A Plausible Reading of Mark, Well-Done with a Side of Ram
Moderator: andrewcriddle
-
- Posts: 3964
- Joined: Tue Oct 15, 2013 6:02 pm
- Contact:
Re: A Plausible Reading of Mark, Well-Done with a Side of Ra
Most of my posts on that thread and on "Simon of Cyrene, the father of Alexander and Rufus", with the replies from Peter Kirby and Secret Alias, have been transferred to viewtopic.php?f=8&t=1512, under "~~Nowhere in Particular~~" index, and "replies regarding a topic" thread.
Cordially, Bernard
Cordially, Bernard
I believe freedom of expression should not be curtailed
- Ben C. Smith
- Posts: 8994
- Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
- Location: USA
- Contact:
Re: A Plausible Reading of Mark, Well-Done with a Side of Ra
What is a white supposition?Secret Alias wrote:Clearly Peter's argument here requires us to abandon any of the stupid 'white' suppositions about pagan myths and the like being at the heart of the gospel narrative (via allegory).
Ben.
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ
-
- Posts: 18922
- Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am
Re: A Plausible Reading of Mark, Well-Done with a Side of Ra
You know, non-Jewish. 'Blanche' in French, 'Mzungu' in ki-Swahili. The hegemony which ruled the part of the world 'it/them' inhabited for most of the last 2000 years and imposed its will and somehow pretends that Christianity's embrace of 'it/them' is coincidental.
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote
-
- Posts: 18922
- Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am
Re: A Plausible Reading of Mark, Well-Done with a Side of Ra
When you get to the core of Christianity it's Jewish (not surprisingly) but orthodox Christianity pretends that it was focused on 'the Gentiles' so there's this disconnect. So what do scholars do? I don't know but somehow they try to reconcile a series of claims in texts which are acknowledged in antiquity to have been corrupted but somehow rescue or protect familiar concepts (like Paul's mission to the Gentiles) because 'they (the white scholars) happen to like it.' I happen to think the corruption led to the mission to the Gentiles to divorce Christianity from its Jewishness (i.e. it wasn't accidental that 'Jewish Christianity' disappeared). There was something dangerous about Christianity and divorcing Christianity from its Jewish roots 'solved' that problem. I think the fact that key concepts of 'Jewish Christianity' are preserved in the Islamic pseudepigrapha is not accidental because the deserts of Arabia by and large escaped European hegemony. Thanks for asking.
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote
Re: A Plausible Reading of Mark, Well-Done with a Side of Ra
On this matter of any relationship between the sin offering goat versus scapegoat, and Jesus versus anyone else, keep in mind that the Epistle of Barnabas treats Jesus as the scapegoat, NOT the sin offering goat. So, it is the exact opposite of what has been proposed in some of the posts I've read.
Besides, after its release in the wilderness, the people chase down the scapegoat and kill it, don't they?
DCH
Besides, after its release in the wilderness, the people chase down the scapegoat and kill it, don't they?
DCH
Re: A Plausible Reading of Mark, Well-Done with a Side of Ra
This is a very good point. You could get out of this that Barabbas would fall in the city while defending it.DCHindley wrote:On this matter of any relationship between the sin offering goat versus scapegoat, and Jesus versus anyone else, keep in mind that the Epistle of Barnabas treats Jesus as the scapegoat, NOT the sin offering goat. So, it is the exact opposite of what has been proposed in some of the posts I've read.
Yes, but that's not original. The scapegoat was supposed to be chased into the desert and die there, but this would be exchanged for tossing it down a cliff behind the temple, just to make sure it did not survive.DCHindley wrote:Besides, after its release in the wilderness, the people chase down the scapegoat and kill it, don't they?
-
- Posts: 18922
- Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am
Re: A Plausible Reading of Mark, Well-Done with a Side of Ra
Score one for the Islamic pseudepigrapha and the substitution tradition.Jesus as the scapegoat, NOT the sin offering goat.
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote
-
- Posts: 18922
- Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am
Re: A Plausible Reading of Mark, Well-Done with a Side of Ra
When I make reference to the 'white' bias in New Testament scholarship on all levels including mythicism I do so not because (a) I don't consider myself white (b) out of antipathy for European culture or (c) to be controversial. I do so including the Islamic tradition as part of the greater Semitic cultural stream which preserves an anti-Euro-hegemony embodied in the use of 'Melkite' in the Eastern Churches. Just look at the manner in which 'Rome' became the head of the Church. It's absurd. But the idea that Pilate was fooled by a docetic Jesus was clearly interpreted as the Emperor and the Empire being made the fool. It is amazing how so few scholars grasp the political significance of an incredulous Pilate. Even if Pilate was later (or during his lifetime) deemed a bad governor does not change the fact that it would be dangerous for Jews to demonstrate the impotency of Caesar's representative. Once you realize that it becomes patently obvious that Christianity had to have come under the watchful eye of the authorities as soon as the gospel was published.
This is Celsus's point and Irenaeus and company ultimately corrected that through the quick establishment of bishops throughout major urban centers. It took longer in some centers (Alexandria) but the subversion of the docetic tradition was ultimately done for the appeasement of Caesar.
And remember the traditional way of interpreting matters is through a historical lens - i.e. that it was a 'fact' that Jesus said and did these things and he was God and God is above Caesar so the narrative is 'justified.' But surely scholars can't be so dense to see that this is not how the Romans would look at matters. They certainly would have viewed the author of the gospel as having a choice as to what he put in his narrative and moreover they would not have been swayed by the idea that a god 'actually' came to visit in that age. Instead they would have viewed the gospel as an invented fiction - a myth - with a profound anti-establishment message. This is how mythicism is actually quite useful.
This is Celsus's point and Irenaeus and company ultimately corrected that through the quick establishment of bishops throughout major urban centers. It took longer in some centers (Alexandria) but the subversion of the docetic tradition was ultimately done for the appeasement of Caesar.
And remember the traditional way of interpreting matters is through a historical lens - i.e. that it was a 'fact' that Jesus said and did these things and he was God and God is above Caesar so the narrative is 'justified.' But surely scholars can't be so dense to see that this is not how the Romans would look at matters. They certainly would have viewed the author of the gospel as having a choice as to what he put in his narrative and moreover they would not have been swayed by the idea that a god 'actually' came to visit in that age. Instead they would have viewed the gospel as an invented fiction - a myth - with a profound anti-establishment message. This is how mythicism is actually quite useful.
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote
Re: A Plausible Reading of Mark, Well-Done with a Side of Ra
Only in your eyes.Secret Alias wrote:Just look at the manner in which 'Rome' became the head of the Church. It's absurd.
How is it absurd that a movement grew strong enough that finally the Emperors mothers was a follower, and that by embracing the religion one could control more people.
Grabbing the movement by the horns is the only non absurd thing that did actually happen Stephan.
This idea is only in your headBut the idea that Pilate was fooled by a docetic Jesus
That's why they did no such thing. Washed his hands clean of it, is the tradition.Even if Pilate was later (or during his lifetime) deemed a bad governor does not change the fact that it would be dangerous for Jews to demonstrate the impotency of Caesar's representative.
And its obvious by wording in these traditions that this was the case.Once you realize that it becomes patently obvious that Christianity had to have come under the watchful eye of the authorities as soon as the gospel was published.
The text hid meanings so that it was not obvious to the Romans.
They are not. They place this into context perfectly. Why you don't realize this, is amazing.But surely scholars can't be so dense to see that this is not how the Romans would look at matters.
They certainly would have viewed the author of the gospel as having a choice as to what he put in his narrative and moreover they would not have been swayed by the idea that a god 'actually' came to visit in that age.
They gave a certain amount of religious freedom, knowing it was mythology in their eyes and had no real power, and never did have any power outside of controlling people. It was not a threat so it was ignored.
I think your trying to give it more attention then it deserved.
Last edited by outhouse on Sat May 02, 2015 10:18 am, edited 1 time in total.
- Peter Kirby
- Site Admin
- Posts: 8617
- Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 2:13 pm
- Location: Santa Clara
- Contact:
Re: A Plausible Reading of Mark, Well-Done with a Side of Ra
Perhaps another sign that the Epistle of Barnabas is independent of the Gospels, not dependent on them (and vice-versa).DCHindley wrote:On this matter of any relationship between the sin offering goat versus scapegoat, and Jesus versus anyone else, keep in mind that the Epistle of Barnabas treats Jesus as the scapegoat, NOT the sin offering goat.
Exact opposites usually aren't really exact opposites. This is like saying that Superman is the exact opposite of Batman, because Superman has inherent powers but Batman is just an ordinary guy. Well, maybe so. But that's only relevant in the context of their extremely close similarity as concepts, and it's not completely clear whether their "exactly opposite" nature has any particular relevance in any particular context. You'd still expect Batman and Superman to show up in your favorite show's comic superhero episode (or whatever), for example, and you'd still expect anyone to understand that the people calling Jesus one goat or another (or both?**) are still comparing Jesus to a goat based on a particular passage of scripture.DCHindley wrote:So, it is the exact opposite of what has been proposed in some of the posts I've read.
(**Some consider Jesus to be, in whatever sense the author intended, both goats in the Gospel of Mark, explaining "Barabbas" as "son of the father.")
The most relevant bit in the context of this thread is that the Epistle of Barnabas shows that early Christians were applying this passage to Jesus.
"... almost every critical biblical position was earlier advanced by skeptics." - Raymond Brown