bacht

Just to split hairs: shouldn't we recognize historical fiction as a sub-genre of fiction? We wouldn't equate a character like Prospero with MacBeth would we?

andrewcriddle

See Roman_A_clef

Andrew Criddle

Newfie

But Jesus really doesn't emerge as the "only begotten Son of the one and only God", and I mean admitting it personally, until the Gospel of John, the last of the canonical Gospels to have been written. When you read the gospels in the order in which they were written it seems fairly clear that the character of Jesus is being developed towards being divine. This trend is picked up and continued by the Church Fathers until Jesus becomes a full member of something they have to invent, the trinity.

Similar things happen to other characters. Superman, for example, began as a simple strong man hero who couldn't even fly at first, only "leap over tall buildings." After some time, and people's gradual acceptance of this already incredible level of power, he was shown actually flying. From there he acquired heat vision, then cold breath, the ability to vibrate through solid objects, and the ability to survive in space without a spacesuit. This process took decades and even more abilities are being added to his repertoire today. Finally, in one memorable adventure he even created an exact duplicate of Earth, out of asteroids, in one day!

Now, had Superman started off this powerful I personally doubt that he would have caught on at all. He would have just been far too fantastic to accept all at once. Like all legends, it took time to fully flesh out the character, in this case about forty years to get the Superman we recognize today. Forty years, incidentally, is about the same time frame separating the first of the canonical gospels from John. Would Jesus have caught on had John been written first? I somehow doubt it.

bacht

Sure. The MJ argument proposes that Jesus started as a "fictional" character who eventually becomes historicized, with legendary accretions.

The parallel with Superman would be: a comic book character is invented in the 1930s, and by the end of the century he is commonly believed to have actually existed as a real superhero in Metropolis/NYC.

gJohn is interesting because in some ways it reflects the high Christology of the epistles, whereas Mark exhibits a reluctant, even satiric attitude.

The other way to read the gospels is to see the character of Jesus as what the Son would have been like if he had actually walked the earth. The epistles seem to focus only on the spiritual Christ who is yet to come.

Newfie

I made no such claim that Superman was real. The parallel between the two lies in that each started as far less "powerful" than they would ultimately become known. The difference lies in that Jesus may be based on an actual person who gradually was attributed more and more "power" and divinity until he actually becomes part of the godhead.

Essentially, his earlier qualities conform to the pleasant, meek fellow we are fond of describing to children. The wise teacher who judged no one. Gradually he is given ever darker, mythic characteristics and becomes the spirit of vengeance, and the unwavering master of all human salvation. He becomes the warrior Christ, all powerful, the eventual destroyer of the world. The face of God's wrath. The process is the same regardless of the character's roots being real or not.

Actual, historical people do sometimes acquire legendary qualities. Take Davy Crockett. Was he really the "king of the wild frontier" or merely a hard drinking rascal fond of telling stories about himself? And then there are figures like King Arthur and Robin Hood whom, at one time or another, were assumed to be historical figures, and may have been based on real people, but are also widely considered to be purely mythical. Any of the heros of ancient mythology may have had their roots in historical people as well. We may never know. So, the authenticity of the root of a character hardly seems to matter, but the gradual process of acquiring ever more outlandish features seems apparent.

aa5874

That is all that can be done with fiction, just split hairs.

Once a character is presented as fictitious, only the author can tell you how this character was derived or fabricated.

spamandham

In the case of Crockett, he was a senator in real life, and died in the legendary battle of the Alamo. It's understandable how he grew into a legend.

Ok, so Jesus was not magical. So then, what was so special about him that all these stories grew up around him?

Wandering sages, healers, magicians...these were a dime a dozen in the first century. Once you remove the obvious legend and myth, and the pre-existing wisdom sayings that he certainly didn't originate, you are left with nothing at all of interest. If there was a historical figure who became the gospel Jesus, we know nothing about him. So why assume he existed?

bacht

Or, the Christ was revealed to the early witnesses as fully Son of God, co-creator and sustainer of the universe, sitting at the right hand of the Almighty until his imminent manifestation at the end of history. Later the gospel writers decided to create a "biography" of this supernatural being, bringing him down to earth, in fact the reverse of what you're describing.

Newfie

Crockett was a congressman, a rather unsuccessful one actually, who told the people of his state to “go to hell” for not reelecting him. That’s what brought him to Texas, as legend (and his own autobiography) has it, where he was indeed at the Alamo, but how he died there is up to speculation. The image of him fighting the Mexicans tooth and nail until being overwhelmed by their numbers seems to be largely coloured by the John Wayne and Disney treatments of his character. Some evidence has surfaced that Crockett may have been captured and later executed. The feeling at the time was that, as an Indian fighter, he would never have allowed himself to be captured. We may never know.

Plenty of others died at the Alamo. Not all were raised to the same levels of heroism as Crockett, but all are revered as heroes of Texas. People, Americans particularly, love their heroes. Witness how all of the victims of 9/11 have become revered and elevated to martyrdom in popular imagination without any thought about their actual characters.

Paul, actually, may have been the deciding factor. He is often credited as being the true founder of Christianity. “Historical Jesus” may have been an individual, or a composition of different people and legends taken up by Paul and made the centre of a movement of his creation. It could all have been just a matter of timing bringing the root symbol (Jesus) together with the innovator (Paul) at just the right moment. This could explain how a “dime a dozen” religious figure caught on where countless others failed.

I don't assume HJ existed, but I often find myself wondering how a typical, devout rabbi nowadays would feel if someone whispered in his ear "After you have gone, I will convince the world that you were God."

bacht

Paul may been the founder of gentile Christianity, or maybe the most successful apostle to the gentiles among others.

I think your point about timing applies more to the 2nd C and after, when gentile Christianity became strong enough to challenge paganism and Gnosticism.

You don't seem to like the epistle focus on the heavenly Christ, which was probably decades before the first gospel was written. Paul talks the same way, referring to the pre-existent Son rather than some obscure prophet executed by Pilate.