Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Toto · 06-10-2013, 10:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

Toto, the issue I have is the seeming tendency to dismiss the early Christian writings as "fiction" without attempting to make any sense of them. The first problem is that even fictional works bear some relevance to history, often including historical people, places and events.

Why is this a problem? It is a problem for historicists who claim to be able to extract those historical elements from a mass of fictional elements, but that doesn't depend on the exact definition of fiction.

Quote:

The second problem is that it seems improbable on the face that the gospels are any sort of fictional genre. That is why I am asking what work of literature is most closely analogous to the gospels. Each genre has a certain set of patterns, and those patterns don't seem to apply to the gospels. There are no romantic entanglements. There are no heroic battles. But there is a lot of boring preaching and a series of miracle stories in no relevant order, all seemingly intended to persuade someone to join a cult. The first passage of the gospel of Luke is explicit in that intention. It seems a bizarre hypothesis, then, to claim that they are some sort of fictional genre. Maybe that is why the question remains unanswered: what work of literature is most analogous to the first gospel? I get the feeling that any answer would seem somewhat silly if it is not an ancient Grecco-Roman biography such as The Life of Apollonius of Tyana.

JoeWallack has in fact started several informative threads on the genre of the gospels. You might want to get up to speed by reviewing them:

Wrestling With Greco Tragedy. Reversal From Behind. Is "Mark" Greek Tragedy?

What is the genre of Mark

You can find more of his work by clicking his name then "statistics."

ApostateAbe · 06-10-2013, 10:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

Toto, the issue I have is the seeming tendency to dismiss the early Christian writings as "fiction" without attempting to make any sense of them. The first problem is that even fictional works bear some relevance to history, often including historical people, places and events.

Why is this a problem? It is a problem for historicists who claim to be able to extract those historical elements from a mass of fictional elements, but that doesn't depend on the exact definition of fiction.

Quote:

The second problem is that it seems improbable on the face that the gospels are any sort of fictional genre. That is why I am asking what work of literature is most closely analogous to the gospels. Each genre has a certain set of patterns, and those patterns don't seem to apply to the gospels. There are no romantic entanglements. There are no heroic battles. But there is a lot of boring preaching and a series of miracle stories in no relevant order, all seemingly intended to persuade someone to join a cult. The first passage of the gospel of Luke is explicit in that intention. It seems a bizarre hypothesis, then, to claim that they are some sort of fictional genre. Maybe that is why the question remains unanswered: what work of literature is most analogous to the first gospel? I get the feeling that any answer would seem somewhat silly if it is not an ancient Grecco-Roman biography such as The Life of Apollonius of Tyana.

JoeWallack has in fact started several informative threads on the genre of the gospels. You might want to get up to speed by reviewing them:

Wrestling With Greco Tragedy. Reversal From Behind. Is "Mark" Greek Tragedy?

What is the genre of Mark

You can find more of his work by clicking his name then "statistics."

Thanks Toto I appreciate it. I may review those threads and start my own thread on the topic.

In the meantime, I am curious about how the gospel baptism accounts would be expected from a fictional interpretation of the gospels, to tie the OP topic to this discussion. Is or was the baptism account interesting? Is there some moral lesson? Is the extreme humility of JtB (a character whose cult is attested in the seeming writing of Josephus) expected from the fiction in some way or other? Wouldnt it be more interesting if JtB were an explicit competitor? Is there seeming implicit embarrassment of the authors in later gospels or is there some other set of explanations for the details listed in the OP? There are a lot of details of the early christian writings that must be reinterpreted in light of the belief that the gospels are a fictional genre, I would love to see it happen, and we can start with the details of the baptism accounts.

TedM · 06-10-2013, 11:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by andrewcriddle

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

On the Apollos passage in Acts 18:

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

I just re-read this, and realized it doesn't say they didn't know of Jesus at all. It says they didn't know of his Holy Spirit Baptism. I thought there was a passage in Acts that indicated that there were JTB followers who had never heard of Jesus, but I can't find it. Apollos, in the prior chapter, sounds similar to those mentioned in ch 19: Apollos, mentioned in the prior chapter as being 'aquainted only with the baptism of John' was preaching about 'things concerning Jesus'. He too may have been well aware of Jesus, but not fully understanding the idea of 'baptism of the Holy Spirit' through Jesus.

Actually, it does say that he didn't know Jesus at all before Priscilla and Aquila fixed him up. That is the whole point of the passage. Apollos seems to have known the prophecies and the teaching of John about the way of the lord (remember the citation of "prepare the way of the lord"?). So what he knew about the messiah was what John had taught. He didn't know about the christian messiah, Jesus. He knew nothing about Jesus's teaching of the baptism of the holy spirit, only about John's baptism. That is why Priscilla and Aquila had to take him aside, so that he could teach the way of the lord more accurately. Not just what John taught about the messiah, but about Jesus directly. This allowed him to show that Jesus was the messiah (18:28).

This passage shows the theological debt christianity owed to the spread of the Johannine religion after John's death and shows that there was an alternative messianism in circulation that taught about the coming messiah, that one had to prepare for. It would seem that Priscilla and Aquila took Apollos's preaching of the messiah to come as teaching about Jesus, which would suggest a partial absorption of the Johannine religion into early christianity.

There is a textual issue in Acts 18:25. The later manuscripts the TR the KJV etc read that Apollos spoke and taught accurately the things concerning the Lord. The earlier manuscripts NA etc read (probably correctly) that Apollos spoke and taught accurately the things concerning Jesus.

If Jesus is original here it does seem to indicate that Apollos knew somewhat about Jesus being the messiah.

Andrew Criddle

Thanks Andrew. Spin, that's how I had always read the passage too, but upon a close look today it looked to me like it is a jump to assume that the point of the passage was that Apollos needed to find out about Jesus. "he was speaking and teaching accurately the things concerning Jesus, being acquainted only with the baptism of John;" doesn't require that he had heard nothing of Jesus and was only preaching about the coming of one like Jesus. What if it was phrased as such?:

Quote:

he was speaking and teaching accurately the things concerning Jesus, but he was only acquainted with John's baptism of water and not the baptism of Jesus...

This appears to be the situation described in the next chapter, where Paul found believers in Jesus (otherwise they wouldn't be called disciples) who were not aware of any baptism other than John's. There was no need for them to be told of who Jesus was and what he did. It may have been identical with Apollos:

Quote:

It happened that while Apollos was at Corinth, Paul passed through the upper country and came to Ephesus, and found some disciples. 2 He said to them, “Did you receive the Holy Spirit when you believed?” And they said to him, “No, we have not even heard whether there is a Holy Spirit.” 3 And he said, “Into what then were you baptized?” And they said, “Into John’s baptism.” 4 Paul said, “John baptized with the baptism of repentance, telling the people to believe in Him who was coming after him, that is, in Jesus.” 5 When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. 6 And when Paul had laid his hands upon them, the Holy Spirit came on them, and they began speaking with tongues and prophesying. 7 There were in all about twelve men.

It may be that neither Apollos of the 'believers' called 'disciples' knew anything about Jesus specifically, and only knew that 'one was coming'. But it appears to me that the passages don't require that interpretation, and the last one seems contrary to it.

Toto · 06-10-2013, 11:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

..
In the meantime, I am curious about how the gospel baptism accounts would be expected from a fictional interpretation of the gospels, to tie the OP topic to this discussion. Is or was the baptism account interesting? Is there some moral lesson? Is the extreme humility of JtB (a character whose cult is attested in the seeming writing of Josephus) expected from the fiction in some way or other? Wouldnt it be more interesting if JtB were an explicit competitor? Is there seeming implicit embarrassment of the authors in later gospels or is there some other set of explanations for the details listed in the OP? There are a lot of details of the early christian writings that must be reinterpreted in light of the belief that the gospels are a fictional genre, I would love to see it happen, and we can start with the details of the baptism accounts.

Why spend all this time on a subject without learning the basics? I think you need a bit more background reading if you are going to post anything worth reading on this.

Most current NT scholars treat the gospels as largely legendary. Admitting that they are 100% legendary does not require any major change in interpretation.

Scholars who are not mythicists still entertain doubts about the historicity of the baptism of Jesus by John.

Start with this post on Vridar and follow the links there:

More reasons for an early Christian to invent the story of Jesus’ baptism

ApostateAbe · 06-10-2013, 11:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

..
In the meantime, I am curious about how the gospel baptism accounts would be expected from a fictional interpretation of the gospels, to tie the OP topic to this discussion. Is or was the baptism account interesting? Is there some moral lesson? Is the extreme humility of JtB (a character whose cult is attested in the seeming writing of Josephus) expected from the fiction in some way or other? Wouldnt it be more interesting if JtB were an explicit competitor? Is there seeming implicit embarrassment of the authors in later gospels or is there some other set of explanations for the details listed in the OP? There are a lot of details of the early christian writings that must be reinterpreted in light of the belief that the gospels are a fictional genre, I would love to see it happen, and we can start with the details of the baptism accounts.

Why spend all this time on a subject without learning the basics? I think you need a bit more background reading if you are going to post anything worth reading on this.

Most current NT scholars treat the gospels as largely legendary. Admitting that they are 100% legendary does not require any major change in interpretation.

Scholars who are not mythicists still entertain doubts about the historicity of the baptism of Jesus by John.

Start with this post on Vridar and follow the links there:

More reasons for an early Christian to invent the story of Jesus’ baptism

Thanks, though I would prefer it if you would refer directly to the arguments you find relevant. There is a lot of information out there, and I have limited time. Anyone else is welcome to do so and I would be happy to reciprocate. I won't tell anyone to just go Google it or whatever.

spin · 06-10-2013, 11:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by andrewcriddle

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

On the Apollos passage in Acts 18:

Actually, it does say that he didn't know Jesus at all before Priscilla and Aquila fixed him up. That is the whole point of the passage. Apollos seems to have known the prophecies and the teaching of John about the way of the lord (remember the citation of "prepare the way of the lord"?). So what he knew about the messiah was what John had taught. He didn't know about the christian messiah, Jesus. He knew nothing about Jesus's teaching of the baptism of the holy spirit, only about John's baptism. That is why Priscilla and Aquila had to take him aside, so that he could teach the way of the lord more accurately. Not just what John taught about the messiah, but about Jesus directly. This allowed him to show that Jesus was the messiah (18:28).

This passage shows the theological debt christianity owed to the spread of the Johannine religion after John's death and shows that there was an alternative messianism in circulation that taught about the coming messiah, that one had to prepare for. It would seem that Priscilla and Aquila took Apollos's preaching of the messiah to come as teaching about Jesus, which would suggest a partial absorption of the Johannine religion into early christianity.

There is a textual issue in Acts 18:25. The later manuscripts the TR the KJV etc read that Apollos spoke and taught accurately the things concerning the Lord. The earlier manuscripts NA etc read (probably correctly) that Apollos spoke and taught accurately the things concerning Jesus.

Yes, it's not up for question, though it doesn't affect what I've said. It doesn't mean though that Apollos had any knowledge about a real Jesus to speak about him in the eyes of Priscilla and Aquila. John knew about the messiah that christians took (take) to mean Jesus, but knew nothing of a real Jesus... at least until--according to christian traditions--after Jesus went to be baptized.

Quote:

Originally Posted by andrewcriddle

If Jesus is original here it does seem to indicate that Apollos knew somewhat about Jesus being the messiah.

That does not follow from the text. Apollos needed to be taken aside and corrected. What we see here is the equivalent of someone politely saying that he'd basically got it right about Jesus from the prophetic sources, but now he needed to know about Jesus. Apollos knew the baptism of John and probably John's teachings of the coming messiah, so, as christians took John's "way of the lord" to refer to Jesus, they should take Apollos's rehearsal of John's teachings to refer to Jesus as well. If he really talked accurately about Jesus qua Jesus (and not "the messiah?--he must mean Jesus"), then he would not have needed correction.

Toto · 06-10-2013, 11:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

...
Thanks, though I would prefer it if you would refer directly to the arguments you find relevant. There is a lot of information out there, and I have limited time. Anyone else is welcome to do so and I would be happy to reciprocate. I won't tell anyone to just go Google it or whatever.

Literary critics and NT critics do not make simple arguments that can be easily summarized.

You had the time to start three separate threads on a subject you pretend to know something about. Perhaps you just need to prioritize your time.

TedM · 06-10-2013, 11:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

If he really talked accurately about Jesus qua Jesus (and not "the messiah?--he must mean Jesus"), then he would not have needed correction.

Not necessarily. See my last post.

ApostateAbe · 06-10-2013, 11:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

...
Thanks, though I would prefer it if you would refer directly to the arguments you find relevant. There is a lot of information out there, and I have limited time. Anyone else is welcome to do so and I would be happy to reciprocate. I won't tell anyone to just go Google it or whatever.

Literary critics and NT critics do not make simple arguments that can be easily summarized.

You had the time to start three separate threads on a subject you pretend to know something about. Perhaps you just need to prioritize your time.

K, never mind.

spin · 06-10-2013, 12:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

If he really talked accurately about Jesus qua Jesus (and not "the messiah?--he must mean Jesus"), then he would not have needed correction.

Not necessarily. See my last post.

It doesn't touch on the issues of needing correction and what Apollos was talking accurately about.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.