Biblical Criticism & History Forum - earlywritings.com

I'm working on an incomplete Thesis.

Jay Raskin and Joe Atwill, among others, have noticed that parts of the NT read as a Play or Satire.
Bernard has noticed that the Tomb Sequence appears grafted onto Mark, even possibly to the first copy.
Atwill has constructed a very nice sequence that follows the rising sun for an "Objective Background" from which a Plausible Scenario may be constructed that is free of contradictions as to "Who went where, Who got there first and Who was there last."
Turton's Chiastic Structures appear to support some version of Bernard's Thesis as to the original - The possible alignment between the Author of Mark and this added Story is smooth and probably written by this "Mark".

VERY nice stuff.

So, if this thing READS as a Play, a Tragi-Comedy based on Mistaken Identity, then maybe there is enough of an extant Play that has:

A. Twins or identities of 2 people who look enough alike as to be mistaken for each other.
2. A "Place", whether a tomb or not, where people come and go and these 2 people are there, not there and so on.
3. Possible darkness or even drunken participants who cannot tell each other apart, much less the 2 look-a-likes.

So far, I've found:

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

I am becoming convinced that the Tomb Scene has indeed been grafted onto the entire Gospels, split in two from John and Mark (then through Matthew and Luke) but originally from a Source that reads as a Greek Play. Jay's Linkage of Mark and John with the Spices and the Great Stone (See previous Post) may go much deeper here.

CW

Charles Wilson wrote:I'm working on an incomplete Thesis.

Jay Raskin and Joe Atwill, among others, have noticed that parts of the NT read as a Play or Satire.
Bernard has noticed that the Tomb Sequence appears grafted onto Mark, even possibly to the first copy.
Atwill has constructed a very nice sequence that follows the rising sun for an "Objective Background" from which a Plausible Scenario may be constructed that is free of contradictions as to "Who went where, Who got there first and Who was there last."
Turton's Chiastic Structures appear to support some version of Bernard's Thesis as to the original - The possible alignment between the Author of Mark and this added Story is smooth and probably written by this "Mark".

VERY nice stuff.

So, if this thing READS as a Play, a Tragi-Comedy based on Mistaken Identity, then maybe there is enough of an extant Play that has:

A. Twins or identities of 2 people who look enough alike as to be mistaken for each other.
2. A "Place", whether a tomb or not, where people come and go and these 2 people are there, not there and so on.
3. Possible darkness or even drunken participants who cannot tell each other apart, much less the 2 look-a-likes.

So far, I've found:

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

• WIKI: The Menaechmi is a comedy about mistaken identity, involving a set of twins, Menaechmus of Epidamnus and Menaechmus of Syracuse. It incorporates various Roman stock characters including the parasite, the comic courtesan, the comic servant, the domineering wife, the doddering father-in-law and the quack doctor. As with most of Plautus' plays, much of the dialogue was sung

.

I am becoming convinced that the Tomb Scene has indeed been grafted onto the entire Gospels, split in two from John and Mark (then through Matthew and Luke) but originally from a Source that reads as a Greek Play. Jay's Linkage of Mark and John with the Spices and the Great Stone (See previous Post) may go much deeper here.

CW

Hi Charles,

Let's assume the hypothesis is true. Some questions ...

Who would have the authority to graft a Greek Play onto the "Four Gospels"?

Why did the grafter graft a play rather than a biography or some other genre?

What were the most important tombs around this time? Augustus? Alexander?

Menaechmi is Latin. To look for a Greek play you need to be over on the other side of the public library.

Was the tomb of Zeus found empty?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euhemerism#Tomb_of_Zeus


Be well,



LC

Nazarenus

Leucius Charinus wrote:Let's assume the hypothesis is true. Some questions ...

Who would have the authority to graft a Greek Play onto the "Four Gospels"?

1. Tacit Assumption: The Original Original was a Theological Document. I'm not sure it was. Jay has shown that there is a relationship between Mark and John, both coming from a common Source. It should be an Aramaic/Hebrew Source which WAS Religious, being the Story of Peter, who saves etc., etc., etc., ad nauseum. I'm reasonably sure that very early on it became a Theological Story. See Asimov and his discussions on how the Foundation Series came about for ideas about Grand Galactic Theories and their development. Atwill is the Radical here and he is probably right but its possible that someone who wrote in common Greek blocked out the Story first. Remember, I'm not a Greekie but neither was Mucianus and he's gotta be in here somewhere.

Consider: Written works are hand copied and that places an upper limit on what can be produced, where it can be produced and who would be able to read it. We're talking a VERY small circle of friends here. "Mark" was connected. Very early on the Document came to the attention of the Roman Court and someone had a flash of inspiration as to how to deal with those Jews in a Proactive manner that didn't involve Blood and Treasury. "Permission Granted".

2. Tacit Assumption: The Four-fold division of the Gospel involved a splitting of Mark and John, then rewrites of Mark into Matthew and then Luke (HEY...HEY! Work with me here if you disagree on the Priority Question...)

Here's the point of the "Tomb Scene" as Play!: I'll put it in "Seeming Language" so no one can argue it since I used Weasel Words to qualify everything. It APPEARS as if the splitting of the Tomb Story is of a different Type than "Matthew explains Mark and Luke collates the rest with other additions from the Original Aramaic/Hebrew Document". The Tomb Scene, again following Atwill, is a consistent Story without Contradiction if it uses the rising sun as an Objective Background. People come and people go and mistake identities through the entire scene. This is a Different Character from some ordering of the Synoptics, whatever order turns out to be correct.

"I know...Let's take that Jew Town "Bezetha" and turn it into "Bethsaida". How does that sound, Iulius...You used to be a Jew...". Uh-uhh... Different idea entirely. If this idea works, the Tomb Scene was split into four parts. DIFFERENT!

Why did the grafter graft a play rather than a biography or some other genre?

Can't answer that one. Maybe it was a biography. It READS as a Situation Comedy which would have been a Play (To answer the question below, Yes,it could have been a Roman Play. Maybe that Mime Troupe from Etrusca...I dunno...). You have one person in the Tomb and 2 outside, no one in the Tomb and others outside, 2 people in the Tomb and..."Where's Jesus!?!! He musta' risenated! OMG!". Development of Mistaken Identity gets its development from the Greeks - That's what I been toad (Said the frog).

What were the most important tombs around this time? Augustus? Alexander?

YES! Now yer talkin'! Didn't think of that one but it makes perfect sense! "El" was the Semitic god with no visible attributes. Perhaps this does happen outside the Tomb of Zeus which happens to be empty. Good thought!

Menaechmi is Latin. To look for a Greek play you need to be over on the other side of the public library.

Or the keyboard.
Hope this explains the thinking a bit

CW

Charles Wilson wrote: Jay Raskin and Joe Atwill, among others, have noticed that parts of the NT read as a Play or Satire.

Because that is how the writers were trained.

Some more skilled then others.

These unknown Hellenist authors were not just writing scripture.

Bernard has noticed that the Tomb Sequence appears grafted onto Mark, even possibly to the first copy.

Gmark is a compilation, it is to be expected.

I am becoming convinced that the Tomb Scene has indeed been grafted onto the entire Gospels,

I don't have a problem with this.

based on Mistaken Identity,

This I do.



They make it very clear about the Galilean who died at Passover under Caiaphas and Pilate. Baptized and taught by John.

outhouse wrote:

Charles Wilson wrote: Jay Raskin and Joe Atwill, among others, have noticed that parts of the NT read as a Play or Satire.

Because that is how the writers were trained.

This is Class Analysis and when Truth is Class Functional, there is no Truth. Give me some predicates that apply to you and I will construct a Class which contains you and that Class will consist of members who cannot state any True Statement about anything, much less New Testament Origins. Mark to Kant to Hegel => { Blah Blah Blah ...}

Outhouse wrote:

Charles Wilson wrote:
Bernard has noticed that the Tomb Sequence appears grafted onto Mark, even possibly to the first copy.

Gmark is a compilation, it is to be expected.

You are going beyond the evidence to an extent. That's OK but it implies that the Original Original would be known and seen as a Compilation. Who would create such a device? Some farmer? A Slave? Someone...from the Roman Court? Most importantly, WHY? I/We know its a Compilation NOW but at its inception, perhaps before the ending at 16: 8 was torn off, was it known then as a Compilation?

Outhouse wrote:

Charles Wilson wrote:I am becoming convinced that the Tomb Scene has indeed been grafted onto the entire Gospels,

I don't have a problem with this.

This is the beginning of Understanding.

Outhouse wrote:

Charles Wilson wrote: based on Mistaken Identity,

This I do.

That's OK. Having just re-read Atwill on "The Puzzle of the Empty Tomb", all that is required is that SOMEONE is familiar with Farce and "Mistaken Identity". It doesn't have to be taken from a Greek/Roman Play - think one of the Plinys for instance - but when you place the actions in sequence, it sets up quite nicely as a Play based on Mistaken Identity.

They make it very clear about the Galilean who died at Passover under Caiaphas and Pilate. Baptized and taught by John.

Who THEY? If "they" be "Divinely Inspired Humans", then there is nothing to argue about. There is no direction on how to get there nor nothing that can be said in opposition. "Submit or Die".

Game Over.

If "They" be humans writing for a particular end, then, by all means, let's have the analysis. Raskin and Atwill may be members of Inauthentic Classes - or maybe not - but you do need to see how Atwill puts the Tomb Scene together and see how Raskin dissects Mark and John.

CW

Charles Wilson wrote:
This is Class Analysis and when Truth is Class Functional, there is no Truth.

No.

It is being able to understand how IN CONTEXT all writing from this period was constructed. Most using Aristotle's teachings on rhetoric.

Proper context places you closer to educated plausibility. No need for truth.

You are going beyond the evidence to an extent

How so? it is a credible analysis of the evidence.

That's OK but it implies that the Original Original would be known and seen as a Compilation.

No

Known and seen by whom?

Context is key here. What was important to communities/pater familias was by norm plagiarized and collected and redacted.

Was Luke and Matthew seen that way after plagiarizing Mark?

And you falsely assume there was an original original, there never was. Maybe an original compilation. People had artistic freedom as they placed little weight on written text in an illiterate society. That's why copies varied while retaining the foundation.

perhaps before the ending at 16: 8 was torn off, was it known then as a Compilation?

To many assumptions. It may have been added as more communities started following a physical instead of a spiritual resurrection.

It may have been lost or eroded. Torn?

Having just re-read Atwill on

To many credible places to learn then reading trash. The only thing it teaches is how to use imaginative mental hurdles to create a hypothesis instead of actual facts.

Its like reading about evolution from a creationist website.

Charles Wilson wrote:- but you do need to see how Atwill puts the Tomb Scene together and see how Raskin dissects Mark and John.

Again like creationist, it is teaching how to jump over evidence and context to suit your needs. Pass.


Some of his work may be insightful, but like creationist, they will tell 2 truths to sink in the lie or out of context quote. Again Pass.

The kernel of the gospel narratives is the trial and execution of Jesus. Whereas Jesus’ ministry in Galilee is presented as a string of utterances, deeds and incidents, culled from oral traditions and differently arranged by each of the four evangelists, with Jesus’ arrest the pace quickens and a highly dramatic story emerges, in which the differences between the gospels fade into insignificance. This indicates that the gospels drew on some pre-existing written account of the passion. As we read the story of Jesus’ final hours and watch one carefully-construed scene succeed another, we begin to distinguish the hand of a master. There must have been an individual of literary genius who wrote about the trial and execution of JesusI speak of an individual, because genius is individual.

Ever since the Enlightenment, when the gospels began to be studied in a rationalistic frame of mind as literary works within their ancient context, parallels have been drawn between the passion of Jesus and the rituals and mysteries of the dying and resurrecting gods such as Dionysus and Osiris. The death and resurrection of Osiris was enacted annually in a dramatic performance. Greek tragedy evolved from sacred plays in honor of Dionysus. Did primitive Christianity, too, begin as ritual drama?

The economy of the Gospel narratives is related to the ritual commemoration of the Passion; taking them literally we run the risk of transposing into history what are really the successive incidents of a religious drama,

so wrote Alfred Loisy, one of the most perceptive New Testament scholars of our time.[2] J. M. Robertson went even further, claiming that the story of the passion is

the bare transcript of a primitive play... always we are witnessing drama, of which the spectators needed no description, and of which the subsequent transcriber reproduces simply the action and the words...[3]

Even theologians who are less daring in framing hypotheses continue to stumble upon traces of some ancient drama that appears to underlie the passion narrative.[4] S.G.F. Brandon is impressed by the superb theatrical montage of the trial of Jesus[5] ; Raymond Brown finds that John’s gospel contains touches worthy of great drama in many of its scenes and suggests that our text may be the product of a dramatic rewriting on such a scale that little historical material remains.[6] But none of these scholars has succeeded in reconstructing this drama or identifying its author. They came very close to the truth but missed a crucial elementthe drama that constituted the kernel of the passion story was not a primitive ritual performance, but a tragedy of considerable subtlety and sophistication.

http://www.nazarenus.com/0-4-tragospel.htm

1. Thank you, Clive.

2. As to outhouse,If you want to start a fight, that's OK. Step out back and if I don't show, you start the fight without me.
It's obvious to me that you did not read what I wrote.

Atwill and Raskin were both focused on Context, Context and Context. The point is not, "GEE, there are others who agree with ME! Lookee what I discover'd. ME!...". I don't care a whiff of sparrow gas whether Mark 16: 8 was torn, eroded or burnt. Maybe Mark was on Imperial Deadline and got as far as "...they were frightened, for___" and some Court Flunky demanded the Book finished or not.

If anyone cares - and it's dreadfully not certain that anyone here does - here's the Short Form:

A. The Tomb Scene found in the Gospels has Contradictions when each Story is read as a stand-alone piece. There are contradictions between the 4 versions found in people going into the Tomb, who is in the Tomb, etc.

B. Atwill uses the sun rising as an objective background to place the events in an order that eliminates the Contradictions. Part of his construction is his belief that, in order to eliminate Contradictions, you must allow that, for example, "Simon Peter" and "Peter" are different characters.

C. Raskin has shown a Deep Relationship between "Mark" and "John", one that asserts that Mark and John composed their works concerning the Tomb Scene from a Common Source Document.

Therefore, there appears to be a common Story of the Tomb Scene that has been split into two.
Therefore, the Common Story has other information that was not used in Mark and John. Matthew and Luke used this material, building around Mark. ***NOTE***: There are other divisions of the Synoptics that are possible and, to many, quite credible. OK. Fine.

Therefore. the Tomb Scene has four extant parts that, when re-combined, yield a Story of the Tomb Scene without Contradictions, of the material we have available from the four Gospels.

D. I am asserting that this Process is of a different TYPE than the revision of a Mark into Matthew and Luke. Against this idea might be offered the "Fourth Watch Story", where "Jesus" would have "walked by" the boat. The Disciples "shrieked, as if they had seen a ghost...". In Matthew, there is addition: Peter comes out from the boat to Jesus.

E. Nonetheless, it appears that the Synoptics plus John were composed in a different manner than the division of the Tomb Story.

F. The Original is not a composition of "Inerrancy". If it was complete and inerrant, we would have the complete and inerrant story.

Therefore, the Source Material was divided for effect. Matthew and Luke make Mark "More Complete". (We do not know if there was other material left out but we can be fairly sure that there was other material, since it was stolen from Aramaic/Hebrew Sources. Linguistic Criticism. See: "Lamb of God", "You must be born again", etc.)

The division of the Tomb Story was not to "More fully complete" any other Book. It appears as if the Story itself was divided into four parts and distributed to the extant Gospel accounts.

G. When re-arranged, the completed Story is without Contradiction and it READS as if it came from another Literary Form: A PLAY. It could have been from a Biography, it could have been composed from someone who had access to early copies and decided/had to insert the reason for the New Religion.

H. Mark existed as a single Book with the Tomb Scene at one point since it ends at 16:8 as does every other copy since then. Either Mark wrote this or someone who understood Mark's Chiastic Structures added it.

I. Books are copied by hand. It takes a lot of time. Few people are rich enough and have the time to read what Mark wrote. The Probabilities of someone with abilities in Chiastic Structures adding to Mark approach zero. Mind you , it could be done but you have to decide as to who had the motive, opportunity and means to get it done.

Therefore, if the Tomb Scene reads as a Play, there might be something extant that we could find in Greek and Roman Literature.

CW

PS: Leucius Charinus makes an important comment above concerning newsworthy Imperial Tombs that would be available for the setting of such a Play. In the interests of accuracy and integrity, I state that I have already decided the Tomb location in John:

Suetonius, 12 Caesars, "Galba":

"From these it was bought by a freedman of Patrobius Neronianus for a hundred pieces of gold and thrown aside in the place where his patron had been executed by Galba's order. At last, however, his steward Argivus consigned it to the tomb with the rest of the body in Galba's private gardens on the Aurelian Road..."

I do not know, however, of any literature involving actions of this sort situated around the Tomb of Galba on the Aurelian Road.

Best to all.