The Nativity Traditions of Jesus

by Leolaia 27 Replies latest watchtower bible

• 

  Narkissos

  Pole,

  You do raise essential questions (which perhaps would be worth another thread).

  One problem is that our catalog of literary genres doesn't suit the ancient worlds and works. We have gradually (and still partially) separated "history" from "fiction" or "art" from "religion", as potentially "pure" types or categories, whereas in ancient cultures everything was related and largely undistinct. The gods of mythology were represented in statues and worshipped in temples with music and dance; the Greek theater emerged in a cultual and ritual setting. Even the concepts of "truth" or "believing" were different: this was very well demonstrated decades ago by Paul Veyne in his famous essay Les Grecs ont-ils cru à leurs mythes? (Did the Greek believe their myths?). Greek philosophy is perhaps the first methodical attempt at extracting a logos from the overwhelming mythos -- and this is the very beginning of our critical civilisation. But this critical analysis, for what it is worth, doesn't work backwards.

  Now back to the highly elusive question of the author's intention. Frankly I doubt that the authors of the stories about Jesus being born from a virgin, walking on the sea, quieting the storm, transfigured or ascended to heaven would intend their texts to be taken literally as we often do; perhaps they couldn't even imagine that some people would read them this way. Those were texts for liturgical use (they were read aloud) and they were written to serve and develop a collective experience. If we read them as a newspaper report or an encyclopedia article (whether to defend them or to criticise them at this level of reading) we are to blame -- not the texts or the authors.

  But there is much more to any text than its author's intentions. As Derrida pointed out in many ways, what the author writes is not just what s/he means. On the one hand s/he can be unaware of many literary influences which nonetheless are in his/her work; on the other hand no reader will ever understand the text exactly as s/he meant it. Writing is committing oneself to (and losing oneself in) the infinite drift of difference in scripture, which includes the endless potentialities of intertextuality.
• 

  Midget-Sasquatch

  I always learn something new in your write-ups Leolaia. I don't remember Spong's books ever relating the legends of Miriam's dream or the husbands divorcing their wives. Very interesting.

  Pole

  If I'm not mistaken, pesher, or taking OT passages and applying them to the author's or reader's point in time was a practice of some ancient jews, in particular the Essenes [another curious link to the early christians perhaps?] Hopefully I'm not mixing this up too much with some of Barbara Theiring's ideas on pesher [which aren't taken seriously at all by those in the field - read some of her books and you'll see why :) ]. But Matthew's use of motifs surrounding Moses is sort of in the same vain. Maybe that's the original intent of the author of the Gospel, not as 100% actual history, but simply portraying was was mostly true to the author (Jesus was the Liberator), and doing it according to that particular view of the divine's repeated and similar intervention in history? The Jewish readers would easily pick up on the themes and that sort of approach.
• 

  Pole

  Narkissos,

  You do raise essential questions (which perhaps would be worth another thread).

  I don't have that much to say in this respect anyway, so I'll finish my digression in this post. I hope Leolaia will forgive me. She's away on holiday anyway!

  Les Grecs ont-ils cru à leurs mythes?

  Wow, I did understand this one after two months of learning French!

  Greek philosophy is perhaps the first methodical attempt at extracting a logos from the overwhelming mythos -- and this is the very beginning of our critical civilisation. But this critical analysis, for what it is worth, doesn't work backwards.

  Interesting. I once had a long conversation with a christian who used this veracity argument with reference to the Hebrew Scriptures. He said he believed the Greek scriptures were influenced by those aspects of Greek philosophy that you mention to such an extent that we can trust them as accounts of actual events. You have extended this argument to the NT as well.

  Now back to the highly elusive question of the author's intention. Frankly I doubt that the authors of the stories about Jesus being born from a virgin, walking on the sea, quieting the storm, transfigured or ascended to heaven would intend their texts to be taken literally as we often do; perhaps they couldn't even imagine that some people would read them this way. Those were texts for liturgical use (they were read aloud) and they were written to serve and develop a collective experience. If we read them as a newspaper report or an encyclopedia article (whether to defend them or to criticise them at this level of reading) we are to blame -- not the texts or the authors.

  This is what I actually wanted to know. I'm not sure what to think because I never really researched the diachronic aspects of the Bible. It just sounds so unbelievable to me that the authors of the Gospels may not have meant their stories to be taken as descriptions of real events. But I guess it's a very interesting perspective which reconiles different elements of the theories I have heard so far (conspiracy, actual revelation, fabrication, etc.).

  But there is much more to any text than its author's intentions. As Derrida pointed out in many ways, what the author writes is not just what s/he means.

  I can still remember that from my literature classes (I did a minor in lit - I mostly hated it though). The Gospels are slightly different n this respect however because we have a few simultanuous accounts of the same events, so some conscious reflection on the contents of those books must have been involved on their part.

  Pole
• 

  Pole

  MS,

  I think I could agree with you, but the problem is slightly more complex due to the fact that (as I wrote in the post above) we have simultaneous descriptions of the same events in different gospels.

  Pole
• 

  Narkissos

  He said he believed the Greek scriptures were influenced by those aspects of Greek philosophy that you mention to such an extent that we can trust them as accounts of actual events. You have extended this argument to the NT as well.

  That's not what I meant to say. Even though some indirect and limited influence from Greek philosophy can be detected in the NT (such as Platonism in Hebrews, Stoicism in Paul or Cynicism in the Synoptic Gospels), the authors were not philosophers or historians (even in the ancient sense, as Thucydides or Herodotus): they had a theological agenda. The NT as a whole remains in the general structure of mythology (as Bultmann already pointed out) and almost never tries to elucidate the myth into rational thinking (logos in the philosophical sense). And this remains true of most contemporaneous Jewish and Greek works (e.g. Philostratus' story about Apollonius of Tyana which is so similar to the Gospels).
  

  The Gospels are slightly different n this respect however because we have a few simultanuous accounts of the same events, so some conscious reflection on the contents of those books must have been involved on their part.

  The Gospels are hardly "simultaneous accounts of the same events": although there is much variation in the detail of theories regarding their formation, it is pretty obvious that they are not independent from one another: Matthew and Luke are clearly tributary to an early version of Mark and another ("Q") document, and John apparently creates most of his material ex nihilo. The Nativity stories which are not hinted at in Mark and which are completely contradictory in Matthew and Luke are also fabrications, with only a few "traditions" in the background (one needs to relate Jesus to both Bethlehem and Nazareth for theological motives). At every stage of the process a conscious literary development is involved (and unconscious influences as well). Whether or what "events" might lie in the background remains an open question to me.
• 

  Pole

  The Gospels are hardly "simultaneous accounts of the same events": although there is much variation in the detail of theories regarding their formation, it is pretty obvious that they are not independent from one another: Matthew and Luke are clearly tributary to an early version of Mark and another ("Q") document, and John apparently creates most of his material ex nihilo. At every stage of the process a conscious literary development is involved (and unconscious influences as well). What "events" there might be in the background remains an open question.

  I don't think "simultaneous" necessarilly means independent. At least it wasn't what I meant. What I had in mind was that because different authors of the Gospels reported similar "facts and events" (either by copying each other or using the same sources of "inspiration") their "stream of consciousness" couldn't have generated exactly the same symbols, archetypes and allegories when they mentioned a miracle which had been already described in another Gospel. At least not in the sense described by Derrida. So I guess the question of a conscious effort and systematicity remains valid.
• 

  Midget-Sasquatch

  their "stream of consciousness" couldn't have generated exactly the same symbols, archetypes and allegories when they mentioned a miracle which had been already described in another Gospel. At least not in the sense described by Derrida. So I guess the question of a conscious effort and systematicity remains valid.

  Pole

  I see your point. Maybe this has more to do with the subsequent selection process for canonical vs non canonical gospels than a deliberate fixing of history among the writers of those NT gospels. The other gospels that were excluded fromthe canon have some very different accounts of the nativity (like time stopping at Jesus' birth) and the resurrection. So maybe the systematicity can't really help us with how much of the narrative was perceived as actual history and how much as myth to the authors themselves.
• 

  Narkissos

  Attempts at harmonisation are apparent in the later textual tradition, i.e. the countless variants of individual manuscripts, constantly sneaking parts of one Gospel into another. However those were too superficial to alter the deeply divergent course of the stories.

  If we come back to the Nativity stories, any reader can observe that Matthew and Luke have chosen two similar yet irreconciliable narrative paths to link "Bethlehem" and "Nazareth":

  (1) Joseph and Mary live in Bethlehem and move to Nazareth as a result of Herod's action (Matthew);

  (2) Joseph and Mary live in Nazareth and move to Bethlehem as a result of Quirinius' census (Luke);

  And if some are still concerned about "events," suffice to add to that Quirinius' census occurred about 10 years after Herod's death.
• 

  Pole

  MS,

  Thanks for the comment.

  Narkissos,

  And if some are still concerned about "events," suffice to add to that Quirinius' census occurred about 10 years after Herod's death.

  I'm not all that stubbornly concerned. I simply like to learn facts as the one you've just presented from posters such as you, peacefulpete of Leolaia. Sorry for my generalizing digression, Leolaia.

  Pole
• 

  Narkissos

  Pole,

  I was not hinting at you! I think we basically agree in our approach of Biblical texts, even though I am not sure to understand exactly where you locate "systematicity" in the process of writing. I had rather in mind the more common debate (especially in America) which, imo, misses the point by focusing on whether the texts are reflection of actual "events".

  This being said, I readily admit my share in the "digression", while trusting in Leolaia's forgiveness.