Political fiction?

[Giuseppe]

So Richard Carrier:

If 'Jesus Christ began as a celestial deity' is false,
it could still be that he began as a political fiction, for example (as some
scholars have indeed argued-the best examples being R .G. Price and
Gary Courtney). But as will become dear in following chapters (especially
Chapter 1 1), such a premise has a much lower prior probability (and
thus is already at a huge disadvantage over Premise 1 even before we start
examining the evidence), and a very low consequent probability (though it
suits the Gospels well, it just isn't possible to explain the evidence in the
Epistles this way, and the origin of Christianity itself becomes very hard
to explain as well). Although I leave open the possibility it may yet be vindicated,
I'm sure it's very unlikely to be, and accordingly I will assume its
prior probability is too small even to show up in our math. This decision
can be reversed only by a sound and valid demonstration that we must
assign it a higher prior or consequent, but that I leave to anyone who thinks
it's possible. In the meantime, what we have left is Premise 1, such that if
that is less probable than minimal historicity, then I would be convi nced
historicity should be affirmed (particularly as the 'political fiction' theory
already fits historicity and thus is not really a challenge to it-indeed that's
often the very kind of fiction that gets written about historical persons).

(OHJ, p. 53-54)

''Political fiction'' would be the idea that all the Christian Mythology is based ultimately on Earliest Written Gospel, meant as a political manifest/propaganda.

If we know only the Charlie Chaplin's movie The Great Dictator, we might always suspect that behind the figure of 'Adenoid Hynkel' is hidden a historical figure actually existed. In this sense ''the 'political fiction' theory already fits historicity and thus is not really a challenge to it''.
But I think that the simple suspect is removed IF we should see that all the books, movie, records, etc. meant to talk about Adenoid Hynkel derived ultimately only from that movie, because this fact alone would show that people already interested in his figure did not find anything else to go by that is not the movie itself, therefore confirming indirectly the absence of other evidence. Otherwise, why else would we deny a priori the existence of Darth Vader?
(note I'm using here the argument that would be more or less the exact mythicist argument of R. G. Price, not Robert).

Which are the other principal flaws in that theory?

According to Carrier, it didn't fit the epistles. But if the epistles are removed from picture as II CE inventions (''Paul'' being the banal personification of all people who will be called polemically ''the least in kingdom'' for having violated even one iota of the Law), what else can be an obstacle to this hypothesis?

[maryhelena]

Two threads that might interest you.

Political allegory in the 'exoteric' legend of Jesus

viewtopic.php?p=15032#p15032


First century messiah figure reflected in gospel Jesus story.

viewtopic.php?p=30026#p30026

Giuseppe

According to Carrier, it didn't fit the epistles. But if the epistles are removed from picture as II CE inventions (''Paul'' being the banal personification of all people who will be called polemically ''the least in kingdom'' for having violated even one iota of the Law), what else can be an obstacle to this hypothesis?

The obstacle to acknowledging a political component to the gospel story, for some mythicists, is their reluctance to deal with Hasmonean/Jewish history. History, memories of historical events and how memories of historical figures contributed to that history, is a fundamental element of the gospel story. By placing all their eggs in a Pauline basket, some mythicists, have cut short the ahistoricists argument.

Arguments over Pauline theological ideas are all well and good - but they cannot replace a historical argument for the gospel story. It's the gospel story that 'sells' - and will continue to sell long after Pauline arguments run out of steam.....

[Giuseppe]

To be honest, my view of Earliest Gospel (Mcn) is political fiction because his condemnation of Jewish messianism in its entirety (in its political/theocratic implications), a critique of Judaism per se, not a mask of some more or less specific political/messianic figure uncomfortable. In this sense Mcn is 'political', I think ('Jesus' is NOT the Jewish Messiah and the Jews killed him in the mistaken belief that he were really the Jewish Messiah). What remains to be investigated is what led some Jewish Hellenists to form a literary/religious community that produced Mcn, after having renounced their religion of origin.

[Peter Kirby]

The synoptic gospel seems to me that it could be 'fiction', and it could be in some ways 'political', while still not being this concept of 'political fiction'.

The concept of 'political fiction' seems to suggest the idea that the sole intended purpose is 'political manifest/propaganda'.

But the author seems too in love with everything he is doing with his story--the scriptural allusions, the inner/outer mysteries, the parables, the irony and so on--for this one dimension of 'political' purpose (disputing the nationalistic messiah concept) to encompass the meaning and purpose of the author.

Certainly, political fictions concerning Jesus could be created--they were created! Eusebius mentions some:

Having forged, to be sure, Memoirs of Pilate and Our Saviour, full of every kind of blasphemy against Christ, with the approval of their chief they sent them round to every part of his dominions, with edicts that they should be exhibited openly for everyone to see in every place, both town and country, and that the primary teachers should give them to the children, instead of lessons, for study and committal to memory. (H. E. 9.5.1)

These forged memoirs of Pilate are small enough in extent that they can be exhibited openly for everyone to see or committed to memory.

Political fictions, however, don't seem too likely to go beyond a few pages and become literary masterpieces that burst out of most genre expectations and create a story that is remembered and commemorated for centuries to come. They're expected to be pretty bad, on literary merit, but to get the job done by hammering at the essentials and authenticating them.

The Gospel of Mark, at least, makes no effort to authenticate any of the story. As 'political propaganda', it is both utterly amazing (for all the effort that went into it, unrelated to the supposed political purpose) and stupendously moronic (for all that it fails to do in order to do its propaganda thing).

(Or, you know, it is not one-dimensional 'political propaganda.' It might be fiction, certainly. It might have some so-called political aspects, no doubt. But it's fundamentally a story of 'Jesus' and all that entails, not primarily a refutation of Jewish nationalism.)

But as will become dear [sic] in following chapters (especially
Chapter 1 1 [sic]), such a premise has a much lower prior probability (and
thus is already at a huge disadvantage over Premise 1 even before we start
examining the evidence),

On another note, Carrier's point about the prior probabilities is itself not without merit.

[Peter Kirby]

Which are the other principal flaws in that theory?

The idea is actually much worse than anyone can easily put into words and package into an argument that would be appealing to those under its sway.

Like Mountainman's idea, it asks us to start by looking at the evidence with both eyes shut... then asks if we can see any problems with the hypothesis. Even though most of historical research into antiquity involves a basic model of interpreting written remains and discerning the intent of the author, it is willing to ignore whatever apparent intent there is whenever it suits the hypothesis. In this way it makes it very difficult to discuss reasonably and is quickly ready to deny any possible evidence against it by appealing to the 'verisimilitude' created by the ancient Cartesian demon of the brilliant forgers.

[maryhelena]

To be honest, my view of Earliest Gospel (Mcn) is political fiction because his condemnation of Jewish messianism in its entirety (in its political/theocratic implications), a critique of Judaism per se, not a mask of some more or less specific political/messianic figure uncomfortable. In this sense Mcn is 'political', I think. What remains to be investigated is what led some Jewish Hellenists to form a literary/religious community that produced Mcn, after having renounced their religion of origin.

I don't think 'renounced' is the way to go for understanding early christianity and it's relationship with the religion/theology of the Jews. Jewish religion/theology was theocratic - god ruled an earthly kingdom. Yes, the end of the temple required a rethink re animal sacrifices but that was not the whole of the Jewish religion/theology. Theocracy was - living the 'right' way on earth was. For a Jew taking up the new christian spiritual theology - a theology which highlighted spirituality - did not required that the Jewish theology of highlighting earthly concerns be rejected. Jewish Christians were able to support both approaches to living. Sure, in time, the spiritual side of early christianity became it's dominant feature - leading to the great advances in intellectual evolution. The human mind went into overdrive giving free reign to it's capacity for innovation etc. However, while intellectual evolution has been able to put men on the moon - it has failed to provide a social/political climate that demonstrates humanitarian concerns.

Jewish religion/theology is not negated in the gospel story. A story so steeped in social upliftment is a credit to it's Jewish creators. The NT story - the literary figures of Jesus and Paul - demonstrate that social/political realities and spiritual/theological or philosophical ideas are intertwined and are part of the reality of our human nature. We renounce either to our detriment.

[Giuseppe]

I was wrong to use the unfortunate term ''political fiction'' to convey what I meant. I mean the idea that the first Gospel was a theological manifesto that created from scratch all the actors of drama: not only Jesus, but also its Jewish followers (therefore that Gospel had no specific ideological 'Christian' opponents until was written the first time).

With this I mean that Mcn created Peter, and as effect later people, against Mcn, told that Peter was their good legitimate precursor. Mcn created 12 idiots, and as effect later people, against Mcn, told that the 12 were their saint precursors. Matthew created the so-called ''least'' for having violated the Law, and in reaction the marcionites created the 'Least' par excellence: Paulus. And in contro-reaction, the catholics created Saint Paul.


Note the difference with what Carrier thinks: he believes that the first Gospel created ''Peter'' and the ''12'' because prior to first Gospel happened that at least Peter and the Pillars (of which the 12 are more or less literary clones) existed really.

PK wrote:

(Or, you know, it is not one-dimensional 'political propaganda.' It might be fiction, certainly. It might have some so-called political aspects, no doubt. But it's fundamentally a story of 'Jesus' and all that entails, not primarily a refutation of Jewish nationalism.)

But talking about Jesus implies by necessity talking about true and false messianism.

The first Gospel is a political maniphesto insofar its theology condemns the Jewish messianism IN TOTO (spiritual or political Jewish messianism), because it's the story of Jesus and its focus is precisely about the true identity of Jesus: who is Jesus really? And what Jesus is NOT?

It would be natural to call ''political'' all this allegory & symbol. Or not?

Answer of Earliest Gospel:

1) Jesus is NOT the Messiah ben Joseph
2) Jews wanted that Jesus was their Jewish Messiah ben Joseph
3) Jews provoked defeat on themselves (and here is reflected the collettive drama of 70 CE) insofar they killed Jesus as extreme effect of their mistaken belief in identity: Jesus = warrior Messiah ben Joseph.

I have quoted Carrier as critical of idea that all the symbols of Christianity started only with the writing of a Gospel.

[Giuseppe]

Carrier & the consensus' view about Marcion is exemplified by this title of Burkitt's book:

Marcion, or Christianity Without History

They mean that was the precise interest of Marcionites the deliberate removal/negation of all the previous (evidently, Jewish) History from Christianity in order to give it a new (re-)birth.

Instead, I think that marcionites were right precisely in that idea: Christianity had no previous History before the (community that produced the) Earliest Gospel.

Our catholicized gospels were ancient biographies written to convince us that Jesus IS the Christ. As Christ, he & his followers had a History. Therefore the church himself had a History. Eusebius wrote a Historia Ecclesiae that is the pinnacle of Catholic apologetics.

But my point is that the Earliest Gospel was a biography to convince us that Jesus is NOT the Christ. In every sense.

Therefore, as an Anti-Messiah, Jesus cannot have a history, neither his followers. This negation of history in Mcn is a political move, because is the negation of a entire religion.