Of Men and Muses

Well Book 1 is here!  It’s not my monograph, however.  Two more yet to go this year!

Dionysius of Halicarnassus writes…

– Epistula ad Pompeium

Jason and the Argonauts – Skeleton Fight

This is one of my favorite scenes from any 1960’s movie dealing with mythology.  The scene here is at the end of the movie.  I still think the animation here is better than CGI in a lot of movies.  (But I have a bias, as Jason and the voyage of the Argo is one of my favorite cyclic epics from antiquity)  Enjoy.

(Added) This is a scene from Sinbad; I just really like the skeleton fight scenes.

James McGrath and Gethsemane

Once more James would rather ignore the point at hand and complain about it rather than make a specific argument against my position.  Note how my very well thought out position was libeled as a “conspiracy theory.”  I would much like to hear how James comes to this conclusion.  Could James point out to where I have made any such statements that would indicative of a conspiracy?  Have I made any such statements that are not held by other, well credentialed, tenured scholars?  I think his hyperbole speaks for his lack of understanding (specifically of my position) more than it speaks for his level of knowledge.

Additionally, I would point out that his attempts to shift the goal posts from his initial point (from an argument of embarrassment) to the new goal post of using the Aramaic word over the Greek is not useful, as Paul follows up the Aramaic word with petros.  His Greek-reading audience, which would be made up of literate, educated Jews would be very familiar with Aramaic as well as Greek.  James once again fails to understand the nature of the school and its role in education for Jews (not just Greeks and Romans).  Does James assume that every Christian could read Greek?  Does James assume that there was a public school in every city that everyone could attend?  I have to question James’ understanding of the socio-cultural world, the same understanding that James claims to know better than I do, when he makes these sorts of grandiose assumptions such as:

Paul is writing to non-Aramaic-speaking converts, and I can think of no obvious reason for him to have done so, apart from the seemingly obvious reason that Jesus himself had used this language, with the corollary that other children of God who share in the same Spirit ought to use it to.

Why James ignores the origin of this tradition in Malachi I cannot know.  I am not the only one who noticed that Mark’s Gospel has connections to Malachi’s tradition of God as “father” (not “daddy,” James).  I would point James to a reading of the notes under Romans 8:15 and Galatians 4:5-7 in the SBL’s NRSV Study Bible, Erdman’s Commentary on Romans and Galatians, Betz’s Commentaries and also Dunn’s Commentaries which highlight extensive Pauline theology concerning his reference to Abba with the references to Abraham and the new covenant the spirit brings.  The context of Paul’s letters refers to a present and future tense…the spirit will come and the spirit is coming. The spirit forces us to cry Abba! Petros!  It is not that Jesus had said this; Paul never hints at this at all. If Paul did hint at this, there would be no debate. If Paul hinted that Jesus had spoken these words, I would not be contesting a historical core. James wants what is not there and he appears to be hoping that nobody will notice it is missing.

James’ failure to present any sort of case for this is alarming, considering he believes this to be “seemingly obvious”; yet it is so difficult for him to actually work up a well thought out reply.  I have endured James’ attacks on my position, his complaints, his name calling (“conspiracy theory”, “pseudoscholar”, etc…), and I have waded through post after post with assertion after assertion and have yet to see any solid attempt at an argument.  Once more, “I can think of no obvious reason for him to have done so” is not an argument—it’s a statement of opinion.  I have already given “obvious” reasons for why Paul and Mark had done so.  James is welcome to continue to ignore these interpretations as often as he likes, but all that will prove is how weak his position really is.  It will not make his case for him and I won’t allow him to parade around complaints as if they were strong enough to dismantle my position by themselves. Evidence and data, method and means is what I am looking for and that is the only way he will persuade me.

James’ very short, uncritical address of my article makes lots of very interesting (and by interesting, I mean unrealistic) criticisms.  James suggests, for example that “Tom seems to treat addressing God as “abba” as though it were the most natural thing in the world. In fact, it seems to have been uncommon, to say the least – not because it meant “daddy” as some have claimed, but because even Aramaic-speaking Jews in this period appear to have used Hebrew as the language of prayer.”  But surely this would not be accurate everywhere; James cannot know what the spoken language of prayer was because we do not have recordings of Aramaic-speaking Jews to listen to by which to determine what language they used to pray with.  But if James wants to pretend that written hymns and prayers to God were only written in Hebrew, one only has to look through the many Aramaic writings of the Dead Sea scrolls where as Wise, Abegg and Cook note (to name a few), one out of every six of the Dead Sea scroll fragments were in Aramaic.  Unless James wants to suggest that this has some other meaning, I would say that an Aramaic-speaking Jew was very capable of reciting hymns in Aramaic and reading and rewriting books into Aramaic seem to be just as easily done. (The converse is true as well)

As for James’ statement that “Our earliest evidence for the addressing of God in this way in the Aramaic vernacular is Paul’s letter” is really here nor there as the tradition clearly existed at least 300-500 years prior to Paul’s life, written down by the anonymous “Messenger” (Malachi).  It was important enough that it was copied by the elusive Dead Sea scroll “community” (assuming that Golb is wrong, that is) which seems to have hymns and liturgical works in Hebrew and Aramaic, as well as variations of Biblical texts (also rewritten in Hebrew and Aramaic).

Additionally, James’ claim that I think that “Paul, or someone prior to Paul, made all this up” is misleading.  I do not hold that Paul invented this whole cloth.  I have said over and over and over again (yet James refuses to either read my post entirely or cannot comprehend this point) that these are reinvented traditions, traditions which have roots in the Jewish culture for hundreds of years before the 1st Century CE.  Paul and Mark (et al) did not invent these traditions as part of some grand conspiracy any more than the author of Moses’ birth story and Livy’s story of the birth of Romulus and Remus were invented whole cloth; these stories reflect a rich past of literary traditions dating back at least a millennia before they were Christianized. Paul and Mark simply interpreted them.

The idea of God as the father is a concept found before Paul and Mark.  The idea of a prayer at Gethsemane is found before Paul and Mark.  The idea of an Immanuel, a savior, a Son of Man, can be found prior to Paul and Mark.  Neither Paul nor Mark invented these concepts.  Did they arrange them, interpret them, and use them as a model for their own work?  Yes, of course, but who in antiquity didn’t do that?  That is my point.  Limiting the scope of vision through fragmentation, the scholar will inevitably ignore details, evidence, data, that is important to their whole conclusion.  Large portions of socio-cultural studies are missed because of limiting ones scope to “early Christians” while ignoring vital facts that will no doubt bring to light new and necessary questions that James has not yet seemed to ask.  By opening up and looking at the larger picture, the images become clear and easy to decipher.

James should brush up on Philip Davies’ Scribes and Schools, Erich Gruens’ Diaspora, and Thomas L. Thompson’s The Mythic Past just to name a few (of the perhaps dozens and dozens of works out there concerning ancient Jewish authorship).  And while he is at it should consult works of scholars on ancient literacy, because James does not seem to understand who read what, the percentage of those who could read, and how they learned to read.  Consulting any of the major works by William Harris, Raffaella Cribiore, or Teresa Morgan should be useful.  And books on the practice of imitatio in classical literature (Jew, Greek, and Roman authors utilized imitatio).  Most notably (for relevance) Dennis MacDonald but also Joseph Pucci, Virginia H. Knight, George Kennedy, David West and Tony Woodman. Also books on intertextuality are useful for this discussion, and James should also consult them as well.

Out of my profound respect for James and my friendship with him, I humbly await his’ actual discussion of my latest article on Gethsemane (if not all of the articles I have written to him thus far), as what he has placed up as a quick note on his blog is little more than an uncritical, unthought-out, unrealistic display, probably more from lack of time than lack of interest.  As it is, I’ll disregard his post (even after taking the time to respond thoughtfully) and assume another one is coming that deals with everything James is lacking in his current one that I have repeatedly brought to light here and elsewhere in our discussions.  I just have to assume that he was not at his best and that his most recent relevant post did not really contain what he wanted to say.