FRDB Archives

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.


Go Back   FRDB Archives > Archives > Religion (Closed) > Biblical Criticism & History
Welcome, Peter Kirby.
You last visited: Yesterday at 03:12 PM

 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 09-26-2007, 08:54 AM   #1
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: USA, Missouri
Posts: 3,070
Default Doherty mythicist explanations for the gospels as being entirely fictional re Jesus

What is the explanation given by Doherty-style mythicists for the huge amount of writings about Jesus found in the gospels? Obviously they are considered to be total fiction if Jesus never walked the earth. Yet, they contain large amounts of information about the alleged sayings and doings of Jesus during his ministry.

What are the various arguments for this viewpoint in addition to the following?

1. contradictory accounts between gospels
2. Direct Old Testament influence/borrowing sometimes with near-exact matching of details--in some of the miracles and in the passion account
3. Other writings influence--midrash, Homer, Paul, etc..
4. Identifiable Literary style--chiasms
5. inaccurate historical statements--chronology and geography
6. late dating--ie, the longer the time lapse since the alleged period the greater the likelihood of historical acceptance
7. Dispersion of Jews increased likelihood of historical acceptance
8. Existence of similar fictional accounts--ie Greek passion plays
9. The inclusion of supernatural claims

Have I missed any significant perspectives from the Doherty camp?

In the end, I think the motivation for writing is key: What was the motivation for all four gospel writers to have spent so much time and effort on their works? IF Mark was first, and was just writing a Greek passion play, what were the others doing?

ted
TedM is offline  
Old 09-26-2007, 10:22 AM   #2
Contributor
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: London UK
Posts: 16,024
Default

I am sure I have said this more than enough times - it was very probably a play, it became popular, it had other versions of it written.

Mark does have a good plot line - new heaven and earth.

An excellent playwright like Seneca might have helped.
Clivedurdle is offline  
Old 09-26-2007, 10:31 AM   #3
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Surrey, England
Posts: 1,255
Default

I rather like the Michael Goulder theory that the synoptics were written as initiation stories -- since they have close parallels to the Torah readings that were traditionally read in synagogues in the weeks leading up to Passover.

In other words, they don't even try to be historical -- they are midrashic.

Mark of course was first, but we can see how Matthew and Luke added Q material plus material of their own -- and changed some of Mark's material as suited the slant they made to their intended audience. (I like Robert Price''s books on this subject.)
Ray Moscow is offline  
Old 09-26-2007, 11:00 AM   #4
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Orlando
Posts: 2,014
Default Recontextualization

Hi TedM,

May I suggest an article called "The IBM tramp" by Stephen Papson, from Jump Cut, no. 35, April 1990, pp. 66-72
copyright Jump Cut: A Review of Contemporary Media, 1990, 2006 (It can be found online at http://www.ejumpcut.org/archive/onli.../IBMtramp.html)

The article discusses how the Charlie Chaplin invented "Tramp" character underwent recontextualization in a series of ads in the 1980's by the IBM (International Business Machine) corporation. From 1915 to the 1940's, the "Tramp" character had been a symbol of naturalness, simplicity and honesty. IBM was able to use that association to help sell computers. They recontextualized him into an everyman who welcomed the assistance of personal computers as a part of his life. The biggest irony is that Chaplin in 1935, in the film "Modern Times" had passionately warned against the encroachment of new, modern technology on the personal freedoms and rights of the ordinary person.

One may see the gospels of the New Testament as attempts by a number of Second Century Greek Christian groups to recontextual the original popular Jewish Warrior Jesus/Coming-Messiah/Angel character, after the defeat
of the Jews in the war of 135-36.

The article notes that "The reduction of Chaplin's tramp to a universal character who exists outside of history is a form of bourgeois myth-making."
One might say that the reduction of the Jewish Messiah to a universal character who exists outside of history is a form of Greco-Roman myth-making."

Warmly,

Philospoher Jay

Quote:
Originally Posted by TedM View Post
What is the explanation given by Doherty-style mythicists for the huge amount of writings about Jesus found in the gospels? Obviously they are considered to be total fiction if Jesus never walked the earth. Yet, they contain large amounts of information about the alleged sayings and doings of Jesus during his ministry.

What are the various arguments for this viewpoint in addition to the following?

1. contradictory accounts between gospels
2. Direct Old Testament influence/borrowing sometimes with near-exact matching of details--in some of the miracles and in the passion account
3. Other writings influence--midrash, Homer, Paul, etc..
4. Identifiable Literary style--chiasms
5. inaccurate historical statements--chronology and geography
6. late dating--ie, the longer the time lapse since the alleged period the greater the likelihood of historical acceptance
7. Dispersion of Jews increased likelihood of historical acceptance
8. Existence of similar fictional accounts--ie Greek passion plays
9. The inclusion of supernatural claims

Have I missed any significant perspectives from the Doherty camp?

In the end, I think the motivation for writing is key: What was the motivation for all four gospel writers to have spent so much time and effort on their works? IF Mark was first, and was just writing a Greek passion play, what were the others doing?

ted
PhilosopherJay is offline  
Old 09-26-2007, 11:04 AM   #5
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: USA, Missouri
Posts: 3,070
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Clivedurdle View Post
I am sure I have said this more than enough times - it was very probably a play, it became popular, it had other versions of it written.

Mark does have a good plot line - new heaven and earth.

An excellent playwright like Seneca might have helped.
The biggest problem I have with the play idea is that there is no evidence that Christians before or after Mark's gospel considered Mark's gospel to be a play. They seeemed to take Jesus very personally, not as a made-up character in a play. The idea sounds ridiculous in this framework. Plus, wouldn't Tacitus, writing around 115 A.D. have been familiar from Christians of the "play" background instead of reporting as if it was history? What about traditions in the Christian community, which surely existed, and surely were not THAT pliable? It makes a lot more sense to me that Jesus orchestrated his own "play", believing himself to have been chosen at the right time to fulfill the role of king and suffering servant. In other words, he was a religious genius of sorts.

Those are my objections to this idea. What do you think would have been necessary for the play idea to have caught on without us having any reference in the history of the times to that having had been the case?

ted
TedM is offline  
Old 09-26-2007, 11:12 AM   #6
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Surrey, England
Posts: 1,255
Default

OK, I'll use my "Antichrist" 666 post to ask:

Don't plays have their roots in initiation ceremonies of mystery religions, anyway? Maybe a "play" is not a bad way to describe Mark and the later synoptics.

Ray
Ray Moscow is offline  
Old 09-26-2007, 11:19 AM   #7
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: USA, Missouri
Posts: 3,070
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ray Moscow View Post
OK, I'll use my "Antichrist" 666 post to ask:

Don't plays have their roots in initiation ceremonies of mystery religions, anyway? Maybe a "play" is not a bad way to describe Mark and the later synoptics.

Ray
I don't know enough to answer that Ray. You may be right. I'll re-ask my question here though because I think it is significant:

What do you think would have been necessary for the play idea to have caught on without us having any reference in the history of the times to that having had been the case? List everything you think would be necessary--ie . manuscript survival, dating of the gospels, number of Christians, location of Christians, Tacitus, Josephus, Christian tradition geographically at the time of the gospels, dispersion, whatever else..

ted
TedM is offline  
Old 09-26-2007, 11:36 AM   #8
Contributor
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: London UK
Posts: 16,024
Default

Why hasn't PJ's example of the tramp answered your question?

And on a play

Quote:
Ever since the Enlightenment, when the gospels began to be studied in a rationalistic frame of mind as literary works within their ancient context, parallels have been drawn between the passion of Jesus and the rituals and mysteries of the dying and resurrecting gods such as Dionysus and Osiris. The death and resurrection of Osiris was enacted annually in a dramatic performance. Greek tragedy evolved from sacred plays in honor of Dionysus. Did primitive Christianity, too, begin as ritual drama?

The economy of the Gospel narratives is related to the ritual commemoration of the Passion; taking them literally we run the risk of transposing into history what are really the successive incidents of a religious drama,

so wrote Alfred Loisy, one of the most perceptive New Testament scholars of our time.[2] J. M. Robertson went even further, claiming that the story of the passion is

the bare transcript of a primitive play... always we are witnessing drama, of which the spectators needed no description, and of which the subsequent transcriber reproduces simply the action and the words...[3]

Even theologians who are less daring in framing hypotheses continue to stumble upon traces of some ancient drama that appears to underlie the passion narrative.[4] S.G.F. Brandon is impressed by the superb theatrical montage of the trial of Jesus[5] ; Raymond Brown finds that John’s gospel contains touches worthy of great drama in many of its scenes and suggests that our text may be the product of a dramatic rewriting on such a scale that little historical material remains.[6] But none of these scholars has succeeded in reconstructing this drama or identifying its author. They came very close to the truth but missed a crucial elementthe drama that constituted the kernel of the passion story was not a primitive ritual performance, but a tragedy of considerable subtlety and sophistication.
http://www.nazarenus.com/0-4-tragospel.htm

We are also talking a t least a generation between the alleged hj and the gospels. Would anyone know?
Clivedurdle is offline  
Old 09-26-2007, 12:31 PM   #9
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: USA, Missouri
Posts: 3,070
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Clivedurdle View Post
Why hasn't PJ's example of the tramp answered your question?
i will get back later with some replies.

ted
TedM is offline  
Old 09-26-2007, 01:02 PM   #10
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Inner Space
Posts: 2,707
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TedM View Post
They seeemed to take Jesus very personally, not as a made-up character in a play.
"Thou art that." Tat Tvam Asi

It seems that in the mystery cult ceremonies, the initiate would come to identify himself with the god. A symbolic death and resurrection would be enacted, and through the usage of various mystical techniques visions would be evoked. The initiate would assimilate the vision.

I see no reason to think that the earliest Christian "plays" were an exception.
Student of Sophia is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 12:26 PM.

Top

This custom BB emulates vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.