Those stupid disciples!

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
Giuseppe
Posts: 13732
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: Those stupid disciples!

Post by Giuseppe »

davidlau17 wrote: Mon Jun 17, 2019 5:02 am It says that Martin Klatt edited (deleted) his opening post around an hour before I posted my response on Saturday - but the OP was still up hours after I posted. I usually wouldn't care, but it makes me look like a bit of jackass here.
He did the same thing with me, in this thread. I 'm sorry, since I like to read the his posts, even more so since he is clearly a Mythicist.
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.
Charles Wilson
Posts: 2100
Joined: Thu Apr 03, 2014 8:13 am

Re: Those stupid disciples!

Post by Charles Wilson »

outhouse wrote: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:02 am You have to think, why they were portrayed as cowards who betrayed him, denied him, and never understood him. Even his family is portrayed as not understanding him.

There had to be negative Aramaic traditions that went against the whole NT traditions. The NT text would have been a perversion of what Jesus actually taught after being baptized by John and continuing Johns teachings. Hellenistic Judaism of the NT was a perversion of pious Aramaic Judaism.
Beautifully stated, outhouse. The second paragraphs contains the Epistemological Problems. When you state:
There had to be negative Aramaic traditions that went against the whole NT traditions
you are implying that the "Aramaic traditions..." were rewritten texts that were changed to support the idea that the "Aramaic Players" were deprecated for the rewritten NT. For me, I would see the next sentence as:
The NT text would have been a perversion of what [the Priest] actually taught after being baptized by John and continuing John's teachings
The Temple Sacrifice System was "Ordained by God, who Blessed David" ( 1Chronicles 24). It would not occur (I assert) to the Priests that such a System was to be "Done Away". The Corrupt High Priests, now Appointive by the Romans and Herodians, would have been challenged, as they in fact were.
Hellenistic Judaism of the NT was a perversion of pious Aramaic Judaism.
You have been consistent through the years in asserting this and I believe your Thesis should stand as "Verified". We could go round 'n round over whether a "Jesus" actually did exist (rather than simply *A Priest*) but you are correct in regards to Intent. The Hellenistic Core was centered in the cities and Jerusalem. The Priesthood had Settlements given to them in Galilee (Leibner, Elizur) as their Base and it could all be Transvalued into a Cult of a savior/god with Roman Sensibilities. "You rebel against Jesus and his Teaching because your minds are enfeebled and you do not understand."

CW
User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 8994
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: Those stupid disciples!

Post by Ben C. Smith »

davidlau17 wrote: Mon Jun 17, 2019 5:02 am It says that Martin Klatt edited (deleted) his opening post around an hour before I posted my response on Saturday - but the OP was still up hours after I posted. I usually wouldn't care, but it makes me look like a bit of jackass here.
Go through his overall post history (there are only 56 right now) and you will see that most of his posts have been blanked out like that. And this is not a recent phenomenon: his very first post on the forum was posted on April 9, 2018, and then edited down to nothing on April 24, 2018. By my reckoning, as of this moment, only 10 of his 56 posts retain any content, and in three of those cases that content consists of a single emoticon.
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ
davidlau17
Posts: 141
Joined: Wed May 29, 2019 9:45 am

Re: Those stupid disciples!

Post by davidlau17 »

Ben C. Smith wrote: Mon Jun 17, 2019 8:28 am Go through his overall post history (there are only 56 right now) and you will see that most of his posts have been blanked out like that. And this is not a recent phenomenon: his very first post on the forum was posted on April 9, 2018, and then edited down to nothing on April 24, 2018. By my reckoning, as of this moment, only 10 of his 56 posts retain any content, and in three of those cases that content consists of a single emoticon.
Giuseppe wrote: Mon Jun 17, 2019 8:08 am He did the same thing with me, in this thread. I 'm sorry, since I like to read the his posts, even more so since he is clearly a Mythicist.
Hmm, I see. Well he's a guy who stays true to his signature; I'll give him that.
I always felt that a scientist owes the world only one thing, and that is the truth as he sees it. - Hans Eysenck
outhouse
Posts: 3577
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 6:48 pm

Re: Those stupid disciples!

Post by outhouse »

Charles Wilson wrote: Mon Jun 17, 2019 8:11 am
#1 you are implying that the "Aramaic traditions..." were rewritten texts


#2 The Hellenistic Core was centered in the cities and Jerusalem.
A little clarification on my hypothesis.

#1 ------Not rewritten text, had that been the case we would have much more Aramaic transliterations.

I do not see any Aramaic textual traditions from John or Jesus which would have just been a continuation of the same movement after Johns murder.


#2 my hypothesis has no traditions from Jerusalem what so ever. Let alone the center. The NT in whole is devoid of evidence from Israel less gentiles and Proselytes who went to Passover and returned home with new mythology and theology. The NT is a product 100% of the diaspora as to where collected traditions were compiled.

I see the Jerusalem house, as a house a Thomas and Peter may have visited during Passover and or stayed during the celebrations, and or the residents heard lets say a single speech one time by said people. As you know it was the norm to use famous names to build authority in ones text. Aramaic Galileans in no way could have had a permanent house in a Hellenistic city like Jerusalem where Galileans would have stuck out like a sore thumb on a daily basis, let alone a perceived heretical sect. This so called Jerusalem sect in my eye's were just Koine speaking Hellenist that held a Jewish based slight version of Jesus martyrdom, not a single tradition from this house exist, less Pauls visit, in which I believe he did converse with the Hellenist there, but I do not trust the Pauline account of said events. I do not view any Aramaic traditions originating here, or leaving there, and I do not view it as the center of anything. I view multiple centers of origin in the Diaspora solely based on Hellenist who visited Passover and returned home with evolving theology.
Charles Wilson
Posts: 2100
Joined: Thu Apr 03, 2014 8:13 am

Re: Those stupid disciples!

Post by Charles Wilson »

Thank you for the Clarifications, outhouse. I apologize for the mis-characterizations. As we have disagreed through the years, so it appears now.
Life's tough sometimes.

One larger disagreement, however:
Aramaic Galileans in no way could have had a permanent house in a Hellenistic city like Jerusalem where Galileans would have stuck out like a sore thumb on a daily basis
Actually, there was. The Priests were given Settlements in Galilee and would rotate into Jerusalem for Mishmarot Service at appropriate times for their week's Service. Their "House" appears to have been Antonia. There are several entrances to the Temple and one of them is at the "Chamber of the Hearth".

In the "Denial of Peter" Stories:

John 18: 16 - 18 (RSV):

[16] while Peter stood outside at the door. So the other disciple, who was known to the high priest, went out and spoke to the maid who kept the door, and brought Peter in.
[17] The maid who kept the door said to Peter, "Are not you also one of this man's disciples?" He said, "I am not."

Rather non-descript. Somehow, "The Maid" knows something about Peter. NOTE: Peter is allowed in and "In" means he is in the Chamber of the Flames. Only the Priests and select others can get into the Chamber of the Flames. Therefore, Peter is Priestly AND Galilean.

Mark 14: 66 - 70 (RSV):

[66] And as Peter was below in the courtyard, one of the maids of the high priest came;
[67] and seeing Peter warming himself, she looked at him, and said, "You also were with the Nazarene, Jesus."
[68] But he denied it, saying, "I neither know nor understand what you mean." And he went out into the gateway.
[69] And the maid saw him, and began again to say to the bystanders, "This man is one of them."
[70] But again he denied it. And after a little while again the bystanders said to Peter, "Certainly you are one of them; for you are a Galilean."

More of the Puzzle revealed. Peter could have been dressed as a Galilean would have been dressed, for example, but something identifies Peter as "Galilean".

Luke 22:

[56] Then a maid, seeing him as he sat in the light and gazing at him, said, "This man also was with him."
[57] But he denied it, saying, "Woman, I do not know him."
[58] And a little later some one else saw him and said, "You also are one of them." But Peter said, "Man, I am not."
[59] And after an interval of about an hour still another insisted, saying, "Certainly this man also was with him; for he is a Galilean."

Something is hidden here as more is revealed. In John and Mark, the Functions of the Maid are given: She keeps the door into the Chamber of the Flames from the Chamber of the Hearth and she is a Functionary of the High Priest Apparatus. She is merely "A Maid" in Luke, perhaps a function of the distance in time from compositions of Mark and John compared to Luke.

Which brings us to Matthew (who hides as much as anyone, in my view):

Matthew 26: 59 - 73 (RSV):

[69] Now Peter was sitting outside in the courtyard. And a maid came up to him, and said, "You also were with Jesus the Galilean."
[70] But he denied it before them all, saying, "I do not know what you mean."
[71] And when he went out to the porch, another maid saw him, and she said to the bystanders, "This man was with Jesus of Nazareth."
[72] And again he denied it with an oath, "I do not know the man."
[73] After a little while the bystanders came up and said to Peter, "Certainly you are also one of them, for your accent betrays you."

To me, the evidence is overwhelming. To you, not so much.

"Certainly you are also one of them, for your accent betrays you.

I discern, from quite a few previous Posts, Peter was from Galilee, of Priestly Origins, from the town of Jabnit, which town believed the Dynastic Hasmoneans came from them. This belief was shared by Jehoiarib from the Settlement of Meiron, just up the (very "Rocky") road. ...And so on.

Therefore, there was a place for Galileans in Jerusalem (Antonia) and the reason for this was that the Priesthood lived in Galilee and - with Hegelian Dynamics - absorbed parts of the Galilean Culture and in this instance, speech patterns, which became apparent when the Priesthood rotated into Jerusalem for Mishmarot.

I still agree with you on the general thrust of the Hellenistic Argument, if not in all its details.

Best,

CW
outhouse
Posts: 3577
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 6:48 pm

Re: Those stupid disciples!

Post by outhouse »

Charles Wilson wrote: Mon Jun 17, 2019 12:04 pm The Priests were given Settlements in Galilee and would rotate into Jerusalem for Mishmarot Service at appropriate times for their week's Service.
I don't know if this is correct or not.

So the Pharisees were a divided group, between the Hellenistic Pharisees who worked with Romans to oppress the Aramaic peasant class.

You also had Pharisees that mirrored Zealots from Galilee, as the school at that time was anti Hellenism/gentile.

Either way Jerusalem was a Hellenistic city like Sepphoris and Tiberius where Zealots/Galileans would have stood out like a sore thumb.

All Aramaic Galileans were stereotyped as trouble makers, the temple was always on shaky ground, so they would have been on the look out for trouble makes constantly.
outhouse
Posts: 3577
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 6:48 pm

Re: Those stupid disciples!

Post by outhouse »

Charles Wilson wrote: Mon Jun 17, 2019 12:04 pm

In the "Denial of Peter" Stories:

CW
I view them in whole as fictional. These are things people far removed from Israel are quoting based on Hellenist who ""may"" have visited the temple 0-50 years after it fell during Passover. And anywhere from 35-65 years after crucifixion and the reported events. I find no basis in historicity when dealing with details beyond a hidden minimalistic historical core.
Charles Wilson
Posts: 2100
Joined: Thu Apr 03, 2014 8:13 am

Re: Those stupid disciples!

Post by Charles Wilson »

outhouse wrote: Mon Jun 17, 2019 1:57 pmI view them in whole as fictional. These are things people far removed from Israel are quoting based on Hellenist who ""may"" have visited the temple 0-50 years after it fell during Passover. And anywhere from 35-65 years after crucifixion and the reported events. I find no basis in historicity when dealing with details beyond a hidden minimalistic historical core.
You get no argument from me on this one. I don't believe that there was a "Historical Jesus" in the way we usually think of this person at this time. You do. However, there appears to be a "Minimalistic Historical Core" with Peter's Denial: The event occurs at the "Chamber of the Hearth" at the doorway to the "Chamber of the Flames". How many would know about the circular construction that housed the Chamber of the Hearth, where Priests could sleep and "rest their feet" while Sitting and Reclining? How many would know about the Chamber of the Flames, where Priests could not sit?

Not many. Zakkai and the few survivors. In fact, the farther you get from Jerusalem the fewer who would know. The Priests in Galilee. Rome.

The Minimal Core supports the idea that someone or few KNEW about the workings of the Priesthood and the Mishmarot Rotations, the Construction of the Temple and Functions of the various Groups that supported the Temple Cult. If I have the strength and time I'm going to Re-Post portions of Leibner (Settlement and History in Hellenistic, Roman, and Byzantine Galilee, ISBN-13: 978-3161498718, ISBN-10: 3161498712) concerning the List of Settlements paired with the Lists of Priests from 1 Chronicles 24), including the Piyyut mentioning that the Mishmarot Group Immer came from Jabnit.

From this MInimal Core might have come a Story of a Priest at Passover in Jerusalem who was saved by Peter. He returns 12 years later and is Crucified.
The End.

Does this mean that there was an Original Story that was TRUE? No. All we have is the Literature and, to me, this Story was dismembered and rewritten for the Glory of the Flavians. There may have been a Story that was Ironic and Noir and possibly true. Maybe not.
I find no basis in historicity when dealing with details beyond a hidden minimalistic historical core.
You think I'm gonna disagree with that?
outhouse
Posts: 3577
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 6:48 pm

Re: Those stupid disciples!

Post by outhouse »

Charles Wilson wrote: Mon Jun 17, 2019 2:42 pm concerning the List of Settlements paired with the Lists of Priests from 1 Chronicles 24),
That's my problem with mishmarot, its from a time when Israel and its temple was ruled differently. For the majority of their descriptions.

Now im not saying traditions did not exist first century, I think josephus mentions partial recognition. And I don't trust the Talumud much either.

For first century, they were not of any power as the Sadducees ran the money aspects of the Temple, and at that time the temple was controlled by Hellenistic puppet Caiaphas and Pilate. The same way Galilee was ruled by a Hellenistic client king Herod. Oppressed Israelite priest would have been feckless and powerless
Post Reply