theomise wrote:
Hi maryhelena,
Just to clarify my own position, and how it differs from yours:
- 1) We agree on the heavy use of political allegory in the gospel stories.
Yep, agreed.
2) However, I see the historicized gospel Jesus as largely a 2nd-century literary creation - a sort of Josephan fan-fiction tacked on to a pre-existing cult tradition.
That looks like the Carrier-Doherty mythicist theory - a theory I don't regard as having relevance for the gospel Jesus story. i.e. a historicized Pauline celestial crucified christ figure is simply more imagination placed on top of an already imaginative scenario. There is no way to establish such a scenario. It's all in the mind of believers.
3) Hence, I see the politically-allegorical character of the gospel stories as less important to understanding Christian origins than you do.[/list]
Surely, if it's early christians origins that we are seeking, then any social/political reflections within the gospel story are possible roadways to that goal? Why put political allegory in the gospel story if it does not have significant relevance to the story>
Consider: exactly how common is the proposed phenomenon of a religion sprouting from some grandiose take on political history? It would seem to be rare, and not in keeping with what we know about the social psychology of cult formation.
But is that not what the OT has done? Israel's history is always centre stage.
The more familiar formula for cult formation is: a charismatic con-man -- looking to make money or get laid or scratch some other egocentric itch -- convinces a bunch of people to reject evil mainstream society and join in some sort of 'communal living' arrangement. If the cult catches on, perhaps the founder is later deified and his checkered biography suppressed. Perhaps later a new and utterly fictional biography is written for doctrinal purposes.
Perhaps - but perhaps not also. The NT story is set within the culture/tradition of the OT. That is a culture/tradition that placed prime importance upon it's social/political context. God 'saves' his people, etc. Land and Kings and Priests, physical reality, was where God did his work. Yes, Pauline theology/philosophy places emphasis upon spiritual matters, the Jerusalem above. But that emphasis did not, and cannot, rule out emphasis also upon the Jerusalem below. i.e. upon earthly matters. Emphasis can shift in relation to time and place - and context. Paul' context is one thing - the gospel context something else. Why would one want to choose between them instead of allowing both contexts to function?
So, in so far as Christianity has a historical basis in a founding figure, that would seem to be the most obvious pattern to consider.
But that is a basis that has no possibility of being historically established. It take one nowhere in the search for early christian origins.
I'm not saying your thesis is impossible. Just that I know of no other examples of religions forming that way. The fact is, people who are attracted to joining cults tend not to be well-read intellectuals with strong opinions on obscure historical figures. They tend, rather, to be naive, possibly Schizotypal chumps who are psychologically comforted by the highly structured, esoteric and ritualistic lifestyle the cult provides.
It's not a question of 'religions forming'. It's attempting to discern the social/political framework within which that religion took hold. Dating gospel manuscripts, even to the 2nd century, does not change the social/political setting of the gospel story. A social/political setting of Judea under Roman occupation. A christian origin story set within a context of Roman occupation.
I think the two scenarios: the historical Jesus assumption and the Carrier-Doherty mythicist
assumption, are both boxed into their respective corners. Neither are able to take on board the political allegory within the gospel story. 1) because it compromises their theory. 2) it means they both have to acknowledge that the other side does have something of value to offer in the Jesus debate. Both sides have to strive for a win/win situation - thus allowing dignity not animosity to prevail.
Tread softly because you tread on my dreams.
W.B. Yeats