Parable of Sower and Aelia Capitolina

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
Post Reply
Giuseppe
Posts: 13732
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Parable of Sower and Aelia Capitolina

Post by Giuseppe »

Often it is said that the parable of Sower is derived from the agrarian world, and to such degree, it would be atemporal, valid in any time.

But then, according to this logic, also the fondative myth of Rome (Romulus who traces the furrow of Rome) would be atemporal.

What if the Parable of Sower is alluding to a precise sowing, the fondative act of a new city, for example, the new Jerusalem after the his complete destruction? The farmer going out to sow may allegorize God himself going out from the his Temple (being destroyed) to sow in a new sowing :
A farmer went out to sow his seed.
For example, the Romans invented the anti-fondative myth of Carthago: the spilling of salt on the his soil is symbolically a wish of the his future not-recostruction.

I am not an expert of the foundative myths of the ancient cities, but often, I think, the agrarian world plays a role (for example, how the city of Atene was founded).

So, for example, the myth of Romulus who kills Remus just when Rome is founded: we see also in the Parable of Sower the presence of the evil enemy who threatens the sowing just during the his execution.

In this way, I would like to prove that all these allusions to the agrarian world work as a reference to the foundative myth of Aelia Capitolina by the Christians: viz, ''Mark'' hoped that the new earthly Jerusalem was founded by true Christians.

The enemy who threatens just this future new foundation shows himself in advance:
When you see ‘the abomination that causes desolation’ standing where it does not belong—let the reader understand—then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains
Simon Magus is the ''standing one''. So the sense would be: just when the new sowing is going to be realized, the heresy is already there, ready to threaten the purity of the Church.

thoughts?
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.
Giuseppe
Posts: 13732
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: Parable of Sower and Aelia Capitolina

Post by Giuseppe »

The Parable of the Tenants is another example of a agrarian parable alluding to the destruction of Jerusalem. What is not recognized until now, is the similarity between this Parable and the Parable of Sower:

Parable of SowerParable of Tenants
“Listen! A farmer went out to sow his seed.A man planted a vineyard. He put a wall around it, dug a pit for the winepress and built a watchtower. Then he rented the vineyard to some farmers and moved to another place.
4 As he was scattering the seed, some fell along the path, and the birds came and ate it up. At harvest time he sent a servant to the tenants to collect from them some of the fruit of the vineyard. 3 But they seized him, beat him and sent him away empty-handed.
5 Some fell on rocky places, where it did not have much soil. It sprang up quickly, because the soil was shallow.4 Then he sent another servant to them; they struck this man on the head and treated him shamefully.
6 But when the sun came up, the plants were scorched, and they withered because they had no root.5 He sent still another, and that one they killed.
7 Other seed fell among thorns, which grew up and choked the plants, so that they did not bear grain.He sent many others; some of them they beat, others they killed.
8 Still other seed fell on good soil. It came up, grew and produced a crop, some multiplying thirty, some sixty, some a hundred times.”
9 Then Jesus said, “Whoever has ears to hear, let them hear.”
6 “He had one left to send, a son, whom he loved. He sent him last of all, saying, ‘They will respect my son.’
7 “But the tenants said to one another, ‘This is the heir. Come, let’s kill him, and the inheritance will be ours.’ 8 So they took him and killed him, and threw him out of the vineyard.
10 When he was alone, the Twelve and the others around him asked him about the parables. 11 He told them, “The secret of the kingdom of God has been given to you. But to those on the outside everything is said in parables 12 so that,
“‘they may be ever seeing but never perceiving,
and ever hearing but never understanding;
otherwise they might turn and be forgiven!
’”
9 “What then will the owner of the vineyard do? He will come and kill those tenants and give the vineyard to others. 10 Haven’t you read this passage of Scripture:
“‘The stone the builders rejected
has become the cornerstone;
11
the Lord has done this,
and it is marvelous in our eyes’ ?”
12 Then the chief priests, the teachers of the law and the elders looked for a way to arrest him because they knew he had spoken the parable against them. But they were afraid of the crowd; so they left him and went away.


So, in virtue of the equivalence between the two Parables, then also the Parable of Sower refers to the destruction of Jerusalem, with the significant difference that it represents the pars construens, whereas the Parable of Tenants represents the pars destruens.

Seen from this POV, the Parable of Sower is the myth of foundation of a new Israel, diffuse in all the Gentile world and in the his microcosmo that is the new city of Aelia Capitolina.
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.
Giuseppe
Posts: 13732
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: Parable of Sower and Aelia Capitolina

Post by Giuseppe »

2 Thessalonians is a II° century CE forgery. Here we find again Simon Magus as the Anti-Christ figure, insofar “he sets himself up in God’s temple, proclaiming himself to be God” (the same figure who in Mark is “‘the abomination that causes desolation’ standing where it does not belong”). The his anti-nomian nature is well reflected in the his being the Man of Lawlessness:


2 Thessalonians 2:1-12
2 Concerning the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and our being gathered to him, we ask you, brothers and sisters, 2 not to become easily unsettled or alarmed by the teaching allegedly from us—whether by a prophecy or by word of mouth or by letter—asserting that the day of the Lord has already come. 3 Don’t let anyone deceive you in any way, for that day will not come until the rebellion occurs and the man of lawlessness[a] is revealed, the man doomed to destruction. 4 He will oppose and will exalt himself over everything that is called God or is worshiped, so that he sets himself up in God’s temple, proclaiming himself to be God.
5 Don’t you remember that when I was with you I used to tell you these things? 6 And now you know what is holding him back, so that he may be revealed at the proper time. 7 For the secret power of lawlessness is already at work; but the one who now holds it back will continue to do so till he is taken out of the way. 8 And then the lawless one will be revealed, whom the Lord Jesus will overthrow with the breath of his mouth and destroy by the splendor of his coming. 9 The coming of the lawless one will be in accordance with how Satan works. He will use all sorts of displays of power through signs and wonders that serve the lie, 10 and all the ways that wickedness deceives those who are perishing. They perish because they refused to love the truth and so be saved. 11 For this reason God sends them a powerful delusion so that they will believe the lie 12 and so that all will be condemned who have not believed the truth but have delighted in wickedness.

So Mark 13 is based on the Anti-Christ legend of Simon Magus already found in 2 Thessalonians. This is a strong clue for dating Mark in the second century.
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.
Giuseppe
Posts: 13732
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: Parable of Sower and Aelia Capitolina

Post by Giuseppe »

Some late gnostics, already on the way to be more and more judaized, believed the demiurge was ignorant and naïve rather than downright evil, and provided a very moving explanation to an otherwise ordinary story in the bible.

When [Jesus] entered Capernaum, a centurion came to him, appealing to him and saying, “Lord, my servant is lying at home paralyzed, in terrible distress.” And he said to him, “I will come and cure him.” The centurion answered, “Lord, I am not worthy to have you come under my roof; but only speak the word, and my servant will be healed. For I also am a man under authority, with soldiers under me; and I say to one, ‘Go,’ and he goes, and to another, ‘Come,’ and he comes, and to my slave, ‘Do this,’ and the slave does it.” When Jesus heard him, he was amazed…And to the centurion Jesus said, “Go; let it be done for you according to your faith.” And the servant was healed in that hour.’(Mt. 8:5-13)
The gnostics interpreted this paragraph with unparalleled beauty. The centurion, they argued, was the demiurge. The demiurge refers to his angels when he says he has soldiers under his authority. The paralyzed servant is humanity, which suffers from all kinds of spiritual diseases. The demiurge did his best to save humanity by means of the Mosaic Law. But the law brought only death; it failed to change people to the better and only brought penalties on the transgressors. Realizing his attempt to redeem humanity has failed, the demiurge resorts to Jesus. He tells him that he is not worthy to have him under his roof, which means that the demiurge doesn’t deserve to have Jesus come down to his lesser world. But he only asks Jesus to speak a word to heal his son. This perfectly accords with the gnostic doctrine, which holds that Jesus’ mission was to promulgate secret teachings, not to die for people’s sins. This interpretation is documented by Irenaeus (Against Heresies 1.vii.4) and also survives in Heracleon’s commentary on John 4:46-54.


But this explanation doesn't justice to another strange particular of the story.

So Wikipedia:
According to James Neill, the Greek term "pais" used for the servant in Matthew's account almost always had a sexual connotation.[8] In support of this view, he remarks that the word pais, along with the word "erasthai" (to love) is the root of the English word "pederasty".[8] He sees in the fact that, in Luke's parallel account, the Centurion's servant is described as "valued highly"[9] by the Centurion an indication of a homosexual or pederastic relationship between the two, and argues that the Greek word "doulos" used of him in Luke's account suggests he may even have been a "sex slave" or companion.[8] Daniel A. Helminiak agrees that the word pais could have a sexual meaning.[10] Theodore W. Jennings Jr. and Tat-Siong Benny Liew further write that Roman historical data about patron-client relationships and about same-sex relations among soldiers support the view that the pais in Matthew's account is the centurion's "boy-lover", and that the centurion therefore did not want Jesus to enter his house for fear perhaps that the boy would be enamoured of Jesus instead.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Healing_t ... 7s_servant

The centurion is the demiurge as he is the ''King of this world'', the Roman Emperor Hadrian. The his servant is the his lover Antinous. Whereas Hadrian was not able to raise the his sex slave, Jesus succeed.

This is another clue that the Gospels were written under Hadrian.
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.
User avatar
arnoldo
Posts: 969
Joined: Sat Oct 12, 2013 6:10 pm
Location: Latin America

Re: Parable of Sower and Aelia Capitolina

Post by arnoldo »

Giuseppe wrote: Sat Jan 19, 2019 8:40 am . . . This is another clue that the Gospels were written under Hadrian.
The Roman Emperor Julian wrote the following which perhaps would support an earlier dating.
Yet Jesus, who won over the least worthy of you, has been known by name for but little more than three hundred years: and during his lifetime he accomplished nothing worth hearing of, unless anyone thinks that to heal crooked and blind men and to exorcise those who were possessed by evil demons in the villages of Bethsaida and Bethany can be classed as a mighty achievement.
http://www.tertullian.org/fathers/julia ... 1_text.htm

Also, it is questionable whether the Roman Emperor Constantine would ban a particular form of execution, in part, based upon a second century fabrication.
Giuseppe
Posts: 13732
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: Parable of Sower and Aelia Capitolina

Post by Giuseppe »

arnoldo wrote: Sat Jan 19, 2019 11:18 am
Giuseppe wrote: Sat Jan 19, 2019 8:40 am . . . This is another clue that the Gospels were written under Hadrian.
The Roman Emperor Julian wrote the following which perhaps would support an earlier dating.
there is a strong clue for the contrary:

The quote that follows is from a longer article of McAdon which has since been taken down from the internet (it may be [not sure] the article “Josephus and Mark” by Brad McAdon which is published in Alpha, vol. 1, 2017), and gives the essential argument:

“[T]he fact that Josephus’s Antiquities 18 is the only extant source that includes narrative material on the Herodian family, a Philip, Herod Antipas, Herod Antipas and Herodias’s relationship, John’s criticism of this relationship, John’s baptism, his arrest, imprisonment, and death strongly suggests dependence with Mark’s narrative. If, for example, Mark did not know and use Antiquities 18, this would mean that he must have had access to and used some other source material for these narrative components of John’s baptism and death that included the specific thematic details about the Herodian family—including ambiguity about a Philip—and John’s baptism, arrest, and death that is extremely similar in content to Antiquities 18. There has not been a single attestation that such a source has ever existed.”
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.
Giuseppe
Posts: 13732
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: Parable of Sower and Aelia Capitolina

Post by Giuseppe »

Another clue that Mark is post-Josephus:

“We heard him say, ‘I will destroy this temple made with human hands and in three days will build another, not made with hands.’”

(Mark 15:58)

In Mark Jesus is sure that there will be not more a future reconstruction of the temple since the his future reconstruction excludes the his (of Jesus) resurrection. .

Josephus hopes still that the Romans could give the possibility of a new construction. He describes in detail the Temple treasures, in Jewish War 7:148-150, and 161-162, obviously in the hope that they may well have been restored to service in a next future.
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.
User avatar
MrMacSon
Posts: 8798
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 3:45 pm

Re: Parable of Sower and Aelia Capitolina

Post by MrMacSon »

arnoldo wrote: Sat Jan 19, 2019 11:18 am
Giuseppe wrote: Sat Jan 19, 2019 8:40 am . . . This is another clue that the Gospels were written under Hadrian.
The Roman Emperor Julian wrote the following which perhaps would support an earlier dating.

Yet Jesus, who won over the least worthy of you, has been known by name for but little more than three hundred years: and during his lifetime he accomplished nothing worth hearing of, unless anyone thinks that to heal crooked and blind men and to exorcise those who were possessed by evil demons in the villages of Bethsaida and Bethany can be classed as a mighty achievement.
http://www.tertullian.org/fathers/julia ... 1_text.htm

Julian would not have been in a position to know the real history or its chronology.

arnoldo wrote: Sat Jan 19, 2019 11:18 am Also, it is questionable whether the Roman Emperor Constantine would ban a particular form of execution, in part, based upon a second century fabrication.
It's not clear that Constantine did ban crucifixion: all Roger Pearse concludes with is "perhaps we should be just a little careful here, and mark it as merely a possible". I don't know whether others have looked at the question of whether Constantine banned crucifixion.

Even if Constantine had he, like Julian, would not have known the exact history or veracity of what he was basing his decisions on (including his alleged eventual decision to favour Christianity over his initially preferred religion, the then Roman Empire premier, essentially-monotheistic cult of Sol Invictus elevated by Aurelian).
Giuseppe
Posts: 13732
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: Parable of Sower and Aelia Capitolina

Post by Giuseppe »

This is concrete evidence that "Mark" (author) wrote after Josephus.

http://sckool.org/marks-sources-in-mark ... the-s.html
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.
Post Reply