Falsifiability of the Wilson Thesis

[Charles Wilson]

I contend that the NT is dripping with Hasmonean Glories, written in an aggressive style in opposition to the Roman Culture, contra Atwill, f'rinstance. That it appears hidden is a testimony to Transvaluation through the centuries but, "To Me...", it goes much beyond mere unrelated data points.

The Hasmonean Thesis is complex, crossed referenced and Quite Sound.

Charles, can you formulate that thesis in a way in which in principle it is falsifiable? I mean "falsifiable" as obtains within the disciplines of ancient history and/or literary criticism, of course, since we deal in probabilities. Or perhaps someone else has already formulated a "falsifiable" thesis. I'm not up on Atwill. I should think at the outset that a claim that the gospel Jesus is a Transvaluation of Hasmonean Antigonus transvalued by later Romans rests on many assumptions. So it needs to show that it explains the data better than, say, the thesis that Jesus was a real wandering apocalyptic preacher in the earlier 1st cent. CE. Occam's Razor is very sharp; I've cut myself with it, so I know!

Will it be possible in principle to disprove your Hasmonean/Roman transvaluation thesis, and if so, how would the refutation be sketched out? On what sort of tests will it stand or fall?

I don't want to hijack Jay's important Post so I will start a new thread concerning ficino's request.
The Thesis is easily Falsifiable and I don't mind if you don't accept any part of the Thesis or not. I followed a Chain of moderate assertions and ended up in the Settlement of Jabnit, in Upper Galilee. It was populated by people of the Mishmarot Service Group Immer and they believed that the Hasmoneans came from them.

Now, it is possible to reason incorrectly to a True Conclusion. I would hope that if you deny the Thesis you might explain how Jabnit turned up at the end of the quest. Alas, it is as simple as asserting "Coincidence" and returning to the evening news. I do not really care here.

1. The Thesis begins with an alternative reading of plain statements in, especially, early Mark.

Mark 3: 4 (RSV):

[4] And he said to them, "Is it lawful on the sabbath to do good or to do harm, to save life or to kill?" But they were silent.

I invite you to read this with a different Intentionality. What would it mean if this character was reminding the Pharisees of something that happened perhaps years ago? Could it have any meaning read this way?

Luke 19: 39 - 40 (RSV):

[39] And some of the Pharisees in the multitude said to him, "Teacher, rebuke your disciples."
[40] He answered, "I tell you, if these were silent, the very stones would cry out."

Perform the following thought experiment: Take a friend/spouse and tell them what you are about to do. Go find a rock that will fit your hand and hold it under your friend's nose, shaking it perhaps. You are gritting your teeth as you yell, "I tell you, if these were silent, the very stones would cry out..."

Has a different meaning doesn't it?

First falsifiability: The understanding of all of these statements are correctly referring to the Glorious Metaphysics of Christian Understanding.

2A. Numerological Nuttery: The Thesis relies on a perceived pattern of Time Markers that point to sometime, probably Passover, in 9 CE. Wha...?!?? Early Mark tells of a Tragedy that occurred and we are led to believe that it happened during Pilate's tenure. No, it didn't. The Thesis asserts that the Original Driver for these Stories of some Atrocity in the Night was a Temple Slaughter that occurred in 4 BCE, just after Herod dies and Archelaus is placed at the Throne.

This brings the main points to the forefront. Mishmarot Service gives the understanding that there is another Player in this game of countries and kingdoms. The Priestly Groups have been ordained by God and their power has been taken away and they want it back. They plan a Coup and even arrange for Herod to be in Jericho for the Passover. Leviticus 26 gives the Template, suspiciously almost to the letter, and they await the arrival of God, who is late for the Sacrifices, it appears. The people are Slaughtered and the Priests wonder how this could happen. HOWEVER: They note that they are returning for Passover in 2 Mishmarot Rotations in 12 years. They prepare for the Return. They are killed for their troubles. Someone writes a Story about this, a very Noir Story, and it provides the framework for the Christ Jesus, who will return.

Second Falsifiability: The perceived Time Markers are, again, coincidence. The Priests are members of an insulated Temple Cult and have no place or concern in the machinations of Herod and Rome. There must have been some Other Guy who had visions of Power. Besides, those Jews couldn't have been so smart as to pull that sort of stunt.

2B Numerological Nuttery, Part 2: I have to thank steve43 for this. Thank you steve43, very much. You see, it couldn't have happened at all. Herod didn't die at the Passover of 4 BCE. Archelaus went to Rome a year later. It takes a lot of time to march from Jericho to Jerusalem with a funeral bier. So it could not have happened in the short time from the partial eclipse of 4 BCE to the ascension of Archelaus mere weeks later.

A lot of the Thesis relies on calculations of Mishmarot Groups and their 24 week Rotation Cycle. The "Anchor Date" for all of this is the Group Jehoiarib being on Duty at the Destruction of the Temple by Titus. **AND IT ALL WORKS OUT**. The Group "Immer" is on Duty for the Passover of 4 BC and the Passover of 9 CE.

Further, in John we find a character who is unfit to untie the thong of "Jesus' " sandal. This ties the character to the Group "Bilgah", which PRECEDES Immer in Temple Service. A VERY sophisticated Joke.

Third Falsifiability: What to do? One way out is to see what others think and there is at least one Scholar who sees the death of Herod material as being written by someone else. To explain: Josephus used commentary from "Nicholas of Damascus" to write his Histories. If what we have today is what was written then, then someone provided a "Just So" Story that does NOT match with the reasonable assumptions of events in 4 BCE. The Destruction of the Temple has Jehoiarib on Duty: "Just So". It goes without saying that this is critical. The Mishmarot reading is too strong to just throw away. It might have to be...

3. Semitisms, Latinisms et.al.: Recently, I came across a work that looks at the early Mark statement, "Couches, spread all around..." as a Latin phrase that came into the Story from someone's Latinized head. I'm big on the Semitic part of what I see but there's always some detail that may derail the train of thought. I'm re-writing the early part of the work to encompass this material. Also, this material relies on a single written word pun for "Immar" <=> "Lamb" looking like "Immer" <=> "Mishmarot Service Group", preceeded by "Bilgah". Your mileage may vary.

Fourth Falsifiability: Charlie just doesn't know enough. If he did, he would realize the complexity of it all and go back to studying Option Football.

4. Atwill. If I had never read Atwill, my Thesis would still hold. It would be MUCH less than it is now but Atwill's acceptance or rejection is NOT central to the Thesis. Wow!, does it ever fit and explain a lot, however. I know the ins and outs of Atwill by heart. Criticize Atwill 'til the cows come home and I'll nod my head, "Yes, yer right, um-hmm..." and I'll know that you don't understand what Atwill is getting at. Joe understands what I'm doing and I'll say about his work what he says of mine: "Even if he's wrong, he's correct..."

Fifth Falsifiabilty: The Thesis, "The Romans Did It!", may be false but, believe me, The Roman thesis is gonna take a lot more Skollership to refute than has been offered so far. Check your assumptions at the door. If you cannot accept the Roman Thesis, you are gonna have bring everything to the Seminar. Pack your lunch.

5. Other Stuff: Hello, Adam! Our Poster Adam has brought Howard Teeple into the Forum and no one has responded to Adam's Critiques. I can respond but in a limited manner. Teeple is a Greekie, as Atwill is, and I cannot go that far. This is a Semitic Story and what Teeple sees is covered by a Semitic Overlay that Teeple breaks apart. I break apart Teeple, he breaks me apart.

Sixth Falsifiability: Other Systems may offer greater Explanatory Power.

More later,

CW

[Adam]

5. Other Stuff: Hello, Adam! Our Poster Adam has brought Howard Teeple into the Forum and no one has responded to Adam's Critiques. I can respond but in a limited manner. Teeple is a Greekie, as Atwill is, and I cannot go that far. This is a Semitic Story and what Teeple sees is covered by a Semitic Overlay that Teeple breaks apart. I break apart Teeple, he breaks me apart.
CW

Teeple dates the gospels late, fitting better with Greek originals. I date the Gospel of John earlier. The Passion Narrative underlying it must have been in Aramaic, judging by its differences with the Synoptics. His view of the Discourses as from an earlier source fits with Aramaic provenance as well, particularly considering the prevalence of textual difficulties in that part of John. However, the Signs Source was in Greek, as was all editing and redacting.

[Charles Wilson]

Teeple dates the gospels late, fitting better with Greek originals.

The Gospels could not have been any earlier than around 95 and that is too early by a few years unless some Scribes were given a homework assignment the day after Domitian suffered Damnatio Memoriae. The disembodied, ethereal Holy Spirit is a Marker for Domitian, derived under the Roman Thesis, given above. I simply have a problem with "...Greek Originals" and what that implies, unless the Claim is "The first Official Copy of the NT was the first copy that was all in Greek." I'm simply not a Greekie. Your mileage may vary.

I date the Gospel of John earlier.

When? What are your internal criteria?

The Passion Narrative underlying it must have been in Aramaic, judging by its differences with the Synoptics.

Here is where it all gets interesting. John does not contradict the Synoptics (in the usual sense)! My work is following the Temple Slaughter of 4 BCE and its aftermath. Another reading of my initial Post for this Thread finds an Alternative Reading. Another way of stating this is to say that there is an alternative Symbolic Structure. It probably was in Aramaic - It would almost have to be - and this Noir Story tells of the Slaughter of the Lamb of God in 4 BCE. The " 'mmr-Yah" is the Group Immer and the Priests and some 3000 are murdered in and around the Temple.

This is the Story of Peter who appears at Passover in 4 BCE as a child. He saves a Priest and they should both be DEAD. They survive and Peter and this Priest contemplate what has happened. They return to Jerusalem in 12 years from Upper Galilee to overturn the Herodians and the Romans. The Priest (possibly Peter as well...) are intercepted and murdered.

The Symbolism is striking: The Group Immer is murdered on Passover. The returning Group 12 years later finds the Priest crucified on the Day of Preparation. There is no contradiction.

...the Signs Source was in Greek, as was all editing and redacting.

'N the Signs Gospel was about Titus, no "ifs", "ands" or "buts". The problem here is that the "Sign's Gospel" as currently constructed has been corrupted by mis-identifying Types (See previous Posts on John).

Thanx again, Adam!

CW