GakuseiDon wrote: ↑Fri Nov 09, 2018 3:08 pm
Not that I'm really floating it as a possibility, but I'd wondered how you would respond when someone uses your own methods against your readings.
Frankly I don't understand your point, here.
But here I see surely a mistake:
Again, let me use your own methods to interpret the passages. For argument's sake, lets assume that Paul and the AoI mean "demons" in those passages. Let's assume that they have an allegorical meaning.
If Paul and pseudo-Isaiah mean ''demons' in those passages, then they are only demons, they can't mean another entity. Paul and pseudo-Isaiah aren't allegorizing nothing. They are saying that demons killed Jesus. Period.
Who is allegorizing, instead, is gMark, as you write:
According to Dr Carrier (page 560 of OHJ), gMark 'euhemerizes' the demons to becoming Jesus' earthly enemies. Also, gMark equates 'demons' with Roman soldiers in the 'Legion' story.
Now, the following thing is
not possible even under the best historicist case:
So reverse the allegorizing. When Paul and the AoI refer to the "demons" crucifying Jesus, Paul and the AoI author mean "Jews" and/or "Romans", with Herod or Pilate being the "god of that world".
The entire consensus assumes that the archons are demons. So they aren't allegory of Romans or Jews. As historicist, I may say rather that Paul and pseudo-Isaiah mean that the archons are behind the Romans and/or Jews who killed Jesus. But 'to be behind
X' is
not 'to allegorize
X'.
Your mistake is to confuse the two things: if, for Paul and pseudo-Isaiah, a demon is factually behind Pilate, then the demon is
n't allegorizing Pilate and Pilate is
n't allegorizing the demon.
The following thing is correct, since only gMark is who is allegorizing who:
gMark's story about the man with the demons (which get put into pigs) is an allegory about actual Roman soldiers. So we see demons being equated to Romans.
Now, your following interpretation is completely
impossible (and I would say this even if I was historicist):
So:
And the god of that world [Satan] will stretch forth his hand against the Son, and they [the demons] will crucify Him on a tree, and will slay Him not knowing who He is.
becomes:
And the god of that world [Herod/Pilate] will stretch forth his hand against the Son, and they [the Romans/Jews] will crucify Him on a tree, and will slay Him not knowing who He is.
...since when Paul or pseudo-Isaiah say ''demons', they mean 'demons'. Period. Not other beings. As historicist, I may say that Paul is assuming implicitly that, when he says 'demons kill Jesus', then he is assuming 'the demons, by using the romans, kill Jesus'. But this is
absolutely not the same thing of saying: 'the demons allegorize the Romans who killed Jesus'.
How would you argue against that?
As you see, your error is to believe that the Christians are allegorizing when they say that demons kill Jesus. No, they mean
precisely that thing, beyond if Jesus existed or not (historically).
ETA: Now that I am getting into the idea: In the same vein you could argue that when Paul writes 'Satan', he means earthly authority like the Roman Emperor.
No, no! When Paul writes 'Satan', then he means 'Satan', period. You are joking
wildly with the confusion 'the demons kill Jesus' = 'the demons allegorize Romans who kill Jesus'. But it is a wrong equation.
Putin who is behind Donald Trump is not the same thing of Putin who allegorizes Trump.
The demons who work behind Pilate is not the same thing of demons who allegorize Pilate.
One could even argue that Paul and the AoI are using coded language to hide the real anti-Roman meanings. 'Deliver to Satan for destruction!' = turn over to the Roman authorities. 'Satan put a thorn in my side' = Roman authorities hindered me. Just turn all cosmic-sounding passages into earthly ones. The power of allegory compels you!
This is wrong. The allegory don't work with Paul. Earl Doherty criticized Thomas Verenna since the latter wrote an academic article where he was abounding in expressions like yours, of the kind ''Paul allegorizes
X by saying
Y'. No, no, Paul means
precisely and
FACTUALLY what he says.
He is not an allegorist. The only time Paul is an allegorist is in Gal 4:4 ('born by woman, born under the Law'), always assuming that the passage is not anti-marcionite.