neilgodfrey wrote: ↑Thu Apr 28, 2022 1:54 am
maryhelena wrote: ↑Thu Apr 28, 2022 1:19 am
So....still an issue of 'can conclude'...
So.....I have concluded that the gospel story of Simon from Cyrene and his two sons, Alexander and Rufus, is a reflection upon the historical figures of Aristobulus II and his two sons, Alexander and Antigonus....
So......?
So I don't think that your views are in theory very different from many others. Like others, yours is also proposing that the gospel narrative is a fiction based on historical events for inspiration. I don't see any difference in that respect between what you conclude and what I conclude.
This quote is why I posted to this thread:
Neil: In other words, we have only a myth at the beginning of our search for historical origins.
Now, it seems you are saying that, yes, we have a myth at the beginning of our search for historical origins - but that that myth is
''based on historical events for inspiration''.
Perhaps it is not quite correct to consign all theories except your own to "meaningless myth" or something like that while yours "alone" (that is the impression conveyed in your comments) is viable because it is based on "real events".
Ah, now a personal dig re an impression conveyed in (my) comments.....
Neil, any conclusion based upon historical events is worth investigation. I draw the line on conclusions based on non-historical events i.e. events, particularly in Josephus, that cannot be historically verified. For instance: Theudas is the subject of this thread - a Josephan figure with no external historical evidence. Same goes for Jesus ben Saphat.
''meaningless myth' - I can't remember saying such a thing about 'myth'. Such an idea does not feature in my approach to the gospel Jesus myth. My ideas 'alone' ? Members of this forum are free to challenge anything I write. And, Neil, one does not present ideas - one does not present a theory - without having confidence in it. I'm not interested in playing games - I'm interested in moving the issue of christian origins forward. That requires historical arguments. Hence I'm not interested in being distracted by arguments that resolve around supposed, maybe, probably, historical Josephan characters. That's to shortchange or sabotage the debate over christian origins.
I have concluded that the gospel story of Simon from Cyrene and his two sons, Alexander and Rufus, is a reflection upon the historical figures of Aristobulus II and his two sons, Alexander and Antigonus....
So .....??
Why no comment on what I have concluded if you ''don't see any difference in that respect between what you conclude and what I conclude.''..
Did you find what I concluded interesting ? How does what I have concluded regarding Simon from Cyrene and his two sons, Alexander and Rufus - that these three literary figures are reflecting the historical figures of Aristobulus II and his sons, Alexander and Antigonus. How does what I have concluded add to what you yourself have concluded ?