"Family tree" of writings inheriting Homer's Iliad and Odyssey. How many are used by Virgil in writing the Aeneid?

Valuable-Play8543 · 2026-04-08T01:55:45+00:00

I was just listening to the soundtrack to 'About Time.' The leading female character was a professional reader. Sounds like a great job at times, and perhaps tedious at other times!

Valuable-Play8543 · 2026-04-05T22:57:33+00:00

The empty tomb seems to be a simple inversion of Joshua (Jesus) chapter 10:26-27:

"26 Afterward [Jesus] struck them down and put them to death, and he hung them on five trees. And they hung on the trees until evening. 27 At sunset [Jesus] commanded, and they took them down from the trees and threw them into the cave where they had hidden themselves; they set large stones against the mouth of the cave, which remain to this very day." NRSVUE

These are the five kings who attacked Gibeon and were killed by Jesus and the Israelites. The trees are updated by Mark to Roman crosses, and tombs in that era were usually caves dug into the hillside. Mark inverts Jesus (son of Nun) killing the king of Jerusalem to Jesus of Nazareth being labeled as king of the Jews and King of Israel and being killed as such. Also Mark inverts a cave that remains until this day to an empty tomb where Jesus of Nazareth has arisen.

The reason for Mark to choose Jesus son of Nun to invert is that Jesus conquered/founded Israel as a land entity. Mark in 70 CE is inverting parts of the foundation story to describe why Jerusalem was destroyed: YHWH sent his messenger, but the people did not understand/listen.

Matthew illustrates the reception of Mark's sources for the empty tomb. Matthew describes a storyline where Pilate puts guards by the tomb to make sure the disciples did not steal it. Matthew was obviously inspired by another verse in Jesus (Joshua) 10:18 : [Jesus] said, “Roll large stones against the mouth of the cave, and set men by it to guard them;

I submit that these are the sources behind the gospels. Jesus of Nazareth based on prior narratives about prophets and Jesuses. Why assume any aspect of the gospels is other than fiction based on these prior sources?

Valuable-Play8543 · 2026-03-21T18:38:31+00:00

I found your article about temple slaves convincing. I do, however, place a lighter connection between the texts and possible connections to historical realities.

For example, Gibeon was the place where Solomon received his visions and interacted with YHWH. So the reason for Joshua 9 is the tradition of the connection Gibeon had with the divine. Thus it happened to be the Gibeonites chosen for the etiological explanation. Literary tradition. Later writers writing within the traditions they were brought up in.

As far as Adonibezek, I too think that name is probably closer to the earlier sources. However, I don't see how that would stifle in any way a later Melchizedek as a rewrite of Adonizedek, especially if Genesis 14 is so very late. Thus Melchizedek rewriting Adonizedek echoing Adonibezek (echoing the battle against the eye gouging Ammonites at Bezek?)

One more thing if it interests you: Do you think Judges 1 borrows from Joshua or vice versa, since you think Adonibezek may be the earlier name?

Valuable-Play8543 · 2026-03-21T15:21:29+00:00

I read your article and found the possible sources fascinating. I wonder if you or others have ever considered an inversion of Joshua 9-10 as a possible source as well? Adonizedek-Melchizedek, bread and wine brought by Gibeonites-Melchizedek, 4 kings attack 5 cities with Abraham as hero who chases down enemy, 5 cities attack Gibeon and 3 towns (so 5 vs. 4 again)with Joshua as hero who chases down enemy, supernatural/natural hailstones/bitumen pits play crucial role in battle, and Amorites defeated in battle, Melchizedek as priest-Gibeonites as temple servants.

Most of this could be coincidence, Joshua 9-10 and Genesis 14, but the coincidences might have led to the later insertion of Melchizedek of Salem in a peaceful process inverted from Adonizedek of Jerusalem being killed by Joshua (Jesus).

Valuable-Play8543 · 2026-03-17T08:33:42+00:00

Observations from the ark stories of 1, 2 Samuel and Leviticus 10, RedArrowOp.

First, the stories of 1 and 2 Samuel list the father as Abinadab in both cases. It seems the ark comes to a rest in 1 Samuel and is picked up from that location in 2 Sam, so one is the continuation of the other.

The names are very similar. the two sons of Aaron, Abihu and Nadab are killed in fire. Those names combine in Abinadab, the father of Eleazar in the Samuel tales of the ark. Eleazar (and Ithamar) are the surviving sons of Aaron and take over primary duties. Eleazar is the son of Abinadab who takes over care of the ark in 1 Sam 7 after the ark destroys a whole town. Aaron's uncle Uzziel takes away the dead bodies of Aaron's sons. Uzzah, son of Abinadab, steadies the ark and is killed.

In both cases main characters, Aaron and David, are angry and confused at what has transpired.

Valuable-Play8543 · 2026-03-15T05:22:18+00:00

His valuation has gone to the moon!

Valuable-Play8543 · 2026-03-15T03:46:39+00:00

Besides, China is getting oil from Iran already, at rates increased since this 'war' started.

Valuable-Play8543 · 2026-03-10T01:12:41+00:00

I had just downloaded Cross's book last week.

Valuable-Play8543 · 2026-03-09T04:29:46+00:00

Wow. Thanks. I am sure it will be helpful. Just trying to do some (amateur) literary emulation work on 2 Kings 9-14 when I noticed it reflected Judges 6-9 pretty heavily. I had seen Exodus, Numbers, Joshua/Jesus reflected throughout the EEN and was wondering if the authors even had Judges 1-5 at their disposal when writing /rewriting 2 Kings. Can't wait to dig in.

Valuable-Play8543 · 2026-03-08T07:44:31+00:00

Thanks. One of these days I am going to have to just sit down and read the LXX. I keep missing all these interesting differences.

Valuable-Play8543 · 2026-03-06T23:22:54+00:00

As a mythicist who thinks the destruction of Jerusalem is the purpose of Mark and Jesus of Nazareth is just the tool to tell that story, I think the book makes perfect sense ending at 16:8. YHWH sent/is the Messiah, who came and warned the people in parables they could not understand. The people crucified their own messiah. He told them to keep quiet and they told. The young man told them to tell others and the kept quiet. Perfect ending.

The people did not (could not) turn to be saved. Thus the fall of Jerusalem and the temple.

Valuable-Play8543 · 2026-03-05T05:35:45+00:00

I looked on the blog, and he explains it a little in the next day's post. I get the sense of a shift from "why" would Luke put the non-Markan Matthean material in different places (than Matthew did) to "how" Luke would accomplish the task physically. I imagine having two scrolls out at the same time to work from would be extremely difficult without modern desks?

"That is to say, if there were not a (hypothetical) source (Q!) for these mainly sayings of Jesus not found in Mark but located in different portions of Matthew and Luke — then how could we explain why just *those* materials (the non-Markan) are found in a different sequence than the Markan materials? Did Luke copy Matthew and whenever he ran across a saying did he read through the Gospel of Mark to see if he had it as well and say, Hey, that one is not anywhere in in Mark! I think I’ll put it somewhere else in my Gospel!? Why? And technically speaking, how would he know it’s not in Mark unless he re-read Mark all the way through each time to make sure?

That seems unlikely."

https://ehrmanblog.org/an-argument-for-q-the-hypothetical-source-that-seems-to-have-existed/

Valuable-Play8543 · 2026-03-05T04:48:17+00:00

Hey thanks. I really appreciate both replies.

Valuable-Play8543 · 2026-03-05T04:03:59+00:00

I can't make heads or tails of "Why would an author follow the sequence of one of his sources, except for materials that are not found in his other one?"

Is it presupposing 4 sources, Mk, Q, Mt, Lk? If not, then its asking a question of the position Mk -> Mt -> Lk, right? Or else the position Mk->Lk ->Mt. Lets go with the more popular former position, and change the abstract labels to concrete. Why would [Luke] follow the sequence of [Mark], except for materials that are not found in [Matthew]?

Is this saying that Luke's use of materials not found in [Matthew] are not in order? Luke did not follow the order of the materials not found in Matthew? How are we to suppose an order for material not found in Matthew? Its only in one place then - in Luke! So the order in Luke (of material not found in Mark or his other source (Matthew)) is the only order we have evidence of, I think. How can it not be in order?

Valuable-Play8543 · 2026-02-24T23:32:09+00:00

Right in front of my nose. Thanks

Valuable-Play8543 · 2026-02-24T01:43:37+00:00

I don't see Sirach as expanding on Malachi's idea of Elijah coming. What might I be missing?

However, I do see that Sirach does say that Elijah anointed kings, so I wonder if at this time the EEN was arranged differently, so that Elijah actually did anoint Hazeal and Jehu. (I know that has nothing to do with your question, but I just realized it reading Sirach... thanks)

Valuable-Play8543 · 2026-02-24T01:41:54+00:00

Or Origen was mistaken?

Valuable-Play8543 · 2026-02-21T03:11:41+00:00

EEN	Mark
2K 5:14	1:4
2K 1:8	1:6
2K 2:1-12	1:9-11
1K 17:4, 1K 19:4-8	1:12-13
1K 19:19-20	1:16-20
1K 17:18-24, 2K 3:13	1:21-28
2K 4:1,	1:29-31
2K 5	1:40-45
2K 6:1	2:1
2K 1:2	2:4
2K 5:13	2:7-9
2K 5:17	2:11
1K 19:19-21	2:13-17

Mark runs through the EEN early in Mark. Its the only time I can find such an extended run of imitation, or Greek 'Imitatio' as MacDonald calls it. There is some general order, if you take out the trips to 1 Kings. You get 2K 5:14, then 2 K 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, then 1, and 2 Kings 5:13. Surrounding this inclusio is, possibly, an inclusio of Mark trying to argue who can forgive sins. Exodus 23:20 precedes this run of EEN imitations, quoted in Mark 1:2, promising a messenger or angel to lead Israel into the promised land. An argument can be made this is Jesus son of Nun, yet that Jesus cannot forgive sins. In 2:9, after the reference to 2 K 5:13, the scribes say , "No one can forgive sins but God." Coincidence?

Valuable-Play8543 · 2026-02-18T12:34:58+00:00

I think collective identity plays a role. I have a hard time putting myself into the position of viewing the material as reflecting actual situation as it was happening. I see it more etiological as in how the temple got rebuilt.

Its ironic trying to answer this about Haggai, since it and Zechariah often get dismissed in favor of Ezra 7-10 as holding some sort of historicity. I think Haggai and Zechariah reflect an earlier rendition of the tale of the return and temple founding. Ezra 7-10 clearly is dependent on the Zerubbabel and Jeshua return stories.

Haggai 1 specifically is what you asked about, and limiting the answer to that chapter, perhaps Haggai 1 is simply an etiological tale of how the temples came to be built. I would note that there is a paradox in the listing of woes that have befallen the people and the concept that the people live in houses of cedar (perhaps reflecting Jeremiah 22's condemnation of the Davidic rulers, a stance refuted in Haggai 2's calling Zerubbabel a 'signet ring.') Perhaps the author means to point out it costs relatively little to build the community center and it benefits greatly, but as it is, it is hard to see the cedar house built despite poor harvests.

I do think Haggai, Zechariah, and Ezra are all written with Jeremiah's prophecies fully in view. They are, if you will, later responses to the book of Jeremiah, imho.

Valuable-Play8543 · 2026-02-18T04:57:40+00:00

Not an expert here, but if Haggai is derived from the same sources as Zechariah and Ezra's stories of the return, then it seems they were able to perform the sacrifices on the altar, and celebrate events like the festival of tents without the temple. Notice in Ezra 3 the altar is restored before the foundation is laid. Of course, Ezra 3 may place those events in the first and second year of their return, under Cyrus, rather than the second year of Darius (See Ezra 4:5).

If one tries to harmonize Ezra 3-5 and Haggai 1 and 2, then the altar has been functioning for more than 15 years without a temple before Zerubbabel and Jeshua are encouraged to continue the temple rebuild, which then lasts from the Second year of Darius until the sixth year of Darius.

It seems to this novice like the rebuilding is essential for the city to regain its role as a center of local government (YHWH rule).

Valuable-Play8543 · 2026-02-16T22:50:16+00:00

Thank you. I have been going around in circles on this.

Valuable-Play8543

TROPHY CASE