Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Clivedurdle · 08-27-2009, 12:08 PM

Quote:

What if this entire Passion sequence was initially a play?

Quote:

Ever since the Enlightenment, when the gospels began to be studied in a rationalistic frame of mind as literary works within their ancient context, parallels have been drawn between the passion of Jesus and the rituals and mysteries of the dying and resurrecting gods such as Dionysus and Osiris. The death and resurrection of Osiris was enacted annually in a dramatic performance. Greek tragedy evolved from sacred plays in honor of Dionysus. Did primitive Christianity, too, begin as ritual drama?

The economy of the Gospel narratives is related to the ritual commemoration of the Passion; taking them literally we run the risk of transposing into history what are really the successive incidents of a religious drama,

so wrote Alfred Loisy, one of the most perceptive New Testament scholars of our time.[2] J. M. Robertson went even further, claiming that the story of the passion is

the bare transcript of a primitive play... always we are witnessing drama, of which the spectators needed no description, and of which the subsequent transcriber reproduces simply the action and the words...[3]

Even theologians who are less daring in framing hypotheses continue to stumble upon traces of some ancient drama that appears to underlie the passion narrative.[4] S.G.F. Brandon is impressed by the superb theatrical montage of the trial of Jesus[5] ; Raymond Brown finds that John’s gospel contains touches worthy of great drama in many of its scenes and suggests that our text may be the product of a dramatic rewriting on such a scale that little historical material remains.[6]

http://www.nazarenus.com/0-4-tragospel.htm

rlogan · 08-27-2009, 12:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jakejonesiv

"It is about the Marcionite sect. Marcion proposes to the Christians to reject all that is Jewish: the Christ of Israel, God of Israel, the Old Testament, and to adore a God foreign to the world, revealed for the first time by Jesus. Its doctrines were spread in Asia and penetrated in Rome. Condemned on his extreme theses in 144 CE, Marcion exerted nevertheless a decisive influence on Christian theology. Thanks to skilful preparings, many writings of Marcionite tendency, to start with the Fourth Gospel, contributed to form the New Testament. It is in a Marcionite medium, or premarcionite, that is best understood the development of a Jesus Son of the Father, opposed to the Jesus Messiah of Israel."

Jesus Barabbas by P. - L COUCHOUD AND R. STAHL, Page 20

Jake Jones IV

The first reaction one has to this thesis is the primacy of some original version of John. That must be very carefully scrutinized.

Insofar as the OP, you really have to put on the apologetic blinders to buy into Jesus as a Jewish phenomenon. As if Schwatzenegger was a girl.

No Robots · 08-27-2009, 12:10 PM

Trials are naturally dramatic, especially when they pit the free spirit against oppressive authority. Look at the trials of Socrates and Joan of Arc, for example.

bacht · 08-27-2009, 12:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steven Avery

Amazing. Rather than spend five minutes checking and learning...

...This is why one of the posters here tries to diss John Gill. Overall, his writings are simply the most informative and knowledgeable on the Hebraics that relate to NT (and Tanach) verses, of anyone. This can upset a skeptic.

Okay so we digress to defining the Mosaic Law...

What about the OP: was Jesus Jewish according to the gospel of John ie. does John follow the synoptics in assigning an earthly bloodline for Jesus in Galilee? or is Jesus simply the eternal Logos appearing to be human for our sake? is John echoing Marcion in dismissing the Law?

Clivedurdle · 08-27-2009, 12:13 PM

I am arguing a four pronged interrelated argument.

We have the various gods, Osiris, Dionysus.

We have tragedy and ritual drama and plays

We have the story of the Christ being about the reconciliation of the gods and man.

We have a proposal that our minds work like this - the bicameral mind.

That in fact xianity is a predictable result.

No Robots · 08-27-2009, 12:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bacht

Okay so we digress to defining the Mosaic Law...

This is no digression. It is the kill shot for the whole premise of the opening post. The Torah is the whole of Jewish teaching.

By the way, The word "Torah" is best translated not as "Law", but as "Teaching":

The Torah receives its title from its contents, the name itself connoting "doctrine." The Hellenistic Jews, however, translated it by νόμος = "law" (e.g., LXX., prologue to Ecclus. [Sirach], Philo, Josephus, and the New Testament), whence came the term "law-book"; this gave rise to the erroneous impression that the Jewish religion is purely nomistic, so that it is still frequently designated as the religion of law. In reality, however, the Torah contains teachings as well as laws, even the latter being given in ethical form and contained in historical narratives of an ethical character.--"Torah", Jewish Encyclopedia.

Quote:

What about the OP: was Jesus Jewish according to the gospel of John ie. does John follow the synoptics in assigning an earthly bloodline for Jesus in Galilee? or is Jesus simply the eternal Logos appearing to be human for our sake? is John echoing Marcion in dismissing the Law?

As for this digression on the Logos preface to the Gospel of John, this is a later Alexandrian addition, and is in no way connected with the rest of the Gospel, and its author certainly did not dare to put these words in the mouth of Christ.

bacht · 08-27-2009, 01:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by No Robots

Quote:

Originally Posted by bacht

Okay so we digress to defining the Mosaic Law...

This is no digression. It is the kill shot for the whole premise of the opening post. The Torah is the whole of Jewish teaching.

Quote:

What about the OP: was Jesus Jewish according to the gospel of John ie. does John follow the synoptics in assigning an earthly bloodline for Jesus in Galilee? or is Jesus simply the eternal Logos appearing to be human for our sake? is John echoing Marcion in dismissing the Law?

As for this digression on the Logos preface to the Gospel of John, this is a later Alexandrian addition, and is in no way connected with the rest of the Gospel, and its author certainly did not dare to put these words in the mouth of Christ.

Fine. I'll wait for show_no_mercy to elucidate.

jakejonesiv · 08-27-2009, 01:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by show_no_mercy

What if this entire Passion sequence was initially a play? A lot of the "prophesies" fulfilled in the PN are actually from the Psalms, which were meant to be songs. Meaning the episode was midrashed from the Psalms not "predicted". And of course the interplay between Jesus and "BarAbba" reflecting the scapegoat ceremony of Leviticus 16.

Could the The Door Panels of Santa Sabina suggest just such a play outside the city walls? Jesus and the two smaller figures appear to be standing in front of a set with a brick background. There are no crosses in the carving, and the nails in the hands have been added by a later artist.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bill Storage

Classicist Nick Stavrinides recently proposed another intriguing possibility. He considers that this scene along with others showing a brick background may not have been meant to directly depict scriptural events, but were images from an early passion play, possibly one performed outside the city walls. Author Jay Raskin supports this, noting that the narrative jumps in the gospel passion scenes make for poor literature but are squarely in the realm of Roman mime theater, which specialized in short scenes of gory violence, irony, satire and sarcasm

show_no_mercy · 08-27-2009, 01:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bacht

Quote:

Originally Posted by No Robots

This is no digression. It is the kill shot for the whole premise of the opening post. The Torah is the whole of Jewish teaching.

As for this digression on the Logos preface to the Gospel of John, this is a later Alexandrian addition, and is in no way connected with the rest of the Gospel, and its author certainly did not dare to put these words in the mouth of Christ.

Fine. I'll wait for show_no_mercy to elucidate.

My understanding is that "Torah" means "Law" (i.e. the books written by Moses) and Psalms are "Ketuvim" - writings. The entire "Old Testament" containing all of the Law, Prophets, and Writings is called the Tanakh.

I can't find any reference in the NT, other than in John, where Jesus refers to "the law" and is implying the entire body of Hebrew scripture. On the contrary, in the Synoptics he makes a distinction

Quote:

Originally Posted by Luke 24

44He said to them, "This is what I told you while I was still with you: Everything must be fulfilled that is written about me in the Law of Moses, the Prophets and the Psalms."

And other NT writers uses "scripture" when not referring to "the law".

Susan2 · 08-27-2009, 01:51 PM

Quote:

No Robots
The Torah is the whole of Jewish teaching.

If Jesus was before Abraham, how far back did he go? And had he, or religion evolved any from that time? If he was not of Abraham, was he then not of the Abrahamic religions?

The golden rule of Hillel: “that which is hateful to you, do not do to your fellow. That is the whole Torah; the rest is the explanation; go and learn.”

From that foundation, and environment:

I guess prostitution was not hateful, and so they bought and sold slaves into prostitution, and into manual labor (slavery), continuing to do so even in the NT. This occurs to this day.

Human sacrifice was not hateful to them and so, having entered the slippery slope they sacrificed human beings (unjust wars, would be another example), failure to help the elderly would be a modern day example (many elderly in the USA are forced to choose between eating and buying their medications).

This occurs to this day.

If beating your children until they are black and blue, and near death is not hateful to you then do as the Torah commands you to do.

This occurs to this day.

If your wife’s face is a hateful thing to you, then shroud her face.

This occurs to this day.

If her arms are a hateful thing to you, shroud them. If her legs are a hateful thing to you, shroud them. If her head is a hateful thing, shroud her head.

Then call what you did, modesty.

This occurs to this day.

If a woman’s voice is a hateful thing to you, then take it away, give her no right to speak, to defend herself, to support herself, to uphold herself as a human being. And call it God’s will.

This occurs to this day.

If beating people is not a hateful thing, then I guess pubic or private beatings, stoning’s, lynching’s, etc., is okay.

This occurs to this day.

John 8, where the woman is brought to Jesus can be seen as encouraging, approving vigilante-ism, aka modern day terrorism, when Jesus tells her go and sin no more. Christianity considers this woman an adulterous to this day, in spite of no evidence, other then the Pharisees.

That Jesus says, go and sin no more, could very well mean, go and union with them (religions) no more, go and follow them (religions) no more; they are liars, theives, and cheats.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

08-27-2009, 12:10 PM	#13
No Robots Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: Edmonton Posts: 5,679	Trials are naturally dramatic, especially when they pit the free spirit against oppressive authority. Look at the trials of Socrates and Joan of Arc, for example.

08-27-2009, 12:13 PM	#15
Clivedurdle Contributor Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: London UK Posts: 16,024	I am arguing a four pronged interrelated argument. We have the various gods, Osiris, Dionysus. We have tragedy and ritual drama and plays We have the story of the Christ being about the reconciliation of the gods and man. We have a proposal that our minds work like this - the bicameral mind. That in fact xianity is a predictable result.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.