Freethought & Rationalism Archive

jgoodguy · 06-11-2011, 09:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

Quote:

Originally Posted by yalla

The attempt by Christians to label the gospels as biographies is founded on the presumption that there was a life to describe.

As one scholar has put it:
"Twentieth century scholarship with its faith in history assumed a historical Jesus as its starting point"

The same scholar asks a key question:

"To what extent does the figure of Jesus ......fulfill a function in a narrative discourse about something else?
Is Jesus rather - like so many other great figures of ancient literature- the bearer of a writer's parable? The question does not refer to our knowledge of our historical person. It asks instead about the meaning and function of biblical texts."

He further makes the point that:
"Before we can speak of a historical Jesus we need a source that is independent of [the gospels] and refers to the figure of the early 1c."

From:
"The Messiah Myth" T.L. Thompson p8,9.

Rather than ask the wrong question, are the gospels bio-graphy [which presumes a life to describe] I would ask this:
Did the authors of the gospels invent the "Macguffin" and thereby predate Alfred Hitchcock by millenia?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MacGuffin

OK. So, what type of literature is the gospel of Mark? And what do you take to be the closest analogy to the gospel of Mark?

I'd take a look at the Amazon description of the book too.

The Messiah Myth: The Near Eastern Roots of Jesus and David (or via: amazon.co.uk)

Quote:

The Messiah Myth reads like nothing more and nothing less than a promising doctoral dissertation. (Kirkus Reviews)

Quote:

For Thompson, Jesus and David emerge merely as characters in stories that reveal the value of the good king. Although Thompson provides a valuable service by situating the Jesus and David tales in the context of other ancient Near Eastern literature, his argument that the biblical writers used such literature to write their fictions of David and Jesus is neither new nor startling. In addition, the lack of a coherent structure and a definitive conclusion lessens the effectiveness of Thompson's book.

Quote:

Unlike many in the historical Jesus debate, Thompson is not interested in disputing Jesus' existence per se. Nor does he attempt to determine which statements, attributed to Jesus in the Gospels, are authentic. Rather, he aims to show how Near Eastern understandings of kingship shaped the literary figure of Jesus, and, accordingly, he sketches three ancient concepts of kingship-the good king, the protector/savior/warrior king, and the dying and rising god king

We already know that the Gospels are not intended to be either history nor biography. "Macguffin" and Alfred have nothing to do with it. The Messiah Myth notes the literary formula used by ancient authors and compares that formula to that of the gospels. Again nothing new.

ApostateAbe · 06-11-2011, 10:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JoeWallack

N/A

Thanks, Joseph.

I quoted Bart Ehrman in completion because his arguments and explanations are the relevant points, not so much his authority. I didn't mean to leave that wrong idea.

I think the biggest problem with your alternative hypothesis, that Jesus in Mark was the main character of a Greek Tragedy much like Oedipus Rex, is that Jesus does not seem to fit the profile of a tragic hero. Tragic heroes like Oedipus are flawed, are they not? Their flaws cause their tragedies to be brought upon themselves, by themselves. Jesus in Mark shows no obvious sign of tragic flaws. He is portrayed as if he is either perfect or near-perfect, which is something we do indeed expect of the main character of Greco-Roman biography.

Another problem is that tragedies require destruction of the main character at the end, and the ending of Mark is not tragic. He was crucified, but he was then resurrected, explicitly according to the angel in the tomb.

In your thread, maybe you can take care of those objections. Cheers.

aa5874 · 06-11-2011, 11:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

Quote:

Originally Posted by JoeWallack

N/A

Thanks, Joseph.

I quoted Bart Ehrman in completion because his arguments and explanations are the relevant points, not so much his authority. I didn't mean to leave that wrong idea.

I think the biggest problem with your alternative hypothesis, that Jesus in Mark was the main character of a Greek Tragedy much like Oedipus Rex, is that Jesus does not seem to fit the profile of a tragic hero. Tragic heroes like Oedipus are flawed, are they not? Their flaws cause their tragedies to be brought upon themselves, by themselves. Jesus in Mark shows no obvious sign of tragic flaws. He is portrayed as if he is either perfect or near-perfect, which is something we do indeed expect of the main character of Greco-Roman biography.

Another problem is that tragedies require destruction of the main character at the end, and the ending of Mark is not tragic. He was crucified, but he was then resurrected, explicitly according to the angel in the tomb...

Well, the Jesus story is a perfect example of an ancient MYTH fable.

Jesus PREDICTS when he will die, and when he dies he resurrects and then VANISHES instead of continuing to preach the Gospel of the Kingdom of heaven.

Mr 1:14-15

Quote:

Now after that John was put in prison, [u]Jesus came into Galilee, preaching the gospel of the kingdom of God,

And saying, The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand, repent ye, and believe the gospel.

If Jesus was just an actual man in gMark then he SURVIVED the crucifixion so why did he JUST VANISH instead of continuing to preach about the coming of the Kingdom of God?

What happened to Jesus the Messiah?

Jesus should have been FEEDING the POOR and PERFORMING miracles AFTER he resurrected but he DISAPPEARS.

The Jesus story has MASSIVE holes and is MOST likely a MYTH fable.

jgoodguy · 06-11-2011, 11:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

Quote:

Originally Posted by JoeWallack

N/A

Thanks, Joseph.

I quoted Bart Ehrman in completion because his arguments and explanations are the relevant points, not so much his authority. I didn't mean to leave that wrong idea.

I think the biggest problem with your alternative hypothesis, that Jesus in Mark was the main character of a Greek Tragedy much like Oedipus Rex, is that Jesus does not seem to fit the profile of a tragic hero. Tragic heroes like Oedipus are flawed, are they not? Their flaws cause their tragedies to be brought upon themselves, by themselves. Jesus in Mark shows no obvious sign of tragic flaws. He is portrayed as if he is either perfect or near-perfect, which is something we do indeed expect of the main character of Greco-Roman biography.

Another problem is that tragedies require destruction of the main character at the end, and the ending of Mark is not tragic. He was crucified, but he was then resurrected, explicitly according to the angel in the tomb.

In your thread, maybe you can take care of those objections. Cheers.

Another view can be found at What Is a Gospel?

Quote:

Today, it is generally agreed upon that the gospel genre must contain two elements in order to be called a gospel. The work must embody the stories and kerygma of the early Jesus movement and it must organize these elements into a narrative outline. To get an idea of the Sitz im Leben at work, let us now look briefly at the Gospel of Mark.

Quote:

One reason Mark's narrative seems so rushed is that he seems to have taken, what the form critics refer to as a collection of pericopes, and joined them together with the Greek word euthus, which literally means "immediately." The word "immediately" appears 43 times in the Authorized Version of the gospel. The SV translation here uses the more contextually correct word "then" rather than "immediately" since it is widely believed that this was Mark's intention.

Stanton (1990) divides Mark into six sections or acts (as in a play), consisting of the Prologue (1:1-13), the Proclamation (1:14-3:6), the Galilean Ministry (3:7-6:6a), Call of the Disciples (6:7b-13), The Way of Jesus (8:27-10:52), and the Final Confrontation (11:1-13:37).

I'd say that the author or Mark was not writing fiction, history or biography as 20th century folks understand the terms.

Steven Carr · 06-12-2011, 12:30 AM

On page 67, Ehrman says 'Mark' wrote down some of the stories about Jesus that he had heard.

Rather surprisingly, Ehrman gives no evidence that 'Mark' had heard these stories in any sort of oral tradition.

I wonder why historians feel no great need for evidence for their 'facts'

ApostateAbe · 06-12-2011, 06:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steven Carr

On page 67, Ehrman says 'Mark' wrote down some of the stories about Jesus that he had heard.

Rather surprisingly, Ehrman gives no evidence that 'Mark' had heard these stories in any sort of oral tradition.

I wonder why historians feel no great need for evidence for their 'facts'

Also on page 67:

"An introductory textbook such as this cannot provide an exhaustive analysis of Mark (or the other Gospels). My purpose here is simply to provide some guidance for your own interpretation of the book, by supplying you with important keys for unlocking its meaning."

If you want evidence and arguments, I suggest that you go to the scholarly articles that deal specifically with that debate.

If you were to ask me for a good argument that Mark had heard of these stories in any sort of oral tradition, I would say that such is the pattern seen most explicitly in Luke and Paul, and the gospel of Mark in particular is organized like a hodge-podge series of barely-related stories and sermons, as if they were taken from a diverse set of legends about Jesus.

Vorkosigan · 06-12-2011, 06:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

If you were to ask me for a good argument that Mark had heard of these stories in any sort of oral tradition, I would say that such is the pattern seen most explicitly in Luke and Paul, and the gospel of Mark in particular is organized like a hodge-podge series of barely-related stories and sermons, as if they were taken from a diverse set of legends about Jesus.

They are not a hodge podge. The organization is deliberate.

ApostateAbe · 06-12-2011, 06:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vorkosigan

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

If you were to ask me for a good argument that Mark had heard of these stories in any sort of oral tradition, I would say that such is the pattern seen most explicitly in Luke and Paul, and the gospel of Mark in particular is organized like a hodge-podge series of barely-related stories and sermons, as if they were taken from a diverse set of legends about Jesus.

They are not a hodge podge. The organization is deliberate.

Mark must have had some sort of reason for organizing the stories the way he did, but that doesn't matter. The point is that you can leave out any one, two, or three portions of the narrative, and the narrative works just as well as it did before.

dog-on · 06-12-2011, 06:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vorkosigan

They are not a hodge podge. The organization is deliberate.

Mark must have had some sort of reason for organizing the stories the way he did, but that doesn't matter. The point is that you can leave out any one, two, or three portions of the narrative, and the narrative works just as well as it did before.

Which is true with about every piece of fiction ever written...

Now, like fiction, what happens if you remove the exposition, or the resolution, for that matter?

ApostateAbe · 06-12-2011, 06:29 AM

I have dog-on on my ignore list, so anyone can let me know if he says anything legit.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

06-12-2011, 12:30 AM	#15
Steven Carr Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: England Posts: 5,629	On page 67, Ehrman says 'Mark' wrote down some of the stories about Jesus that he had heard. Rather surprisingly, Ehrman gives no evidence that 'Mark' had heard these stories in any sort of oral tradition. I wonder why historians feel no great need for evidence for their 'facts'

06-12-2011, 06:29 AM	#20
ApostateAbe Contributor Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: MT Posts: 10,656	I have dog-on on my ignore list, so anyone can let me know if he says anything legit.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.