Enlighten Me

Following the earthquake that occurred when Jesus died, did Mel show the tombs of the dead saints opening and their bodies staggering out ? (Mt. 27: 52) The macabre, cinematic possibilities with that part of the crucifixation story make me believe that Mel MUST have included it....So how was that part?

Cross Examiner

Mageth,
Yes. And?
No. The original context is not clear at all.
Assuming the conclusion. How do you know that the Gospel accounts are not historically verifiable? Trust me, if we ask enough questions we'll get down to your bare assumptions on things.
Why do you assume we cannot probe the historicity of the Gospels? Looking for a basis upon which to take your word, Mageth.
If you do not believe that 'myth' and ahistoricity are synonymous or parallel then you shouldn't have written the following, especially that subordinate clause at the end:
'The crucifixioin [sic] account may or may not be true (or more or less true); however, it is properly a myth and not an historical account.' You clearly mark these two ideas as corollary. You also do so without marking it as your opinion, rather than presenting it as fact, and you do so without offering justification.
You do not support your assertion that the texts are not verifiable.
How do you know they were not 'written as literal' (whatever that is supposed to mean)? Why do you assume they are not historically accurate?
This is a very dogmatic pronouncement. You should qualify these 'contradictions' you see with the word 'alleged', and stop assuming a priori that your interpretation of things is the right one. That is bad form. And apparently you don't pay attention. I classified the sixth station out of ignorance on the details. You understand what this means, yes?

Enlighten Me,
Why would Mel include that? It would be anti-climactic to take the focus from the Christ and put it on others. Even during the earthquake, the camera hardly strayed from Christ. Mel barely touched on Christ's Resurrection. What would make you believe that he would shift focus in order to include the post-mortem appearance of others?

Regards,
BGic

Enlighten Me

In order to exploit even more of the gruesome possibilities of the event...Well, on second thought....I guess it would detract from the story, since it is so patently absurd. It might cause people to think less of the Bible, and that would obviously not be Mel's intent...

Cross Examiner

Yes. It would detract from the film. I can say that confidently having actually seen the film. I don't think any of this has to do with causing greater or lesser estimation for the Bible in the public mind.

Regards,
BGic

Mageth

Originally posted by Billy Graham is cool
Yes. And?

And so it's not surprising that the role of Mary was stressed in the movie, when she is most definitely not in the Gospels. Do I have to spell everything out for you?

No. The original context is not clear at all.

I explained it here:

Honestly, if you can't understand from that what I mean by "myth", I don't know what else to say.

Assuming the conclusion. How do you know that the Gospel accounts are not historically verifiable?

Because they are not. There are few if any external sources to verify them from, and there are serious questions about the few that do exist. So there's simply insufficient external sources to verify the Gospels. They thus remain myths.

Trust me, if we ask enough questions we'll get down to your bare assumptions on things.

My "bare assumption" is that unverifiable accounts, in particular ones that include fantastical claims like the Gospels do, are properly classified as myth. That's about it.

Why do you assume we cannot probe the historicity of the Gospels?

Did I say we couldn't probe the historicity of the Gospels? I did not; indeed, such an effort has been going on for a long time - and guess what? The historicity of the Gospels remains in serious question among scholars - hence they remain properly classified as myth, not history.

Unless some heretofore unknown external sources to verify the religious texts of the Gospels turn up (and I wouldn't hold my breath - remember the recent Ossuary fiasco), such probing will not be able to verify the historicity of the Gospel accounts. Hence, they remain properly classified as myth.

Looking for a basis upon which to take your word, Mageth.

I've given it to you over and over; that you refuse to accept it (and it's not that difficult thing to accept) is not my problem.

If you do not believe that 'myth' and ahistoricity are synonymous or parallel

What I said was "Myth does not mean "untrue" or "not historical" as I use it", which is true. A myth may have some basis in history, indeed may be entirely true, but since it cannot be verfied as historical, it remains a myth. This is a very simple concept, SOMMS. And, funny thing, it's not even given as a criticism of the Gospel accounts - merely a factual observation (that they are properly classified as myth).

then you shouldn't have written the following, especially that subordinate clause at the end:
'The crucifixioin [sic] account may or may not be true (or more or less true); however, it is properly a myth and not an historical account'.

I wrote that earlier, and still completely agree with it (sans the typo in my spelling of "crucifixion"). And it doesn't conflict in any way with what I said above ("Myth does not mean "untrue" or "not historical" as I use it"). The crucifixion account may or may not be true, or may be partially true (remember, by myth I do not mean "untrue"), but (because it cannot be verified, is described only in obviously religious texts, and includes fantastical elements) the crucifixion account is properly classified as a myth and is not properly classifiable as an historical account. It could only be classified as an historical account if we knew it to be historical beyond a reasonable doubt, which we don't, and so therefore it remains a myth.

This may be hard for you to swallow, but that's the way it goes, SOMMS.

You clearly mark these two ideas as corollary.

No; read through my explanation more carefully. A myth may or may not be historical (true), or may be partly historical; however, if it is not historically verifiable, it remains in the category of myth, and not in the category of an historical account. This does not mean it is ahistorical.

You also do so without marking it as your opinion, rather than presenting it as fact, and you do so without offering justification.

It is a fact that tales, particularly religious tales with fantastical elements, that are not historically verifiable are properly classified as myths. This is not my opinion; this is a fact. And the Gospels fall firmly in the category of myth on this basis. And how many times do I have to provide my justification for my claim before you quit charging me with not offering justification? This is getting a bit tiring.

You do not support your assertion that the texts are not verifiable.

If you can successfully historically verify the Gospels (including all the fantastical elements, BTW), go for it. If you do so, you will make a name for yourself in the world of Theology, Biblical Criticism and research, and archaeology, no doubt, as many have tried and failed.

Until then, your claim that I fail to provide support for my assertion that the texts are not historically verifiable rings hollow.

And I should point out that, when I make that assertion, I am really talking about "at present" - the Gospels are (today) not historically verifiable. It is possible, I suppose, that some new find or finds will be dug up somewhere that would bolster support for the historicity of the Gospels. Or Jesus could come back tomorrow. But I don't think either is bloody likely, really.

How do you know they were not 'written as literal' (whatever that is supposed to mean)?

You don't know what "literal" means in regards to a biographical account? Think as opposed to "metaphorical" or "poetic"; maybe that'll help.

How do I know? Because they weren't. Because I've read quite a bit on the subject (Pagels, Spong, Joseph Campbell, etc) and understand a bit about writing styles of the day, and about the reasons and mechanisms used in writing the Gospels. Literal historical accounts weren't particularly in vogue, esp. in religious writings. Poetic, metaphorical, inventive - those were the religious literary tools of choice. And there was the ancient Jewish practice of Midrash. You should read up on it. The Gospels are full of "midrashes" from Jewish tradition and scripture.

They were written as religious texts to stress the teachings and "miraculous" events of Jesus' life. There was much added to them (midrash) to link Jesus to Jewish scripture. The gospel writer's intent and purpose was not to record a literal history of Jesus' life, actions, and words, but to build upon the myth of Jesus and stress different theological points (Jesus' divinity, culpability of the Jews, Hellenization of the gospel message, response to the Gnostic gospels and teachings, etc.)

Why do you assume they are not historically accurate?

Umm, because they include contradictory accounts, outright historical mistakes, externally unverifiable and questionable historical events (earthquakes and sky darkening after the crucifixion, Herod's killing of the infants), historical events that are implausible in the face of known history (e.g. Pilate submitting to the demands of the Jewish mob), recordations of conversations (e.g. between Pilate and his wife, and Jesus' words in the Garden of Gethsemane when alone) that were not witnessed by the authors or anyone else that might have reported the words, not to mention many incredible accounts of miracles (virgin birth, raising the dead, walking on water, feeding the 5000, the resurrection, etc) that cannot seriously be taken as "history" in the 21st Century? Further, they include many details in Jesus' birth, life and death that are obviously "midrashes" from Jewish scripture (I'll refer you to John Shelby Spong's Reurrection: Myth or Reality? for more details).

This is a very dogmatic pronouncement. You should qualify these 'contradictions' you see with the word 'alleged', and stop assuming a priori that your interpretation of things is the right one. That is bad form.

To quote Walter Brennan, "No brag; just fact." The accounts of the death and resurrection in the four Gospels include several contradictions - of this there is no question. Be my guest if you want to tackle reconciling them all.

And apparently you don't pay attention. I classified the sixth station out of ignorance on the details. You understand what this means, yes?

I pay attention. Do you know what "tacitly" means, which I included in my comments on your classification fo the sixth station as myth? It might not be the perfect word, but it was included to indicate that you were not making a positive classification of the sixth station as a myth, as you indicated with your admission of ignorance, though you correctly classified it as a myth.

And if you have any independent historical verification of the Gospel accounts, please feel free to share it with us.

Further, this further illustrates my point - we (you and me both, along with everyone else) indeed have a lot of "ignorance" about the Gospel accounts. There are a lot of details left out, there are contradictions between the accounts, there are the many other questions I raised about the accounts above, and they are as of now not historically verifiable (unless you want to tackle this task), and are not likely to ever be historically verifiable. We simply do not have all the answers to the many questions raised by the Gospels. Therefore, we will likely remain with a lot of ignorance about the Gospels, and the Gospels are thus correctly classified as myths.

Enlighten Me

Hopefully, I have. But I'd recommend you read Spong and Elaine Pagels if you really want enlightenment, and/or seek out other (hopefully non-biased) critiques of the Gospels/Bible; they no doubt could do a better job than I.

Enlighten Me

BGiC said: "Yes. It would detract from the film."
_________________________________________

I still think it would have provided some needed comic relief. Imagine hordes of zombies with putrid flesh that gradually becomes blemish-free through the wizardry of special effects. Then consider the many joyful outcries of: "Look, Ma---no decay!"

Enlighten Me

Thanks....I've read Spong, and I'm now reading Karen Armstrong. My user name reflects a willingness to learn---not a complete lack of learning...

Proctors_Gambit

(hoping we can put this to rest...)

Is the death of Judas shown in the movie?

If so, did he hang himself (Matt 27v5) or fall headlong and have his guts rip open (Acts 1v18)?

Or both?

-Gambit

Cross Examiner

Mageth,
OK. This is a red herring though.
Please tell me you are not equating the historicity of a compendium of ANE documents to the number of contemporary external corroborative citations. Even so, what is the quantity and quality of 'insufficient external sources’? Shall we apply your 'test' of legitimacy to all ancient historical documents to see if they pass muster? Do you know what would happen to our corpus of knowledge of the past if we were to actually apply your 'test' consistently? Sorry, can’t buy it. I'm not a nihilist.
You assume the Gospel's as 'unverifiable' according to your self-imposed, arbitrary, unrecognized 'test' of document credibility and, upon that, hastily classify them as 'myth'. That seems convenient.
You say the Gospels '...remain properly classified as myth, not history'? As the well-read, even handed Bede remarks:
'It is worth noting that most of the published sceptics or revisionists who reject the historicity of the Gospels are actually theologians rather than historians. Clearly, we would not expect them to have the same objectivity as a classicist with no religious leanings.' So, who are these many reputable unnamed historians that classify the Gospels as 'myth'?
What do you base your heavy emphasis of external verification upon?
Factual observation? Who classifies the Gospel as 'myth', as a matter of fact? Campbell? To a carpenter, every problem is a nail and every solution is a hammer. Is it a big surprise that J. Campbell, a mythologist, sees (or, saw, at least) the NT as myth?
You borrowing jargon from the legal profession now? This is quite a new definition of historicity you’re foisting upon us. Let's see what we have so far. According to you, Mageth, an event is historical if it has sufficient external corroboration (whatever that means) and that the event's actuality be beyond a reasonable doubt. Where did you get this method for qualifying the historicity of events from?
Um. I'm Billy Graham is cool, BGic for short, not SOMMS.
Your horse is 'historical verifiability'. We know the method you espouse. Just need to support it now.
But that just begs the question. Are the Gospel's 'not historically viable' as you assert? It is apparent that your categorization of them as 'myth' is dependent upon them being 'not historically viable'. Of course, you're not anywhere near supporting that claim so far. Like I said, we'd get down to your bare assumptions.
Not so fast. Since you have been proclaiming loudly that the Gospels are 'not historically verifiable' you get the burden of backing that position up. Note that I don't get the burden, you do. You assert. You back it up. Open a thread at BC&H if you think you have a strong case.
Ah. I am glad you were not using 'not written as literal' as a euphemism for 'purely allegorical', as is a commonplace practice here at IIDB. And I am keeping current with NT scholarship. I am presently reading the eminent N.T. Wright's 'The Resurrection of the Son of God'. He is about as current and legitimate as it comes in this field. And it should surprise no one that Matthew relies heavily on OT citation and Jewish tradition etc. In fact, Wright argues against alleged 'pagan borrowing' by emphasizing this reliance upon Jewish thought and tradition, among other points.
Much of this is true with regards to Matthew but less so with Luke, for example.
This is a list of typical revisionist allegations, not an argument. And I'll take Wright over Spong any day of the week and twice on Suday. Thanks anyway.
No need. There are plenty of harmonizations out there. Mine would just be redundant.
Then you've missed my point. Any classification based on ignorance is worthless.
The heart of our disagreement is over what 'historically verifiable' means. So far, you say you need sufficient external corroboration and that the event be beyond reasonable doubt. I'd like to know where you get this standard from and why it is your chosen method for qualifying events as historically reliable or not.
Enlighten Me is the handle of another poster that I responded to, not a request for you to tell me something that you believe. Regarding your beliefs, do you believe that Spong and Pagels are 'non-biased'?

Proctors_Gambit,
The death of Judas is shown and is, in my opinion, one of the most disturbing elements of the film due to the Satanic influence that Gibson portrays as behind his desperate actions. He dies by hanging and his innards don't spill out.

Regards,
BGic

Mageth

Sorry about the mistakes in usernames I made. I've been involved in a long discussion with SOMMS on another thread, and BGiC and SOMMS's posting styles and content appear a bit similar to me, so sometimes the two kinda run together.

BGiC, it would simplify matters if you separated replies to different posters into different posts.

I think we've both had our say on this pretty much off-topic subject, so I'll keep this reply short rather than replying to each of BGiC's comments.

First, about the historical verifiability of the Gospels. You claim that is up to me to illustrate that the Gospels are not historically verifiable. If they are currently historically verifiable (in all their details), then they would be considered historically verified, no? Well, they are not. Much effort is put in by biblical scholars etc. in a continued effort to historically verify the Gospels and their details. This effort would hardly seem necessary if the Gospels are historically verifiable. Perhaps, some day, they will be considered historically verified, but as of today they are not. I seriously doubt they ever will be. So it remains up to you to provide some evidence that the Gospels are historically verified if you think they are.

Second, about considering the Gospels myth. The Gospels include many supernatural events that are not historically verified, in addition to many natural events that are not historically verified. The Gospels are religious texts, and were written as religious texts with many elements, both natural and supernatural, midrashed into the accounts. Therefore, the Gospels are properly considered religious myths. As I said, in saying that, I'm not saying that the Gospels are not "true"; I'm saying more that they are not to be taken as literal historical accounts. "Myth" may not be the only way to classify the Gospels, but it is a correct way to classify the Gospels.

I understand your reluctance to accept the classification of the Gospels as "myth". It makes it sound like the Gospels are untrue (something which I have not claimed in this thread), and it is in the interest of strictly literalist Christians (assuming you are one; I'm not sure) to assume the Gospels are "literal, historical accounts" of the life of Jesus, as they think that only then are their beliefs justified. If you read Spong's Resurrection, you will find an excellent deconstruction of this literalist viewpoint. The Gospels may be accepted as (largely) mythical while still recognizing the truth they are trying to convey. IMO, this "metaphorical" truth, if you will, is more powerful, more meaningful than any that may be derived by a strictly literal translation.

BTW, here is a Native American myth, for comparison:

http://www.livingmyths.com/Native.htm#White

Now, would you make a similar argument for this tale that it is "not historically unverifiable", that it may be historically verifiable, and thus is not properly classified as a "myth", or would you simply admit that this tale is properly classified as a myth? And if you do think that this tale is a myth, how do you reach that conclusion? What differentiates it from the Gospel accounts?