- May 2011
- Rural Australia
I honestly don't know. I can see the parallels. I originally thought they must be significant enough to "mean something to an historian". That something I understood at that time to be some sort of "evidence" for a literary historical dependency to exist between the two texts. In other words, someone A wrote first and then someone else B copied what A wrote.I think that every point mentioned by Carrier and Weeden matches my definition of ´parallel´(analogy = correspondence of several aspects), some of them implicitly, most of them explicitly.
I differentiate between ´ parallel´ (analogy = correspondence of several aspects) and ´correspondence´ in the simple sense (correspondence of 1 single aspect).
So what´s the problem?
But I also want to be wary of possibly indulging in what has been termed "parallelomania". What are the chances that what I can read as parallels are actually better explained by another theory.
I am in agreement with this first step. We can certainly place the historical context all of these to figures SOMEWHERE on a probability spectrum landscape. It doesn't really matter where for the moment.The problem is that we cannot state with certainty the historical context of the two figures. That's the first step. Similarities come after ...
Assume Josephus and Mark wrote stories about Jesus J1 and Jesus J2 as claimed.
Scholars have noted 22 "parallels" between the stories.
What is Step 2?
How can we objectively determine the historical significance (IF ANY) of these "parallels"?