The Origins of Christianity

[Solo]

On the timing, might Jesus allegedly living forty years before the destruction of the Temple be theologically significant?

I don't have the time to go into the details now but yes, definitely. Rabbinic traditions interpreted Jeremiah's preaching as being a forty year period or a generation prior to the fall of the first temple. The also saw the forty year generational period up to the fall of the second as marked by miraculous events, as a period of testing and warning.

And the references to "this generation" by Jesus in the Gospel of Mark allude to several Pentateuchal uses of "this generation" that was to be tried and tested 40 years for their disobedience.

Yes, Mark written in the seventies makes a lot of sense, for two reasons: one, the symbolisms of divine retribution (for the rejection of Paul's teachings), i.e. the parable of the vineyard (note the 12:10 segue) and the torn curtain in the temple. Two, it becomes the edge of living memory, which would give full power to verses like 9:1, and 13:26, i.e. the fulfilment of the expectation of Christ's imminent return.

Best,
Jiri

[Clive]

Why go to edge of living memory? Why assume there is a grain that caused this pearl?

Why isn't modernising anti circumcision etc diaspora judaism into anointing - Christ is not Messiah, Jesus possibly is - expressed by a heavily edited or completely invented Paul, meeting with the destruction of Jerusalem sufficient?

[Clive]

Why does Paul say "Christ Jesus" and "Jesus Christ"? Later editing?

[Clive]

Or maybe they are not names but phrases? Yahweh's anointing saviour, saviour (who) annoints?

[Clive]

And is Christ's return an assumption? What does Paul actually say, is Christ coming or coming back?

[Solo]

Why go to edge of living memory? Why assume there is a grain that caused this pearl?

Why isn't modernising anti circumcision etc diaspora judaism into anointing - Christ is not Messiah, Jesus possibly is - expressed by a heavily edited or completely invented Paul, meeting with the destruction of Jerusalem sufficient?

Strange questions, Clive. FWIW, Mark's narrative was likely composed as a response to a request for a collection of Paul's letters (as the gospel) by a group of messianist exiles from Jerusalem proselytizing in the neighbourhood of the Markan community (or communities). It was an elaborate hoax which was to ridicule the Jesus traditions coming from Jerusalem in favour of the theology of Christ crucified taught by Paul.

The story of Jesus of Mark transparently allegorizes Paul's way of the cross through the words and deeds of Jesus of Nazareth to the Petrine Jacobites who idolize Jesus but do not "get him" and resist his central message. They believe in the Law and restoration of God's rule in Israel; the Markans after Paul believe in salvation through faith in Jesus Christ and spiritual resurrection. The effect of this unique piece of writing was twofold. Clearly the Cross of Christ was accepted by the Petrines. But, the style of Mark and the Paulines, and their vituperative attacks on the founding Jesus traditions and imperious demands that they repudiate them, were not. Matthew overthrew Mark in a spectacular fashion substituting the twelve apostles (not the same as the Twelve of the earlier gospel) for the unspoken authority of Paul expressing himself through Jesus and the gospel narrator. Matthew brilliantly turned Mark's tools against him, by absorbing his tale (90% of Mark's text is contained in Matthew) in new contexts and in textual operations which to an outsider would be hardly visible but which made the story a prettier, a more conventional literary work, ergo accessible to a larger public. Consequently, in much of history Mark was seen as in almost total agreement with Matthew.

Best,
Jiri

[Michael BG]

But Paul's Christ-worship was largely a philosophical, abstract form of religion, like other Jewish "gnostic" type sects. From 70 CE we find a need for something much more concrete -- a serious replacement for the Temple and old form of worship, and an explanation for what had happened and a foundation for a new identity or preserving a stronger form of the old identity.

The messiah idea (as in a conquering Davidic hero to take over the political rule) only emerged during the Jewish war of 66-70 itself, and up to or again in the 130s with the Second Revolt. This concept of the messiah was not part of mainstream turn of the century Jewish thought, nor of Paul's, till then.

If you see Paul’s Jesus Messiah (Christ) as having no Messianic role why does Paul call him Christ? Why does Paul see him as bringing in the end of days just like the Messiah?

How do you remove all the Messianic language Paul uses about Jesus Christ?

No no no.... Jesus is obviously the Christ in Paul's teaching. I even said he worshiped "Christ". My qualification was that Paul did not see Jesus as a Davidic world conquering figure. He did not even address such an idea as something to be opposed. It was simply not on his radar. There was no single idea of what the Messiah was to do or be like in Second Temple Judaism. Paul's concept of the Christ is set out pretty well, I think, by Novenson -- see especially parts 1 and 2.

Paul's Christ was a Logos or Wisdom type figure, a Heavenly Man/Adam.

Thank you for your clarification of your position. You are much clearer that Paul’s Messiah was within the wide views of a Messianic figure within first century Judaism. However I don’t see “a Davidic world conquering figure” in the gospels. I see a figure within the Wisdom tradition in both Mark and Q.

I think I agree with the position of Paula Fredriksen that you state as “the offence of Paul’s message was not in the fact of the messiah’s crucifixion — … — but in the fact that the world was not ostensibly delivered to enter a new age afterwards”. I am also surprised that your blog implies that modern scholars do not see a very wide Jewish view of the Messiah especially after the work on the Dead Sea scroll.

Paul’s emphasis on the death of Christ might well be because of the Wisdom tradition.

However I would argue that Paul’s Christ is no Logos figure as he doesn’t use the term. Paul’s Christ and Philo’s Logos are both within the Wisdom tradition.

And is Christ's return an assumption? What does Paul actually say, is Christ coming or coming back?

I think the answer should be yes – 1 Thess 4:15-17

[14] For since we believe that Jesus died and rose again, even so, through Jesus, God will bring with him those who have fallen asleep.
[15] For this we declare to you by the word of the Lord, that we who are alive, who are left until the coming of the Lord, shall not precede those who have fallen asleep.
[16] For the Lord himself will descend from heaven with a cry of command, with the archangel's call, and with the sound of the trumpet of God. And the dead in Christ will rise first;
[17] then we who are alive, who are left, shall be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air; and so we shall always be with the Lord.

It seems logical to think when Paul writes “Lord” here he is referring to the “Lord Jesus” as in verses 1 and 2 and not “God” as in verses 3, 5 and 7.

[neilgodfrey]

Thank you for your clarification of your position. You are much clearer that Paul’s Messiah was within the wide views of a Messianic figure within first century Judaism. However I don’t see “a Davidic world conquering figure” in the gospels. I see a figure within the Wisdom tradition in both Mark and Q.

That's correct. The Gospel of Mark was rejecting the notion of those "world/Roman conquering" types of messiahs. Paul knew nothing of them. Paul's message was being adapted for the new situation.

I think I agree with the position of Paula Fredriksen that you state as “the offence of Paul’s message was not in the fact of the messiah’s crucifixion — … — but in the fact that the world was not ostensibly delivered to enter a new age afterwards”.

Yet we know from other Jewish literature that Jews could believe in a dying messiah and still be part of the wider constellation of ideas that made up "Judaism". I prefer the position of Morton Smith who argued that the offence was not in the death or crucifixion of the messiah but in Paul's teaching that the death of the messiah meant the "end of the law".

I am also surprised that your blog implies that modern scholars do not see a very wide Jewish view of the Messiah especially after the work on the Dead Sea scroll.

It is the writings of modern scholars who have persuaded me of my views. You may have been reading my articles on Novenson's book. If so, N is pointing out the origins of the most common idea of the messiah among people today, including scholars.

The DSS represent one of the many shades of Judaism.

Paul’s emphasis on the death of Christ might well be because of the Wisdom tradition.

However I would argue that Paul’s Christ is no Logos figure as he doesn’t use the term. Paul’s Christ and Philo’s Logos are both within the Wisdom tradition.

I agree about the Wisdom figure. But there is also an argument that the actual way Paul's Christ worked was based on the way the Stoic's "Logos/Reason" figure worked to change lives/convert believers.

And is Christ's return an assumption? What does Paul actually say, is Christ coming or coming back?

Christ's coming, by the way, did not necessarily mean a world-wide visible appearance literally from the sky. The imagery in the synoptic gospels about stars falling and God/Son of Man coming on clouds etc is all taken from the Jewish Scriptures where it is used metaphorically to describe the destruction of kingdoms (Babylon in Isaiah, the Seleucids in Daniel) and the restored political freedom of the Jews.

David even wrote a Psalm saying how God came down to protect him by riding on dark clouds.

If the gospels (esp Mark and Matthew) are written in the tradition of the Jewish scriptures then it makes most sense to me to interpret them as saying Jesus or God "came" or "visited" Jerusalem in 70 CE.

[outhouse]

Clive. FWIW, Mark's narrative was likely composed as a response to a request for a collection of Paul's letters


Jiri

My opinion.

Mark was a direct response to the temple falling.

The way these people shared information yearly at Passover had changed and there was an instant need for written literature to spread the good news, now that the transmission for oral tradition had broke.

[MrMacSon]

... FWIW, Mark's narrative was likely composed as a response to a request for a collection of Paul's letters (as the gospel) by a group of messianist exiles from Jerusalem proselytizing in the neighbourhood of the Markan community (or communities). It was an elaborate hoax which was to ridicule the Jesus traditions coming from Jerusalem in favour of the theology of Christ crucified taught by Paul.

What information gives rise to "the Jesus traditions coming from Jerusalem"^ ??

Clearly the Cross of Christ was accepted by the Petrines.

When did 'the Petrines' accept the 'Cross of Christ'?


On what basis do you say this? -

But, the style of Mark and the Paulines, and their vituperative attacks on the founding Jesus traditions and imperious demands that they repudiate them, were not [accepted by the Petrines].

This is interesting -

Matthew overthrew Mark in a spectacular fashion substituting the twelve apostles (not the same as the Twelve of the earlier gospel) for the unspoken authority of Paul expressing himself through Jesus and the gospel narrator. Matthew brilliantly turned Mark's tools against him, by absorbing his tale (90% of Mark's text is contained in Matthew) in new contexts and in textual operations which, to an outsider, would be hardly visible, but which made the story a prettier, a more conventional literary work, ergo accessible to a larger public.

- but it is contradicted by your last sentence (of that passage) viz. -

Consequently, in much of history Mark was seen as in almost total agreement with Matthew.

Is there more to explain that?