extra-biblical legends

[TimCallahan]

On another thread, I mentioned the pericope of the anointing woman, versions of which which vary from gospel to gospel as to time, place and the identity of the woman who precipitously anoints Jesus. In the Gospel of Luke, the woman is "a sinner," with the clear implication that this means "prostitute." In fact, when she wets Jesus' feet with her tears and wipes them dry with her hair, Jesus' host, Simon the Pharisee, is appalled and thinks Jesus cannot possibly be a prophet, since, if he were, he'd know what kind of woman she was and wouldn't allow her to touch him. This incident takes place in Luke 7, and in the next chapter, Mary Magdalene is mentioned among the women who travelled with Jesus and his disciples (Lk. 8:2):

. . . and also some women who had been healed of evil spirits and infirmities; Mary, called Magdalene, from whom seven demons had gone out . . .

Possibly because of the the proximity of this verse to Luke's story of the anointing woman, there grew up an extra-biblical tradition that Mary Magdalene was the penitent prostitute of Luke 7. This identification may have been helped along by a possible conflation of Mary Magdalene with Mary of Bethany, the sister of Martha and Lazarus in the Gospel of John, who, in John's version of the anointing woman anoints Jesus' feet with nard (i.e. spikenard, an expensive substance from India) and, like the prostitute in Luke, wipes them with he hair.

Mary Magdalene also has a starring role in John's version of the post-Resurrection appearances of Jesus, as the first one of his followers to meet the risen Christ In that meeting, there is an implication of physical intimacy (Jn. 20:17):

Jesus said to her, "Do not hold me, for I have not yet ascended to the Father; but go to my brethren and say to them I am ascending to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God."

All of this led to the extra-biblical sexualization of Mary Magdalene as a reformed prostitute and eve the wife of Jesus. In the gnostic Gospel of Philip Jesus is said to have often kissed her on the [lips?] - unfortunately the word is smudged. In the Gospel of Mary Magdalene, another gnostic text, she is given a special revelation by Jesus. In medieval myth, she landed in France and lived as a hermit in a cave. As can be seen in this nineteenth century painting by Jules Joseph Lefebvere (1836 - 1911), "Mary Magdalene in the Cave," (possibly not safe for work or school) her occupation as an anchorite didn't dim her ongoing sexualization. Of course, she eventually became the focus of a twentieth century myth as carrying forward the bloodline of Jesus in Holy Blood, Holy Grail.

Other characters in the New Testament who became the source of extra-biblical Christian legends were Salome, Pontius Pilate, St. Lazarus (a conflation of two characters, one in a parable in Luke, the other in John), St Dismas (the good thief from Luke's passion account) and St. Longinus (the Roman soldier who speared Jesus in the side in John's passion).

 

[Dinwar]

Not quite sure what you're trying to discuss here--do you want to delve more into these individual myths, or do you want to discuss such myths more generally?

The RCC holds that there are three sources of theological truth: the Bible itself, the councils of the bishops (and therefore the Pope; this is the whole infalibility thing), and tradition. Therefore it's a very bad mistake to assume that the RCC, at least, limits themselves only to what's written in the Bible--pretty much anything can become theological truth, if it survives long enough (my interpretation, not that of the RCC). Pretty much our entire concept of Hell is this--the Bible only mentions it as a lake of fire, and a place you don't want to go. Everything else is later adaptation of the idea.

Pretty much every saint in Catholicism can be termed an extra-Biblical legend, with the exception of those few who are only discussed in the Bible itself. Lots of really interesting stories there....In Romania there are painted monasteries, and one of them has what I've long refered to as the Wall of Torture: a wall devoted to small images of numerous saints being dimembered, disembowled, boiled, stabbled, crushed, eaten, or otherwise killed.

 

[TimCallahan]

Not quite sure what you're trying to discuss here--do you want to delve more into these individual myths, or do you want to discuss such myths more generally?
The RCC holds that there are three sources of theological truth: the Bible itself, the councils of the bishops (and therefore the Pope; this is the whole infalibility thing), and tradition. Therefore it's a very bad mistake to assume that the RCC, at least, limits themselves only to what's written in the Bible--pretty much anything can become theological truth, if it survives long enough (my interpretation, not that of the RCC). Pretty much our entire concept of Hell is this--the Bible only mentions it as a lake of fire, and a place you don't want to go. Everything else is later adaptation of the idea.

Pretty much every saint in Catholicism can be termed an extra-Biblical legend, with the exception of those few who are only discussed in the Bible itself. Lots of really interesting stories there....In Romania there are painted monasteries, and one of them has what I've long refered to as the Wall of Torture: a wall devoted to small images of numerous saints being dimembered, disembowled, boiled, stabbled, crushed, eaten, or otherwise killed.

I'd like to both delve into the individual myths and study the general phenomenon of extra-biblical elaboration. With respect to Catholic saints, I'd like to mostly, but not exclusively, limit it to such figures as St. Lazarus who have some tenuous association with the Bible.

I'd also be interested in Jewish midrashic literature that elaborates on the Jewish scriptures.

Finally, seeing how these elaborations fit with patterns of storytelling wold be interesting. For example, there's the pagan tale of Baucis and Philemon, an old couple rewarded for the hospitality they show two travelers, who turn out to be Zeus and Hermes in disguise. There seems to be an allusion to this tale or story type in an admonition in the anonymous epistle to the Hebrews (Heb.13:2):

Do not neglect to show hospitality to strangers, for thereby some have entertained angels unawares.

Of course, Abraham and Lot are visited by angels just before the destruction of Sodom, but they seem to have perceived the nature of their visitors.

The story of divine visitors shows up again in Russian fairytales and legends in which the two travelers are St. Nicholas (patron saint of Russia) and Elijah. Because he could control rainfall and call down fire from heaven, Elijah became identified with the Slavic thunder god, Perun. This seems to be why his name, in the Slavic form of Illya, became so popular in Russia. In these stories, St. Nicholas is kindly and jovial, while Elijah is often dour and grumpy.

 

[Marduk]

my favourite is Adams first wife, Lilith
because compared to what happens later, that story actually rings true

 

[Navigator]

my favourite is Adams first wife, Lilith
because compared to what happens later, that story actually rings true

Lilith! Ah yes!

A woman scorned!

Depending on the mythology you want to investigate....

I think she came after Eve.

Through Eve.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8438624&postcount=80

Key words: Look out a woman scorned!

Ah what the heck..

Originally Posted by Genesis 3
King James Version (KJV)
17 And unto Adam he said, Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree, of which I commanded thee, saying, Thou shalt not eat of it:…

There was no mention of touching that fruit. The woman has now heard it with her own ears.

This is likely the moment Eve would have realised she had be used by her husband – or at least in hearing it for herself, she would eventually work it out.
Look out a woman scorned!

 

[Marduk]

Lilith! Ah yes!

A woman scorned!

Depending on the mythology you want to investigate....

I think she came after Eve.

Right, that will be why she is called "Adams first wife", because of time travel,

In Jewish folklore, from the 8th–10th centuries Alphabet of Ben Sira onwards, Lilith becomes Adam's first wife, who was created at the same time and from the same earth as Adam.

maybe you're confusing the authorship date, with the plot

Through Eve.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8438624&postcount=80

Key words: Look out a woman scorned!

Ah what the heck..



There was no mention of touching that fruit. The woman has now heard it with her own ears.

This is likely the moment Eve would have realised she had be used by her husband – or at least in hearing it for herself, she would eventually work it out.
Look out a woman scorned!

you already put forward your thoughts on God being evil because of what happened to Adam and Eve and the snake, so theres no need for you to derail this thread with a repetition of that thanks
Its against the rules under rule 11 and rule H1
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=25744
please continue to discuss your idea in the thread you created for it
thanks

 

[Navigator]

you already put forward your thoughts on God being evil because of what happened to Adam and Eve and the snake, so theres no need for you to derail this thread with a repetition of that thanks
Its agains the rules under rule 11 and rule H1
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=25744
thanks

You are being too hasty Marduk.

Indeed I never said any god was evil. Or in this case the gods of the Adam and Eve story as being evil.

This thread won't be derailed because I mention another thread.

I am linking the subjects.

I mention Eve because you mention Lilith.

 

[Marduk]

You are being too hasty Marduk.

Indeed I never said any god was evil. Or in this case the gods of the Adam and Eve story as being evil.

This thread won't be derailed because I mention another thread.

I am linking the subjects.

I mention Eve because you mention Lilith.

you are still talking about your previous thread
welcome to AAH

 

[Navigator]

you are still talking about your previous thread
welcome to AAH

Well the other way to post is simple repeat what has been said from another thread (as in copy/paste) but really I don;t see that I am breaking any rule from the link you gave to these rules.

Eve and Lilith are connected as per the OP and your complaint is more a derailing implement than my post.

 

[TimCallahan]

Lilith is interesting in that she is both an ancient goddess and a relatively late extra-biblical character. As the goddess Lilitu, she is represented in ancient terra cotta reliefs as a shapely, naked woman with wings and owl talons for feet. She is shown standing on a lion, an ancient way of symbolizing supremacy. The name Lilitu derives from the Sumerian root lil, meaning "air" or "wind" (as in the name of the god Enlil, "Lord Air"). In Hebrew, the Sumerian loan word lilith means "screech owl."

As a Sumerian / Babylonian deity, she seems to have been a goddess of night and death. This would explain her position in Jewish demonology as a demon who killed babies in the night. At the same time, she is obviously highly sexual, as can be seen in her ancient images. Thus, she was also seen as n exciter of young men, bringing them erotic dreams and causing them to have nocturnal emissions. This would also fit a death goddess, in that she was stealing life, in the form of semen, from young men. I suspect, considering her ancient origins, that she was part of Jewish demonology long before she became Adam's first wife.

The story making her Adam's wife before Eve still contains echoes of the ancient goddess / demon. In using Lilith to rationalize the creation of humans as male and female together in Genesis 1 with the creation of Eve from Adam's rib (or side) in Genesis 2, the authors of the midrash failed to completely undo her divinity: When Adam tries to force her to take the inferior position in sex, she utters the sacred name of God (YHWH?) and flies away. Even as Adam's mate she still had wings.

 

[Marduk]

Lilith is interesting in that she is both an ancient goddess and a relatively late extra-biblical character. As the goddess Lilitu, she is represented in ancient terra cotta reliefs as a shapely, naked woman with wings and owl talons for feet. She is shown standing on a lion, an ancient way of symbolizing supremacy. The name Lilitu derives from the Sumerian root lil, meaning "air" or "wind" (as in the name of the god Enlil, "Lord Air"). In Hebrew, the Sumerian loan word lilith means "screech owl."

As a Sumerian / Babylonian deity, she seems to have been a goddess of night and death. This would explain her position in Jewish demonology as a demon who killed babies in the night. At the same time, she is obviously highly sexual, as can be seen in her ancient images. Thus, she was also seen as n exciter of young men, bringing them erotic dreams and causing them to have nocturnal emissions. This would also fit a death goddess, in that she was stealing life, in the form of semen, from young men. I suspect, considering her ancient origins, that she was part of Jewish demonology long before she became Adam's first wife.

The story making her Adam's wife before Eve still contains echoes of the ancient goddess / demon. In using Lilith to rationalize the creation of humans as male and female together in Genesis 1 with the creation of Eve from Adam's rib (or side) in Genesis 2, the authors of the midrash failed to completely undo her divinity: When Adam tries to force her to take the inferior position in sex, she utters the sacred name of God (YHWH?) and flies away. Even as Adam's mate she still had wings.

ahh Tim you missed out the graphic sex with demons bit which came next

 

[TimCallahan]

ahh Tim you missed out the graphic sex with demons bit which came next

That probably inspired this Lilith (not safe for work or school).

 

[TimCallahan]

Salome is another of the Bible's bad girls whose image was amplified by extra-biblical elaboration. In the passage in Mark on the death of John the Baptist she isn't even named and is, in fact, just acting in service to her mother, Herodias. We aren't even explicitly told that the dance she did for her step-father, Herod Antipas, was sexual in nature. In fat, we probably own most of the explicit sexualization of Salome to Oscar Wilde.

 

[HansMustermann]

You know, it's almost a discredited trope by now that people find a civilization having the same customs as the Japanes or 19'th-century Americans or medieval Europeans, and are totally baffled and unable to understand it

Or in this case, that people would look at ancient people inventing legends from whole cloth about canon characters, and find it fascinating, although it's every bit the same as a modern phenomenon that you can find all over the internet: dumb fanboyism. You only need to go to some fanboy board of your choice, to witness some modern Augustine of Hippo or Eusebius not only writing whole fan-fic episodes, but arguing that they're canon or lore. Sometimes even that they clearly override the actual canon and lore.

Well, the ancient guys were really just the same. Most of the "church fathers" and prominent theologians were what we'd ridicule as fanboys on any other domain. That's why they spent their lives writing several tomes on why the object of their fanboy worship is not only justified, but is really actually saying exactly what they'd like it to say. It's the kind you'd nowadays meet on some comics or video-game board starting the 10'th thread about how Superman is clearly gay or Batman could clearly beat up Thor, because <insert completely unsupported flight of fantasy> makes sense to him.

Plus, some (like Eusebius) don't even really hide that they're writing propaganda.

So, anyway, yes, most characters in the NT are the topic of such dumb fanboyism. Fanboys preaching their obsession to others, embellish it and invent whole pieces of lore out of whole cloth, to seem more knowledgeable and be 'right'. Or you can call it "extra-biblical legends" is 'dumb fanboyism' sounds too harsh.

Probably the most edifying example is one where a whole legend and eventually even a saint were created from a side character that's not even NAMED in the Bible, and appears in a single sentence. I'm talking about Longinus. From an unnamed Roman soldier (though most likely some Samaritan militia), he eventually acquires a name (Longinus), a rank (centurion), and even an exact place of birth (Lanciano in Italy.) You've probably noticed that both his name and place of birth are simple variations of "lance", or in the original Greek "longche," the exact word used in John for the weapon he used to pierce Jesus. He's first the object of a fantasy of his being subjected to some horrible perpetual torture, not unlike Prometheus, for piercing Jesus. (Although, wasn't that necessary to fulfill the prophecy?) Then, just like the two Marys, he's merged into one with the soldier who went "Dude, now that's what I call a son of God" in Matthew (not an exact quote), and now he becomes one of the first Christian converts and starts his way from villain to being canonized as a saint.

It's pretty much my favourite example of how a story can be made up 99% from whole cloth.

And sure enough the same happens to other figures in the Bible. Just in the pious martyrdom fiction genre, we have several conflicting stories made up about just about every name mentioned in the NT, to fill in the gap of what happened after the story ended. The one who miraculously escapes such a martyrdom is John, who had to be kept alive because the early church needed him living to an extraordinary age to have a continuous chain of information through him. So instead of that, he gets some conflicting stories about where he went and what he did next.

Another example is Saint Mark The Evangelist, a guy who isn't even in the friggen Bible. He had a gospel ascribed to him pretty much just because Papias had heard that SOME guy called Mark was a scribe of Peter, but it's pretty clear that the stories Papias quotes do not come from either of the gospels we now call Mark and Matthew. (Matthew being the other evangelist mentioned by Papias.) But eventually, from being just a name, he gets a whole story of him, culminating with founding a major church and (wouldn't you know it?) a martyrdom. Not only that, but from a guy connected to Jesus through Peter, the legends eventually actually insert him into the gospels and made a first-hand eyewitness. You wouldn't think that's an easy feat, but yep, they managed to actually add someone into the gospel. He's arbitrarily identified with an unnamed gospel character, the disciple who runs away naked when the authorities come to arrest Jesus.

Etc.

So, yes, inventing extra lore happened a lot. Fanboys tend to do that kinda thing

 

[TimCallahan]

. . . (megasnip) . . . Probably the most edifying example is one where a whole legend and eventually even a saint were created from a side character that's not even NAMED in the Bible, and appears in a single sentence. I'm talking about Longinus. From an unnamed Roman soldier (though most likely some Samaritan militia), he eventually acquires a name (Longinus), a rank (centurion), and even an exact place of birth (Lanciano in Italy.) You've probably noticed that both his name and place of birth are simple variations of "lance", or in the original Greek "longche," the exact word used in John for the weapon he used to pierce Jesus. He's first the object of a fantasy of his being subjected to some horrible perpetual torture, not unlike Prometheus, for piercing Jesus. (Although, wasn't that necessary to fulfill the prophecy?) Then, just like the two Marys, he's merged into one with the soldier who went "Dude, now that's what I call a son of God" in Matthew (not an exact quote), and now he becomes one of the first Christian converts and starts his way from villain to being canonized as a saint.

It's pretty much my favourite example of how a story can be made up 99% from whole cloth.

Don't forget Longinus' blindness or near-blindness. One of the elaborations on this manufactured saint is that when he thrust his lance into J.C.'s side, lymph fluid spurted out and splashed his eyes, healing him of his affliction. Of course, the affliction was as invented as everything else in the story.

. . . (snip) . . . Another example is Saint Mark The Evangelist, a guy who isn't even in the friggen Bible. He had a gospel ascribed to him pretty much just because Papias had heard that SOME guy called Mark was a scribe of Peter, but it's pretty clear that the stories Papias quotes do not come from either of the gospels we now call Mark and Matthew. (Matthew being the other evangelist mentioned by Papias.) But eventually, from being just a name, he gets a whole story of him, culminating with founding a major church and (wouldn't you know it?) a martyrdom. Not only that, but from a guy connected to Jesus through Peter, the legends eventually actually insert him into the gospels and made a first-hand eyewitness. You wouldn't think that's an easy feat, but yep, they managed to actually add someone into the gospel. He's arbitrarily identified with an unnamed gospel character, the disciple who runs away naked when the authorities come to arrest Jesus.

Etc.

So, yes, inventing extra lore happened a lot. Fanboys tend to do that kinda thing

What is particularly interesting is that "Mark" is an anglicized version of the Latin Marcus. This may be one reason for calling him John Mark. The idea that someone living in Judea might have a Greek name is reasonable, considering the impact of Hellenism on Jewish culture. However, it's far less likely that one of the natives would have a Roman name.

 

[crimresearch]

"Do not hold me, for I have not yet ascended to the Father; but go to my brethren and say to them I am ascending to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God."

That is so totally ripped of from Led Zeppelin's song 'Babe I'm Going to Leave You'.

 

[TimCallahan]

Just as the character of Mary Magdalene, particularly her sexualization, was enhanced, in all probability, by conflating her with both the sinner of Luke 7 and John's Mary of Bethany, another of the anointing women, so, too, was the character of St. Lazarus created by a conflation of two characters, the young man raised from the dead in John and a character in a parable in Luke, who had the same name. The character in the parable is a beggar, who is described as follows (Lk. 16:20, 21):

And at the gate lay a poor man named Lazarus, full of sores. who desired to be fed with what fell from the rich man's table; moreover the dogs came and licked his sores.

The name "Lazarus" is significant for both the beggar of Luke's parable and the dead youth of John. It is a Latinized form of Eliezer, which, in Hebrew, means, "God [is] my help."

In Roman Catholic iconography Lazarus is pictured as an aged man in rags walking on a road and leaning on a walking stick. He is attended by two dogs who lick his sores, in, -according to the descriptive text accompanying the icon - an attempt to heal him. St. Lazarus is the patron saint of those suffering from diseases and poverty, including particularly lepers and, as of late in the twentieth century, AIDS. While there seems to be officially two saints named Lazarus, one the beggar and the other St. Lazarus of Bethany, the youth raised from the dead, who eventually became bishop of Marseilles (funny how many of these people went to France), the two are regularly conflated by believers.

This conflation is evidenced by the identification of Saint Lazarus with Papa Legba in Voudun and Ellegua in Santeria. While the icon of Lazarus the beggar is used to depict the deity, the position of Legba / Ellegua as the opener of the way between our world and the spiritual plane is elinked to St. Lazarus as the one who had gone to the land of the dead and had returned.

 

[geni]

The entire Infancy gospel genre. Fan fiction hasn't changed much.

 

[HansMustermann]

TBH, what bothers me -- and, yes, "bothers" is exactly he right word -- isn't people writing fanfic. Sure, exercising a bit of fantasy and creativity is good. If someone wants to write a fiction story about how Jesus totally did it with Mary, and it's clearly labeled as fiction, let me be clear, I have absolutely nothing against that.

What bothers me is that some people act as if they can make up reality, though. And for some, it doesn't even seem to be an act. They seem to be genuinely unable to distinguish between what's real, what they just made up over the last hour, and what they just wish were true.

You get people reading a book or playing a game that says "X is black", and then have no problem arguing that X is really white, because it totally makes sense to them that it would be white. And often will actively attack those who don't subscribe to that redefinition of reality.

And I'm not even talking just about Catholics vs Protestants

I'm kinda familiar with the Fallout 3 and New Vegas modding scene, and I'll use those as example precisely because the stakes are so low. You'd think no sane person would get hung up on whether the grip panels on a Desert Eagle IN A VIDEO GAME are plastic or wood. Yet it had some years of some people redefining the lore by decree and by hare-brained handwaving to such stuff as that:

- there are no shiny weapons, everything is rusted

- there are no plastics in the game

- there are no weapons newer than the 60's

- there are no new weapons, everything spent the last 200 years rusting in some ruins

Now the thing is that even just a single weapon, the Desert Eagle in the Fallout 1 and 2 games, proves all first 3 wrong. And the latter is disproven in Fallout 1, 2 AND in New Vegas.

You'd thing that would settle it, right?

Well, no. There were people willing to go on for pages about how they just know that the black grips on that icon are wood, not plastic, hence any modded weapon that has identical black grips is using plastic and being guilty of some grievous transgression against the LORE. Never mind that they just made that "lore" up.

And they actually went around bemoaning every single modder who doesn't subscribed to their delusion.

Or if you're not into games or modding, think basically, as an equivalent, someone deciding by just copious handwaving that Superman can't fly or that Dirty Harry's gun was really a .45 Auto instead of a .44 revolver. And persisting into pretending that they can redefine what it is, even after being shown frames from the movie where it's clearly something else. They'll just handwave some more, or repeat the same dumb handwaving one more time, and get back to square one of pretending they just proved it's an automatic. And not just acting as if enough handwaving could redefine reality to what makes sense to him, but as if verily everyone who doesn't subscribe to his delusion is committing some transgression.

And that's not just about video games or comics or movies, but I'm trying to illustrate that most of theology is really the same dumb fanboy phenomenon: the idea that one can just MAKE UP what some text or character says, and then it somehow becomes objective reality. Just because some loonie decided that when it says X it really means Y, or that he can just disbelieve that it really says X and then just fill in his own Y in its stead, it's somehow becoming real. And mandatory for everyone else to subscribe to that lunacy.

And that kind of delusion that one can just handwave in some changes to what's real, is kinda scaring me.

 

[Spektator]

Lucifer as Satan comes to mind. Most of the War in Heaven scenario is extra-biblical as well.