Keith&Co.

And just wrong.

How about a class on History?
You cannot evaluate a document as historical information unless you know who wrote it and when. It also helps to know for what reason.

Authorship of the gospels is unknown, as are the dates they were created. As for reason, that would largely depend on who wrote them and when, no?

So. What's left is something that could as easily be made-up-shit as any sort of historical document.
And when compared to other historical documents, looking for events that those people would have written about, there's silence. No account of Herod slaughtering children, no account of the Dead walking through the city after Jesus' death, and so on.
Made-Up is, really, the best possible evaluation of the Gospels at the moment. But any sort of actual evidence would be more than appreciated...

Clivedurdle

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



I don't remember saying anything about when the cycle began and ended, and Mark for example with its very exciting beginning with God saying this is my beloved son definitely reads like a romance!

But the fact that Mark has an exciting start and denouement, Matthew embellishes things, Luke does as well and John goes universal with the idea and there are a myriad other stories and versions and it isn't a cycle of romances?

It really does look as if different rules are being applied to similar matters - one has the significant difference that it is a cultural foundational story, of god so loving the world that he sent his son etc etc that it is very difficult to say hang on, the emperor has no clothes, although there is no problem with other characters like Arthur.

Clivedurdle

http://www.britannia.com/history/arthur/kamyth.html

Is the problem more to do with the soil the story grew in? In a classic celtic gods scenario a character like Arthur can be seen to emerge.

But Jesus is from an area that has had interactions with empires for thousands of years - that changes the story telling sensibilities - it is no longer folk but maybe urban folk?

The tales are based on a most high god for example and explicitly use ideas like logos and 153 from the maths sects.

andrewcriddle

Despite the later myths about Arthur, the original Arthur was probably human. A British leader and warrior against the Saxons.

However we know little to nothing about his actual career. In particular the idea that he fought at the battle of Badon (a real genuine historical important battle) is probably legendary. The historical Arthur probably was active later than Badon and further North.

(There is an interesting issue here. If the historical Arthur didn't fight at Badon is he really the historical Arthur at all ? Or is it better to say that the Arthur story is a legend incorporating various elements from history and Celtic myth including a minor 6th century Northern British warrior called Arthur ? )

Andrew Criddle

Ben C Smith

IIUC, the gap between the putative time of Arthur and the earliest extant sources that mention him is about 300 years. Compare that gap to the one between the putative time of Jesus and the earliest extant sources that mention him.

Ben.

Clivedurdle

Nope

http://www-personal.umich.edu/~merri...timetable.html

andrewcriddle

The problem is that Gildas (online here http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/basis/gildas-full.html in an old and not particularly good translation) makes no mention of Arthur.

He does mention Badon/Bath-Hill but that is another matter. IE nobody doubts the Battle of Badon happened. The question is did Arthur fight at Badon ?

Andrew Criddle

aa5874

In order for you to claim Arthur PROBABLY existed, you MUST show the basis for that probabilty.

Now, you claim that "little to nothing" is known of Arthur's actual career, so you really have "little or no" basis to say that Arthur PROBABLY existed.

You mean you don't know if Arthur existed, but MAYBE he did.

mountainman

M.R. James, introduction to the Acts of Andrew,
The Apocryphal New Testament Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1924.


There clearly is extant a cycle of very early romances obviously acknowledged by scholarship, and accord to a traditional dating to the early centuries (via Eusebius and his non de plumes such as Tertullian) which is to be associated with the gospels.

The non canonical romances are extant in the BC&H too hard basket.

Best wishes,


Pete Brown

patcleaver

Please define what you mean by cycle of romances - I am not sure what it is. All I could find out was that The Arthurian tails by Malory and Tennyson are considered a cycle of romances and that several series of Romantic novels are referred to as a cycle of romances. Would you say that it is a series of interrelated stories that share some of the same characters, themes, and settings.

---------------------

The Gospels are cyclic romances.

In a cyclic romance, the hero leaves his home on a quest; faces some danger or difficulty and/or humiliation; overcomes the danger, difficulty or humiliation using virtues; and then returns home.

In a divine cyclic romance, the divine magically comes down from heaven; faces some danger, difficulty and/or humiliation; then uses magic and virtues to overcome the danger, difficulty or humiliation; and then magically returns to heaven.

In the gospels, the divine (god the son) magically comes down from heaven (through the incarnation); faces danger, difficulty or humiliation (a trial, execution and burial); then overcomes the danger, difficulty or humiliation using magic and virtues (by resurrection); and then magically returns to heaven (ascension).

The gospels are basically the same type of divine cyclic romance as the stories of Julius Caesar, Heracles, and probably dozens of other myths and novels well known in the Roman empire.

----------------------

the gospels are a litergical cycle of romances?