A Plausible Reading of Mark, Well-Done with a Side of Ram

[Bernard Muller]

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

[Ben C. Smith]

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).

What is a white supposition?

Ben.

[Secret Alias]

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.

[Secret Alias]

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.

[DCHindley]

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

[Ulan]

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.

This is a very good point. You could get out of this that Barabbas would fall in the city while defending it.

Besides, after its release in the wilderness, the people chase down the scapegoat and kill it, don't they?

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.

[Secret Alias]

Jesus as the scapegoat, NOT the sin offering goat.

Score one for the Islamic pseudepigrapha and the substitution tradition.

[Secret Alias]

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.

[outhouse]

Just look at the manner in which 'Rome' became the head of the Church. It's absurd.

Only in your eyes.

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.

But the idea that Pilate was fooled by a docetic Jesus

This idea is only in your head

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.

That's why they did no such thing. Washed his hands clean of it, is the tradition.

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.

And its obvious by wording in these traditions that this was the case.

The text hid meanings so that it was not obvious to the Romans.

But surely scholars can't be so dense to see that this is not how the Romans would look at matters.

They are not. They place this into context perfectly. Why you don't realize this, is amazing.

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.

[Peter Kirby]

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.

Perhaps another sign that the Epistle of Barnabas is independent of the Gospels, not dependent on them (and vice-versa).

So, it is the exact opposite of what has been proposed in some of the posts I've read.

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.

(**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.