Laurence & Shirley Dalton's Jesus Never Lived!

[Giuseppe]

Apart the typical obsession in proving that the Christ Myth was originally ''Pagan'' or that Paul alone founded the Christianity, what I find interesting and original, after all, is a new proposal (by the authors of a book already described here) about how precisely the angel Jesus was euhemerized on the earth by the first Gospel.

A distinction is made between proto-Mark and Mark:

But if Paul did not know of the historical Jesus, how could he have created the Gospel of Mark? The answer is simple. He did not create the Gospel. Proto-Mark was created by a wing of Paulinism. In time it became the current Gospel of Mark.

(p. 231)

QUESTION A: Therefore, who wrote proto-Mark and why?

According to the authors, the historicist Albert Schweitzer was right in describing the Jesus of Mark (by the authors identified not with the historical Jesus, but with the earliest Jesus of proto-Mark) as a failed apocalyptic prophet, dead on the cross abandoned by God.

Albert Schweitzer in The Quest of the Historical Jesus says that Jesus expected the kingdom to come soon. When it did not come Jesus came to believe that it was necessary for him to die; he headed for Jerusalem. We agree with Schweitzer except that we do not believe that Jesus came to believe that he must die. We believe that the Proto-Jesus simply went to Jerusalem believing that the kingdom would come soon and that he would become King. The kingdom did not come and thus Schweitzer and we believe that Jesus died a failure.

(p. 321)

In Proto-Mark, Jesus is not divine; he is merely a man, a deluded one who wrongly believes that he is the Messiah King. He believes he will become King of God’s Kingdom once God intervenes and brings about the end of this world. Jesus feels pity, anger, compassion and other human emotions as we can see in what follows.

(p.272)

In Proto-Mark both Jesus and his disciples wrongly believe that the mission of God is that Jesus is to be the king when the political kingdom of God comes. But the kingdom does not come, and Jesus dies on the cross, a failure.

(p. 287)

For example, about :

Mark 1.11 The voice from heaven says this is my beloved son.

the authors say:

Verse 11 was added by a later editor after the birth scenes in Mt and Lk make Jesus semi-divine. This savior is far from the obscure human failure of Proto-Mark.

Therefore the question A is reduced to the following question:

QUESTION B: who invented a failed apocalypticist named Jesus and why?

Why did the Paulinists create a failed messiah? God does not break His promises. But people can break their covenant with God. God presents to Jews a royal claimant, a messianic figure who believes that the end of the world will come soon and he will be the king in God’s kingdom. Jewish leaders engineer Jesus’ death with the approval of Jewish crowds. When the end does not come, Jesus dies on the cross in despair, crying out “My God, my God why did you abandon me?” (Scholars Bible Mk 15.34). The Jesus of Proto-Mark failed. The political kingdom of God had not come.
Thus, Paulinism superseded Judaism. The Jewish Scriptures are now true (as interpreted by the Paulinists).

(p. 324, my bold)

The Proto-Markan Jesus did not know what the plan of God was but Jesus in the current Mark is fully aware of the divine plan. And that plan was supersessionism. The Jewish people and their religion are to be replaced by non-Jewish Christians.
The bottom line is that the Jews must accept Jesus as the true Savior, not as a political Messiah. True, they are tricked into believing he is a political Messiah but then again that is God's plan. The Proto-Markan Jesus did not know of the plan of God and so dies in despair. But in both Proto-Mark and the canonical Mark the result is the same supersessionism. Non-Jews are saved.

(p. 302)

Even if the (invented) failed Jesus of proto-Mark was identified with the celestial Jesus of Paul by some Paulinists (maybe more literalists and outsiders then others), that failed Jesus didn't represent a blasphemy for the celestial Jesus of Paul insofar his unique function, by design, was only to confirm the ''realized'' supersessionism. The false (as 100% researched) ''embarrassment'' was: More humble and failed was the Jesus of the ''History'', more exalted and powerful was the true celestial Jesus of Paul and paulines.


But soon after the things changed.

The Current Gospel of Mark was a threat to the Paulinists.
The current Gospel of Mark threatened the Paulinists, some of whom had believed that Jesus was the failed Messiah. The Jesus of the current Gospel of Mark is divinely empowered at his baptism. He is a threat to the followers of Paul. The later editors of Mark’s Gospel added the title Son of God and other divine characteristics to Jesus.

(p. 324, my bold)

...what would really upset the Pauline applecart is that Jesus is now a victorious, a triumphant figure. As we said above, he knows the will of God and consciously seeks his own death to accomplish the plan of God. His death will establish the Christian religion and the Christian church will save the non-Jews (also Jews and others if they convert to Christianity). Christianity superseded Paulinism. Jesus Christ replaced the heavenly Christ of Paul.

(p. 325, my bold)

Summary
In Proto-Mark, Jesus is not clearly conscious that part of his mission is to go to Jerusalem and die, but in the current Gospel of Mark the divine Jesus is well aware of the fact that he must die in Jerusalem and consciously executes the plan of God. A political Messiah who is a failure, that dies having failed to set up the political Kingdom of God, would not be threatening to the Paulinists. A victorious Messiah is a threat to Paulinism. The incarnate human/God (Jesus Christ) replaces the pure, spiritual Christ of Paul. Peter replaces Paul.

(p. 326, my bold)



The same Messianic Secret (or the Son of Man predictions) was added in proto-Mark by Mark as apology to explain and exorcise the failure and the mockery of the Jesus of proto-Mark, as well as to explain why, in a literalist reading of Mark, the ''historical'' Jesus was not known by contemporaries in virtue of the his great miracles, his victorious messianic identity, etc.

Wrede proposed that the author of Mark invented the notion of secrecy to reduce the tension between early Christian beliefs about Jesus being the Messiah, and the non-Messianic nature of his ministry.
...
We would modify Wrede’s theory by saying that we believe that the earliest version of Jesus was a failed Savior or Messiah. This is not compatible with the current Gospel of Mark with its triumphant Savior. Therefore, Jesus is pictured as commanding silence as to his identity and mission. But why would Jesus do this? The Gospels of Mark is a secret Gospel. There is very little even in the current Gospel of Mark that explains the mission of Jesus. Why was Jesus not famous in proto-Mark? The Roman government did not praise people who were traitorous, claiming to be a King not authorized by Rome.
As to the editor who added The Messianic Secret, it perhaps was necessary to explain why a victorious and triumphant Savior would not have widespread fame during his ministry. As the reader will see there is very little even in the current Gospel of Mark that indicates that Jesus was famous.
Maybe it was simply necessary to explain why the early Jesus was considered an obscure Messiah and one that failed to achieve the plan of God to save the non-Jews (and Jews too and others -- if they converted.

(p. 285, my bold)



And what happened after proto-Mark and Mark ?

In summary, by the end of the first century CE the church was divided into the Pauline ahistorical wing and the gospel historical Jesus wing. Ignatius knew only the Pauline wing, and Justin knew only the Jesus wing (variant Matthew). In short, there is no definitive evidence before Marcion (ca 145 CE) that any apostolic writer embraced both the Pauline and Jesus traditions.

(p. 330, my bold)

The paradox is that Marcion was one who unified two rival traditions, rather than divided them!
In this sense Marcion is more Catholic than his enemies!!!

MY CONCLUSION:
I am very surprised by the soundness of this analysis. It makes really good sense. It is able to explain why the failed apocalyticism of the proto-Markan Jesus was not an embarrassment for the original Paulinists who invented him, while at contrary it became a real embarrassment for the later editor of Mark (who would not have introduced the Messianic Secret otherwise to remove that embarrassment).

I wonder why this book has escaped the attention of curious guy as me until now. A possible reason is that the title of the book is very much misleading, moving to believe that the authors are simple Acharya-emulators with all that emphasis on Paganism about Paul (while it is only a clear influence by Hyam Maccoby, not necessary for the intriguing analysis here described).

[davidbrainerd]

I find this implausible to the extreme. Marcionism isn't supersessionism. This thesis requires Huller-like revisionism of what Marcionism was in order to work.

[outhouse]

Apart the typical obsession in proving that the Christ Myth was originally ''Pagan''

No one credible states such. Christianity was the Hellenistic divorce of Judaism, while maintaining Judaism. Anything else really should be laughed at and made a mockery for its idiocy

or that Paul alone founded the Christianity,

Not an academic opinion, and to date no one has been able to justify such in any way.

who wrote proto-Mark and why?

Mark by all rights was a compilation, and a proto mark also has never been substantiated.

[Giuseppe]

Apart the typical obsession in proving that the Christ Myth was originally ''Pagan''

No one credible states such. Christianity was the Hellenistic divorce of Judaism, while maintaining Judaism. Anything else really should be laughed at and made a mockery for its idiocy

Correct. I agree, even if the theme of the dying and rising god had to show himself in all the Hellenistic cultures.

or that Paul alone founded the Christianity,

Not an academic opinion, and to date no one has been able to justify such in any way.

I disagree. To my knowledge, Gerd Ludemann and Hyam Maccoby and James Tabor and April De Conick think that Paul was the real founder of Christianity.


At any case, it is not what I found as original in the book of Dalton.

Mark by all rights was a compilation, and a proto mark also has never been substantiated.

Ok, but when someone as Albert Schweitzer says that the essentia of the Gospel Jesus is a failed apocalyptic prophet, someone who is already Mythicist (via what he considers as evidence in Paul etc) may be justified to think that a failed apocalyptic is precisely what the first euhemerizer wanted to invent in a first place. And that is the original thesis of the book.

@David

I find this implausible to the extreme. Marcionism isn't supersessionism. This thesis requires Huller-like revisionism of what Marcionism was in order to work.

[/quote]
Attention, please, it's not the thesis of the authors that Marcion was supersessionist. The Dalton's thesis is that Marcion was the first Christian to merge the Paul tradition (without the gospel) with the Gospel tradition. Doherty would say that Marcion was the first Christian to read the epistles with Gospel-coloured glasses. My irony is that in this sense Marcion was ''proto-catholic'' without knowing it.