BigBear,

You bring up some interesting points. It is possible that the NT authors were embellishing and writing fan fiction even regarding real persons. I think the legends of George Washington cutting down a cherry tree are supported to show that even at a young age George was honest. This does not make the story true, but the fact that George was honest does give the story/legend/myth credibility.

The line between what really occurred and what did not is blurred because the legend does not portray George in a manner that was not in keeping with his 'original character' -that being his honesty.

Regarding the Historical Jesus and the Gospel narratives they do not always portray Jesus in a good light as one may expect in fan fiction. I don't know how much licence is given in creating the characters but I would think that a 'fan' would not choose to denigrate thier chosen hero. I don't know just does not seem much like a fan to me. Having said that there are some things that have characteristics that a fan would write.

The greatest difficulty with the idea (BTW I do like it as it is another avenue to explore) is that there is no original Jesus to compare anything to. How do I know whether I am really deviating from the "real Jesus" or if I am making a Jesus of my own creation. There is no baseline or orginal framework to build upon or to compare against.

It is a mixed bag, it can be used to support an historical Jesus by helping to interpret the Biblical texts; it can be used to minimize an historical Jesus as well in the interpretations of the texts.

How would you know what the orginal historic Jesus looked like? That is perhaps the most difficult part of the process.

I guess I will have to look more at it, it is a fresh look though, thanks.

blessings

Dave you are actually correct and absolutely correct, though I wouldn't use the term "fiction." That genre has meaning now, but I'm not sure it is how I would classify them as written. When one looks at the gospels as interrelated, as do all scholars, one sees this. The consensus of most scholars is the "priority of Mark," which means that it was the original gospel and that Matt and Luke used the basic story line of Mark, adding to it (and in some cases, taking from it if it didn't fit their agenda). There is quite a bit of gospel lore outside of the four in the canon: Gospel of Thomas, Secret Book of James, Dialogue of the Savior, Gospel of the Savior, Gospel of Mary, Gospel of Judas, Infancy Gospel of Thomas, Infancy Gospel of James (which I just quoted in the "rules of evidence" thread), Gospel of Peter and others, to say nothing of various "revelations" other than the canonical one. There are apocalypses of Peter, Paul, and Thomas. There are also "Acts" other than the canonical one (Apocryphal Acts of the Apostles, Acts of John, Acts of Peter, Acts of Paul, Acts of Andrew (just read a new translation of that), and Acts of Thomas). I mention all of these lists just to say that they all were valid ways of viewing Jesus/Christ in the second and third, pre-canonical, era and that they all provided stories or takes on stories of Jesus and the disciples. The part I just quoted from Infancy Gospel of James would have been viewed as "proof" of the virginity of Mary. It was seen as incorporating the myths of Matt and Luke and tweaking them to fit together because they were more or less mutually exclusive stories, as well as adding to them. "Fan fiction?" I would say so, in today's nomenclature.

Dennis

Apr 29, 2010 -- 7:57AM, bigbear6161 wrote:

In another thread Dennis brought up the parallel of thinking of the Bible as a comic book such as Superman.  This got me wondering if the NT authors specifically the evangelists may have been writing "Fan Fiction."  My 17 year old son loves to do this.  For those of you who don't know, fan fiction is stories written by fans about their favorite anime cartoons (a popular cartooning style from Japan) or television shows, etc.  The author is given quite free range to develop their own stories but there must be at least some connection to the original.  Sometimes cross over occurs where characters from one series appear in a different series, etc.  Now in case you're thinking I'm being frivolous, I am not.  I am simply pointing to one way fictional threads of stories can emerge and characters evolve etc.  Were the NT authors doing this with the character of Jesus?  Is it OK to do this?  Can we continue to write fan fiction about biblical or mythological heroes?  Can we learn from this? Is this all hogwash? And if any of you want to give it a stab, try writing some!

Dave

Apr 30, 2010 -- 11:14AM, teilhard wrote:

I DO agree that the Straw-Person Atheist-Materialist Versions of "God" ARE distinctly "Cartooni-ish" in Character ...

But ... Are "Paul's" Writings then ALSO "Fictional" ... ??? Is "Paul" an Invented Person ... ???  Invented by whom ... ??? Space Aliens ... ???

The same "fan fiction factor" is obvious. In fact, in traditional scholarship, the notion of "fan fiction" is even more overwhelming in the Paulines. The more traditional scholarship claims seven authentic Paulines. (Baur and others either dropped the number to four or none, but that is better approached in other threads.) It worked like this, in a traditional look (from the 18th century forward) at the Paulines:

1, 2 Thess, 1, 2 Cor, Gal, Rom, Philemon, Philippians = authentic

Ephesians, Colossians = later additions by people writing in his name (a common practice in antiquity), with different styles, vocabulary and rhetoric than the seven. A "watered down Paul." 

1, 2 Tim, Titus = pastoral "letters" written in his name long after his death, later than Eph and Col, more about "false doctrine" and correct behavior.

So, even more than the gospels, one has a literal "fan fiction" of "letters" that connect to "Paul" by using his name and adding to and/or altering his message. Good point, Teil.

Dennis

The various "series" books that were popular throughout the twentieth century and are still popular, like the Hardy Boys, all but the first few (the first six, I believe) of the Nancy Drew books, etc are also modern examples of books written by various people... The syndicate that produced them put names like "Franklin W. Dixon" and "Carolyn Keane," Laura Lee Hope (Bobbsey Twins) on them. Associating a name with literature, even in a "sacred" book doesn't necessarily mean the person attached wrote it. I collect the original "formula" books, from around 1910-1930's) but I can't recall the name of the syndicate.

There is a bit of difference, though.

The Christian canon is composed of just such a group of books, written in the names of legends of the early movement, the majority if not all written after the "magical" timeframe of the first Roman Jewish world... And, as one can imagine, the myths continued to accumulate (scholars call it "accretion") within the stories, from gospel to gospel... A good example I posted on another thread was the development of the story of the "call of the disciples." We also find this in the books attributed to "Paul."  In the "Paulines," we, for instance, note that the bad guys begin as Jews (Gal. and 1 Thess) and end as "false teachers" or Gnostics (1 Tim. 4:1-4) on one hand, and go from talking about female co-workers to not allowing women to speak in church, from concern about the Jewish parochial practices in Galatians to correct church behavior in the pastorals.

None of this is skepticism, atheism or materialism... It's in the content of the Bible, if one can read with comprehension instead of emotion.

Dennis

"Yes ... The Canonical Biblical Writings ARE " ... many and various ... " ( Hebrews 1:1 ) and MANY People of Faith Understand this Fact NOT as a Problem, but simply AS a FACT, yielding not Confusion or Skepticism, but Richness and Realistic Depth ..."

Ah, yes. Faith... Which, of course, one would not and should not confuse with history.