Greek Court Ordering in John

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
Charles Wilson
Posts: 1518
Joined: Thu Apr 03, 2014 8:13 am

Re: Greek Court Ordering in John

Post by Charles Wilson » Tue Jul 28, 2020 2:29 pm

Stuart --

As always, I am not trying to be argumentative in a negative sense. You are constructing a Consistent Structure from your evidence and that might be all we may achieve - Giuseppe, of course, being the exception... :lol:
Stuart wrote:
Tue Jul 28, 2020 1:02 pm
I do agree that the NT source includes Josephus, but not at all for the reasons you think.

There was no deliberate plot in their usage, but rather that the writers of the NT --and I mean specifically the Gospels and Acts, which are after the letters for the most part-- had essentially zero knowledge of the Palestinian region.
Not Nicholas of Dasmascus! He was Rome's Political Control Officer over Herod and he was there for 20 years and more. Further, his brother was Ptolemy and Ptolemy carried Herod's Seal, a fact important to the four or five days after Herod's death!

I am not necessarily a Greekie and NoD is the main reason. He COULD have written the Main Material that became the NT, even if wasn't aware of it. He certainly had knowledge, as well as Means, Motive and Opportunity. He furnished much of what Josephus wrote about, Josephus' material falling off at the point where NoD's descriptions of Archelaus ends.

Evidence but not Proof but there were people who KNEW about the area and its History. I believe that much of their knowledge has been hidden.
And equally they had no real information about the actual founders and their lives. So they drew names and places from these sources to fill in the blanks. And filing in the blanks and placing the leaders origins in Palestine was critical, since they drew their authority from a figure and a religion (Judaism) based there.
I think you may have overstepped your data here. Suppose Nicholas - or Zakkai! - are under orders to complete a Religion that results in the Picture of a savior/god loyal to Rome. There may have been an overwrite of a Story found in the rubble of Jerusalem or a work of Fiction created by Nicholas of Damascus. Perhaps the document was Cut 'n Pasted by Mark and later by John? I am overstepping my evidence here but at least there are evidences that there WERE people who were there at that time.
In truth the founders were largely anonymous, and I suggest not even Jewish ethnic, but disciples of earlier Jewish ascetics who had founded monastic like communities in the Greek speaking regions of the Mediterranean.
Mmmm, maybe. More likely, to me, is that Judaism was a Threat- and a different Type of Threat - than Hannibal or that Parthians. Hannibal did not attack Rome. Fifteen years is a long time to occupy foreign soil and not finish the job. The Parthians are another story.
There is no logic in Flavian Rome creating a replacement religion.
OHHH, there most certainly is! BIG TIME!!! "Could there be a way to get the Jews to worship Caesar without them even knowing it?"
Christianity's beginnings are the result of some offshoot in the sticks, far from the two places (Palestine and Rome) where it would have been shot down before it started...The founders of Christianity were similarly "nobodies." There is no need for any conspiracy, no need for close Palestinian connection, no need for important people of the day to be involved in some skunk works religious start up project.
Disagree completely.
We read important people into Acts from Josephus, not because they were, but because the writers of Acts and the Gospels borrowed characters from Josephus. It's literary fiction.
Agreed. The argument is over how Christianity got to the position it has. There is, to me, overwhelming evidence that the NT was written by people who knew what had happened. They were there and wrote Obliquely of what they saw. There is overwhelming evidence, to you, that this accretion of what became seen as truthful Testimony, was a product of a Culture that created a religion 150 - 200 years after the supposed events occurred.

Consistent Interpretation is about as far as we can get - unless we could agree as a beginning about the "Facts on the Ground".
Any opinion on "Nicholas of Damascus" as a start?

Best,

CW

Stuart
Posts: 584
Joined: Mon Apr 14, 2014 12:24 am
Location: Sunnyvale, CA

Re: Greek Court Ordering in John

Post by Stuart » Thu Jul 30, 2020 1:54 pm

Charles Wilson wrote:
Tue Jul 28, 2020 2:29 pm
Stuart wrote:
Tue Jul 28, 2020 1:02 pm
I do agree that the NT source includes Josephus, but not at all for the reasons you think.

There was no deliberate plot in their usage, but rather that the writers of the NT --and I mean specifically the Gospels and Acts, which are after the letters for the most part-- had essentially zero knowledge of the Palestinian region.
Not Nicholas of Dasmascus! He was Rome's Political Control Officer over Herod and he was there for 20 years and more. Further, his brother was Ptolemy and Ptolemy carried Herod's Seal, a fact important to the four or five days after Herod's death!

I am not necessarily a Greekie and NoD is the main reason. He COULD have written the Main Material that became the NT, even if wasn't aware of it. He certainly had knowledge, as well as Means, Motive and Opportunity. He furnished much of what Josephus wrote about, Josephus' material falling off at the point where NoD's descriptions of Archelaus ends.

Evidence but not Proof but there were people who KNEW about the area and its History. I believe that much of their knowledge has been hidden.
There is zero evidence of any of what you are claiming here. A lot of "COULD HAVE" is not even close proof. All you have done is pluck a name and assign it importance to a religion which he has no known ties. This is conspiracy theory 101. Your attempting to shift the burden of proof. You need to build a rather detailed case of this Nicholas and his interest in and development of Christianity.

You claim means and motive, but I question both. Such an enterprise, to try and ground swell a religion as oppose to decree a cult and force worship (common practice for king based religions), seems too complicated and too indirect for one not having a personal revelation (Compare Gautama Siddhartha, Mani/Manes, Muhammad or even Joseph Smith) -- I suppose you'll ad hoc argue Paul/Simon was drafted for that role. It would take an unusual and uncanny modern understanding of the mechanics of launching a new religion, rather than the manic drive of an individual. No other evangelic religion was manufactured from a citadel (but give Xi Jinping credit for attempting in China right now; but his route is more similar to the Roman Caesars in trying to revive the old philosophies).

There is also a major inherent hole in your conspiracy theory. How did the movement go from a royal court or Roman government office to remote ascetic communities that were steeped in OT exegesis of a savior? How did he find an army of people ready to join his novelty cult? Who funded it? Why was it dispersed throughout the Mediterranean and seemingly concentrated in the relatively spare Jewish population areas of Asia Minor and Greece? To go from a the royal palace to the harsh terms of the disciples sent forth in the gospels and Acts, not to mention the Didache, is a bridge too far, or rather several bridges too far.

It's hard to believe anything other than a direct Caesar worship cult would ever come from an Imperial source. This is too clever by half, on par with 9-11 conspiracy theories.
“’That was excellently observed’, say I, when I read a passage in an author, where his opinion agrees with mine. When we differ, there I pronounce him to be mistaken.” - Jonathan Swift

User avatar
Joseph D. L.
Posts: 1183
Joined: Sat Nov 11, 2017 2:10 am

Re: Greek Court Ordering in John

Post by Joseph D. L. » Thu Jul 30, 2020 2:20 pm

I think we're all conspiracy theorists of sorts. I think the only way to discuss early Christian origins is to acknowledge some shady dealings were going on.

User avatar
Joseph D. L.
Posts: 1183
Joined: Sat Nov 11, 2017 2:10 am

Re: Greek Court Ordering in John

Post by Joseph D. L. » Thu Jul 30, 2020 2:36 pm

On another note, I have become interested in Nicodemus of Damascus as of late, but because I think whoever was co-opting Josephus (cough cough Hegesippus cough cough) was just taking these characters (honestly who knows how accurate their portrayals are?) and applying them to his Christianized historical fiction.

Charles Wilson
Posts: 1518
Joined: Thu Apr 03, 2014 8:13 am

Re: Greek Court Ordering in John

Post by Charles Wilson » Thu Jul 30, 2020 4:09 pm

Stuart wrote:
Thu Jul 30, 2020 1:54 pm
A lot of "COULD HAVE" is not even close proof. All you have done is pluck a name and assign it importance to a religion which he has no known ties.
If that is what you believe I have done then this conversation is over. There is a Story here and NoD is only ONE possibility. All I have done is consider the Logistics of NoD, a writer and important Political Control Officer for Rome, as a possible source for what we see in the NT. The question is whether Christianity was written from whole cloth or stolen from the debris of the destruction of the Temple and Country in 70.

I vote for the "advantage of theft over honest toil" option. The Romans did it. You don't see it that way. That tells something about you, not me.
You need to build a rather detailed case of this Nicholas and his interest in and development of Christianity.
To the ends of the evidence I have. BTW, Nick would [probably] not have had an interest in creating a Transvalued religion. His interests were in controlling Herod and protecting Roman Interests, especially in regards to Archelaus at the Temple Slaughter of 4 BCE. See also the current Thread on Ptolemy, Herod's brother.
You claim means and motive, but I question both. Such an enterprise, to try and ground swell a religion as oppose to decree a cult and force worship (common practice for king based religions), seems too complicated and too indirect for one not having a personal revelation (Compare Gautama Siddhartha, Mani/Manes, Muhammad or even Joseph Smith)
You haven't provided a groundswell of evidence for your suppositions here either
I suppose you'll ad hoc argue Paul/Simon was drafted for that role.
Proving that you have no real understanding of what I have argued for a decade and a half. Why not read what I have actually written? "Paul" is based on Mucianus, Procurator of Syria, who was in a bitch-slapping feud with Vespasian. He meets with Titus and Titus convinces Mucianus to throw in with Vespasian. Vespasian takes Alexandria and controls the grain with the idea of starving Rome if necessary while Mucianus goes around The Pontus. Antonius Primus is eliminated as a threat and Mucianus hands Imperial Power over to Vespasian.

BTW, Mucianus is one of Possibles for NT Authorship as well. Acts is about Mucianus and the 12th Legion.
There is also a major inherent hole in your conspiracy theory. How did the movement go from a royal court or Roman government office to remote ascetic communities that were steeped in OT exegesis of a savior? How did he find an army of people ready to join his novelty cult? Who funded it? Why was it dispersed throughout the Mediterranean and...
John 11: 48 - 50 (RSV):

[48] If we let him go on thus, every one will believe in him, and the Romans will come and destroy both our holy place and our nation."
[49] But one of them, Ca'iaphas, who was high priest that year, said to them, "You know nothing at all;
[50] you do not understand that it is expedient for you that one man should die for the people, and that the whole nation should not perish."

There is the Plan. The Temple and surroundings are gone. Vespasian, for example, gives Zakkai the School at Yavneh. "The Jews" will survive. Places are gradually Christianized (See: Weitzman's Community of Scribes).
This is too clever by half, on par with 9-11 conspiracy theories.
Then please move on Stuart. Nothing for you to see here.

Charles Wilson
Posts: 1518
Joined: Thu Apr 03, 2014 8:13 am

Re: Teeple's Court Ordering in John

Post by Charles Wilson » Fri Jul 31, 2020 3:22 pm

I went back and looked at how Howard M. Teeple classified this section (Lit. Origins of the Gospel Of John ISBN-13: 978-0914384007 ISBN-10: 0914384007 , https://www.amazon.com/Literary-Origin- ... 166&sr=8-2).

I separated Teeple's "G" in the John 15 Passage and it is very interesting:

"G" :

[14] You are my FRIENDS if you do what I COMMAND YOU.
[16] You did not choose me, but I chose you and appointed you 
...in order that whatever you ask [aiteō] the Father in my name, he may give to you.

Of "G", Teeple writes:

"The use by the editor of a written source, "RQ, " which consisted of a collection of revelation discourses, or speeches, is a major feature in Bultmann's hypothesis. Schnackenburg, however, flatly rejects the existence of any "logia or discourse source" and ascribes to the redactor the "clearly defined complexes of discourse which interrrupt the flow of the presentation . . . " Although Bultmann erred in his views on the nature and content of  the speech source, he, not Schnackenburg, is right on the issue of the existence of such a source.   

"It is easily demonstrated that most blocks of speech material were not composed or inserted by the redactor: the editor, who preceded the redactor has made many insertions in them. Also,  some units of the speech material were composed by the editor himself, for they exhibit his traits, including anarthrous personal names (e.g., 14: 4 - 6a, 8 - 9) and restatement of source material  (e. g., 17: 7 - 12a, which restates several of G's ideas).   

"Some of the speech material definitely comes from a written  source. It contains linguistic features not found in the writing of either the editor or the redactor. One feature in particular is prevalent enough and distinctive enough to prove the existence of  a source G: the possessive adjective, with the article repeated with both the adjective and the noun occurs in John 29 times and  every occurrence is in G...

"The author of G is a gentile Christian, for he separates himself and Christianity completely from Jews and Judaism. In 8: 17 he refers to the Old Testament as "your (i.e., Jews’) law," not as "the law" or "our law. " Rejection of the Mosaic law was typical among Christian Gnostics..."

Note that this short section makes sense "as is". The rest of this section is - to Teeple - an interplay between "G" and the Editor "E":

G
14 You are my FRIENDS if you do what I COMMAND YOU. 

E
15 No longer I call you slaves, for the slave does not know what his master does; but I called you FRIENDS because all things which I heard from [para] my Father I made known to you [different basis for being "friends" than in v. 14]. '

G
16 You did not choose me, but I chose you and appointed you 

E
in order that you may go [hupagō] and BEAR FRUIT and your fruit remain [E's insertion creates a double purpose]

G
in order that whatever you ask [aiteō] the Father in my name, he may give to you.

E
17 These things I COMMAND YOU in order that you may love [agapaō] one another"

CW

User avatar
DCHindley
Posts: 2823
Joined: Mon Oct 07, 2013 9:53 am
Location: Ohio, USA

Re: Greek Court Ordering in John

Post by DCHindley » Sat Aug 01, 2020 4:44 pm

I don't agree with much of anything posted here, and I'm sure others afford me the same honor, but I do agree that Hegesippus used old documents, probably scavenged from the city of Jerusalem after 70 CE, to fabricate his grand story about Jacob the Just.

Once the Romans swooped into the city, they probably headed to the HQs of the various rebel factions, to secure documents for use in trials of the principal men of the city, many of whom wanted to capitulate on terms, and others had performed or allowed atrocities to occur among gentiles in Galilee. Of course, these would eventually lose their value over time, and came into the hands of book collectors and bookshops for sale to tourists, like many still seek out relics of WW2, Korea or Vietnam (guns, knives, helmets, photos & propaganda documents) at gun shows and collectible conventions. My son inherited from his late aunt an M1 Garand, a Japanese Arisaka rifle, and a Colt M16A1 (a real one, not one cobbled together from bits and pieces, auto fire and all, which we ended up selling to a collector), all collected by her own late husband. I had to research the hell out of it to convince myself it was a real original, and can spin interesting tales about its history based on what I read.

Back a few years ago I proposed that the story of Jacob the Just being forced to make a statement from the wall of the temple, and being thrown down when he said that the Son of Man would come in glory, was a creative adaptation of Josephus' stories about the show trial of Idumean general Jesus son of Sosas before Simon bar "Giora." Jesus, the second in command of the PRG (Provisional Revolutionary Government) headed by Annanus son of Annanus, had insulted the Idumean contingents (including Jacob son of Sosas) when they tried to enter the city in support of the more radical rebel faction, laughing at them and suggesting that they would stab proper Jews in the back.

Once they were able to secure entry into the city they hunted down and executed Ananus and Jesus his 2nd in command, dumping their dead bodies over the city/temple wall and forbade anyone to remove their bodies. He later went on to be rebel Leader Simon Bar Giora's most trusted generals.

I had once read a work that proposed that Simon bar Giora called himself "the son of man" *i.e., a common man who represented the interests of common folks. The work is Simon Son of Man: A Cognomen of Undoubted Historicity, Obscured by Translation and Lost In The Resplendence Of A Dual Appellative, by John I Riegel and John H Jordan, dated 1917, which claims that Simon Bar Giora was in fact the original Son of Man:
https://ia800503.us.archive.org/1/items ... 023mbp.pdf
While the authors did not make the connection with the Parables of Enoch, not found among the DSS, which I proposed was in fact propaganda published by Simon bar Giora in the period 66-69 or so.

Jacob son of Sosas later fell out of favor when the Idumean contingents started to plot to surrender the city to the Romans on terms. He disappears from Josephus' narrative after this, but all tyrants love show trials, and Simon became a tyrant as the city disintegrated as the Roman assault began. In the end, apparently Jacob son of Sosas is forced to admit that Jesus, Ananus' 2nd in command, was right about him, and Simon bar Giora was truly the "son of man" who would lead in the inauguration of the Kingdom of God on earth.

I based this on an actual transcript of the show trial of Bukharin, the writer of the Soviet Constitution, before Stalin, for attempting to thwart Stalin with deception. In the end, he humbly admits that Stalin's way was the right way after all, knowing full well he would still face immediate execution.

The whole crazy, but incredibly true, story about the concoction of the fable of Jacob the Just is to be found here:
viewtopic.php?f=3&t=2540&p=57099&hilit= ... ias#p57087

A full adaptation of the transcript of Bukharin's show-trial into the show-trial of Jacob son of Sosas, with a link to the actual transcript of Bukharin's confession, is here:
viewtopic.php?f=4&t=2705&p=60117&hilit= ... ial#p60117

See, I can make sense out of nonsense as well as anybody. :cheeky:
Last edited by DCHindley on Sat Aug 01, 2020 5:32 pm, edited 4 times in total.

Charles Wilson
Posts: 1518
Joined: Thu Apr 03, 2014 8:13 am

Re: Greek Court Ordering in John

Post by Charles Wilson » Sat Aug 01, 2020 5:10 pm

DCHindley wrote:
Sat Aug 01, 2020 4:44 pm
See, I can make sense out of nonsense as well as anybody. :cheeky:
Oh, you Neo-Kantians...

User avatar
DCHindley
Posts: 2823
Joined: Mon Oct 07, 2013 9:53 am
Location: Ohio, USA

Re: Greek Court Ordering in John

Post by DCHindley » Sat Aug 01, 2020 5:17 pm

Charles Wilson wrote:
Sat Aug 01, 2020 5:10 pm
DCHindley wrote:
Sat Aug 01, 2020 4:44 pm
See, I can make sense out of nonsense as well as anybody. :cheeky:
Oh, you Neo-Kantians...
Gawrsh :notworthy:

Post Reply