Political allegory in the 'exoteric' legend of Jesus

[theomise]

Hi maryhelena,

Just to clarify my own position, and how it differs from yours:

• 1) We agree on the heavy use of political allegory in the gospel stories.

(a)Yep, agreed.

2) However, I see the historicized gospel Jesus as largely a 2nd-century literary creation - a sort of Josephan fan-fiction tacked on to a pre-existing cult tradition.

(b)That looks like the Carrier-Doherty mythicist theory - a theory I don't regard as having relevance for the gospel Jesus story. i.e. a historicized Pauline celestial crucified christ figure is simply more imagination placed on top of an already imaginative scenario. (c)There is no way to establish such a scenario. It's all in the mind of believers.

3) Hence, I see the politically-allegorical character of the gospel stories as less important to understanding Christian origins than you do.[/list]

(d)Surely, if it's early christians origins that we are seeking, then any social/political reflections within the gospel story are possible roadways to that goal? (e)Why put political allegory in the gospel story if it does not have significant relevance to the story>

Consider: exactly how common is the proposed phenomenon of a religion sprouting from some grandiose take on political history? It would seem to be rare, and not in keeping with what we know about the social psychology of cult formation.

(f)But is that not what the OT has done? Israel's history is always centre stage.

The more familiar formula for cult formation is: a charismatic con-man -- looking to make money or get laid or scratch some other egocentric itch -- convinces a bunch of people to reject evil mainstream society and join in some sort of 'communal living' arrangement. If the cult catches on, perhaps the founder is later deified and his checkered biography suppressed. Perhaps later a new and utterly fictional biography is written for doctrinal purposes.

(g)Perhaps - but perhaps not also. The NT story is set within the culture/tradition of the OT. That is a culture/tradition that placed prime importance upon it's social/political context. God 'saves' his people, etc. Land and Kings and Priests, physical reality, was where God did his work. (h)Yes, Pauline theology/philosophy places emphasis upon spiritual matters, the Jerusalem above. But that emphasis did not, and cannot, rule out emphasis also upon the Jerusalem below. i.e. upon earthly matters. Emphasis can shift in relation to time and place - and context. Paul' context is one thing - the gospel context something else. Why would one want to choose between them instead of allowing both contexts to function?

So, in so far as Christianity has a historical basis in a founding figure, that would seem to be the most obvious pattern to consider.

(i)But that is a basis that has no possibility of being historically established. It take one nowhere in the search for early christian origins.

I'm not saying your thesis is impossible. Just that I know of no other examples of religions forming that way. The fact is, people who are attracted to joining cults tend not to be well-read intellectuals with strong opinions on obscure historical figures. They tend, rather, to be naive, possibly Schizotypal chumps who are psychologically comforted by the highly structured, esoteric and ritualistic lifestyle the cult provides.

(j)It's not a question of 'religions forming'. It's attempting to discern the social/political framework within which that religion took hold. Dating gospel manuscripts, even to the 2nd century, does not change the social/political setting of the gospel story. A social/political setting of Judea under Roman occupation. A christian origin story set within a context of Roman occupation.

(k)I think the two scenarios: the historical Jesus assumption and the Carrier-Doherty mythicist assumption, are both boxed into their respective corners.
(l)Neither are able to take on board the political allegory within the gospel story.
(m)1) because it compromises their theory.
(n)2) it means they both have to acknowledge that the other side does have something of value to offer in the Jesus debate. Both sides have to strive for a win/win situation - thus allowing dignity not animosity to prevail.

Tagged your points 'a' to 'n' above, so I can reply item-wise without breaking the nested-quotation system here ....

[theomise]

Here goes:

a) Cool.
b) It may look that way, but that perspective is not committed to a CD theory
c) Evidence for such a scenario can be extracted from written evidence (not "minds")
d) No, I disagree that the one implies the other. I see the gospel stories as, at best, whitewashes of ugly biographical reality. And at worst, pure 2nd century fiction inspired by 'Christian' themes.
e) Because it serves a propagandistic purpose.
f) Sure, but did Judaism start with some dude writing the Books of Kings and promoting it as a basis of worship? No, that came much later.
g) Could we be talking about the equivalent of a mass movement of suburban 'wiggers' or 'chavs' latching on to (what they perceive to be) African-American ghetto culture (without actually understanding it in any depth). In other words, LXX becomes a best-seller among a certain hipster class of people in the Roman Empire, the rest is history... ?
h) I don't disagree with any of that.
i) What makes you say that?
j) Too vague for me to agree or disagree
k) The traditional "historical Jesus" scenario is garbage. I think we agree there. As I see it, the evidence suggests that a species of (non-historicized) "Christianity" existed in the 1st Century, in perhaps the rhetorical vein of Philo, Paul, etc.
l) Disagree.
m) But it doesn't.
n) I am not opposed to all 'historicist scenarios' as a matter of principle. On the other hand, I think there's a lot of important lessons to be learned from the Carrier-Doherty approach. What I think is hogwash is (i) the insistence that the traditional historicist account of Jesus is worth embracing; and (ii) the insistence that Christianity could not have begun by worshiping a 'celestial deity' which was later historicized in a politically colorful way.

[maryhelena]

You can't mix T. E. Lawrence with Yeats, you silly thing.

OK - to make up for that indiscretion

[maryhelena]

Here goes:

a) Cool.
b) It may look that way, but that perspective is not committed to a CD theory

"Josephan fan-fiction tacked on to a pre-existing cult tradition" OK if you are maintaining the pre-existing tradition preceded Paul - i.e. the 'cult tradition' was not that of a historicized Pauline crucified christ figure.

c) Evidence for such a scenario can be extracted from written evidence (not "minds")

And written sources, if not based on actual history - are from the minds of believers...

d) No, I disagree that the one implies the other. I see the gospel stories as, at best, whitewashes of ugly biographical reality. And at worst, pure 2nd century fiction inspired by 'Christian' themes.

I'd rather not rule out possible avenues for researching early christian origins.

e) Because it serves a propagandistic purpose.

Maybe and maybe not.

f) Sure, but did Judaism start with some dude writing the Books of Kings and promoting it as a basis of worship? No, that came much later.

Sure, written works came later - history being primary.

g) Could we be talking about the equivalent of a mass movement of suburban 'wiggers' or 'chavs' latching on to (what they perceive to be) African-American ghetto culture (without actually understanding it in any depth). In other words, LXX becomes a best-seller among a certain hipster class of people in the Roman Empire, the rest is history... ?

Whatever the culture was from which the gospel story arose - it surely needs to be on the table when searching for early christian origins.

h) I don't disagree with any of that.
i) What makes you say that?

I've not seen the Carrier-Doherty mythicists take on any historical figures in their gospel Jesus theory - although Carrier has now, in his new book, made reference to Jesus ben Ananias- though suggesting that Josephus could have made this tale up.

j) Too vague for me to agree or disagree
k) The traditional "historical Jesus" scenario is garbage. I think we agree there. As I see it, the evidence suggests that a species of (non-historicized) "Christianity" existed in the 1st Century, in perhaps the rhetorical vein of Philo, Paul, etc.

l) Disagree.

Have you references for this?

m) But it doesn't.

Disagree.

n) I am not opposed to all 'historicist scenarios' as a matter of principle. On the other hand, I think there's a lot of important lessons to be learned from the Carrier-Doherty approach. What I think is hogwash is (i) the insistence that the traditional historicist account of Jesus is worth embracing; and (ii) the insistence that Christianity could not have begun by worshiping a 'celestial deity' which was later historicized in a politically colorful way.

What can be learned from the Carrier-Doherty mythicist theory is that the Pauline epistles can be interpreted as referencing a heavenly crucifixion story. Where this theory is mistaken is it's assumption that the gospel figure of Jesus is a historicizing of this celestial christ figure. A political allegory in the gospel Jesus story makes such a nonsensical assumption unnecessary. The Jerusalem above and the Jerusalem below function according to two very different principles. In one context, flesh and blood is primary. In the other context, spiritual/intellectual concerns are primary. The Carrier-Doherty mythicist theory denies the relevance of flesh and blood for the writers of the gospel Jesus story.

[maryhelena]

Greg Doudna has a new article on the Bible and Interpretation site.

The OP of this thread raises the question of the gospel story being considered as a political allegory. Earlier in this thread I posted a chart setting out what a political allegory approach to the gospel story would look like. That chart makes mention of Antigonus, the last King and High Priest of the Jews, executed by Rome in 37 b.c.e.

What Greg Doudna has done in his article is demonstrate that the Roman execution of Antigonus is relevant to the Qumran material.

• A Narrative Argument that the Teacher of Righteousness was Hyrcanus II
  
  <snip>
  
  What has long been overlooked is that a Qumran text, widely acknowledged to have been authored at about this very time, speaks directly of a Jewish ruler being “hung up alive”—just like Dio Cassius’s account of the fate of Antigonus Mattathias. This is found at 4QpNah 3-4 i 8-ii 1, which is a pesher unit consisting of a biblical quotation followed by its interpretation. The text introduces this unit with the words: “concerning the one hanged up alive on a stake it is proclaimed:”, or “to the one hanged up alive on a stake he (i.e. God) proclaims:”. This is how the text of Pesher Nahum visibly introduces this particular unit. A quotation from Nah. 2:14 then follows (destruction of an Assyrian ruler and his regime) and then the pesher or interpretation, which refers to a doomed ruler of Israel and the fall of his regime. Elsewhere this same ruler of Israel (from identical language) is said explicitly to have a malkut, “kingdom” (3-4 iv 3). This doomed ruler of 3-4 i 8-ii 1 is a Jewish king in the world of the text, and the text presents him as “hung up alive” and accursed.
  
  <snip>
  
  Again, the doomed ruler hung up alive of Pesher Nahum is Pesher Nahum’s variant on the violent death of the Wicked Priest of Pesher Habakkuk and of Pesher PsalmsA. It is the same figure, called by various names and depicted in various ways in these texts. All of this is set in the context of a Kittim invasion, in these texts from the latter half of the 1st century BCE. It is a doomed ruler of Israel portrayed in a context of a Roman invasion, contemporary to the time of these texts’ writing, killed by gentiles … defeated Jewish ruler … Romans … hung up alive … killed by gentiles … second half of the 1st century BCE … Roman invasion … Jewish ruler … Roman invasion … executed … Roman invasion … who could this figure alluded to in these texts possibly be?
  
  http://www.bibleinterp.com/articles/201 ... 8018.shtml

Thus, interestingly, prior to gMark being written - the Qumran scribes were writing their own political allegorical story about a ruler of Israel hung up alive on a stake. The question arises: Is the gospel crucifixion story a development from the Qumran story about a ruler of Israel executed by the Romans? Is Antigonus Mattathias the historical 'model' for the gospel crucifixion story as well as being the hung up alive figure of the Qumran texts?

[maryhelena]

Antigonus was hung up alive on a stake, crucified, in Antioch, by the Roman, Marc Antony, in 37 b.c.e.
The gospel Jesus figure is crucified, in Jerusalem, under Pilate around 33 c.e. (around a 70 year time difference.)

One way to view the time distance between these two accounts as not being negative to a correspondence, or linkage, between them, is to consider the gospel birth narrative in gMatthew. In that account Jesus is born in Bethlehem and Herod I has a slaughter of innocents in that town. 1) there is no evidence of a slaughter of innocents in Bethlehem but Herod I was responsible for the slaughter of innocents that took place at the siege of Jerusalem in 37 b.c.e. 2) NT scholars argue that Jesus was not born in Bethlehem but in Nazareth i.e. OT prophecy has been used to develop the Bethlehem birth narrative.

Are things really any different with the gospel crucifixion story? OT prophecy has been used to develop that story; from Zechariah 9:7; 11:12; 12:10, to interpretations of Isaiah and Psalms. As to Pilate - ''under Tiberius all was quite'' - Josephus has no crucifixions of ''robbers'' during the period 6 c.e. to 45 c.e. (apart from the TF...)Pilate was not ruler of Judea - Rome was ruler of Judea - as re the birth narrative Herod was King of Judea - a client king under Rome).

Thus, the gospel crucifixion narrative, like the gMatthew Bethlehem birth narrative, is not tied to Jerusalem. Consequently, it is also not tied to the time of Pilate. Bethlehem and Jerusalem have been used for prophetic not historical reasons in the birth and crucifixion stories.

Of course, this does not rule out the historicists Jesus figure. What it does do however is to remove Jerusalem and Pilate as having any historical relevance for the gospel crucifixion story. Whatever historical reflections are to be found in that story - the actual history of an execution, crucifixion, of a King of the Jews, took place at a different time and in another place.

Keeping in mind that it was in Antioch - the place where Antigonus was executed - that Christians first began to be called by that name....

[Clive]

Thought I would check something....

Marcus Vipsanius Agrippa (/əˈɡrɪpə/; 23 October or November 64/63 BC – 12 BC) was a Roman statesman, general and architect.[2] He was a close friend, son-in-law, and lieutenant to Augustus and was responsible for the construction of some of the most beautiful buildings in the history of Rome and for important military victories, most notably at the Battle of Actium against the forces of Mark Antony and Cleopatra.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marcus_Vipsanius_Agrippa

It looks as if it might be reasonable to look back to Augustus and Anthony and Cleopatra for the beginnings of this wondrous tale!

[maryhelena]

Thought I would check something....

Marcus Vipsanius Agrippa (/əˈɡrɪpə/; 23 October or November 64/63 BC – 12 BC) was a Roman statesman, general and architect.[2] He was a close friend, son-in-law, and lieutenant to Augustus and was responsible for the construction of some of the most beautiful buildings in the history of Rome and for important military victories, most notably at the Battle of Actium against the forces of Mark Antony and Cleopatra.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marcus_Vipsanius_Agrippa

It looks as if it might be reasonable to look back to Augustus and Anthony and Cleopatra for the beginnings of this wondrous tale!

"This name of ours took its rise in the reign of Augustus; under Tiberius it was
taught with all clearness and publicity; under Nero it was ruthlessly condemned,
and you may weigh its worth and character even from the person of its
persecutor''. (TERTULLIAN AD NATIONES.)

[MrMacSon]

"This name of ours took its rise in the reign of Augustus; under Tiberius it was
taught with all clearness and publicity; under Nero it was ruthlessly condemned,
and you may weigh its worth and character even from the person of its
persecutor''. (TERTULLIAN AD NATIONES.)

Interestingly, as an aside, Jay Raskins has previously proposed that Tacitus's Annals 15.44 was altered to (i) replace Nero with Tiberius, and (ii) replace the procurator Porcius Festus with Pontius Pilate, to better fit the role of Christus & Chrestiaonos with the earlier times of Tiberius.

This fits with Tertullian's Ad Nationes.

• https://jayraskin.wordpress.com/2011/04/04/294/