PhilosopherJay

Hi Pete.

Jerry Siegel and Joe Shuster signed a deal in 1938 with National Allied Publications (which was run by publisher Harry Donenfeld and accountant Jack Liebowitz) before the publication of the first Superman story in Action Comics #1 in June, 1938. They were paid $130 and hired as employees. While Siegel and Shuster were soon making $75,000 a year, (1.2 million adjusted for inflation in 2011 dollars) Donenfeld made millions. Jerry Siegel sued in 1946 and ended up getting a settlement of $200,000, but losing all rights

Superman appeared in Action comics in late April 1938. By the following year he had his own monthly comic book and appeared in a daily six days a week syndicated newspaper comic strip. The next year, he was on a daily radio show and another Sunday newspaper comic strip. There were nine animated cartoons by the Fletcher Studios and Paramount released in movie theaters in 1941.

The interesting thing is that while the comic book was canonical, many elements that later came into the comic books were first introduced on the radio show and in the comic strips. For example, kryptonite was part of an early radio show plot and Lex Luthor first appeared in the comic strips. It was in the Fletcher cartoons that superman first started flying. All of these elements were later incorporated into the comic book.

In 1948, there was a live action movie serial and a television series in 1951.

1938 - character appears in comic book
1939 - own comic and comic strip
1940 - radio show
1941- Animated short
1948/50 Live action movie serial
1951-1958 Television show
1978- Live Action Movie

Basically we can see the character being copied in different media and new elements tested in different media. Popular elements remained and were re-incorporated into the other media.

We should perhaps think of the sayings elements, the magical elements and the apostle elements as almost separate media that developed alongside of the gospel media and influenced and were influenced by them.

Warmly,

Jay Raskin

TedM

One huge difference between the Superman and Jesus comparison is media omniscience. This difference is large enough to render such a comparison 'potentially meaningless', IMO.

PhilosopherJay

Hi TedM,

Could you explain a bit more about media omniscience?

I think perhaps media is the wrong word, perhaps genre-media would be better. We find Jesus in a number of different genres in the Second century. He's mentioned in 1. epistles, there are instructional pamphlets 2. (Didache) 3. sayings gospels (Thomas), 4. apocalyptic literature (Revelation), 5. novels (Pseudo-clementine), 6. hymns (Logos Hymn in John), 7. Rhetorical Appeals (Apology by Justin Martyr), 8. Philosophical Treatises (Address to the Greeks by Justin Martyr and 9. numerous gospels and at least 10. purported histories (Acts of the Apostles.

By the Third century we have images on 11. A Temple Wall (Duros Europa). By the Fourth century we have images in 12. freestanding sculptures (Good Shepherd) 13. Catacomb plaster and 14. sculptures on sarcophagai (Junius Bassus), 15 diningroom floor mosaic (Dorset Mosaic)


Warmly,

Jay Raskin

Horatio Parker

Robert Price thinks that James was co-opted by the early church in the same way John the Baptist was. And that "brethren" may have meant another group of disciples besides the twelve, not biological relations. That would explain no one else being from Nazareth.

aa5874

No! No! No! It is your assertion that is meaningless because you ADMIT that history is AMBIGUOUS and Speculative.

What HUGE difference are you talking about? Your "difference" MUST be AMBIGUOUS.

No author of the NT claimed that they personally MET an ordinary man/woman who was baptized by John and crucified under Pilate.

In KJV of gMark, and this is NOT speculative, Jesus of Nazareth walked on the sea and it was a TRANSFIGURED Jesus of Nazareth that was crucified.

What is the source of antiquity for your AMBIGUOUS and Speculative "historical Jesus of Nazareth?

Steven Carr

That all makes no sense. 'Jesus of Nazareth' is used as a name as surely as Leonardo da Vinci is used as a name, although it is a description of where his family came from.

but if you prefer to use the word 'description', rather than 'name', the fact remains that it would appear that Josephus relied on his readers not knowing that neither James nor Jesus was widely described as coming from Nazareth.

TedM

You keep repeating a logical fallacy. Just because Josephus uses a term that doesn't connect Jesus or James with Nazareth it doesn't imply that Josephus or his readers were unfamiliar with that connection. If Jesus was widely known as the Christ, why in the world would it be unusual to refer to him as Jesus, called Christ, and by extension to refer to James by referencing his much more widely known brother?

TedM

I am going to change my angle on this some:

Everyone knew Superman was made up. This enabled creation of multiple types of Supermans in a very short period of time by using all the available medias.

We have no clear indication, that ANYONE thought Jesus had been made up. And, we don't have a whole bunch of portrayals of Jesus in a short time. The different portrayals (in the media) of Jesus occur over a much longer period of time due to the slower media. The fact is that the media was much slower in the days of Jesus (ie they didn't have a printing press or television to distribute the exciting story nearly instantly), and that the primary 'media' was word of mouth. Word of mouth is one of the least RELIABLE methods of transferring information

The evolution of the story we see is very understandable EVEN IF people all agreed that Jesus was a real person because between the various media uses you have outlined was enough time to allow for the oral transmission that did exist (and surely it would have since we are talking about the long-awaited Jewish Messiah, or a Savior of actual souls here), to create a Jesus with embellishments that were then reflected in the media.

So, the primary mode of media (oral) can explain the evolution of the accounts all by itself.

As I reflect, my primary objection to the Superman comparison is that it appears to me that very few if any Jews were expecting a Messiah to not come to earth and if one was created like that in the oral tradition we would see that reflected in the other forms of media. But, we do not. We don't see the issue discussed. There is no debate about the Messiah never actually having come to earth. Can you image Superman being written about as a real historical character who was on earth without seeing some form of discussion about it--the flurry of arguments and demands for proof?

Despite the oral tradition being so very unreliable, we have no record of Jesus as not having come to earth. Why? Because the Christians destroyed/tampered with them all? Seems like something would have slipped through that wouldn't require Earl Doherty or others to twist like pretzels or cry interpolation at very turn in order to squeeze out the mythical meanings they want to see.

aa5874

No, No, No.

It is you who is blatantly repeating logical fallacies.

1. You admit History is AMBIGUOUS and SPECULATIVE.

2. The authors of the Jesus story did NOT even describe Jesus as human or acting as human.

3. The authors of the Jesus story did NOT even claim that they PERSONALLY SAW OR interacted with Jesus.

4. Contemporaries of the supposed Jesus did NOT even claim that they SAW or personally interacted with Jesus.

5. The Christian writers, like Origen, Eusebius and Jerome who mentioned "Antiquities of the Jews" as AUTHENTIC still claimed Jesus was the Child of a Holy Ghost and God Incarnate who was RAISED from the dead.

6. Christian writers used the supposed authenticity of "Antiquities of the Jews" to CORROBORATE the Jesus of the NT.


Origen in "Against Celsus"2.13
Origen in "Against Celsus" 1.32 Origen has SINGLE handedly destroyed the theory that authenticity of Antiquities of the Jews" support HJ.

Since the 3rd century, it was claimed that authenticity of "Antiquities of the Jews" support that Jesus was supposedly on earth as the Child of a Holy Ghost and God Incarnate who was SEEN alive on the THIRD day.

TedM

aa, your post has nothing to do with my post. Please stay on topic.