Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Vorkosigan · 12-09-2005, 08:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hjalti

Vorkosigan, could you give some examples? Some greek fictions that are presented as historical.

They are all that way. Remember, you're so used to thinking of narrative as a fictional form that you don't realize it came out of historiography as a technique or trick to get the reader to accept an account as plausible:

Cueva, The Myths of Fiction: Studies in the Canonical Greek Novels p7

The authors of the novel were not just appealing to a sense of nostalgia -- they could work only with pre-existing materials. By using a historical background the authors of the earlier novels showed that the narrative plot was at least plausible and realistic, and thereby helped the reader suspend disbelief (Morgan 1982, 222). This historical background is most evident in the earlier pre-sophistic novels and disappears as the genre develops. Chariton in particular, and to a lesser extent Xenophon, unquestionably fashions the plot "around situations or characters described by Greek historians of the Classic or Hellenistic era" (Dihle 1994, 132)...

Elsewhere:

"The novelists employed what might be described as a degenerate Hellenistic historiagraphy in order to give their erotic writings a semblance of respectability."

I've posted this before, but pay close attention to the sentence in the middle. From Stephens and Winkler (1995) collection of Greek novels:

"Contemplating the fragmentary novels, one is often struck by the accuracy of Bahktin's observation about the plasticity of the novel form and the way in which it "fused together in its structure almost all genres of ancient literature."(1981:89). The Sesonchosis fragments are a case in point. (This is an historical romance whose protagonist is pharoah of the Twelfth Dynasty -- Senwosret, or Sesostris as Herodotos calls him.) A fragment of Sesonchosis, when first published, was identified as history. Only later was it reclassified when a new and more extensive peice of it came to light. A cogent argument was made to assign one fairly extensive fragment to a lost oration of Lysias, until proved to be from Lucian's Ass Tale. A part of Metiochos and Parthenope was originally labeled "philosophical" because it opens with a discourse modelled on Plato's Symposium, the subject of which was the power of Eros. Such examples can be multiplied."(p8-9)"

Vorkosigan

TedM · 12-09-2005, 08:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vorkosigan

There WAS a human source, the Gospel of Mark, which established the narrative....once that was written, the rest was history. So to speak.

Also, metacrock conveniently ignores the extracanonical gospels.

About the human source, you of course may be right, but it seems more likely that more myth would develop about a mythical Jesus than a historical Jesus--resulting in conflicting accounts of some of the basic elements of the story.

I though metacrock found the other gospels to support his position. Do they contradict it?

Vorkosigan · 12-09-2005, 04:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

About the human source, you of course may be right, but it seems more likely that more myth would develop about a mythical Jesus than a historical Jesus--resulting in conflicting accounts of some of the basic elements of the story.

I though metacrock found the other gospels to support his position. Do they contradict it?

Who executes Jesus in the Gospel of Peter? Isn't Jesus buried in sand in another gospel? Besides, what other myth developed a centralized organization (the Church) to enforce a particular narrative interpretation of it?

Vorkosigan

TedM · 12-09-2005, 05:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vorkosigan

Who executes Jesus in the Gospel of Peter?

http://www.earlychristianwritings.co...r-mrjames.html
Herod does seem to get the blame, but Pilate is still very much involved. It is a very anti-Jewish book.

Quote:

Isn't Jesus buried in sand in another gospel?

According to http://www.maplenet.net/~trowbridge/secjames.htm Jesus is buried in the sand, but when I read this translation http://www.gnosis.org/naghamm/jam2.html I couldn't find it. Maybe I overlooked it.

Quote:

Besides, what other myth developed a centralized organization (the Church) to enforce a particular narrative interpretation of it?

That is a possible explanation for my observation, but it doesn't change what we now have for the records.

ted

NOGO · 12-09-2005, 07:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

Absolutely. That is the most troublesome part of the myth theory IMO. Paul never says that Jesus descended to the firmament, and did all these things in the firmament where the demons were believed to reside (in addition to earth). Not even in passing. IOW Paul's silence about where these things took place exceeds his silence about specific historical happenings on earth. Why?

Or perhaps because Mary was insignificant to Paul in comparison to the point he was making--that the Son of God came. However, he didn't just come down as a God, he was born of a woman, so that we who are ALSO born under woman can become sons of God through faith. And he came as a Jew--under the law--so that by his death the law the Jews were under could be repealed. If these things happened in the sky, Paul certainly doesn't give any clue for them--or try to explain where the woman was in the sky, or how she could have been Jewish.

While I don't agree with all of Paul's logic, his account of Jesus' doings not clearly contradictory with that of the gospels . I agree with metacrock that if myth had developed without a human source to keep things in check, we would probably have contradictory versions of the story in even some of the major areas--the approximate time of his life, the claim he was a teacher, a miracle worker, he died by crucifixion, had a mother named Mary, names of core disciples (Peter, John, Mary Mag, James, Philip), from Galilee, died in Jerusalem during passover.

Where's the alternative version? There isn't one. The one Doherty claims Paul had is not contradictory to the above points and is not supported by anything Paul says. It is speculation only based on a subjective opinion about silences under the false assumption that Paul's gospel 'should have been' the same as that of Jesus, which even I could demonstrate fairly easily.

ted

Are there numerous versions of Robin Hood, William Tell?
the approximate time of their lifes etc.

As far as "born of a woman"
Where did Christians get the idea that the messiah was divine and therefore would not be born of a woman?

NOGO · 12-09-2005, 08:02 PM

Quote:

Zeichman
He only says that because you're dropping the context which negates what you just said.

Just because you say so.

Zeichman · 12-09-2005, 08:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

According to http://www.maplenet.net/~trowbridge/secjames.htm Jesus is buried in the sand, but when I read this translation http://www.gnosis.org/naghamm/jam2.html I couldn't find it. Maybe I overlooked it.

The phrase "buried shamefully" is translation of the phrase in question.

NOGO:
Is that all you have to address from my whole post?

Vork: once I get some sleep, I'll reply to your posts. It's nice to have you participating in this thread.

Amaleq13 · 12-09-2005, 09:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zeichman

The phrase "buried shamefully" is translation of the phrase in question.

Why the differences in translation? What is the shamefully/sand connection?

TedM · 12-09-2005, 10:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NOGO

Are there numerous versions of Robin Hood, William Tell?
the approximate time of their lifes etc.

For Robin Hood, it appears that the answer is yes. Differences exist about when and where he was born. Here one quote found at Wikipedia:

Quote:

Robin Hood himself has been transformed from an "outlaw for venyson" with an occasional element of generosity with no particularly notable skill in archery–and no suggestion of political animosity–in the original tales, to a medieval Che Guevara, a deadly accurate master archer fighting a guerrilla war against Prince John, the Sheriff of Nottingham, and his vicious second, Guy of Gisbourne, on behalf of the oppressed and King Richard.

Robin Hood has become a shorthand for a good-hearted bandit who steals from the rich to give to the poor. Many countries and situations boast their own Robin Hood characters; the Category:Robin Hood page tracks them

And for William Tell, it seems the two earliest accounts disagreed and were later merged into one legend:

Quote:

The legend of William Tell appears first in the 15th century, in two different versions. One version, found, for example, in a popular ballad from around 1470 and then in the chronicles of Melchior Russ from Lucerne (written 1482 to 1488) portrays Tell as the main actor of the independence struggles of the founding cantons of the Old Swiss Confederacy; the other, found in the Weisse Buch von Sarnen of 1470, sees Tell as a minor character in a complot against the Habsburgs led by others. Aegidius Tschudi, a Catholic conservative historian, merged these two earlier accounts into the myth summarized above in 1570.

I really don't know enough about either to claim that these differences exceed the differences we have in the major events of Jesus' life.

Quote:

As far as "born of a woman"
Where did Christians get the idea that the messiah was divine and therefore would not be born of a woman?

Who says they did?
Maybe a better question is How can a person become an adopted son of God, since they are born of flesh? Answer: By faith in the Son of God, also born of flesh.

How can a Jew no longer be subject to Jewish law? Answer: By faith in the Son of God, who was also born a Jew and fulfilled the law by being perfect.

If this Son of God really was born of the flesh of a Jewish woman in the skies, Paul sure sees no need to say so, or to defend such a bizarre idea.

To me it just seems more reasonable to conclude that Paul was talking about things that happened on earth.

ted

Zeichman · 12-10-2005, 09:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Amaleq13

Why the differences in translation? What is the shamefully/sand connection?

I just remember this from Peter Kirby's empty tomb article. This should be the link: http://www.infidels.org/library/mode...mb/burial.html

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

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.