PDA

View Full Version : Lincoln, the Fake Kennedy!


jpholding
July 29th 2003, 02:26 PM
This article was a fun one written "tongue in cheek" from the perspective of a man 2000 or so years in the future. It is a satire on methods used by the like of Randel Helms and Dennis MacDonald to claim that resemblances to OT events in NT stories proves that the stories are fictional.

******


Hello. Welcome again to the year 3740. This is Teachminder Phonias J. Futz, and since my revolutionary conclusion that Abraham Lincoln was a myth my students have been scouring literature left from prior to the catastrophe for more evidence to support this thesis. And we have indeed been fortunate, though in ways unexpected. We have uncovered two biographies of one of 20th-century Usa's most popular leaders, J. Fitzgerald Kennedy: John F. Kennedy by Mills, and Jack: A Life Like No Other by Perret. The biographies are in poor condition, but we have gleaned enough information for at least one report which has led us to a new thesis: That many alleged events in the life of Lincoln, as reported in the 20th century, relied on written antecedents recording the life of Kennedy, who lived prior to the time that the most detailed biographies of Lincoln were written.

As I read these Kennedy bios, I noticed echoes of the life of Lincoln, especially in the detailed bio of Lincoln by Donald -- parallels between the two men, then between their wives, then between their surrounding characters and persons. Both Lincoln and Kennedy demonstrated a fascination with civil rights, defense of the nation, and came to a similar end. Sometimes the similarities in accounts obtain even at the level of word choice and minor plot elements. I have come to conclude that writers of Lincoln bios wanted their readers to detect their use of Kennedy -- directly, if not subliminally. But the Lincoln biographers did not steal from these Kennedy biographers or from Kennedy's life; they also transvalued them by making Lincoln look more virtuous and more powerful than Kennedy. However, their imitation was not servile; they used disguises such as altering the vocabulary, varying the order, length, and structure of sentences, improving the content, and generating a series of formal transformations. They were experienced authors who borrowed from many sources (not just Kennedy bios), blending the works as a buzzstripe gathers nectar. And interestingly, it appears that readers in the 20th century were blind to this important aspect of the Lincoln biographers' project.

We will have many examples of this to present as our research continues, but for now we will use as an exemplar the most significant -- the parallels between Lincoln and Kennedy in their deaths. We believe that we will show without a doubt that Lincoln's life, as recorded and reworked in the 20th century, was built upon the foundation of Kennedy. We will begin by explaining a few of the parallels in detail and their significance, and then compile all of the parallels in columns.


Warnings Against Their Travel. On the day of his assassination, several of Lincoln's advisers "urged him not to go to the theater. Before going on a mission to Richmond, Lincoln's regular bodyguard, Lamon, begged him, "Promise me you will not go out at night while I am gone, particularly to the theater." Lamon issued such warnings so often, however, that he merely replied that he would "do the best" he could. Stanton, one of Lincoln's aides, "repeatedly warned Lincoln against mingling with promiscuous crowds at the theater." This night was regarded as most dangerous becase of rumors that General Grant, the hated military leader under Lincoln, would be joining Lincoln.

In the time before his assassination, Kennedy received several warnings not to visit the place of his demise -- Dallas, Texas. Mills: "The president has been warned over and over again to stay away from Dallas." Representaive Hale Boggs thought Kennedy would be going into "a hornet's nest." Senator William Fulbright warned: "Dallas is a very dangerous place." An editor of a Texas newspaper said that Kennedy would "not get through this without something happening to him." Governor Connally recommended that Kennedy not visit Dallas.

It should be noted that the timing of these events is significant. Kennedy made his visit shortly before the holiday known as Thanksgiving, a celebration of the founding of Usa. Lincoln biographers copied and transvalued this event by having Lincoln killed on the Good Friday holiday, just prior to Easter. Kennedy died just before a holiday commemorating the birth of the nation, but Lincoln was to be associated with a holiday linked to the death of Jesus Christ -- the only way one could conceivably transvalue such timing.


Ironic loss of protection. Lincoln asked several people to come with him. One of these was Thomas Eckert, a man so strong that he broke several cast-iron pokers by striking them across his left arm. But Eckert was needed elsewhere and declined the invitation. Kennedy meanwhile refused a bulletproof top for his car.


Seating arrangements. At the Ford Theater a special arrangement had been made for Lincoln's party. Lincoln and his party sat in a presidential box, a balcony seat. The box was actually two boxes, but a partition had been removed to make way for Lincoln's full party. Lincoln preferred a rocking chair to the normal seating and the brother of the theater owner provided one. The box was so high that most of the audience could not see the President.

Kennedy rode in a vehicle called a Lincoln, manufactured by Ford. It was a custom vehicle, longer than most such models, and had two jump seats. The rear seat rose 10 1/2 inches at the flick of a switch. Also significantly, whereas Kennedy was adored by well-wishers hanging from windows above him, Lincoln was the one above the crowd in his box.


Assassins. The character of the assassins of these men bears some striking similiarities and the stories show signs of editing by Lincoln proponents. Oswald was a ne'er-do-well; it could hardly do to have Lincoln killed by such a humble person, and so Booth was created out of Oswald as a more celebrated version of that nobody. A tip of the hat to Booth's fictional origins can be found in that Oswald hid in a theater after his deed.

It also happens that the assassins injured more than their intended targets. Their weapons were obviously different, owing to the times; Oswald's high-powered rifle would not have been around in Lincoln's time and so was replaced with Booth's derringer and knife, more appropriate weapons for the era. Booth also hailed from the rebellious South, recently put down by Lincoln's Union forces. The atmosphere in the South is highly reminiscent of the atmosphere in Dallas at Kennedy's period, in which racism was prominent and Kennedy's name was booed in classrooms. A handbill distributed in Dallas had a picture of Kennedy and the words WANTED FOR TREASON. Significantly Booth reportedly yelled, "Thus always to tyrants" after shooting Lincoln -- a natural adjustment given that Lincoln had been depicted as being on the "winning" side of a civil war. Finally the danger is made greater for Lincoln as it is shown that there was a greater plot to assassinate others at the same time. The place of John Connally, also wounded when Kennedy was fired upon, is taken in part by Major Rathbone and in part by Lincoln's Secretary of State William Seward, who was nearly killed by one of Booth's co-conspirators.


Miscellaenous. In various ways Lincoln was made to look superior to Kennedy and appear to be a greater hero. Lincoln survived his wound by many hours; Kennedy survived only a short period. Donald is careful to note the opinion of Lincoln's doctors that "the average man could not survive the injury Lincoln had received for more than two hours..." It is also notable that while both men are carried to their place after being shot (Kennedy of course to a hospital, Lincoln not so, owing to the limitations of the time) special note is made that Lincoln was too big for the bed he was placed on.


We will now add impact to our case by placing the parallels in order. Note that the parallels are dense and sequential:

Life of Kennedy/Life of Lincoln

Kennedy was actively seeking re-election
Lincoln had just achieved re-election

Kennedy received warnings not to visit Dallas
Lincoln received warnings not to visit the theater

Dallas was a rebellious, racist and hostile place
Lincoln's assassin hailed from a rebellious, racist and hostile area

Kennedy was aware of the danger and proceeded with his trip Lincoln was aware of the danger and proceeded with his trip

Kennedy visited Dallas just prior to the Thanksgiving holiday, on a Friday
Lincoln visited the theater just prior to the Easter holiday, on a Friday

Kennedy was offered a bulletproof car top, but declined
Lincoln offered to take a strong bodyguard to the theater, who declined

Kennedy rode in a Ford vehicle
Lincoln went to Ford's Theater

Kennedy's vehicle was equipped with special seating
Lincoln's theater box was equipped with special seating

Kennedy was accompanied by his wife and another couple, the Connallys
Lincoln was accompanied by his wife and another couple, the Rathbones

Kennedy was cheered and applauded by citizens in the windows above him
Lincoln was cheered and applauded by citizens in the theater below him

It was a sunny day in Dallas
It was dark inside the theater

An assassin acted alone
An assassin acted with two others

Oswald was a nobody, a former military man, member of an opposition group hostile to the nation
Booth was a celebrated actor, handsome, member of an opposition group hostile to the Union

Oswald entered the school book depsitory without incident
Booth entered the presidential box without incident

Oswald was an employee of the school book depository
Booth was employed in theaters like Ford's theater

Oswald shot Kennedy in the back of the head
Booth shot Lincoln in the back of the head

Oswald also injured John Connally, who survived
Booth also injured Major Rathbone, who survived

Kennedy's opponents in Dallas accused him of treason
Lincoln's opponent Booth accused him or tyranny

Those along the street were at first unsure of what had happened
Those in the theater were at first unsure of what had happened

The first reporter to see Kennedy, Merriman Smith, thought Kennedy had been fatally wounded
The first doctor to reach the box, Charles Leale, thought Lincoln had been fatally wounded

Kennedy slumped toward his wife, who wept bitterly
Lincoln was held upright in his chair by his wife, who wept bitterly

Kennedy's wife shouted: "They've killed him!"
Lincoln's wife shouted: "They have shot the President!"

Kennedy was carried on a stretcher into a hospital
Lincoln was carried across the street to a house

Kennedy's wife, over the protests of a nurse, went in to be in her husband's presence
Lincoln's wife, because of her constant protests, had to be removed from her husband's presence

Kennedy died after a half hour
Lincoln died after nine hours

Kennedy's assassin was shot by an follower of Kennedy
Lincoln's assassin was shot by follower of Lincoln

Kennedy's Vice-President, Lyndon Johnson, was confined for fear that there was a plot to assassinate America's leaders
Lincoln's Vice-President, Andrew Johnson, was also targeted as part of a plot to assassinate America's leaders


The results of our study are obvious. Lincoln's death was molded upon, yet designed to supersede, the death of Kennedy.

******
Welcome back to the 21st century.

If many of these parallels between Lincoln and Kennedy seem forced or of no relevance, it is because they are -- just as most of the parallels drawn by Dennis MacDonald in The Homeric Epics and the Gospel of Mark are forced. By collapsing down language (i.e., "a follower of Kennedy/Lincoln") in ways that ignore differences; by using commonplace events that are inevitable contextual elements, and by other such illicit tactics, it is possible to create any sort of connection. At the same time, we have also shown how easy it might be for a writer (like Mark) to imitate another writer without compromising true history.

Warcraft3
July 29th 2003, 05:23 PM
That was pretty good, JP.

I think you demonstrated your point strongly.

Good Job. Have some pearls.




Russ
:thumb:

jpholding
July 30th 2003, 02:25 PM
Thanks, Steadale! My little doggie pants in appreciation. :teeth:

Piebald
July 30th 2003, 09:30 PM
Anyone want to be critical of this piece?

jpholding
July 31st 2003, 09:50 AM
I invited Vork but he hasn't shown up yet.... :wink:

Piebald
August 4th 2003, 11:27 AM
anyone?

Someone7
September 7th 2003, 07:35 AM
jpholding's inspiration for this drivel comes from that stupid list that floats around the net and never seems to die, no matter how many times it is shot down. No doubt jpholding first saw it, and like many gullible fools, swallowed it without checking the facts.

http://www.snopes.com/history/american/linckenn.htm

Someone7
September 7th 2003, 08:00 AM
Hamster, this post is rather hidden away in a sub-forum that no one posts in. It should be no surprise that no one has responded to it. I only went looking for it because of Holding's comments in another thread.

Piebald
September 7th 2003, 01:12 PM
:dunce: "No doubt jpholding first saw it, and like many gullible fools, swallowed it without checking the facts."


Did you bother reading the snopes list and J.P.'s list?

bar Jonah
September 7th 2003, 01:26 PM
Today @ 05:35 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=205154#post205154)
Someone7:
jpholding's inspiration for this drivel comes from that stupid list that floats around the net and never seems to die, no matter how many times it is shot down. No doubt jpholding first saw it, and like many gullible fools, swallowed it without checking the facts.

http://www.snopes.com/history/american/linckenn.htm
Someone, you need to read the article again... Oy vay. :doh: LOL

The basis of Holding's point is that things like that the issues involved in comparison of Homer's epics and the gospel of Mark are equivelant to the fallacious parallels used in that Lincoln-Kennedy e-mail chain letter.

I'm afraid you completely missed the boat. :riwink: But no worries, friend, another one leaves in a few minutes... it's never too late to get on board. Everyone makes mistakes. :thumb:

Someone7
September 7th 2003, 01:53 PM
I'm aware of the purpose of holding's strawman article. My remark was an insult suggesting that when Holding first saw the list, he probably believed it like a lot of people do. JP's article clearly is using the nature of the chainletter to illustrate his (strawman) point. Sorry if I wasn't clear on that.

My comment was rather rude though, and I wish I had not said it. I had just woke up, and there was no coffee around. My apologies to JP.

Now Holding, perhaps you'd like to actually attack MacDonald's case?

dizzle
September 8th 2003, 06:29 AM
I am editing out some comments by Someone. This area is for irenic discussion of Holding's pieces... the mud wrestling can as always take place in Apologetics or the Locker Room.

The Laughing Man
September 8th 2003, 12:12 PM
I think you forgot some obvious clues that records of Lincoln's life were copied from Kennedy, JP:

-Both were presidents of the USA
-Both were male, of course (because all historic records are sexist, even to the point of being mysogynistic)
-Both were assassinated during the middle of a century and during a very tumultuous period of time

:hehe:

jpholding
September 8th 2003, 01:48 PM
Someone7:

Hamster, this post is rather hidden away in a sub-forum that no one posts in. It should be no surprise that no one has responded to it. I only went looking for it because of Holding's comments in another thread.

"Hidden away" -- gee these people can't even find their own behinds without help -- !

Someone7:

I'm aware of the purpose of holding's strawman article. My remark was an insult suggesting that when Holding first saw the list, he probably believed it like a lot of people do. JP's article clearly is using the nature of the chainletter to illustrate his (strawman) point. Sorry if I wasn't clear on that.



Such a strawman that he has no answer. Actually Someone7 is confusing a list I offered in the Homeric epics article (or maybe another list popularly distributed, since it seems he hasn't seen that article; see below) with the one above, which is DIFFERENT and *is* all composed of genuine historical material taken from actual bios of Lincoln and Kennedy. :duh:

My comment was rather rude though, and I wish I had not said it. I had just woke up, and there was no coffee around. My apologies to JP.

OK cool.

Now Holding, perhaps you'd like to actually attack MacDonald's case?

Already did in full detail -- http://www.tektonics.org/tekton_04_02_01.html -- does that earn another apology? :brow:

BeHereNow
September 17th 2003, 01:20 AM
Hmm.. I never noticed this area, either. Well, I did see it once, but it didn't occur to me to revisit (I usually go by favorites at the top of the page).

Just a minor note: It was funny how some of the parallels weren't even parallels (sunny outside, dark in the theatre). However, I don't understand what RightIdea said:

the issues involved in comparison of Homer's epics and the gospel of Mark are equivelant to the fallacious parallels used in that Lincoln-Kennedy e-mail chain letter.

Why are parallels fallacious? Do the parallels not exist? I think the deeper issue was found in this concluding line:

The results of our study are obvious. Lincoln's death was molded upon, yet designed to supersede, the death of Kennedy.

So, the parallels do indeed exist, but JP is saying that doesn't make the accounts untrue.

Also, Dee Dee -

a - Thanks for teaching me a new word
b - We can criticize, just not in a fashion that provokes negative argument, correct? I want to be clear...

:bunny:

jpholding
September 17th 2003, 01:31 PM
Howdy BHN,

Just a minor note: It was funny how some of the parallels weren't even parallels (sunny outside, dark in the theatre).

Yes, but in that I am mimicking my "source," MacDonald's Homeric Epics thesis. He claimed that such differences were STILL parallels, and he called them "transvaluations". In fact that one is based on his claim of parallel between Luke in Acts noting "light" in a room (Acts 20:8) and a place in Homer where a room is said to be "dark".

So, the parallels do indeed exist, but JP is saying that doesn't make the accounts untrue.

Correct. Though my whole thesis can best be encapsulated by saying that some parallels do exist; others are forced by MacDonald, and neither mean no history is involved.

BeHereNow
September 17th 2003, 04:01 PM
jpholding:

Howdy BHN,

Just a minor note: It was funny how some of the parallels weren't even parallels (sunny outside, dark in the theatre).

Yes, but in that I am mimicking my "source," MacDonald's Homeric Epics thesis. He claimed that such differences were STILL parallels, and he called them "transvaluations".

Yeah, that's why it was funny! :yipee:

So, the parallels do indeed exist, but JP is saying that doesn't make the accounts untrue.

Correct. Though my whole thesis can best be encapsulated by saying that some parallels do exist; others are forced by MacDonald, and neither mean no history is involved.

Right on. But I guess the real question is: do they indicate wide themes or common trends within humanity? If so, how and to what end?

:bunny:

jpholding
September 18th 2003, 12:45 PM
Yesterday @ 09:01 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=213932#post213932)
BeHereNow:

Right on. But I guess the real question is: do they indicate wide themes or common trends within humanity? If so, how and to what end?

:bunny:

In these particulars "common trends" would be applicable (as in, assassinated leaders). Perhaps you could say "widely enacted themes" as opposed to just wide ones. How? Because the range of options has many practical limitations and results. To what end? None in particular.

KingDavid8
September 18th 2003, 11:44 PM
For what it's worth, here's some other "parallels" between Lincoln and Kennedy that I've come across. I don't know that each of these are true, just things I read:

Both Lincoln and Kennedy were elected to Congress in '46 (1846 in Lincoln's case, 1946 in Kennedy's). _Both became President in '60.

Both had lazy eye muscles which would cause one eye to wander.

Both had been skippers on boats (Lincoln on the Mississippi river boat 'Talisman' and Kennedy on the PT-109)

Both were the second sons in their families.

Each lost a sister to death before becoming President.

Both married 24-year-old brunettes who had been previously engaged to other men, and who spoke French fluently.

Both had a child die while living in the White House.

Both were related to U.S. Senators, U.S. Attorney Generals who graduated from Harvard, and ambassadors to the Court of St. James.

Both were acquaintances of a man named Adlai E. Stevenson who ran for either Vice-President or President, a doctor named Charles Taft and a man named William Graham.

Lincoln was shot while inside the Ford theater, in box 7. _Kennedy was shot while inside a Ford automobile, in car 7 in the motorcade.

Both were pronounced dead in places with the initials P.H. (Lincoln in the Peterson House, and Kennedy in Parkland Hospital)

Both of their assassins escaped, and were killed before going to trial.

Both of their assassins were privates in the military.

Each assassin was detained after the shooting by a policeman named Baker.

Both assassins were eventually killed by a Colt revolver.

Both Lincoln and Kennedy were succeeded by southern ex-senators named Johnson who were born in '08.

Both Johnsons were in their mid-fifties when they took the office and both suffered from urethral stones (the only presidents to have them).

Both Johnsons could have run for re-election in '68, but chose not to.

David

BeHereNow
September 20th 2003, 05:16 PM
jpholding:

In these particulars "common trends" would be applicable (as in, assassinated leaders). Perhaps you could say "widely enacted themes" as opposed to just wide ones.

Right. I'll try to be more specific in the future.

To what end? None in particular.

None? There's nothing to be learned from trends?

Some would say they are coincidences. Others would say they are patterns in human behavior or consciousness. Others would say they are made-up stories (hence your OP article). Would you fall in the first category- that parallels exist merely as coincidences? Or would you say they have something to do with the way stories are passed down orally, enacting themes to preserve accuracy?

What I was trying to get at with the "to what end" question is this: what can we learn from widely enacted themes appearing throughout various traditions across the globe? Does this tell us that God has revealed the same stories to all of us, and that we've tried our best to preserve them orally and then textually?

:shrug:

jpholding
September 21st 2003, 07:14 AM
Yesterday @ 10:16 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=216457#post216457)
BeHereNow:


Some would say they are coincidences. Others would say they are patterns in human behavior or consciousness. Others would say they are made-up stories (hence your OP article). Would you fall in the first category- that parallels exist merely as coincidences? Or would you say they have something to do with the way stories are passed down orally, enacting themes to preserve accuracy?

:shrug:


I would say that it simply means that if we made a decision tree for basic historical options, it would not be a very differentiated one. We expect leaders to be assassinated. We do not expect such options as leaders being painted blue. I don't call this coincidental; I call it a natural limitation of possible expression.

The ancients I think knew this and often structured oral accounts according to known themes (per Albert Lord).

BeHereNow
September 21st 2003, 04:59 PM
jpholding:

I would say that it simply means that if we made a decision tree for basic historical options, it would not be a very differentiated one. We expect leaders to be assassinated. We do not expect such options as leaders being painted blue. I don't call this coincidental; I call it a natural limitation of possible expression.

If the cause of fatality between Kennedy and Lincoln was the only parallel, then you have a case. But how many historical figures have the exact same parallels as K & L? According to your limited branch theory, we'd expect to see endless stories with matching details, and yet we do not. There are some stories that have a few parallels, but almost none are as similar as the K & L stories.

To relate this back to the Bible, which was your impetus, your branch theory may be somewhat applicable. However - parallels such as the Sargon/Moses birth stories don't appear to result from a limited branch of options. In your article (http://www.tektonics.org/sargon.html) on this topic, the last paragraph, you mentioned the possibility of both sources being drawn from a common archetype. You disagreed, as I do, that this makes them fiction, but you did not expressly disagree with the possibility of a common source.

The position of archetypes somewhat contradicts your branch theory in that the parallels (in ancient history/mytholgy, anyway) do not exist because of limited options, but because of a common source.

This is where your analogy of Lincoln/Kennedy starts to fall apart. Because modern history is so different from ancient history (e.g. we have no photographs of Moses or Sargon), we know by modern standards that the details of JFK's and AL's deaths are facts, and were not passed down orally because of limited options. So the analogy is barely applicable from a biblical-defense perspective.

The ancients I think knew this and often structured oral accounts according to known themes (per Albert Lord).

When you say the ancients knew "this," are you referring to a "decision tree for basic historical options?" If so, then allow me to reword for clarity:

The ancients, I think knew that basic historical options were limited and often structured oral accounts according to known themes.

Now. This one needs some 'splainin. Are you suggesting that oral accounts were "structured" based on suppositions rather than historicity? (By "structured" I will assume you mean "arranged" and not "created" since the latter would imply inauthenticity.)

Or are you saying that only certain factual events were recorded because of their adherence to a theme?

Shanks.

:bunny:

jpholding
September 22nd 2003, 12:11 PM
Hmmm,

If the cause of fatality between Kennedy and Lincoln was the only parallel, then you have a case. But how many historical figures have the exact same parallels as K & L? According to your limited branch theory, we'd expect to see endless stories with matching details, and yet we do not.

I think rather that we do. Part of the trick (as MacDonald learned)is to:

1) describe actions with a "least common denominator" description
2) delete and/or ignore as many differences as possible

In making the LK parallels, I did what MacD did: I bypassed huge portions of text scouring for specific parallels, ignoring differences and making my descriptions sound as alike as I could. It really is just semantic trickery.

However - parallels such as the Sargon/Moses birth stories don't appear to result from a limited branch of options.

In the ancient world, I have my doubts about that. The only major differentiating factor from any other abandoment of a baby is the nearness of water.

history (e.g. we have no photographs of Moses or Sargon), we know by modern standards that the details of JFK's and AL's deaths are facts, and were not passed down orally because of limited options. So the analogy is barely applicable from a biblical-defense perspective.

That "difference" you cite makes no difference in context. 3000 years from now (the setting of the article), sans the "photographs" and all else, some snob with a chip on his shoulder could say, "we know details were passed down in an age when material could be corrupted electronically and force could be used to censor disagreeable material."

Now. This one needs some 'splainin. Are you suggesting that oral accounts were "structured" based on suppositions rather than historicity?

No. I am suggesting they were structured on historiciity and trimmed down to highlight a pattern common to historical events of the same type. As you say:

....only certain factual events were recorded because of their adherence to a theme?

Shanks.

You're smellcome. :bunny:

BeHereNow
September 27th 2003, 01:54 AM
jpholding:

Hmmm,

If the cause of fatality between Kennedy and Lincoln was the only parallel, then you have a case. But how many historical figures have the exact same parallels as K & L? According to your limited branch theory, we'd expect to see endless stories with matching details, and yet we do not.

I think rather that we do. Part of the trick (as MacDonald learned)is to:

1) describe actions with a "least common denominator" description
2) delete and/or ignore as many differences as possible

In making the LK parallels, I did what MacD did: I bypassed huge portions of text scouring for specific parallels, ignoring differences and making my descriptions sound as alike as I could. It really is just semantic trickery.

You are right that they do that. So, using the same trickery, can you come up with at least two other historical (or mythological) figures that have the same "parallels" as L & K?

If you can't come up with any, then your analogy might have been faulty.

However - parallels such as the Sargon/Moses birth stories don't appear to result from a limited branch of options.

In the ancient world, I have my doubts about that. The only major differentiating factor from any other abandoment of a baby is the nearness of water.

Perhaps I'm missing something here. Can you show me how the parallels inherent in different stories necessarily imply that the parallels exist because of limited options?

Could it not be that they are each metaphors for describing the same hero archetype, and none are factual? If that's what you're saying, then we agree. The limited branches are the archetypes.

Maybe I'm not as thick-skulled as I thought! :idea:

history (e.g. we have no photographs of Moses or Sargon), we know by modern standards that the details of JFK's and AL's deaths are facts, and were not passed down orally because of limited options. So the analogy is barely applicable from a biblical-defense perspective.

That "difference" you cite makes no difference in context. 3000 years from now (the setting of the article), sans the "photographs" and all else, some snob with a chip on his shoulder could say, "we know details were passed down in an age when material could be corrupted electronically and force could be used to censor disagreeable material."

Yes, people who say this type of thing are indeed snobs with chips on their shoulders. As you know, it's not the route I go at all. The most respectable way to study ancient literature is to give it the benefit of the doubt unless proven otherwise. What I'm doing is trying to figure out why parallels exist without saying someone fudged the originals.

Now. This one needs some 'splainin. Are you suggesting that oral accounts were "structured" based on suppositions rather than historicity?

No. I am suggesting they were structured on historiciity and trimmed down to highlight a pattern common to historical events of the same type. As you say:

....only certain factual events were recorded because of their adherence to a theme?

Gotcha. :thumb: This makes a lot of sense.



So let's recap:

What I'm saying is that the parallels do exist, and probably because each writer, prophet, whatever was trying to put into words what God showed them. IOW, it's the same God showing different people the same things.

What you are saying is that the parallels don't exist, at least not to the degree alleged by JC mythicists, and people are stretching data to create parallels.

If I messed up your part please correct it.

Danke Shoen!

jpholding
September 27th 2003, 10:09 AM
Yo BHN,

So, using the same trickery, can you come up with at least two other historical (or mythological) figures that have the same "parallels" as L & K?

I probably could. I certainly did not expect the level of success I had with K and L. I'd probably try McKinley first, and then maybe Julius Caesar. Obviously I would need to dig deep into biographies of each to do this.

Can you show me how the parallels inherent in different stories necessarily imply that the parallels exist because of limited options?

I'll put it this way: When you walk out your front door to get to the car, how many viable options do you have for action?

1) The front walkway and maybe some grass. Viable.
2) Cutting through the bushes. Painful and inconvenient.
3) Stepping over the flowerbed. Hey, the petunias!
4) Levitating. Levitating? :huh:
5) Star Trek transporter.

So it is with human history.

Could it not be that they are each metaphors for describing the same hero archetype, and none are factual?

If so it would be the burden of the critic to explain why on other grounds. In other words, the same tests for historicity apply as anywhere. An acrhatype may be a myth, or it may be a handy template to make the audience happy (in line with the ancient liking for "probabilities").

If I messed up your part please correct it.

Seems OK.

Danke Shoen!

Haben ein Kartoffel.

Vorkosigan
October 5th 2003, 08:34 AM
Sorry, JP. I am just too damn busy. Signed a contract last week that will supply me with tons of translation work for one of the local consulting firms in the IT industry....lots of $$ but will destroy my time on the net.

About the only thing I can say is that your article does not really address the problem in question, which is not that two events are parallel, but that one (the NT Passion Narrative) appears to be a construction of the other (the OT) because of the way the parallels are utilized in the constructed version. Literary parallelism, such as the kind McDonald (a Christian) postulates between the NT and various Greek writings, does not work the way this urban legend with Lincoln and Kennedy works, hence your "parallel" here, in addition to suffering from the problems outlined at Snopes, does not address the real issue, which is the literary and constructed nature of the Passion Narrative and the Gospels in general. Further, it more or less assumes that history exists on both sides of the parallel -- which is precisely what is under argument. You can't argue by assuming your point is true. You have to show it by assembling evidence and argument. Further, because you have used parallels between two known historical events, your article does not address a crucial issue, which is that the parallels between the OT (and other works) and the Passion Narrative (PN) involve constructions from literary expression in the earlier works -- that appear as narrative events in the NT-- such as where Psalm 22 is used to construct the famous casting of lots to divide Jesus' clothing. In short, you have misunderstood the issue, and your article has missed the mark. It would be far better if you had devoted your time to an interaction with McDonald's idea in light of your own reading of the Gospels and the appropriate scholarship, and then produced a document that would have introduced McDonald to your readers and shown why his views are not widely accepted by NT scholars (nor by this writer with the possible exception of the Gerasene Demoniac, McDonald's best parallel), with reference, again, to appropriate scholarship rather than inappropriate example.

Vorkosigan

Vorkosigan
October 6th 2003, 06:53 AM
Dee Dee, this discussion is buried here in obscurity. Why aren't these discussions moved to Apologetics or another well-trod forum?

Vorkosigan

jpholding
October 6th 2003, 11:19 AM
Uh huh,

Sorry, JP. I am just too damn busy[/quote]

And too unable to answer well, no doubt. :thumb: We know the method and the excuses. Bear in mind that if I check and see that despite this you are still posting sound bites all over the place, I will be asking why it is you are not "[edit] busy" after all.

About the only thing I can say is that your article does not really address the problem in question, which is not that two events are parallel, but that one (the NT Passion Narrative) appears to be a construction of the other (the OT) because of the way the parallels are utilized in the constructed version.

I addressed this point in posts elsewhere which you have yet to answer. And I know that it is because you can't. You and others assume that Crossan et al deliver the "last word" and so are unprepared when their arguments are flattened with material you never knew existed.

Literary parallelism, such as the kind McDonald (a Christian)

! :rofl: No, he is not a Christian. He testifies to his apostasy in Babinski's book, Leaving the Fold.

work the way this urban legend with Lincoln and Kennedy works,

:duh: Uh, Vork? The "urban legend" you refer to is a list that often appears in Ann Landers' column and that is NOT the list I made use of. The list I made is one I made MYSELF using biographies of K and L by professional biographers/historians. Which tells me immediately that you have not read my list at all and are just spouting off. So your appeal to Snopes is irrelevant. Do better homework, will you?

You can't argue by assuming your point is true

I don't. This is just a standard polemic your side uses when they are lost and uncertain how to proceed. My point does not rely on "assuming" anything -- it just shows that parallels are not reason to claim ahistoricity. That is "evidence and argument" and your lame polemic will not change that.

which is that the parallels between the OT (and other works) and the Passion Narrative (PN) involve constructions from [i]literary expression in the earlier works

Makes not a whit of difference. The same could be easily done with the L and K parallels. Just use words and phrases from the K works to describe events in the L works. Not hard to do at all, and the argument you present merely begs the question that such constructions indicate non-historicity. Again, I detailed this in a post you did not answer as of my last check. But I'll keep looking for it. :thumb:

In short, you have misunderstood the issue,

I understand the issue perfectly. You have attempted to broaden the issue's core values illicitly.

you had devoted your time to an interaction with McDonald's idea in light of your own reading of the Gospels and the appropriate scholarship

Please, Vork. More stock accuasations of the sort your crowd produces when they are lost and need bombast to impress the gullible. I used more scholarship for this than you could imagine in your limited reading, including social science scholarship Crossan only has a vague inkling of and you I have seen know nothing of.

and then produced a document that would have introduced McDonald to your readers and shown why his views are not widely accepted by NT scholars

Did that already. The LK comparison is only part of a much, much larger article I did years ago. As for NT scholarship it has mostly ignored McD. The few reviews have made the same points I did.

Dee Dee, this discussion is buried here in obscurity. Why aren't these discussions moved to Apologetics or another well-trod forum?

Of course it never occurs to Vork that this is his problem, not TWeb's. :huh:

BeHereNow
October 7th 2003, 11:00 PM
"And too unable to answer well, no doubt. We know the method and the excuses. Bear in mind that if I check and see that despite this you are still posting sound bites all over the place, I will be asking why it is you are not "[edit] busy" after all."

:rofl:

Man, this is me right now JP. I've been too busy to spend 30-60 minutes on a post lately, but I have been posting sound bits. Sorry :offtopic:

jpholding
October 8th 2003, 01:55 PM
Today @ 04:00 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=237022#post237022)
BeHereNow:


Man, this is me right now JP. I've been too busy to spend 30-60 minutes on a post lately, but I have been posting sound bits. Sorry :offtopic:

Heck no. You I have seldom if ever seen do that.

But I can give you a chance. :wink: Shall I start a Campbell thread?

BeHereNow
October 9th 2003, 12:20 AM
jpholding:

Shall I start a Campbell thread?

Yeah, that's a good idea. I think we've taken this thread as far is it can go (for my part, at least) and Campbell is a tangent subject no doubt. As they say in UFC: LET'S GET IT ON!

oh, btw..

Haben ein Kartoffel

Ein Haben no kartoffelen idea what this means :eww: I'm an imposter when it comes to anything but English and Espanol.

jpholding
October 9th 2003, 02:06 PM
BeHereNow:

Yeah, that's a good idea. I think we've taken this thread as far is it can go (for my part, at least) and Campbell is a tangent subject no doubt. As they say in UFC: LET'S GET IT ON!

oh, btw..

Haben ein Kartoffel

Ein Haben no kartoffelen idea what this means :eww: I'm an imposter when it comes to anything but English and Espanol.

Some thing like "have a potato". I'll start that thread in a few mins.

MetalMark
August 25th 2008, 02:11 PM
A-ha!
Proof Lincoln didn't exist!!!

Raphael
August 25th 2008, 10:11 PM
arrrggghhhh The zombies are out to get me :eek:

On the more serious side, have you heard about the book about the passenger liner called the Titan? It's the world's biggest most luxurious ocean liner and it sinks on it's maiden voyage after hitting an iceberg in the North Atlantic. Funny thing is the book was written 11 years before they started building the RMS Titanic.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Futility,_or_the_Wreck_of_the_Titan