Political allegory in the 'exoteric' legend of Jesus

[maryhelena]

[quote="maryhelena
The gospel JC story is not history; it is a mythologizing of history; an interpretation of history; salvation history. History viewed through a Jewish philosophical and a prophetic lens.

bcedaifu
The gospels are not history, whether viewed through one skewed lens or another. The stories are not “an interpretation of history”. They are fiction. There has never been any human capable of violating the laws of physics to accomplish the feats exhibited by Paul and his Babe. No need to invoke “Jewish philosophical” or “prophetic lens”. The gospel stories, Superman, and Paul Bunyan are simply literature, not history. The only (tenuous) association with Judaism, may be the authorship of one or more of these fables by humans of Jewish ethnicity, however that may be defined....

Well now, if one is coming from a Eusebius/Constantine conspiracy I'd imagine that any gospel interpretation that seeks to find reflections of Hasmonean/Jewish history - is way beyond the pale......

[Charles Wilson]

Granted that 1st century (pre-gospel) Christianity involved a purely celestial Christ figure (as well-argued by Doherty, Carrier, et al)...

No - not granted......not necessary to choose between the spirit and the body.....

There is the problem RIGHT THERE! The Judaic thought was centered on a non-Dualistic World View - See Ecclesiastes for instance. "You are your body". The Pentateuch: "The Law is not a burden".
The Platonic Scheme challenged this view and - by force of arms - set the stage for the arguments that followed. There is a Noumenal Existence we cannot obtain: "That which is flesh is flesh and that which is spirit is spirit." "You cannot satisfy the Law. If you break one, you break all..." "For all have sinned and fallen short of the Glory of God..."

You can MAP the differences between the Judaic Thought and the Platonic. In my view of the Story that was rewritten, the Priest (Probably Peter...) who survived cannot understand why God did not stand with the Priests when it was time to eliminate the Romans and the Herodians. In the end (in Matthew), he returns to the Priesthood to do as he was taught - rotate into Jerusalem and perform the Rites of the Temple Cult.

The challenge of the Transcendent Spirit, unobtainable except by a Choice made by the Being on the other side of the Hard Duality, is not answered by the Priests.
Thus, though it is not necessary to choose between the spirit and the body now, the matter of HAVING a choice was not allowed after the end of Judaea in 70.

CW

[ghost]

The only (tenuous) association with Judaism, may be the authorship of one or more of these fables by humans of Jewish ethnicity, however that may be defined....

…aka Josephus.

[theomise]

Imagine that - apart from both mythic fantasy and literal history - there emerges a pseudo-history (written early-mid-2nd-century) in which the intertestamental period is characterized via non-mystical yet allegorical narratives along the lines of:
"The Crucible" (Miller)
"Animal Farm" (Orwell)
"The Wonderful Wizard of Oz" (Baum)
"Faerie Queen" (Spenser)
"Pilgrim's Progress" (Bunyan)

I cannot write anything about the other titles listed here, theomise, but Wizard of Oz is 100% supernatural, not just simple fiction. It is based on pure imagination, and describes various violations of natural science, including overt repudiation of physics, chemistry and biology. I cannot imagine how you consider this title to belong to a group of “non-mystical” writings. It is obviously hostile to reality. There is no such thing as “pseudo-history”, here. The bible is pure fantasy, with myriad stories elaborating one denial of the laws of science after another. Yes, it may contain a hint of genuine figures, like War and Peace, but it is none the less absolute fiction. Do you regard Tolstoy as an historian of Napolean?

Maybe I wasn't clear what "political allegory" means here?

The Wonderful Wizard of Oz is not about "flying monkeys" - it's about the 19th century Bimetallism debate - the gold standard vs the Silverites, etc.
The Crucible is not about witchcraft - it's about McCarthyism.
Animal Farm is not about talking livestock - it's about the Russian Revolution.

Whether or not the surface story contains supernatural elements is beside the point. We are talking about fables or parables in which the political concerns of the day are reflected in the sayings and doings of deliberately two-dimensional characters.

Now, can you learn history from "Animal Farm" or "The Crucible"? In a limited way, yes.

The allegorist offers a highly interpretive ("biased") presentation of the issues that can only be understood on the deepest level given the reader's pre-existent familiarity with the historical context. Of course, the surface level of the work can also be enjoyed for its own sake as a children's story.

Hope that helps.

[theomise]

OK - here is my chart. I did post it a few years ago on FRDB but no longer able to give a link to that forum. (it's more or less the same chart - with a few nice colours now....)
----------------------------

Historical artefacts, such as coins, are testimony to the fact that certain individuals were historical figures. That is the bare bones of historical evidence. However, history requires a story; a narrative, to joins up the facts and present a meaningful picture. The picture could be cloudy and unclear or it could be a reasonable explanation of what happened. In the chart that follows, Josephus is the primary source for building that historical narrative. Did Josephus himself, writing after the events, have accurate material to work with? Or is Josephus creating his own narrative - and without a secondary source there is no way to be sure. All one can do is work with his material and question his story when it presents problems.

The chart below has set out Josephan Hasmonean history for Antigonus. It also presents the Josephan history for Philip the Tetrarch. Philo’s story about the mocking of Carabbas and Agrippa I is also used....

There are certainly intriguing parallels there, but why limit yourself to that one chapter of Josephus?

The way I see it, the works of Josephus functioned as a sort of Silmarillion in constructing the gospel mythopoeia.

[ghost]

Maybe I wasn't clear what "political allegory" means here?

The Wonderful Wizard of Oz is not about "flying monkeys" - it's about the 19th century Bimetallism debate - the gold standard vs the Silverites, etc.
The Crucible is not about witchcraft - it's about McCarthyism.
Animal Farm is not about talking livestock - it's about the Russian Revolution.

Whether or not the surface story contains supernatural elements is beside the point. We are talking about fables or parables in which the political concerns of the day are reflected in the sayings and doings of deliberately two-dimensional characters.

Now, can you learn history from "Animal Farm" or "The Crucible"? In a limited way, yes.

The allegorist offers a highly interpretive ("biased") presentation of the issues that can only be understood on the deepest level given the reader's pre-existent familiarity with the historical context. Of course, the surface level of the work can also be enjoyed for its own sake as a children's story.

Hope that helps.

The gospel of Mark is based on the 49 BC to 44 BC civil war between Caesar (aka "Jesus") and Pompey (aka "John the Baptist") and about Caesar's passion (aka Jesus's passion).

See this, for example:

http://www.carotta.de/subseite/texte/esumma.html

[ghost]

Jesus's crucifixion is based on Caesar's wax figure crucifixion:

viewtopic.php?f=11&t=606#p14983

[ghost]

The Jewishness is due to a diegetic transposition under the Flavians (Julians 2.0):

http://www.carotta.de/subseite/texte/ar ... ial_en.pdf

[neilgodfrey]

ghost --- just declaring your disagreement is adding nothing to the discussion. Imagine if every time you posted an argument for your thesis I posted a one liner saying "wrong, the true explanation is X". I would rightly be considered a nuisance, a troll.

[maryhelena]

OK - here is my chart. I did post it a few years ago on FRDB but no longer able to give a link to that forum. (it's more or less the same chart - with a few nice colours now....)
----------------------------

Historical artefacts, such as coins, are testimony to the fact that certain individuals were historical figures. That is the bare bones of historical evidence. However, history requires a story; a narrative, to joins up the facts and present a meaningful picture. The picture could be cloudy and unclear or it could be a reasonable explanation of what happened. In the chart that follows, Josephus is the primary source for building that historical narrative. Did Josephus himself, writing after the events, have accurate material to work with? Or is Josephus creating his own narrative - and without a secondary source there is no way to be sure. All one can do is work with his material and question his story when it presents problems.

The chart below has set out Josephan Hasmonean history for Antigonus. It also presents the Josephan history for Philip the Tetrarch. Philo’s story about the mocking of Carabbas and Agrippa I is also used....

There are certainly intriguing parallels there, but why limit yourself to that one chapter of Josephus?

The way I see it, the works of Josephus functioned as a sort of Silmarillion in constructing the gospel mythopoeia.

By all means add to the chart whatever other elements or parallels you think are relevant from Josephus.

Yes, without Josephus the gospel story could not have been written. In other words, contrary to what historicists claim - that Josephus supports a historical Jesus and John the Baptist - what Josephus is supporting is the gospel story. That's a very different kettle of fish......The gospel story can be created from the writings of Josephus. As I said in my previous post, Josephus could have made up some of these details - as could Philo have made up the story of the mocking of Carabbas. However, such stories aside, it's the fact that these stories are connected with historical figures that is of interest. It's the historical figures that should interest those searching for early christian origins. Why were these historical figures important to the gospel writers?