perfectpawn

I joined this discussion forum just so I could respond to the "Nazarene Gospel Restored" thread (which I found after a Google search on "Nazarene Gospel Restored," http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=179241). However since that thread is over a year old, I can't post on it anymore, so I'm opening up a new thread on this book, published in 1953 by Robert Graves and Joshua Podro.

I just received the book from the library, and 26 pages in I'm already wondering if I should finish it. At 1,000 pages of small type, it's quite a commitment.

First, it irks me that Graves and companion don't include notes or a bibliography -- the latter of which isn't there, they claim, because the book is "already long enough."

But now I've just come to a section where Suetonius is mistranslated. Graves mentions the well-known line from "The Life of Caligula," about "the instigation of Crestus," yet he translates "Crestus" as "Christ," to support his argument. I thought it's only been a long-standing theory that "Crestus" is a mistranslation/misunderstanding of "Christ?" For all scholars know, there could have been an actual personage at that time named "Crestus," and Suetonius made no "mistranslation" at all. Yet Graves makes it seem that Suetonius specifically mentions Christ -- which might not be the case at all.

So I'm wondering if I should even continue. I should point out I already disagree with the theory. Rather than believing (as Graves, and later Eisenmann -- whose "James the Brother of Jesus" I think resembles the "Nazarene Gospel Restored" very much) that Christianity was a Jewish religion which was taken over by Gentiles and Hellenized, I believe the reverse -- that it was a purely Greek Mystery religion which was given a Jewish color, to appeal to "the locals." In fact I don't even believe in the historicy of Jesus (I say this as a former Christian), so there's another problem with Graves' theory.

The funny thing is how forgotten this book is. I only discovered it through a fluke. I read somewhere only a handful of copies were sold, and Graves considered it the biggest disappointment of his life.

mountainman

This was recently pointed out to me:
Kersey Graves as authority -- Richard Carrier's Notes.

For me this translates to a few things:

1) His lack of citations does not mean he was wrong.
2) Follow him by backtracking the actual citations.

There are a number of issues here.

1) Christos and Chrestos

See this thread.
what is the difference between χρησιανόν and χρισιανόν ?

This is the analagous case in the greek.


2) The Suetonius reference has been treated in a number of
different ways by many commentators and scholars. Here is
an example, from my review of C. Suetonius Tranquillus
involving explanation of the text by Jay Raskin.



There are many opinions on the historicity (or ahistoricity)
of the New Testament. My favorite is Emperor Julian's:

It is, I think, expedient to set forth to all mankind
the reasons by which I was convinced that
the fabrication of the Galilaeans
is a fiction of men composed by wickedness.

Though it has in it nothing divine,
by making full use of that part of the soul
which loves fable and is childish and foolish,
it has induced men to believe
that the monstrous tale is truth.

It may yet contain a few gems.


My advice, for what its worth, is that the whole
phenomenom of christianity, and the great and
holy flaming quest for the historical Jesus, or indeed
the ahistorical Jesus needs to be grounded firmly
in the field of ancient history.

Biblical History is an unhealthy sub-domain of the
larger field of ancient history. Think expansive.

Best wishes,


Pete Brown

J-D

There is no connection between Robert Graves and Kersey Graves.

J-D

True.I'm not sure what your point is. Are you suggesting that ignorance of a 'long-standing theory' is evidence of poor scholarship on the part of Graves (and it would have been Graves, not Podro--it was Graves who contributed classical knowledge to the collaboration)? Even if it is a long-standing theory, was it already a long-standing theory in 1953? In any case, Graves, being human, is fallible--that alone is surely not enough reason to dismiss the whole book, surely?Well, if reading books written from a point of view that you disagree with is a problem for you, you've answered your own question, haven't you?He did, however, record with satisfaction that two reviewers (both clerics--apparently it was reflexively and predictably distributed to clerics for review) implied that he was a poor scholar, that he sued them both for libel, and that both publishers settled out of court rather than defend the suits.

The most noticeable thing about the book, to me, is that Graves and Podro explain how they would explain every single line of the four canonical Gospels within the framework of their theory. I don't know of anybody else who has made such an attempt.

Ljoilae

I don't know about this Nazarene Gospel but as someone interested in preserving authentic Celtic cultures he's on my black list for The White Goddess and all the bs it has led to. Pretty horrifying when you hear about people in Arran or the Hebrides that are still pretty close to their culture, and when trying to strengthen native traditions end up adopting some bs fabricated by people like Graves.

J-D

The White Goddess

There's also some of the same sort of stuff in his novel, King Jesus, but The Nazarene Gospel Restored takes a noticeably different sort of line, possibly because of the influence of the co-author.

mountainman

Good point J-D. Thanks for the correction.

DCHindley

I came across it in a library some years ago and wasn't impressed, although I have to admit I don't impress easily. It seemed to be entirely based on conjecture (in other words, was pretty subjective) with nothing critical offered to support the "reconstruction."

DCH

J-D

That sounds like a fair enough criticism, but I'm curious to know how, in general terms, you would distinguish between the conjectural and subjective and the critical.

perfectpawn

Thanks for the responses. I've stuck with the book and am about a hundred pages in. So far I'm enjoying it, and my earlier reservations are forgotten. J-D is right; I've never come across a book on the gospels that attempted so much, save for maybe James Morgan Pryse's "The Restored New Testament" (another book the Nazarene Gospel Restored reminds me of -- even similar titles) from 1922. And granted, I agree more with Pryse's reconstruction/theories of the Gospels, but there is a LOT of information here in the Graves/Podro book.

So is it ignored by the current crop of Biblical researchers because it's so rare and unknown? Or because Graves isn't a "scholar" of the expected sort?

Like Pryse, I think Graves is stymied in that he wrote before the Dead Sea/Nag Hammadi scrolls were translated for the public. Does anyone know if Graves ever commented on either of them?