Toto

I thought that gospel meant "good news" - not necessarily a narrative. We know of 4 "gospels" that are narratives, but I don't see any evidence that Paul's gospel was a narrative. It certainly is not obvious to anyone except Gamera.

Vorkosigan

Another criticism of Doherty that is completely irrelevant to the basic ideas that underlie his reading of Paul. Where does Paul say Jesus was crucified? In some place other than the earth. Who killed Jesus? Demons who rule the world.

Saying that Doherty is wrong on the "sublunar realm" is totally irrelevant. Even if Doherty is totally wrong on his exact placement of the site of Jesus' death, he is right in reading it as a non-historical event that took place in some mythical and unclear realm away from earth.

Vorkosigan

Vorkosigan

Gamera, a gospel is by definition "good news" and that's how it was used in Hellenistic sources prior to its developing that new meaning of a narrative in the post-Christian narrative era. I just picked up an article on this.....<frowns> old age is coming early, I think.

Michael

dog-on

Maybe I'm not being clear, Don. Reading Paul, I get the sense that historical details are either completely irrelevant, or simply unknown to him, possibly (and in my view, very probably) because, as he says, the mystery that was hidden (this cosmic redemption) has now been revealed by revelation and through the scriptures. No historical details must have been included in the package. In other words, since I cannot ask Paul what he did or did not believe about a recently crucified messiah in Jerusalem, I can only go by what he actually wrote, (taking into account, of course, the extreme likelihood of later editing). If I didn't know the Gospels, I couldn't build the Gospel Jesus just from reading Paul (and interestingly enough, the opposite seems to be true as well). On the same token, one couldn't build your historical Jesus just by reading Paul.


Is it your argument that people who believe the improbable would have problems believing the improbable? hmmm...

Maybe those who fell into that category became part of groups such as the Ebionites and the proto-Orthodoxy (for the fleshists (?)), or the gnostics and marcionites for the (spiritists(?))... only much later do some become Jesus historists...:Cheeky:
True, that. Since Mr. Doherty doesn't have a confession written in Paul's own hand, one is simply left with the circumstantial evidence, and one's own interpretation of it.

dog-on

...and now all is well in the eyes of Mother Church, once again.

So, I assume that you believe that the gospel "narrative" preceded Paul. Can you provide some evidence for this? This evidence would actually be very relevant to the OP.

Thanks

gurugeorge

Hehe, I had a feeling at the back of my mind that I'd just launched into a critique without reading your post carefully enough

However, having gone over the quotes again, I don't see that it makes a difference, plus as others have said, the connotation that "gospel" means "narrative" seems to come later.

Interesting this term "narrative" - there was an exchange a wee while ago between Doherty and Zeichman, in which the term was discussed somewhat. e.g., how much of what counts as "narrative" anyway? The 4 Gospels are definitely narratives to my mind - they have beginnings, middles and ends, lots of details. But fragments of context for speeches, etc., don't amount to a narrative.

Anyway, I digress.

post tenebras lux

Um Chris, I think the 'big picture' Minimalist is refering to is rather different to the 'bigger picture' you think has been confirmed surrounding the Jesus story.

Your 'bigger picture' argument would work equally well for Scarlett O'Hara as it does for Jesus.

Chris Weimer

What are you talking about?

post tenebras lux

Minimalist's big pictures are that the romans under JC fought that Gauls and won, and that the jews fought the romans and lost, etc., both central parts (in the 'big picture' scale of things) of the writings of JC and Josephus.

Your bigger picture is that the romans were occupying the area, and that Herod and Pilate ruled, etc., none of which are central parts of the Jesus story, but rather are the background, just as the american civil war, and the events therein, was the background for Gone With The Wind.

What, in your opinion, has archaeology confirmed surrounding the Jesus story (i.e. what's your bigger picture)?

Chris Weimer

Josephus wrote much more than just about the Jewish War. What is the big picture in Against Apion?

First of all, Gone with the Wind is a modern fiction - there isn't anything quite like it in the ancient times. We know it's fiction, because the author says so. It's written in the same fiction-like drama.

But what about personal autobiographies? Can we confirm every story contained therein? How do you differentiate between fact and fiction in a work that has stories that only certain people would know? You can't know if celebrity X really did see a frog eat a fly while walking in a forest one day by herself. So is it fact or fiction?

You've created your own false dichotomy by this implication.

Archaeology doesn't always have to confirm anything. What's the archaeological confirmation for Athronges? The Egyptian?

The findings in archaeology are supplemental to the written record. Where they overlap, that's an added bonus. If we required archaeological confirmation for everything, we'd lose quite a bit of real history.