spin

I'd read the rest of the gospel, if I were you, noting the fact that it was written not in Hebrew, not in Aramaic, but in Greek.

Reading things out of context tend to misrepresent intentions.

Perhaps, freigeister wouldn't have problems with a Jewish audience reading Greek, well, at least in the diaspora, but no, wait...

Taken up mind reading of writers long dead?


spin

DramaQ

Well that addresses half of one of the three points I made. Unfortunately, even if I accepted that the gospels were "Hebrew style" written as intertext (which I am dubious about - thanks Spin, I agree) it doesn't really answer the second half of my Point 1:

How did the writers of these four gospels writers happen to know THEY'D be the four to wind up in the canon?

Thank you, I will email. But note that I didn't comment on any details, only on the premise. The part I DID read about.

dq

S.C.Carlson

That's incredibly perceptive. :notworthy

Stephen

the_cave

And the Petronius story doesn't read like fiction???

DramaQ

Thanks! Around here (in Smalltown, Midwest) people mostly just think I’m cynical.

Jedi Mind Trick

I can't view the link at work, but can someone tell me if he answers why the Romans would initially seek to stamp out their creation, Christianity? It wasn’t until Constantine that Christianity was adopted, right?

John Deere

Hello Mike and all of the other bloggers. I have been enjoying your discussion of the analysis of the TF I presented in Caesar's Messiah, and would like to add my thoughts to some of the comments.

First, to DramaQ I would point out that the Flavian's motivation for the production of their complex satire is explained in depth in my book and I would hope that you would cover that analysis before taking a rigid position regarding it. In the book I also present, in my opinion, hard evidence indicating that the four Gospels were indeed designed as intertextual literature. I also show that far from being unusual, this intertextual style was common in the Hebraic literature from the era.

To riogan I would note that the standard for determining if the paralells presented in Caesar's Messiah were deliberately created is clear. The standard can only be the one that the authors of the Gospels established themselves with the typological relationship they created between Moses and Jesus. The paralells between Gen. 45 - 50 through Ex. 32 and Matt 2:13 - 4:10 demonstrate that the life of the first Savior of Israel 'foresaw' Jesus the second 'Savior' of Israel. They show beyond a doubt that the authors were using intertextual Hebraic paralellism to communicate information about Jesus.

Since this style is in play in the Gospels and other Hebraic literature of the era, it is hardly illogical to consider whether or not stories that share as many obvious parallels as the TF and the two tales that follow it are of the genre. Indeed, this is clearly the first approach one should try when encountering unusual paralells written by a author claiming to be Jewish. And since this approach is able to explain all of the three tales' seemingly incoherrent aspects isn't it, therefore, the strongest thesis until one with greater explanatory power comes along?



Joe Atwill

Jedi Mind Trick

Hi, Joe Atwill. I'm gonna have to get your book it sounds very interesting.

Welcome to IIDB.

DramaQ

Hello Mr. Atwill. Thanks for responding.

I rarely "take a rigid position" about anything, even after reading whole books about it. Sorry if I seemed to come across as presenting a rigid opinion. I'd only intended to ask questions about three points that I wanted a bit more clarification on before committing to delve into the book.

The harmony of the four gospels was only part of it. The fact that those harmonized gospels turned out to be the exact and only four used in the New Testament was also part of it.

As was the idea of embedding "clues" into a text designed to dupe a group (or groups) of people. I'm not sure why such clues to the deception would be embedded. One would think it would be counter-productive to the deception.

But, as you say, perhaps that's all explained in the book.

As well as the third question: Why would stories designed to unify diverse Christ cults use antagonistic language against some of those groups?

My asking these things doesn't mean I outright reject the theory without reading it. I'm actually fascinated by it. I just like to understand what I'm buying before I buy it.

dq

John Deere

DQ,

The Flavians, of course, wished to replace the militaristic version of messianic Judaism that waged war against them with one that would encourage its followers to pay taxes and 'turn the other cheek'. However, another of their goals was to force the Jews to worship Caesar - to call him 'Lord' - as was done in every other Roman province.

This was the motivation for their creation of the satirical system that exists in the Gospels and Wars of the Jews. Titus wanted to show posterity that he had not failed in his efforts to make the Jews call him Lord. Since, as recorded by Josephus, he could not achieved this through torture, he simply created a religion that worshipped him without its followers knowing it. As I show in Caesar's Messiah the 'Jesus' in John 21 - the conclusion of the Gospels - is a depiction of Titus, the real 'Jesus' Christians have inadvertantly worshiped. The Gospels were created as a sort of literary time bomb that was designed to one day 'detonate' - that is to be understood - and reveal Titus' genius and 'divinity'.

As far as the dersion shown in this satire towards Jews, this simply reflected the feelings of the authors. Titus was struck by a stone during the war and never regained the strength in his left arm. Such a wound, evidentially, left Caesar in a bad mood as the Gospels were clearly designed to posion the Jew's future by creating anti-Semitism - "his blood will be on our hands and our children's hands".

They did not worry about offending potential converts as the first listeners of the Gospels were, no doubt, mainly slaves who were simply ordered to attend services. In any case, the authors of the Gospels did not believe that hoi pollio could understand their sophisticated sarcasim. A belief that has proven itself to be correct. The fact that the Gospels' lampooned Jews was not a concern for its authors but rather part of their fun.

Joe









Joe