spin

Yep.

Sorry, I can't find much that needs any comment. The issue is that we have a historical foundation for Alexander supplied in the archaeology and epigraphy as I briefly summarized. You start off with what you can know about the past before you delve into literature. Something that is contained solely in literature doesn't give us access to the past. That goes for the Trojan War as well as the feeding of the five thousand.


spin

dog-on

Spin,

Is there any historical foundation for an HJ besides Mark (and possibly Paul)?

spin

I don't consider that either gives any consolation to HJers.


spin

dog-on

I am always amazed that the argument for the historicity of Jesus, when the available evidence is in view, seems to be based on the presumption of existence. Due to the nature of the subject being investigated, shouldn't the presumption of non-existence be the starting point? Is there any other area where such a reversal of simple logic is the "scholarly" position?

Why the pass here, especially among those with supposedly little or no emotional attachment?

Rick Sumner

I think GDon's original point is being missed in all this discussion about historicity, which was a question of genre--intent of an author--rather than the existence of an historical Jesus. Perhaps Alexander can bring us back there.

Let's look, not at Alexander, but at Augustus, and how he was received in his world. I don't think anyone is going to deny that parallels drawn by those in the Augustan age between Octavian and Alexander are both myriad and premeditated. This is true to such a degree that Persian art is copped wholesale, with Augustus' face replacing that of the mighty Persian. This type of borrowing is not unlike what is (inaccurately) termed "Midrash" in the NT's use of the OT. It's not an exact parallel, but few parallels are. The idea is more or less the same, however.

But is there any reason to suspect that anyone engaging in this either intended, or was received, as fiction? I'm not aware of any, but there are myriad reasons to think otherwise.

Which brings us back, I think (though GDon is more than welcome to correct me if I'm wrong), to GDon's initial point: Genre is a slippery, slippery beast, and takes a little more than cries of "Midrash" to establish authorial intent.

Regards,
Rick Sumner

Magdlyn

I see a confusion here as to what midrash is, and more importantly, what is its intent.

None of the posters here seem to be scholars of Judaism.

According to the description of this book (which book I have not read), the purpose of midrash is to discover God's intent, by expanding on a Tanakh story.

http://www.urimpublications.com/Merc...duct_Code=midr [*]

Those stories can be expanded to almost ludicrous levels. See Enoch for an example!

Here's another one mentioned on the link:

So, let's extrapolate this midrash interpretation idea to the 4 gospels. The authors, by expanding on the Moses/Joshua Torah story, putting it in a "modern" context, with the Roman occupation standing in for the (legendary) Egyptian enslavement, were attempting to discover God's purpose for the Jews in their time. Did they go to ludicrous places (almost as crazy as Gabriel pinning a tail to a queen), by combining Jewish legend with Greek religio-drama (Dionysus)? Yes, imo. But that's midrash for ya!


[*] Learning to Read Midrash on Amazon (or via: amazon.co.uk)

GakuseiDon

Just as an addendum to this thread, Dr Bock refers to Midrash in the Gospels here: http://blog.bible.org/bock/node/282

Toto

:banghead:

Do Christians realize that this "why would they die for a lie" argument has been refuted over and over again? Do they know how it discredits their arguments to even bring it up?

GakuseiDon

I think you are reacting to what you think he is saying, rather than what he actually says. "Die for a lie" is usually refuted by pointing out that early Christians weren't lying, but they genuinely believed it (where "it" is, for example, the cosmic Christ). But Dr Bock is saying something slightly different here (my emphasis):

"... certain teachings in the New Testament cannot be explained as the product of midrash because they represent distinct takes on Jewish teaching. For example, the important idea of a resurrection in the midst of history is not a Jewish idea, but a Christian adaptation of a Jewish idea. No midrash of a text brings us to this fresh idea. Rather it is the claim of an empty tomb and appearances that does (see 1 Cor 15). Had a Jewish idea been midrashed, then Jesus could simply be a raised judge at the end of history such as the idea appears in a text like 1 Enoch. Such distinctions mean that something generated the new belief. One could claim it was simply made up, but if so why die for the idea?"

Bock is saying that resurrection of Jesus in the past is unlikely to be midrash as there is nothing in the OT for such an idea to be "midrashed" on. I suppose the rejoinder is that Paul somehow thought that the cosmic Christ died in the past in that sublunar "world of myth", but then it goes back to Bock's point: Paul wouldn't have got that by using using what is normally attributed to "midrash". Did he make it up? Unlikely. So where did the idea come from?

I'm not saying that mythicists can't make a case here (though I suspect that "failure of imagination" and adhoc scenarios unsupported by the literature will make an appearance soon enough), but I despair that knee-jerk reactions to what scholars write simply because they are Christian are not going to advance the debate. "Die for a lie" is irrelevant to Bock's point.

Toto

If it is irrelevant, then why did he muddy up his argument by saying it, discrediting everything he has written?

He can argue that the Resurrection is not the result of a midrash on the Hebrew Scriptures. That's a legitimate argument. But he then leaps across a chasm and concludes that the alternative to midrash is that it must have happened because "why would they die for a lie?"