TedM

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

Clivedurdle

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.

Ray Moscow

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.)

PhilosopherJay

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

TedM

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

Ray Moscow

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

TedM

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

Clivedurdle

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

And on a play

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?

TedM

i will get back later with some replies.

ted

Student of Sophia

"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.