(my bold)When and under what circumstances did this prophet from the north, this true guarantor of Yahwism need to arise? I suggest that a cataclysmic Black Swan event is at the root of it. The Temple’s destruction and the utter defeat of the rebels in Judea signaled a break with the past. The kings and priests had failed. The Temple cult came to an end. The failure was absolute and complete.
At this point Yahwism split, one faction keeping the Torah through the study of the law, prayer, fasting, and rituals of commemoration. The other took a different path, venerating a second power in heaven, first as the true successor to kings and priests (especially the latter, as a method of ultimate atonement), and then as the true and final prophet of Yahweh.
The Gospel of Mark reveals this new conception of Jesus in bold, narrative form. He clashes with the cult leaders of his day and predicts the destruction of the Temple. He argues and wins against the Pharisees, the scribes, and the experts in the Torah, all of whom are stand-ins for the religious competition in Mark’s own time.
I want to make clear here that while the “prophetizing” of Jesus is compatible with mythicism, it doesn’t require it. Jesus may well have existed. What concerns me is the nearly complete lack of interest in Jesus’ life, times, and teachings in the earliest writings of Christianity. If Paul conceived of Jesus as the successor to David and the author of Hebrews thought of him as the ultimate priest, then we have a working hypothesis for why they did not conceive of him as a great prophet.
To put it more bluntly, I think Paul thought of himself as an apocalyptic prophet, but I don’t believe Paul ever thought of Jesus as an apocalyptic prophet.
What I emphasize in this thread is the fact that Tim uses this expression: ''Yahwism'', to refer to the religion of the early Christians (like Paul, like Mark, assumed as the Earliest Evangelist).
So, while I like (a lot) the general tenor of the articles of Tim, and the fact that he (a Jesus Agnostic, at moment) talks often with the Best Mythical Theory (as expressed by Carrier and Doherty), I see that he assumes a priori the ''Yhawism'' -- the idea that the early Christians adored the creator god - as conditio sine qua non to talk with the mythicism.
Since personally I like to go with any possible scenario (less these assuming a historical Jesus), I accept the fact without problems.
But I wonder when I will listen the first time (!) about the role of early Christians enemies of the creator god.