maryhelena wrote:The issue before us is the gospel Jesus story. The issue is about the gospel story - not whether it's possible or not to have beliefs without any historical or rational core. Of course, people have weird ideas. That not the issue here.
So, just tell me what possible means a listener of, let's say, 100 CE had to verify a story about some unknown man from a destroyed city.
Assumption re the gospel story is about some 'unknown man'.
That the gospel story, a story that at it's core is a political allegory, became viewed as a historical story is a case of memory being dimmed with time. What is at issue is not that the gospel story became viewed as history - but what was the intent of the writers of that gospel story. That the gospel story has been read as history is not the fault of the story - it is the lack of historical knowledge on the part of the reader.
theomise: 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.
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.
So, today - we need to familiarize ourselves with the historical backdrop, the historical canvas, from which the gospel writers created their Jesus story. That way, as my chart has demonstrated, allows one to view the political allegory within the gospel story.
Tread softly because you tread on my dreams.
W.B. Yeats
maryhelena wrote:Assumption re the gospel story is about some 'unknown man'.
In the case of the "mythicist" hypothesis, yes, unknown man, known god/angel/whatever supernatural being. So it's written to explain something, not hanging in the void.
maryhelena wrote:That the gospel story, a story that at it's core is a political allegory, became viewed as a historical story is a case of memory being dimmed with time. What is at issue is not that the gospel story became viewed as history - but what was the intent of the writers of that gospel story. That the gospel story has been read as history is not the fault of the story - it is the lack of historical knowledge on the part of the reader.
Sure. But this works exactly the same in the case of the "mythicist" hypothesis, as the gospel is seen as allegory (drawn from OT texts) over political infighting between sectarian wings and explanation why the messias didn't save Jerusalem. Which means that the distinction to your own hypothesis is slim.
Last edited by Ulan on Thu Sep 04, 2014 4:01 am, edited 1 time in total.
maryhelena wrote:Assumption re the gospel story is about some 'unknown man'.
In the case of the "mythicist" hypothesis, yes, unknown man, known god/angel/whatever supernatural being.
maryhelena wrote:That the gospel story, a story that at it's core is a political allegory, became viewed as a historical story is a case of memory being dimmed with time. What is at issue is not that the gospel story became viewed as history - but what was the intent of the writers of that gospel story. That the gospel story has been read as history is not the fault of the story - it is the lack of historical knowledge on the part of the reader.
Sure. But this works exactly the same in the case of the "mythicist" hypothesis, as the gospel is seen as allegory (drawn from OT texts) over political infighting between sectarian wings and explanation why the messias didn't save Jerusalem. Which means that the distinction to your own hypothesis is slim.
Political infighting - relevant to the Carrier-Doherty mythicist theory? How about setting that out for me? Get specific - not just generalizations....
Tread softly because you tread on my dreams.
W.B. Yeats
maryhelena wrote:Political infighting - relevant to the Carrier-Doherty mythicist theory? How about setting that out for me? Get specific - not just generalizations....
Just the normal stuff, following from Markan priority. Mark's gospel tries the utmost to destroy the believability of the "apostles", by claiming they never understood a thing, deserted the savior long before the resurrection and never witnessed anything. It's interesting that the text mostly works with situations that don't have witnesses. It basically witnesses the "no witness" situation.
For our purpose this means that the gospel was written as a slur in a sectarian fight, while giving an explanation for the failed parousia.
Edit: Just to make it clear: I still find it easier to assume some existence of Jesus to make sense of all of this, but, given that most pericopes in Mark don't sound historical, it may have just been written against a claimed familiarity with the savior figure by a rival group.
Last edited by Ulan on Thu Sep 04, 2014 4:32 am, edited 1 time in total.
maryhelena wrote:Political infighting - relevant to the Carrier-Doherty mythicist theory? How about setting that out for me? Get specific - not just generalizations....
Just the normal stuff, following from Markan priority. Mark's gospel tries the utmost to destroy the believability of the "apostles", by claiming they never understood a thing, deserted the savior long before the resurrection and never witnessed anything. It's interesting that the text mostly works with situations that don't have witnesses. It basically witnesses the "no witness" situation.
For our purpose this means that the gospel was written as a slur in a sectarian fight, while giving an explanation for the failed parousia.
All you have done here is offer an interpretation of gMark....Interpretations are futile in searching for early christian origins. How many different interpretations are there? From the Sunday morning door-step preachers to academic scholars......
The Carrier-Doherty mythicist theory does not have a specific historical argument. Even Carrier, the OP of this thread, acknowledges that his use of Jesus ben Ananias may not involve a historical figure at all!
The 'gospel was written as a slur in a sectarian fight'...................why the attempt to demean the gospel writers?
So where are we?
1) You "still think(s) a historical Jesus would be the easiest assumption"..
2) doesn't mean the alternative is excluded. (this in response to a post re the Carrier-Doherty mythicist theory.
Methinks you need to rethink both these positions. 2) is not an alternative to the gospel Jesus story. 1) has no historical evidence. i.e. throw out both theories......back to the drawing board....
Tread softly because you tread on my dreams.
W.B. Yeats
1) You "still think(s) a historical Jesus would be the easiest assumption"..
2) doesn't mean the alternative is excluded. (this in response to a post re the Carrier-Doherty mythicist theory.
Methinks you need to rethink both these positions. 2) is not an alternative to the gospel Jesus story. 1) has no historical evidence. i.e. throw out both theories......back to the drawing board....
There is no hard "historical evidence" for anything. Show me one thing in Mark's gospel story that is written without trying to make a religious or political statement. There's nothing left if you take that out.
maryhelena wrote:The 'gospel was written as a slur in a sectarian fight'...................why the attempt to demean the gospel writers?
1) You "still think(s) a historical Jesus would be the easiest assumption"..
2) doesn't mean the alternative is excluded. (this in response to a post re the Carrier-Doherty mythicist theory.
Methinks you need to rethink both these positions. 2) is not an alternative to the gospel Jesus story. 1) has no historical evidence. i.e. throw out both theories......back to the drawing board....
There is no hard "historical evidence" for anything. Show me one thing in Mark's gospel story that is written without trying to make a religious or political statement.
Nonsense. There is hard 'historical evidence' for figures in Jewish history. Check out the Hasmonean and Herodian coins. It is that hard 'historical evidence' that one has to use when trying to understand the political allegory in the gospel story. One does not work from the gospel story. One works from actual hard 'historical evidence'. Nothing else will do. One does not *see* history in the gospel story without first knowing Hasmonean/Jewish history.
theomise:
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.
This is worth repeating:
the reader's pre-existent familiarity with the historical context.
If one does not know the history one will not *see* a reflection of that history within the allegorical gospel story.
Tread softly because you tread on my dreams.
W.B. Yeats
maryhelena wrote:One does not work from the gospel story. One works from actual hard 'historical evidence'. Nothing else will do.
Then show me the 'hard historical evidence' that links the gospel to the Hasmoneans. And no, the coins won't do.
Your explanation of the allegorical doesn't help either. That's the same as the "mythicists" do. The LXX exists after all, and so does apocalyptic Jewish literature. If given the choice between coins and Jewish literature, I take Jewish literature.
maryhelena wrote:One does not work from the gospel story. One works from actual hard 'historical evidence'. Nothing else will do.
Then show me the 'hard historical evidence' that links the gospel to the Hasmoneans. And no, the coins won't do.
Go back and see the word I used = reflections.
Your explanation of the allegorical doesn't help either. That's the same as the "mythicists" do. The LXX exists after all, and so does apocalyptic Jewish literature.
The Carrier-Doherty mythicist theory has no political component. Not all 'mythicists' are Doherty-Carrier mythicists...
Check out the other thread on Political Allegory - I posted a link to Greg Doudna's article re allegory - political allegory - in the Qumran literature.
Tread softly because you tread on my dreams.
W.B. Yeats
But what maryhelena won't - or can't answer - is how or why we can be certain there is this 'Hasmonean component' in the gospel in the first place. I don't see why anyone should accept the existence of this 'Hasmonean component' any more than Charles's 'Flavian component' to the gospels or ghost's 'Caesar component' or Pete's 'Constantine component.' As I said earlier you'd think that these people interacting with other likeminded folks putting forward similar subjective nonsense would all cancel one another out (i.e. that they would realize their methodology works equally well with any other 'historical attempt' to link the gospel to known figures) - but apparently not. All it does is gives them encouragement to try even harder. Apparently each of them thinks that if only this other nutbar could 'just see the light' they'd give up their belief in X and come over to see Y as the ground of all being. It's really hilarious in the end. And this will go on forever.
