An Abstract Mythicist Hypothesis

[Brainache]

If you are interested in how OT textual allusions were used by people during the second temple period, here is a link to a good source for the Dead Sea Scrolls:
http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/scrolls_deadsea/uncovered/uncovered.htm#Contents

Plenty of OT allusions in that lot...

 

[Mcreal]

It is not normal practice (except in biblical studies for some reason) to just assume a text is old because it appears to say it is old, or to just assume that it contains so much detail it simply had to be by an eyewitness or contemporary. The reasons this approach is invalid are surely obvious.

With the gospels, we are on our firmest ground with Irenaeus. He is the first to definitely refer to our four canonical gospels Matthew, Mark, Luke and John.

So we can infer that these gospels were in existence around 170 CE.

dejudge made a pertinent point about Irenaeus in another thread -

The writing called "Against Heresies" attributed to Irenaeus appears to be a massive forgery or heavily mutilated by multiple unknown authors.

It is just absurd that a supposed presbyter and bishop of the Church would argue that Jesus was crucified about c 49 CE and still claim to know of ...[the] Gospels where Jesus is claimed to have been crucified under Pilate c 27-37 CE, and that Paul preached Christ crucified in the time of King Aretas c 37-41 CE.

Prior to that we have Justin. He refers to "gospels" and "memoirs of the apostles", apparently equating the two, but does not appear to know of our own forms of the gospels, and certainly not by the names or titles they are known by today. He does, however, refer to Jesus changing the names of James, John and Peter and, since we read about this in the Gospel of Mark, it is reasonable to assume that Justin knew of that gospel.

There must remain some doubt, however, given that other details he gives about the narrative of Jesus do not square with what we find in our gospels. Example, he says John the Baptist was "sitting" as he preached and the Jordan was engulfed in fire when Jesus entered it for baptism, and he even seems to suggest that Jesus gave the eucharist to his 12 (not 11) disciples after his resurrection. His details of Christ's nativity appear to be taken directly from OT prophets instead of Matthew.

It seems that if Justin knew of the canonical gospels he did not consider them any more authoritative than other gospels at the time, or perhaps our canonical gospels were later heavily redacted until they looked quite different by the time of Irenaeus.

Justin could have been working with a ur-Mark.

Mark's themes of crucifixions and persecution are other clues as to date. We don't know of any persecutions of Christians until the 90s and even there the evidence is flimsy. We have more (though still not very much) evidence for persecutions of Christians in the time the Bar Kochba rebellion. Mark 13 also appears to have more in sync with the Bar Kochba war than with that of 66-70.

On the basis of the above I think it is not unreasonable to think that the gospels in the form in which they appear today came together some time between the Bar Kochba war and the mid or early half of the second century.

Their original form may well have been composed some time between 70 and 140, and perhaps it took some time, along with competition with other gospels, before they were redacted to what we know today.

 

[Mcreal]

you would need a lot more specific details to convince a Historian.

These observations will require more evidence from the documentary record to support them.

As I pointed out in the previous post, the historical record is fraught with inconsistencies -

The writing called "Against Heresies" attributed to Irenaeus appears to be a massive forgery or heavily mutilated by multiple unknown authors.

It is just absurd that a supposed presbyter and bishop of the Church [Irenaeus] would argue that Jesus was crucified about c 49 CE

and ...claim -

• [the] Gospels where Jesus is claimed to have been crucified under Pilate c 27-37 CE, and
• that Paul preached Christ crucified in the time of King Aretas: c 37-41 CE.

dejudge also provides pertinent commentary about a text that is a touchstone for determining aspects of the Marcionim where we find one of the first references in early Christianity to the Pauline epistles -

"Adversus Marcion" attributed to Tertullian is a corrupted source. No Christian writer up to at least the end of the 4th century knew of any writing against Marcion by Tertullian.

Both Eusebius and Jerome mentioned the writings of Tertullian and nothing is mentioned of "Adversus Marcion". Also, Jerome and Euseboius [stated] or claimed Tertullian wrote Against the Church. In addition, Jerome and Eusebius listed at least nine Christians who wrote Against Marcion: however, Tertullian is not listed.

Incidentally, in the opening passages of "Adversus Marcion" the author admitted that there were multiple versions and that copies were stolen, manipulated and published filled with errors.

"Adversus Marcion" attributed to Tertullian is indeed filled with mistakes--the claim that Marcion knew of and made use of letters under the name of Paul is total fiction.

"Adversus Marcion" was probably written or manipulated no earlier than the end of the 4th century or after Jerome's "De Viris Illustribus".

Does anyone know if nine Christians wrote against Marcion?

or whether nine Christians wrote works titled "Against Marcion"? (I think Irenaeus might have, too; or ppl suspect he did))

 

[Brainache]

I don't know if this is the right thread for this, but since the discussion has drifted into textual comparisons I guess it's as good as any.

I'd like to share a bit of a textual similarity I came across a while ago in another thread. I was looking at the Dead Sea Scrolls and kept seeing a particular phrase associated with "The Teacher of Righteousness":

... the Priest [in whose heart] God set [understanding] that he might interpret all the words of his servants the prophets, through whom
he foretold all that would happen to his people and [his land]...

... the Teacher of Righteousness, to whom God made known all the mysteries of the words of His servants the prophets...

http://www.preteristarchive.com/BibleStudies/DeadSeaScrolls/1QpHab_pesher_habakkuk.html

...him who imparts the true interpretation of the Law...

http://www.essene.com/History&Essenes/cd.htm

...His word shall be as the word of Heaven and his teaching shall be according to the will of God...

http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/scrolls_deadsea/uncovered/uncovered05.htm#27. Aramaic Testament Of Levi

OK I'm not going to go through all of them. To me (not exactly an expert, I admit) these descriptions of the ToR resemble certain early Christian writings, namely the testaments of the Patriarchs.:

... Then shall the Lord raise up a new priest. And to him all the words of the Lord shall be revealed; And he shall execute a righteous judgement upon the earth for a multitude of days...

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/patriarchs-charles.html

This isn't the only similarity between these "testaments" (basically pious fictions presented as the last writings of the Patriarchs of the Twelve Tribes who all have "visions" of all that is to come in Israel up until the "last days" when the messiah (flesh and blood BTW) will arrive and save the good folks) and the DSS. They all talk about the "two spirits of man", the importance of obeying all the laws of Moses, they call the Devil "Beliar"/"Belial". There was even an Aramaic version of one of these "testaments" found at Qumran.

The introduction to the translation of the "Testaments", written before the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls contains this:

...But as to the work itself, seeing it exists, I must acknowledge that it seems to me a valuable relic of antiquity, and an interesting specimen of the feelings and convictions of those believers over whom St. James presided in Jerusalem: "Israelites indeed," but "zealous of the law." They were now convinced that Abraham and Isaac and Jacob, with Moses and all the prophets, looked for the Messiah who had appeared in Jesus of Nazareth. The author of this book was anxious to show that the twelve patriarchs were twelve believers in the Paschal Lamb, and that they died in Christian penitence and faith...

...To refer now briefly to the external history of our document, we meet with nothing definite, after its citation by Origen...

After this a blank ensues until the middle of the thirteenth century, when it was brought to the knowledge of Western Europe by Robert Grosseteste, Bishop of Lincoln, the earliest of the great English reformers. We cite here the account of the matter given by Matthew Paris, although of course we need not accept all the opinions of the old chronicler respecting the document in question: "At this same time, Robert, Bishop of Lincoln, a man most deeply versed in Latin and Greek, accurately translated the Testaments of the XII. Patriarchs from Greek into Latin. These had been for a long time unknown and hidden through the jealousy of the Jews, on account of the prophecies of the Saviour contained in them. The Greeks, however, the most unwearied investigators of all writings, were the first to come to a knowledge of this document, and translated it from Hebrew into Greek, and have kept it to themselves till our times. And neither in the time of the blessed Jerome nor of any other holy interpreter could the Christians gain an acquaintance with it, through the malice of the ancient Jews. This glorious treatise, then, the aforesaid bishop (with the help of Master Nicolaus, a Greek, and a clerk of the Abbey of St. Alban's) translated fully and clearly, and word for word, from Greek into Latin, to the strengthening of the Christian faith, and to the greater confusion of the Jews."...

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/info/patriarchs.html

I have to say that this indicates to me a link between the DSS and early "Jewish Christians"/Ebionites.

 

[Mcreal]

I don't know if this is the right thread for this ...

I don't think it is. Nor is it an appropriate thread for this -

If you are interested in how OT textual allusions were used by people during the second temple period, here is a link to a good source for the Dead Sea Scrolls:
http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/scrolls_deadsea/uncovered/uncovered.htm#Contents

Plenty of OT allusions in that lot...

 

[vridar]

I have to say that this indicates to me a link between the DSS and early "Jewish Christians"/Ebionites.

There are numerous overlaps. I suppose the question is whether a Qumran community influenced what became Christianity or if both the Qumran community and early Christianity arose from a common matrix, common lines of tradition.

 

[Brainache]

There are numerous overlaps. I suppose the question is whether a Qumran community influenced what became Christianity or if both the Qumran community and early Christianity arose from a common matrix, common lines of tradition.

Yes. I'm sure much could be argued on either side of that debate, but I'll respect McReal's wishes and leave it for another thread.

 

[Mcreal]

Yes. I'm sure much could be argued on either side of that debate, but I'll respect McReal's wishes and leave it for another thread.

I don't mind if it will lead to a valid discussion of how Christianity might have begun, but I think that, for this thread, the Dead Seas scrolls are mostly at arms length.

 

[Brainache]

I don't mind if it will lead to a valid discussion of how Christianity might have begun, but I think that, for this thread, the Dead Seas scrolls are mostly a at arms length.

OK. I'll see if I can get my thoughts on this in order, because I do think there is a strong connection there.

 

[Brainache]

OK, here I go with my non-abstract non-mythicist hypothesis...

I'll start with Judas the Galilean's anti-tax movement:

...Yet was there one Judas, a Gaulonite, of a city whose name was Gamala, who, taking with him Sadduc, a Pharisee, became zealous to draw them to a revolt, who both said that this taxation was no better than an introduction to slavery, and exhorted the nation to assert their liberty; as if they could procure them happiness and security for what they possessed, and an assured enjoyment of a still greater good, which was that of the honor and glory they would thereby acquire for magnanimity...

http://www.biblestudytools.com/history/flavius-josephus/antiquities-jews/book-18/chapter-1.html

This happened at the time gLuke sets his birth narrative. That bogus journey of Mary and Joseph to Bethlehem to fulfil a prophecy.

Josephus goes on to describe how Judas and his sidekick "Sadduc" introduced a new form of Judaism. A form of Judaism that was militantly nationalistic and fundamentalist in nature.

The name "Sadduc" is apparently a reference to "Sadducee", or even "Zadok"/"Zadokite" a reference to the OT Priestly caste who had been supplanted from the Temple Priesthood by the cronies of Herod. These last were not from the traditional "Priestly Families" but were political appointees and allies of Herod and his family.

The Herodian family were ethnically Idumeans who had converted to Judaism relatively recently. Idumea (or Edom) was the area south-east of Judea and the Idumeans/Edomites were what we would today call Arabs.

... The two major Jewish sects during his reign, the Pharisees and the Sadducees, both showed opposition to Herod. The Pharisees were angry because Herod disregarded many of their demands for the Temple's construction. At the same time the Sadducees, who were known for their priestly responsibilities in the Temple, opposed Herod because he replaced their high priests with outsiders from Babylonia and Alexandria, in an effort to gain support from the Jewish Diaspora.[34] These efforts proved ineffective, and at the end of Herod's reign, anger and dissatisfaction were common amongst Jews...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herod_the_Great

Getting back to my hypothesis, the displaced Sadducees, the "Son's of Zadok" didn't just disappear when the high priesthood was taken away from them, they became what could be considered an "opposition Priesthood". They still considered themselves to be the true priesthood of Judea and they still had followers, but they no longer controlled the Temple or its vast wealth.

This is where I think the Dead Sea Scrolls come into the picture. I think these opposition priests, their families and followers decided to remove themselves from the corrupt Herodian run temple and set up their habitation in the Judean desert. When Judas and "Sadduc" started their anti-tax rebellion after the death of Herod the Great, their militant brand of nationalism combined with religious zealotry put them in the same political camp as these "Opposition Priests".

End of Part one...

 

[David Mo]

Actually if you specifically mean to learn the grounds of the scores of allusions in Mark you don't need to have a bibliography of dozens of authors, although scores of authors have written on them in depth. A single article by Howard Clark Kee (1975) "The Function of Scriptural Quotations and Allusions in Mark 11-16" sets out iirc over a hundred in those chapters alone. There are many, many detailed books on the Gospel of Mark by NT scholars discussing these sorts of details throughout the book. Google them. (I think the rules here forbid me from linking to other blog posts where they have been abundantly cited from the literature.)

Kinghardt is the only scholar I know of who has published the identification of the Isa 22:16 (LXX) in the tomb scene in Mark.

However, I don't find any coincidence between Isaiah 22: 15-118 and Mark 15:42-47,except the fact that there is a tomb. Even the context and narrated events are absolutely differents. The references in Vridar blog don't explain this.

Isaiah:
15 This is what the Lord, the Lord Almighty, says:

“Go, say to this steward,
to Shebna the palace administrator:
16 What are you doing here and who gave you permission
to cut out a grave for yourself here,
hewing your grave on the height
and chiseling your resting place in the rock?
17 “Beware, the Lord is about to take firm hold of you
and hurl you away, you mighty man.
18 He will roll you up tightly like a ball
and throw you into a large country.
There you will die
and there the chariots you were so proud of
will become a disgrace to your master’s house.

MArk:
"When he learned from the centurion that it was so, he gave the body to Joseph. ⁴⁶So Joseph bought some linen cloth, took down the body, wrapped it in the linen, and placed it in a tomb cut out of rock. Then he rolled a stone against the entrance of the tomb. ⁴⁷Mary Magdalene and Mary the mother of Joseph saw where he was laid".

 

[David Mo]

If you are interested in how OT textual allusions were used by people during the second temple period, here is a link to a good source for the Dead Sea Scrolls:
http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/scrolls_deadsea/uncovered/uncovered.htm#Contents

Plenty of OT allusions in that lot...

There is a lot of overlapings between the Old and the New Testaments. The problem is that it is difficult to discover if they are the origen of Jesus' legends or the legendary justification of some past events. To discern this is not always possible nor easy.

 

[vridar]

However, I don't find any coincidence between Isaiah 22: 15-118 and Mark 15:42-47,except the fact that there is a tomb. Even the context and narrated events are absolutely differents. The references in Vridar blog don't explain this.

Isaiah:
15 This is what the Lord, the Lord Almighty, says:

“Go, say to this steward,
to Shebna the palace administrator:
16 What are you doing here and who gave you permission
to cut out a grave for yourself here,
hewing your grave on the height
and chiseling your resting place in the rock?
17 “Beware, the Lord is about to take firm hold of you
and hurl you away, you mighty man.
18 He will roll you up tightly like a ball
and throw you into a large country.
There you will die
and there the chariots you were so proud of
will become a disgrace to your master’s house.

MArk:
"When he learned from the centurion that it was so, he gave the body to Joseph. ⁴⁶So Joseph bought some linen cloth, took down the body, wrapped it in the linen, and placed it in a tomb cut out of rock. Then he rolled a stone against the entrance of the tomb. ⁴⁷Mary Magdalene and Mary the mother of Joseph saw where he was laid".

This is hardly the forum to delve into the details of comparative literary analysis. If you don't want to study what the literature has to say yet at the same time sound chary of the whole enterprise (despite your ignorance) I am not interested in discussing details with you.

I suggest you start with a study of how mimesis works in classical literature, in the literary works contemporary with the gospels and the works that were standards in teaching Greek. New Testament scholars who specialize in such studies have noted the lack of familiarity among some of their peers with the wider literary culture of the day. They seem to assume that the argument is somehow special for the gospels. I'm not interested in confining myself to professors who don't know squat outside the Bible or Palestine.

(and by the way, the literary comparisons are done in the language in which they were written)

 

[vridar]

There is a lot of overlapings between the Old and the New Testaments. The problem is that it is difficult to discover if they are the origen of Jesus' legends or the legendary justification of some past events. To discern this is not always possible nor easy.

A cool way to start is to ask how it is we can know Alexander was real even though he was portrayed as a Dionysus. Classical studies have shown that Plato used the ideal model of the heroic Achilles as his template for Socrates but we have reason to have confidence that Socrates was historical.

Identify how it is we know those figures were real despite their mythical presentations and we are on our way to validly assessing the same question for Jesus.

 

[vridar]

Even the context and narrated events are absolutely differents.

Gee, I never noticed that! Thanks for leading me to read the verses either side of the one I wrote about.

Of course they are. That's the point. Classicists have no problem with what the authors are actually doing and find the differences are the way to enriching the meaning of the new text. Have you ever read the Homeric epics and compared them with the Aeneid and noticed how images and motifs weave in and out to create entirely new meanings? That's not silly made-up stuff. It's what classicists have understood and written about for generations. Too many biblical scholars have failed the public by not informing themselves of the wider literary culture in which the biblical texts were created.

You could study what the ancients wrote about rhetoric and this technique. It's not something classicist made up.

(And if you read my own comments with just a wee bit more attention and thought there might be some value in comparing ancient Greek texts in the Greek language you would not be able to say that "tomb" is the only detail in common.)

I'm telling you to educate yourself because I'm not interested in going to the trouble to try to inform someone who is too smart and knows what's bunk before he knows the first thing about it.

 

[Brainache]

OK, here I go with my non-abstract non-mythicist hypothesis...

I'll start with Judas the Galilean's anti-tax movement:
http://www.biblestudytools.com/history/flavius-josephus/antiquities-jews/book-18/chapter-1.html

This happened at the time gLuke sets his birth narrative. That bogus journey of Mary and Joseph to Bethlehem to fulfil a prophecy.

Josephus goes on to describe how Judas and his sidekick "Sadduc" introduced a new form of Judaism. A form of Judaism that was militantly nationalistic and fundamentalist in nature.

The name "Sadduc" is apparently a reference to "Sadducee", or even "Zadok"/"Zadokite" a reference to the OT Priestly caste who had been supplanted from the Temple Priesthood by the cronies of Herod. These last were not from the traditional "Priestly Families" but were political appointees and allies of Herod and his family.

The Herodian family were ethnically Idumeans who had converted to Judaism relatively recently. Idumea (or Edom) was the area south-east of Judea and the Idumeans/Edomites were what we would today call Arabs.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herod_the_Great

Getting back to my hypothesis, the displaced Sadducees, the "Son's of Zadok" didn't just disappear when the high priesthood was taken away from them, they became what could be considered an "opposition Priesthood". They still considered themselves to be the true priesthood of Judea and they still had followers, but they no longer controlled the Temple or its vast wealth.

This is where I think the Dead Sea Scrolls come into the picture. I think these opposition priests, their families and followers decided to remove themselves from the corrupt Herodian run temple and set up their habitation in the Judean desert. When Judas and "Sadduc" started their anti-tax rebellion after the death of Herod the Great, their militant brand of nationalism combined with religious zealotry put them in the same political camp as these "Opposition Priests".

End of Part one...

Part Two:

In the early part of the first century CE John The Baptist started gaining popularity out there in the wilderness baptising people:

...John, that was called the Baptist: for Herod slew him, who was a good man, and commanded the Jews to exercise virtue, both as to righteousness towards one another, and piety towards God, and so to come to baptism; for that the washing [with water] would be acceptable to him, if they made use of it, not in order to the putting away [or the remission] of some sins [only], but for the purification of the body; supposing still that the soul was thoroughly purified beforehand by righteousness. Now when [many] others came in crowds about him, for they were very greatly moved [or pleased] by hearing his words, Herod, who feared lest the great influence John had over the people might put it into his power and inclination to raise a rebellion, (for they seemed ready to do any thing he should advise,) thought it best, by putting him to death, to prevent any mischief he might cause, and not bring himself into difficulties, by sparing a man who might make him repent of it when it would be too late...

http://www.biblestudytools.com/history/flavius-josephus/antiquities-jews/book-18/chapter-5.html

Of course John The Baptist is mentioned in all the gospel stories. Starting with Mark:

The beginning of the good news about Jesus the Messiah,[a] the Son of God, 2 as it is written in Isaiah the prophet:

“I will send my messenger ahead of you,
who will prepare your way”[c]—
3 “a voice of one calling in the wilderness,
‘Prepare the way for the Lord,
make straight paths for him.’”[d]
4 And so John the Baptist appeared in the wilderness, preaching a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins. 5 The whole Judean countryside and all the people of Jerusalem went out to him. Confessing their sins, they were baptized by him in the Jordan River...

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Mark+1&version=NIV

Compare that to what is in the Community Rule from the DSS:

...When these men exist in Israel, these are the provision whereby they are to be kept apart from any consort with froward men, to the end that they may indeed 'go into the wilderness to prepare the way' i.e., do what Scripture enjoins when it says, 'Prepare in the wilderness...make it straight in the desert a highway for our God' [Isaiah 40:3]. (The reference is to the study of the Law which God commanded through Moses to the end that, an occasion arises, all things may be done in accordance with what is revealed therein and with what the prophets also have revealed through God's holy spirit.)...

http://www.essene.com/History&Essenes/md.htm

Also their opinion on baptism:

...No one is to go into water in order to attain the purity of holy men. For men cannot be purified except they repent their evil. God regards as impure all that transgress His word...

http://www.essene.com/History&Essenes/md.htm
Which is more similar to Josephus' description of Baptism than the NT version.

Either way, that verse of Isaiah is associated with John the Baptist and JTB is associated with Jesus in all the gospels.

End of part two.
This is going to be a long one...

 

[Craig B]

However, I don't find any coincidence between Isaiah 22: 15-118 and Mark 15:42-47,except the fact that there is a tomb. Even the context and narrated events are absolutely differents. The references in Vridar blog don't explain this.

Isaiah:
15 This is what the Lord, the Lord Almighty, says:

“Go, say to this steward,
to Shebna the palace administrator:
16 What are you doing here and who gave you permission
to cut out a grave for yourself here,
hewing your grave on the height
and chiseling your resting place in the rock?
17 “Beware, the Lord is about to take firm hold of you
and hurl you away, you mighty man.
18 He will roll you up tightly like a ball
and throw you into a large country.
There you will die
and there the chariots you were so proud of
will become a disgrace to your master’s house.

MArk:
"When he learned from the centurion that it was so, he gave the body to Joseph. ⁴⁶So Joseph bought some linen cloth, took down the body, wrapped it in the linen, and placed it in a tomb cut out of rock. Then he rolled a stone against the entrance of the tomb. ⁴⁷Mary Magdalene and Mary the mother of Joseph saw where he was laid".

I was composing a reply along these lines, which I agree with wholeheartedly. The reference to Shebna is that he will fall from power. The passage is stating: you have built yourself a splendid tomb, but even if you hide in it, you will be thrown out by God. That's not even a bit like Mark's Jesus.

As an interesting matter of archaeological fact, reported in wiki

A royal steward's rock-cut tomb discovered in Siloam is believed to be his, although only the last three letters of the name remain legible on the lintel from the tomb that is now kept in the British Museum The assumption is that Shebna's name may have also been pronounced 'Shevanyahu', which fits the inscription perfectly.​

So he may have been known for his splendid tomb, which would be why the allusion is made in Isaiah.

Here is the Isaiah passage. Palace Treasurer Shebna^WP is to be removed from his post, by the will of God.

Because of his pride he was ejected from his office, and replaced by Eliakim the son of Hilkiah as recorded in Book of Isaiah: 22:15-25​

Why is this important enough to be noted? Because after Shebna's removal Eliakim became minister to King Hezekiah^WP who

enacted sweeping religious reforms, including a strict mandate for the sole worship of Yahweh and a prohibition on venerating other deities within the Temple in Jerusalem.

2 Kings 18 3 And he did that which was right in the sight of the Lord, according to all that David his father did. 4 He removed the high places, and brake the images, and cut down the groves, and brake in pieces the brasen serpent that Moses had made: for unto those days the children of Israel did burn incense to it: and he called it Nehushtan. 5 He trusted in the Lord God of Israel; so that after him was none like him among all the kings of Judah, nor anythat were before him. 6 For he clave to the Lord, and departed not from following him, but kept his commandments, which the Lord commanded Moses.​

Except he's just smashed up Moses' brass snake-God, as stated.

Vridar tells us that he is aware of only one scholar who has made the identification of those two passages; and I can understand the reluctance of other writers to follow Kinghardt's lead here. For I can't make out any clear indication of influence. Both refer to rock cut sepulchres - but in both periods these were the normal places of disposal of human remains.

If fourteenth and twentieth century European sources similarly referred to inhumation in earth, would we think that one had influenced the other, or would we note simply that this custom prevailed equally in both periods? The latter surely, unless there was other substantial reason to connect the two accounts - and in the scriptural cases here in question, there is not.

 

[David Mo]

Gee, I never noticed that! Thanks for leading me to read the verses either side of the one I wrote about.

You’re welcome. But sarcasm is out of place.

This is hardly the forum to delve into the details of comparative literary analysis. If you don't want to study what the literature has to say yet at the same time sound chary of the whole enterprise (despite your ignorance) I am not interested in discussing details with you.

A forum is a place to debate about things. What other else?
You have pointed to some similarity but Craig B and I have not found any coincidence. If you want to continue the debate, a single list of similarities or an available bibliography would be suitable. A long master course is not expected. If you don’t like to continue the debate is your decision. But do not blame the others for your lack of… interest.

Of course they are. That's the point. Classicists have no problem with what the authors are actually doing and find the differences are the way to enriching the meaning of the new text. Have you ever read the Homeric epics and compared them with the Aeneid and noticed how images and motifs weave in and out to create entirely new meanings? That's not silly made-up stuff. It's what classicists have understood and written about for generations. Too many biblical scholars have failed the public by not informing themselves of the wider literary culture in which the biblical texts were created.
You could study what the ancients wrote about rhetoric and this technique. It's not something classicist made up.
I'm telling you to educate yourself because I'm not interested in going to the trouble to try to inform someone who is too smart and knows what's bunk before he knows the first thing about it.

I am not interested in a teacher but in a partner in this forum. I think that I am “educated” enough. Maybe I know some things about Socrates that you ignore.

A cool way to start is to ask how it is we can know Alexander was real even though he was portrayed as a Dionysus. Classical studies have shown that Plato used the ideal model of the heroic Achilles as his template for Socrates but we have reason to have confidence that Socrates was historical.

For example, Achilles as a model of Socrates is an evident simplification. There is a reference to Achilles in the Apology, but only from the basis of the heroic acceptance of the death. This feature could be drawn from other Homer’s heroes like Hector also. Plato’s model of Socrates is more complex and includes original and borrowed features of many other characters.
Aeneid’s Homeric model is practically explicit. What is the difference between both cases? An evident one: the number of coincidences. Other: the general structure of the story. Etc.
Therefore, we can find other similar characters in the ancient history. (Parallel lives, you know). If they are only particular coincidences or a deliberate influence is not easy to say in all occasions.
In addition, when we have a similarity between two texts or ideologies without a clear historical situation, the relation cause effect is dubious. This is the case with the parallelism between later Orphism and Christianity.
Anyway, I don’t see any strong parallelism between Isaiah and Mark. If you want “educate” me on this point, I’ll be glad of it. If you don’t want or are not be able, I will be sorry. In any case, I’d appreciate if you don’t overwhelm us with authority arguments. I say this without any intention of offending. I hope you consider this as a friendly reflexion.

 

[vridar]

In any case, I’d appreciate if you don’t overwhelm us with authority arguments. I say this without any intention of offending. I hope you consider this as a friendly reflexion.

Telling you to study the arguments is not arguing from authority. (It is interesting that you should confuse the two.) I came here looking for exchanges where some of my ideas can be tested and to gain new insights and perspectives. But when it is plainly evident that someone rejects an idea outright on grounds that clearly indicate a preformed opinion, however disingenuously framed, I have no interest in engagement with such persons.

 

[vridar]

If fourteenth and twentieth century European sources similarly referred to inhumation in earth, would we think that one had influenced the other, or would we note simply that this custom prevailed equally in both periods? The latter surely, unless there was other substantial reason to connect the two accounts - and in the scriptural cases here in question, there is not.

You have avoided addressing the various grounds for the comparison that I have already pointed out in previous comments. I have no interest in wasting time with straw man responses.