gurugeorge

Robert M. Price makes an analogy somewhere between mythology in general and the various "mythoi" (plural of mythos?) of the superhero world.

I think this analogy is relevant and interesting whether one is an MJ or HJ proponent. For the HJ-er, it helps one see how and why the story about Christ might have "drifted" from an initial slim kernel of truth and fact. For the MJ-er, it could carry even more weight in the final explanation (i.e. it's all just elaboration of myth, exactly like superheros, rather than elaboration of fact).

You know the kind of thing I mean though: A: well if Superman did this in series X then he couldn't have done this in series Y, so the crossover with WonderWoman doesn't work. B: nah, it's ok because when Green Lantern did Z he changed the thingummybob in the humptydumpty continuum, which enabled WonderWoman to complete the task Superman couldn't do earlier. Great fun!

IOW, the authors of biblical texts were ongoingly doing something like enthusiastically and vociferously correcting the continuity of a story, according to their own sense of the logic of it (and obviously taking into account their own pet obsessions). But more, I reckon one must imagine these people as somewhat the equivalent, in their day, of "geeks" ours; the geeky enthusiasm, even the patterns of logic (e.g., what's more powerful than what) might even be somewhat similar. (Actually you could look at it the other way round: the pattern of intense intellectualism, delight in reverse engineering, etc., that we now call "geeky" or "nerdy", may actually be partly the result of Judaism, its history of respect for learning and the analysis of texts considered to be fixed and holy. One can observe an analogous process of harmonization in Tibetan Buddhism, where successive - and to the layman genuinely contradictory - forms of Buddhism that migrated to Tibet were successively harmonized into a the monumental mediaeval religious edifice of the Tibetan Buddhism we find today.)

My own feeling is that it can't all be sheer geekery, sheerly made up; there is after all something immensely serious and spiritual about Christianity, just as much as Buddhism or Judaism, so there had to be some kind of genuinely spiritual "kernel" for elaboration and alternative-continuity-mongering; however it wasn't a historical kernel (the physical encounter with a one-shot Avatar of God) but a mystical kernel (visions, unitary experiences, etc.). Christ was the vision of a (perhaps now unknown) mystic, or rather several mystics in a spiritual community.

PhilosopherJay

Hi Gurugeorge,

Excellent points.

I've also made the point of the analogy between comicbook stories and Religious tales by noting that the Jesus Christ tales of the early centuries were the equivalent of Superman tales of the 40's and 50's).

I have noticed that people who have read comicbooks as children tend to be more skeptical of religion. I think the comicbooks tend to act as a form of ideological innoculation. It is hard to take the 30 or so "miracles" of Jesus seriously, when we read/see/hear of Superman or Spiderman performing hundreds of far greater miracles. I mean compare Jesus' miracle of stopping a woman's heavy menustration with Superman saving billions of people from Lex Luthor's super weapons. As a superheroe, the Jesus character appears as absurd and pathetic.

The only point where Jesus doesn't appear absurd is in the secret identity subplot. Superman has a secret identity as a mild-mannered reporter who is really not human, but from another planet. Jesus has a secret identity as a mild mannered Rabbi, but is really the son of an all-powerful supernatural being. (Although, we know from comicbooks that only evil guys claim to be "all-powerful"). But Jesus' half divinity is a plot device used in most Greek Mythology. So it just marks Jesus as an average Greek Mythological Hero, no different than Heracles or Achilles.

Because the actual Jesus tales are less entertaining for modern and postmodern audiences, the present day evangelists have to emphasize the vague concept of massive retaliation for disbelief and great rewards for obedience. This concept is actually only briefly and vaguely referred to, en passant, a few times in the text, but it is the central concept emphasized in religious indoctrination and ideological practice This concept seems to naturally arouse deep parental fears in most people, especially when presented in a harsh, screaming, parent-gone-berserk-type voice.

For this reason, I would suggest that if the writers of Superman want to have people believe in him, and start a religion, they should have a storyline where he threatens to turn into Lex Luthor if people do not believe that he is real.

In any case, the situation with comicbooks is interesting nowadays as few kids read them, yet they do see movies and television shows with comicbook heroes on a consistant basis. So I see the comicbook innoculation anti-religious effect as still continuing for the next generation.

Those who tried to have comicbooks banned in the 1950's for destroying the morals of the youth were in a certain sense more correct in their understanding than those who maintained they were harmless.

Warmly,

PhilosopherJay

WishboneDawn

I think what you're describing in part GuruGeorge, is retroactive continuity (retcon). Jean Grey dies on the moon, several years later a story is introduced that it wasnt Jean Grey but the Phoenix force the took the form of Jean Grey and Jean was actually snuggly-safe in a cocoon underwater until the Fantastic Four discover her.

I'm taking a lay ministry course with a bunch of other christians (my minister mentors it) and first year is all OT. Being an old time comic book fan I recognized a LOT of retcon. I brought it up to the group and it became the new favourite term. It's funny though because at the same time as they're preserving bits even though they contradict, like different versions of Noah, they're still retconning and putting things like real estate claims into tales of Abraham and turning what was likely a river demon into God the wrestler.

You're also talking about legendary figures as opposed to mythical. Superman may be mythical. King Arthur may have been legendary. One is a complete fable, the other based on a core of truth though the original figure may bear very little resemblance to the real one.

BTW, I think being a comic book geek gives a person a fantastic background for liberal bible study.

gurugeorge

Oh I don't know, I think comics are still fairly healthy as a selling artform, they fluctuate in popularity all the time. I think the main difference between now and when we were kids is that when we were kids there were hardly any alternatives that offered such an inner escape from the mundanity of everyday life. So comics were like a kind of "messenger of the gods", promising that somewhere, somehow, life is more exciting than it is in one's little home town, or whatever. Therefore, one was more inclined to pore over them, read and reread them. Then "retcon" is a natural step.

Incidentally, there are other obvious links with Judaism. The superhero in and of him or herself is a Messiah figure, and of course comics were originally made mostly by young talented Jewish guys, vaguely connected with the underworld, looking to make a fast buck. (I seem to vaguely remember that Seigel and Schuster's, or maybe it was some of the even earlier comic publishers', original intention had been to make soft porn! )

gurugeorge

Thanks! I knew there was some proper term for it that I'd forgotten!

Yup, so the whole "scripture" schtick is people doing retcon on stories about characters that other people add bits to.

(i.e. Jesus is originally X for community A, someone else in community B adds that Jesus did Y, so a later version from community C has to "retcon" the Y into the X).

GakuseiDon

I think that a lot of modern "mythicism" is also an expression of this. Not just "Jesus Myth", but other theories like the "Ancient Astronaut" ones as well. As we develop new ideas or as new fads develop, there is a tendency to retroject those concepts back into ancient texts. A bit like the how the cheesy 1970s sci-fi series "Battlestar Galactica" has been rewritten as a brilliant new gritty drama (love that show!)

JoeWallack

In the beginning was the Father, Jor-El, who created the Crystals. And the Crystals were with Jor-El, and the Crystals were Jor-El, they were His Knowledge and Teachings. Through the Crystals all things were made. The Crystals that give men light.

There came a woman sent by Jor-El, her name was Lois. She came as a witness to report concerning The Light to our planet.

The Crystals became flesh and Jor-El sent His only son to us to provide leadership so that we might become a great people. We have seen his glory, the glory of the One and Only, who came from Jor-El, full of truth, justice and The Way.

He was in our world, but He was not of our world and so our world did not recognize Him. His enemy was Luthifer who desired to be a god of our world. When He became the light, the Crystals became the darkness and so became the only weapon which could be used against Him.

Lois reports concerning Him. Her writings cry out, saying, "This was He of whom I said, He who surpasses me even though He was before me because He is faster, more powerful and graceful".

gurugeorge

Another one is the Knights Templar/Freemasons/Da Vinci kind of stuff. Brown builds on and slightly twists Baigent and Leigh, who in turn built on someone who built on someone else.

Re. ancient astronauts: I actually remember borrowing from the library as a kid books by someone called Peter Kolosimo, who I think pioneered a lot of that stuff. Von Daniken cribbed a lot from him. And Kolosimo in turn cribbed from things like the Mu mythos and other earlier stuff, which in turn ...

Ben C Smith

You should write a book about this phenomenon and call it something like Jesus Mythicism as Myth or Deconstructing the Deconstructionists, or some variation on this theme.

Ben.

Gamera

Because scenes are shot over several days, the movie industry hires a person to insure that scenes have continuity (e.g., that the leading man doesn't have a yellow tie in one shot, and in the next a blue tie).

The person is called the continuity girl. It sounds like you're looking at the authors and redacteurs as theological continuity girls, constantly moving props around to insure the sense of the scene.

Of course, some of us would say that it's exactly what is not continuous and explicable that makes the Hebrew and Christian scriptures worth knowing. Certainly that was Kierkagaard's position in Fear and Trembling as it relates to the Abraham narrative.