Clivedurdle

I am posting in various threads and my overview may not be clear.

I see Ellegard as very useful in pulling the time frame earlier than 30 CE, I see a religion based on the Eucharist and the Didache as its instruction manual.

I see Christ in the heavens - probably similar to Dali's St John of the Cross.

I see Paul struggling with these pre existent ideas and attempting to extend them to all mankind, with well established churches.

Are then the Gospels later attempts to reconcile everything, probably based on a play? And acts as an attempt to reconcile Paul, Hebrews, Revelation and the gospels?

Clivedurdle

Has anyone seen the gospels as teaching material, to convert, to instruct new believers, and a play form as a useful communication structure?

PhilosopherJay

Hi Cliverdurdle,

Yes, the play form would be extremely useful for communications to illiterate masses.

Note this from Josephus (Ant. 19:13), as he describes the plays that Caius (Caligula) watched on the day he was assasinated:

and here he perceived two prodigies
that happened there; for an actor was introduced, by whom a leader of robbers was crucified, and the pantomime
brought in a play called Cinyras, wherein he himself was to be slain, as well as his daughter Myrrha, and wherein a
great deal of fictitious blood was shed, both about him that was crucified, and also about Cinyras. It was also
confessed that this was the same day wherein Pausanias, a friend of Philip, the son of Amyntas, who was king of
Macedonia, slew him, as he was entering into the theater.

My best interpretation is that there were two plays, one, a contemporary story about a crucified leader of robbers and another, a pantomime, about the incestuous Greek myth of Cinyras and Myrrha.

This indicates that plays about crucified leaders of robbers were written and performed at this time -- circa 41. We may suppose that it was a genre and the original play about the crucifixion of John the Nazarene and/or Simon Magus was written around that time.

In my book, The Evolution of Christs and Christianities, I placed the date of the original play around 45-46, as it would give time for feelings towards the characters to cool but not be forgotten. Also the extraordinary number of references to bread and the Word of God being the bread of life would be appropriate coming just after the famine of 44 C.E.

I think the play was originally for pure entertainment, although later, in its rewrite forms with John and Mark, it was used for conversion and instruction.

Warmly,

Jay Raskin

Wads4

I find it plausible that Jesus was acting out a play in which he was the pretend Messiah,-or perhaps he really believed it,--and that he was emulating OT prophets like Elijah, what with walking on water and being taken up alive into Heaven. The whole story sounds very theatrical.

Ben C Smith

So did Stephen. Are you a mystic?

Ben.

Clivedurdle

(New 10 Commandments - thou shalt not quote mine!)

I have just posted a link to the University of Aberdeen that has two "very different" religion courses. My background is sociology, psychology, anthropology so I agree with the second set of ideas there, where myth is understood as an integral part in the social construction of the reality we have now.

Dali spent a huge amount of time in Hollywood and used cinematic and photographic techniques to create his "St John". We "see" a huge amount in cinematic and televisual idioms.

Hum coca cola to yourself and try to stop imagining lorries going along snow covered lanes!

I am reading back my experience onto early xianity, trying to understand a very different world where people were terrified by spirits and who were continually seeking remedies like christs. The arguments may not be clearly put yet - different messengers may be seeing different parts of the elephant, but I do see another god with judaic elements.

Instead of jesus as myth would jesus as another god be more understandable? Is not God a myth as well?

Clivedurdle

I "see" Jesus as the lead character - like Hamlet. I like the idea of this woman Mary writing it, and strongly recommend

http://www.nazarenus.com/

for its delineation of the theatrical elements in the Passion. Arguments about authorship and conversion of the play into the gospels are secondary - I see Nazarenus as proving we are looking at a play, at least with the Passion.

And maybe Kipling is following an old tradition!

Wads4

Thanks--I shall read it up.

Dean Anderson

I just thought I'd bump this thread to mention that Jay's book was reviewed in this month's Fortean Times - and got a good review (and an 8/10 score).