Fictional Jesus Synthesis

[hakeem]

It is the idea that the gospel narrative (in all its versions) has a historical core that is the foundation of the identity apologetics underlying Christian origins studies. Historicity, mediated however imperfectly via oral tradition, is the guard against "parallelomania" and muddying Christianity with inappropriate entities.

I'd love some anthropologists to turn their investigations to the field of biblical studies as a whole.

(No, that the gospels are fictional or might be entirely fictional does not mean it necessarily follows there was no historical Jesus. That's a separate question entirely, and actually secondary to a valid scholarly approach to the evidence we have for the study of Christian origins.)

The fact that the stories of Jesus are fictional is a fundamental part of the evidence in the argument that there was no historical Jesus. It is virtually impossible to separate fictional events when questioning the historicity/non-historicity of any unknown character. All stories about characters deemed to be non-historical are indeed fiction.

The fictional accounts of Jesus match those of other non-historical characters in ancient mythology.

[MrMacSon]

... that the gospels are fictional or might be entirely fictional does not mean it necessarily follows there was no historical Jesus. That's a separate question entirely, and actually secondary to a valid scholarly approach to the evidence we have for the study of gospel origins ..

I agree the the two questions/fields could or should be studied (mostly) separately, yet I'd say they overlap; two-circle Venn Diagram like.

Comment --

...modern Euro-American biblical scholarship has been simply an exercise in apologetics, using comparison to shore up the uniqueness of Christianity against a so-called “parallelomania” for ancient polytheistic cultures.[1] ...

J.C. Hanges: http://www.bibleinterp.com/articles/201 ... 8029.shtml

... "Historicity", mediated however imperfectly via [propositions of there having been a significant] oral tradition, is the 'guard' against "parallelomania" and muddying Christianity with 'inappropriate entities'.

Yep, 'parallelomania' is a strawman red-herring.

[neilgodfrey]

The simple reason that the gospels being entirely fictional does not of itself mean that there was no historical Jesus is that they are not the only ancient sources speaking of Jesus. Sometimes, too, evidence can be found that informs us that even an entirely fictional account is grounded in a "historical memory" -- e.g. Pseudo-Callisthenes' Alexander Romance.

[neilgodfrey]

The simple reason that the gospels being entirely fictional does not of itself mean that there was no historical Jesus is that they are not the only ancient sources speaking of Jesus. Sometimes, too, evidence can be found that informs us that even an entirely fictional account is grounded in a "historical memory" -- e.g. Pseudo-Callisthenes' Alexander Romance.

[Ulan]

The idea that the gospel stories are to a large extent fictional isn't exactly rare among NT scholars. What is rare is the belief that there isn't a historical figure that the Jesus figure of the gospels is based on.

[Secret Alias]

... and why the lack of evidence is best explained by the non-existence of Jesus. I don't know how we jump to this conclusion. I guess it's one of the options. Why it is the best option isn't clear to me. It does appear to me that certain atheist 'activists' decide it's the best option for purely tactical reasons - i.e. it's a suitably vulgar position to have in a vulgar age.

[hakeem]

The simple reason that the gospels being entirely fictional does not of itself mean that there was no historical Jesus is that they are not the only ancient sources speaking of Jesus. Sometimes, too, evidence can be found that informs us that even an entirely fictional account is grounded in a "historical memory" -- e.g. Pseudo-Callisthenes' Alexander Romance.

It is argued that Jesus was non-historical for the simple reason that all accounts of the character are fictional or implausible and that no evidence can be found to inform us of an actual account grounded in historical memory.

In the NT, Jesus is no different to the characters called the God of the Jews, the Holy Ghost, the angel Gabriel, Satan and Beelzebub. All accounts of those characters are fictional and there is no evidence anywhere compatible with historical memory.

[John2]

rgprice writes:

We now reach perhaps the single most important parallel between the Gospel called Mark and the letters of Paul - the Eucharist.

And here are the passages in question.

Mk. 14:22-25

While they were eating, Jesus took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it and gave it to his disciples, saying, “Take it; this is my body.”

Then he took a cup, and when he had given thanks, he gave it to them, and they all drank from it.

“This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many,” he said to them. “Truly I tell you, I will not drink again from the fruit of the vine until that day when I drink it new in the kingdom of God.”

1 Cor. 11:23-32:

For I received from the Lord what I also passed on to you: The Lord Jesus, on the night he was betrayed, took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it and said, “This is my body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of me.” In the same way, after supper he took the cup, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood; do this, whenever you drink it, in remembrance of me.” For whenever you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes.

So then, whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord. Everyone ought to examine themselves before they eat of the bread and drink from the cup. For those who eat and drink without discerning the body of Christ eat and drink judgment on themselves. That is why many among you are weak and sick, and a number of you have fallen asleep. But if we were more discerning with regard to ourselves, we would not come under such judgment. Nevertheless, when we are judged in this way by the Lord, we are being disciplined so that we will not be finally condemned with the world.

As I look over these two passages, I notice that Jesus does not say "new covenant" but "the covenant" (though there are some variant manuscripts), and while I would see it as referring to the old covenant either way, "the covenant" makes the connection with Ex. 24:8 even clearer.

Ex. 24:6-8:

Moses took half of the blood and put it in bowls, and the other half he splashed against the altar. Then he took the Book of the Covenant and read it to the people. They responded, “We will do everything the Lord has said; we will obey.”

Moses then took the blood, sprinkled it on the people and said, “This is the blood of the covenant that the Lord has made with you in accordance with all these words.”

The only difference is that Jesus says, "This is my blood of the covenant," but it's the same covenant, the old covenant. And Jesus' reference to "many" seems similar to Moses sprinkling the blood "on the people." So the passage strikes me as being very Mosaic and pro-Torah and thus not in keeping with Paul's Torah-free "new covenant."

And I see that Jesus doesn't say anything about eating bread and drinking wine "in remembrance of him" or to "proclaim the Lord's death until he comes," as Paul says. So not only is Paul not alluding to Ex. 24:8 like Jesus is, he also imbues the ritual with a meaning that Jesus does not.

So the passages don't seem similar at all to me, beyond the references to eating bread and drinking wine "on the night he was delivered up" (which I think is the more interesting parallel going on here). Jesus alludes to Moses and the old covenant and Paul does not. Paul says it was to remember Jesus and proclaim his death and Jesus does not.

I think Paul interprets the meaning of the ritual in his way, and Mark (if not Jesus) does it in his way, and the Didache does it in its way.

Did. 9:1-5:

And concerning the Eucharist, hold Eucharist thus: First concerning the Cup, "We give thanks to thee, our Father, for the Holy Vine of David thy child, which, thou didst make known to us through Jesus thy child; to thee be glory for ever."
And concerning the broken Bread: "We give thee thanks, our Father, for the life and knowledge which thou didst make known to us through Jesus thy Child. To thee be glory for ever.

As this broken bread was scattered upon the mountains, but was brought together and became one, so let thy Church be gathered together from the ends of the earth into thy Kingdom, for thine is the glory and the power through Jesus Christ for ever."

But let none eat or drink of your Eucharist except those who have been baptised in the Lord's Name. For concerning this also did the Lord say, "Give not that which is holy to the dogs."

And regarding the Didache version, it does not appear to be dependent on Mark (or on Paul), which makes me suspect that since it knows of only one gospel, which appears to be a Matthew-type, it could be a version of Matthew before it was combined with Mark, perhaps another one of the translations that Papias says had been made of the original Hebrew version, otherwise it could have (more aptly) cited what Jesus says about it himself in Mark (instead of "Give not that which is holy to the dogs").

[hakeem]

1 Cor. 11.23-25

For I received from the Lord what I also passed on to you: The Lord Jesus, on the night he was betrayed, took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it and said, “This is my body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of meIn the same way, after supper he took the cup, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood; do this, whenever you drink it, in remembrance of me.” For whenever you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes.

Luke 22:-19-20

And he took bread, and gave thanks, and brake it, and gave unto them, saying, This is my body which is given for you: this do in remembrance of me.
20 Likewise also the cup after supper, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood, which is shed for you.

Mark 14.22-25

While they were eating, Jesus took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it and gave it to his disciples, saying, “Take it; this is my body.”

Then he took a cup, and when he had given thanks, he gave it to them, and they all drank from it.

“This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many,” he said to them. “Truly I tell you, I will not drink again from the fruit of the vine until that day when I drink it new in the kingdom of God.”

It is easily seen that the passage in 1 Corinthians 11.23-25 matches gLuke 22.19-20.

In fact, the Last Supper story in 1 Cor. is evidence that the author of the Epistle wrote after gMark's version.

The Jesus in gMark does not tell his disciples to carry out any ritual in his remembrance or tell about a new covenant.

gLuke and 1 Cor. are later embellishments of the Last Supper fable.

[MrMacSon]

rgprice writes:

We now reach perhaps the single most important parallel between the Gospel called Mark and the letters of Paul - the Eucharist.

And here are the passages in question.

• Mk. 14:22-25 ...

• 1 Cor. 11:23-32 ...

Thomas P. Nelligan in The Quest for Mark's Sources: An Exploration of the Case for Mark's Use of First Corinthians, 2015, notes

"While Mark's [Eucharist] text contains some differences, the core of [Mark's] story is very similar to 1 Corinthians."

Thomas P. Nelligan in The Quest for Mark's Sources: An Exploration of the Case for Mark's Use of First Corinthians (Wipf & Stock, 2015) (p.146)

Nelligan does note "Luke may provide more striking parallels" but then says "that does not mean Markan dependence is not valid."

Nelligan goes on -

.
"Here rather, there is an instance where it can be said with a huge degree of certainty that Mark is using 1 Corinthians as a literary source.

"The larger contexts of the Eucharist texts indicate further that the parallels found within the eucharist accounts are consistent with larger literary borrowing ... The surrounding context provides supporting evidence to the connection of the Eucharist accounts and, therefore, help further a case for literary dependence." (pp. 146-7)
.

page 151 -

.
. . . 1 Cor 11:2-34 and Mark 14:1-25...were chose for specific analysis because contained in them are the two earliest extant accounts of the Last Supper/Eucharist.

The main points that contribute to a case of literary dependence are

• The theme of coming together to eat ran throughout the texts. Paul instructs the Corinthians on how they should come together to eat the Lord's Supper while in Mark Jesus instructs the disciples how to prepare for the Passover. The Last Supper/ Eucharist is then depicted in both. Later in both texts, there are unworthy participants, self-examination, condemnations and judgements. While the context of the meal is not significant itself, when considered part of a large chain of similarities, the connections cannot be ignored.

• From the beginning of each section there is a common sequence of action/ plot in roughly the same order. Women initially play an important role in both and are connected to the human head and angry/ contentious people. A contrasting meal setting comes next with divisions in Corinth and harmony and Mark. In both Eucharist scenes this action is mirrored. Jesus takes the bread, blesses/ gives thanks, equates bread with body, takes the cup, equates blood with covenant, [and] Paul and Jesus looked forward into the eschatological future. Paul finally moves on to discuss the conduct of people at the Lord's Supper and here, as a Mark, unworthy participants are present and are judged and condemned.

• Cor 11:16 and Mark 14:4 both use similar phrasing in connection with angry and contentious people

• The shared vocabulary in the eucharist scenes is significant. This is combined with a similar plot, order and larger context.

Thomas P. Nelligan in The Quest for Mark's Sources: An Exploration of the Case for Mark's Use of First Corinthians (Wipf & Stock, 2015) (p. 151)

Nelligan notes the similarities are often ascribed to a liturgical tradition, but he says this hypothesis is not viable given the of hypothetical and limbo nature of liturgy then says -

"After weighing up the evidence contained in the Eucharist texts and in the surrounding texts the only logical solution is that Mark is dependent up 1 Corinthians ... it is in Mark 14:22-25 that 1 Corinthians takes precedence above all other sources*. As with 1 Cor 1-2 and Mark 1:1-28 the similarities noted were consistent with methods of text absorption such as distillation, dispersion, 'positivization', and 'contaminato'." (pp. 151-2)

* I'm not sure what Nelligan is saying here. He may be referring to 1 Cor being a source for other aspects of Mark (other than, as he next says, similarities between 1 Cor 1-2 and Mark 1:1-28). He may be referring to other sources of information about the Eucharist, but that seems less likely.