If we are talking about history then Roman belief in Mythology in antiquity is extremely useful.
It was the very Romans who worshiped Sons of Gods born of a Virgin that
eventually compelled all in the Roman Empire to worship a Myth character called Jesus, God of God and begotten of the God before all creatures.
John Frum "nowhere" is irrelevant in the history of Greek/Roman mythology.
One must have a fundamental understanding of Greek/Roman Mythology to understand how the mythological Jesus character was accepted by the Romans.
The Myth fables of Romulus the Son of God predated the story of Jesus the Son of God for hundreds of years.
Romulus was the mythological founder of the Roman Empire the Son of a God and a virgin.
It is also claimed that Romulus was conceived AFTER a VIRGIN was impregnated by an Apparition.
Examine Plutarch's Romulus written c 75 CE.
Amazingly, there is NO human father of Jesus in the Entire NT just like Romulus.
We also have the "healing" power of Vespasian the Emperor given to him by the Myth God Serapis.
In Suetonius' Life of Vespasian, the Emperor SPAT in the eyes of the blind and touched the lame and they were INSTANTLY healed which was witnessed by a LARGE crowd of people.
Suetonius' Life of Vespasian
Justin Martyr also admitted the Jesus story was just like Roman/Greek Mythology.
Justin's "First Apology"
Quote:
--------------
And when we say also that the Word, who is the first-birth of God, was produced without sexual union, and that He, Jesus Christ, our Teacher, was crucified and died, and rose again, and ascended into heaven, we propound nothing different from what you believe regarding those whom you esteem sons of Jupiter.
---------------
The Jesus story was fabricated to be compatible with the existing belief of Greek/Roman Mythology.
I've always found it interesting that people who lived in a society familiar with 'pagan' beliefs could see the resemblance between the 'new' Jesus tales and other commonplace superstitions already in circulation.
It's become a point of christian apologetics that Jesusism had something to offer that was novel - and they can 'get away with it' because we don't have the same knowledge base that existed in those times.
I've always found it interesting that people who lived in a society familiar with 'pagan' beliefs could see the resemblance between the 'new' Jesus tales and other commonplace superstitions already in circulation.
It's become a point of christian apologetics that Jesusism had something to offer that was novel - and they can 'get away with it' because we don't have the same knowledge base that existed in those times.
I must be missing something; this isn't unknown information.
Heck, not only did Romans have this idea, but so did most of the Levant region.
The Canaanite and Hittite pantheons contain quite similar concepts as "King of King" or "God of God" and virgin birth paternal-line from a god ideals.
I wouldn't say this is unique to the Romans; for the Bronze Age, this was almost standard cookie-cutter civilization start-up kit from the Middle East on through the Mediterranean.
For instance, Zoroaster contains a rendition, or interpretation, whereby it is asserted that he was of virgin birth by a beam of light entering his virgin mother and was protected and cared for by Ahura Mazda (god of gods).
His coming was also claimed as a prophecy since the beginning of time and that his coming marked the final era.
This was prevalent at a time when the Hebrew peoples are archaeologically only getting their start as a separate civilization in the archaeological record.
If people pretend Jesus was unique in these kinds of respects, it's only by carried over perpetuation of 'Dark Age' ignorance.
Heck, I could walk out right now and start asking people who Zoroaster is and I'm betting a bunch of folks wouldn't only have no idea, but probably also would tell me they thought he was the terrorist leader on the news recently.
Well, in the case of the Sophia of Jesus Christ it comes from an old book of theological musings.
Suppose there really was a 'Q' used by gMatthew and gLuke to give their respective Jesus figures something to say- is there any reason it could not be a similar case of authors re-purposing pre-existing material?
I suspect there may have been a lot of collections of 'wisdom sayings' floating about (like those attributed to Solomon, who - if he existed at all - probably didn't spend a lot of time jotting down his thoughts).
If we are talking about history then Roman belief in Mythology in antiquity is extremely useful. [ . . . ]We also have the "healing" power of Vespasian the Emperor given to him by the Myth God Serapis.
In Suetonius' Life of Vespasian, the Emperor SPAT in the eyes of the blind and touched the lame and they were INSTANTLY healed which was witnessed by a LARGE crowd of people. [ . . . ]
I find the story of Theseus more like the Jesus narrative, or even the story of Hippolytus, more so than that of Romulus, but I agree that Hellenistic and Roman beliefs seems to have influenced the writing of the NT boooks.
I reread a bit of what we know about Suetonius and found this (yes, it's from wiki)
Suetonius was a close friend of senator and letter-writer Pliny the Younger. Pliny describes him as "quiet and studious, a man dedicated to writing." Pliny helped him buy a small property and interceded with the Emperor Trajan to grant Suetonius immunities usually granted to a father of three, the ius trium liberorum, because his marriage was childless.[2] Through Pliny, Suetonius came into favour with Trajan and Hadrian. Suetonius may have served on Pliny’s staff when Pliny was Proconsul of Bithynia Pontus (northern Asia Minor) between 110 and 112.
Under Trajan he served as secretary of studies (precise functions are uncertain) and director of Imperial archives. Under Hadrian, he became the Emperor's secretary. But, in 119, Hadrian dismissed Suetonius for an affair he had with the Empress Vibia Sabina.
I found the connection with Pliny the Younger interesting, especially since Pliny was so ignorant of Christians and their beliefs he ended up torturing two unfortunate deaconesses for information about them. If he wanted to know about Christians, why not have asked Suetonius what he knew of them?
I've always found it interesting that people who lived in a society familiar with 'pagan' beliefs could see the resemblance between the 'new' Jesus tales and other commonplace superstitions already in circulation.
It's become a point of christian apologetics that Jesusism had something to offer that was novel - and they can 'get away with it' because we don't have the same knowledge base that existed in those times.
I'll agree with you there and disagree at the same time, as we have the marvel of the internet to access so much information even, as I am at this moment, while sipping a badly needed coffee.
I must be missing something; this isn't unknown information.
Heck, not only did Romans have this idea, but so did most of the Levant region.
The Canaanite and Hittite pantheons contain quite similar concepts as "King of King" or "God of God" and virgin birth paternal-line from a god ideals.
I wouldn't say this is unique to the Romans; for the Bronze Age, this was almost standard cookie-cutter civilization start-up kit from the Middle East on through the Mediterranean.
For instance, Zoroaster contains a rendition, or interpretation, whereby it is asserted that he was of virgin birth by a beam of light entering his virgin mother and was protected and cared for by Ahura Mazda (god of gods).
His coming was also claimed as a prophecy since the beginning of time and that his coming marked the final era.
This was prevalent at a time when the Hebrew peoples are archaeologically only getting their start as a separate civilization in the archaeological record.
If people pretend Jesus was unique in these kinds of respects, it's only by carried over perpetuation of 'Dark Age' ignorance.
Heck, I could walk out right now and start asking people who Zoroaster is and I'm betting a bunch of folks wouldn't only have no idea, but probably also would tell me they thought he was the terrorist leader on the news recently.
Yes, it is known among people who take a real interest - which is why I mentioned apologists in my post who prey on the ignorance of the general public.
Thanks for your further elucidation on this angle.
Thanks for the link -I find the ingenuity of ancient people to be a fascinating subject. I do not subscribe to the notion that people today are somehow more intelligent or less credulous than they were - only a few centuries of time separate us which in my view isn't long enough to change human nature.
I find the story of Theseus more like the Jesus narrative, or even the story of Hippolytus, more so than that of Romulus, but I agree that Hellenistic and Roman beliefs seems to have influenced the writing of the NT books.
I reread a bit of what we know about Suetonius and found this (yes, it's from wiki)
I found the connection with Pliny the Younger interesting, especially since Pliny was so ignorant of Christians and their beliefs he ended up torturing two unfortunate deaconesses for information about them. If he wanted to know about Christians, why not have asked Suetonius what he knew of them?
Yes, the Pliny letter is intriguing (as is the response!) and in some respects raises as many questions as it answers.
I'll agree with you there and disagree at the same time, as we have the marvel of the internet to access so much information even, as I am at this moment, while sipping a badly needed coffee.
Christian evangelists and 'historical Jesus' advocates seem to use this ignorance about ancient 'pagan' beliefs (which I only ascribe to the general public and not to people who make efforts to understand the context of the times in question) to support their claims that there is something 'unique' about christianity which is consequently supposed to be some guarantee of its authenticity.
I'd say that even if it was 'unique' that doesn't make it any more true - humans are creative and can come up with innovative ideas.
One of the most ludicrous conspiracy theories to gain a new lease on life through the web in the past decade is the laughable notion that Jesus the entirely human 1st-century rabbi who was nailed up by the Romans, after teaching all sorts of counter-cultural aphorisms, and who never revived, is not even historical! Of course, this ridiculous notion was soundly thrashed back when our great-grandparents were in knickers (as was the bogus notion that Jesus the rabbi was supernatural, to the pronounced discomfort of fundies everywhere), thanks largely to references well outside the holly bibble found in pagan chronicles in the 1st century and early 2nd. But depend on the Internet to allow room for every ludicrous ignorant meme to thrive and flourish.
Yes, I know this ludicrous "theory" has made its way on to certain Religion fora, but it obviously doesn't belong there. On adult rationalist sites like this, it plainly belongs in a conspiracy theories forum like this one, right? Of course.
A useful debunking of this hoary ignorant theory is found here --
One of the most ludicrous conspiracy theories to gain a new lease on life through the web in the past decade is the laughable notion that Jesus the entirely human 1st-century rabbi who was nailed up by the Romans, after teaching all sorts of counter-cultural aphorisms, and who never revived, is not even historical! Of course, this ridiculous notion was soundly thrashed back when our great-grandparents were in knickers (as was the bogus notion that Jesus the rabbi was supernatural, to the pronounced discomfort of fundies everywhere), thanks largely to references well outside the holly bibble found in pagan chronicles in the 1st century and early 2nd. But depend on the Internet to allow room for every ludicrous ignorant meme to thrive and flourish.
Yes, I know this ludicrous "theory" has made its way on to certain Religion fora, but it obviously doesn't belong there. On adult rationalist sites like this, it plainly belongs in a conspiracy theories forum like this one, right? Of course.
A useful debunking of this hoary ignorant theory is found here --
Could there have been a derelict wandering jewish rabbi? Sure. There were more than a few.
Could one of those have served as the seed of christianity? Sure. There plenty of apocalyptic preachers at the time.
Can a particular one individual be identified? Nope.
Personally, I find it likely that the early christians glommed onto the life and times of a rogue jewish rabbi. Can I prove it? No. It is equally a possibility that Paul et al made it up out of whole cloth.
But it cannot be determined definitively one way or the other at this far remove. Was there a real jewish recidivant at the time? Possibly.
Was there an entirely made up character? Possibly. There is simply insufficient data to make that call.
That being said, it is a matter of record that the biblical accounts are utter baloney. Seek no assistance there.
I should be more clear when I make those kinds of statements; I was referring to those aspects worth noting which informed their form below that layer, as that layer is extremely large and does not well unify these texts much for even their application of Greek and Latin (the most unifying components of the texts) is quite disparate and serves better at defining their differences than similarities.
Welcome as always, and yes, I think the idea of retrospective period piece literature - with no real difference in mind between myths, legends and reality motivating many of the works (Luke appears to be the odd-man-out in researching) - should probably be considered a bit more deeply.
You, of course, have the advantage of reading these texts in the original, so these flavours or aspects are things that I simply can't appreciate. From my disadvantaged situation , I see syncretism, nuanced by different authors/editors.
Do you really discern cultural differences between the NT writings?
I disagree with you, abbadon, regarding the existence of a singular character who formed the seed of the Jesus myth. The man Yeshu bin Yusuf existed, raised a rabble and was strung up by the Romans as a troublemaker. The conspiracy started with the theft of the body from the tomb and subsequent disposal of the body. My researches on cults in general and middle eastern primitive religions both suggest a possibility of ritual cannibalism. In the instance of Yeshu, his core group of followers consumed knowingly and the peripheral members consumed unknowingly. The remainder was tossed into the Sea of Tiberias by Simon and peter.
In this case, serious. I'm not the first person to read the gospels this way - Heinlein wrote Stranger In A Strange Land based on the notion, and he wasn't the first either.
....Christian evangelists and 'historical Jesus' advocates seem to use this ignorance about ancient 'pagan' beliefs (which I only ascribe to the general public and not to people who make efforts to understand the context of the times in question) to support their claims that there is something 'unique' about christianity which is consequently supposed to be some guarantee of its authenticity.
I'd say that even if it was 'unique' that doesn't make it any more true - humans are creative and can come up with innovative ideas.
Religion is a product of ignorance. Christians regarded one another as evil, blasphemous, atheists in antiquity
Examine "Dialogue with Trypho"
There are, therefore, and there were many, my friends, who, coming forward in the name of Jesus, taught both to speak and act impious and blasphemous things; and these are called by us after the name of the men from whom each doctrine and opinion had its origin.
(For some in one way, others in another, teach to blaspheme the Maker of all things, and Christ, who was foretold by Him as coming, and the God of Abraham, and of Isaac, and of Jacob, with whom we have nothing in common, since we know them to be atheists, impious, unrighteous, and sinful, and confessors of Jesus in name only, instead of worshippers of Him.
Yet they style themselves Christians, just as certain among the Gentiles inscribe the name of God upon the works of their own hands, and partake in nefarious and impious rites.) Some are called Marcians, and some Valentinians, and some Basilidians, and some Saturnilians, and others by other names.....
There was never any established historical evidence for Jesus of Nazareth. Christians of antiquity became enemies because of their own invented Myth Fables of the Son of God.
I disagree with you, abbadon, regarding the existence of a singular character who formed the seed of the Jesus myth. The man Yeshu bin Yusuf existed, raised a rabble and was strung up by the Romans as a troublemaker. The conspiracy started with the theft of the body from the tomb and subsequent disposal of the body. My researches on cults in general and middle eastern primitive religions both suggest a possibility of ritual cannibalism. In the instance of Yeshu, his core group of followers consumed knowingly and the peripheral members consumed unknowingly. The remainder was tossed into the Sea of Tiberias by Simon and peter.
I have to ask where you got this idea. The idea of the Jewish followers of Jesus indulging in a bit of cannibalism after the crucifixion is bizarre in the extreme.
Josephus recounts a tale of cannibalism at the height of the Roman siege of Jerusalem in 70 CE with such revulsion, that the notion that devout followers of a would-be Messiah could do it as an act of devotion is just ludicrous.
Please explain the reasoning which led to your conclusion.
Yes, it is known among people who take a real interest - which is why I mentioned apologists in my post who prey on the ignorance of the general public.
Thanks for your further elucidation on this angle.
And in the same moment, I need to correct myself from before regarding Pakeha's consideration of cultural ties.
For one tie that definitely links them together is what I wrote to you:
The Canaanite and Hittite pantheons contain quite similar concepts as "King of King" or "God of God" and virgin birth paternal-line from a god ideals.
I wouldn't say this is unique to the Romans; for the Bronze Age, this was almost standard cookie-cutter civilization start-up kit from the Middle East on through the Mediterranean.
For instance, Zoroaster contains a rendition, or interpretation, whereby it is asserted that he was of virgin birth by a beam of light entering his virgin mother and was protected and cared for by Ahura Mazda (god of gods).
His coming was also claimed as a prophecy since the beginning of time and that his coming marked the final era.
This was prevalent at a time when the Hebrew peoples are archaeologically only getting their start as a separate civilization in the archaeological record.
Pakeha,
I must admit error, for it should not be the impression that they shared no influential ties in culture at all.
The above, which could be expanded on in further detail, was a definite influential relationship between all texts (not just Zoroaster, but the whole concept).
In fact, I use the Zoroaster legend as one tool to trace the relationship between Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, whereby Mark is entirely absent of the tale's residue and here Mark stands apart from Matthew, Mark and John in one of the rare occasions where Mark is the odd-man-out instead of John.
Luke is a polished work which appears to have started from an already Christian style converted Zoroastrian tale and applies Grecian values into the text instead.
John doesn't appear to notice or care much and just mixes freely like a buffet table, but does include the Zoroastrian tales essentially but bent and mixed in with Danielism - which makes for a very fascinating drama.
Matthew, then, is about the only one left and here we find remarkable Zoroastrian comparisons, but important deviations in regard to the focuses and some Danielism (but not nearly as much as John).
So there are shared and cultural concepts that run through them; just not in a way that binds them quite as much as it shows how different they are, for each thing which one would expect to bring them together in some fashion instead ends up (just as above) separating them or giving us an indication of difference.
We can't just say, "Well they were all Roman culture so obviously pagan influence etc..."
Both the "Roman culture" and "pagan" labels in that kind of phrase are far too vague to be functionally gainful.
The "Roman culture" could be claimed to be anything within the Roman Empire and the Roman Empire was not at all united in cultures in the massive array of provinces.
On principle matters of Law, yes. However, in daily lives and religious holdings - not nearly as much.
There are vast differences between those on Crete from those in Galatia; from those in Spain and those in the Levant region - being owned by the Roman Empire did not remove these differences.
And "pagan" is so terrible of a label in its vagueness that it is incapable of informing much of anything. The term is just a grab-bag of anything not Christian.
Well, gee, there are loads of things not Christian around this time; I wouldn't think it useful to treat all religious cultures the same, however.
I can go into this at length if we want to, but my current view would place Matthew along the Southern Judean belt-line out through Alexandria and out as far as Carthage could have been possible.
Matthew is incredibly iconic (I mean that everything in it is an icon of something).
Firstly, it incredibly matches the basic structure of Zoroastrian legends; I have already pointed at the virgin birth bit, but here's another summary to look at and compare to Matthew's version:
Before the birth of Zarathustra, the magicians and wicked people knew that a person who would teach the people the true worship of Ahura Mazda was to be born to Dughdova. They wanted to kill her so that the people would not turn to Zarathustra for help from their wickedness. They told Frahimurva the father of Dughdova to let them kill her. Fearing for his daughter he sent her to live at the house of friend Paitarasp. Paitarasp had a son whose name was Pourushaspa. Dughdova married Pourushaspa and they were the parents of Zarathustra.
They had a dream that they would have a child which would change the world. Pourushaspa took the twigs of homa tree, milked the cow mixed the milk with homa twigs in front of hearth fire, drank the milk, for the Khorena, Fravashi and Tanu, to come together. Dry wood, Frankenstein and fat were offered to fire.
Before Zarathustra was born, a very bright light shone all around the house. His birth was a very special event. Most babies cry at birth but baby Zarathustra laughed at birth. This was an indication of the birth of a divine person.
Zarathustra was born in a priestly Spitaman family. The Spitamans had 5 sons in all. Rathushtar, Rangushtar, ZARATHUSTRA, Nodariga and Nivedis.
Soon after his birth an evil man named Durasarun planned to kill Zarathustra. He had heard that Zarathustra was sent by Ahura Mazda to get rid of evil.
The evil men put baby Zarathustra into burning fire, but the angel Asha-Vahishta which look after the fire i.e. Adibest Amesaspand caused the fire to get cold.
Next they placed him in a lane frequented by cattle, with the intention that he would be trampled to death. But Bahman Amesaspand the angel that protect the cattle, came to the rescue by inspiring a cow to stand over him and protect him from the stampede. A similar attempt made by placing him in a passage of horses also failed.
Durasarun continued his efforts to kill Zarathustra. He took him to a wolf cave to be eaten by wolves. Angels Meher Yazad and Sarosh Yazad came to the baby's rescue in the form of goats who suckled the baby, until he was rescued by his parents.
In the end Durasarun tried to carry out the murder himself. He entered Zarathustra's house when all were asleep and was going to strike him with his deadly dagger, when angel Behram Yazad permanently paralysed and twisted his hands so that he could never ever use them again.
Zarathustra grew up to be a good and happy boy. He was kind and always tried to make other happy. Once he saw a starving dog. He lifted it, fed some bread and water and nursed it to good health.
When there was famine in Iran, Zarathustra and his family shared food with hungry people making them happy.
Zarathustra spent many years studying the faith of Ahura Mazda. When he became 20 years old he felt the need to get closer to God. He left home and spent ten years in prayer and meditation on the mountains. Satan offered Zarathustra the entire world if he would forsake his worship of Ahura Mazda the Lord of Wisdom. When he refused, Satan threatened to destroy him.
One day when Zarathustra was 30 years old, something very special happened to him as he was wading through the river Daitya. He had vision of God, in the form of glowing light. The glowing entity was Bahman Ameshsaspand. Bahman Ameshaspand led him to the Court of Ahura Mazda where he beheld the Lord Supreme and the luminous Amesha Spentas. They revealed to Zarathustra what each of them protected i.e.
Spenta Mainyu or Dadar Ohrmazd which means the good spirit which looks after the man.
Vohu Manah the Good Mind or Bahman Amesaspand which looks after the cattle, and helps man to think and understand correctly.
Asha Vahishta or Adibehest Amesaspand which look after fire and stands for The Best Truth and Order and helps man to be truthful and to live in order.
Kshathra Vairya or Shahrevar Amesaspand which looks after the sky meaning desirable power and helps man to be powerful and strong so that he can do more good.
Spenta Armaiti or Spendarmad Amesaspand which looks after the earth meaning Devotion and helps man to be dutiful and hardworking.
Hauravatat or Khordad Amesaspand which looks after the water meaning perfection and helps man to be very good in his work.
Ameretat or Amardad Amesaspand which looks after plants. It stands for immortality and helps to preserve God's good creations.
Zarathustra saw Ahura Mazda as a "Manthran" or One who created and spelt out the Holy Word. He realized that it was with the vibrationary power of the 'Pak Avesta Kalaams" that creations which were formerly inanimate were brought to life. Thus, the Prophet made the Holy Word his own weapon to fight evil with, and through the power of this Holy Word, light would spread throughout this world. He requested Ahura Mazda to bestow him with the knowledge of the twenty-one Nasks. The seeker was now the Enlightened One. Ahura Mazda also gave Zarathustra a Haoma tree (representing wisdom and peace born of the good Mazdayasni religion). Most importantly Ahura Mazda gave Zarathustra the spiritual fire, Adar Burzin Meher, or the "Exalted Fire" which burned without fuel and emitted no smoke whatsoever. This was like the spiritual scepter of the spiritual monarch.
Zarathustra was then commanded by the Ahura Mazda to instill into the minds of the people the Divine Thought, that in the world of men where life is brief, those that act unrighteously find in the spiritual realm not happiness but grief, discontentness, and pain of mind, for such is the abode of their soul.
Zarathustra revealed all the messages he received from Ahura Mazda, in a series of 5 Hymns called the Gathas. The names of the 5 Gathas are Ahunavaiti, Ushtavaiti, Spentomad, Vohukhshathra and Vahishtoisti.
The essence of the religion is Humata, Hukhta and Huvarashtra, Good Thoughts, Good Words and Good Deeds given to us by Zarathustra which every child knows. and other important prayers which relieve us from the influences of evil people and planets and help us to achieve peace and prosperity.
Zarathustra left the mountains and went forth to preach the Mazdayasni religion. Maidyomah, his cousin was his first disciple.
Zarathustra went to the court of King Vistasp of Bactria. The King was interested in his teachings, but the courtiers were evil and framed Zarathustra. He was imprisoned. While in prison, he heard that the king's favourite horse Aspa-Siha was paralysed and very ill. In despair, the king turned to Zarathustra for help.
Zarathustra agreed to help, but only on the following four conditions. That
The king should follow his teachings.
The queen would follow the religion.
The prince would protect the faith, and
The king should punish those who framed him.
As each condition was fulfilled, each leg of the horse was freed from paralysis.
Mazdayasni Zarathustri religion spread across the world from China to Europe.
Zarathustra had three wives but they may have been one after another. Their names were Orwiz, Arniz and Havovi.
The children of Aurvij were Isatavastra, Thrity, Freny and Pouruchisti Arniz had Urvatanara, Hvarechithra. Havovi was childless and will bear three posthumous sons: Hoshedar, Hukshatnama, Asvatereta
Zarathustra lived a long and good life. One day at age of 77 years and 40 days, when he was praying, an evil man named Bradres, crept up behind him and stabbed him in the back. Zarathustra threw his prayer beads at him and forgave him, but the assassin dropped dead as soon as Zarathustra died. Sarosh Yazad took Zarathustra to heaven.
So aside from that skeletal frame being quite similar to the way the story of Jesus appears in Matthew (but not in the other "gospels" as much), the icons begin rather quickly in Matthew.
Firstly, the Magi (Magi is Zoroastrian) hand off the special hat to Jesus.
So; they are giving up what belonged to Zoroaster and now claiming Jesus is the superman - not Zoroaster (nice try at over-writing their religion, but it didn't work).
The family is jerked to Bethlehem in this story and this, unlike Luke, has no interest in some real world logic.
Bethlehem means womb (well...more specifically it's 'house of life giving', but in the context; this can be figuratively a womb poetically because well...the house of life giving is effectively a euphemistic term for a womb and vagina). It's in Judah; which means its name is 'the womb (or life giver) of Judah'.
So, Jesus was born from the womb/life giver of Judah; the domain and line of David.
That's not an accidental placement.
The family runs to Egypt after being ousted by a Hellenist (the political party) ruler, and from here in Egypt he comes - the claim is that this is to fulfill the prophecy that from Egypt the super savior rightful heir would come.
This is mirroring the outing of Onias the IV as High Priest back in the really important schism where the Hellens (the party) took over and the Zadok line (priests of Solomon, which Onias was) were thrown out.
Onias tried to battle to win it back, but failed, and was then hunted for death.
He then fled to Egypt where he built a new Temple which was actually taller than the Herodian Temple, but folks were more interested in Onias coming back from Egypt and restoring the Zadok line than following Onias' new cop-out plan, which was to try to convince everyone to move from Judea to Egypt and make a new land (he claimed it was the original land) of the Hebrew people.
Well, folks didn't shine to this, so that didn't go anywhere, but groups like the Qumran sect seemed to have spent a considerable time waiting for their loved Zadok line to return before they appear to have given up and started getting more into Messianic fashions in its place (I suppose one can only wait for so long - your grandchildren will probably stop waiting, especially since Onias was dead by then).
A considerable amount of folks did actually follow Onias, however, and subsequent populations of Jews did create inner communities spread out across from Alexandria and westward even through Carthage.
So Egypt gets a lift in this version (unlike the others) because here Egypt is suddenly valuable property; it's where the real savior will come from - all you other Slim Shadys are just imitating.
This goes on...and I could fill quite a volume of space on the icons of Matthew, but that suffices for the moment as an example; so then you mix with these types of icons, and Zoroastrian borrowing, the Hebrew-centric angle of Matthew (that every Christian sect since then has tried to gloss over and excuse away since accepting the text as official).
This Hebrew-centric form is constant and direct; it makes no pretension as to the targeted audience.
It's audience, as far as who it talks to through the narrative, is Messianic movement sympathy Jews somewhere along the Egyptian peninsula; the further West, probably the more interesting this story would have been - especially for those who were multiple generations birthed in Egypt since leaving Judah, as reading the really juicy tid-bits of the Crucifixion by that demographic after 70 CE would have been a big tear-jerker; it would be nearly impossible to put the story down for a Messianic movement 2nd Generation removed from Judah Jew in Corinth, for example.
OK, I've overly focused on Matthew...again...(but Matthew is so fun, sorry).
Mark is very in line with Antioch in being a talented show of skill and the two variations of it are sympathetic with South and North; where South is Africa (where almost all forms of Mark are short-form), and North is Anatolia (where subsequent orthodox holdings employ the longer form).
Mark contains more linguistic complexity than the other texts in creating prose that are in Hebraic grammatical style quite clearly hidden within a Greek lettering at the sacrifice of Greek grammar, and yet employs Aramaic and Latin inner-splicing as well.
Antioch would be a very sympathetic region for Antioch could be seen like a sort of theological silicon valley where lots of 'start-ups' pitted their best shots and the community around the area would tear it apart or be impressed in some fashion and mix it.
This is also where the Gnostic groups find sympathy; of which Mark has rather strong Gnostic sympathies in it.
Luke is beautiful in its Greek; elegant. The opening line of Luke has been called the single greatest sentence in Grecian literature.
While I don't know if that status is valid or not (I'm not going to test that), I can say that Luke is a great place to learn your Greek.
Luke also employs philosophical ideals, such as the Platonic concept of ideal/actual.
The value upon noting research at the beginning is also worth attention.
These, among others, cause Athenian region to be the most likely.
John just screams Anatolia with almost no contest.
The scattered manner the text is patched together by a range of different hands, the mix-match quality of grammar clearly indicates literal copying with ad hoc filling in the blanks between two copied sections, and the extreme views and literary flavors are also very sympathetic to Anatolian culture - considering Anatolia often performed religious tales on the stage as the means of dispersion, it is very easy to see John as for this purpose.
Those are examples of the way the texts show cultural differences.
If you would like, we can expand this out and really get into the finer details.
His argument being that it all began with stories from those who Pliny said sang songs to Christ as a god (quasi deo) and grew into the story in Tacitus - without there being any historical Jesus behind it all.
The authenticity of this Tacitus reference is dubious at best: for good reason, as already discussed.
I think it probably is meant to be a reference to 'our' messianic fanatics: but it's apparent the events described did not happen, nor did Tacitus author it.
It's about as valuable as historical 'evidence' as the Testimonium Flavianum or the Protocols of the Elders of Zion or the Hitler Diaries.
Religion is a product of ignorance. Christians regarded one another as evil, blasphemous, atheists in antiquity
Examine "Dialogue with Trypho"
There was never any established historical evidence for Jesus of Nazareth. Christians of antiquity became enemies because of their own invented Myth Fables of the Son of God.
Yes, christians have been slitting each other's throats over whose imaginary friend is the 'real' one since forever - it's rather like the academic teapot tempests where they argue over whose imaginary 'historical Jesus' is realer than the others: proto-hippy, zealot terrorist, or cynic/sage, et cetera ad infinitum ad nauseam.
But just as all religious fanatics can agree that an atheist is worse than a heretic, bible academics largely agree that the most evil people are those who don't take their faith in a real Jesus seriously enough. Even well-respected academics like Bart Ehrman can go their whole career without questioning the basic dogma. A rather sad commentary on the blinders even otherwise intelligent people subject themselves to.
The authenticity of this Tacitus reference is dubious at best: for good reason, as already discussed.
I think it probably is meant to be a reference to 'our' messianic fanatics: but it's apparent the events described did not happen, nor did Tacitus author it.
It's about as valuable as historical 'evidence' as the Testimonium Flavianum or the Protocols of the Elders of Zion or the Hitler Diaries.
Ridiculous: No one serious has suggested that Tacitus never authored his account of Christians -- nor his account of how Christians got their name. They all come from Tacitus, and they all show how he gained his information on how the Christian sect got started. (Cue the woo merchants here on how his witness can be conveniently "dismissed".)
I have to ask where you got this idea. The idea of the Jewish followers of Jesus indulging in a bit of cannibalism after the crucifixion is bizarre in the extreme.
Josephus recounts a tale of cannibalism at the height of the Roman siege of Jerusalem in 70 CE with such revulsion, that the notion that devout followers of a would-be Messiah could do it as an act of devotion is just ludicrous.
Please explain the reasoning which led to your conclusion.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
