Frenemies of TalkRational:
Nontheist Nexus |  Rants'n'Raves |  Secular Cafe |  Council of Ex-Muslims |  The Skeptical Zone |  rationalia |  Rational Skepticism |  Atheists Today | 
TalkRational  

FAQ Rules Staff List Calendar RSS
Go Back   TalkRational > Discussion > Theology, Hagiography and Creeds

Theology, Hagiography and Creeds for discussion of religion(s), secularism and related issues

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 10-17-2009, 05:27 AM   #647882  /  #76
Koyaanisqatsi
literally plausibly true
 
Koyaanisqatsi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 4,915
Koyaanisqatsi
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mountainman View Post
Nobody has a clue when they were authored.
Well, that's not necessarily true. Beside the Dead Sea/Nag Hamadi scrolls, one clue is the trial sequence in Mark.

The intent of Mark's passion narrative is to blame the Jews (general, non-specific) for the death of their own martyrd hero; their "messiah." That kind of clearly Roman propaganda (along with Paul's earlier attempts) only makes sense in terms of the political state of Roman occupied Jerusalem around the time most scholars date Mark (to 70 C.E.). The occupied people (aka, "the Jews") were on the brink of open revolution and evidently the crucifixion for insurrection of one of the more popular local radical Rabbis/Insurrectionist leaders forty years or so earlier had caused or added weight to a movement.

The reason the trial is significant is because it's spun (and incredibly poorly) to exonerate Pilate, specifically, but also to indict the "elders" of the generation of Jewish insurrectionists that would be in active revolt at that time, that in turn led to the Roman army "last resort" genocide attempt.

IOW, Paul and Mark were rather garden variety Roman agents for the Roman Empire, who failed in their attempt to turn a revolution around from within and the military had to step in. Same old, same old (as perfected by the Roman Empire many years prior to anything going on in just one more occupied region).

If it were all made up three hundred years later, there'd be no need at all to include any such ridiculous, convoluted and blatantly nonsensical trial sequence (if there hadn't actually been a trial). Constantine would have simply had his "Mark" write a story of how the Sanhedrin turned the crowd of Jews against Jesus (as is in Mark) and stoned him to death for blasphemy, leaving Pilate (and therefore Rome) entirely out of the equation in regard to Jesus' death.

There's no need to go to such extraordinary (and contradictory) literary lengths to exonerate what would amount to a fictional character three hundred years after the fact if the whole purpose were to simply create an anti-judaic mythology--which the NT most certainly is--unless a trial and crucifixion and subsequent insurrectionist inspiring martyrdom did not actually occur decades prior to an open Jewish revolution. The "narrative" of the "good news" is intertwined with and the direct product of the growing Jewish revolution that culminated in the Roman military genocide.

What happened after it that failed to turn the targeted Jewish insurrectionists, but succeeded in mentally enslaving the gentiles (aka, "Romans") is just the kind of gravy Constantine would naturally recognize as an asset far more powerful than military might. It transcended borders and could be spread by word alone; enslaving as it promised to free. It's precisely what every Caesar attempted; to be viewed as a living God, but even better. "Christianity" was God Adjacent. Friends in LA will get that one.

Constantine was just smart enough to recognize the hierarchical structure of the martyr cult that became the Pope/Priesthood out of the ashes of an earlier failed standard empiric maneuver.

Quote:
However everyone should be made very well aware of the fact that these books were first historically published by a fascist dictator who converted the empire to the very pure centralized state monotheistic christian cult at the point of a large number of very sharp barbarian held swords.
Except that it wasn't monotheistic and that's another important clue, methinks, to date Mark to coincide with the military intervention. Along with the need to subvert the growing "Jesus" revolution (i.e., a martyred insurrectionist's mythology) would have been to break the stronghold of the monotheistic cult that is Judaism in the occupied region by reinforcing and manipulating and inserting--like a disease--already existing "Hellenized" pagan/pantheist theology.

Think about what the Roman Empire was facing at around 65 C.E. in Jerusalem; a prized conquered region where the conquered citizens not only didn't assimilate, but were largely impervious to assimilation due exclusively to their cult beliefs and the unity those beliefs instilled. Jews would rather die than convert; a motif later taken, no doubt, by Constantine's revisionists that got turned into the hero stories of "Christian" persecution that never really happened.

Paul and Mark, in particular, IMO, are examples of a particularly Roman desperation and they tell the story of the lengths an Empire will go to in order to ensure compliance. And when compliance won't work...kill 'em and learn from the fallout.


Last edited by Koyaanisqatsi; 10-17-2009 at 07:22 AM.
Koyaanisqatsi is offline   Reply With Quote topbottom
Old 10-17-2009, 05:37 AM   #647883  /  #77
Politesse
Nihil declaro
 
Politesse's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: The Turd Belt
Posts: 3,148
Politesse
Send a message via AIM to Politesse
Default

Ha, dueling conspiracy theories.

__________________
"Life is very short. We die on the march. But there is nothing outside the march so nothing can be lost to it. The missing plays of Sophocles will turn up piece by piece, or be written again in another language."
Politesse is offline   Reply With Quote topbottom
Old 10-17-2009, 06:00 AM   #647887  /  #78
Koyaanisqatsi
literally plausibly true
 
Koyaanisqatsi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 4,915
Koyaanisqatsi
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by DailyB View Post
Ha, dueling conspiracy theories.
Yeah, you're right. It makes much more sense that an omnigod trifurcated into himself, his own ghost (whatever the fuck that means) and himself again, only in flesh (euphemistically referred to as his own "son") in order to sacrifice himself to himself as a necessary condition to save his creation from his own wrath! There is no "trinity" when it's yourself and yourself and yourself, but why quibble about "conspiracy theories"?

How silly of anyone to come up with a far more logical human explanation for what is clearly Roman anti-judaism propaganda that resulted in the Roman Empire becoming the Holy Roman Empire that thereby never died. You want to talk about immortality? Scholars say the Thousand Year Empire crumbled and yet...another fifteen hundred years later, white smoke out a chimney is heralded by hundreds of millions of sycophants worldwide who still won't use birth control because their Emperor Pope sitting on his pure gold throne in Rome says no.

And, of course, don't forget to paint those inexplicable magical Rabbit eggs and hide them to celebrate Jesus' death and resurrection (because that logically follows from everything in the NT) and don't forget to celebrate Jesus' "birthday" that wasn't his birthday, but was instead a pantheist/pagan/Roman winter solstice ritual! You non-conspiracy theorist cult member you!



ETA: Oh, and they fucked little alter boys with impunity. Just, you know, because there's no conspiracy involved in any of this. Btw, do you know why Nuns--the "brides of Christ"--were first inducted into the empire religious order Christian cult? To clandestinely take care of all of the bastard children the Priests who weren't as "enlightened" as their brethren who preferred to fuck the little alter boys were producing.

Hey, what do you know? The heir progenitor of your own cult beliefs decays every generation on a golden throne! Thank a god, I guess, that you're "reformed," so good on you, yes? You're obviously impervious to any kind of silly conspiracy. Tee hee!

Last edited by Koyaanisqatsi; 10-17-2009 at 07:14 AM.
Koyaanisqatsi is offline   Reply With Quote topbottom
Old 10-17-2009, 07:25 AM   #647897  /  #79
Politesse
Nihil declaro
 
Politesse's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: The Turd Belt
Posts: 3,148
Politesse
Send a message via AIM to Politesse
Default

The best you can do is a lame tu quoque that applies to no one in the thread? If either of you want your ideas taken seriously, actual evidence is in order. Not just demonstrations of how it is thinly possible coupled with adamant protestations about how it "all makes sense".
__________________
"Life is very short. We die on the march. But there is nothing outside the march so nothing can be lost to it. The missing plays of Sophocles will turn up piece by piece, or be written again in another language."
Politesse is offline   Reply With Quote topbottom
Old 10-17-2009, 07:39 AM   #647900  /  #80
Koyaanisqatsi
literally plausibly true
 
Koyaanisqatsi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 4,915
Koyaanisqatsi
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by DailyB View Post
If either of you want your ideas taken seriously, actual evidence is in order.
I've presented actual evidence; the trial sequence in Mark and its ludicrous exoneration of Pilate/blaming of "the Jews" coinciding with the historical fact of a Jewish revolt that had grown so serious that the Roman Empire had to send legions of its elite troops into Jerusalem to kill every Jew.

Compare the timeline of the three major Jewish revolts with the synoptics:

Quote:
The first Jewish-Roman War (66–73), sometimes called The Great Revolt (Hebrew: המרד הגדול‎, ha-Mered Ha-Gadol), was the first of three major rebellions by the Jews of Iudaea Province against the Roman Empire (the second was the Kitos War in 115–117; the third was Bar Kokhba's revolt, 132–135).
All three correspond chronologically (more or less) with the majority of scholars' dating of Mark, Matthew and Luke, respectively. Note also how the passion narrative created by Mark gets strengthened and expanded upon over the years in Matthew and then Luke, particularly in the "turn the other cheek...to earthly authority" and rendering unto Caesar that which is Caesar's pro-Roman mystique.

Last edited by Koyaanisqatsi; 10-17-2009 at 07:51 AM.
Koyaanisqatsi is offline   Reply With Quote topbottom
Old 10-17-2009, 07:43 AM   #647902  /  #81
Politesse
Nihil declaro
 
Politesse's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: The Turd Belt
Posts: 3,148
Politesse
Send a message via AIM to Politesse
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Koyaanisqatsi View Post
I've presented actual evidence; the trial sequence in Mark and the historical fact of a Jewish revolt that had grown so serious that the Roman Empire had to send legions of its elite troops into Jerusalem to kill every Jew.
Perhaps you and I have different standards of evidence. You should actually try reading the Iστορία Ἰουδαϊκοῦ sometime, it's a fascinating work.
__________________
"Life is very short. We die on the march. But there is nothing outside the march so nothing can be lost to it. The missing plays of Sophocles will turn up piece by piece, or be written again in another language."

Last edited by Politesse; 10-17-2009 at 07:46 AM.
Politesse is offline   Reply With Quote topbottom
Old 10-17-2009, 07:53 AM   #647908  /  #82
Koyaanisqatsi
literally plausibly true
 
Koyaanisqatsi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 4,915
Koyaanisqatsi
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by DailyB View Post
Perhaps you and I have different standards of evidence.
Evidently true since you're an admitted cult member. But, by all means, please defend the inexplicable trial sequence depicted in Mark and the later revisions. I'm theologically erect at the thought.

Quote:
You should actually try reading the Iστορία Ἰουδαϊκοῦ sometime, it's a fascinating work.
Indeed. Particularly when Josephus lived and what he did. Though, that's a lot like saying I should read Benedict Arnold's version of the revolutionary war, but by all means, make an argument.

Last edited by Koyaanisqatsi; 10-17-2009 at 08:03 AM.
Koyaanisqatsi is offline   Reply With Quote topbottom
Old 10-17-2009, 08:00 AM   #647909  /  #83
Politesse
Nihil declaro
 
Politesse's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: The Turd Belt
Posts: 3,148
Politesse
Send a message via AIM to Politesse
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Koyaanisqatsi View Post
Indeed. Particularly when Josephus lived and what he did. Though, that's a lot like saying I should read Benedict Arnold's version of the revolutionary war.
If it were the only surviving contemporary account? Yes, it would be quite important.
__________________
"Life is very short. We die on the march. But there is nothing outside the march so nothing can be lost to it. The missing plays of Sophocles will turn up piece by piece, or be written again in another language."
Politesse is offline   Reply With Quote topbottom
Old 10-17-2009, 08:06 AM   #647911  /  #84
Koyaanisqatsi
literally plausibly true
 
Koyaanisqatsi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 4,915
Koyaanisqatsi
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by DailyB View Post
If it were the only surviving contemporary account?
Because of...? Oh, sorry, didn't mean to interject pertinence.

Quote:
Yes, it would be quite important.
Then make your argument. What is "quite important" about Josephus the Roman's "only surviving contemporary account"?
Koyaanisqatsi is offline   Reply With Quote topbottom
Old 10-17-2009, 08:09 AM   #647912  /  #85
Politesse
Nihil declaro
 
Politesse's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: The Turd Belt
Posts: 3,148
Politesse
Send a message via AIM to Politesse
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Koyaanisqatsi View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by DailyB View Post
If it were the only surviving contemporary account?
Because of...? Oh, sorry, didn't mean to interject pertinence.

Quote:
Yes, it would be quite important.
Then make your argument. What is "quite important" about Josephus the Roman's "only surviving contemporary account"?
That you don't seem to know much about the period you are writing conspiracies into.
__________________
"Life is very short. We die on the march. But there is nothing outside the march so nothing can be lost to it. The missing plays of Sophocles will turn up piece by piece, or be written again in another language."
Politesse is offline   Reply With Quote topbottom
Old 10-17-2009, 08:15 AM   #647915  /  #86
Koyaanisqatsi
literally plausibly true
 
Koyaanisqatsi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 4,915
Koyaanisqatsi
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by DailyB View Post
That you don't seem to know much about the period you are writing conspiracies into.
Ah, irony. Big fan.

And you're evidently led to this ironic conclusion by the fact that Josephus only wrote after he turned against his Jewish insurrectionists and became a curiously wealthy (and safe) Roman citizen as a result? You're arguing for my theory, not agin' it. Particularly since Josephus didn't really write anything at all about Jesus, which, as an actual contemporary historian of his day (and a Roman turncoat) would make perfect sense in light of my theory.

You're talking essentially about a reporter not reporting pertinent facts because of his Roman protectorate juxtaposed with Roman propagandists intent on subverting Jewish insurrectionists prior to and during a Jewish revolution; aka, a "war on terror." Oh my, what an incredible stretch of the imagination! Nothing like that has ever occurred in history! Why, that would be like a right wing newspaper not mentioning left wing successes against right wing political machinations.

Who ever heard of such a shocking thing?

Last edited by Koyaanisqatsi; 10-17-2009 at 08:30 AM.
Koyaanisqatsi is offline   Reply With Quote topbottom
Old 10-17-2009, 08:25 AM   #647917  /  #87
Politesse
Nihil declaro
 
Politesse's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: The Turd Belt
Posts: 3,148
Politesse
Send a message via AIM to Politesse
Default

Alright, I'll take the bait. Explain your theory to me in more detail.

Who exactly wrote the book of Mark, to whom was it written and when, and why?

What in-text evidence do you have for this?

If you want everyone to simply accept your outlandish hypothesis, I presume you have some fairly convincing evidence for your answer to each of those questions.
__________________
"Life is very short. We die on the march. But there is nothing outside the march so nothing can be lost to it. The missing plays of Sophocles will turn up piece by piece, or be written again in another language."
Politesse is offline   Reply With Quote topbottom
Old 10-17-2009, 09:13 AM   #647923  /  #88
Koyaanisqatsi
literally plausibly true
 
Koyaanisqatsi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 4,915
Koyaanisqatsi
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by DailyB View Post
Alright, I'll take the bait. Explain your theory to me in more detail.
And here I thought you'd never ask .

Quote:
Who exactly wrote the book of Mark
Possibly Josephus himself, but I wouldn't venture that far yet.

Quote:
to whom was it written and when, and why?
Well, it would be like the propaganda pamphlets we (and just about every army since the Roman Empire) drop prior to a military invasion, though likely more substantive considering the time. It would have likely been written to bolster Paul's direct efforts at infiltrating and subverting the growing offshoots of the earlier "Jesus" movement (insurrectionists that we call "apostles").

Quote:
What in-text evidence do you have for this?
I told you, the trial sequence in Mark, primarily (and later interpolations in Matthew and Luke). Do mean "in-text" as in Mark, or do you mean in Josephus' writings?

If in Mark (and it were faithfully recording a "true" oral account of an actual event), then we have so many problems with what he chronicles that the mind literally boggles, starting with the fact that there would be no way in hell that the Sanhedrin could have possibly convinced Pilate to try the case. If, otoh, Mark's "good news" was nothing more than Roman propaganda, then the tortured attempt to revise what would have likely been a well known Roman trial and example/crucifixion that resulted in the martyrdom of Jesus the Insurrectionist makes perfect historical sense.

If Mark was not Roman propaganda, then to any Roman, let alone the highest Roman official in the region, Jesus would have been nothing more than a local Rabbi preaching reformed Judaism at best; at worst, or just plain even keel, he would have been nothing more than yet another among thousands of irrelevant Jewish cult fanatics. Even if he had stood outside of Pilate's office and somehow could yell loud enough that he, Jesus, was Caesar and Pilate once heard him scream that he was, the most that Pilate would have done in that situation was summon a low ranking officer to in turn dispatch the lowest ranking plebes to beat the shit out of Jesus, or just plain kill him. That would be the entire extent of any Roman "crime" (and any Roman response) the Jesus of a "true" Mark could have committed.

Likewise, if the Sanhedrin wanted to kill Jesus for blasphemy (even though he never commits blasphemy), they could have stoned him to death at any time (and evidently tried twice before).

So, you have the initial problem of why Pilate--the equivalent of a General/Dictator would have anything to do at all with a trial regarding a local, irrelevant Jewish cult member who (as was later attested to) he could find no crime at all that the man had committed even deigning to meet the man, let alone consenting to a trial just because the local slave labor bosses wanted it.

Then of course you have the problem with the "tradition" of letting a convicted murderer or seditionist against Rome go free at the whim of the conquered subjugate's cult festival crowd as an honored tradition that would never have happened. Ever.

And then you have the magical mysterious "crowd of Jews" at the festival. The Sanhedrin are so terrified of this crowd and how popular Jesus is among them that they fear for their own lives if they were to move against and try to kill Jesus (as they could have easily done under Jewish law and, again, supposedly twice tried to do prior). So instead they sequester Jesus and ask him questions and then think, "We cannot stone him to death for blasphemy, because he didn't really blaspheme before us, so here's an idea. Let's make the highest Roman officer whose job it is to subjugate us kill him for us, and when he turns against us and publicly exposes our own treachery and thrice declares Jesus to be innocent, we'll move 'the crowd' against him to convince him to kill Jesus for us, even though we feared 'the crowd' so much just two days ago that we hatched this ridiculous conspiracy theory in the first place...."

There's so much more it's not even funny, but it's late.

Quote:
If you want everyone to simply accept your outlandish hypothesis
Yourself yourself and yourself kill yourself as a necessary sacrifice to yourself to save your creation from your own wrath.

Don't ever type the words "outlandish hypothesis" again.

Quote:
I presume you have some fairly convincing evidence for your answer to each of those questions.
Convincing to anyone capable of intellectual honesty, yes. You're clearly an intellectual, but are you intellectually honest? I guess we'll see.

Last edited by Koyaanisqatsi; 10-17-2009 at 09:22 AM.
Koyaanisqatsi is offline   Reply With Quote topbottom
Old 10-17-2009, 05:39 PM   #648126  /  #89
Politesse
Nihil declaro
 
Politesse's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: The Turd Belt
Posts: 3,148
Politesse
Send a message via AIM to Politesse
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Koyaanisqatsi View Post
Possibly Josephus himself, but I wouldn't venture that far yet.
I will tell you right off the bat that this is impossible. Linguistically, they are very different. Josephus wrote in very adequate classical Greek, rhetorically complex and well-executed. Mark... did not. He rambles, repeats himself, uses the common tongue (Koine) at all junctures, abuses prepositions, and seldom uses any language more complicated than a child would understand.

Quote:
Well, it would be like the propaganda pamphlets we (and just about every army since the Roman Empire) drop prior to a military invasion, though likely more substantive considering the time. It would have likely been written to bolster Paul's direct efforts at infiltrating and subverting the growing offshoots of the earlier "Jesus" movement (insurrectionists that we call "apostles").
Interesting. So you believe that it is a pamphlet? It's.. a very long pamphlet. How many were made, and who were they given to? Are suggesting that the mostly illiterate common people of Judea were aupposed to read this? Why is it written in Greek rather than Aramaic? Was this supposed to be distributed all throughout Israel, or just Jerusalem? Do you understand the cost of this project of yours?

Now I'm going to help you out here, as a freebie, if you promise not to your head. A lot of scholars think that Mark was originally composed and propogated orally-- the written version is just a rubric to help someone reading the story aloud. If you want to maintain your theory and don't want to sound like an idiot when you are explaining it, think in terms orators rather than pamphlets, because that is how the Romans themselves would think to communicate to the masses. But there are still issues.

But you still haven't finished my questions about provenance. Where was it written, by whom, and exactly when? Because it is a weakness in your hypothesis. You keep referencing the scholars who supposedly agree with you, but for your idea to make sense, the Romans would have had to be distributing it for some time prior to the first Jewish war, hoping apparently for a religion to take root in time to quell the rebellion. When we add to the mix that almost everyone agrees its author was a Roman (hence the questionable Greek and the frequent and inaccurate explanation of the Hebraisms that occur, the description of impossible geographic feats, etc) that means the date of composition is pushed even earlier. So whether you realize it or not, you are actually arguing that the book was written rather earlier than most scholars believe, and to an entirely different audience.

Quote:
I told you, the trial sequence in Mark, primarily (and later interpolations in Matthew and Luke). Do mean "in-text" as in Mark, or do you mean in Josephus' writings?
I was referring to Mark.

Quote:
If in Mark (and it were faithfully recording a "true" oral account of an actual event), then we have so many problems with what he chronicles that the mind literally boggles, starting with the fact that there would be no way in hell that the Sanhedrin could have possibly convinced Pilate to try the case. If, otoh, Mark's "good news" was nothing more than Roman propaganda, then the tortured attempt to revise what would have likely been a well known Roman trial and example/crucifixion that resulted in the martyrdom of Jesus the Insurrectionist makes perfect historical sense.
How? Why would it serve Roman ends? I don't know if you've noticed, but Jesus is sort of the hero of the book. Why would they want to make a martyr of him? Even if the blame ultimately lands at the feet of the Sanhedrin, the Sanhedrin are not "the Jews" to most of the Jews at this time- they are also allied with the Romans. This is one of the reasons I was suggesting you need to read Jospehus, because he does explain the period before the war fairly well. There was a lot of emnity toward the Jewish leadership at the time, and it was one of the reasons for the revolt. So if your propaganda was supposed to endear the Romans to the people of Judea, its a pretty stupid way to go about it. If the whole guilt thing is supposed to actually work, I would have written the story so that Jesus got killed by a zealot.

Quote:
If Mark was not Roman propaganda, then to any Roman, let alone the highest Roman official in the region, Jesus would have been nothing more than a local Rabbi preaching reformed Judaism at best; at worst, or just plain even keel, he would have been nothing more than yet another among thousands of irrelevant Jewish cult fanatics.
It's generally agreed that Jesus did not cause a lot of ruckus in his lifetime.

Let's see here, the next few paragraphs explain, essentially, why you believe that the trial sequence is not factually accurate. Most scholars would agree with you on that point, so I'll let it lay. But a single paragraph of an entire book is not enough evidence to substantiate your claim. There's a lot more to Mark than the trial sequence, and many ways to explain the trial sequence as well.

Quote:
Yourself yourself and yourself kill yourself as a necessary sacrifice to yourself to save your creation from your own wrath.

Don't ever type the words "outlandish hypothesis" again.
Why not? Firstly, what I believe has nothing to do with whether or not your hypothesis makes sense, and secondly, I don't believe anything like the above, nor did the early Christians for that matter.

Quote:
Convincing to anyone capable of intellectual honesty, yes. You're clearly an intellectual, but are you intellectually honest? I guess we'll see.
I do my best. Do you? I think so, or else I wouldn't be bothering to have this conversation with you.
__________________
"Life is very short. We die on the march. But there is nothing outside the march so nothing can be lost to it. The missing plays of Sophocles will turn up piece by piece, or be written again in another language."

Last edited by Politesse; 10-17-2009 at 05:42 PM.
Politesse is offline   Reply With Quote topbottom
Old 10-18-2009, 06:13 PM   #649264  /  #90
gamera
If a doubledecker bus . .
 
gamera's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 18,726
gamera
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Koyaanisqatsi View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by mountainman View Post
Nobody has a clue when they were authored.
Well, that's not necessarily true. Beside the Dead Sea/Nag Hamadi scrolls, one clue is the trial sequence in Mark.

The intent of Mark's passion narrative is to blame the Jews (general, non-specific) for the death of their own martyrd hero; their "messiah." That kind of clearly Roman propaganda (along with Paul's earlier attempts) only makes sense in terms of the political state of Roman occupied Jerusalem around the time most scholars date Mark (to 70 C.E.). The occupied people (aka, "the Jews") were on the brink of open revolution and evidently the crucifixion for insurrection of one of the more popular local radical Rabbis/Insurrectionist leaders forty years or so earlier had caused or added weight to a movement.

The reason the trial is significant is because it's spun (and incredibly poorly) to exonerate Pilate, specifically, but also to indict the "elders" of the generation of Jewish insurrectionists that would be in active revolt at that time, that in turn led to the Roman army "last resort" genocide attempt.

IOW, Paul and Mark were rather garden variety Roman agents for the Roman Empire, who failed in their attempt to turn a revolution around from within and the military had to step in. Same old, same old (as perfected by the Roman Empire many years prior to anything going on in just one more occupied region).

If it were all made up three hundred years later, there'd be no need at all to include any such ridiculous, convoluted and blatantly nonsensical trial sequence (if there hadn't actually been a trial). Constantine would have simply had his "Mark" write a story of how the Sanhedrin turned the crowd of Jews against Jesus (as is in Mark) and stoned him to death for blasphemy, leaving Pilate (and therefore Rome) entirely out of the equation in regard to Jesus' death.

There's no need to go to such extraordinary (and contradictory) literary lengths to exonerate what would amount to a fictional character three hundred years after the fact if the whole purpose were to simply create an anti-judaic mythology--which the NT most certainly is--unless a trial and crucifixion and subsequent insurrectionist inspiring martyrdom did not actually occur decades prior to an open Jewish revolution. The "narrative" of the "good news" is intertwined with and the direct product of the growing Jewish revolution that culminated in the Roman military genocide.

What happened after it that failed to turn the targeted Jewish insurrectionists, but succeeded in mentally enslaving the gentiles (aka, "Romans") is just the kind of gravy Constantine would naturally recognize as an asset far more powerful than military might. It transcended borders and could be spread by word alone; enslaving as it promised to free. It's precisely what every Caesar attempted; to be viewed as a living God, but even better. "Christianity" was God Adjacent. Friends in LA will get that one.

Constantine was just smart enough to recognize the hierarchical structure of the martyr cult that became the Pope/Priesthood out of the ashes of an earlier failed standard empiric maneuver.

Quote:
However everyone should be made very well aware of the fact that these books were first historically published by a fascist dictator who converted the empire to the very pure centralized state monotheistic christian cult at the point of a large number of very sharp barbarian held swords.
Except that it wasn't monotheistic and that's another important clue, methinks, to date Mark to coincide with the military intervention. Along with the need to subvert the growing "Jesus" revolution (i.e., a martyred insurrectionist's mythology) would have been to break the stronghold of the monotheistic cult that is Judaism in the occupied region by reinforcing and manipulating and inserting--like a disease--already existing "Hellenized" pagan/pantheist theology.

Think about what the Roman Empire was facing at around 65 C.E. in Jerusalem; a prized conquered region where the conquered citizens not only didn't assimilate, but were largely impervious to assimilation due exclusively to their cult beliefs and the unity those beliefs instilled. Jews would rather die than convert; a motif later taken, no doubt, by Constantine's revisionists that got turned into the hero stories of "Christian" persecution that never really happened.

Paul and Mark, in particular, IMO, are examples of a particularly Roman desperation and they tell the story of the lengths an Empire will go to in order to ensure compliance. And when compliance won't work...kill 'em and learn from the fallout.

You and mountainman sure have an intense interest in texts you claim are forgeries and make no sense.
__________________
"An imbalance between the rich and poor is the oldest and most fatal ailment of all republics" - Plutarch
gamera is offline   Reply With Quote topbottom
Old 10-18-2009, 06:16 PM   #649270  /  #91
gamera
If a doubledecker bus . .
 
gamera's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 18,726
gamera
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mountainman View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by gamera View Post
Constantine's authoritarianism (especially in light of Imperial Rome and its history of despicable autocrats), really isn't in doubt, but at the same time really isn't very relevant to any issue on the table, near as I can tell.
On the table is the question as to the date of authorship of the books of the new testament. Nobody has a clue when they were authored. Its all utter conjecture based on a tradition of apostolic authorship written about by Eusebius - sourced and researched in the fourth century.

However everyone should be made very well aware of the fact that these books were first historically published by a fascist dictator who converted the empire to the very pure centralised state monotheistic christian cult at the point of a large number of very sharp barbarian held swords.
Well we do have some clue; papyri can be adequately dated by script style, and so we have some earliest possible dates.

I know that blows your Constantine conspiracy out of the water, but there it is.
__________________
"An imbalance between the rich and poor is the oldest and most fatal ailment of all republics" - Plutarch
gamera is offline   Reply With Quote topbottom
Old 10-18-2009, 11:12 PM   #649536  /  #92
mountainman
Senior Member
 
mountainman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 778
mountainman
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by gamera View Post
Well we do have some clue; papyri can be adequately dated by script style, and so we have some earliest possible dates.

I know that blows your Constantine conspiracy out of the water, but there it is.
The fragments are undated except via handwriting analysis. A great deal of interest was provoked by the papyri fragments, and their discovery has for all intents and purposes has generated a subculture and industry. It is of course a wonderful find if it is true that the paleographers' assessments can be unequivocably relied upon, and every little Oxford Theology College digger in the field conjectures that these fragments are from the early centuries.

However I believe there are problems with the conjecture of dating associated with these fragments on the basis of the demographics for the city of Oxyrhynchus. The population demographics for the city of Oxyrhnchus take a huge explosion of high orders of magnitude in the mid-fourth century. One might therefore expect the rubbish dumps to have followed suit. One might be so bold as to congratulate anyone who found the small and completely overshadowed deep layer of rubbish from the 2nd and 3rd centuries underneath the veritable mountain of rubbish left behind after the population explosion peaked in the mid-4th century.

The city is described then as dual -- one city inside the walls became so overcrowed that another then formed outside the walls. The claim that anyone has walked into Oxyrhynchus and managed to find 2nd and/or 3rd century "christian papyri fragments" is not supported by the demographic evidence. Grenfell and Hunt employ local Egyptians at a few pence per day to gather up the fragments from over seventeen ancient rubbish dumps around Oxyrhynchus.




The fragments are then securely packed in biscuit tins and placed into a series of over 900 brief cases sized boxes and sent back to Oxford in the early twentieth century. Perhaps detailed academic analysis has made its way through at least 128 boxes to date. Great industry!

The conjecture that the papyri fragments from the Oxy tips predate the extreme explosion of its population demographics is not logical. Neither does it seem to be supported by the carbon dating process on the Nag Hammadi and gJudas texts which point formly to the fourth century.

Additionally, I have performed an analysis of the coins which have been found at the city, following a published analysis by Milne.


Oxyrhynchus Coins - An Analysis following Milne

There are located on the web a number of copies of THE COINS FROM OXYRHYNCHUS By J.G. MILNE. Example site (1): The Open Library; example site (2): Coins from Egpt. The data from this article has been collated to present the following analysis of the numbers of coins found at the Oxyrhynchus tip network according by the decade of their mintage. The result supports the above assertion, that prior to the fourth century, the city which became Oxyrhynchus was quite small.

Here is a graph of the results:



Original article here
__________________
The "Porphyrian" Arius of Alexandria (a Platonist, not a Christian theologian) and the pseudonymous Leucius Charinus ... are one and the same person. Why? Constantine pronounced "damnatio memoriae" on the books, and the name and the political memory of Arius c.325 CE [Website]
mountainman is offline   Reply With Quote topbottom
Old 10-19-2009, 05:58 PM   #650233  /  #93
Koyaanisqatsi
literally plausibly true
 
Koyaanisqatsi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 4,915
Koyaanisqatsi
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by DailyB View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Koyaanisqatsi View Post
Possibly Josephus himself, but I wouldn't venture that far yet.
I will tell you right off the bat that this is impossible.
"Impossible?" Do tell...

Quote:
Linguistically, they are very different. Josephus wrote in very adequate classical Greek, rhetorically complex and well-executed. Mark... did not. He rambles, repeats himself, uses the common tongue (Koine) at all junctures, abuses prepositions, and seldom uses any language more complicated than a child would understand.
Yes, well, if you're writing pro-Roman/anti-Judaic (not to be confused with anti-Semitic) propaganda meant to be read to the ignorant masses, that's exactly how you'd write it.

If, otoh, you're chronicling the historic fulfillment of Jewish messianic prophecy, you sure as shit wouldn't write it like that (and certainly not in Koine).

Quote:
Interesting. So you believe that it is a pamphlet?


Like a pamphlet (i.e., like what we do in our propaganda divisions of our military prior to any invasion); not an actual, literal pamphlet. It was an analogy.

Quote:
But you still haven't finished my questions about provenance. Where was it written, by whom, and exactly when?
Why must I have those answers and you don't have to? You don't know where it was written, by whom and exactly when.

Regardless, it would likely have been crafted by several Roman agents (Paul and possibly Josephus and several others); a small, elite "psy-ops" group (though of course they woulnd't have called it that) assigned to the problem, just as is done today. Some agents (like Paul) would have been "undercover" and on the inside; some not. IOW, the time line would be about what most scholars put Mark at now; around 70 C.E.

And before you argue anachronism, the Romans arguably perfected the craft and we know directly that Pilate was very familiar with the tactic of infiltrating local groups and putting undercover agents among them with the attempt on the Aquaduct.

Quote:
You keep referencing the scholars who supposedly agree with you
??? The majority of biblical scholars date Mark to circa 70 C.E. was all I meant; not to claim that the majority of scholars who agree with my theory.

Quote:
but for your idea to make sense, the Romans would have had to be distributing it for some time prior to the first Jewish war, hoping apparently for a religion to take root in time to quell the rebellion.
And that's exactly what Paul was doing (and likely other agents). The physical writing of Mark is of no concern here (i.e., when an artifact was actually written on something that could be found years later and dated, etc). What's important to my theory is only the timing of what Paul and his group were doing coinciding with the Jewish revolt. When scholars say they've dated Mark to 70 C.E., that can easily mean anywhere from 60 C.E. to 80 C.E., or mean nothing at all.

Nobody knows exactly when Mark was written; the general consensus, however, is around 70 C.E. and that timeline corresponds with my theory.

Quote:
When we add to the mix that almost everyone agrees its author was a Roman (hence the questionable Greek and the frequent and inaccurate explanation of the Hebraisms that occur, the description of impossible geographic feats, etc) that means the date of composition is pushed even earlier. So whether you realize it or not, you are actually arguing that the book was written rather earlier than most scholars believe, and to an entirely different audience.
Yes, I know. That's supporting my theory, btw, so thanks.

Quote:
How? Why would it serve Roman ends? I don't know if you've noticed, but Jesus is sort of the hero of the book.
As he once was a hero of the insurrectionists.

Remember, my theory is that Jesus was the leader (or one of the leaders) of the main insurrectionist/anti-Roman-occupation "freedom fighters" in the 20's -30s. What Pilate would have regarded as a "terrorist." He was the Che Guevera/Osama Bin Laden/Guy Falkes/Founding Fathers of his day. And the Romans caught him and crucified him as a example to all.

Instead of destroying the insurrectionist movement, however, killing Jesus turned him into a martyr; a warrior-martyr, not a messiah and thus Pilate's plan backfired.

Quote:
Why would they want to make a martyr of him?
Again you're missing it. They already did when they killed him for sedition.

What they needed to do was destroy that martyrdom, which they couldn't do, of course, because he was already dead. You can't "un-kill" him, or can you?

What Paul et al were attempting to do initially was deflate/deflect or in some other way alter that martyrdom; to stop the blaming of the Romans for killing an insurrectionist leader and instead shift the blame on to the "elders" (the Sanhedrin); the parents and grandparents of the younger generation who would have been the number one targets for recruitment into the growing Jewish revolution.

So what did they come up with? They turned Jesus into Emmanual; into the Moshiach and had the Sandhedrin (the teachers and the holiest of holy men in Jewish society) kill him! Black is white; love is hate; everything gets flipped around in an attempt (a failed attempt, but an attempt nonetheless) at destabilizing the theological stronghold during a time of mounting rebellion.

You kids don't understand what really happened. You've got it all wrong. Jesus was not a warrior; he preached peace, not war. He loved his enemies; turned his cheek when struck. He was no insurrectionist martyr for a cause against the Romans. That's what your parents are telling you, but Pilate--the Romans--they did everything they could to stop your parents and grandparents from killing Jesus--your beloved, fabled mythical warrior--you've got it all wrong, man. Jesus was your messiah and your corrupt leaders killed him out of jealousy!

Etc. Just think of any propaganda you've seen from say the 50's or 60's (hell, 70's, 80's etc) and you see the exact same pattern of trying to flip everything upside down; black is white, love is hate. It's not "society" or "the Police" or "the State" that's trying to oppress you; it's the very people you listen to right now that are out to manipulate you and control you, etc. The "Man" ain't the Man, man, it's you who are acting like the Man!

Quote:
Even if the blame ultimately lands at the feet of the Sanhedrin, the Sanhedrin are not "the Jews" to most of the Jews at this time- they are also allied with the Romans.
Hence my focus on the trial sequence and all of the convoluted and contradictory nonsense that desperately tries to turn black into white, such as "the crowd." The Sanhedrin do not stone Jesus to death because they fear the festival crowd (and not as some apologists claim; because that was illegal, which it wasn't, but even if it were, they evidently didn't care becaus they tried to stone Jesus twice before). That is the whole reason given as to why the Sanhedrin try to enlist Pilate's help.

But does Pilate help them (the Sanhedrin who are supposed to be "allied" to the Romans)? No. He betrays them in fact and publicly exposes them to the very same festival crowd they'd feared would kill them two days earlier! And what happens? Do the Sanhedrin run for their lives? No. They instead somehow magically influence the crowd they feared into threatening Pilate if he doesn't kill Jesus!



Pilate not only declares Jesus publicly innocent, but goes even further to say that he can find no crime that Jesus was supposed to have committed and that he's free to go. The Sandhedrin now magically not only have no fear of the crowd, but they are able to somehoe influence them into demanding that Pilate murder their beloved leader for no reason at all and Pilate DOES!

All of which is not only patently absurd, but could never have happened for a myriad of other reasons, not the least of which is that there would have been no fear at all by Pilate of "the crowd" of Jews, nor any such festival release of a convicted murderer/seditionist against Rome. So the only reason to include such a sequence is if there actually was a trial where Jesus was found guilty by the Romans and sentenced to death by crucifixion (the method most commonly used against seditionists in particular because the body is on display for days as a warning to all who would follow).

Quote:
There was a lot of emnity toward the Jewish leadership at the time, and it was one of the reasons for the revolt.
Aside from the fact that (once again) Josephus wrote that long after he had already turned Benedict Arnold, this, too supports my theory in a sense, because on the one hand, Mark reveals that the Sanhedrin were not allied with Rome (Pilate exposes their plot, declares Jesus free, etc) and then on the other hand proves that there was no enmity toward the Jewish leadership in that they somehow magically get the festival crowd to frighten Pilate (in spite of the fact that he just exposed them in a collusion plot to kill the very person the Sanhedrin so feared to kill themselves that they tried to collude with Pilate for in the first place).

This is what I mean by the trial sequence being so hopelessly convoluted and contradictory that it could only be included because there actually was a trial that needed to be spun to exonerate Pilate and the Romans and put the blame for killing not just an insurrectionist, but a remade-Jewish messiah so that a schism is in place between the younger Jewish rebels (and Judaism in general) and their elders (aka, their leaders).

Quote:
if your propaganda was supposed to endear the Romans to the people of Judea
No, it was to excise them completely from the story, exonerate Pilate, in particular (which is further evidence, IMO, that it's a real event that they had to spin) and blame "the Jews" for killing their own messiah as a means of destabilizing the insurrectionist movement right during the time of a growing revolt.

Remember, no one at the time would have known when a revolt was going to happen, so all of this would have been occurring concurrently and likely without too much coordination; just like we see today. CIA doesn't know what the FBI is doing, etc. The concepts are the same, so please don't get hung up again on the literalness (like with the nonsense about the pamphlets) and these tactics were if not created by the Romans, certainly perfected by them, so there is no anachronistic thinking going on here either.

You have a small, but troubling insurrectionist movement that you thought one of your best Prefects has handled with the capture, trial and crucifixion of one of their most popular leaders and you're done until it becomes clear that it backfired and you've instead made a martyr out of the crucified leader.

So, you send in a "psy-ops" team to find out what the ignorant local sheep are doing and saying etc, and you use it against them; you turn their own myths and stories around on them so that they don't know what is true and what is not true, etc. S.O.P. then; S.O.P. now.

Quote:
It's generally agreed that Jesus did not cause a lot of ruckus in his lifetime.
Generally agreed by whom? There are all kinds of contradictions to that claim in the NT, but since the victors write the history (and Rome was the victors)....

Quote:
But a single paragraph of an entire book is not enough evidence to substantiate your claim.
This isn't a doctoral thesis committee and that wasn't an exhaustive case.

Quote:
There's a lot more to Mark than the trial sequence, and many ways to explain the trial sequence as well.
No, actually, there aren't beside what I've laid out (and there's much more, of course, but that's the overrall). The trial sequence stands alone and it proves that at the very least an attempt was made by the author (who we both agree was Roman) to spin an actual event. It is that spin that reveals the intent, so if Mark was written around 70 C.E., then the pro-Roman stance is even more inexplicable from a "legitimate" perspective considering that the story is supposed to be a factual account of a Jewish messiah fulfilling Jewish prophecy and how that unfolded and not an exoneration/blaming of "the Jews" for killing their own messiah.

Last edited by Koyaanisqatsi; 10-19-2009 at 07:56 PM.
Koyaanisqatsi is offline   Reply With Quote topbottom
Old 10-19-2009, 09:42 PM   #650464  /  #94
Koyaanisqatsi
literally plausibly true
 
Koyaanisqatsi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 4,915
Koyaanisqatsi
Default

Btw, the above was crafted while at work, so it's disjointed, but should give you more to work with in regard to my theory (if you care).

Consider the following loose timeline:
  1. A popular, radical leader of a seditionist/insurrectionist/anti-Roman occupation movement named Jesus is a thorn in Pilate's side and is finally captured, tried and sentenced to death by crucifixion by the Romans as an example in around 30 C.E. (which is what crucifixion, in paticular, was typically used for; that and murder);
  2. Jesus' death has the opposite effect; he is martryed and becomes a recruitment symbol for the region and his "apostles" that scattered start to tell their own myths about Jesus the Warrior over the next twenty or so years; their numbers growing as a result and perhaps their attacks getting bolder and bolder, etc.;
  3. Around 50-55 C.E. let's say (maybe earlier), either word gets up the chain of command that Pilate is losing his grip on the locals, or Pilate himself sends word of an "underground" martyr/insurrectionist cult that is growing, or just flat out takes control himself and sends in spies to infiltrate the movement just as he did with the Aquaduct and discovers that there is a much larger fanatical cult/mythology around Jesus the Martyrd Warrior than anyone may have previously thought;
  4. Pilate (or someone) sends for a "top" agent (Paul) and likely others and they come in (or were already in) and review what the initial group was able to discover and they then start to take things to the next level. They are no longer just observing, now they are manipulating. A plan is formulating and Paul (at the very least) positions himself to take over or otherwise influence and alter the mythology/cult of Jesus the Martyrd Warrior;
  5. During the ten years (?) the propaganda story of Jesus the Jewish Messiah killed by his own people goes through a few iterations until you've got the "final" codified version with GMark;
  6. While Paul is on the "inside" he discovers that they aren't having much of an effect on the real fanatics, but they can turn and influence other "fringe" Jews and, curiously, the Gentiles in the region are really going for this new cult Paul and his crew have come up with;
  7. the fanatics/Jews rebell;
  8. Rome decides to just kill the Jews and be done with it;
  9. The pro-Roman/anti-Jewish cult that Paul and the other "agents" initially created to subvert a local fanatical insurrectionist movement (and failed) instead continues to grow unexpectedly (or perhaps as a result of the destruction of the Jews) and it spreads like the virus it is among the pagans, gentiles and "hellenized Jews," with the "gospel" being altered and modified over the years accordingly, until Constantine makes the cult official and thereby ensures the enslavement of millions to the Roman Empire; so far forever in its various incarnations.

Last edited by Koyaanisqatsi; 10-19-2009 at 10:30 PM.
Koyaanisqatsi is offline   Reply With Quote topbottom
Old 10-19-2009, 10:13 PM   #650502  /  #95
Politesse
Nihil declaro
 
Politesse's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: The Turd Belt
Posts: 3,148
Politesse
Send a message via AIM to Politesse
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Koyaanisqatsi View Post
' death has the opposite effect; he is martryed and becomes a recruitment symbol for the region and his "apostles" that scattered start to tell their own myths about Jesus the Warrior, etc. over the next twenty or so years, their numbers growing and their attacks getting bolder and bolder, etc.;
Do you have any evidence that this actually occurred, or is this just speculation on your part? If this was important, why doesn't Josephus so much as mention it? Why is there no extra-Biblical evidence of a Jesus tradition in Judea until much later in history? Why haven't we found any textual traditions that name Jesus a warrior?

Quote:
Around 50-55 C.E. let's say, either word gets up the chain of command that Pilate is losing his grip, or Pilate himself sends word of an "underground" martyr/insurrectionist cult that is growing (or just flat out takes control himself and sends in spies to infiltrate the movement just as he did witht he Aquaduct) and discovers that they've created a whole cult/mythology around Jesus the Martyrd Warrior;
More likely he would handle it himself, he doesn't seem to have got on well with the powers that be.

Quote:
Pilate (or someone) sends for a "top" agent (Paul) and likely others and they come in (or were already in) and review what the initial group was able to discover and they then start to take things to a deeper level. They are no longer just observing, now they are manipulating. A plan is formulating and Paul (at the very least) positions himself to take over or otherwise influence and alter the mythology/cult of Jesus the Martyred Warrior;
Paul who by his own admission never met the man, nor was allowed to travel freely in Judea because the Christian leaders there disliked him so he putzed around in Greece for his whole career? Some top agent. And frankly I think you are imagining it to be a lot easier to intentionally "alter" a mythology, especially in a country small enough that everyone knows each other.

Quote:
During the ten years (?) their story goes through a few iterations until you've got the "final" codified version with GMark
Do you mean the one we now have? How much do you actually know about the history of scholarship on Mark?

Quote:
While Paul is on the "inside" he discovers that they aren't having much of an effect on the real fanatics, but they can turn and influence other "fringe" Jews and, curiously, the Gentiles in the region are really going for this new cult Paul and his crew have come up with;
Again, any evidence for this?

Quote:
Rome decides to just kill everyone and be done with it.
This, at least sounds like normal behavior.

Speaking of normative Roman behavior, do you have any evidence of Roman strategies anything like the one you just proposed? Where else did they ever start a religion to stop a war?
__________________
"Life is very short. We die on the march. But there is nothing outside the march so nothing can be lost to it. The missing plays of Sophocles will turn up piece by piece, or be written again in another language."
Politesse is offline   Reply With Quote topbottom
Old 10-19-2009, 10:36 PM   #650524  /  #96
chaoschristian
yodeling evangelical
 
chaoschristian's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Snack Food Capital of the World
Posts: 3,074
chaoschristian
Default

Pontius Pilate, if I recall correctly, was recalled from Judea towards the end of the 30's. He wouldn't have been around circa 50 to do anything about anything.
__________________
PURPLEORANGE
chaoschristian is offline   Reply With Quote topbottom
Old 10-19-2009, 10:40 PM   #650532  /  #97
Koyaanisqatsi
literally plausibly true
 
Koyaanisqatsi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 4,915
Koyaanisqatsi
Default

I don't have time to get to the rest of your post, but this caught my eye before leaving:

Quote:
Originally Posted by DailyB View Post
Speaking of normative Roman behavior, do you have any evidence of Roman strategies anything like the one you just proposed? Where else did they ever start a religion to stop a war?
It's not starting a religion to stop a war; it's using an already existing and growing cult mythology and manipulating it to flip everything around against its adherents.

We did essentially the same thing to the American natives.

You can, of course, include the need to subvert Judaism as well into my theory (on a grander scheme than just it being limited to a warrior/insurrectionist cult) as the one thing history can unquestionably attest to is that forcing "Jews" to convert or assimilate when they don't want to is almost impossible and in that regard, they can never be conquered.
Koyaanisqatsi is offline   Reply With Quote topbottom
Old 10-19-2009, 10:43 PM   #650539  /  #98
Politesse
Nihil declaro
 
Politesse's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: The Turd Belt
Posts: 3,148
Politesse
Send a message via AIM to Politesse
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Koyaanisqatsi View Post
Yes, well, if you're writing pro-Roman/anti-Judaic (not to be confused with anti-Semitic) propaganda meant to be read to the ignorant masses, that's exactly how you'd write it.
Have you ever tried to write something in a language not your own and pass yourself off as a native speaker? Even if the author was deliberately trying to dumb down his speech, they would have left their mark. The author of Mark was not an educated man.

Quote:
If, otoh, you're chronicling the historic fulfillment of Jewish messianic prophecy, you sure as shit wouldn't write it like that (and certainly not in Koine).
Yeah, you would, if that was the language you spoke and that of the people you were writing (speaking) to.

Quote:
Why must I have those answers and you don't have to? You don't know where it was written, by whom and exactly when.
Of course not, but I'm not claiming to. You're the one with a theory here, that you expect folks to take seriously.

Quote:
Regardless, it would likely have been crafted by several Roman agents (Paul and possibly Josephus and several others); a small, elite "psy-ops" group (though of course they woulnd't have called it that) assigned to the problem, just as is done today. Some agents (like Paul) would have been "undercover" and on the inside; some not. IOW, the time line would be about what most scholars put Mark at now; around 70 C.E.
It may just be your tendency to "analogize", but that really sounds more like what we would do than what the Romans would.

Quote:
And before you argue anachronism, the Romans arguably perfected the craft and we know directly that Pilate was very familiar with the tactic of infiltrating local groups and putting undercover agents among them with the attempt on the Aquaduct.
'k so you were ready for that. But I'm not saying the Romans didn't employ spies, it's more that they didn't employ them in the same way, with subtle CIA-style attempted manipulations of the masses. Dressing up your soldiers as commoners to get the first blow in is not quite the same thing. Nor were those soldiers actually trained in the arts of espionage, or at least not trained well, as the whole thing descended into a bloody fiasco as is well known. And over something that the general populace itself must have approved of, too.

Quote:
Yes, I know. That's supporting my theory, btw, so thanks.
How?

Quote:
As he once was a hero of the insurrectionists.
So why make him a Roman hero as well?


Quote:
What they needed to do was destroy that martyrdom, which they couldn't do, of course, because he was already dead. You can't "un-kill" him, or can you?
Nor would they. The Romans bragged about the people they killed, they didn't cover it up.

Quote:
What Paul et al were attempting to do initially was deflate/deflect or in some other way alter that martyrdom; to stop the blaming of the Romans for killing an insurrectionist leader and instead shift the blame on to the "elders" (the Sanhedrin); the parents and grandparents of the younger generation who would have been the number one targets for recruitment into the growing Jewish revolution.
Why? Why would it benefit them to shift the blame from themselves to their lackeys? It wouldn't deflect any of the anti-Roman fervor.

Quote:
Black is white....

Etc. Just think of any propaganda you've seen from say the 50's or 60's (hell, 70's, 80's etc) and you see the exact same pattern of trying to flip everything upside down; black is white, love is hate. It's not "society" or "the Police" or "the State" that's trying to oppress you; it's the very people you listen to right now that are out to manipulate you and control you, etc. The "Man" ain't the Man, man, it's you who are acting like the Man!
This is where you commit the mistake every conspiracy theorist seems to make; starting with what everyone agrees with but building and building until you have crossed the boundary of the plausible without ever realizing it, becuase the reasoning that led you to your conclusion seemed fine to you. It's only to other people that your final conclusion appears rather strange and unlikely.

Generally agreed by whom? There are all kinds of contradictions to that claim in the NT, but since the victors write the history (and Rome was the victors)....

Quote:
But a single paragraph of an entire book is not enough evidence to substantiate your claim.
Quote:
This isn't a doctoral thesis committee and that wasn't an exhaustive case.
Um, well... no, it isn't. But you are making an argument, and evidence always helps with that. If you're going to use Mark as your evidence, you need to corroborate it with that whole book, or at least other parts of it, not just a single episode therein.
__________________
"Life is very short. We die on the march. But there is nothing outside the march so nothing can be lost to it. The missing plays of Sophocles will turn up piece by piece, or be written again in another language."
Politesse is offline   Reply With Quote topbottom
Old 10-20-2009, 04:05 PM   #651253  /  #99
Koyaanisqatsi
literally plausibly true
 
Koyaanisqatsi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 4,915
Koyaanisqatsi
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by DailyB View Post
Have you ever tried to write something in a language not your own and pass yourself off as a native speaker? Even if the author was deliberately trying to dumb down his speech, they would have left their mark.
No pun intended?

Did you consider that:
  1. the Romans would have found a native speaker to write it for precisely that reason?
  2. the reason Mark appears to have been written by an uneducated man is precisely because they weren't native speakers and did, therefore, leave their mark through bad grammar, incorrect word choice, etc.?

Did you ever ask yourself why the most significant event in all of human history--and most certainly in Jewish history--would have been written by an uneducated Roman and not a phalanx of Jewish scholars (right at the time of a Jewish genocide, no less)? Of course not, because you were conditioned to believe the story "Mark" wrote was true instead of to look critically at what isn't and/or could not possibly be true (such as the entirety of the events depicted in the trial sequence and every single time Jewish prophecy is invoked as Jesus' bona fides).

That leaves only one of two alternatives to the "good news" that Paul was preaching; he made it up on his own in order to take over as the leader of a small, splinter, anti-orthodoxy Jewish messianic cult because he was a self-hating Jew and wanted to use the cult to destroy Orthodoxy (and would therefore have been enitrely irrelevant to the Romans and particularly Pilate), or he made it up because of my theory.

One thing is unquestionable; he made it up. Not that there was a man named Jesus who died, but that there was a man named Jesus who died and was resurrected and he was "Lord" and we live eternally and 500 witnesses saw him and that he appeared to Paul, etc. All of that is unquestionable bullshit by an admitted liar and obvious manipulator.

So why does he do that? Why does he deliberately position himself as the leader of an irrelevant anti-orhtodoxy cult in order to trick his "sheep" into believing that he has special wisdom and that this special wisdom is that Jewish orthodoxy is not to be followed; that gentiles are Jews and Jews are less than gentiles; that Jesus was not just a man, but "Lord" (the closest anyone comes beside Jesus himself in John, I believe, to openly equate Jesus with Yahweh), etc.

Set aside for a second that you're a believer and replace "Jesus" with "Mithras" in anything Paul writes and you'll instantly see my point. He knows he's lying, he knows he's making shit up that did not happen (or at the very least he could never have witnessed or confirmed) and he considers his audience the same way every scam artist evangelists considers his audience; with contempt; as easily manipulated, desperate, gullable human beings, which is exactly what human beings are. So what is there to gain if my theory is not in some manner true? He's co-opted a local cult and re-written their dogma to convince them that Jesus didn't die and that therefore everyone who believes Paul's story will have everlasting life after they are dead.

Again, that dogma only makes sense if you're scamming people into accepting their suffering; accepting their lot in life and obeying the occupiers; aka, if you're writing Roman propaganda! It makes no sense at all if you're writing the historically accurate events of the fulfillment of Jewish prophecy.

Quote:
It may just be your tendency to "analogize", but that really sounds more like what we would do than what the Romans would.
And where do you think we got it from? Everything about Western "civilzation" comes directly from the Roman Empire's influence; most certainly the politics and the Senatorial maneuverings and machinations. The Roman Senate was the birthplace of political dirty tricks.

Quote:
'k so you were ready for that. But I'm not saying the Romans didn't employ spies, it's more that they didn't employ them in the same way, with subtle CIA-style attempted manipulations of the masses.
Yeah, that's as preposterous as, say, a Jewish crowd who loves Jesus so much they'd kill any Jewish elder who tried to stone him to death, but would then two days later demand that Pilate kill Jesus because the same Jewish elders "influenced" them after being publicly revealed as traitors by Pilate.

Quote:
So why make him a Roman hero as well?
Because the point is to stop Jews from (a) being Jewish and (b) rebelling against Rome.

Quote:
ME: What they needed to do was destroy that martyrdom, which they couldn't do, of course, because he was already dead. You can't "un-kill" him, or can you?

YOU: Nor would they. The Romans bragged about the people they killed, they didn't cover it up.
I was alluding to the resurrection myth.

Quote:
Why? Why would it benefit them to shift the blame from themselves to their lackeys? It wouldn't deflect any of the anti-Roman fervor.
Why do we attempt to turn around any anti-American sentiments in a region we've conquered (aka, "winning of hearts and minds")? Why did the Soviets? Why does any occupying force try to assimilate their conquered people?

And keep in mind, I've already pointed out that it failed. It didn't work on its targeted audience.

This is it in a nutshell. The Romans tried something; it failed to achieve the original goal; it succeeded in a way unexpected; it eventually became militarily mandated because of this secondary, unexpected success.

Quote:
If you're going to use Mark as your evidence, you need to corroborate it with that whole book, or at least other parts of it, not just a single episode therein.
A "single" episode? It's the defining episode, but fine; as I mentioned earlier, take all of the attempts to force Jewish messianic prophecy on to the Jesus character. Not a single Jewish messianic prophecy could possibly be referring to Jesus' life as it is depicted in Mark. Not one.

A Roman counter-insurgency propaganda group, however, wouldn't necessarily know that. And if they were given guidance by (or were being lead by) a Jewish traitor (Paul or Josephus) then they would have known exactly what Jewish messianic prophecy was and they would have written the story accordingly and we would have had a very different Mark.

If, however, the story couldn't be written differently than Jesus being crucified by the Romans (because that's what actually happened), then you get all of the obvious attempts to force a round peg in a square hole.

Then you've got the mocking of Jesus by the Roman soldiers (the crown of thorns, the purple robes, the "King of Kings", etc) and the inexplicable public torture, let alone the use of crucifixion (letting further alone that Pilate declares Jesus innocent and then an elipse later orders his public crucifixion). Why would the Roman soldiers do any of that, even if for some inexplicable reason Pilate had some sort of heat stroke and ordered the use of the worst form of capital punishment on a man he just declared innocent? The Roman soldiers had just seen what their supreme leader had done by thrice declaring Jesus to not just be innocent, but to have committed no crimes at all; they would have seen (and been incredibly upset by) the fact that their supreme leader had just ordered a convicted murderer of Roman citizens to go free, because a bunch of drunk Jews were having a cult ritual; they would have seen their supreme leader "out" the Sanhedrin's plot; etc.

And, worst of all, they would have had to lead a completely innocent man to the worst kind of death they had because their supreme leader was a coward. Monty Python aside, after all of that why in the world would the soldiers then torture and mock Jesus as the "King of the Jews" (a title that doesn't exist in Judaism).

Now, boot up my theory. The Romans finally capture the leader of a seditionist "terrorist" organization (to use modern vernacular to drive the point home); they try him, find him guilty of crimes against Rome and sentence him to a slow, torturous death by crucifixion (again, the exact capital punishment reserved for seditionists and murderers).

Then (and only then) does it make sense for the Roman soldiers to torture and mock Jesus as the "King of the Jews" because to a Roman soldier, anyone who was the leader of an anti-Roman insurrectionist group would indeed be mocked effectively by facetiously calling him a "King" and making him wear a crown of thorns and whipping him publicly, etc.

And if that actually occurred--if that were part of what happened to a real man named Jesus who was a martyrd insurrectionist leader--then you'd have to include it and spin it and that's where you get the ridiculous claim that Jesus had been going around saying he was a King ("We have no King but Caesar!") and the ridiculous process of putting him in royal robes to mock him and then taking those off and putting his regular clothes back on, etc. Roman soldier declaring "He truly this was the son of god" (though I think that was in Matthew) which is wholey non-sequitur.

"I declare Jesus completely innocent!"
"Release someone convicted of murdering Roman citizens instead and use the worst form of capital punishment you have on a man you've just declared to be totally and completely innocent!"
"Ok."

Never could have happened. So who made it up and why? Why exonerate Pilate if Mark was written around 70 C.E.? Why exonerate Pilate at all, or, indeed, even include him in the story unless it was relevant to the time and to the intent?

Last edited by Koyaanisqatsi; 10-20-2009 at 06:05 PM.
Koyaanisqatsi is offline   Reply With Quote topbottom
Old 10-20-2009, 07:19 PM   #651453  /  #100
gamera
If a doubledecker bus . .
 
gamera's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 18,726
gamera
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Koyaanisqatsi View Post
[*] Around 50-55 C.E. let's say (maybe earlier), either word gets up the chain of command that Pilate is losing his grip on the locals, or Pilate himself sends word of an "underground" martyr/insurrectionist cult that is growing, or just flat out takes control himself and sends in spies to infiltrate the movement just as he did with the Aquaduct and discovers that there is a much larger fanatical cult/mythology around Jesus the Martyrd Warrior than anyone may have previously thought
As chaoschristian pointed out, this timeline won't work.

Josephus' Antiquities reports of Pilates' recall to Rome in 36 AD. This accords with the numismatics and other accounts.

We know that Paul is active around 50 AD. So your conspiracy theory won't work, at least not with Pilate at the center of it.
__________________
"An imbalance between the rich and poor is the oldest and most fatal ailment of all republics" - Plutarch
gamera is offline   Reply With Quote topbottom
Reply

  TalkRational > Discussion > Theology, Hagiography and Creeds

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 01:43 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.6
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2008 - 2014, TalkRational.org