Was Julius Caesar the real Jesus Christ?
- Thread starter Laura
- Start date
Re: Marcion, Paul, and early Christianity
Thank you Laura for the reviews! Just ordered F.G Baur's "Paul the apostel of Jesus Christ" .
I have read Carotta's book and Ehrman's "Jesus interrupted" and Dennis R. MacDonald's "Homeric Epics and the Gospel of Mark".
After reading (only) these books I wonder ,like Bear ,how you will piece it all together. This is a tremendous work!
It 's like Miss Marple looking for the one who did it.
I am looking at all your books on my bookeshelf and I guess you're latest will be full of information that needs reading at least three times, just like the previous ones. Looking forward to it!
Laura , a big THANK YOU, for all these years of sharing your knowledge.
Thank you Laura for the reviews! Just ordered F.G Baur's "Paul the apostel of Jesus Christ" .
I have read Carotta's book and Ehrman's "Jesus interrupted" and Dennis R. MacDonald's "Homeric Epics and the Gospel of Mark".
After reading (only) these books I wonder ,like Bear ,how you will piece it all together. This is a tremendous work!
It 's like Miss Marple looking for the one who did it.
I am looking at all your books on my bookeshelf and I guess you're latest will be full of information that needs reading at least three times, just like the previous ones. Looking forward to it!
Laura , a big THANK YOU, for all these years of sharing your knowledge.
Re: Marcion, Paul, and early Christianity
Thank you for the reviews, Laura. I ordered "Messiahs and Resurrection in 'The Gabriel Revelation'" by Israel Knohl. That review certainly picked up my interest.
FWIW, I found this introductory video:
https://vimeo.com/4293644
Thank you for the reviews, Laura. I ordered "Messiahs and Resurrection in 'The Gabriel Revelation'" by Israel Knohl. That review certainly picked up my interest.
FWIW, I found this introductory video:
https://vimeo.com/4293644
Re: Marcion, Paul, and early Christianity
Thanks for sharing those reviews, and other thoughts, Laura. I can't wait to read your upcoming work. It's really exciting to know that quite a bit of what has been distorted and obfuscated for so long can still be pieced back together.
Thanks for sharing those reviews, and other thoughts, Laura. I can't wait to read your upcoming work. It's really exciting to know that quite a bit of what has been distorted and obfuscated for so long can still be pieced back together.
Re: Marcion, Paul, and early Christianity
More reviews so ya'll know what I've been reading and whether or not you might want to read it.
*****
Not Okay, but didn't Hate it, February 10, 2015
By Laura Knight-Jadczyk (France)
This review is from: The Martyrdom of St. Paul: Historical and Judicial Context, Traditions, and Legends by Harry W. Tajra
I thought about giving this one 3 stars ("it's okay" according to amazon) but the truth is, it ISN'T "okay". There are numerous problems with the book that completely cancel out any usefulness that the collecting together of various texts might give it.
First of all, the author is obviously a "true believer" in the general inerrancy of the history of the church. That's not to say that he's a true believer in the inerrancy of the Bible, but it comes close even if he gives lip service to acknowledging that the Pastoral Epistles were not written by Paul. Yet, he wishes to give a scholarly presentation that only comes off as amateurish.
In the early part of the book, he gives his quotes from various texts in translation which is useful. But one finally notices that this only applies to the Greek texts because later, he starts peppering his text with un-translated Latin. Nevertheless, when discussing Greek texts of the Bible, he goes to great lengths to analyze Greek words without orienting the reader. Rather rude, if you ask me. Finally, he announces "We shall now give a resume of the Syriac version of the [Greek Martyrion Tou Hagiou Apostolou Paulou"] along with Nau's French translation of the actual martyrdom."
Why? Who the heck care's about "Nau's French translation" in a book in English??? And why can't we have an ENGLISH translation instead of a resume? Was he unable to translate it? Bizarre.
A really weird feature of this book was the use of strange words: p. 49 - "clandestinity"; okay, it's a word in the dictionary, but the use here is very awkward. P. 85 - "pseudonymal" - well, I couldn't even find that one in the dictionary. P. 112 - "ancientry"; p. 120. - "vehiculating".
Looking at another aspect, the author uses the Acts of the Apostles as though it were history which it clearly is not. One only has to read Tyson's "Marcion and Luke-Acts" and Pervo's "Dating Acts" and "The Mystery of Acts" to get a good handle on the absolute falsification of history going on there. Based on his use of Acts, we are treated to a marvelous depiction of Paul's imprisonment in Rome as a real holiday! Paul rents his own house, receives guests, has almost complete freedom to do what he likes. Then, he places Philemon after Romans because Paul is "obviously in prison in Rome" by now, and describes the horrible sufferings of the Apostle, held in chains, abused, tormented, ready for death and all that. You can't have it both ways: Roman Holiday AND Roman Hell!
Under the chapter heading "Were Roman Judeo-Christians Responsible for Paul's Death?" The author again talks out of both sides of his mouth by saying, on the one hand, that the Jews were very powerful and influential in the Roman court, but being forced to acknowledge on the other, that the Jews were repeatedly evicted from Rome or otherwise repressed. Relying on Josephus for the favor of Nero and Poppaea toward Jews because their favorite actor was a Jew is relying on a guy who is a legend in his own mind and further, busy covering up his own past; not good history.
One of the most amazing statements made by the author is on p. 121: "The Paul of faith, the Apostle of the legend, has acquired quite a precise image in the apocryphal tradition: that of a challenger to State authority, an enemy of the Emperor and a seeker after martyrdom. This image bears little resemblance - indeed it is quite alien - to the image of the HISTORICAL PAUL as he is understood from his own Epistles and from the canonical Acts."
Attempting to make equivalent the image of Paul in Acts with the image of Paul that one gets from his own writings is an astonishing sleight of hand.
The author needs to go back to school. This book is not useful to the lay-reader at all, and the academic who might pick it up and be able to suss out all the language issues would know much more than is presented here and would undoubtedly find it rather silly and tiresome. So no, I didn't like it, and it was not "okay". But I didn't "hate it" either, so I'll give it two stars.
More reviews so ya'll know what I've been reading and whether or not you might want to read it.
*****
Not Okay, but didn't Hate it, February 10, 2015
By Laura Knight-Jadczyk (France)
This review is from: The Martyrdom of St. Paul: Historical and Judicial Context, Traditions, and Legends by Harry W. Tajra
I thought about giving this one 3 stars ("it's okay" according to amazon) but the truth is, it ISN'T "okay". There are numerous problems with the book that completely cancel out any usefulness that the collecting together of various texts might give it.
First of all, the author is obviously a "true believer" in the general inerrancy of the history of the church. That's not to say that he's a true believer in the inerrancy of the Bible, but it comes close even if he gives lip service to acknowledging that the Pastoral Epistles were not written by Paul. Yet, he wishes to give a scholarly presentation that only comes off as amateurish.
In the early part of the book, he gives his quotes from various texts in translation which is useful. But one finally notices that this only applies to the Greek texts because later, he starts peppering his text with un-translated Latin. Nevertheless, when discussing Greek texts of the Bible, he goes to great lengths to analyze Greek words without orienting the reader. Rather rude, if you ask me. Finally, he announces "We shall now give a resume of the Syriac version of the [Greek Martyrion Tou Hagiou Apostolou Paulou"] along with Nau's French translation of the actual martyrdom."
Why? Who the heck care's about "Nau's French translation" in a book in English??? And why can't we have an ENGLISH translation instead of a resume? Was he unable to translate it? Bizarre.
A really weird feature of this book was the use of strange words: p. 49 - "clandestinity"; okay, it's a word in the dictionary, but the use here is very awkward. P. 85 - "pseudonymal" - well, I couldn't even find that one in the dictionary. P. 112 - "ancientry"; p. 120. - "vehiculating".
Looking at another aspect, the author uses the Acts of the Apostles as though it were history which it clearly is not. One only has to read Tyson's "Marcion and Luke-Acts" and Pervo's "Dating Acts" and "The Mystery of Acts" to get a good handle on the absolute falsification of history going on there. Based on his use of Acts, we are treated to a marvelous depiction of Paul's imprisonment in Rome as a real holiday! Paul rents his own house, receives guests, has almost complete freedom to do what he likes. Then, he places Philemon after Romans because Paul is "obviously in prison in Rome" by now, and describes the horrible sufferings of the Apostle, held in chains, abused, tormented, ready for death and all that. You can't have it both ways: Roman Holiday AND Roman Hell!
Under the chapter heading "Were Roman Judeo-Christians Responsible for Paul's Death?" The author again talks out of both sides of his mouth by saying, on the one hand, that the Jews were very powerful and influential in the Roman court, but being forced to acknowledge on the other, that the Jews were repeatedly evicted from Rome or otherwise repressed. Relying on Josephus for the favor of Nero and Poppaea toward Jews because their favorite actor was a Jew is relying on a guy who is a legend in his own mind and further, busy covering up his own past; not good history.
One of the most amazing statements made by the author is on p. 121: "The Paul of faith, the Apostle of the legend, has acquired quite a precise image in the apocryphal tradition: that of a challenger to State authority, an enemy of the Emperor and a seeker after martyrdom. This image bears little resemblance - indeed it is quite alien - to the image of the HISTORICAL PAUL as he is understood from his own Epistles and from the canonical Acts."
Attempting to make equivalent the image of Paul in Acts with the image of Paul that one gets from his own writings is an astonishing sleight of hand.
The author needs to go back to school. This book is not useful to the lay-reader at all, and the academic who might pick it up and be able to suss out all the language issues would know much more than is presented here and would undoubtedly find it rather silly and tiresome. So no, I didn't like it, and it was not "okay". But I didn't "hate it" either, so I'll give it two stars.
Re: Marcion, Paul, and early Christianity
Looking for a reason to believe, February 10, 2015
By Laura Knight-Jadczyk (France)
This review is from: New Testament & Mythology by Rudolf Bultmann
Sorry, but Bultmann strikes me as a mythologizer himself. He starts out with simple, basic principles (if you read the essays in the order suggested by the translator in the introduction), and you can follow along with agreement. But then, he begins to twist things into arbitrary abstractions that really make no sense at all. His sentences (and I realize this is a translation) have subjects and verbs, but they still manage to be nonsensical. I suspect that he has acquired such a following because nobody wants to admit that they really don't understand what he is saying and thus must be unable to see "The Emperor's New Clothes."
Having said that, as near as I can figure out is that, basically, he is saying that the New Testament is myth but that's okay, it was just myth that was created to communicate ideas and the ideas are all that is important so forget about the Truth of the Bible, just get on with believing. He said that "the New Testament is not a doctrine about our nature, about our authentic existence as human beings, but a proclamation of this liberating act of God." He declared that "demythologizing the New Testament proclamation" was the job of theology, and the end result should be a clarification of the kerygma (gospel proclamation). Regarding this, he insists that the New Testament proclaimed a message more radical than any modern existentialism.
In short, Bultmann's form criticism forced him to give up the idea that the New Testament was a historical story, and all of his work thereafter appears to have been an effort to salvage a "reason to believe" out of the ruins. Not very helpful.
This book is suitable for the educated lay-reader interested in Biblical criticism. It's neither an easy nor a pleasant read.
Looking for a reason to believe, February 10, 2015
By Laura Knight-Jadczyk (France)
This review is from: New Testament & Mythology by Rudolf Bultmann
Sorry, but Bultmann strikes me as a mythologizer himself. He starts out with simple, basic principles (if you read the essays in the order suggested by the translator in the introduction), and you can follow along with agreement. But then, he begins to twist things into arbitrary abstractions that really make no sense at all. His sentences (and I realize this is a translation) have subjects and verbs, but they still manage to be nonsensical. I suspect that he has acquired such a following because nobody wants to admit that they really don't understand what he is saying and thus must be unable to see "The Emperor's New Clothes."
Having said that, as near as I can figure out is that, basically, he is saying that the New Testament is myth but that's okay, it was just myth that was created to communicate ideas and the ideas are all that is important so forget about the Truth of the Bible, just get on with believing. He said that "the New Testament is not a doctrine about our nature, about our authentic existence as human beings, but a proclamation of this liberating act of God." He declared that "demythologizing the New Testament proclamation" was the job of theology, and the end result should be a clarification of the kerygma (gospel proclamation). Regarding this, he insists that the New Testament proclaimed a message more radical than any modern existentialism.
In short, Bultmann's form criticism forced him to give up the idea that the New Testament was a historical story, and all of his work thereafter appears to have been an effort to salvage a "reason to believe" out of the ruins. Not very helpful.
This book is suitable for the educated lay-reader interested in Biblical criticism. It's neither an easy nor a pleasant read.
Re: Marcion, Paul, and early Christianity
Lucid and Charming, February 10, 2015
By Laura Knight-Jadczyk (France)
This review is from: Chapters in a Life of Paul by John Knox
This is really a beautifully written book that contains more than just a working out of a timeline of the life of the Apostle Paul. It also includes a very thoughtful and deep discussion of Paul's human nature as revealed by his writings as well as his theology as best as Knox could suss it out. Of course, there are many developments in Biblical criticism as well as discoveries of ancient texts that bear on the topic that might have given Knox further ideas; but for its time, this is a very forward-thinking book. Also, as I said, it is written with lucidity and charm.
Highly recommended.
Lucid and Charming, February 10, 2015
By Laura Knight-Jadczyk (France)
This review is from: Chapters in a Life of Paul by John Knox
This is really a beautifully written book that contains more than just a working out of a timeline of the life of the Apostle Paul. It also includes a very thoughtful and deep discussion of Paul's human nature as revealed by his writings as well as his theology as best as Knox could suss it out. Of course, there are many developments in Biblical criticism as well as discoveries of ancient texts that bear on the topic that might have given Knox further ideas; but for its time, this is a very forward-thinking book. Also, as I said, it is written with lucidity and charm.
Highly recommended.
ka
Padawan Learner
Re: Marcion, Paul, and early Christianity
Hi, all:
Thanks so much for the commentary on the reading list. It will help set my reading program in the immediate future.
I ran across a discussion of how Roman politics shaped early Christianity that may be of interest. Stephan Huller presents a jaw-dropping picture of how the imperial household under Commodus turned the Church into an arm of imperial power:
http://stephanhuller.blogspot.com/2013/07/flattery-and-lies-in-early-christianity.html
The fact that Commodus was [controled] by his concubine Marcia, who happened to be Christian; the fact that his bedroom chamberlain Irenaeus took it upon himself to edit the Scriptures and purge the Church of “disorderly” elements. It shows what happens when the likes of Karl Rove go into the business of religion.
Huller doesn’t have “the whole banana” but I have found what he does have worth every bit of the time it takes to read it.
This is so amazingly awful in ways I never expected!
mod: edited vulgar slang
Hi, all:
Thanks so much for the commentary on the reading list. It will help set my reading program in the immediate future.
I ran across a discussion of how Roman politics shaped early Christianity that may be of interest. Stephan Huller presents a jaw-dropping picture of how the imperial household under Commodus turned the Church into an arm of imperial power:
http://stephanhuller.blogspot.com/2013/07/flattery-and-lies-in-early-christianity.html
The fact that Commodus was [controled] by his concubine Marcia, who happened to be Christian; the fact that his bedroom chamberlain Irenaeus took it upon himself to edit the Scriptures and purge the Church of “disorderly” elements. It shows what happens when the likes of Karl Rove go into the business of religion.
Huller doesn’t have “the whole banana” but I have found what he does have worth every bit of the time it takes to read it.
This is so amazingly awful in ways I never expected!
mod: edited vulgar slang
Re: Marcion, Paul, and early Christianity
Review of Gerd Ludemann's "Paul: The Founder of Christianity"
Kudos, Prof. Ludemann!, February 12, 2015
By
Laura Knight-Jadczyk
This book is an essential study of the life of the Apostle Paul for anyone who is truly interested in working out the knotty problems that are present in the conflict between the epistles and Acts. It is well argued and clearly written. Warning: this is not a book for those who just want to remain comfortably in their warm, fuzzy beliefs because, gentle though he is in approaching the difficulties, Ludemann does not go weak-kneed when the obvious emerges from the logical steps that the study follows.
Of particular interest is Prof. Ludemann's discussion of the psychology of the apostle as inferred from his writings and actions. I have occasionally thought that Paul was a full bore schizophrenic with all the attendant visions and voices, but opposed to this was his often exhibited practicality and ability to manage his life-goals quite efficiently. It's a conundrum, for sure, and Ludemann adds considerably (and convincingly) to the range of speculations. Still, there is a lot to be said for William James' "Varieties of Religious Experience" view in respect of Paul (which doesn't exclude what Ludemann has proposed). Historian, Donald Akenson, in his "Saint Saul: A Skeleton Key to the Historical Jesus, also attempts a reasonable psychological analysis though with slightly more positive results than Ludemann concluded. In the end, Paul doesn't fit neatly into psychological categories; but then, does anybody? I mention this because this book is well worth reading just for this perspective.
I do think Ludemann gave a bit too much credit to Acts as a possible historical source; it seems obvious, after Pervo's and Tyson's work, that Acts is purely and simply a literary creation with an agenda peppered with historical names and events ripped off from Josephus and Paul's letters to give it verisimilitude. And, as a close study of Acts will show, these historical bits are often in the wrong place at the wrong time thus revealing the anti-historical nature of the work; very shaky to use ANY of this, in my opinion.
It also seems obvious from reading the New Testament documents in chronological order with reasonably accurate contexts as revealed in recent scholarship, that there really was no "Jesus of Nazareth" as the gospels created/presented him. Sure, there was probably a Jewish religious Robin Hood type with his band of merry revolutionaries (Josephus is rife with them, take your pick) who died and was then claimed to have "resurrected" in a spiritual sense (see Israel Knohl's "The Gabriel Revelation"), and Paul utilized his story as a vehicle for his world-changing plan to unite all men under one god (with added features of course), but there was no great Jewish teacher who was crucified and rose from the dead: it was all a theological creation of Paul's. And that seems to be the bottom line. After Paul, the gospels were written as pure fiction utilizing Paul's ideas, and later still, Acts. There was no "Christianity" in Jerusalem, there was only a gang of revolutionaries who utilized their dead teacher/leader (who was going to return with God and whup up on the Romans) as a recruiting symbol: "The Resurrected Messiah WANTS YOU! So he can come on the blood of martyrs to destroy the Romans and evict them from our real estate!" What's more, the most likely characters from Josephus weren't even crucified (though some related bit-players were).
Paul probably got the idea for a crucified/ascended "god-type" being from the mystery play reenactments of the funeral of Julius Caesar where the dead (and much beloved by the people) dictator's wax effigy was mounted on a cross-like trophaeum. (See Francisco Carotta for details on this.) The last supper probably came from the reports of the last supper of Caesar where it was said that the topic of conversation was "how would you like to die?" and Caesar said "quickly." And most certainly, the most famous betrayal of all time was that of Brutus vis a vis Caesar. Interesting that Dante puts both Brutus and Judas in the lowest circle of Hell together. The whole ascension/deification business probably was due to Caesar's comet and certainly everyone knew that comets tend to "return" and often were accompanied by disasters which were deemed to be the hand of God acting against one or another nation, group, king, whatever: thus, apocalypticism.
Well, enough of speculation; Ludemann has added a very valuable work to the exploration of why our world is the way it is today: based on a religion created by a psychologically stressed Greco-Roman Jew living in a fairly dreadful time in history when people needed something to believe in. From the most positive take on it, Paul tried to give it to them, tried to teach them to get along and love one another. The negative perspective is that he created another "our god is the ONLY real one" religion and set Christianity and Judaism at each other's throats for a very long time.
Well, Paul did try... and Ludemann sorts out a lot of tangled threads about his world-changing effort comprehensibly and cleverly. Well worth reading; highly recommended.
Review of Gerd Ludemann's "Paul: The Founder of Christianity"
Kudos, Prof. Ludemann!, February 12, 2015
By
Laura Knight-Jadczyk
This book is an essential study of the life of the Apostle Paul for anyone who is truly interested in working out the knotty problems that are present in the conflict between the epistles and Acts. It is well argued and clearly written. Warning: this is not a book for those who just want to remain comfortably in their warm, fuzzy beliefs because, gentle though he is in approaching the difficulties, Ludemann does not go weak-kneed when the obvious emerges from the logical steps that the study follows.
Of particular interest is Prof. Ludemann's discussion of the psychology of the apostle as inferred from his writings and actions. I have occasionally thought that Paul was a full bore schizophrenic with all the attendant visions and voices, but opposed to this was his often exhibited practicality and ability to manage his life-goals quite efficiently. It's a conundrum, for sure, and Ludemann adds considerably (and convincingly) to the range of speculations. Still, there is a lot to be said for William James' "Varieties of Religious Experience" view in respect of Paul (which doesn't exclude what Ludemann has proposed). Historian, Donald Akenson, in his "Saint Saul: A Skeleton Key to the Historical Jesus, also attempts a reasonable psychological analysis though with slightly more positive results than Ludemann concluded. In the end, Paul doesn't fit neatly into psychological categories; but then, does anybody? I mention this because this book is well worth reading just for this perspective.
I do think Ludemann gave a bit too much credit to Acts as a possible historical source; it seems obvious, after Pervo's and Tyson's work, that Acts is purely and simply a literary creation with an agenda peppered with historical names and events ripped off from Josephus and Paul's letters to give it verisimilitude. And, as a close study of Acts will show, these historical bits are often in the wrong place at the wrong time thus revealing the anti-historical nature of the work; very shaky to use ANY of this, in my opinion.
It also seems obvious from reading the New Testament documents in chronological order with reasonably accurate contexts as revealed in recent scholarship, that there really was no "Jesus of Nazareth" as the gospels created/presented him. Sure, there was probably a Jewish religious Robin Hood type with his band of merry revolutionaries (Josephus is rife with them, take your pick) who died and was then claimed to have "resurrected" in a spiritual sense (see Israel Knohl's "The Gabriel Revelation"), and Paul utilized his story as a vehicle for his world-changing plan to unite all men under one god (with added features of course), but there was no great Jewish teacher who was crucified and rose from the dead: it was all a theological creation of Paul's. And that seems to be the bottom line. After Paul, the gospels were written as pure fiction utilizing Paul's ideas, and later still, Acts. There was no "Christianity" in Jerusalem, there was only a gang of revolutionaries who utilized their dead teacher/leader (who was going to return with God and whup up on the Romans) as a recruiting symbol: "The Resurrected Messiah WANTS YOU! So he can come on the blood of martyrs to destroy the Romans and evict them from our real estate!" What's more, the most likely characters from Josephus weren't even crucified (though some related bit-players were).
Paul probably got the idea for a crucified/ascended "god-type" being from the mystery play reenactments of the funeral of Julius Caesar where the dead (and much beloved by the people) dictator's wax effigy was mounted on a cross-like trophaeum. (See Francisco Carotta for details on this.) The last supper probably came from the reports of the last supper of Caesar where it was said that the topic of conversation was "how would you like to die?" and Caesar said "quickly." And most certainly, the most famous betrayal of all time was that of Brutus vis a vis Caesar. Interesting that Dante puts both Brutus and Judas in the lowest circle of Hell together. The whole ascension/deification business probably was due to Caesar's comet and certainly everyone knew that comets tend to "return" and often were accompanied by disasters which were deemed to be the hand of God acting against one or another nation, group, king, whatever: thus, apocalypticism.
Well, enough of speculation; Ludemann has added a very valuable work to the exploration of why our world is the way it is today: based on a religion created by a psychologically stressed Greco-Roman Jew living in a fairly dreadful time in history when people needed something to believe in. From the most positive take on it, Paul tried to give it to them, tried to teach them to get along and love one another. The negative perspective is that he created another "our god is the ONLY real one" religion and set Christianity and Judaism at each other's throats for a very long time.
Well, Paul did try... and Ludemann sorts out a lot of tangled threads about his world-changing effort comprehensibly and cleverly. Well worth reading; highly recommended.
Re: Marcion, Paul, and early Christianity
This is a fascinating subject and many thanks to Laura and all for the hard work and patience in uncovering the truth and putting the pieces back together explaining the origins of Christianity. In 2010, I read an interesting book titled "The Gospel & the Zodiac" by Bill Darlison. The first time I came across the idea of Jesus being connected to the zodiac was in 2007 from the first part of the Zeitgeist movie in 2007. I am not an expert in astrology but the concept of the Son of God being an allegory for the sun of God seemed plausible.
So when I came across Darlison's book, I expected it to be just more confirmation of what I had seen in the movie. That expectation was met but this book went deeper and tried to explain why the zodiac theme was chosen for the structure of the Gospel of Mark, which according to some scholars is based on the earlier "Q" or Quelle source document. Darlison speculates Mark was structured according to the sun's yearly travels through the 12 houses of the Zodiac as an allegory for esoteric spiritual development. He theorizes the author may have been from the Therapeutae in Alexandria. From page 27, "For such people, an account of the spiritual journey based on the solar cycle would not be unthinkable and in, my view, Mark's Gospel - or the document from which the Gospel was derived - is more likely to have been composed as a text for use in this or similar esoteric school than to have compiled as a fragmentary history or as a 'call to faith'."
I did a search on the Forum to see if anyone else had reviewed this book but did not see any results. Has anyone else heard of such a theory of the structure of Mark being an allegory for esoteric spiritual development - as in the Great Work? Could this be something to consider as part of the overall development of Christianity according to Laura's and others latest research?
This is a fascinating subject and many thanks to Laura and all for the hard work and patience in uncovering the truth and putting the pieces back together explaining the origins of Christianity. In 2010, I read an interesting book titled "The Gospel & the Zodiac" by Bill Darlison. The first time I came across the idea of Jesus being connected to the zodiac was in 2007 from the first part of the Zeitgeist movie in 2007. I am not an expert in astrology but the concept of the Son of God being an allegory for the sun of God seemed plausible.
So when I came across Darlison's book, I expected it to be just more confirmation of what I had seen in the movie. That expectation was met but this book went deeper and tried to explain why the zodiac theme was chosen for the structure of the Gospel of Mark, which according to some scholars is based on the earlier "Q" or Quelle source document. Darlison speculates Mark was structured according to the sun's yearly travels through the 12 houses of the Zodiac as an allegory for esoteric spiritual development. He theorizes the author may have been from the Therapeutae in Alexandria. From page 27, "For such people, an account of the spiritual journey based on the solar cycle would not be unthinkable and in, my view, Mark's Gospel - or the document from which the Gospel was derived - is more likely to have been composed as a text for use in this or similar esoteric school than to have compiled as a fragmentary history or as a 'call to faith'."
I did a search on the Forum to see if anyone else had reviewed this book but did not see any results. Has anyone else heard of such a theory of the structure of Mark being an allegory for esoteric spiritual development - as in the Great Work? Could this be something to consider as part of the overall development of Christianity according to Laura's and others latest research?
Re: Marcion, Paul, and early Christianity
For those who may be interested in reading "The Gospel & the Zodiac" , below is from the inside jacket cover of the book.
"Who was Jesus Christ? Did he exist?
For millennia the world has been driven by the differences between the great patriarchal religions. Western civilization - or Christendom, as it was once called - received its values and its confidence from a belief in God the Father, and Jesus, his only son. But what if this conviction were founded on an error? What if there never was a historical Jesus?
Who is the man in the factually inconsistent Gospel stories? And who is the man who makes a brief appearance carrying a jar of water? This extraordinary study by Unitarian minister Bill Darlison suggests that Jesus never existed historically; he was simply a representation of an astrological theology. Int the Gospel and the Zodiac, Reverend Darlison demonstrates that the Gospel of Mark - considered the primary document of Christianity - is deliberately structured around the signs of the zodiac. Darlison argues that the Gospel was originally an esoteric, rather than a historical text, and that its stories were never intended to be interpreted in a literal sense. Rather, they are dramatic representations of stages in spiritual development, and repositories of arcane wisdom.
This stunning argument shows how Christianity relates to other world faiths and as such is deeply ecumenical. It claims to rediscover Christianity's dynamic character by interpreting the Gospels in the light of the culture in which they were created, rather than viewing them through the distorting lens of contemporary prejudices. It is is a radical new interpretation of the Gospels, and makes an important contribution to the contemporary debate about the existence and significance of Jesus."
For those who may be interested in reading "The Gospel & the Zodiac" , below is from the inside jacket cover of the book.
"Who was Jesus Christ? Did he exist?
For millennia the world has been driven by the differences between the great patriarchal religions. Western civilization - or Christendom, as it was once called - received its values and its confidence from a belief in God the Father, and Jesus, his only son. But what if this conviction were founded on an error? What if there never was a historical Jesus?
Who is the man in the factually inconsistent Gospel stories? And who is the man who makes a brief appearance carrying a jar of water? This extraordinary study by Unitarian minister Bill Darlison suggests that Jesus never existed historically; he was simply a representation of an astrological theology. Int the Gospel and the Zodiac, Reverend Darlison demonstrates that the Gospel of Mark - considered the primary document of Christianity - is deliberately structured around the signs of the zodiac. Darlison argues that the Gospel was originally an esoteric, rather than a historical text, and that its stories were never intended to be interpreted in a literal sense. Rather, they are dramatic representations of stages in spiritual development, and repositories of arcane wisdom.
This stunning argument shows how Christianity relates to other world faiths and as such is deeply ecumenical. It claims to rediscover Christianity's dynamic character by interpreting the Gospels in the light of the culture in which they were created, rather than viewing them through the distorting lens of contemporary prejudices. It is is a radical new interpretation of the Gospels, and makes an important contribution to the contemporary debate about the existence and significance of Jesus."
Re: Marcion, Paul, and early Christianity
I totally agree, Hesper.
Personally, I have a hard time following the biblical trail that Laura is unraveling. But reading her reviews, is like reading a mini version of the book itself. I truly hope the authors appreciate these detailed and extraordinary reviews of their work.
Hesper said:
I totally agree, Hesper.
Personally, I have a hard time following the biblical trail that Laura is unraveling. But reading her reviews, is like reading a mini version of the book itself. I truly hope the authors appreciate these detailed and extraordinary reviews of their work.
Re: Marcion, Paul, and early Christianity
Take no prisoners!, February 16, 2015
By Laura Knight-Jadczyk
This review is from: The Case Against The Case For Christ: A New Testament Scholar Refutes the Reverend Lee Strobel (Paperback)
I wholeheartedly agree with a previous reviewer that reading Robert Price's work is like sitting in a university classroom and getting a SERIOUS eduction on Biblical scholarship from lower, textual criticism, to higher form and historical criticism. You just have to LOVE Price for the efforts he puts forth to truly empower the reader with knowledge. If you haven't read his other works, especially "The Incredible Shrinking Son of Man" and "The Amazing Colossal Apostle", they, too are highly recommended.
I would like to add a few things to other excellent reviews that occurred to me as I read this book. Obviously, Prof. Price does not suffer fools gladly; just as obviously, he wishes to make sure that innocent, gullible people are not taken advantage of by the snake-oil salesmen he exposes in his total body of work, including face-to-face debates. That being said, I think that some might be put off by this passion and the occasional over-the-top acidity that spills from Price's pen (or keyboard, as the case may be). Price is clearly passionate about Truth and, in this sense, he actually reminds me of the Apostle Paul in character. His emotional investment in the work he does is clear and you just have to love someone who cares that much.
I have to say I almost fell out of my chair at the end of Chapter Six, facetiously entitled: "A Butt Load of Evidence". Now there's a double (even triple) entendre if ever there was one! You have to read it to really appreciate it! The upshot of it all is (no double entendre or pun intended by me!) is Price's remarks about the very odd combination of homophobia and homoerotica prevalent among fundamentalist Christians. He writes:
"Here is a devotional style that demands its adherents cultivate feelings of emotional adoration and tender cherishing for a fellow male figure. It makes a kind of symbolic sense for nuns to imagine themselves as being engaged to Christ - but for men? How absolutely fascinating that the muscular Christianity of the Promise Keepers and of fundamentalist men everywhere creates and shapes romantic feelings in men for a man. It might even help account for fundamentalist homophobia as a reaction formation against the implicit homoeroticism to which their 'personal relationship with Christ' commits them."
In a footnote, Price cites Philip M. Helfaer's "The Psychology of Religious Doubt": "Generally, homosexual feelings and fantasies, and feminine submissive longings, can be channeled into the relationship with God. Various forms of 'witnessing' and evangelizing .. are also common channels for homosexual libido. The man's intense love for Jesus may be a homosexual, narcissistic object choice, sometimes overriding any other object choice in the individual's life."
As a former fundie myself, and formerly married to one (I escaped, he didn't), I think I can 'testify' to this observation as being pretty darn insightful.
In respect of Price's "take no prisoners" approach, I understand it, truly, but I wonder if it would not be more useful to consider the work of Canadian clinical psychologist, Bob Altemeyer such as "Amazing Conversions" and "The Authoritarians" when trying to deal with fundies? They are not only victims of their programming, they don't have the physiological brain resources to extricate themselves from the trap. It's like the Dunning-Kruger Effect writ very, very large: "If you’re incompetent, you can’t know you’re incompetent. […] the skills you need to produce a right answer are exactly the skills you need to recognize what a right answer is." David Dunning This pretty much supports Altemeyer's conclusions in "Amazing Conversions", which suggest that the true believers who cling to their belief no matter what, are lacking in both intellectual capacity and life-skill mastery - which may be related. Thus, taking that perspective, one understands what is "wrong" with such people, but of course, that doesn't help anyone when such people rise to positions of prominence and are able to psychologically mutilate others by means of their pathological persistence in error.
In conclusion, I can echo Prof. Price's conclusion: "I once believed and used the arguments I attack root and branch in this book. I most certainly did not mount an attack from without. No, I was a soldier on the front lines who was horrified to discover I was only firing blanks. And these blanks proved ironically fatal once they backfired. That was the end of my faith."
The end of Price's faith was the beginning of a great work for the rest of us. I, for one, am grateful.
Take no prisoners!, February 16, 2015
By Laura Knight-Jadczyk
This review is from: The Case Against The Case For Christ: A New Testament Scholar Refutes the Reverend Lee Strobel (Paperback)
I wholeheartedly agree with a previous reviewer that reading Robert Price's work is like sitting in a university classroom and getting a SERIOUS eduction on Biblical scholarship from lower, textual criticism, to higher form and historical criticism. You just have to LOVE Price for the efforts he puts forth to truly empower the reader with knowledge. If you haven't read his other works, especially "The Incredible Shrinking Son of Man" and "The Amazing Colossal Apostle", they, too are highly recommended.
I would like to add a few things to other excellent reviews that occurred to me as I read this book. Obviously, Prof. Price does not suffer fools gladly; just as obviously, he wishes to make sure that innocent, gullible people are not taken advantage of by the snake-oil salesmen he exposes in his total body of work, including face-to-face debates. That being said, I think that some might be put off by this passion and the occasional over-the-top acidity that spills from Price's pen (or keyboard, as the case may be). Price is clearly passionate about Truth and, in this sense, he actually reminds me of the Apostle Paul in character. His emotional investment in the work he does is clear and you just have to love someone who cares that much.
I have to say I almost fell out of my chair at the end of Chapter Six, facetiously entitled: "A Butt Load of Evidence". Now there's a double (even triple) entendre if ever there was one! You have to read it to really appreciate it! The upshot of it all is (no double entendre or pun intended by me!) is Price's remarks about the very odd combination of homophobia and homoerotica prevalent among fundamentalist Christians. He writes:
"Here is a devotional style that demands its adherents cultivate feelings of emotional adoration and tender cherishing for a fellow male figure. It makes a kind of symbolic sense for nuns to imagine themselves as being engaged to Christ - but for men? How absolutely fascinating that the muscular Christianity of the Promise Keepers and of fundamentalist men everywhere creates and shapes romantic feelings in men for a man. It might even help account for fundamentalist homophobia as a reaction formation against the implicit homoeroticism to which their 'personal relationship with Christ' commits them."
In a footnote, Price cites Philip M. Helfaer's "The Psychology of Religious Doubt": "Generally, homosexual feelings and fantasies, and feminine submissive longings, can be channeled into the relationship with God. Various forms of 'witnessing' and evangelizing .. are also common channels for homosexual libido. The man's intense love for Jesus may be a homosexual, narcissistic object choice, sometimes overriding any other object choice in the individual's life."
As a former fundie myself, and formerly married to one (I escaped, he didn't), I think I can 'testify' to this observation as being pretty darn insightful.
In respect of Price's "take no prisoners" approach, I understand it, truly, but I wonder if it would not be more useful to consider the work of Canadian clinical psychologist, Bob Altemeyer such as "Amazing Conversions" and "The Authoritarians" when trying to deal with fundies? They are not only victims of their programming, they don't have the physiological brain resources to extricate themselves from the trap. It's like the Dunning-Kruger Effect writ very, very large: "If you’re incompetent, you can’t know you’re incompetent. […] the skills you need to produce a right answer are exactly the skills you need to recognize what a right answer is." David Dunning This pretty much supports Altemeyer's conclusions in "Amazing Conversions", which suggest that the true believers who cling to their belief no matter what, are lacking in both intellectual capacity and life-skill mastery - which may be related. Thus, taking that perspective, one understands what is "wrong" with such people, but of course, that doesn't help anyone when such people rise to positions of prominence and are able to psychologically mutilate others by means of their pathological persistence in error.
In conclusion, I can echo Prof. Price's conclusion: "I once believed and used the arguments I attack root and branch in this book. I most certainly did not mount an attack from without. No, I was a soldier on the front lines who was horrified to discover I was only firing blanks. And these blanks proved ironically fatal once they backfired. That was the end of my faith."
The end of Price's faith was the beginning of a great work for the rest of us. I, for one, am grateful.