NOGO

Them are your words.
I think of Christians the same way I think of Muslims, Jews, Buddhists and all other religions. No better, no worse.

I believe that skeptics can be gullible but it should be obvious that the more skeptic you are the less likely you are to be made to believe fictitious stories.

Gregg

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Vorkosigan
[B]
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,

I think I'm responsible for this misunderstanding. When I said that midrash was common, I wasn't trying to say that midrash as the Christians practiced it in 1) Seeing the mystery of the Christ witnessed to in Scripture, and 2) Using specific scriptural passages as well as larger scriptural themes to construct the gospels, was commonly practiced.

What I was trying to say is that midrash as it WAS commonly done provided a precedent for the Christians to take the practice in new and inventive directions. As I explain in my last post, I think only Christians would have had compelling reasons to construct a story in this way. Therefore, I don't think you're going to find any examples that really meet your requirements.

On the other hand, the more thought I give to this issue, the more sense it makes to me that the Christians would write this kind of story.

First, let me point out that there didn't have to be just ONE thing that motivated the writing of "Mark's" gospel. There could have been, and probably were, several needs and motivations. For example:

1) The simple fact that teaching, exhorting, etc. through stories is, historically, so effective. All cultures have stories, share their most important beliefs and values through stories. The foundation of the Jewish scriptures is an epic story, in which God acts in history, in which God's people are not perfect and are often even rebellious, but somehow muddle through, in which heroes and villians abound, in which ordinary, faith-filled people do great things. Through these stories, Jews passed on their beliefs and traditions and found their identity as a people.

2) The need to forge a new identity. Even with their faith in Jesus, Mark's community may have felt cut off, alone--much like the exiles in Babylon must have felt, cut off from the Temple and everything else that gave them their identity as Jews. They (the Markan community) saw their faith as the fulfillment of Judaism, but their fellow Jews didn't see it that way. So, the old familiar stories no longer had quite the same meaning. By retelling them from a Christian perspective, they gave them fresh meaning and created something that bound the community closer together.

3) The need to show how the Law and the Prophets were fulfilled in Christ Jesus. It was time to write the Scriptures anew, presenting Jesus as a greater Moses, a greater Elijah, a greater David, a greater everything. The new covenant was better than the old. Jesus' sacrifice was better than the animal sacrifices (as symbolized by the rending of the veil in the Temple). And so on.

And of course, they found ways to incorporate other things that needed explaining--why don't the Jews accept Christ? Why were Christians being persecuted and how should they deal with it? What is the proper attitude toward Gentiles? Why don't we have to follow the Jewish dietary laws?

Now Mark's community had its own Scripture, its own memorable story (yet one firmly rooted in the Jewish scriptures) with which to indoctrinate new members, to reinforce teachings to existing members, to give encouragement to those facing suffering and martyrdom, etc. That this "gospel" was an amazingly effective tool in the service of the faith has, of course, been demonstrated many times over for almost 2,000 years. Could Paul's letters alone have brought about the triumph of Christianity? Doubtful. Despite their being mistaken for history for so long, the gospels conclusively demonstrate the power of story and myth.

Gregg

Radorth

Thread highlights for the true believers:

We know the Gospels are false because everybody was doing the midrash thing back then. In fact we are told of a Rabbi who was worshiped as messiah, but that midrash didn't take, so Paul came along, saw a vision, and made up a much better story, and perhaps got Mark, Peter and James to buy in to it. Then Paul wrote Acts (50 years after he was dead, if you've been keeping up with all the latest theories here) to give the movement another boost. Anyway they redefine Judaism in such a radical way that the Jews are forever threatening them, stoning them and finally killing them, but they do all this for the sake of, well, we aren't sure, probably to make money, but there are several theories if you have to ask.

Kirby has the temerity to ask why we don’t see this ubiquitous story-telling having much of an impact until the Christians do it. Some others have the temerity to ask why they did it, given the constant persecution, the nits. Why it was so they could manipulate the community into feeling closer and maintain control the faithful. Funny the leaders didn't do the things which are sure marks of a cult leader, but hey, no theory is perfect. Anyway we are assured the fiendishly clever Christians did the midrash thing way better than anybody, even making up Gospels about a historical Jesus with “slavishly copied”death and resurrection stories. (For our purposes here, their “contradictions” are of no import). They even throw in a hundred little details like some Jews comforting Martha, Jesus waiting three days to go see Lazareth, Jesus healing on the Sabbath, his moments of doubt, his inability to work miracles in Galilee, Peter denying him, then preaching to 5000 people.

We are assured on another thread that Paul must have written Acts, to bolster the story, so we are again faced with the problem Durant brought up about throwing this HJ myth together in one generation. (OK said Acts author theory completely wrecks Doherty’s, but again, no theory is perfect). But that’s no problem because Durant got his Phd in philosophy and uses poor historical methodology. Doherty is excused from this test because he was too sick to do anything but write small volumes.

Then there’s those pesky sayings, sermons and parables of Jesus, but these are all just normal midrash stuff- well, except they are far more clever, OK, without precedent really. This little mountain was doubtless created (in little more than one generation) by a few first century Shakespeare's who happened to be born at the same time. OK so the grammer and geography is bad in some places. They were uneducated geniuses, like Einstein. Since the skeptic Durant says the Gospels "agree remarkably well" and Doherty agrees with him, we can assume either they are truthful (gag) or there was a huge conspiracy in the first century to redact, and embellish them and burn any variants. We continue a feverish search to find evidence of this, but we know it's there.

The Gospels PO Jews to this day, and they and other skeptics claim there is no basis for them in the OT, but we are assured Paul pretty much gleaned his story from the OT. Not to worry about this little conundrum. It will be explained in due time. We have some actual proof this is the greatest hoax ever told. One person said so, even though he was referring in particular to the resurrection, not a HJ.

But hey. Which takes more faith to believe? The Christians or the skeptics? Don’t think about it too much. Only an esoteric few really get it. As a rule of thumb, anything which contradicts Doherty’s theory is an interpolation, a forgery, a unique metaphor or a redaction. Believe it. Think of the consequences of a HJ and you won’t have any problem.

Rad

Peter Kirby

Hi Gregg,

Thank you for writing these expositions. I might be able to produce commentary on them later. But before I do, I need to make something clear.

I am a practicing Stoic when it comes to ancient history. I believe that apathy is the most appropriate stance to take in order to allow oneself to conform to reality. For this reason, I try to avoid militant advocacy for a "position," and as a principle I think instead of feel.

I am not trying to convince anyone of the non-existence or existence of a historical Jesus. I participate because I find the topics interesting and so as to interject ideas that may otherwise be overlooked. Since most participants on this board are "Jesus Mythers," my responses may look like advocacy, but rest assured that I would have no problem defending a Jesus Myth theory in a different arena. I no longer have a belief on the subject (though in the past I have believed pro and con) and I respect as rational the arguments of those who do have a belief.

As I said, maybe later I could put together a response that is more interesting than this clarification post. It should be evident, though, that I have tried to avoid getting involved in epic debates, preferring to seek light on particular points.

(If anyone encounters any ancient material relevant to the matter of parallel cases of Spong-type Midrash, feel free to post.)

best,
Peter Kirby

aikido7

I am still waiting:

Once again, Rad--If Jesus used parables as a way to point toward his vision of the Rule of God, then why couldn't the gospel writers have used parabolic lenses to point toward their vision of Jesus?

It's not that the gospel writers told dumb, mythical stories and we got smart at the Enlightenment and realized it. It's that Mark, Matthew, Luke and John told powerful and profound metaphoric stories and the rational scientism of the Enlightenment made most of us dumb enough to take them all literally!

Gregg

Peter,

I apologize if I was overzealous or appeared to be in "attack mode" in the two statements of mine you quoted. I'm really not a "militant advocate" of the Jesus Myth position--I was a historicist for a long time, and I have no problem with the possibility that there may have been a historical figure back there somewhere--I just think the facts as we have them make a lot more sense if we DON'T presuppose a historical figure.

I think what bugs me is people suggesting things like there was "no way" Mark could have written such a story unless he was a highly educated, creative supergenius, or that it's outside the realm of plausibility that anyone would have constructed an entirely mythological story out of a "mish-mash" (your term, sorry ) of scriptural themes and passages and placed it within a recent historical setting. I honestly don't mean to sound insulting, but I don't think it requires THAT much imaginative effort for someone with some knowledge of "Mark's" world to come up with several perfectly logical and consistent explanations for how and why these things might have happened. I realize such speculation, even if it's educated speculation, doesn't constitute evidence, but my point is, the fact that one CAN imagine plausible explanations for these things means that they can't just be dismissed out of hand (using the argument from personal incredulity).

Finally, Peter, I want to say that even though I can get sort of exasperated at times (yes, even with YOU!), I've really enjoyed these exchanges. Your playing "devil's advocate" (in a sense) forces me to think longer, deeper, and harder about these issues, and I appreciate it.

Gregg

Radorth

Eh?

Rad

Gregg

I've already posted some ideas as to why "Mark" and his community chose to write a mythological story about the Christ, constructed mainly out of passages and themes found in the Jewish scriptures.

Here are some ideas to address the second part of the question; why did "Mark" choose to set his mythological tale on Earth, and during a recent, identifiable historical period, even including some actual historical figures from that time?

1. It's not always valid to reply to the question "why?" with "why NOT?" but on the other hand, sometimes it is. Is there any compelling reason why Mark should NOT have set his tale where and when he did?

2. The events of the Jewish scriptures are set on Earth--God speaks and acts in history--and despite their legendary nature, they are peopled with many actual historical figures. Mark's Christian community believed that God was speaking and acting in history once again, after centuries of apparent silence and inaction, through the revelation of the Son. So Earth was the natural setting for a mythological tale, based on Scripture, about the Son and the founding of his church.

3. Most of the events of the Jewish scriptures are set in Palestine, or in "the wilderness." If Mark's mythical story was going to be set on Earth, what better location for it?

4. Since Jesus had to be gotten onto a cross at the end of the story, setting it during the period of Roman governership, when crucifixions took place regularly, also makes sense. Of course Mark doesn't have Jesus crucified for any reason that would have actually merited that punishment under Roman law (the story of Pilate--a cruel and ruthless man--first being fair-minded and respectful toward Jesus, and then rather cravenly acqueiscing to Jewish demands to crucify him despite his own belief in Jesus' innocence, is widely recognized as fanciful), but then his story really isn't about a political revolutionary.

5. Why that particular time in the history of Roman governorship in Palestine? Perhaps the Jerusalem church had been founded during that time period? Perhaps to lend the story a sense of familiarity and immediacy? Perhaps because that time period lent itself well to the story? A combination of these?

One thing I find interesting about Mark is the way it whitewashes Pilate and the Romans, while painting "the Jews' in a harsh light. Even though I think Mark's purpose here is to point up the fact that the Gospel found wider acceptance among Gentiles than Jews, it's odd that Mark would go so easy on the man believed to be responsible for ordering Jesus' torture and crucifixion, even if he supposedly did it reluctantly at the behest of "the Jews."

Gregg

Radorth

Unfortunately a healthy skepticism has not been extended to those of Doherty. Even Kirby feels the need to apologize and clarify for asking questions. That's what is so sad here IMO. We can answer Doherty readily. It is the likes of Durant's and Schonfield's far more rational and time-tested explanations that we cannot answer well.

By all means, keep it up though.

Rad

Yuri Kuchinsky

OK, Greg, suppose that you're right. In other words, let's suppose that these things have NOT been a subject of much debate between Christians and Jews in the earliest age of Christianity. But, in such a case, shouldn't this indicate logically that these things weren't yet invented in the earliest age of Christianity?

So it seems like you've simply been assuming that all those things go back to the earliest version of Mk. But I don't think so. In fact, these features (i.e. Jesus being God during his earthly life) obviously seem like they were introduced some time in 2c -- by Gentile Christians!

This is why I said before, in my first post in this thread, that if one assumes, together with 99% of biblical scholars today, that Mk was all a 1c production, then the whole thing becomes quite absurd. Based on such an assumption, we can indeed say that Jesus couldn't have been historical.

Quote:

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.

But I'm sure that the early Jewish-Christians, themselves, rejected such an idea out of hand! Thus, more than anything else, your surprise at their lack of surprise indicates that your starting assumptions were guaranteed to provide you with the results that you desired. In other words, there's a bit of circularity in your reasoning IMHO.

Regards,

Yuri.