richard2

Hi,

Gospel Fictions by Randel Helms appears to be a popular little book, so I bought it and read it. I then read J. P. Holding's critique of the book that's here: http://www.tektonics.org/gk/helmsr01.html, and now I'm not sure what to think. His criticisms appear valid, but I admit my knowledge on these subjects isn't that great, so I am looking for an informed response to Holding's article, which I would really appreciate.


thanks,

Richard

Ben C Smith

Just a note. Holding could have scored some points when he speaks of mimesis as an acceptable way of writing up a story, whether fictional or historical. However, when he goes on to use the story of Croesus in Herodotus and the benedictus in Luke as examples, he spins his wheels a bit, since many would regard both of those precisely as fictional (or at least fictionalized) creations by their respective authors. What he needs is a strong example of mimesis in what is undoubtedly an historical narrative. Does he offer any besides his hypothetical what if scenario with Lincoln and Kennedy?

Ben.

Vorkosigan

C'mon, it's Holding. It's well-written misdirection, of course, with a screen of conservative erudition. Holding is far more sophisticated than he used to be, but if you read carefully you can really see that he is at heart your basic low-level apologist:

(1) any resemblence to the OT is because Jesus planned it that way

• 62 -- here again would be an example of deliberate fulfillment by praxis, as Jesus enacted Is. 35:5 and other passages purposely.

or

• Helms notes wording similarities between descriptions of Elijah in 2 Kings 1 and of John the Baptist in Mark 1:6. Both are described as wearing a "leather belt" (zonen dermatinen) around their waists (peri ten osphyn autou in Mark; ten osphyn auto in 1 Kings). From this we are apparently to deduce that Mark simply made up things about John in order to match him to Elijah. This is yet another mountain/molehill comparison (leather belts were, after all, standard wear in this time for desert-dwellers, and where else would you wear them but around your waist!), but under the rubrics first described above. the common inclination in Judaism would be to take purposeful, dynamic and obvious actions in order to draw a purposeful parallel and thereby deliver a message: Jesus purposely chose 12 disciples to represent the 12 tribes of Israel, and stayed 40 days in the wilderness to purposefully parallel the Exodus. Similarly today, a hunger striker may fast 14 hours, one for each of 14 prisoners being held against their will. Symbolic acts such as these, created to invoke a particular point, are part of normal human communication.

(2) objectors are bigots who hate Christianity.


(3) The Gospels are ancient biographies and ancient biographies are whatever Holding needs them to be.

(4) and the usual run of apologetic explanations that invoke information not present in the text on the assumption that since it is history:

• 5 -- Helms asks why trace the lineage to Joseph; the simple answer is that Jesus obtained legal ancestry via adoption.

(5) and of course, simply making unsupported claims:

• see link p. 61 above re allegations of differences in Matthew and Mark concerning Jesus' capability and faith -- there is no such difference as Helms envisions

...though of course there is such as difference.

This is bog-standard conflict-resolution apologetics, at which Holding is perhaps the greatest master of all. I bow to his superior ability.

Vorkosigan

Steven Carr

Helms is using techniques developed by Christians to critique the Book of Mormon and the Koran

Ruth Tucker is an evangelical Christian. In her excellent book, 'Another Gospel', (Zondervan,1989), she examines the beliefs of Mormons, Moonies, Jehovah's Witnesses etc. Here is what she says about the Book of Mormon.

"Many of the stories in the Book of Mormon were, as Fawn Brodie and many others have shown, borrowed from the Bible. The daughter of Jared, like Salome, danced before a king and decapitation followed. Aminadi, like Daniel, deciphered handwriting on a wall, and Alma was converted after the exact fashion of St. Paul. The daughters of the Lamanites were abducted like the dancing daughters of Shiloh; and Ammon, the American counterpart of David, for want of a Goliath slew six sheep-rustlers with his sling".

What could be more obvious and clear-cut?

Or take Chapter 2 Verse 249 of the Koran, which is about the first king of Israel, called Talut in the Koran.

So when Talut departed with the forces, he said: Surely Allah will try you with a river; whoever then drinks from it, he is not of me, and whoever does not taste of it, he is surely of me, except he who takes with his hand as much of it as fills the hand; but with the exception of a few of them they drank from it. So when he had crossed it, he and those who believed with him, they said: We have today no power against Jalut and his forces.

Christians will at once recognise this strange story about how God tested the army of the Israelites by making them drink from a river. It is found in Judges 7:4-7. Perhaps the details of other Biblical stories were also weaved together into this one story.

4. And the LORD said unto Gideon, The people are yet too many; bring them down unto the water, and I will try them for thee there: and it shall be, that of whom I say unto thee, This shall go with thee, the same shall go with thee; and of whomsoever I say unto thee, This shall not go with thee, the same shall not go.

5. So he brought down the people unto the water: and the LORD said unto Gideon, Every one that lappeth of the water with his tongue, as a dog lappeth, him shalt thou set by himself; likewise every one that boweth down upon his knees to drink.

6. And the number of them that lapped, putting their hand to their mouth, were three hundred men: but all the rest of the people bowed down upon their knees to drink water.

7. And the LORD said unto Gideon, By the three hundred men that lapped will I save you, and deliver the Midianites into thine hand: and let all the other people go every man unto his place.

It is very easy to spot when old religious stories have been recycled to produce new religious stories about other people.

Unless they are *your* religious stories.

Steven Carr

Holding repeats this, as many people do, although I have never seen any evidence for it.

How exactly do the disciples represent tribes of Israel?

Vinnie

Its probably too coincidental too be just a random number. Scholars think 12 disciples back then would have conjured up images of the twelve tribes. Doesn't look like much of a leap from this vantage point.

Jesus probably did purposefully call the twelve IMO but the forty day/night story is far weaker on historical grounds. I would disassciate them unlike JPH.

I think Holding would make good points if he was simply throwing arguments back but he might believe all these things are positively evidenced. Its sobering to remind skeptics that OT parallels do not mean creation necessarily. Real events were cast in light of the OT and real figures used the OT as sacred scripture and patterened themselves off of it (what was canon at the time anyways). It is quite possible a charismatic figure could re-enact some scene or attempt to fulfill some prophecy if the timing were right or heaven forbid, he actually thought he was the figure in question (what is the logical ban on this?).

The temptation scene is poorly attested and features a non-earthly being who tempts the Gospel's heroine. It "smells" mythological, has a "mythological being" (Satan) and a hero who throws off all the riches and power in the world to be hungry and serve God (performs a super-human task).

The twelve is certainly not in the same boat as the 40 day fast in the desert and the two notions should be segregated.
Vinnie

Chris Weimer

Paul first mentions "The Twelve" as a separate group from Cephas and James. Would it be too far-fetched to think that perhaps the Twelve were a group of disciples who represented the twelve tribes of Israel? Actually, that does fit with my earlier theory about the earliest Christians still being wholly Jews. If the historical Jesus was a messianic contender, than certainly restoring Israel would have been a key concern. Since in Ezra a Jesus restored the Temple (along with Zerubbabel, son of Schealtiel, who was an ancestor of Jesus according to both Matthew and Luke, which itself is odd enough), then perhaps twelve were chosen as a symbol of the Messiah. One Messiah for twelve tribes, and twelve people representing the one Messiah. Since Israel would be under the Messiah's leadership, it only makes sense to have the Twelve as disciples.

Vorkosigan

I have no trouble with a historical twelve. I think it is pointless to try and dig up their origin midrashically, as there are just too many possibilities. Joshua erecting 12 pillars, Elijah plowing with twelve oxen.....

Michael

Steven Carr

Another example of misdirection.

The point is not that John wore a leather belt, but that Mark chose to write about it.

If it was standard wear, and so not worth mentioning , why mention it?

Perhaps if Mark tried to describe John as a magician, by saying that John showed he had nothing in his hands and nothing up his sleeves, Holding would claim that this description was not made to make John look like a magician, because almost everybody has nothing in their hands and nothing up their sleeves.

Holding writes :-
'From this we are apparently to deduce that Mark simply made up things about John in order to match him to Elijah.'

No , we are to deduce that the Gospel writers were doing more than simply recording facts. Their works are theological, not journalistic.

Vinnie

The restoration of Israel seems to be the key interpretation. I don't think Paul's usage restricts Cephas from the twelve. It simply gives him primacy within the twelve or simply shows a chronology (Jesus appeared the Peter alone then to the Twelve (which includes Peter as his readers probably knew). This chronology of course can be viewed as an act of primacy much like some see GJohn as trying to prioritize the beloved disciple over Thomas, Peter, etc.

Vinnie