I Will Have a Chapter in a New Mythicism Book

[Secret Alias]

Esther and Mordechai are divinities recast as historical persons. Not sure that's a good example.

[GakuseiDon]

If a modern Christian actually constructed a biography of Jesus using the Gospels, how would it differ from the Gospels? Would there be structural differences, or simply content differences? If the Gospels aren't biographies, what would make them into biographies?

[Ben C. Smith]

The written Gospels are biographies. They contain details of Jesus's birth, life and death. What else is that but a biography?

If they are biographies, then they are of the Jewish kind, not of the Greco-Roman kind. In form, in function, and especially in authorial expression they share more in common with Joshua, Ruth, Judith, the first half of Daniel, Esther, and the Elijah-Elisha cycle than with any of the βίοι:

Yeah, for some people "biography" seems to only mean "Greco-Roman biography". I often see amateurs like myself trying to compare Gospels to the writings of early Roman writers, and concluding that they weren't biographies because they weren't Greco-Roman biographies. I don't know why that is their starting point.

I can speak only for myself. My first instinct when I hear the term "biography" in the context of ancient literature, including the gospels, is to think of the Greco-Roman biographies, because (A) there are so many of them, (B) they are, very much unlike some other strains of ancient literature, almost uniformly called by a single genre name, (C) that genre name is βίος, which consists of the first morpheme of the English word "biography," and (D) there have been both scholarly and unscholarly books actually comparing the gospels to Greco-Roman biographies/βίοι, which I think is a mistake, and which is why I can be quick to point out that there are Jewish works which one can perhaps call "biographies" (a scant few of which actually do call themselves that, in a way: Lives of the Prophets, for example), works to which the gospels seem generically connected in a way not shared with the βίοι.

[Secret Alias]

Esther never existed. No facts about her could ever have been gathered. So too with respect to Joshua. That doesn't settle the question of whether the Book of Esther belongs to a genre properly called "Jewish biography." But it kills its value as an argument for the existence of Jesus as "Jewish biographies" were frequently constructed around non-existent people or people for whom no biographical information existed.

[Charles Wilson]

Esther never existed. No facts about her could ever have been gathered. So too with respect to Joshua. That doesn't settle the question of whether the Book of Esther belongs to a genre properly called "Jewish biography." But it kills its value as an argument for the existence of Jesus as "Jewish biographies" were frequently constructed around non-existent people or people for whom no biographical information existed.

Correct.

Existence is not a Predicate.
From the fact that the "Jesus Stories" were written from "Source Stories" it does not follow that these "Source Stories" were about "Jesus".

Mark 9: 42 (RSV):

[42] "Whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him if a great millstone were hung round his neck and he were thrown into the sea. ["]

This is, of course, a Herod story, centered on Herod passing out bread to ANYONE who was hungry in that Great Famine. The story repudiates Herod. "How dare he?" The people want free bread but if Herod's name is attached to it, better to starve, if you must give allegiance to Herod.

We see this today: "We want Free Money, but if Trump's name is attached to this, better to die from the Virus than accept the Free Money."

A pox on both houses. The people who wanted Free Bread are seen to be as evil as Herod for abandoning Principles. Thus, the people who soil their hands with Free Money are evil as well. Those who already have money and power are telling those who are poor to forego all of this if it involves acknowledging Trump. "I am OUTRAGED". Easy for them to say. BTW, the warning in verse 42 came true. The Big-Wigs in the Hellenized Jerusalem suburbs began to think of Herod as a kinda' nice guy. Trump will never be thought of as a "Good Guy" to these people.

"Fuck the Virus. Just give us the money, OK?"

This is not Biography. Mark rewrites Judean History to show the evil in everyone. His "Jesus" gets Crucified at the end.

So it goes.

CW

[GakuseiDon]

Esther never existed. No facts about her could ever have been gathered. So too with respect to Joshua. That doesn't settle the question of whether the Book of Esther belongs to a genre properly called "Jewish biography." But it kills its value as an argument for the existence of Jesus as "Jewish biographies" were frequently constructed around non-existent people or people for whom no biographical information existed.

Again, I'm not making an argument for the existence of Jesus (for example, Superman has an on-line biography), but trying to understand why you think the Gospels are not biographies. What is the difference in your view between ' "Jewish biographies" ' and 'Jewish biographies'? Does in fact the written Gospel appear to be an example of a "Jewish biography", thus killing its value as an argument for the existence of Jesus?

On the one hand, the Gospels are not "biographies". On the other hand, they LOOK like biographies. You can get a sense of this while reading through mythicist material. From Dr Carrier's "On the Historicity of Jesus", page 397:

Instead, the Gospels look like the edifying but fictional biographies composed for many other heroes and sages (see Element 44). As David Gowler observes, they appear to be an assembled network of vignettes (pericopes in the language of biblical studies) that were already identified in ancient schools as chreiai, a stand­ard rhetorical device that was extensively taught to all students of literary Greek...

"The Gospels look like the other fictional biographies", but they are not a form of biography.

From Earl Doherty's "Jesus: Neither God Nor Man":

Page 386:

And while Mark or his community had not undertaken to redactionally integrate the two documents, Matthew and Luke did precisely that, carrying the Jesus 'biography' and the story of the sect to a new level.

page 413:

In Mark, is Jesus still only a symbol, or has he graduated to an envisioned historical figure? It almost makes no difference. There can be no question that the Gospel story itself is symbolic, not intended as an actual biography. It has been constructed out of scripture to fit the needs of the day (late 1st century), not Jesus' day, which is why it contains so many anachronisms.

"They look like biographies, but they aren't intended as actual biographies. They are 'biographies' ".

If the criterion for using quotes is the historical existence of the subject, then are quote marks put around the word "biography" when talking about the non-historical characters described by Plutarch and other Roman writers? Or just the Gospels? Is the biography of Romulus described as the " 'biography' of Romulus"? Not that I have seen.

It seems as though it is okay to refer to a written Gospel as a "biography" as long as the word is put in quotes. If a written Gospel is declared as non-historical, then the quotes can be removed and the Gospel declared as some form of biography: a fictional biography, a biography drawn from midrash, a biography developed from euhemerizing a celestial being from outer space. Very strange! I'll leave it at that.

[Secret Alias]

We don't know anything about the character, goals or achievements of the main protagonist other than his prediction about his death in Jerusalem. There is no clear message about whether or not his character, goals and achievements should be imitated as we don't know what they are. They were imitated. Christians were martyrs because of Jesus. But was the gospel written to teach martyrdom? Jesus is a stranger. I too am not addressing the question of whether or not Jesus existed. I don't know what the gospel is. I don't see Mark writing a life of Jesus in the way Plutarch wrote his biographies.

[Secret Alias]

And the reason why it can't be a biography is because the generic character of the gospel's portrait of Jesus is deliberate. He is generic in the literal sense of the word. Christian theology depends on the main protagonist of the gospel being the genus for all of humanity. He is us. That's what Paul understood. Jesus is the generic human, the representative of Israel, the bearer of divine authority, who comes for a redemptive purpose. The idea that this understanding isn't true and that the gospel as biography is, completely destroys Christianity once and for all. Salvation depends on the genericness of Jesus. If the gospel is a biography none of us have ever been saved. No one was 'saved' by a biography. To that end, we have to ask whether the 'genericness' of the gospel portrait can continue to be thought to be accidental or a sign of the deficiency of the original author.

[MrMacSon]

... Jesus is the generic human, the representative of Israel, the bearer of divine authority, who comes for a redemptive purpose ... Salvation depends on the genericness of Jesus ...
.

Yep. Sid Martin's 2013 book, Secret of the Savior, is probably the best argument for and discussion of that point.

[Secret Alias]

Even the Christian concept of being all family members requires the Savior to be a generic figure. Is he Jewish? He depicted as being around Jews, in Judea. But is he exclusively 'Jewish'? It is puzzling. He approaches a menstruating woman in a culture where it is forbidden. The answer of course from the second and third century apologists is that he is God - he can transcend the laws of Israel. But only as God can he do that, only as the generic 'Man.' Mark knows nothing of a divine birth, Virgin birth - whatever you want to call it. As generic Man, as God, he can approach situations which are forbidden to ordinary human beings. Surely a biography of a Jewish man pushing the Law to the side has a completely different implication.

Even look at his reference to the menstruant - is it appropriate for a 30 year old to refer to another young person as his 'daughter'? Indeed what is the age of the Savior in Mark? Does he even have an age? We've learned to read 'the gospels' synoptically it is difficult to imagine what a Mark-only reading would appear like.