Posted: Apr 25, 2013 10:08 pm
Stein wrote:dogsgod wrote:GakuseiDon wrote:proudfootz wrote:It would seem (if this bit accurately reflects Schmidt's view) that Karl Ludwig Schmidt regards the Synoptics as creative works of theology and not biography or history:
"[T]he Johannine proclamation of the Logos, who became flesh and dwelt among us...is also the hidden theme of the Synoptic Gospels. They do not contain stories of an individual who was the founder and originator of Christianity, but consist of numerous individual reflections on the theme of the incarnation of the Logos."
http://books.google.com/books?id=JBljk6 ... ry&f=false
This would seem to be in line with the indicators referred to earlier which would appear to indicate the gospels as a kind of folk literature or 'cult legend'.
This is not to say that Schmidt was necessarily a 'mythicist' - I'm given to understand Schmidt accepted that there was an historical Jesus whose teachings were passed on. It's just that the written record is not a biography or history of that person.
Yes, but as I have repeatedly said, I'm not trying to show that the Gospels were biographies or a history. My point is that they were presented as events that actually happened. Whether they are folk literature or 'cult legend' is irrelevant to my point. Let's put it this way. For the Johannine proclamation of the Logos, that it "became flesh and dwelt among us": is this describing something that the author is presenting as actually happened?
These gospels could have sat on shelves collecting dust for several decades, when were they presented, in the last part of the second century?
This is not answering Gakusei Don's question:
"For the Johannine proclamation of the Logos, that it "became flesh and dwelt among us": is this describing something that the author is presenting as actually happened?"
Address that.
You'll realize I have been addressing that question should you ever decide to read my posts.
A 'biography' or a 'history' are accounts of things that actually happened in the sense meaningful to answer the question this thread is addressing.
If Schmidt agrees with GDon that these are not biographies or histories and are instead meditations on some manifestation of an aspect of the godhead in story form then they are of little use as matters of history or biography.
Here's a rhetorical question to go with it: Why am I not surprised at no myther here bothering to address Gakusei Don's question?
GDon didn't ask a 'myther' - the question was in response to the article I posted showing the genre of the gospel tales doesn't fit in with either history or biography.