Urban legends are “apocryphal, anonymous, supposedly true, plotted stories widely told in different variants over considerable time period.” Jan Harold Brunvand, Some News from the Miscellaneous Legend Files 49 Western Folklore 111, 111 (January 1990). The Gospels seem to fit that description quite well.
I don’t have any earthshaking point here. I merely find the comparison interesting. Comments?
I thought someone would have said something by now. I didn’t read that article you reference as I didn’t have time and I’m out of town this week. To me it seems that comparing the gospels to an urban legend is an apple to oranges comparison. Per your quote he says urban legends are anonymous. While the gospels themselves are anonymous I have to ask: to what degree have the gospel authors made up their gospels? I think of them as compilers of the gospels as much as authors. How much of each gospel was actually authored? They all are almost certainly compilations known (to the local populace) as oral stories. As such, the authors haven’t made up much of anything. A lot of the backbone of Christianity that is known to us from different gospels is originally stated by Paul in his letters (examples of what I mean by this is that Paul tells us about baptism, he tells us about the Passover meal, he tells us Jesus was crucified, etc etc). He writes his first letter almost a generation before Mark and easily a generation and more before the other 3 Gospels where those same aspects of Christianity are later mentioned. Paul got started in his ministry 2-4 years after the Crucifixion.
Mark got part of his Gospel from the Q source (or at least for those who believe in it) which, from what I recall, is believed to be from at least the time of Paul (I might be wrong about that estimated dating, but I believe I read that once in a Burton Mack book).
My point is that the stories behind the gospels are known to go back virtually to the very beginning. If you accept that then how can they be urban legends? You’d have to be able to dissect the parts don’t appear to have any inspiration, but if they all ultimately derive from oral history where do you draw the line?
You are certainly right about the Gospels being compilations. As such, they are a lot longer than any urban legend, which are normally very short stories. I did not mean to suggest that the Gospels are urban legends, merely that they share certain characteristics with urban legends. If we break down the characteristics of urban legends:
Apocryphal means of doubtful authorship or authenticity. This is obviously subject great dispute. Scholars have written books touting the Gospels’ authenticity. Richard Bauckham’s Jesus and the Eyewitnesses comes to mind. For my part, documents that have someone walking on water or performing other miracles are of doubtful authenticity.
Anonymous. Check.
Supposedly true. Check.
Plotted stories. This does not really fit the Gospels. Prof. Brunvand explains in his book, Too Good to Be True – The Colossal Book of Urban Legends, that “Urban legends are too neatly plotted to be believed. Nothing is extraneous; everything in the story is relevant and focused on the conclusion.” The same cannot be said about the Gospels because they are, as you say, compilations.
Widely told in different variants over considerable time period. This seems true to me. The four Gospels are different variants of the same story, and there were no doubt other variants before during and after the time they were written.
As I said, I don’t have an important lesson to be learned from this, but I think it is an interesting comparison.
I think the most under researched area relating to NT research is current events. This is because the news media immediately reports events based on eyewitness accounts but then weeks or months later there are often investigations by local, state and/or federal agencies. A comparison can then be made between immediate reports and investigative conclusions. The point is that with Jesus there was never an investigation. Only one viewpoint was written down 40 years after the events.
An interesting point to me is that the criteria scholars use to sift through the stories to find the most probable reconstruction do not hold up very well. It’s startling also to realize that the NT account of the historic Jesus is a conspiracy theory version. The gospels are quite straightforward about this. Perhaps a more accurate life of Jesus has to start with tossing conspiracy theories. It may be more realistic to accept the Jesus was probably crucified for his involvement in an incident in Jerusalem during Passover a time when the Romans were more like to execute people to maintain control of the crowds. He was most likely crucified because he was guilty and not because he was a target of a conspiracy. This incidentally would explain why James and Peter were able to come to Jerusalem later. It was not an act of bravery but rather that Jesus was not a target and therefore no one cared what James and Peter said and did.
By conspiracy theory I just mean the gospels were written by believers who have the shaped the story to explain how Jesus could have been crucified. They told the story as Jesus being a completely innocent person who the Jewish leaders conspired to have killed because Jesus was a threat to them. In reality he was crucified for being involved in an incident in Jerusalem, possibly involving the temple, during Passover when the Romans didn’t hesitate to use violence to control the crowds. He was, in all likelihood, executed because he was guilty and he was executed with others because he personally was not targeted by a conspiracy of Jewish leaders who had to get rid of him because of his teachings.
BDEhrman
FreedomBen
evgendob
Robert
1 Guest(s)