Doug Shaver

I for one do not think and never have thought that those were the only two possibilities. Neither do I think that every document ever written can fit only one category.

But if

1. The events narrated in a document did not actually occur, and
2. The writer knew that they had not actually occurred, and
3. The writer did not intend or expect his readers to think they had actually occurred,

then the document is a work of fiction, though it could also have been something else.

Magdlyn

Or else the writer thought of Moses as "legendary" as well! A symbol of a proper relationship to god, an example of righteousness. And so, "Jesus" (named after Joshua, Moses' successor) is a modern example to emulate, in the time honored tradition, with the beloved Psalms quoted as "script."

Then add in Clivedurdle's excellent idea of Mark as a mystery play, and there you have it. Syncretization of Jewish legend in novel form, and Greek religious drama.

Really, go ahead and read Incredible Shrinking. It gives plenty of examples of this idea.

Midrash could get pretty over the top in CE Jewish writings. See the Talmud-- compare and contrast with the gospels and Paul.

No Robots

Price's argument is that the historical kernel, if any, of the NT is buried irrecoverably within Midrash:

I have summarized the series of realizations about methodology and evidence that eventually led me to embrace the Christ Myth Theory. There may once have been an historical Jesus, but for us there is one no longer. If he existed, he is forever lost behind the stained glass curtain of holy myth. At least that’s the current state of the evidence as I see it.--Price

Brunner's whole book is an argument that the midrash does in fact give us an accurate portrait of the man.

Midrash, like any other literature, does provide insight into the historical factors that are inherent in its composition. In this sense, the NT provides a complete portrait of a single outstanding personality. This is a historical fact. Now, some say that the personality portrayed is fictional or is virtually so. It is against this position that Brunner writes.

Midrash, like other teaching, has an object. What is the object of the NT? Clearly it is to present the personality of the central figure.

Toto

But note how this is qualified:

.... It is quite possible that Mark, at least, did not intend his Gospel to represent an historical figure or historical events, and designed it to provide liturgical readings for Christian services on the Jewish model.

If you followed Vork's detailed work on Mark, he was careful to point out that the literary precedents just removed the gospels as evidence of history, not that they directly proved non-historicitiy.

I don't think that is clear to anyone except you and Brunner. The cult of the personality is a modern phenomenon.

Chris Weimer

That's not an argument. That's a dumb statement. I want an argument.

Toto

It sounds like you want a fight. What do you want an argument about?

State your thesis.

Chris Weimer

No, I don't want to fight, I want an argument. What are you elucidating? Where is the body? Logical connections?

arguo, arguere - to make clear

You gave a statement and called it an argument. No, it was merely a statement. Where's the argument?

Toto

It was a correction to GD's misunderstanding of the issue. I'm not sure what your problem is. Have you followed this thread? GD thought that mythicists are arguing that the references to the Hebrew Scriptures prove that the gospels are fiction. I am trying to explain that the argument is not that simple; it is merely that the gospels cannot be used as positive evidence for historicity. There might be a historical kernel, but that can't be proven.

This has been stated so often, that I did not think it necessary to go into more detail.

So what is your problem?

GakuseiDon

Yes, which is why I said that Doherty hints at it. However I've seen some mythicists make the claim that "the Gospels are midrash!", as if this is a concluding piece of evidence to demonstrate that the Gospels are fiction. I suspect that they have taken hints offered by some and given it a greater weight than they should.

Toto

It might be a "concluding" piece of evidence against someone who argues that the gospels are sufficient evidence upon which to base a conclusion that Jesus does exist.