Thou art Peter and upon this rock

[Clive]

Have any mythicists used the awful puns like this as evidence of a literary non historic core?

[Secret Alias]

... amplified by the fact that kefa means small stone not boulder.

[Peter Kirby]

The discussion would go something like this:

Mythicist Kyle: "See, the story has clearly mythical bits like Jesus giving the keys to some Peter character."
Protestant Stan: "But we have to separate the fiction in the Gospels from the bedrock of historical tradition."
Evangelical Kenny: "Mmmh mm mmmm mm mm, mmmmhhh mm!"
Catholic Cartman: "Screw you guys, I'm going home."

[Tenorikuma]

But let’s suppose for an instant that a Messiah named Jesus had charged Peter with creating a Church and being its leader. How would events have proceeded? Peter would have undoubtedly obeyed, but having received his instructions from Jesus in Jerusalem, it is in Jerusalem (seat of the first community according to legend) where he would have organized the Christian church. Jesus never told him to move the seat of this Church to Rome. Why would Peter have done so? Why would he have chosen Rome over Antioch or Alexandria?

(Ory, Analyse)

[neilgodfrey]

Mary Ann Tolbert in Sowing the Gospel argued for a literary core to the Gospel of Mark on the basis of material like this -- the name Peter represented the rocky soil of the parable and as the head disciple represented all twelve as unstable followers -- sprouting in quick fervour only to wilt under persecution.

Mark's pun makes more sense than Matthew's, I think, given Stephan's point.

I doubt she's a mythicist, though.

[neilgodfrey]

Literary core to the gospels does not equate with mythicism, by the way. MacDonald stresses that his Homer arguments don't refute the historicity of Jesus; Spong says everything is fiction except the fact of Jesus in history; many point to midrashic retellings of OT stories etc but insist history is behind it all; John Moles (classicist) even argues for the symbolic use of the name Jesus and its gospel allusions to Greek mythology tropes but does not dispute the historicity of Jesus.

[Clive]

Literary core to the gospels does not equate with mythicism, by the way. MacDonald stresses that his Homer arguments don't refute the historicity of Jesus; Spong says everything is fiction except the fact of Jesus in history; many point to midrashic retellings of OT stories etc but insist history is behind it all; John Moles (classicist) even argues for the symbolic use of the name Jesus and its gospel allusions to Greek mythology tropes but does not dispute the historicity of Jesus.

But isn't there a logical error with those arguments? Yes some stories are about real people (but where does that leave Herodotus discussing Helen of Troy?) but stories are also about made up characters. Was there a real Sherlock Holmes?

If a literary source is reasonable, further questions must be asked, not asserting ""not refuting historicity"".

Is mythicism the wrong word? Is Sherlock Holmes mythical?

[Clive]

Sherlock Holmes: The Man Who Never Lived And Will Never Die

http://www.theguardian.com/books/2014/o ... ling-myths

[neilgodfrey]

Literary core to the gospels does not equate with mythicism, by the way. MacDonald stresses that his Homer arguments don't refute the historicity of Jesus; Spong says everything is fiction except the fact of Jesus in history; many point to midrashic retellings of OT stories etc but insist history is behind it all; John Moles (classicist) even argues for the symbolic use of the name Jesus and its gospel allusions to Greek mythology tropes but does not dispute the historicity of Jesus.

But isn't there a logical error with those arguments? Yes some stories are about real people (but where does that leave Herodotus discussing Helen of Troy?) but stories are also about made up characters.

Yes, this takes us back to the whole nature of ancient historical writing. The aim was to teach, to edify, and history was not about preserving memories of "what really happened" for its own sake. What was "real" was what was believable. Stories would be made up if they were plausible and conveyed what was according to "human nature". Realism was more important than reality. I've written up some notes on a few studies along these lines at http://vridar.org/category/historiograp ... riography/

The very ancient past was "by nature" the realm of the gods and Homer himself was considered not just a poet but also a "historian". It was appropriate when writing a history of origins to involve the gods and so Helen of Troy, Achilles, and the gods are involved in the work of Herodotus in the beginning.

But Herodotus is also sometimes compared with the Primary History of the Bible (Genesis to 2 Kings) -- similar structure: mythic past, giants, god walking around, angels... but then moving into more recent times where God is more remote and only works through prophets, dreams, etc. Herodotus' Histories is also seen to be a similar "theological history" -- with the Delphic Oracle serving a similar role to the Temple in the Bible. The message or theme is the same: beware hubris, fear god, his will is done regardless . . . .

I'm rambling again--- this is a huge huge topic.

[Clive]

Sounds like it needs tackling though if the walls of Constantinople are to be breached!