Zwaarddijk

Many mythicists assert that the gospels are midrashim. How many mythicists have *read* a single midrash (duly note: let's not include gospels in it before we've shown that it has sufficiently many characteristics to be included in the category in the first place!)? How many mythicists that parrot this particular claim know anything about midrashim except what they've heard from other mythicists?

This issue has been on my mind for quite a while, as it seems to me that midrash is becoming a catch-all term for a text whose meaning someone wants to claim is only a metaphor, rather than an actual genre in Judaism.

It would seem to me that the gospels, as far as Jewish genres go, have no (surviving) equivalent in Rabbinic Judaism. I should read up more on the DSS stuff, maybe some stuff there is similar, but those are not generally identified as midrashim.

So, my question is: you mythers here, how many have actually read a bona-fide midrash - Pirke de Eliezer, any of the Midrash Rabbah, Sepher HaYasher, Midrash Tanhuma, Yalkut Shimeoni, ... ?

stephan huller

It isn't just mythicist who abuse the term "midrash." I've read "real scholars" describe Marqe's Mimar as a "midrash" when it plainly is not one. The Samaritan Tulidah describes Marqe as "creating (a) Wisdom" from the Pentateuch. Whatever you call it, there are examples of pseudo-historical narratives consciously developed in light of scriptural passages from the period. Yes there was a destruction of the temple in 70 CE but the accounts of Josephus and Gittin consciously borrow from scripture in an absurd fashion which leads to mythopoesis. The gospel is like that.

Gorit Maqueda

I'm guilty, I haven't read any Midrash (I think). May I ask Z why the gospels cannot be viewed as Midrash?

semiopen

There is confusion about whether to take Midrash literally - and the other aspect of whether those who don't are heretics.

A case can be made that the sages meant aggadah and midrash to be taken literally, for example, the Midrash says the sea split into twelve (or thirteen - I forget) separate channels for the Israelites during the exodus from Egypt.

Although nothing supposedly changes in Jewish tradition, gradually these arguments died out, as a literal belief is too ridiculous to defend.

Thus, it seems the OP is weird, as Midrashim were arguably probably not meant to be taken allegorically until relatively recently.

Googling "midrash literal" gives a lot of discussion on the topic.

My guess is that the Gospels are similar, they were meant to be taken literally.

stephan huller

I love these people who pretend the gospel is a most accurate representation of historical fact. I was thinking about this once when reading commentary on one of the many passages where "the disciples" "didn't understand" what Jesus was saying or doing. If the eyewitnesses didn't get it right how did the evangelists do better?

MrMacSon

There is no contemporary documentation by eyewitnesses: all texts were written later - at least several generations later.

stephan huller

No that's not my point. My point is that - even by the claims of the Christian tradition - there is this consistent notion that the very eyewitnesses themselves didn't know or didn't understand what was going on around them. How then can the account developed from these very mentally challenged people have been judged to be divinely inspired? The point about the gospel being written by other people and later not withstanding. How do you make the divine scrambled eggs starting with rotten eggs, or the best chicken soup starting with toilet water?

You and I agree this is absurd. But you guys - the so-called 'mythicists' - are so eager to go off happily and say Christians are stupid, the gospel is a lie etc. For me I go in another direction. This can't possibly be the original understanding. No one is so stupid as to believe it is possible to make the best scrambled eggs starting with rotten eggs. There has to be another answer - i.e. a visionary who wasn't one of the 'stupid apostles' portrayed in the gospel wrote the original gospel, and it was probably great, by any standard of measure. We've just got stuff with toilet water soup.

MrMacSon

My statement was not meant as a counter; more as a common.

I agree I doubt a visionary was behind it: more a development of a story - a meme - over several generations, or longer ie. over several centuries (& probably starting before the 1st century CE).

aa5874

Please name all the HJers and MJers who have read midrash?

Please, show us what your statistics say about HJers and midrash?

What are your sources for your claims?

Zwaarddijk

Certainly.

The example given does not tell us whether they intended for them to be taken literally or not - "A case can be made that the sages meant aggadah and midrash to be taken literally" - certainly, but what does this have to do with - ", for example, the Midrash says ..." - am I missing something? It doesn't seem as though the latter contributes anything to the former half - as if you have a subclause that is notionally entirely disconnected as far as content goes from the main clause!

Fascinating, as what you're talking about has nothing to do with what I am talking about - I am really fascinated by people not getting things, may I inquire as to whether your case is one of jumping to conclusions, not giving a fuck or hobby-horse? Whether or not they were supposed to be taken allegorically is entirely irrelevant as to whether the gospels are midrashes or not.

As do I think! However, I find the significant difference in GENRE to be the important thing here; the Gospels don't share similarities with the midrash genre, and thus conflating them with that genre is unjustified.