Thomas Brodie(‘s Work) should be married to Le Donne and Keith

James McGrath has a post up responding to recent posts in response to his review of ]]’s recent memoir recounting his years of academia and announcing he is a mythicist. I encourage you to read it.

He writes,

In the same way, Brodie insightfully detects some places where a passage in the New Testament probably was directly inspired by or retelling an earlier story from the Jewish Scriptures. Where it goes wrong is where this is insisted upon as being the case everywhere, even in the very many places where the connections are slim and/or tangential.

via The Work of Thomas Brodie.

I firmly believe in the literary connection established between the New and the Old (even between books in the New, and not just the Gospels). However, such a connection does not preclude the existence of Jesus. Why? Because if you examine the types of rewritten Scripture, and how it was used — how it is used today when we do it — Scripture served as a contextualizing tool. It was their language.

This is where, I think, social memory (hence Le Donne and Keith in the title to this post) studies should come in. It can help to draw out contextualizing forces. I mean, look how Hillel was contextualized as a new Moses after his death. They used Scripture.

I’m busy today, and I’m not going to write too much here; however, my hypothesis is this. What you name a child is important to that child and the more so in times of social crisis. I listened to an African-American preacher talk about the rise of names for children in their community after the death of MLK. Many were named Martin. Why? Because they wanted their child to be the next MLK. Think of the Robert E. Lees and Abrahams after the War Between the States. It wasn’t just a way to honor their heroes, after all.

The book to your left is about about the role Jerusalem has played in Western imagination. Anyway, the author hints at (maybe in the book on in an audio of a speech I heard) the role the name Abraham played in shaping Lincoln.

Controversial moment: There is a connection between how Tamerlan Tsarnaev was named and what he did.

It is not unlikely, nor improbable to have a person named “Yeshua” during this time. Nor is it improbable given what we know about how names affect you that Yeshua may have grown up with a certain zeal to “save his people from their sins” (i.e., the sins that led to the new exile). Further, it is not improbable to have Yeshua place himself as an Elijah/Elisha — the Prophet to bring about the Messianic Age. There is nothing in Brodie’s literary work to reach back to the Historical Jesus (as far as I can tell) because literary works are demonstrably different than reality because literary works contextualize.

What we do know — and I would like to see this employed in tracing out trajectories of early Christianities — is that the community who took up Yeshua after his probable death (and improbable resurrection) was steeped in the Jewish holy writings. There is no reason not to use them to promote their sect. That is what we do, even today, is to appeal to Scripture to validate ourselves. In doing so, the more intertwined with Scripture the continued validation of the Historical Jesus became, the less apparent the Historical Jesus became…er… what?

Anyway, I said I was busy so I have to run. There you go. Read the various posts McGrath links too.

You Might Also Like

5 Replies to “Thomas Brodie(‘s Work) should be married to Le Donne and Keith”

  1. Robert Louis Wilken wrote a book about Jerusalem some years ago. Knowing Wilken (and Carroll by reputation) Wilken’s book will be the preferred option for scholars and educated readers.

  2. “I firmly believe in the literary connection established between the New and the Old (even between books in the New, and not just the Gospels).”

    I’m glad you think so. I did my dissertation on Mark’s use of 1 Corinthians…now languishing in publishing purgatory.

  3. Hi Joel. I just discovered some of Thomas L Brodie’s books today in what has often felt like an endless pursuit (over the last three years) to find someone who thinks anything like I do on intertextuality in the Gospels. I like what I have seen so far of Brodie’s position on John’s use of the Mark and Matthew. I tend to like Dennis R MacDonald’s solution to the Synoptic Problem, but with some of my own homegrown additions.

    I believe that when one canonical gospel writer used the work of previous writer, (s)he tended to preserve the omitted parts by transforming and relocating those transformations in other pericopae. Actually, I think that Luke purposely uses omitted materials from Mark and Matthew in the book of Acts. This implies the planned unity of Luke-Acts. I have a 15 page paper that I am trying to refine into something that I could submit to JBL. I argue for the transformation of omissions from Mark and Matthew in Luke and Acts, as well as give a couple examples of how this sort of “omission-transformation” is anticipated already in Jubilees. Any chance I could ask you to read it and offer feedback? Thanks, Joshua

  4. PS. I should have said that I stumbled on your blog in the process of trying to find information on the whereabouts of Thomas L Brodie and was pleased to find you saying a lot of things I appreciate about intertextuality, mimesis, and Brodie. Thanks for blogging!

Leave a Reply, Please!

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.