Biblical Criticism & History Forum - earlywritings.com

Bernard_Muller wrote:
However if you do the same thing on Jesus' story from gMark [take all the extraordinary elements out], and even take out some more, what is left is enough (with the historical, political & religious context) to explain how this Jesus triggered the beginning of Christianity after his execution.

Logically, he couldn't have "triggered the beginning of Christianity" if he was dead, via execution by crucifixion, or even after an alleged 'Ascension'.

People acting later on a narrative 'triggered the beginning of Christianity'.

Over on the Bible and Interpretation site some interesting questions are being asked.....

If the Doherty/Carrier theory is correct then there must have been a sudden and radical change in people's understanding of Jesus. Wouldn't this have given rise to disagreement? There is no evidence of it.

A successful myth theory would need to explain how the understanding of Jesus changed. On the myth theory it seems that Mark's Gospel was written as an extended parable. What happened next? Was Mark's Gospel misunderstood? Did people mistake it for history? Did the idea of a historical Jesus spread entirely by mistake? Did anyone try to correct the mistake? Were there disputes about it for which we no longer have any evidence?

These are the questions that the myth theory needs to answer.
#38 - Stuart - 04/01/2014 - 12:37

maryhelena wrote:Over on the Bible and Interpretation site some interesting questions are being asked.....

If the Doherty/Carrier theory is correct then there must have been a sudden and radical change in people's understanding of Jesus. Wouldn't this have given rise to disagreement? There is no evidence of it.

A successful myth theory would need to explain how the understanding of Jesus changed. On the myth theory it seems that Mark's Gospel was written as an extended parable. What happened next? Was Mark's Gospel misunderstood? Did people mistake it for history? Did the idea of a historical Jesus spread entirely by mistake? Did anyone try to correct the mistake? Were there disputes about it for which we no longer have any evidence?

These are the questions that the myth theory needs to answer.
#38 - Stuart - 04/01/2014 - 12:37

It wouldn't necessarily need to be "a sudden and radical change in people's understanding of Jesus" or even a proto-Jesus.

The understanding of a changing Jesus or proto-Jesus is explained in some way by the Gnostic texts & their narratives.

Who was Paul's original audience? How many people -- and which people -- had the ability to comprehend or inclination to even try to comprehend mystical teachings of salvation and allegories etc?

Would not an audience for his sorts of teachings be from among the relatively well-to-do? That is, among people who had households, slaves and retainers? These followers would have converted with their leaders.

My point is that I don't know if a vivid story was necessary in the early stages. The audiences would have been happily sold on the esoteric/philosophical concepts of Paul's teaching as they might have latched on to any new philosophical fad.

Logically, he couldn't have "triggered the beginning of Christianity" if he was dead, via execution by crucifixion, or even after an alleged 'Ascension'.

Yes, right. I should have said OTHERS started Christianities after his execution.

Cordially, Bernard

Bernard_Muller wrote: ... OTHERS started Christianities after his execution.

I agree with using the plural - Christianities - there seems to have been a lot of messianic cults at that time.

neilgodfrey wrote: ... I don't know if a vivid story was necessary in the early stages. The audiences would have been happily sold on the esoteric/philosophical concepts of Paul's teaching as they might have latched on to any new philosophical fad.

and changing theological/philosophical fads; changing as various messiahs wandered in and out of their community; changing as different communities interacted with another/others; and, changing from generation to generation.

neilgodfrey wrote:Who was Paul's original audience? How many people -- and which people -- had the ability to comprehend or inclination to even try to comprehend mystical teachings of salvation and allegories etc?

Would not an audience for his sorts of teachings be from among the relatively well-to-do? That is, among people who had households, slaves and retainers? These followers would have converted with their leaders.

My point is that I don't know if a vivid story was necessary in the early stages. The audiences would have been happily sold on the esoteric/philosophical concepts of Paul's teaching as they might have latched on to any new philosophical fad.

Good points, Neil....if 'Paul' was a historical figure and if 'Paul' was the first with the good news about JC.

The Pauline teachings the sophisticated, philosophizing, agenda for the intellectuals of his day - and the gospel story for the unwashed?

Hardly, its the gospel story that continues to be the more difficult story to comprehend. Esoteric ideas are playful things - all they need is a mind prepared to leave its moorings and drift with the tide.....In contrast, the gospel story is rooted in the sands and history of Palestine.The Pauline story might fire the imagination but the gospel story digs deep into our perceptions of reality. We know what we are dealing with in the Pauline writing. We don't know, on face value, what we are dealing with in the gospel story. Which story is the more intellectually challenging? Which story would have been more difficult to write? Which story has layer upon layer of meaning? Which story touches the core of our humanity?

The gospel story does not need the Pauline writings. It stands on its own feet, it is timeless. It's a snapshot, if you like, of the reality of living in this world. The Pauline writings, on the other hand, are time conditioned by the intellectual world view of the time of writing. That's not to say that the gospel story does not require a philosophical framework, a 'spiritual' framework - it is only to say that the Pauline world view can become out of date. Hence it is not the lens through which to view the gospel story.

Neil, I've been an ahistoricist for 30 years and I'm not about to change my position on the gospel JC. My problem with the ahistoricist/mythicist theories that are presently being debated is that I can't, for the life of me, comprehend the logic of viewing the gospel story as a historicizing of a Pauline cosmic, celestial christ figure. Indeed, that gospel JC figure is a literary creation - but that does not mean that Jewish history was not relevant to the creation of that gospel figure. History is relevant, reality matters - its not all just in the mind....

maryhelena wrote: ... My problem with the ahistoricist/mythicist theories that are presently being debated is that I can't, for the life of me, comprehend the logic of viewing the gospel story as a historicizing of a Pauline cosmic, celestial christ figure ...

Is that proposal widespread?

Do many ahistoricist/mythicists consider there were many messianic/gnostic stories at the time?

I agree with using the plural - Christianities - there seems to have been a lot of messianic cults at that time.

When I said "Christianities", I meant these sects were still based on this Jesus as the trigger point.
Do we know other apocalyptic cults/sects at that times? Independent of Jesus and after & before 70 CE?

Cordially, Bernard