PhilosopherJay

Hi Clivedurdle,

Good points in all your last three posts. My general formulation is to see both films and the gospels as communal dreams.

Warmly,

Philosopher Jay

Jeffrey Gibson

The question though is whether it's in any way legitimate to see the Gospels as such on the basis of what's "found" or alleged to be in films.

Jeffrey

Jayrok

Why aren't these sayings from these "famous" Rabbis and Greek Philosophers written down and preserved?

It seems all this could easily be put to rest if we had manuscripts from non-biblical sources that reveal the words of Jesus were first spoken by some sage or philosopher or rabbi. This would point to obvious fiction, not to mention plagiarism.

But as it stands, the document believed to contain these sayings (Q) is lost, or is a fiction itself. Until someone discovers evidence that these sayings were not first spoken by Jesus there is nothing to go on.

On the same token, when a Jewish audience first read or heard Mark's gospel narrative, those who would know if these were stolen sayings from rabbis and such would have cried foul up front, would they not? Unless they knew it was fiction and it was ok to put those words into the hero's mouth.

If it was meant as history, perhaps we would have rebuttals from the learned Jews. Since we don't... It's interesting to think about.

aa5874

But, when did learned Jews first see, read or hear the Jesus stories?

If you look at the Joseph Smith model, he does not have an audience before he write his story, he writes the story first and then tries to convince people that his story is true.

And, Joseph Smith is in control of his writings for a long time, his writings are sacred, the writings are from some God, he alone knows what is to be written, no-one else will know unless he tells them. The plates from the Gods are for his eyes only.

Joseph Smith is the one who tells the audience, those he wish to convert, piece by piece, and at his own pace, what is in his books from God.

This is the model I use for the Jesus stories of antiquity, some writer or doomsday character claimed he had some words from God or wrote some story believing the world would come to an end during his lifetime. And this doomsday character was in total control of his written story for a long time, it was sacred, it was from God, only the writer would tell what was inside.

gentleexit

The very real Mr Smith who didn't make up a great man. Did Smith mislead? Or did he grow to believe his visions? I don't know but I think you can say that he didn't intensionally write hints that he was misleading.

As I understand it, this thread is about intension to write "fiction". In other words, to intentionally mislead. It isn't about whether gospel writers imposed order on a life using Jewish lore or whether they fabricated "must have beens" but whether they did so with the INTENSION to mislead. And more, it's about whether they left CLUES of their cleverness for astute readers.

On intension to mislead. I think we're too stuck in our world of "supernatural" vs natural. They lived before the supernatural (and "hyperreality"). Visions, healings etc. were natural. What is fantastic to us, what must be fiction to us, was not to them. And great men followed certain ways then. Imposing those ways, when writing a life is not intension to mislead. It's application of common sense. That the books themselves have little of a real Jesus matters little to their writer's intension.

As for clues to such intension. That demands a level of sophistication that the gospels don't indicate. Like Mr Joseph Smith's, these stories were not written ironic, however much irony we see in them now in the light of subsequent or our own history.

For example, Joseph Smith wrote King James English. Oh, so transparent right. He wants us to know that his work is ridiculous. Really? He does? Or was this just natural language for godly work? Oh so serious.

The gospel writers wrote Jewish Greek, spare, simple ala much of the Septuagint. The stuff beloved of Auerbach et al. Very unlike the more verbose Greek or forms of their classical counterparts. Was this parody? A giveaway? Or just Jews following the conversions of their diaspora culture?

Toto

IIRC Jonathan Kirsch thinks that the rough Greek in Revelation was a deliberate part of the message, a rejection of the pagan Greek culture around the author. I think I have read similar speculation about Mark.

gentleexit

Rather than emulation of Septuagint tradition? In the main, spare, little bombast. Primed for "deep reading". Expected by their audience. The gospels written against another tradition or following their own? Which is more plausible?

Clivedurdle

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=experts-dance

Stories - like the Gospels are very rhythmical, introduction, middle bit, end. There are very good reasons why Hollywood did films like the Greatest Story Ever Told and Ten Commandments and...

They are obviously crafted writings to have an emotional reaction - exactly what a film or play or good story are about.

You have a struggle between good and evil, goodies and baddies - Pharisees - it is all rollicking good stuff - with a horror genre to boot!!

http://ezinearticles.com/?Why-Do-We-...ms?&id=1060951

Get the film studies folk studying the Bible!

bacht

At university I took an undergrad course on the mythological foundations of Western culture, one being the Biblical tradition. The text we used was "The Great Code (or via: amazon.co.uk)" by Northrop Frye, a literary critic. His breakdown of the narrative and metaphorical devices used in the Bible was illuminating.

Jeffrey Gibson

In answering your question, it is, I think important not only to take into account what H.B. Swete had to say about the Greek of the Book of Revelation in his discussion of its vocabulary, syntax, and style:

Quote:

The Apocalypse of John stands alone among Greek literary writings in its disregard for the ordinary rules of syntax. ... The book seems openly and deliberately to defy the grammarian (The Apocalypse of St. John, p. cxx).

but also the fact that Swete was and still is considered by students of the LXX one of the foremost experts on the Septuagint. (see his Introduction to the Old Testament in Greek)

In the light of this, the answer to your question would seem to be no.

Jeffrey