No, I said you are pretending the bible does not follow mythic structure. One can believe a myth is actually true but we know it's been written following all known mythic styles.
At 15:30 some of the mythic structure is outlined.
My comment also relates to how closely Christianity follows pagan mythology.
It's a waste of time to say it isn't when we have early Christians explaining that the devil did this on purpose. Their explanation of why Christ mirrors paganism is the devil. If it didn't actually mirror paganism why would they say the devil did that.
Why would Justin Mryter say that Christians should not mock pagans because they both are very similar?
Myths all have a score on the
The Rank-Raglan Hero-Type mythic structure and Jesus fits this structure exactly.
The Rank-Raglan Hero-Type (and Jesus)
The point you have been making about "everyones life is similar" and I keep saying that mythic happenings don't ever happen in real life. The author actually says "ever" just like I did. I did not see this article until just now:
This is that:
Real life is not like that
I would like to make one more point. One
scholarly study I have read attempted to explain the coincidence between the gospel narratives of Jesus and the structures and themes found in dramatic literature by saying that Jesus’ life just happened to work out that way. But that is not how real life works, ever. Lord Raglan’s thesis may add strength to other scholarly research that suggests that some of the gospels were written for performance.
There are three rules that apply to all dramatic performances. They are:
- Everything said or done upon the stage must be clearly audible or visible to the audience.
- Everything said or done upon the stage must be related to the plot or main theme of the drama.
- The interest of the audience must never be allowed to flag.
When we say that a situation is dramatic we imply that these rules have been observed, but in real life they never are. Nothing has ever happened in real life that, if presented on the stage exactly as it happened, would hold the attention of an audience for half an hour. The difference between a play which is regarded as realistic and one which is not is that while in the latter there is nothing which bears any resemblance to real life, in the former the
actors say and do what real people might conceivably say and do, but they say and do in a couple of hours interesting and exciting things which in real life would take weeks or months. All the dull things that happen in between are left out; we spend most of our time in working, eating, sleeping, washing, and dressing and in talking about them when we are not doing them, but the actors in drama seldom do any of these things, or even mention them.
The reason for this is that even in the most realistic drama the actors are not really attempting to imitate real life; they are acting a drama, and must conform to the conventions of the drama. . . . .
And not only is the manner of the drama totally different from that of real life, but
the plots are like nothing that really happens. In a drama the leading characters must be the same throughout, and
the incidents must follow one another in a connected sequence; everything must work up to a climax. How different are our own lives as we look back upon them from the life of a hero of drama! In our case everything, or at least everything that might be considered interesting, is completely disconnected.
The same applies to dramatic narrative in the form of text on a page. Authors must fabricate order. Historians need to find it, too, from the data they have before them. If the data itself just happens to come fully framed with a single inevitable order one would have to be quite naive not to at least raise questions.
The Rank-Raglan Hero-Type (and Jesus)
I don't care if you believe a myth but saying it doesn't read as a myth is not true. I believe you are smarter than that so it isn't ignorance.
