Why Galilee?

[Giuseppe]

Assumed that the my conclusion is that the Galilee was in no way connected with John the Baptist, being the latter the mere product of anti-Gnostic rivalry (even if a Baptizer existed) about who had to give the grace of salvation (if Jesus "the Son of Father" or the "YHWH-gives-grace") ;

Why was the Galilee introduced in the Gospel?

The connection is even more strong if one realizes that "Nazareth" is derived from "Ge-Nezareth", the lake of which is placed just in Galilee.

The Galilee is mentioned as opposed to Judea in John 7:1:

After this, Jesus went around in Galilee. He did not want to go about in Judea because the Jewish leaders there were looking for a way to kill him.

Again in 7:40-43:

On hearing his words, some of the people said, “Surely this man is the Prophet.”

41 Others said, “He is the Messiah.”

Still others asked, “How can the Messiah come from Galilee? 42 Does not Scripture say that the Messiah will come from David’s descendants and from Bethlehem, the town where David lived?” 43 Thus the people were divided because of Jesus. 44 Some wanted to seize him, but no one laid a hand on him.

And finally in verse 52:

They replied, “Are you from Galilee, too? Look into it, and you will find that a prophet does not come out of Galilee.”

Being John a marcionite gospel, was there some anti-Jewish meaning in a Messiah coming from the Galilee?

Add to this the my previous assumption that the story of the Denial of Peter was inserted in all the Gospels only after the writing of Acts of Apostles (since I can't believe that a Peter could kill Ananias and Sapphira for a betrayal when just himself was the champion of all the betrayers, even more I can't believe that the election of Matthias to replace Judas was decided - sic - by Peter).

Well: just in that story we read a particular accusation moved against the Judaizing Peter in Mark 14:66-72:

While Peter was below in the courtyard, one of the servant girls of the high priest came by. 67 When she saw Peter warming himself, she looked closely at him.

“You also were with that Nazarene, Jesus,” she said.

68 But he denied it. “I don’t know or understand what you’re talking about,” he said, and went out into the entryway.

69 When the servant girl saw him there, she said again to those standing around, “This fellow is one of them.” 70 Again he denied it.

After a little while, those standing near said to Peter, “Surely you are one of them, for you are a Galilean.”

71 He began to call down curses, and he swore to them, “I don’t know this man you’re talking about.”

72 Immediately the rooster crowed the second time. Then Peter remembered the word Jesus had spoken to him: “Before the rooster crows twiceyou will disown me three times.” And he broke down and wept.

There is some cruel irony or nemesis in the fact that just the Galilee denied by Peter as place of the his provenance (with Jesus) was precisely the place of the final victory of Jesus on Peter himself:

You will all fall away,” Jesus told them, “for it is written:

“‘I will strike the shepherd,
and the sheep will be scattered.’[d]

28 But after I have risen, I will go ahead of you into Galilee.”

Resuming, we have here a Gentile Christian who is going to denigrate the Judaizer Peter by simply remembering him that not only Jesus came FROM Galilee, but also Jesus will appear as risen TO Galilee.

A Jesus coming from Galilee can't be the davidic Messiah. This point is stressed again and again by the marcionite Fourth Gospel and is finally reiterated by the author of the Denial of Peter in Mark as part of an anti-petrine (=anti-Judaizing) denigration.

But in Mark there is already a Jesus who is NOT the davidic "King of the Jews": he is Barabbas.


And when the accusation is addressed against Peter:

“Surely you are one of them, for you are a Galilean.”

...one can't ignore the seditious popularity of Judas THE GALILEAN, hence the suspicion raised about Peter as a seditious of the same kind in virtue of the his presumed provenance from Galilee. Hence the main trait d'union between "Barabbas" and "Galilee" is not only the anti-davidic and anti-christic meaning connected with both "Barabbas" and "Galilee", but also the seditious feature connected with both "Barabbas" and "Galilee".

My conclusion is that the Galilee stands for the gentile lands where there was an increasing number of Gentile Christians dangerously inclined to reject not only the Torah, but also the same god of the Jews as their supreme god. As adorers of a Jesus Son of Father who was never called the Christ.

[Charles Wilson]

Giuseppe, you're going to bring me back if you are not careful.

1. Do you know who the Hasmoneans were?

2. Do you know that the Priests of the Mishmarot Priesthood were given Settlements in the Galilee for each of the 24 Groups of 1 Chronicles 24? Galilee figures prominently in the History of the area because of this. It is no surprise at all.

3. You may attempt to bury actual on-the-ground History if you want, in order to promote Gnosticism or some other self-contained later dogma but the fact is, the Galilee provides actual Settlements that would explain a "John" or a "Jesus" having had familiarity with the area.
***
It is not a surprise at all to find Hasmonean dominated Galilee inserted into the "Jesus Stories":

My conclusion is that the Galilee stands for the gentile lands where there was an increasing number of Gentile Christians dangerously inclined to reject not only the Torah, but also the same god of the Jews as their supreme god.

Better to look at the Decapolis for this.

CW

[Giuseppe]

Giuseppe, you're going to bring me back if you are not careful.

1. Do you know who the Hasmoneans were?

2. Do you know that the Priests of the Mishmarot Priesthood were given Settlements in the Galilee for each of the 24 Groups of 1 Chronicles 24? Galilee figures prominently in the History of the area because of this. It is no surprise at all.

3. You may attempt to bury actual on-the-ground History if you want, in order to promote Gnosticism or some other self-contained later dogma but the fact is, the Galilee provides actual Settlements that would explain a "John" or a "Jesus" having had familiarity with the area.
***
It is not a surprise at all to find Hasmonean dominated Galilee inserted into the "Jesus Stories":

My conclusion is that the Galilee stands for the gentile lands where there was an increasing number of Gentile Christians dangerously inclined to reject not only the Torah, but also the same god of the Jews as their supreme god.

Better to look at the Decapolis for this.

CW

You are ignoring completely - completely! I say - the connection made by me above between the seditious flavor of the epithet "Galilean" addressed against Peter denier of Jesus and the seditious flavor connected with Barabbas aka "Son of Father".

You are unable to like that because you are basically a historicist and you talk and reason as a historicist. I can't realize, for no reason of the world, why Neil put you in the list of mythicists.

[Giuseppe]

Basically, the core of the my proof is that:

if you already accept that "Bar-Abbas" allegorizes a figure outside the Jewish world, outside the Jewish beliefs, outside Judea,

then you have to accept that the same thing holds true for the any meaning of "Galilee" in the Gospels.



Features shared by both Galilee and Bar-Abbas:

• being not connected with the Jewish "king of Jews"

• being connected with a reputation of sedition.

[neilgodfrey]

My conclusion is that the Galilee stands for the gentile lands where there was an increasing number of Gentile Christians dangerously inclined to reject not only the Torah, but also the same god of the Jews as their supreme god. As adorers of a Jesus Son of Father who was never called the Christ.

So it is coincidence, and nothing more, that we read in Isaiah 9:1 that a saving light would come to Galilee of the nations/gentiles, by the way of the sea.... ?

[Giuseppe]

My conclusion is that the Galilee stands for the gentile lands where there was an increasing number of Gentile Christians dangerously inclined to reject not only the Torah, but also the same god of the Jews as their supreme god. As adorers of a Jesus Son of Father who was never called the Christ.

So it is coincidence, and nothing more, that we read in Isaiah 9:1 that a saving light would come to Galilee of the nations/gentiles, by the way of the sea.... ?

Isaiah 9:9:

Nevertheless, there will be no more gloom for those who were in distress. In the past he humbled the land of Zebulun and the land of Naphtali, but in the future he will honor Galilee of the nations, by the Way of the Sea, beyond the Jordan—

No, it is not a coincidence.

addenda: the my precise point is that the Galilee was added as allegory of the gentile world, a not-Jewish world. The Gospel "Galilee" is void of historical reality just as the figure of Barabbas is void of historical references to real Zealots. Even if both connected somewhat with Zealots.

[Charles Wilson]

You are unable to like that because you are basically a historicist and you talk and reason as a historicist. I can't realize, for no reason of the world, why Neil put you in the list of mythicists.

1. Relax, Giuseppe.

We see the world differently. As to why I've been placed in one Group or the other, I have no idea. I can't explain anyone's behavior these days.
I do not believe that there was a "Jesus". I believe that there was a Mishmarot Priest who was rewritten by the Romans into the "Jesus" character. Does that make me "Historicist"? I believe that the Intro of John, which states that "Jesus" was Pre-Existing for all time, was an Interpolation. Does that make me a "Mythicist"? I don't know why people write what they do.

2.

You are ignoring completely - completely! I say - the connection made by me above between the seditious flavor of the epithet "Galilean" addressed against Peter denier of Jesus and the seditious flavor connected with Barabbas aka "Son of Father".

I don't ignore the connection. I believe it to be false. There is no "Connection". At this point we are arguing over Symbolic Assignments and that is troublesome, even on days when my meds are stabilized. The "Galileans" are seditious because, IN THE ORIGINAL (as I see it...) the Mishmarot Priesthood houses those who would drive the Herodians and Romans out of Jerusalem and the Temple.

There is no "Link" to the "Barabbas Story" because the Barabbas Story comes from Josephus.

I apologize for the length of this quote. It does, however, give the support for the contention that various sources, including Josephus, were included in the manufacture of the NT. I believe the Barabbas Story comes, Historically Speaking, from this:

Josephus, Antiquities..., 18, 2, 4:

"About this time died Phraates, King of the Parthians, by the treachery of Phraataces his son: upon the occasion following. When Phraates had had legitimate sons of his own, he had also an Italian maid servant, whose name was Thermusa; who had been formerly sent to him by Julius Cesar, among other presents. He first made her his concubine: but he being a great admirer of her beauty, in process of time having a son by her, whose name was Phraataces, he made her his legitimate wife, and had a great respect for her. Now, she was able to persuade him to do any thing that she said; and was earnest in procuring the government of Parthia for her son. But still she saw that her endeavours would not succeed, unless she could contrive how to remove Phraates’s legitimate sons [out of the Kingdom.] So she persuaded him to send those his sons, as pledges of his fidelity to Rome. And they were sent to Rome accordingly: because it was not easy for him to contradict her commands. Now while Phraataces was alone brought up in order to succeed in the government, he thought it very tedious to expect that government by his father’s donation [as his successor.] He therefore formed a treacherous design against his father, by his mother’s assistance: with whom, as the report went, he had criminal conversation also. So he was hated for both these vices: while his subjects esteemed this [wicked] love of his mother, to be no way inferior to his parricide: and he was by them in a sedition expelled out of the country, before he grew too great, and died. [About A.D. 4.] But as the best sort of Parthians agreed together, that it was impossible they should be governed without a King; while also it was their constant practice to choose one of the family of Arsaces: (nor did their law allow of any others: and they thought this Kingdom had been sufficiently injured already by the marriage with an Italian concubine, and by her issue:) they sent ambassadors, and called Orodes [to take the crown.] For the multitude would not otherwise have born them. And though he were accused of very great cruelty, and was of an intractable temper, and prone to wrath, yet still he was one of the family of Arsaces. [A.D. 8.] However, they made a conspiracy against him, and slew him: and that, as some say, at a festival, and among their sacrifices; (for ’tis the universal custom there to carry their swords with them.) But as the more general report is, they slew him when they had drawn him out a hunting. So they sent ambassadors to Rome; and desired they would send one of those that were there as pledges, to be their King. Accordingly Vonones was preferred before the rest, and sent to them. (For he seemed capable of such great fortune, which two of the greatest Kingdoms under the sun now offered him; his own and a foreign one.) [About A.D. 10-12.] However the barbarians soon changed their minds: they being naturally of a mutable disposition: upon the supposal, that this man was not worthy to be their governor. For they could not think of obeying the commands of one that had been a slave: for so they called those that had been hostages; nor could they bear the ignominy of that name: and this was the more intolerable, because then the Parthians must have such a King set over them, not by right of war, but in time of peace. So they presently invited Artabanus, King of Media, to be their King, he being also of the race of Arsaces. Artabanus complyed with the offer that was made him: and came to them with an army. So Vonones met him: and at first the multitude of the Parthians stood on this side, and he put his army in array: but Artabanus was beaten, and fled to the mountains of Media. Yet did he a little after gather a great army together, and fought with Vonones, and beat him. Whereupon Vonones fled away on horseback, with a few of his attendants about him, to Seleucia [Upon Tigris]. So when Artabanus had slain a great number, and this after he had gotten the victory; by reason of the very great dismay the barbarians were in; he retired to Ctesiphon, with a great number of his people. And so he now reigned over the Parthians. But Vonones fled away to Armenia. And as soon as he came thither, he had an inclination to have the government of the country given him; and sent ambassadors to Rome [for that purpose.] But because Tiberius refused it him; and because he wanted courage, and because the Parthian King threatened him, and sent ambassadors to him to denounce war against him if he proceeded: and because he had no way to take to regain any other Kingdom: for the people of authority among the Armenians about Niphates joined themselves to Artabanus: he delivered up himself to Silanus, the president of Syria. [A.D. 18.] Who out of regard to his education at Rome kept him in Syria, while Artabanus gave Armenia to Orodes, one of his own sons..."

Over and over I see that, rather than invent a savior-god history out of whole cloth, the originators of the NT used the advantage of theft over honest toil. They took Stories that appeared important to the Judean populace (Mishmarot Priesthood, the Death of 3000 at the Passover of 4 BCE and the subsequent cancellation of Passover, Jannaeus and Salome, etc.) and rewrote the Stories into stories of a savior-god loyal to Rome.

The Transvaluation worked in a spectacular manner. Gnosticism came later or, at best, appeared after the deification of Titus. Once you have convinced some that "Secret Knowledge" is held, it becomes easy to redirect that secret knowledge as being held by others, in this case, the Roman Court.

Keep doing what you're doing, Giuseppe, just don't use a shotgun for everything. It's why I Posted here this time. It's not that "It's established that...". I know that better than anyone here, Mytho-Historicist that I am.

Best,

CW