Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Ben C Smith · 03-30-2007, 10:23 AM

On another thread I wrote:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ben

John P. Meier writes in footnote 21 on page 389 of his JBL article John the Baptist in Matthew's Gospel (JBL 99/3 1980):

That the clothing of camel's hair signifies a prophet is generally accepted; but Becker, among others, rejects any direct reference to Elijah....

To which Malachi151 replied:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Malachi151

Here is another example of great scholarship for you. That anyone would not conclude that this is a reference to Elijah is beyond belief, since later in the story "Jesus" explicitly equated John the Baptist with Elijah, and since the very first quote in the story is from Malachi, which goes on to talk about the coming of Elijah as a messenger.

With scholars like this, it's no wonder that interpretation of the Gospels is all over the map.

Malachi151 is evidently of the opinion that some allusions are so obvious that nobody should miss them.

I asked previously on this thread:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ben

One thing that needs to be explained is why the allusions to the OT are so strong that everybody and his hound dog sees them, while the allusions to the triumph are, as Schmidt seems to admit with his maybe language, so much weaker. Even if we embrace the connection to the triumph, what is the explanation?

And what is your own personal way of culling out the false positives?

To which the reply was this:

Quote:

Originally Posted by neilgodfrey

...and as for "culling out false positives", literary criticism does not work that way. i'm not working with black and white certainties.

For Malachi151, to reject some allusions is beyond belief. For Neil Godfrey, literary criticism has no need to cull out falsely positive allusions because we are not working with black and white certainties. Who is correct?

Ben.

S.C.Carlson · 03-30-2007, 11:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ben C Smith

What is the force of shades over in this statement?

I'd say, approximately the wind force equivalent to that of a waving hand.

Stephen

spin · 03-30-2007, 05:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by S.C.Carlson

I'd say, approximately the wind force equivalent to that of a waving hand.

spin

jakejonesiv · 03-31-2007, 03:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ben C Smith

That is correct.

Origen notwithstanding, I am wondering how you know this. Not a few scholars have expressed doubt that Basilides ever wrote anything other than a commentary or compilation or both. That he wrote a text that we would recognizably call a gospel is certainly possible, but not proven.

What is the force of shades over in this statement?

This is Matthew, who follows Mark quite closely in this instance.

This is Basilides. Our extant text of Mark has nothing about Simon being crucified and Jesus standing by laughing.

This is Simon Magus, who claimed some sort of divine status.

(Question for you: Above you quoted Price as saying that Simon Magus claimed to have undergone an apparent crucifixion in Judea. Irenaeus here says that he claimed to have undergone apparent suffering. Where do we learn about the crucifixion claim?)

How are these elements supposed to fit together? For the Basilidians it was Jesus who only seemed to suffer and Simon who really did suffer. But for the Simonians it was Simon himself who only seemed to suffer. How do these mesh?

Ben.

Why must you have everything harmonized?

These are variations on a theme, the motiffs being the crucifixtion, role swap, docetism, Simon, Jesus, and even Paul.

Try viewing these stories more as folklore rather than newspaper accounts.

Jake Jones IV

Ben C Smith · 03-31-2007, 05:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jakejonesiv

Why must you have everything harmonized?

These are variations on a theme, the motiffs being the crucifixtion, role swap, docetism, Simon, Jesus, and even Paul.

Try viewing these stories more as folklore rather than newspaper accounts.

Not harmonized. Explained. So far I see innuendo, not trajectory. Which story came first? Into which story did it develop?

Even folklorists propose trajectories.

Ben.

spin · 03-31-2007, 06:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ben C Smith

Not harmonized. Explained.

One of the difficulties with traditions, Ben C, is that you can't always get those ends neatly tied so that you can go to bed with a sigh of relief, knowing that it all makes sense. Traditions are notorious for not revealing too many of their sources. Will we ever get to the source of the young man running away without his cloak? It seems like a forced fulfillment of a "prophecy" to me (eg Am 2:16), but not that many agree with me. Because one can't necessarily posit an acceptible explanation for a piece of tradition, doesn't mean that the tradition has to be taken literally. Do you honestly think that Arthur had a round table?

spin

Ben C Smith · 03-31-2007, 08:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Will we ever get to the source of the young man running away without his cloak?

Maybe not. And I am fine with leaving it a mystery. But, when somebody makes an assertion telling me what the young man is all about, I expect an explanation, even if that explanation is just a best-fit scenario.

In the case of Simon of Cyrene, somebody has made an assertion telling me that Simon of Cyrene shades into (whatever that means) Simon of Gitta or Simon Magus. Somebody has further asserted that whoever wrote the Simon of Cyrene verse was aware of the story of Simon Magus undergoing an apparent crucifixion.

What explanation, I ask you, has been offered so far that this is the case? I even asked for the source that lets us know the suffering of Simon Magus was specifically a crucifixion, and so far have received nothing.

You yourself would be supremely inconsistent, given your argumentation on other threads, if you simply accepted this assertion as it stands without asking for an explanation.

Quote:

Do you honestly think that Arthur had a round table?

I am quite unqualified to comment on the historicity of the Arthurian legends.

Ben.

spin · 03-31-2007, 07:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ben C Smith

Maybe not. And I am fine with leaving it a mystery. But, when somebody makes an assertion telling me what the young man is all about, I expect an explanation, even if that explanation is just a best-fit scenario.

Everyone is free to an opinion. My comment was only about your desire to have an explanation, though tradition doesn't often give one the hope of such. I didn't desire to comment on anyone else's opinions on the matter.

I merely caught the question, "why must everything be harmonized?" to which you responded, "Not harmonized. Explained." I took the opportunity to comment on this desire for explanation.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ben C Smith

You yourself would be supremely inconsistent, given your argumentation on other threads, if you simply accepted this assertion as it stands without asking for an explanation.

I try to explain what I can.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ben C Smith

I am quite unqualified to comment on the historicity of the Arthurian legends.

Oh, Ben C. Are we much more qualified to comment on the historicity of the Jesus "legends"? I was simply fishing for a gut reaction.

Because one can't necessarily posit an acceptible explanation for a piece of tradition, doesn't mean that the tradition has to be taken literally. Do you honestly think that Arthur had a round table?

However the question was only meant as an indication of the premise preceding it, a premise which you have sidestepped.

spin

Ben C Smith · 04-01-2007, 06:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Everyone is free to an opinion.

You have never sounded this laissez faire before. Why, you have raked me personally over the coals for providing only two or three bucketloads of evidence for my position.

Quote:

Oh, Ben C. Are we much more qualified to comment on the historicity of the Jesus "legends"? I was simply fishing for a gut reaction.

I do not know about we. But I can speak for myself: I, Ben C. Smith, am not qualified to speak to the Arthurian legends. At the same time, I, Ben C. Smith, am qualified, in a strictly amateur sense, to comment on the Jesus legends.

Quote:

However the question was only meant as an indication of the premise preceding it, a premise which you have sidestepped.

I agree that not all traditions behind our texts will have traceable explanations. I also insist that many, if not most, will at least be traceable to some degree. This thread is an attempt to trace the tradition behind one such text.

Ben.

spin · 04-01-2007, 06:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ben C Smith

You have never sounded this laissez faire before. Why, you have raked me personally over the coals for providing only two or three bucketloads of evidence for my position.

I can't really do much about opinions. They have little value in themselves here and if one doesn't get them past opinion into argument through presentation of evidence, then I'm happy to leave it. When you present evidence then there is something to talk about. :angel:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ben C Smith

I do not know about we. But I can speak for myself: I, Ben C. Smith, am not qualified to speak to the Arthurian legends. At the same time, I, Ben C. Smith, am qualified, in a strictly amateur sense, to comment on the Jesus legends.

Aww, you're just a cop out. That's all.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ben C Smith

I agree that not all traditions behind our texts will have traceable explanations. I also insist that many, if not most, will at least be traceable to some degree. This thread is an attempt to trace the tradition behind one such text.

I don't know how you can do that without any outside materials to give you some perspective on the tradition.

spin

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

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.