How a Fictional Jesus Gave Rise to Christianity

[neilgodfrey]

Fwiw Matthew Novenson addresses the various meanings of "Christ" and "Messiah" in the Second Temple era and especially in the writings of Paul in Christ Among the Messiahs. If you don't have the book to read the next best thing might be my 7 part series setting out the highlights of his arguments at Christ Among the Messiahs Archive. Not even Larry Hurtado found any fault with it -- and he works with and likes the work of Novenson. So it's all very kosher.

[outhouse]

Fwiw Matthew Novenson addresses the various meanings of "Christ" and "Messiah" in the Second Temple era and especially in the writings of Paul in Christ Among the Messiahs. If you don't have the book to read the next best thing might be my 7 part series setting out the highlights of his arguments at Christ Among the Messiahs Archive. Not even Larry Hurtado found any fault with it -- and he works with and likes the work of Novenson. So it's all very kosher.

Pretty smart cat, seems very well received.

Id like to read his work if Christology was on the ticket.

[Sheshbazzar]

Is there an assumption that Christ and Messiah are the same word in Greek and Hebrew so they are assumed to be interchangeable when actually they are not?

Its really not a simple matter. When translating Hebrew text into the Greek language, it is perfectly proper and acceptable to employ the Greek term ὁ χριστὸς as being the equivalent meaning of the Hebrew המשיח 'ha'mashee'kha' meaning 'the anointed', as for example in the LXX renderings of Lev 4:5,16, 22, or 1 Sam 12:5, 16:6 and such, when it conveys the common meaning of 'the one who is 'anointed'.

The problem with the Greek 'translation' only arises when the common Greek term χριστὸς ('christos'='anoited') is taken beyond that common meaning, and is capitalized as Xριστὸς and thus misrepresented as being a Scripture supported proper name or surname, as it is in Matt 1:1 and in 186 other places within the received NT canon.
'Jesus' <sic> surname was/is NOT 'christus' , 'christ', or "Christ" as is being deliberately misrepresented within these Hellenized texts.

IF there were an actual 'Jesus', and he really was that 'anointed' one prophesied to come, His proper appellation in Greek would be Ἰησοῦν ὁ χριστὸς "Iesus the anointed", or respecting the ancient Hebrew title; Ἰησοῦν ὁ mεσσία "Iesus the messiah", NOT the textually misrepresented form Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ, "Iesus Christus" ne "Jesus Christ".

And this bearing only upon the matter of the Hellenization and misrepresentation of his name, not even bothering going into all the many other misuses and abuses these Hellenist NT compositors wrought upon the sense of the original texts in the fabrication of their rip-off pure HORSE shit zombie worshipping death cult religion.


Sheshbazzar

[Sheshbazzar]

I'll add here, that the initial Greek NT texts may have (none have ever been found) employed the proper terminology, the subsequent substitution of nomina sacra leading to the omission of the direct object indicator 'the' when in the 3rd century CE the full spelling out of (a form of) the name and office was either introduced or reintroduced.
Without any older exemplars to compare, there seems no means of determining whether nomina sacra were employed from the beginning or introduced into the texts some time latter. Sensibly it would seem the latter, but not much about these texts, or christianity is sensible.

[andrewbos]

....

[Sheshbazzar]

This would suggest that Mark did not manage to include all of the material with historical origins

No possibility that the author(s) of 'Luke' added some traditions that 'Mark' omitted ....or had never even heard of ?

No possibility that the author(s) of 'Luke' may have employed a bit more 'creative literary license' in their inventive version of their miracle god tale ?

....include all of the material with historical origins

Why adopt an assumption that any of the material employed in these fanciful miracle working god compositions contain any material with (real world) historical origins?

[Leucius Charinus]

Funny, this fits many modern scholarships, and does nothing to show a fictional character.

The diagram offers an explanation of the literary evidence without the need for an HJ.
Have a look at the diagram - there is no box for an HJ in the flowchart, unless it is:

a) the LXX, or

b) the "clouds".

And then shall they see the Son of man coming in the clouds with great power and glory.

LC

[cienfuegos]

I don't think I do have to explain that. But, first, because you are engaging with Price's theory, I am wondering if you have read it? He argues that the Q material is dependent on Mark. If the Q material is dependent on a fiction written by 'Mark,' then it could not have originated as "tantric-mystic" sayings of a historical Jesus.

Second, please provide examples of "tantric-mystic" sayings that Christians "show no signs of understanding."

I have not read the theory of Price but I am familiar with Hugh Humphrey's 'from Q to "Secret Mark"'.
I don't believe Q1 depends on the fiction of any of the christian authors including the author of Mark.
The author of Q1 would never have accepted the saying of the Q2 level and he would not have accepted false translations such as the need to "hate" your relatives in order to break away from your family ties.

The sayings in Q1 are all tantric-mystic sayings and they are all interdependent (they form a coherent ideology that does not need christian ideas).
Tantra puts an emphasis on your own responsibility to struggle or fight for your own movement from negativity towards positivity (as explained in Q1), from worldy living towards the so-called "Rule of God" in your life.

http://jesussaying.wordpress.com/2013/0 ... ric-jesus/

If you cannot explain why the ideology of Q1 is so fundamentally different from the christian myth making in Q2 and the narrative gospels and yet still is present in the christian gospels, then you cannot maintain that Q1 was "invented" by christians and you have to explain where it originated.It only had value for the Q2 community and later christians because it was tied to the historical Jesus and not because of its ideology which they somehow did not understand as it was meant to be understood.

Only a part of the behaviour of Jesus in Mark is compatible with Q1 and that part conflicts with his behaviour in the rest of Mark.
There is only one small text in Luke that does not appear in Mark or Matthew that is compatible with Jesus as a tantric-mystic master. This would suggest that Mark did not manage to include all of the material with historical origins and the original author of Luke somehow had access to it.

This is new to me and I am learning fresh what your argument is here. When I consult your site, though, I see that you have your own Q1 as opposed to that of Mack's generally accepted Q1. Presumably, then, you have applied some method for sorting the layers of Q. So did Mack and you and he disagree in some areas. So can anyone come up with their preferred Q1? Are you sure that you didn't sort your layers based on your theory?

I haven't decided on Q yet but I do lean toward the gospel Jesus being a creation of "Mark." If so, then, Q sayings could have been originally not attributed to Jesus but put into his mouth by later Gospel writers. I think we see that in a number of documents where words not attributed to Jesus become attributed to him in the gospels. There is also the very clear case of Eugnostos the Blessed and the Sophia of Jesus.

[Leucius Charinus]

There was a natural division among the people because of the terminology.
It is not as though the Greek language or writing is incapable of providing the ancient Hebrew religion, Scriptural sourced 'official' title Messiah, when the writers wish to (it IS written, and appears in the Greek as Μεσσίας "Messias" in John 1:41 and 4:25)

There can be little doubt that the terminology of the [fiction] writers who authored the canonical and non canonical books of the New Testament was a terminology of the Greek language (and not the Hebrew). Father Brodie calls them a "school". Jean Hardouin (1646-1729) called them 'the impious crew', 'maudite cabale'. Emperor Julian altered the name of the Christians to "Galilaeans" for a short period, and was convinced their doctrine was fabricated, and "a fiction of men composed by wickedness." But what would Julian know? He was just a pagan. He did not possess belief in Harry Jesus Potter with the wand in the 4th century archaeology.

The historical explanation requires no actual life of any flesh and blood human 'Jesus' as its Beginning. Everything written about the infamous 1st century CE 'Jesus' is composed of fiction built on top of the fictions of the Tanakh, as corrupted into Greek.

I guess there is a lot of invested belief that its impossible that the [canonical] Jesus Story was originally authored by a school of Greek literate scribes (probably under an editor). Its actually an industry. It's market share has been reduced in recent centuries. There were times when this industry had a greater stranglehold on the lives of its captives. The Church Industry has always been utterly corrupt.

Is it more reasonable to believe that Christian origins may be better explained in terms of a "Divine Institute" in the Apostolic Age, or a "Church Organisation" in the great Christian Revolution of the 4th century? The Church industry published the claims about the "Divine Institute". I find it a reasonable position to deny all of these claims by the Church Industry as common forgeries.

OTOH the tenured experts within the industry assure us over the "Immaculate Transmission" of the Historical Jesus from the 1st century of the common era. And if they don't do this, people like Carrier and Doherty assure us over the "Immaculate Transmission" of the Historical Paul from the 1st century of the common era. Isn't it a wonderful story? The epic saga of the underground Church Industry. Forgery after forgery. Execution after execution. Inquisition after inquisition.

What would a Bayesian equation look like which incorporated all the exposed and known forgeries of the Church Industry since the year it hit to the Top 40 Gods Chart? How might one make a convincing Bayesian argument which highlights the historical corruption of the Church industry, thereby seriously questioning the concept of authenticity and the transcendental Apostolic Age "Divine Institute"? How many exposed and/or questionable literary forgeries of the Church Industry would it take for a normal academic scholar to seriously consider that the genre of canonical and non canonical NT literature is fiction?



LC

[andrewbos]

....