Is the Gospel Narrative a Conspiracy Theory?

[Secret Alias]

I was watching this - https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/film ... j8VVcSYeto - and I was thinking, whether or not the gospel narrative is historical doesn't the involvement of supernatural forces in the crucifixion of Jesus necessarily presuppose that it is a conspiracy theory? If the gospel is a way of explaining the destruction of the temple for instance doesn't it use conspiracy theories - i.e. punishment for the mistreatment of Jesus - in order to explain the historical event? Even the modern attempts to diffuse 'Jewish responsibility' for his death viz. 'His blood be on us and on our children' isn't it also an attempt to make it less of a conspiracy theory for respectability's sake? That's why I am uncomfortable with the removal or avoiding of Matthew 27:25.

[Giuseppe]

All the possible reasons, if you think that the first gospel had the Passion story.

But if proto-Mark ended with the Transfiguration episode, then the Gospel story would be more similar to a divine revelation than to a conspiracy theory.

[Secret Alias]

What I mean is, Mark can be seen as doing what Alex Jones does in the video. Sandy Hook is too horrible to comprehend. It must be an inside job. The gospel is similarly saying - there's got to be this other explanation other than Romans were better soldiers or the Jews were idiots. Oh yeah, the Jews killed their messiah years before and God punished them with this.

[Giuseppe]

I agree. In particular, I see a sinister warning behind this parallelism:

• Vespasian started the war in Galilee and destroyed Jerusalem.

• Jesus started preaching in Galilee and ended in Jerusalem.

The sinister warning is: if Jesus had been heard by Scribes and Pharisees in Galilee, then Vespasian would have not started the war in Galilee.

If Jesus was not killed in Jerusalem, Vespasian would have saved Jerusalem.

Hence the choice of the Galilee is soundly connected with the conspiracy theory of the topic in question.

[Giuseppe]

The interesting question you raise is that the conspirazionist believes really to his conspiracy theory.

'Mark' (inventor) believed really that Jesus existed under Pilate - despite of the fact that only he had invented a such Jesus -, because only a Jesus crucified under Pilate could explain the destruction of the Temple 40 years after.

But Alex Jones is also a banal propagandist pro-Trump. Is not he? Hence the concrete possibility that Alex Jones is a half-liar makes also 'Mark' a half-liar, isn't he?

If Alex Jones is only for outsiders a conspirazionist, but for insiders he is really a conspirer as a pro-Trump propagandist, then in the case of 'Mark', for the outsiders he was a conspirazionist (he had found a conspiracy theory as explanation of the 70 event), but for the insiders 'Mark' was a conspirer. Only, cui bono ?

[Secret Alias]

I mean, but connecting one set of facts with another set of facts is quite normal. I am not trying to limit this to a discussion of mythicism (I know you can't help yourself). But let's see this as two different events.

1. Jesus was killed by the Jews
2. the temple was destroyed.

Both events occurred something like half a century apart. There really can't be any actual connection between the two incidents. Nevertheless Mark thinks there is a relationship because God is causing (2) because of (1).

[Secret Alias]

BTW Giuseppe I am curious about your avatar. Are you supposed to be the 'white' player desperately fending off the 'black' - representing I suppose mythicism standing valiantly against the forces of rationality or is it the other way around?

[Difflugia]

What I mean is, Mark can be seen as doing what Alex Jones does in the video. Sandy Hook is too horrible to comprehend. It must be an inside job. The gospel is similarly saying - there's got to be this other explanation other than Romans were better soldiers or the Jews were idiots. Oh yeah, the Jews killed their messiah years before and God punished them with this.

That is an interesting connection and I realized as I thought about it that it's not even an obscure one. What you've described is exactly Jewish apocalypticism. Mark is revealing that the current order (i.e. subjection by the Roman occupiers) will be brought to an end by God, aided by the faith of the believers. The message of Alex Jones could be called American apocalypticism; the current, corrupt order will be (or, at least can be) brought to an end by those who are uncorrupted, along with the help of the awakened and enlightened conspiracy theorists.

But Alex Jones is also a banal propagandist pro-Trump. Is not he? Hence the concrete possibility that Alex Jones is a half-liar makes also 'Mark' a half-liar, isn't he?

If Alex Jones is only for outsiders a conspirazionist, but for insiders he is really a conspirer as a pro-Trump propagandist, then in the case of 'Mark', for the outsiders he was a conspirazionist (he had found a conspiracy theory as explanation of the 70 event), but for the insiders 'Mark' was a conspirer. Only, cui bono ?

That depends on how far the analogy holds. Alex Jones has been doing this stuff since the 90s. I've been listening to Jones off and on since then. I was in college when the Oklahoma City Federal Building was bombed and developed a taste for conspiracy nuts. Alex Jones was nuttier then and I think that's when he was a "true believer." I think since then, his actual beliefs have mellowed a bit and he's made modest (cynical? dishonest?) changes to his message in career-enhancing ways.

If we try to apply the analogy to Mark's gospel, then we have two problems. First, Mark could be at any stage of Alex's career. Second, it's unclear which details of Mark are meant to be historical (i.e. Mark believed them literally), allegorical (Mark was being non-literal, but believed in the underlying truth being presented), or dishonest propaganda (Mark didn't fully believe it, but wanted the audience to). In addition, there's the possibility of an "ur Markus" that was written by a true believer, but was then modified by a propagandizing redactor.

[Giuseppe]

Nevertheless Mark thinks there is a relationship because God is causing (2) because of (1).

I know the corollary of the relationship: 70 - 40 = 30 for Psalm 95 etc. But what do you do about the fact that a proposition like Matthew 27:25 is precisely in Matthew and not in Mark ?

BTW Giuseppe I am curious about your avatar. Are you supposed to be the 'white' player desperately fending off the 'black' - representing I suppose mythicism standing valiantly against the forces of rationality or is it the other way around?

it is an implicit answer to GDon's avatar: a crucified but herculean Jesus.

The white may win (there is really a sequence of moves that can lead to his victory). Hence the white represents mythicism.

[Secret Alias]

Castration isn't in Luke, the Marcionites were eunuchs and its found in Matthew which is supposed to be the 'Jewish gospel.'
The Antitheses are said to be Marcion's central concern, the Antitheses are found in Matthew rather than Luke, again the arrangement of the fourfold gospel is the issue. Where the sayings end up help 'disprove' the heresies.

Origen, the Acts of Titus and even Irenaeus acknowledge John not only wrote his own gospel but falsified earlier material into gospels he wrote and edited - i.e. Matthew, Mark and Luke. No one should worry where a passage appears in a falsified arrangement like the one we have.