ApostateAbe

I have dismissed neilgodrey's theory that the gospel's were novel because of it doesn't match the patterns. Novels and mythical epics contain heaps of romance, adventurism, drama, comedy, tragedy, fights, and that sort of thing. The gospels contain only minor amounts of those things at the most. But it does contain plenty of religious sermonizing, boring and obnoxious to anyone who isn't a religious adherent. It contains genealogies. You don't find genealogies in novels, because they are boring. Only a religious devotee would care.

But there are certainly parts of the gospels that do strike me as fictional. There is a good reason that the birth story is acted out among children most often. It is the most entertaining part of the gospels, and it really is completely fiction. Same with the story of Satan tempting Jesus.

So the theory that Jesus was a character in a novel isn't all bad. But I put it on the same level as other Jesus theories, such as the social-reformer Jesus, the revolutionary Jesus, the cynic Jesus, etc. Such theories explain only a limited selection of the data. I prefer a theory that explains as much of the data as possible.

aa5874

But, there is good reason that the entire Jesus story is fiction and that the Jesus stories are not credible. We can make a quik list of all the known fiction.

1. The conception.

2. The temptation.

3. The miracles where Jesus instantly healed incurable diseases.

4. The walking on water, the feeding of 5000 and 4000 men.

5. The transfiguration.

6. The betrayal, trial and crucifixion.

7. The resurrection.

8. The ascension.

There is virtually no credible data about Jesus.

You have already admitted that you are guessing. Your theory explains nothing. You must first locate a credible historical source for your apocalyptic Jesus since you have already discredited much of the the DATA in the NT and cannot confirm any part as true.

aa5874

And after the impermament detachment why was the Jesus part raised from the dead?

Because the MYTH was not detachable.

gurugeorge

Whoa! I don't think he says that much - it's not necessarily the case that they are novels. What needs to be done is just look at the novels, look at the gospels, and note that there are many similarities in the tropes. Just sit with that for a minute. It could mean any number of things. The similarity is there, and undeniable, and it has to be accounted for before giving the gospels, etc., the status of historically evidentiary texts (or not giving them such status).

You can't just make a plausibility-knitting-together of the story in the texts, and then somehow account for those similarities. The similarity comes first, and forms the context for the decision as to how to categorise these texts wrt whether or not one will be likely to find historically reliable data in them.

Ah, but if you look at the canonical gospels in context, they're only the most sober of a fairly lively bunch. Some of the fringe gospels are even more like novels, they have that sort of bodice-ripping feel to them.

The most likely idea is that the gospels and the novels were competing in the same literary arena. Somehow, for some reason, the writers of the gospels, whether they believed what they were writing or not, were couching their story, the story of their Jewish saviour god, in a semi-novelistic form, with many similar standard tropes to those novels. The gospels were expected to appeal to people educated enough to read, who were also readers of novels. Something similar could be said for another idea that I was impressed with: the idea that the Jesus biography uses another literary format well known at the time: the form of a Stoic exemplary biography, a story about a person that concretizes philosophical questions and moral problems, in the person's biography, in the actions they do, etc.

So the Christian writers were trying to appeal to the same audiences that enjoyed popular novels, and Stoic exemplary biographies. (Wouldn't this have been the beloved literature, respectively, of the traditional Roman materfamilias and paterfamilias? )

And so on and so forth - there are many game-changing possibilities, and these have to be thought through before we can confidently talk about "what hangs together".

Later note: on re-reading the above, it suddenly occurred to me that the Christian writers were indeed aiming at their natural audience. Suppose the novel format is a cheeky genre that evolved in those times as a result of a sizeable minority of people being involved in one kind of mystery cult or another - suppose the novel format was a nod-and-a-wink, kind of fun genre, meant as enjoyable literature, but also having the subtle reminder, to those "in the know", of the mysteries. I wonder if such a literary genre was possible in those days? Anyway, supposing it is, then that's the natural arena for the Christians to compete in. i.e., they were competing for membership with other saviour/mysteries cults, using some forms of literature that people who were members of those cults would be familiar with.

Likewise, as they were hoping to appeal to philosophically educated people, they cast the biography in a vaguely Stoic format.

But anyway, the main point I suppose, is, that the presence of novel tropes in the Christian gospels renders nugatory any evidentiary status those tropes might have in the Christian story. It may very well be the case that some of those elements of story happened, but what we can't do, given the similarity of tropes with novels, and other mystery/pagan ideas generally, is say that the presence of those tropes in the Christian story is historical proof. Once they are elements of a "myth" (in the very broadest sense), they become unreliable as historical indicators.

ApostateAbe

I accept the argument that the non-canonical gospels may follow literary fictional patterns, because they do tend to be sensationalist, and they are later writings that are probably far removed from the historical elements. And I am sorry that I misunderstood that neilgodfrey's theory is that the gospels were novels. What is most relevant to me is how to best explain the gospels of Mark, Q, L, and the Pauline epistles, the earliest Christian writings.

Solo

You answered your own question because you need answers to everything right away. Jesus rising from the dead (in flesh) was work in progress over decades in which different factions contended for access to Jesus as oracle. There was no Jesus of Nazareth rising bodily from the dead and talking to disciples in Paul's time or at the time of Mark's writing. This was a myth under construction promoting apostolic authority at the expense of direct revelations by Jesus through the Spirit.

Regards,
Jiri

sschlichter

Aren't these passages from Mark and Paul about Jesus rising from the dead bodily?

Mark 8:31
Mark 10
1 Cor 15
Phil 3:10

aa5874

Well, Paul was one of them "Christian mystery hound" because Jesus Christ was raised from the dead in Paul's time based on the Pauline writings.

See Galatians 1.1Ga 1:1 - Paul's Jesus was the same God/Man in the canonical Gospel. Paul identified the entity that was raised from the dead as Jesus Christ.

From where did Paul get the name Jesus? He knows the character on a first name basis, by an earthly name Jesus. And he uses the name Jesus over 150 times .

Paul even claimed he received some information from Jesus that he was betrayed in the night and supped with the disciples.

Paul's Jesus was a GOD/MAN. Paul's Jesus supped and was raised from the dead.

The mythological Jesus cannot be detached from Jesus of NAZARETH.

Elijah

The motive would be having a messiah that couldn't be killed because he was already dead; a leader who couldn't control you. It would also be to preserve the reputation of JtB and of the rest of the group who believed he was the messiah when he was alive.

sschlichter

How in the hell did the gospels preserve their reputation? They were all portrayed as scattered, fearful, and thick as bricks. Which gospels are you reading?

I am not sure you are making any sense. People with political ambitions do not follow dead people to their death. that requires the absense of political ambitions. What motives are you assigning to those who wrote the gospels?

~steve