Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Clivedurdle · 07-27-2007, 01:44 PM

I referenced earlier Boris Johnson's view of the Gospels being a deliberate anti - Caesar Augustus satire or parody. They may have been written as a training exercise in philosophical schools.

I understand that the theatrical structures of the gospels is accepted.

So what exactly is the problem with stating the Christ - the joining of heaven and earth, god becoming man - John 3 16, are inventions?

That Jesus Christ is the lead character in a play? That Jesus Christ Superstar got it right?

Is it a god, is it a man, no it's...

DCHindley · 07-28-2007, 04:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Clivedurdle

I referenced earlier Boris Johnson's view of the Gospels being a deliberate anti - Caesar Augustus satire or parody. They may have been written as a training exercise in philosophical schools.

I understand that the theatrical structures of the gospels is accepted.

So what exactly is the problem with stating the Christ - the joining of heaven and earth, god becoming man - John 3 16, are inventions?

That Jesus Christ is the lead character in a play? That Jesus Christ Superstar got it right?

Is it a god, is it a man, no it's...

... much adoo about nothing.

Why on earth are so many so diligently trying to turn the origin of Christ theology into a conspiracy theory (yes, I exagerrate to emphasize the silliness of the concept).

The gospels would make incredibly crappy philosophical treatises, even for students. Thast's as crazy as the serious proposition by the faithful that Acts is a kind of legal brief created by Paul's lawyer.

Please distinguish use of literary tropes in the framing of a story (5/8th of "history") to give meaning to otherwise dry presentations of (selected) "facts", from deliberate creation of fiction (100% story, with facts inserted to gild the lilly).

For a nice detailed theory of historical representation (at least as manifested in the literature of the last 500 years) as consisting of a deep level employment of tropes (metaphor, metonymy, synecdoche, or irony), and further employment of surface level elements of emplotment (romantic, tragic, comic or satiric), argumentative strategy (formist, mechanistic, organicist and contextualist), and ideological implication (anarchism, radicalism, conservativism and liberalism --- reader beware), consult Hayden V. White's Metahistory (or via: amazon.co.uk).

I would think that ancient historians and writers depicting historical people and events would exhibit similar elements (although the tropes, emplotments, arguments and ideologies would be more reflective of their own times). The more immediate value of White is in evaluating the historical musings of modern authors, including those on this list.

Why do so many find it hard to deal with Christ theology as the end result of a developmental evolution of frustrated Jewish messianic beliefs? It is the most natural trajectory to assume, but is fought tooth and nail by the faithful and the skeptic alike.

Strange bedfellows, what?

DCH

Doug Shaver · 07-28-2007, 08:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Clivedurdle

So what exactly is the problem with stating the Christ - the joining of heaven and earth, god becoming man - John 3 16, are inventions?

In my experience, it always depends on who thinks it is a problem. Of all the people who believe in Jesus' historicity, there is no consensus on what is wrong the thinking of those who don't believe in it.

Clivedurdle · 07-29-2007, 03:16 AM

Quote:

Why do so many find it hard to deal with Christ theology as the end result of a developmental evolution of frustrated Jewish messianic beliefs? It is the most natural trajectory to assume, but is fought tooth and nail by the faithful and the skeptic alike.

That is what I am trying to tease out. The classic theory of a hj can be understood as a grain of sand in an oyster theory leading to the pearl of xianity. I do not think a historial grain of sand is necessary, and various searches continually turn up blank, whereas an evolutionary trajectory does not.

Boris Johnson should be seen as another way of approaching this evolution - there are clear Jesus - Augustus anti parallels that look very deliberate. That is why I mentioned a philosophy school - what if a poor play/essay by a not very good student survived and became part of the evolving story?

DCHindley · 07-29-2007, 08:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Clivedurdle

Quote:

Why do so many find it hard to deal with Christ theology as the end result of a developmental evolution of frustrated Jewish messianic beliefs? It is the most natural trajectory to assume, but is fought tooth and nail by the faithful and the skeptic alike.

That is what I am trying to tease out. The classic theory of a hj can be understood as a grain of sand in an oyster theory leading to the pearl of xianity. I do not think a historial grain of sand is necessary, and various searches continually turn up blank, whereas an evolutionary trajectory does not.

Boris Johnson should be seen as another way of approaching this evolution - there are clear Jesus - Augustus anti parallels that look very deliberate. That is why I mentioned a philosophy school - what if a poor play/essay by a not very good student survived and became part of the evolving story?

You see, this is what I do not understand.

In the NT gospels Jesus is admitted to be a "Christ," a term that can clearly be understood as a claim to kinghood; that Jesus was executed by the cross, a form of execution usually reserved by the Romans for sedition; that the Roman governor even sarcastically posted a sign on his cross calling him "king of the Jews" as if saying "this is what we do to unauthorized claimants to the Jewish throne".

The gospels explain this set of facts as due to a tragic misunderstanding on the part of both Jews and Romans of Jesus's true mission in this world (as a redeemer figure who offers himself up as an atoning sacrifice for the sins of the whole world). That makes them the earliest preserved Christian apologies, fashioned in the form of a Greek "bios" or history. Their sole purpose is to explain (away) how Jesus is NOT a failed messianic claimant.

That, to me, is SO much easier to grasp than Christian theology and history being sewn together from peices and parts of preexistant myths. Like Sisyphus, you are pushing a stone uphill.

DCH

Clivedurdle · 07-30-2007, 12:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DCHindley

Quote:

Originally Posted by Clivedurdle

That is what I am trying to tease out. The classic theory of a hj can be understood as a grain of sand in an oyster theory leading to the pearl of xianity. I do not think a historial grain of sand is necessary, and various searches continually turn up blank, whereas an evolutionary trajectory does not.

Boris Johnson should be seen as another way of approaching this evolution - there are clear Jesus - Augustus anti parallels that look very deliberate. That is why I mentioned a philosophy school - what if a poor play/essay by a not very good student survived and became part of the evolving story?

You see, this is what I do not understand.

In the NT gospels Jesus is admitted to be a "Christ," a term that can clearly be understood as a claim to kinghood; that Jesus was executed by the cross, a form of execution usually reserved by the Romans for sedition; that the Roman governor even sarcastically posted a sign on his cross calling him "king of the Jews" as if saying "this is what we do to unauthorized claimants to the Jewish throne".

The gospels explain this set of facts as due to a tragic misunderstanding on the part of both Jews and Romans of Jesus's true mission in this world (as a redeemer figure who offers himself up as an atoning sacrifice for the sins of the whole world). That makes them the earliest preserved Christian apologies, fashioned in the form of a Greek "bios" or history. Their sole purpose is to explain (away) how Jesus is NOT a failed messianic claimant.

That, to me, is SO much easier to grasp than Christian theology and history being sewn together from peices and parts of preexistant myths. Like Sisyphus, you are pushing a stone uphill.

DCH

And that is what I do not understand! What set of facts?

Quote:

The kernel of the gospel narratives is the trial and execution of Jesus. Whereas Jesus’ ministry in Galilee is presented as a string of utterances, deeds and incidents, culled from oral traditions and differently arranged by each of the four evangelists, with Jesus’ arrest the pace quickens and a highly dramatic story emerges, in which the differences between the gospels fade into insignificance. This indicates that the gospels drew on some pre-existing written account of the passion. As we read the story of Jesus’ final hours and watch one carefully-construed scene succeed another, we begin to distinguish the hand of a master. There must have been an individual of literary genius who wrote about the trial and execution of Jesus I speak of an individual, because genius is individual.

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.

Quote:

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 element - the 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/

http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=205276

07-27-2007, 01:44 PM	#1
Clivedurdle Contributor Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: London UK Posts: 16,024	The Invention of the Christ I referenced earlier Boris Johnson's view of the Gospels being a deliberate anti - Caesar Augustus satire or parody. They may have been written as a training exercise in philosophical schools. I understand that the theatrical structures of the gospels is accepted. So what exactly is the problem with stating the Christ - the joining of heaven and earth, god becoming man - John 3 16, are inventions? That Jesus Christ is the lead character in a play? That Jesus Christ Superstar got it right? Is it a god, is it a man, no it's...

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.