(Note to
Ben: It really is startling how much material there is which can now be read as referring to 9-11, even when we know that the creators of the material had other purposes and no inkling of the real events. The two examples in the blog post were chosen for their possible parallels to
Mark 13:1-2, but the body of pre-911 artistic, literary and dramatic references to the destruction of the landmark towers is much larger. Fascinating how the mind seizes on coincidences and what the resulting affect is.)
Howdy,
Neil
Kudos on your extended review of Lataster's book, still in progress. On some points you make here:
That's not how the NT or other Second Temple Jewish authors found prophecies in the "OT". They used a kind or word play to create entirely new meanings that bore little obvious relation to the original texts.
As it happens, the possibly most famous-notorious of the Delphic prophecies (one of the incidents that Herodotus discusses, the one predicting that the outcome of a proposed war will be decisive, without specifying who would win) is not at all ambiguous. As prophecies go, it is unusually falsifiable: one of the combatants will be destroyed. That is not the only seriously possible outcome of a military adventure, or even typical. Many wars are stalemates or settled on liveable terms, this one won't be.
Herodotus shows awareness that the fault lay not with the oracle but with the decisionmaker who read what he wanted to read in a text that plainly said no such thing.
Example, the Suffering Servant passages in Isaiah are not prophecies but histories.
I think we are in some basic agreement here. However, the author's intentions may be irrelevant to what the later reader may find "prophetic." This was illustrated in the difference between our contemporary spontaneous reaction to depictions of a lone airplane in the vicinity of the North Tower in contrast to how those same images were understood by both their authors and their original viewers.
The tale of Jonah was not a "sign" or prophecy, either. In another narrative an author could conceivably made the image of Jonah under the gourd the central "prophecy" instead of his 3 days in the great fish.
Yes.
Luke (11:29-30, 32) amplified the "sign of Jonah" to refer to the overall situation in
Jonah, without a word about three days in a fish. However, Luke continued to emphasize the prophetic character of Jesus' reference to Jonah.
For example, from Paul we know that the idea of a crucified Christ was central to the faith of the high and the low classes,
Agreed, and so it was in my hypothetical. What differed by class there was what fostered the importance of the crucfixion aspect of the idea. I proposed recognition of contexts in which, despite the idea's central importance, other aspects of the faith lore might be expressed instead.
What may have been a bug for the intelligensia (or only ironically satisfying as a puzzle to be worked out with study and learned discourse) might have been an unalloyed feature for other adherents. That remains a possibility despite a different way in which the available evidence could be interpreted.
Example, the very idea of "being crucified with Christ" was itself an abstract and philosophical (educated) concept akin to the Stoic idea of giving up one's own "mind" to the "Logos" or "Reason"
I'm not at all sure that it was abstract. Tanya Luhrmann of Stanford, for instance, has done a lot of psychological and anthropological work on the churchly use of "imagined dialog" and similar exercises. Contemporary Christians exist who consciously practice these exercises, and interpret the resulting subjective experiences as divine or angelic communication.
I don't have a strong conclusion to offer here and now about the applicability of Luhrmann's work (and others') as "experimental archeology" bearing on Christian origins, but there is ample foundation there for further study, IMO.
Was not the crucifixion and then resurrection the very hope of the dead -- so why does this central hope appear to be missing from the earliest Christian funerary art?
I don't know of course, but I live near a cemetery. I notice that funerary art (mostly in stone there) is often personal. For example, some of the older military-issued headstones have no reference at all to religion (contemporary American ones do), but much reference to the deceased's military service. There are several Masonic headstones, but statistically, many of those buried in those graves must have been Christians or Jews.
Yup, there are plenty of crosses. I get what you're saying. But plenty of "missing" crosses, too.
I don't get how Jesus raising Lazarus wouldn't be a strong candidate for selection, despite Jesus not being the one raised. If you see the basis of my puzzlement, then where is the line? How is Jesus rescuing an errant lamb not an icon of hope for a good outcome in the judgment that attends the anticipated resurrection? Or, why would anybody feel inhibited about using the well-worn figure of referring to a part in order to represent a whole (an incident in Jesus' career to stand for the entire career, of which the "central hope" is an integral part, as is shepherd imagery)?
You are right about the evidence for different Christianities existing side by side from the early days. I find it difficult to imagine them having much time for each other, though.
Again, I don't have a strong conclusion to offer at this time, but so what if they didn't have "much time for each other;" did Group A need Group B's permission to adore Jesus? (Eventually, yes, Group B would roast Group A on sticks otherwise, but at the beginning, when neither group had much power or influence?)