Jeffrey Gibson

Depends what the "this" is. If it's Jay's claim that crucifixions and resurrections were stock themes in mimes, not to mention stock themes in mimes that were written before the Gospels of Mark and John were composed, we are in bankrupt city.

His claim is as groundless as it is dubious, and his discussion of these matters shows that our reasons for thinking that he has any competence for saying what happened in the ancient world, let alone what was likely or not likely to have happened in it, are nil. And in the light of the groundlessness and the question begging nature of his claims (and his evident unfamiliarity with the literature of the ancient world), any suppositions or historical reconstructions that are based on them have no merit.

The issue of who wrote the Laureolus is irrelevant -- except with respect to the question of how well Jay is acquainted with the scholarship on Catullus and how much his view of what is true is dictated by what he wants to believe and on a misreading if not an unwarrated stretching (and misrepresentation) of the evidence he adduces and appeals to.

If "this" is the question of how well you read or adduce facts from the sources you consult, we are also nowhere since your track record for accuracy in what you do in this regard is a bit wanting.

Jeffrey

Jeffrey Gibson

See Plutarch, Alexander 1-3 (especially 2.1-6 and 3.1-9) for data that some historians and biographers concerned with tracing Alexander's origins say his father was not Phillip while others also so concerned testify otherwise.

Why what anyone says with respect to A's grandfather's (or his father's) identity is important is beyond me when the issue is contradictory genealogies. Does it really matter where the genealogies contradict so long as they do?

JG

Toto

Jay's method is to throw out ideas and see if they fly or not. If you read his bio, he started his professional career as a movie producer. His second career is teaching Philosophy. I don't think that he has ever presented himself as an authority on the details of ancient history or literature.

I think you will have a more productive and less stressful time here if you keep that in mind. Instead of working yourself up into a fit, you can just let people know that a particular piece of spagetti is not sticking to the wall.

Yes, of course, but it would be nice if you could at least admit that your blanket statement that "all scholars who have studied the mime and the references to it in Juvenal etc. note, the author of the mime is NOT the Roman poet Gaius Valerius Catullus." A little bit of humility would go a long way toward helping your image here.

I do not claim any authority in myself, and I am always open to correction. I view my role here as keeping the discussion interesting and productive - not too bland, but not so vitriolic that it makes people want to run away. :wave:

PhilosopherJay

Hi Toto,

Thank you for this. I think the evidence is sufficient and we can dismiss Ardalion's conversion. and therefore, the performance of a Christian based mime during the time of Maximium, as an untrustworthy report.

Note this from Panayotakis, Costas' article "Baptism and Crucifixion on the Mimic Stage," Mnemosyne; Jun97, Vol. 50 Issue 3, p302, 18p


Note especially "staged trials" "false deaths" "cunning schemes" "poison intrigues" "reversals of fortune" and "satire of public figures and political events." Also note "his or her" troupe. It would have been Mary's own troupe that produced the play as she is the writer and star.

When one tries to figure out the genre of the passion narrative, it is easy to see that it does not fall into history or biography. It resembles an ancient novel somewhat, but as far as we can reconstruct what mime plays were like, it fits the category of mime play the best.

Warmly,

Philosopher Jay

Jeffrey Gibson

[QUOTE=Toto;4943821]Umm, what??? Presenting himself as just such an authority is exactly what he does -- on his web page, on the JM List, and in his book The Evolution of Christ and Christianities. Moreover, like Earl he also frequently claims to be on top of modern scholarly NT studies. Witness his (false) claim about the educational background of those scholars who have argued that the genre of the canonical Gospels is the Hellenistic "lives".

But if your are not convinced by this, ask Jay what he thinks he is on these matters. Ask him why he thinks he has the right to make the claims he does about the development of the Gospels and early Christianity and the ancient theater and Eusebius etc. that he does in his book if he isn't an authority on these things -- or, better, why he thinks that anyone should take him seriously, as he obviously does, if he has little or no no expertise in the NT and ancient history/literature matters he makes claims about if he isn't.

To my eyes, that's exactly what I do. And curiously that's just what anonymous posters and by the likes of that ever so calm in tone Ted/Jacob, also recognize I do when they excoriate me for only "throwing tomatos".

Sorry. Sentence fragment here. Did you mean to continue "amid that" with "was wrong"? If so, did you not read post 4941098?

And as to being your being concerned to help posters with their image, Puuhhleeezzee!

It's curious that if you are so concerned that you haven't given on line the same advice to those ever so humble posters Ted/Jacob. In fact, you've continuously excused the, so far as I can see.

:rolling: :rolling:

Well, I haven't yet heard you admit you were wrong on the points where I pointed out how you missed the boat and misread things.

Goose and gander, please.

Jeffrey

Jeffrey Gibson

Maximian.


Note especially no mention of crucifixions or, specfically, resurrections. In any case, what century and in what venues are we talking about here?

You seem to be assuming that a producer and writer were one and the same. But in the ancient theater, as also in modern times, a "mime Producer" was/is not necessarily a mime writer. So you are begging the question again.

Moreover, do we actually know of females being producers in the first half of the first century, let alone in Judea? Would daughters of High Priests ever be allowed to do such a thing?

Until these questions are answered and buttressed with primary source evidence, you claim is still speculation piled on speculation.

Tell that to Votaw, Burridge, Schuler, Talbert, Aune, Collins, Bultmann, Dibelius, Nicklesburg, and Bryan. Or better float your claim by Panayotakis and/or other living scholars of ancient theater and of mime that you have cited in this thread cite to see if they agree with you.

Will you put your money where your mouth is and do that?

Jeffrey

JoeWallack

JW:
7 years ago you were an expert regarding parts of "Mark". But instead of enlightening us now on "Mark" you prefer to trade Strawmen with MJs. Gosh Jeffrey, I don't know, why would a contradiction towards the end of a genealogy be more important than one somewhere else in the context of HJ/MJ. Also, do the earliest and best stories of Alexander make no mention of his Father or Mother?



Joseph

http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php/Main_Page

Toto

Links?

In his book, he explains the basis of his claims. I don't recall that he claims a speciality in ancient languages or literature.

I sense some failure of communication here. . .

Yes, "was wrong" should be at the end of that sentence. And I read that post. You replaced "all" with "most," without missing a beat.

Do you think I care about your image? I was just trying to give you a reason to play nicely so the other posters here don't complain to me about you.

Mea culpa, mea maxima culpa, I thought that article referred to more than one staged crucifixion, when it only referred to one.

What else did I miss?

youngalexander

OK, but first let us be clear what the question is. I had asked
and in p#51 Antipope replied
Nothing to do with the validity of genealogies.

After a number of further posts involving Toto, we arrived at p#69 where I quoted
and other stuff and finally commented
Thus conceding his point re Lk & Mat, but not including Mark.
Finishing the logic for Antipope.

The circularity consists of the following:
Jesus is an historical person because
1. There is clear evidence that people believed that Jesus had been a real, living person just a few decades before they were writing about him.
2. What they wrote was invention, but we know that they nevertheless thort that they were writing history, because ...
3. Jesus had been a recently living person.

I am always greatful for info re my famous namesake.

Magdlyn

Returning to an older post that I missed:

That is one way of putting it. However, the theory is that all the Marys in the gospels are facets of one "goddess" figure. The fact that they share the same name is a giveaway. Mary births Jesus, suggests he change water to wine, annoints him , sits at his feet to learn, and finds him risen (in GJohn at least). Just like Moses' sister Maryam, she is nearly or entirely a prophet and knower in her own right.


Actually, it is translated in English as "ointment" of nard. The Greek word however is chrysm, which means annointing oil. Spikenard's fragrance comes from the root of the plant and needs to be suspended in oil to be used.


Mar 14:3 And while he was at Bethany in the house of Simon the leper, as he sat at table, a woman came with an alabaster flask of ointment of pure nard, very costly, and she broke the flask and poured it over his head.

"Poured it." It was a liquid.


Unfortunately, you're wrong. It was oil. Both his head and feet were annointed in different versions. (BTW, you left out the part of the theory that suggests the "feet" is a euphemism for another body part, which suggests the heiros gamos.)

It didn't need to be a male priest to annoint a godman whose life story borrows from "pagan" religion along with Judaean ideas about a messiah.

It was a qudesha who did the annointing, and "wept" on his "feet", exposed her hair. Quite proper for a qudesha. Not for an ordinary Judaean woman.


You forgot to actually read your Bible.

No, the theory is that a supposed town of Magdala is not where Mary got her name (similar to the controversy that Jesus could not really be from the non-existant Nazareth). She gets the title Magdalene perhaps from the Hebrew word, migdal, meaning tower (of faith and gnosis in this case).

Yes, she does. It's a myth, it's like a dream. People can even fly in myths! Raise the dead, get tablets of law from gods in volcanoes, see the world from the top of a mountain while talking to the head demon. This ain't nuthin.


I don't believe you've actually read Starbird's The Woman with the Alabaster Jar (or via: amazon.co.uk). You've got the theories all wrong.

Like you not knowing that it was chrysm of nard that was poured over Jesus' head? We'll let that go as well. I know there is a lot to consider. I get confused sometimes too!

Let's let the wiki entry quickly sum it up:

We need to keep in mind when reading the versions of this story, the role of the woman in Gan Eden and the Song of Songs. It's erotic spirituality, which has been fractured and partly hidden.