Page 2 of 14
Re: The Real Bottom Line in the Mythicism Debate
Posted: Tue Jul 01, 2014 2:50 pm
by TedM
Stephan Huller wrote:You (Ted) start with the assumption that the story is historical. But let's leave that off the table for the moment. Let's start with the fact that the gospel narrative represents a myth (a narrative can be both or just a myth) developed for some social purpose. That social purpose was certainly explaining or dealing with the destruction of the temple announced by Jesus but retrojected into the past as an announcement or prophesy as the gospel was actually written after 70 CE. There were two groups in antiquity within Christianity. The earliest Christians (the Marcionites) said the announcer was an angel. Later the narrative was recast in terms of a human being. The Marcionites and the earliest Catholic sources read the narrative in terms of the destruction served as the unveiling of the new Law (which is the gospel). This is the common interpretation of the literary (mythical) context of the gospel narrative. There is no debate about this. There is just general ignorance about what the earliest sources actually say.
I guess I'll bow out. I find myself reading your posts 3-4 times to try and understand them. I think there is too much background that I am not piecing together to be able to follow your points. Sorry, but thanks for responding.
Re: The Real Bottom Line in the Mythicism Debate
Posted: Tue Jul 01, 2014 3:06 pm
by Stephan Huller
The question at the heart of Mark's gospel is that of authority. Whence the authority of Jesus? Jesus' crucifixion develops from this same question (does he have the authority to utter the things and do the things forbidden by Moses's law). One of those things is the end of Judaism. Indeed the destruction provides the historical context for the various demonstrations that the Law is ended in the gospel. But if Jesus was a person how could Mark have overlooked introducing the background of who this great man who knew the future and took the initiative to engage in lawless acts decades before the actual end?
Re: The Real Bottom Line in the Mythicism Debate
Posted: Tue Jul 01, 2014 3:07 pm
by MrMacSon
What the Marcionites might have said is pertinent to Marcionism, and possibly to the development of some of the NT, but is not pertinent to the issue of whether there really was a person as the foundation of the stories about Jesus the Christ of Nazareth.
Yes, a supernatural Christ was almost-certainly part of the original formulations of the Gospel (& Pauline) texts, to which a human-form was later added, as the stories were embellished; over the subsequent 2 centuries ie. 7-10 generations.
Re: The Real Bottom Line in the Mythicism Debate
Posted: Tue Jul 01, 2014 3:13 pm
by Stephan Huller
Of course it is relevant. Beyond the question of whether the Marcionites were first (that has I think been tentatively settled affirmatively with recent scholarship) the question of how Mark could have written a holy book about a law breaker without providing any inkling about his background is particularly unusual. How can a man break the Law 40 - 50 years before the end of Judaism? What is the logic here? What is the meaning? What is the message?
Mark knew Jesus was a god. He was the same god who gave the Law, that is he could transgress the statutes. No one else had this authority. Again Mark's failure to provide any background for Jesus disqualifies the text as a biography. So what is it then? What is the literary genre of the gospel?
Re: The Real Bottom Line in the Mythicism Debate
Posted: Tue Jul 01, 2014 3:26 pm
by toejam
Stephan Huller wrote:But if Jesus was a person how could Mark have overlooked introducing the background of who this great man who knew the future and took the initiative to engage in lawless acts decades before the actual end?
In
Purple Rain - the highly stylised semi-autobiographical movie on the rise of the musician Prince from moody small-time local talent to a less moody "superstar"- there is no mention of his childhood. Shouldn't the director have included such a scene if there was a historical Prince behind the story??
That Mark doesn't say anything about Jesus' childhood says nothing. How could Mark have overlooked introducing the background if there was a historical Jesus? Quite easily I suspect. In Mark, the spirit doesn't enter Jesus until his baptism, so everything before that is really unnecessary for his portrait. One might say that the baptism scene
is the "background" part. To suggest that he
should have said something else is really stretching for a "gap" to be filled IMO.
Re: The Real Bottom Line in the Mythicism Debate
Posted: Tue Jul 01, 2014 3:27 pm
by Stephan Huller
FWIW I see the gospel as an apocalyptic text but also an anti-Torah. It is almost the inversion of the Jewish law. Both texts were pseudepigraphal, Ezra pretends to write a narrative about Moses so too Mark with respect to Jesus. But Moses passes off laws (hundreds) in the name of God whereas Jesus announces the dismantling of the old laws. Moses dies before the Entry, Jesus the same with respect to the destruction/galut. The twelve apostles/twelve tribes parallel etc.
Re: The Real Bottom Line in the Mythicism Debate
Posted: Tue Jul 01, 2014 3:30 pm
by Stephan Huller
But Purple Rain is complete fiction. Prince's dad never died and helped write many of his songs later. Purple Rain was just an extended video to help sell vinyl. It wasn't a historical documentary
Re: The Real Bottom Line in the Mythicism Debate
Posted: Tue Jul 01, 2014 3:32 pm
by Stephan Huller
I don't think modern marketing examples help decide questions from antiquity.
Re: The Real Bottom Line in the Mythicism Debate
Posted: Tue Jul 01, 2014 3:32 pm
by toejam
^I don't see Jesus in the gospels "inverting" the law. He seems to simply have a more liberal view on them, which is nothing out of the ordinary. Jews have forever been debating how strict or liberal the laws should be adhered to. That Jesus seemingly had an opinion doesn't mean he was "inverting" them. ... Paul on the other hand...
Re: The Real Bottom Line in the Mythicism Debate
Posted: Tue Jul 01, 2014 3:36 pm
by MrMacSon
Stephan Huller wrote: What is the literary genre of the gospel?
It seems likely the Gospels & the Pauline texts developed separately; independent of each other.
The literary genre is theological aspiration?