Interpreting the New Testament as Satire
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
12-12-2016, 05:58 AM
RE: Interpreting the New Testament as Satire
(12-12-2016 05:25 AM)Deltabravo Wrote:  I don't agree with this analysis.

Also, you haven't read the book, so you have only seen about 1% of this argument and analysis. I will keep posting more excerpts, but it will take some time...
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-12-2016, 07:54 AM
RE: Interpreting the New Testament as Satire
Are you in agreement with Atwill that the sequences of events in the New Testament and in the War with the Jews suggests a statistical probability, almost certainty, that the two books were written with reference to each other? That is all I can see that you can make out of Atwill's theory without then expressing a view of your own.

It may be that you are making it too complex to follow. I don't think anyone here is going to be able to follow you and I think I am one of the few people who have read Caesar's Messiah. I can't figure out if you are following what Atwill is saying or doing something completely different.

If I'm right you are simply saying that the NT is a satire of Josephus' War with the Jews?

First, I don't agree with that and second, even if it is, I don't think anyone would have considered it "satirical" in the sense that it is amusing, other than, perhaps, a few academics.

I'm not trying to be difficult but I can't figure out what the point of this is.

Athill's work is interesting in that it debunks the idea that Jesus was a character out of the early first century. That is about as far as he gets, without putting forward his Titus theory and his "conspiracy to enslave Europe" theory.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-12-2016, 07:43 PM
RE: Interpreting the New Testament as Satire
Mabe the fall of the temple but not the messiah.
https://www.google.com/search?client=ms-...LiG_KTq_is
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-12-2016, 12:11 AM
RE: Interpreting the New Testament as Satire
fThe Near East was a hotbed of Shamanism, which is, I believe, animistic.

My feeling is that the NT is a response to animistic aspects of what we now think of as Judaism. The OT is full of things which point to this.

For instance, where did Cain and Abel find a wife? If they are the first family in the Royal Line of David, then it stands to reason that family incest began this and that this is the tradition of these people.

I am not wanting to be crude but this is a theme which recurs in the literature. Queen Helena married her son. We have Shakespeare's Pericles, Prince of Tyre. Then there is the case of Achnaten and Nefertiti who were brother and sister.

I suspect the "Virgin" birth is a euphemism for this and that Mary was bonked by her own father who was a "man-god" and that is why it was known that the child would be "special". Also, it explains how Jesus can be descended from the Royal Line of David through Joseph, as set out in the Gospels. If he were born of an invisible, spirit type god, then he would be the direct son of God but the Gospel traces his ancestry back through ordinary people. He can only be descended from Adam and God via Joseph, if Joseph is also a member of the royal family, probably a brother. The Jesus birth is about royal incest which is what feudal monarchies are all about, marrying close relatives to preserve the royal blood.

This isn't just me dot-joining either. It has been studied:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3716267/

"In humans, the most extreme cases of close inbreeding are frequently found in royal dynasties. Indeed, brother-sister and parent-child marriages were not unusual in ancient royal dynasties such as the Egyptian pharaohs or the Persian dynasty (Middleton, 1962; Bixler, 1982a, 1982b; Ager, 2005)."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-12-2016, 04:13 AM
RE: Interpreting the New Testament as Satire
(12-12-2016 07:54 AM)Deltabravo Wrote:  Are you in agreement with Atwill that the sequences of events in the New Testament and in the War with the Jews suggests a statistical probability, almost certainty, that the two books were written with reference to each other? That is all I can see that you can make out of Atwill's theory without then expressing a view of your own.

The point where Atwill and I agree is on textual dependence. Atwill demonstrated textual dependence. I demonstrate ten times as much textual dependence as he did, so I have hundreds more examples to look at to understand this.

What I think is wrong about Atwill is his claim of authorship, but also this claim of the two books being written with reference to each other. He didn't show that. What he showed is that at least one of those texts knew about the other, not that they both knew about each other as they were being written. This is what I mean by jumping to conclusions which he didn't demonstrate. Demonstration of some textual dependence is what he did pretty well.

Think about it this way, if the Romans were specifically setting out to invent a religion to fight Judaism why would they have interwoven parallels to the Wars of the Jews with references to Cannibal Mary who ate her child? Why would the authors make the whole religion debunkable if the authors primary goal was to create a Rome centric religion to fight Judaism? It is clear that they needed something like that and it is clear that they used the NT in that way, but if the authors initial goal was that, they would not have made the NT to be such a horrific death cult where they reenact Cannibal Mary at every mass and worship miracles that have parallels to horrific slaughters. The people who would have written a religious sounding text with references to this horrors would be satirists who thought that Josephus' texts sounded like a religious text that was full of slaughter and horror. They were imitating him to demonstrate the absurdity of Josephus' history, that he is constantly saying Rome is the kingdom God and God's favor had gone over to the Romans and they were doing God's work by slaughtering Josephus' entire nation. It makes a lot more sense to think that this was written with references to Wars of the Jews, turning slaughters into miracles in order to make a point about that slaughter not being God's will intended for other academics to understand and no one else. These gospels could have been passed around among Greek satirists for a while, each one writing their own version and having a good laugh and Josephus the horrible writer and horrible self-righteous person who threw his own nation under the bus.

This is not hard to imagine because we know for a fact that those "Grecian fables" existed, both for mocking the Jews in general and Josephus' own history specifically:


“…He adds another Grecian fable, in order to reproach us…”
– Flavius Josephus Against Apion, Book II :8

“Nay, this miracle or piety derides us further, and adds the following pretended facts to his former fable…”
– Flavius Josephus Against Apion, Book I, 11:10

“…There have been indeed some bad men, who have attempted to calumniate my history, and took it to be a kind of scholastic performance for the exercise of young men. A strange sort of accusation and calumny this!…”
– Flavius Josephus Against Apion, Book I, 1:10

They had even turned making fun of Josephus' history into a scholastic performance for the exercise of young men for Christ's sake!

Then the Romans, and especially the Flavians, were soldiers and not writers. They could not have had the foresight and skill to invent something like this literary masterpiece, but they could have picked it up and thought that anyone who didn't understand the original would think this to be a miraculous pro-Roman new religion. The Roman emperors would not have had the literary tradition and experience to be able to design this, nor would they have kept references to genocide if they were doing that. But they were probably smart enough to recognize that this satire, if not understood as a satire, is exactly what they needed to make a Rome centric religion. They didn't expect it, but these Gospels which (satirically) praise Rome and put the blame for the destruction of Israel on the Jews themselves and turn a horrific genocide into the greatest miracle of all time. If you forget the satirical part, it is absolutely perfect.


(12-12-2016 07:54 AM)Deltabravo Wrote:  It may be that you are making it too complex to follow. I don't think anyone here is going to be able to follow you and I think I am one of the few people who have read Caesar's Messiah. I can't figure out if you are following what Atwill is saying or doing something completely different.

Atwill's is too complex to follow because his conclusions are not based in reality. Jumping to conclusions about authorship that are not supported. That is why he is having very little success. He was close, but not quite right. He recognized the "Flavian Vanity" or the pro-Roman side of this, but just like the Romans and almost everyone else, he missed the satire part which is what really kills the NT and makes both the textual dependence easier to explain (Roman religion creating does not explain this) and the authorship makes more sense (many satirists in different parts of the empire writing their own satire in their own way explains the dispersed emergence of the gospels and they make more sense as being written by Greek writers than Roman).


(12-12-2016 07:54 AM)Deltabravo Wrote:  First, I don't agree with that and second, even if it is, I don't think anyone would have considered it "satirical" in the sense that it is amusing, other than, perhaps, a few academics.

It seems you are write about that. Only the academics understood the satire, so all the Romans had to do was kill all those gnostics and burn their books and then they have a new Rome-centric religion which no one can understand. They even wrote in the Gospels that you can only understand the true meaning of the Gospels if it has been given to you to understand:

“And the disciples came, and said unto him {Jesus;}, Why speakest thou unto them in parables? He answered and said unto them, Because it is given unto you to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it is not given. For whosoever hath, to him shall be given, and he shall have more abundance: but whosoever hath not, from him shall be taken away even that he hath. Therefore speak I to them in parables: because they seeing see not; and hearing they hear not, neither do they understand... But blessed are your eyes, for they see: and your ears, for they hear. For verily I say unto you, That many prophets and righteous men have desired to see those things which ye see, and have not seen them; and to hear those things which ye hear, and have not heard them.”
– Matthew 13:10-17

This was intended as a secret code that could only be understood if you were in on the secret. I mean, Jesus says the multitude of the people he was preaching to was specifically not supposed to understand, only his closest disciples were supposed to understand. You don't do that if you are trying to create a religion, you do that if you are secretly mocking Josephus, the adopted son of the Lord of the entire inhabitable earth.


(12-12-2016 07:54 AM)Deltabravo Wrote:  Athill's work is interesting in that it debunks the idea that Jesus was a character out of the early first century. That is about as far as he gets, without putting forward his Titus theory and his "conspiracy to enslave Europe" theory.

I debunk that more thoroughly than he does because I demonstrate 80% of the Gospels are textually dependent on Josephus, not just the 40 or so examples he was looking at, but 480, covering almost every miracle, parable, weird bit of history that didn't make sense. Textual dependence is all you need to kill the NT as a religious document, the theory of origin is just on top to help explain how the textual dependence came about which can help you understand why certain things were written. But in choosing the right origin theory, use Occam's razor, choose the simplest explanation: Romans were not writers of Greek literature, Greeks were writers of Greek literature. Romans were soldiers who conquered what they called "the entire inhabitable earth", they fought, not thought, but they wanted to be worshiped as God. Jews at that time were extremely religious and would rather die than worship the Roman emperor as God. So the Romans killed them all. Greek satirists and academics (who probably did not believe in any God literally, since they knew the writing traditions were used to control people) would have seen this and thought it was all ridiculous and had a long tradition of writing satire, so it does not require much imagination to think maybe they wrote Greek satire. That is just the kind of thing they did. And the Romans probably missed the satire or hoped that everyone else would and realized they could use this for their advantage to unite the empire and at least sort of get worshiped as God, even if not exactly as they had originally hoped.

As to whether there was an "original" Jesus, before the Gospels whose history was replaced with this Gospel narrative, I guess we don't know. The Romans probably destroyed all such history and wanted this replacement. But what this textual dependence shows is that if there was some original Jesus, the Gospels tell us nothing about him, because they are just a retelling, exaggeration of the events in Wars of the Jews.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: