passages in the Hebrew Bible like Isaiah 53 refer not to the Messiah but to the people of Israel. The expectation in the prophecies was that the Messiah would be a human political religious leader after the model of King David who would lead the people of Israel into the Kingdom of God and defeat foreign political and demonic oppression. Now Jewish historians and scholars (and honest Christians) have also made the somewhat embarrassing point that the figure of Jesus in the New Testament doesn’t really fulfill any of the qualities looked for in the promised Messiah, least of all that he would be condemned and executed as a common criminal.
To hold the position they do the mythicists are forced to go back and reinterpret the “suffering servant” passages to mean that yes they did foretell a suffering Messiah in the face of historical Jewish interpretation. Otherwise how could they maintain that the figure of Jesus was modeled on a Hebrew scriptural Messianic template?
There’s a much simpler explanation that accounts for what we do know, that the early Christians began to believe in a suffering Messiah. They first believed Jesus was the expected Messiah, come to fulfill the expected traditional role of human political and religious leader. But after the unexpected catastrophe of J’s capture and execution they were forced to go back and reinterpret their traditions to explain why J was seemingly defeated by Rome. They fixed on the “suffering servant” motif and began to interpret J’s life and death through that lens.
Part of this reinterpretation was using whatever Hebrew scriptures lent themselves to that interpretation. The author of Mark used Psalm 22 to interpret the Passion. He didn’t invent the Passion using Psalm 22. The mythicists have it ass backward. (As a side note the idea of haggadic midrash gets bandied about a lot by mythicists. This field is highly technical and I’m not even close to being really knowledgeable much less an expert but from the limited reading I’ve done of those who are it appears that the process didn’t really work the way mythicists claim it did.)
I think the fact the mythicists have to go back and reinterpret scripture at almost every turn to get their theories to work should cause little red warning lights to go off. Don’t you?
Christian exegetes have long studied the gospels in light of Rabbinical techniques of biblical interpretation including allegory, midrash, and pesher. The discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls lent great impetus to the recognition of the widespread use among New Testament writers of the pesher technique whereby prophetic prooftexts for the divine preordination of recent of events was sought. Slower (but still steady) in coming has been the realization of the wide extent to which the stories comprising the gospels and the Acts of the Apostles are themselves the result of haggadic midrash upon stories from the Old Testament (as we may call it here in view of the Christian perspective on the Jewish canon that concerns us). The New Testament writers partook of a social and religious environment in which currents of Hellenism and Judaism flowed together and interpenetrated in numerous surprising ways, the result of which was not merely the use of several versions of the Old Testament texts, in various languages, but also the easy switching back and forth between Jewish and Greek sources like Euripides, Homer, and Mystery Religion traditions.
Earlier scholars (e.g., John Wick Bowman), as many today (e.g., J. Duncan M. Derrett), saw gospel echoes of the ancient scriptures in secondary coloring here or redactional juxtaposition of traditional Jesus stories there. But the more recent scrutiny of John Dominic Crossan, Randel Helms, Dale and Patricia Miller, and Thomas L. Brodie has made it inescapably clear that virtually the entirety of the gospel narratives and much of the Acts are wholly the product of haggadic midrash upon previous scripture. Earl Doherty has clarified the resultant understanding of the gospel writers’ methodology. It has been customary to suppose that early Christians began with a set of remarkable facts (whether few or many) and sought after the fact for scriptural predictions for them, the goal being to show that even though the founding events of their religion defied contemporary messianic expectation, they were nonetheless in better accord with prophecy, that recent events clarified ancient prophecy in retrospect. Thus modern scholars might admit that Hosea 11:1 (“Out of Egypt I have called my son”) had to be taken out of context to provide a pedigree for the fact of Jesus’ childhood sojourn in Egypt, but that it was the story of the flight into Egypt that made early Christians go searching for the Hosea text. Now it is apparent, just to take this example, that the flight into Egypt is midrashic all the way down. That is, the words in Hosea 11:1 “my son,” catching the early Christian eye, generated the whole story, since they assumed such a prophecy about the divine Son must have had its fulfillment. And the more apparent it becomes that most gospel narratives can be adequately accounted for by reference to scriptural prototypes, Doherty suggests, the more natural it is to picture early Christians beginning with a more or less vague savior myth and seeking to lend it color and detail by anchoring it in a particular historical period and clothing it in scriptural garb. We must now envision proto-Christian exegetes “discovering” for the first time what Jesus the Son of God had done and said “according to the scriptures” by decoding the ancient texts. Today’s Christian reader learns what Jesus did by reading the gospels; his ancient counterpart learned what Jesus did by reading Joshua and 1 Kings. It was not a question of memory but of creative exegesis. Sometimes the signals that made particular scriptural texts attractive for this purpose are evident (like “my son” in Hosea 11:1), sometimes not. But in the end the result is a new perspective according to which we must view the gospels and Acts as analogous with the Book of Mormon, an inspiring pastiche of stories derived creatively from previous scriptures by a means of literary extrapolation.
If Hosea 11:1 (“Out of Egypt I have called my son”) could have been taken out of context by the first Christians (“son” in Hosea 11:1 referred to Israel) to provide a pedigree for Jesus’ childhood sojourn in Egypt, Isaiah 53 could just as easily have been taken out of context to develop the passion/crucifixion narrative.
@john76 wrote:
”It was not a question of memory but of creative exegesis. Sometimes the signals that made particular scriptural texts attractive for this purpose are evident (like “my son” in Hosea 11:1), sometimes not. But in the end the result is a new perspective according to which we must view the gospels and Acts as analogous with the Book of Mormon, an inspiring pastiche of stories derived creatively from previous scriptures by a means of literary extrapolation”.
Undoubtedly, ”creative exegesis” was involved with the writing of the gospel story. The question is what else was involved in the creation of that story. After all, interpreting ”prophetic prooftexts” require some demonstration that ones interpretation is not all pie-in-the sky, not all ‘spiritual’. Prophetic history, salvation history, re the OT, deals with historical realities. Thus, ”creative exegesis” would be used to find some meaning within a historical context. Take away the historical context and ‘‘creative exegesis” becomes meaningless.
Whether one upholds a historicist or an ahistoricist position on the gospel Jesus – the ”creative exegesis” within that story requires a historical context for it to have any meaning, any relevance, for the gospel writers. It is a failure of many mythicists that they do not appreciate this fundamental requirement of interpretation of ”prophetic prooftexts”.
maryhelena said
@john76 wrote:”It was not a question of memory but of creative exegesis. Sometimes the signals that made particular scriptural texts attractive for this purpose are evident (like “my son” in Hosea 11:1), sometimes not. But in the end the result is a new perspective according to which we must view the gospels and Acts as analogous with the Book of Mormon, an inspiring pastiche of stories derived creatively from previous scriptures by a means of literary extrapolation”.
Undoubtedly, ”creative exegesis” was involved with the writing of the gospel story. The question is what else was involved in the creation of that story. After all, interpreting ”prophetic prooftexts” require some demonstration that ones interpretation is not all pie-in-the sky, not all ‘spiritual’. Prophetic history, salvation history, re the OT, deals with historical realities. Thus, ”creative exegesis” would be used to find some meaning within a historical context. Take away the historical context and ‘‘creative exegesis” becomes meaningless.
Whether one upholds a historicist or an ahistoricist position on the gospel Jesus – the ”creative exegesis” within that story requires a historical context for it to have any meaning, any relevance, for the gospel writers. It is a failure of many mythicists that they do not appreciate this fundamental requirement of interpretation of ”prophetic prooftexts”.
The central pericopes of Christianity, Jesus’ passion, crucifixion, empty tomb, and resurrection, are portrayed in the gospels as fulfillment of Old Testament Scriptures. As Price says, since this portrayal serves a purely theological function, there is no reason to suppose there is any history there.
I already posted about the crucifixion, so let’s consider the empty tomb and the resurrection:
1. The Empty Tomb (Mark 16:1-8)
Crossan (p. 274) and Miller and Miller (pp. 219, 377) note that the empty tomb narrative requires no source beyond Joshua (=Jesus, remember!) chapter 10. The five kings have fled from Joshua, taking refuge in the cave at Makkedah. When they are discovered, Joshua orders his men to “Roll great stones against the mouth of the cave and set men by it to guard them” (10:18). Once the mopping-up operation of the kings’ troops is finished, Joshua directs: “Open the mouth of the cave, and bring those five kings out to me from the cave” (10:22). “And afterward Joshua smote them and put them to death, and he hung them on five trees. And they hung upon the trees until evening; but at the time of the going down of the sun, Joshua commanded, and they took them down from the trees, and threw them into the cave where they had hidden themselves, and they set great stones against the mouth of the cave, which remain to this very day” (10:26-27). Observe that here it is “Jesus” who plays the role of Pilate, and that Mark needed only to reverse the order of the main narrative moments of this story. Joshua 10: first, stone rolled away and kings emerge alive; second, kings die; third, kings are crucified until sundown. Mark: Jesus as King of the Jews is crucified, where his body will hang till sundown; second, he dies; third, he emerges alive (Mark implies) from the tomb once the stone is rolled away.
The vigil of the mourning women likely reflects the women’s mourning cult of the dying and rising god, long familiar in Israel (Ezekiel 8:14, “Behold, there sat women weeping for Tammuz;” Zechariah 12:11, “On that day the mourning in Jerusalem will be as great as the mourning for Hadad-Rimmon in the plain of Megiddo;” Canticles 3:1-4, “I sought him whom my soul loves; I sought him but found him not; I called him but he gave no answer,” etc.).
2. The Resurrection of Jesus (Matthew 27:62-28:20)
Matthew had before him Mark’s empty tomb story and no other source except the Book of Daniel, from which he has embellished the Markan original at several points. (Matthew had already repaired to Daniel in his Pilate story, where the procurator declared, “I am innocent of the blood of this man,” Matthew 27:24b, which he derived from Susanna 46/Daniel 13:46 LXX: “I am innocent of the blood of this woman.”) (Crossan, p. 97-98). First, Matthew has introduced guards at the tomb and has had the tomb sealed, a reflection of Nebuchadnezzer’s sealing the stone rolled to the door of the lion’s den with Daniel inside (6:17). Mark had a young man (perhaps an angel, but perhaps not) already in the open tomb when the women arrived. Matthew simply calls the character an angel and clothes him in a description reminiscent of the angel of Daniel chapter 10 (face like lightning, Daniel 10:6) and the Ancient of Days in Daniel chapter 7 (snowy white clothing, Daniel 7:9b). He rolls the stone aside. The guards faint and become as dead men, particular dead men, as a matter of fact, namely the guards who tossed Shadrach, Meschach, and Abed-nego into the fiery furnace in (Daniel 3:22).
To provide an appearance of the risen Jesus to the women at the tomb (something conspicuously absent from Mark), Matthew simply divides Mark’s young man into the angel and now Jesus himself, who has nothing more to say than a lame reiteration of the angel’s words. He appears again on a mountain in Galilee (Matthew 28:16) which he now says Jesus had earlier designated, though this is the first the reader learns of it. There he dispenses yet more Danielic pastiche: “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me.” This is based on a conflation of two Greek versions of Daniel 7:14. In the LXX, “to him [the one like a son of man was] … given the rule… the authority of him [the Ancient of Days].” In Theodotion, he receives “authority to hold all in the heaven and upon the earth.” The charge to make all nations his disciples comes from Daniel 7:14, too: “that all people, nations, and languages should serve him” (Helms, p. 141).
@john76 wrote:
”The central pericopes of Christianity, Jesus’ passion, crucifixion, empty tomb, and resurrection, are portrayed in the gospels as fulfillment of Old Testament Scriptures. As Price says, since this portrayal serves a purely theological function, there is no reason to suppose there is any history there.
I already posted about the crucifixion, so let’s consider the empty tomb and the resurrection:”
Moving on? Not so quick. The title of your OP asks a question: ”Is there any actual history in Mark’s narrative of the crucifixion?” A question for which I have offered a historical answer and which you have ignored. Opting instead to post reams of material that strives to move away from the OP……Ignoring even my second point regarding ”creative exegesis” of the OT requiring some connection with reality, with historical realities. Instead you want to move on to empty tombs and resurrection! Themes that take one into the realm of speculation. Nice try to avoid a historical discussion but I’m afraid you are on your own here.
I would like to add some points.
First Hosea’s prophecy: “Out of Egypt I have called my son”. This prophecy is about Israel, not Jesus. What’s more important to observe is that Hosea called Israel for “son of God”. Another name for Israel is Jacob, or James if you will – “James the son of God”. Now, Jesus was also “the son of God”. If both Jesus and James were sons of God, then they had be brothers in some way or another. Therefor “James the Lord’s brother” comes straight out of this midrashic logic.
The second point to comment on is “the empty tomb.” This is also something that comes straight out of Isaiah 53.
And they made his grave with the wicked
wand with a rich man in his death
although he had done no violence,
(…)
he shall see his offspring; he shall prolong his days;
the will of the Lord shall prosper in his hand.
After he has suffered,
he will see the light of life and be satisfied;
by his knowledge my righteous servant will justify many,
and he will bear their iniquities.
Therefore I will give him a portion among the great,
and he will divide the spoils with the strong,
The suffering servant could not both lie in the grave, and see the light of life, be a portion among the great and divide the spoil with the strong. The grave had to be empty to fulfill the prophecy of Isaiah.
maryhelena said
@john76 wrote:”It was not a question of memory but of creative exegesis. Sometimes the signals that made particular scriptural texts attractive for this purpose are evident (like “my son” in Hosea 11:1), sometimes not. But in the end the result is a new perspective according to which we must view the gospels and Acts as analogous with the Book of Mormon, an inspiring pastiche of stories derived creatively from previous scriptures by a means of literary extrapolation”.
Undoubtedly, ”creative exegesis” was involved with the writing of the gospel story. The question is what else was involved in the creation of that story. After all, interpreting ”prophetic prooftexts” require some demonstration that ones interpretation is not all pie-in-the sky, not all ‘spiritual’. Prophetic history, salvation history, re the OT, deals with historical realities. Thus, ”creative exegesis” would be used to find some meaning within a historical context. Take away the historical context and ‘‘creative exegesis” becomes meaningless.
Whether one upholds a historicist or an ahistoricist position on the gospel Jesus – the ”creative exegesis” within that story requires a historical context for it to have any meaning, any relevance, for the gospel writers. It is a failure of many mythicists that they do not appreciate this fundamental requirement of interpretation of ”prophetic prooftexts”.
To take one example, Matthew’s Jesus infancy narrative recapitulates the story of Moses in the Old Testament.
Does this mean Matthew started with facts about the historical Jesus and just embellished it with mythical material, or did Matthew simply rewrite the story of Moses using Jesus as the central character?
My point is just that there is no reason to think there is any historical material here. The might be, but there is no reason to think that. What method would you use to extract a historical core from an interpretive paraphrase of the Old Testament meant to portray Jesus as fulfilling Old Testament scriptures?
p.s. For more about Jesus as “The New Moses,” see “Did Jesus Exist” by Bart Ehrman, pg. 198-99
john76 said
maryhelena said
@john76 wrote:”It was not a question of memory but of creative exegesis. Sometimes the signals that made particular scriptural texts attractive for this purpose are evident (like “my son” in Hosea 11:1), sometimes not. But in the end the result is a new perspective according to which we must view the gospels and Acts as analogous with the Book of Mormon, an inspiring pastiche of stories derived creatively from previous scriptures by a means of literary extrapolation”.
Undoubtedly, ”creative exegesis” was involved with the writing of the gospel story. The question is what else was involved in the creation of that story. After all, interpreting ”prophetic prooftexts” require some demonstration that ones interpretation is not all pie-in-the sky, not all ‘spiritual’. Prophetic history, salvation history, re the OT, deals with historical realities. Thus, ”creative exegesis” would be used to find some meaning within a historical context. Take away the historical context and ‘‘creative exegesis” becomes meaningless.
Whether one upholds a historicist or an ahistoricist position on the gospel Jesus – the ”creative exegesis” within that story requires a historical context for it to have any meaning, any relevance, for the gospel writers. It is a failure of many mythicists that they do not appreciate this fundamental requirement of interpretation of ”prophetic prooftexts”.
To take one example, Matthew’s Jesus infancy narrative recapitulates the story of Moses in the Old Testament.
Does this mean Matthew started with facts about the historical Jesus and just embellished it with mythical material, or did Matthew simply rewrite the story of Moses using Jesus as the central character?
My point is just that there is no reason to think there is any historical material here. The might be, but there is no reason to think that. What method would you use to extract a historical core from an interpretive paraphrase of the Old Testament meant to portray Jesus as fulfilling Old Testament scriptures?
p.s. For more about Jesus as “The New Moses,” see “Did Jesus Exist” by Bart Ehrman, pg. 198-99
The gospel of Matthew is using an interpretation of OT prophecy and applying it to the gospel Jesus.
Point 1) OT prophetic interpretation requires a physical, material, demonstration – not an invisible ‘spiritual’ fulfillment.
Point 2) Upholding an ahistoric position on the gospel Jesus does not negate that requirement.
Point 3) Physical reality, flesh and blood reality, historical realities, are relevant to any interpretation of OT prophecy.
Once one goes with the idea that the gospel story is all mythology, all allegory, all symbolism, one is in danger of creating a very subjective approach to the gospel story. i.e. that symbolism means what I say it means…..
On the other hand, when one has to demonstrate that ones interpretation of OT prophecy relates to some historical figure or historical event – then one allows others to check ones interpretation – and if they find value in it – then the subjective element is negated.
As to the gospel of Matthew and it’s infancy narrative relating to the OT story of Moses: see point 1) and point 2) above. Whether one is creating a story, as in a gospel story, with OT interpretations – or using OT interpretations to find meaning, ‘salvation history’, within historical events – the premise is the same. OT prophetic interpretation requires a material, flesh and blood, historical demonstration to have value. In other words; alongside all the gospel mythology and symbolism there is a political allegory. To imagine that the gospel writers, so true to the OT tradition of prophetic interpretations, would create a story devoid of political implications – would be to engage in nothing but wishful thinking…
Maryhelena: Point 3) Physical reality, flesh and blood reality, historical realities, are relevant to any interpretation of OT prophecy.
I agree, but this does not necessarily require some historical figure or historical event. You might as well create a story based on Adam and Eve as role models. The vast majority will certainly agree that this was not historical figures or historical events.
In the Dead Sea scrolls pesharim there are this stories of a Wicked Priest, a Teacher of Righteousness and The Liar. Who were these? I think you will find an answer if you look in to the Books of Kings!
moose said
Maryhelena: Point 3) Physical reality, flesh and blood reality, historical realities, are relevant to any interpretation of OT prophecy.I agree, but this does not necessarily require some historical figure or historical event. You might as well create a story based on Adam and Eve as role models. The vast majority will certainly agree that this was not historical figures or historical events.
In the Dead Sea scrolls pesharim there are this stories of a Wicked Priest, a Teacher of Righteousness and The Liar. Who were these? I think you will find an answer if you look in to the Books of Kings!
This is what I said in my last post: Whether one is creating a story, as in a gospel story, with OT interpretations – or using OT interpretations to find meaning, ‘salvation history’, within historical events – the premise is the same. OT prophetic interpretation requires a material, flesh and blood, historical demonstration to have value.
Thus, a story can contain a literary ‘flesh and blood’ figure – as is usual in stories…..Or, OT prophetic interpretation can be applied as referencing a historical figure or a historical event
As to the Dead Sea Scrolls – I refer you back to an article by Greg Doudna.
Greg Doudna
What has long been overlooked is that a Qumran text, widely acknowledged to have been authored at about this very time, speaks directly of a Jewish ruler being “hung up alive”—just like Dio Cassius’s account of the fate of Antigonus Mattathias. This is found at 4QpNah 3-4 i 8-ii 1, which is a pesher unit consisting of a biblical quotation followed by its interpretation. The text introduces this unit with the words: “concerning the one hanged up alive on a stake it is proclaimed:”, or “to the one hanged up alive on a stake he (i.e. God) proclaims:”.
………..
In what may come to be regarded as one of the more unusual, indeed astonishing, oversights in the history of Qumran scholarship, so far as is known it seems no previous scholar has proposed that Antigonus Mattathias, the last Hasmonean king of Israel, executed by the Romans in 37 BCE, might be the figure underlying the Wicked Priest of Pesher Habakkuk or the doomed ruler of Pesher Nahum. The actual allusion of the figure of these texts, Antigonus Mattathias, remained unseen even though it was always in open view, as obvious as it could be. And in wondering how Antigonus Mattathias was missed in the history of scholarship I include myself, for I too missed this in my 2001 study of Pesher Nahum.
A Narrative Argument that the Teacher of Righteousness was Hyrcanus II
** you do not have permission to see this link **
Well, there is a literary figure of ‘flesh and blood’ in the Books of Kings. It just takes some time for me to explain.
Look first at Nathan’s prophecy:
2 Samuel 7: But that night the word of the Lord came to Nathan, saying: 5 “Go and tell my servant David, ‘This is what the Lord says: Are you the one to build me a house to dwell in?(…) “‘The Lord declares to you that the Lord himself will establish a house for you: 12 When your days are over and you rest with your ancestors, I will raise up your offspring to succeed you, your own flesh and blood, and I will establish his kingdom. 13 He is the one who will build a house for my Name, and I will establish the throne of his kingdom forever. 14 I will be his father, and he will be my son. When he does wrong, I will punish him with a rodwielded by men, with floggings inflicted by human hands. 15 But my love will never be taken away from him, as I took it away from Saul, whom I removed from before you. 16 Your house and your kingdom will endure forever before me; your throne will be established forever.’”
This was the Lord’s prophecy to Nathan. If we read the Books of Kings we see that Solomon was the offspring of David who succeeded him. But everyone who reads the Books of Kings can also see that the Lord rejects Solomon.
1 Kings 11:11: So the Lord said to Solomon, “Since this is your attitude and you have not kept my covenant and my decrees, which I commanded you, I will most certainly tear the kingdom away from you and give it to one of your subordinates.
What had happened? Solomos kingdom did not endure forever. Could the Lord’s prophecy be wrong? Of course not! Something wrong had to have happened down the road. Out of this comes the Passion story.
Having studied Nathans prophecy the (Christian) scribes read other prophecies, especially Isaiah 53. When they now returned their reading to the Books of Kings they found the answer. The prophecy referred simply not to Solomon but to his brother Adonijah. Adonijah was the suffering servant from Isaiah! Solomon was the rich man – Solomon was the Wicked Priest!
Adonai means «My Lord». This word occurs in the Masoretic text 315 times by the side of the Tetragram YHWH (310 times preceding and five times succeeding it) and 134 times without it. Originally an appellation of God, the word became a definite title, and when the Tetragram became too holy for utterance Adonai was substituted for it.
David’s son Adonijah had even the name of the Lord!
Now could the Passion story be “historiced”. The Passion story is actually quite short and begins with 2 Samuel 24 and ends in 1 Kings 2 – only three chapters long. But mainly from 1 Kings 1.
1 Kings opens with David taking a beautiful young woman to keep him warm. This young woman was Abishag. The woman was very beautiful; she took care of the king and waited on him, but the king had no sexual relations with her. She was a virgin.
Next, in 1 Kings 5, Adonijah becomes king.
Just as Jesus rode into Jerusalem and created unrest, 1 Kings opens with Adonijah creating turmoil. To seal his kingdom, Adonijah invited all of his brothers, the king’s sons, and all the royal officials of Judah, 10 but he did not invite Nathan the prophet or Benaiah or the special guard or his brother Solomon.
While Adonijah and his suporters where eating this «supper», it says:
Adonijah and all the guests who were with him heard it as they were finishing their feast. On hearing the sound of the trumpet, Joab asked, “What’s the meaning of all the noise in the city?”
42 Even as he was speaking, Jonathan son of Abiathar the priest arrived. Adonijah said, “Come in. A worthy man like you must be bringing good news.”
43 “Not at all!” Jonathan answered. “Our lord King David has made Solomon king. 44 The king has sent with him Zadok the priest, Nathan the prophet, Benaiah son of Jehoiada, the Kerethites and the Pelethites, and they have put him on the king’s mule, 45 and Zadok the priest and Nathan the prophet have anointed him king at Gihon. From there they have gone up cheering, and the city resounds with it. That’s the noise you hear. 46 Moreover, Solomon has taken his seat on the royal throne. 47 Also, the royal officials have come to congratulate our lord King David, saying, ‘May your God make Solomon’s name more famous than yours and his throne greater than yours!’ And the king bowed in worship on his bed 48 and said, ‘Praise be to the Lord, the God of Israel, who has allowed my eyes to see a successor on my throne today.’”
49 At this, all Adonijah’s guests rose in alarm and dispersed. 50 But Adonijah, in fear of Solomon, went and took hold of the horns of the altar. 51 Then Solomon was told, “Adonijah is afraid of King Solomon and is clinging to the horns of the altar.
Adonijah was so scared that he sweated blood, while all his companions was scattered around.
Clinging to the horns of the altar, Adonijah was killed with a spear from Benaiah.
This is the crucifixion. Adonijah was crucifixed together with Joab and Shimei.
Bathsheba is the wife who had bad dreams. Barabbas is Solomon who the Jews would rather have as king.
maryhelena said
john76 said
maryhelena said
@john76 wrote:”It was not a question of memory but of creative exegesis. Sometimes the signals that made particular scriptural texts attractive for this purpose are evident (like “my son” in Hosea 11:1), sometimes not. But in the end the result is a new perspective according to which we must view the gospels and Acts as analogous with the Book of Mormon, an inspiring pastiche of stories derived creatively from previous scriptures by a means of literary extrapolation”.
Undoubtedly, ”creative exegesis” was involved with the writing of the gospel story. The question is what else was involved in the creation of that story. After all, interpreting ”prophetic prooftexts” require some demonstration that ones interpretation is not all pie-in-the sky, not all ‘spiritual’. Prophetic history, salvation history, re the OT, deals with historical realities. Thus, ”creative exegesis” would be used to find some meaning within a historical context. Take away the historical context and ‘‘creative exegesis” becomes meaningless.
Whether one upholds a historicist or an ahistoricist position on the gospel Jesus – the ”creative exegesis” within that story requires a historical context for it to have any meaning, any relevance, for the gospel writers. It is a failure of many mythicists that they do not appreciate this fundamental requirement of interpretation of ”prophetic prooftexts”.
To take one example, Matthew’s Jesus infancy narrative recapitulates the story of Moses in the Old Testament.
Does this mean Matthew started with facts about the historical Jesus and just embellished it with mythical material, or did Matthew simply rewrite the story of Moses using Jesus as the central character?
My point is just that there is no reason to think there is any historical material here. The might be, but there is no reason to think that. What method would you use to extract a historical core from an interpretive paraphrase of the Old Testament meant to portray Jesus as fulfilling Old Testament scriptures?
p.s. For more about Jesus as “The New Moses,” see “Did Jesus Exist” by Bart Ehrman, pg. 198-99
The gospel of Matthew is using an interpretation of OT prophecy and applying it to the gospel Jesus.
Point 1) OT prophetic interpretation requires a physical, material, demonstration – not an invisible ‘spiritual’ fulfillment.
Point 2) Upholding an ahistoric position on the gospel Jesus does not negate that requirement.
Point 3) Physical reality, flesh and blood reality, historical realities, are relevant to any interpretation of OT prophecy.
Once one goes with the idea that the gospel story is all mythology, all allegory, all symbolism, one is in danger of creating a very subjective approach to the gospel story. i.e. that symbolism means what I say it means…..
On the other hand, when one has to demonstrate that ones interpretation of OT prophecy relates to some historical figure or historical event – then one allows others to check ones interpretation – and if they find value in it – then the subjective element is negated.
As to the gospel of Matthew and it’s infancy narrative relating to the OT story of Moses: see point 1) and point 2) above. Whether one is creating a story, as in a gospel story, with OT interpretations – or using OT interpretations to find meaning, ‘salvation history’, within historical events – the premise is the same. OT prophetic interpretation requires a material, flesh and blood, historical demonstration to have value. In other words; alongside all the gospel mythology and symbolism there is a political allegory. To imagine that the gospel writers, so true to the OT tradition of prophetic interpretations, would create a story devoid of political implications – would be to engage in nothing but wishful thinking…
With John Shelby Spong, I do believe there was an historical Jesus, just that his historical memory is lost behind a curtain of allusions to The Old Testament in the gospels.
In the synagogue, the Jews of Jeus’ time heard scriptures read, taught, discussed, or expounded. The vast majority of first century people could not read. So people didn`t own bibles. The Jews had access to their sacred stories in the synagogue. The memory of the historical Jesus would have there been recalled, restated, and passed on (in the synagogue). This would have shaped stories told about the historical Jesus to reflect The Old Testament stories. And the gospel stories may also be shaped in terms of Jewish liturgy. The crucifixion may be shaped against the passover. The transfiguration echoes Hanukkah. Many things are reminiscent of Rosh Hashanah.
So as it says in Acts, they would have read from the Torah, then from the former prophets (Joshua through Kings), and finally from the latter prohets (Isaiah through Malachi). At that point the synagogue leader would ask if anyone would like to bring any message or experience that might illumine the readings. So followers of Jesus would have then recalled their memories of Him which that Sabbath elicited. This is what Paul does in Acts (13:16b-41). They went through this process for about forty years during The Oral Period before the gospels were written.
Through this process of myth-making, Allusions to the Old Testament, religious celebrations, political ideas, and the like would have all been mixed in to the stories about the historical Jesus until historical memory and mythic fantasy became inseparable.
The key point is that the New Testament writers want to portray Jesus as fulfilling Old Testament scriptures (a process known as Haggadic Midrash):
(A) Hence Mark says:
1 The beginning of the good news about Jesus the Messiah, the Son of God, 2 as it is written in Isaiah the prophet:
“I will send my messenger ahead of you,
who will prepare your way”
3 “a voice of one calling in the wilderness,
‘Prepare the way for the Lord,
make straight paths for him.’
(B) Likewise, Paul says
For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, 4 and that He was buried, and that He was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures,… (1 Cor 15:3)
Whatever historical memory there once was, it is forever lost behind a curtain of myth.
john76 said
maryhelena said
john76 said
maryhelena said
@john76 wrote:”It was not a question of memory but of creative exegesis. Sometimes the signals that made particular scriptural texts attractive for this purpose are evident (like “my son” in Hosea 11:1), sometimes not. But in the end the result is a new perspective according to which we must view the gospels and Acts as analogous with the Book of Mormon, an inspiring pastiche of stories derived creatively from previous scriptures by a means of literary extrapolation”.
Undoubtedly, ”creative exegesis” was involved with the writing of the gospel story. The question is what else was involved in the creation of that story. After all, interpreting ”prophetic prooftexts” require some demonstration that ones interpretation is not all pie-in-the sky, not all ‘spiritual’. Prophetic history, salvation history, re the OT, deals with historical realities. Thus, ”creative exegesis” would be used to find some meaning within a historical context. Take away the historical context and ‘‘creative exegesis” becomes meaningless.
Whether one upholds a historicist or an ahistoricist position on the gospel Jesus – the ”creative exegesis” within that story requires a historical context for it to have any meaning, any relevance, for the gospel writers. It is a failure of many mythicists that they do not appreciate this fundamental requirement of interpretation of ”prophetic prooftexts”.
To take one example, Matthew’s Jesus infancy narrative recapitulates the story of Moses in the Old Testament.
Does this mean Matthew started with facts about the historical Jesus and just embellished it with mythical material, or did Matthew simply rewrite the story of Moses using Jesus as the central character?
My point is just that there is no reason to think there is any historical material here. The might be, but there is no reason to think that. What method would you use to extract a historical core from an interpretive paraphrase of the Old Testament meant to portray Jesus as fulfilling Old Testament scriptures?
p.s. For more about Jesus as “The New Moses,” see “Did Jesus Exist” by Bart Ehrman, pg. 198-99
The gospel of Matthew is using an interpretation of OT prophecy and applying it to the gospel Jesus.
Point 1) OT prophetic interpretation requires a physical, material, demonstration – not an invisible ‘spiritual’ fulfillment.
Point 2) Upholding an ahistoric position on the gospel Jesus does not negate that requirement.
Point 3) Physical reality, flesh and blood reality, historical realities, are relevant to any interpretation of OT prophecy.
Once one goes with the idea that the gospel story is all mythology, all allegory, all symbolism, one is in danger of creating a very subjective approach to the gospel story. i.e. that symbolism means what I say it means…..
On the other hand, when one has to demonstrate that ones interpretation of OT prophecy relates to some historical figure or historical event – then one allows others to check ones interpretation – and if they find value in it – then the subjective element is negated.
As to the gospel of Matthew and it’s infancy narrative relating to the OT story of Moses: see point 1) and point 2) above. Whether one is creating a story, as in a gospel story, with OT interpretations – or using OT interpretations to find meaning, ‘salvation history’, within historical events – the premise is the same. OT prophetic interpretation requires a material, flesh and blood, historical demonstration to have value. In other words; alongside all the gospel mythology and symbolism there is a political allegory. To imagine that the gospel writers, so true to the OT tradition of prophetic interpretations, would create a story devoid of political implications – would be to engage in nothing but wishful thinking…
With John Shelby Spong, I do believe there was an historical Jesus, just that his historical memory is lost behind a curtain of allusions to The Old Testament in the gospels.
In the synagogue, the Jews of Jeus’ time heard scriptures read, taught, discussed, or expounded. The vast majority of first century people could not read. So people didn`t own bibles. The Jews had access to their sacred stories in the synagogue. The memory of the historical Jesus would have there been recalled, restated, and passed on (in the synagogue). This would have shaped stories told about the historical Jesus to reflect The Old Testament stories. And the gospel stories may also be shaped in terms of Jewish liturgy. The crucifixion may be shaped against the passover. The transfiguration echoes Hanukkah. Many things are reminiscent of Rosh Hashanah.
So as it says in Acts, they would have read from the Torah, then from the former prophets (Joshua through Kings), and finally from the latter prohets (Isaiah through Malachi). At that point the synagogue leader would ask if anyone would like to bring any message or experience that might illumine the readings. So followers of Jesus would have then recalled their memories of Him which that Sabbath elicited. This is what Paul does in Acts (13:16b-41). They went through this process for about forty years during The Oral Period before the gospels were written.
Through this process of myth-making, Allusions to the Old Testament, religious celebrations, political ideas, and the like would have all been mixed in to the stories about the historical Jesus until historical memory and mythic fantasy became inseparable.
The key point is that the New Testament writers want to portray Jesus as fulfilling Old Testament scriptures (a process known as Haggadic Midrash):
(A) Hence Mark says:
1 The beginning of the good news about Jesus the Messiah, the Son of God, 2 as it is written in Isaiah the prophet:
“I will send my messenger ahead of you,
who will prepare your way”
3 “a voice of one calling in the wilderness,
‘Prepare the way for the Lord,
make straight paths for him.’(B) Likewise, Paul says
For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, 4 and that He was buried, and that He was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures,… (1 Cor 15:3)
Whatever historical memory there once was, it is forever lost behind a curtain of myth.
Once you acknowledge that there was ‘historical memory’ you have opened a history book. That means the search for early christian origins stretches into Jewish history – not simply going around in circles with interpretations of the gospel story. The question is memory of what? What was it in history that motivated, that inspired, the gospel writers to write their Jesus story. Yes, one can assume it was a historical gospel Jesus (of some variant). But that assumption cannot be verified. If the gospel Jesus was ahistorical – i.e. a literary creation – then the ‘historical memory’ that produced the gospel story is dealing with history. The gospel story makes a historical claim – a historical figure important to the gospel writers was executed, crucified, by Rome.
Nothing is lost – the ‘historical memory’ of the gospel writers is not behind a curtain of myth. It is to be found in a history book.
BDEhrman
FreedomBen
evgendob
Robert
1 Guest(s)