Vorkosigan

Kirby: Here is what I am unsure about : ancient Jews were in the habit of taking oddball interpretations of the Tanakh and forming whole stories and events about roughly contemporaneous times (i.e. not the times of scripture) without any precedent in experience. Is there any evidence for this specific form of "Contemporary Whole-Cloth Midrash" outside of Christianity in antiquity?

Peter, what about the idiosyncratic readings of the Jewish writings among the DSS community? My understanding is that the scroll community leaders were responsible for esoteric interpretations of the ancient writings, which they then taught their disciples. Daniel was a favorite text for this, no coincidence it is also one among Christians. These oddball readings were supposed to comment on the times at hand.

In any case, why are you looking among ancient jews for this practice? There were many gentiles among the early converts and writers. Wouldn't it be better to look for a Med basin tradition among esoteric groups of treating religious documents as having special messages for the members of group. That sort of thing is not exactly uncommon historically.....

Vorkosigan

Gregg

Good points, Vork. I should have thought to mention the DSS community.

Of course, while a religious group's looking for hidden meanings in an ancient religious text is certainly not unprecedented (it's gone on to this day among both orthodox Christians--note my Lucifer example--and less mainstream Christian "sects" like the Branch Davidians, not to mention the "Bible Code" flap) "Mark's" use of scripture does seem somewhat unique in that he was fashioning a fictional story, an allegory, using scriptural building blocks--not necessarily trying to draw esoteric meanings from the scriptural passages.

Or--this just occurred to me--perhaps what Mark did wasn't that unprecedented after all. If he was seeing repeated motifs in scripture, such as the "crossing the Jordan" example I provided from Doherty's review, then he already had a model for what he was doing--in the Jewish scriptures themselves. Retelling ancient and familiar stories and themes for a new audience, and in Christianity's case, certainly with a new "twist." Now that's definitely not uncommon--writers and filmmakers do the same thing today. Observe "Lord of the Rings" and "Star Wars" and other modern retellings of ancient mythical themes, or remakes of Shakespeare or of Jane Austen novels placed in a modern setting.

On another matter, I think the existence of the DSS community helps explain why Mark didn't have to be have a highly advanced education, be widely read, and be a creative supergenius to write his gospel. He just needed to be a person, like the DSS people, who lived and breathed this stuff and walked and talked among others who lived and breathed this stuff. What he incorporated into his gospel may have been a community perspective, not necessarily his own, unique, personal vision. It might be amazing to think that one person with an average education could have written the gospel, but not when you consider that this may have been what he ate, drank, breathed, and slept, and that he had the pooled knowledge, education, and experiences of an entire community to draw on.

I realize this is speculation, but so is the notion that our only two possibilities are that Mark was subtly applying theology over a historical base (something that would have required a good deal of smarts and creativity itself) or that he had to be a highly educated creative supergenius in order to "make up" the whole thing from scriptural elements. The truth is we CAN think of other, perfectly logical explanations.

Gregg

Peter Kirby

Vorkosigan writes: "Peter, what about the idiosyncratic readings of the Jewish writings among the DSS community? My understanding is that the scroll community leaders were responsible for esoteric interpretations of the ancient writings, which they then taught their disciples. Daniel was a favorite text for this, no coincidence it is also one among Christians. These oddball readings were supposed to comment on the times at hand."

I actually mentioned the Qumran sectarians. They did some esoteric interpretation, but I haven't encountered any incident in which whole stories are made up about contemporary times with reference solely to scripture and not any experience. Sure, the scribe goes to work on Habakkuk, but nobody yet has accused him of making up the Kittim from whole cloth. (Or has somebody?) Anyway, what I am looking for is something comparable to what Spong says -- a situation in which a person takes strange twists on scripture and makes up a tale of contemporary events (one which is unknown to experience), which are then believed by readers.

I always took it for granted that "Midrash happened all the time," where Midrash is "Contemporary Whole-Cloth Scripture-based Invention," until someone else pointed out this lack of analogues on an e-mail list. As I hinted earlier, it is now on the list with the "pseudonymity is honest" theory, as things which are sophisticated and interesting if true but without a basis known to me.

If "Midrash" was common, why is there at most one completely made-up recent "Messiah" in antiquity--namely Jesus?

Vorkosigan writes: "In any case, why are you looking among ancient jews for this practice? There were many gentiles among the early converts and writers. Wouldn't it be better to look for a Med basin tradition among esoteric groups of treating religious documents as having special messages for the members of group. That sort of thing is not exactly uncommon historically..."

I don't doubt that both Jews and Gentiles treated religious documents as having special messages for themselves, both then and today. The problem is that I don't see people making up narratives of the recent past completely out of a mish-mash of biblical verses, instead of taking the recent past as a starting point and trying to understand it through the lens of scripture.

I'm trying not to paint myself into a corner at this point--I am still on the look-out for evidence that would support the "Spong-type Midrash is common" theory, outside Christianity itself.

best,
Peter Kirby

Peter Kirby

I had already thought to mention the DSS community, in my initial post: "Qumran sectarians, for example, would draw on contemporary experience and find referents to that experience in the Hebrew Scriptures."

Certainly Star Wars draws on a rich literary heritage--after all, it does begin in media res, as in the Odyssey, and the very names used ("Solo" and "Skywalker") are clues towards mythic archetypes.

Star Wars is, though, set in a time long ago, in a galaxy far, far away. This makes other examples more relevant, such as novels that use a real setting but completely fictional characters. Of course, it would be foolish to argue that there is no fiction set in contemporary periods.

What I want to know is, in the case of the Midrashic Invention theory, is how did this happen? What thought processes were going on when people decided, on the basis of the odd psalm and arguably non-messianic chapter of Isaiah, to invent a story of a Messiah who had been crucified under Pilate? I would love to have been able to sit in on that Jewish Bible study!

And if we are told that this type of "Midrash" is common, then I am obliged to ask--where are the similar instances?

There is the possibility that Jesus lived in Nazareth and that a scripture that had nothing to do with someone being from Nazareth was employed to make Jesus seem to fulfill scripture. That is a midrashic process that I understand, taking what one knows of recent events and trying to put it into scriptural perspective.

Well, "redemption" is not exactly something that can be seen with the eye anyway. I know that Doherty makes this argument, though, and part of his basis is 1 Cor 15--Doherty would like to translate the phrases to say "as the scriptures tell us," which is an acceptable translation in an Amplified Bible sort of way. But what I find curious is the phrases to which the KATA TAS GRAFAS formula is attached, specifically "died for our sins" and "rose on the third day" (emphasis obviously added). Those are two things on which I think the rationalization for belief was scripture (which is not to say its origin--something along Mack's model of a martyr myth that developed into a hellenistic savior cult would explain the origin). Paul doesn't say that Jesus had appeared to Peter "as the scriptures tell us," which seems natural enough, nor that his burial had precedence in the Bible. To say that scripture was the "sole" basis of christology is to read into Paul something that is not there.

Gregg writes: "Doherty's discussion of Spong/Goulder's liturgical theory is very lengthy and in-depth, so I'd recommend reading the review yourself (or checking out Spong's book) to learn more about it."

I have read everything on Doherty's web site and Spong's book.

Was I the only one who noticed a positive blurb on the back of The Jesus Mysteries from everyone's favorite Anglican bishop?

best,
Peter Kirby

Clarice O'C

And here it is ...

"The Jesus Mysteries is a provocative, exciting, and challenging book." Right Reverend John Shelby Spong

Best,
Clarice

Gregg

Well, me too. But I think it's a start if we admit that it's not wildly improbable that such a thing could have happened. It's a funny world. Anway, if you have read Spong's book, then why don't you accept this as a possible explanation? They wanted to retell Jewish myths and legends from a Christ-based perspective. They happened to choose a recent period of history as the setting for their mythical tale, and use some actual people from that time as characters. Maybe we'll never know exactly why, but on the other hand, Why NOT? What was stopping them? Just like what was stopping certain Logos/Christ/Messiah worshippers from believing their savior had undergone a cosmic crucifixion? Osiris was supposed to have been embalmed, certainly a ubiquitious element of Egyptian culture. Why wouldn't people for whom crucifixion had such powerful significance and symbolism have believed that their mythic savior had undergone this form of execution?Well, as I pointed out, Mark and his community may have taken their cue from the Jewish scriptures themselves, recognizing that certain themes seemed to be repeated.Of course there's that possibility, but this is just one explanation for one small passage. Since I find the overall mythicist case much more compelling than the historicist case, it will take a lot more than this to sway me, obviously.No, but a crucifixion and a bodily resurrection certainly is. This part I'll have to comment on later.I probably did go a little too far there, because I obviously think other factors were influencing Paul (and the other epistle writers, for that matter), although I don't believe that a historical event or tradition was one of them.

Gregg

NOGO

Here is my take on this particular issue.

Jesus warns his disciples that they will desert him after his arrest because it was written.

Mark 14
27 And Jesus said to them, "You will all fall away, because it is written, ' I WILL STRIKE DOWN THE SHEPHERD, AND THE SHEEP SHALL BE SCATTERED.'

29 But Peter said to Him, "Even though all may fall away, yet I will not."
30 And Jesus said to him, "Truly I say to you, that this very night, before a rooster crows twice, you yourself will deny Me three times."

This happened after Jesus twice told them to keep watch and twice they fell asleep.

This is truly an embarrassing episode for the disciples.

But what it really is, is a sectarian way of telling followers that they too will be tested and since even the disciples failed Jesus that they too may fail him.

At this point the sect had already known persecution and my guess is that this episode was written into the Gospels in order to prepare followers for martyrdom.

First you have the warning which this text provides.
Then you have all the good intentions reflected in Peter's words
"Even though all may fall away, yet I will not."
Then you have his failure which is a warning to all that even with all the good intentions you may still fail.

Sectarian thinking at its best.

See also ...

Matthew 10:39
"He who has found his life will lose it, and he who has lost his life for My sake will find it.

In other word if like Peter you deny knowing Jesus in order to save your life then you will lose it. But if you learn from Peter's error and give your life for Jesus' sake then you will find it.


Matthew 24
9 "Then they will deliver you to tribulation, and will kill you, and you will be hated by all nations because of My name.
...
13 "But the one who endures to the end, he will be saved.


Martydom in part of the early Christian thinking as these and other verses show. The Gospels were a tool for the sect in order to assure the "correct" behaviour of their members in difficult situations.

It is therefore a mistake to see this embarrassing episode as proof of historicty. The embarassment is deliberately sought.

Radorth

Oh right. Like eating and healing on the Sabbath day, speaking to Samaritan women who has been marrried four times, being kind to prostitutes and adulterer's, throwing money changers out of the temple, that sort of thing.

Note we have absolutely no examples from Nogo, just the preaching of cynical gratuities to the choir.

Oh wait. Jesus did tell people how to behave, but that is just evidence he was a cult programmer who's real motive was to ride on the best donkeys in Jeruslaem.

Now we know why H.G. Wells and Will Durant were so popular even though they preached evolution and humanism. The world is full of intelligent people who can make intelligent distinctions, and who like to see facts, examples, reasonable explanations and can distinguish a writer-historian of personal integrity.

Either that, or it is full of gullible morons. There is no middle ground really. One can only be fascinated at the irony of a skeptic who calls Christians gullible and undiscerning, while preaching as if no one in a skeptical audience was anything else.

Rad

GreggLD1

Let me respond with this observation, Peter.

You find it plausible that a seemingly ordinary human being named Jesus might have been mythologized, because we have many examples of historical figures being mythologized. These examples, you feel, are more than adequate to make your point.

However, in none of these other examples, do we have Jews--Jews! turning an ordinary human being, or even an extraordinary human being, into an object of worship. That Jesus was worshipped as a cosmic deity at a very early stage, with little time for legendary or mythological development, is demonstrated by Paul's quoting a Christological hymn in Philippians. Jesus begins, not in human form, but in the "form of God" then he "empties himself" and takes on "human form" and humbles himself unto death, "even death on a cross." At this point God exalts him and gives him the name Jesus (notice that it is at THIS point that he receives his name). And at the name of Jesus "every knee shall bow...and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord." If that is not worship, what is?

Now you might say, "Well, Christianity was a radical Jewish sect--it might have started out as a very isolated, introverted community, dealing in some very esoteric and possibly even, to mainstream Jews, blasphemous ideas."

OK. But!

As Christianity started to spread, it apparently first tried to convert Jews before moving on to Gentiles. That the Christian message wasn't well-received by most Jews is certainly beyond debate.

What IS surprising is that the one thing that should have been primarily responsible for Jews rejecting Christianity--the blasphemous, pagan notion that God took on actual human flesh, or that a human being was raised into the very being of God--does not appear to have been a subject of much (if any) debate between Christians and Jews--in fact, between Christians and anybody. Paul talks about the crucifixion being a "stumbling block" and "folly" to many, but he's talking about the crucifixion, not about a man being worshipped like G-d! That ALONE should have been a major subject of contention, probably the ONLY subject of contention, because all else pales before it. And it's more than passing strange that Jewish Christians would be upset or even surprised at the fact that their fellow Jews would reject such an idea out of hand.

Perhaps other Christians would have understood that Jesus was "no ordinary man," but non-Christians, and particularly Jews, would have required an explanation as to why this man Jesus, who died a shameful death as an enemy of the State, should be regarded not only as the fulfillment of the Jewish Messianic prophecies, but as much, much more--even a deity worthy of worship. Christian churches, competing with Judaism for converts and even seeking to supplant the Temple, the priesthood, and the Law with faith in Christ in the minds and hearts of Jews, would have been pressed with questions like this, and would most likely have looked to apostles like Paul for answers. But Paul has no answers to give--no stories of Jesus' unusual birth, his reputation as a child prodigy, his baptism by the Holy Spirit, his miracles, his powerful parables and sermons, the bizarre events that occurred upon his death, the empty tomb, the post-resurrection appearances, etc. He mentions Christ breaking bread on the night of his being "delivered up" (something that could take place in a mythical setting as easily as on Earth) as well as Christ's appearances, but he makes no distinction between what the disciples saw--supposedly a resurrected body--and what he saw, a vision of the already ascended Christ.

Now, getting back to my point--despite the considerable differences between the mythologizing process that occurred with other historical figures and the one that supposedly occurred with Jesus, you still feel that these examples can be cited to support your position.

But when it comes to the idea of Christians taking the process of midrash in new and inventive directions--no, that's just too big of a stretch, unless someone can give you examples of non-Christian groups using midrash in an almost identical fashion. But how many other groups with Jewish roots were out there, trying to redefine Judaism in such a radical way? There's the DSS community I suppose, and they certainly made interesting use of midrash, but as far as I know the DSS community wasn't trying to replace Temple, priesthood, and Law with faith in Christ.

Only Christians, really, would have had a compelling reason to rework these ancient Jewish mythological themes in such a radical and far-reaching manner. That's why I don't think you're going to find any examples outside Christianity that will meet your standards.

I will admit that I throw the term "midrash" around too freely, without qualification, and probably Doherty and other mythicists do too. I guess what I'm trying to say when I point out that midrash, in general, was common, is that a precedent for reinterpreting Scripture, for drawing new meanings out of it, for reusing mythological themes, did exist. Is it really that big of a stretch to propose that Christians, who were already challenging some of Judaism's most basic precepts, might have applied midrash in rather unique and inventive ways?

Gregg

Vorkosigan

I'm trying not to paint myself into a corner at this point--I am still on the look-out for evidence that would support the "Spong-type Midrash is common" theory, outside Christianity itself.

best,
Peter Kirby

Well, it was common for historians to use texts to construct other texts, at least in the Middle Ages, like the way Einhard depends on (Sallust?) for his construction of Charlemagne's life, but they were all dealing with real people. They may have restructured individual events, but not all were creations out of whole cloth.

Hmmm......

I think either way, it won't hold logically. Even if nobody else did, it doesn't mean the Xtians didn't do it, and even if everybody else did it, it doesn't mean that they didn't do it. <sigh>

I'll go on thinking about it.