Why the Doherty scenario is more probable than the Wells scenario

[Giuseppe]

Earl Doherty wrote:

[Note: Another new item just posted, a review of the recent book by Alvar Allegard, Jesus — One Hundred Years Before Christ (part of my feature "The Case for the Jesus Myth"), contains an extended discussion and comparison of the two ‘camps’ within the mythicist position, (1) the one represented by G. A. Wells—followed by Ellegard in a more specific way—that Paul placed his Christ on earth in a time earlier than the first century, and (2) the one represented by myself, that Paul did not place his Christ on earth at all, but in the spiritual world of myth, similar to the way the savior gods of the mystery cults were viewed. As part of a close examination of Ellegard’s thesis, that the early Christian Christ was identified with the Essene Teacher of Righteousness, I also address Wells’ more general position. I argue for the greater likelihood of my own view. See BkrvEll.htm.]

(my bold)
http://www.jesuspuzzle.com/jesuspuzzle/rfset14.htm


This is a great point against Wells:

One could point to the same deficiency in the view of G. A. Wells. We get no sense from the early Christian (non-Gospel) record that their Jesus was looked upon as having been a prophet, a teacher, a miracle-worker. Nothing ties him to an earthly career. Even if that career had taken place in the obscure past and not within recent memory, we would expect, in principle, that something, teachings, miracles, prophecies, would in some measure be attributed to him. Yet the documents are silent. (Paul's couple of "words of the Lord" in 1 Corinthians—7:10-11 and 9:14—are on insignificant topics compared to the great ethical teachings, and are often regarded by scholars as directives he believes he has received directly from Christ in heaven.)

(my bold original cursive)
http://www.jesuspuzzle.com/jesuspuzzle/BkrvEll.htm


Note that when I listen a fan of Wells say: «Jesus descended already adult to be killed in the recent past, the his permanence on the earth was during the few hours of the his sufferings on the cross, then he died and rose», in another terms, when what is described is a short «toccata and fugue» on earth in the distant past, alas: that is not what Wells argued and it is an idea that is decisively more apt for the descending of the Son in the lower heavens. The "toccata and fugue"'s discorsue assumes, by definition, the cosmogony of the different layers of the spirit world.

Other two objections:

By the same token, if a writer like Paul is declaring that the Teacher of Righteousness had died in circumstances which made it a redeeming act, and that he had been resurrected, one would think he would be forced to offer some speculation about those events, as historical events, rather than place them in some higher world mythological setting. Certainly the death would have to be regarded as taking place on earth, even if the rising was spiritual. The same objection applies to Wells' view. Ellegard suggests that so little was known about the Teacher in terms of his historical circumstances that nothing could be made of such events and thus the early Christians turned to scripture and portrayed them in mythological terms. But this explanation is compromised by two general considerations.

First, if so little was known about this founder figure, how did he fuel the movement and its spread across the empire? Why would a man so obscure (one who is not even spoken of in the role in which he is reputedly so enduring, that of teacher/prophet) have subsequently given rise to visions or convictions that he was divine, had pre-existed with God before the beginning of time, helped create and sustain the universe, and had risen from death and was redeemer of the world? Why would so shadowy a figure drive men like Paul to elevate him to such a cosmic degree, or devote their lives to preaching him?

Second, as a corollary, why did not artificial traditions, in the pre-Pauline phase, develop and become attached to the Teacher? If he was reputed to have been a prophet and teacher, sectarian impulses would inevitably have led to the practice of imputing all the movement's ethical principles, their prophetic expectations, their interpretations of scripture, to him. All and sundry would have been placed in his mouth, and thus when we encounter documents like the Didache, the movement's doctrines and sayings would be attributed to the Teacher (whether he was named Jesus or anything else). Personal histories would likely have been invented and attached to him as well. (Can we believe that such things did not exist among the writers of the Damascus Document, even if they are not recorded or have not survived?) The explosion of Gospels, various Acts of Apostles, dialogues with the teaching Jesus in the Gnostic vein, forged letters, etc., all of which arose from the second century on and were applied to the new Jesus of Nazareth and other figures of Mark's tale, demonstrates the absolute inevitability of such a phenomenon.
....
Both of these considerations are similarly applicable to Wells' more general thesis of Jesus as a perceived human incarnation in the past.

Also Marcion considered the his Jesus a perceived - and only perceived - human incarnation in the past (relatively to the time of Marcion, 150 CE). But Marcion, differently from the Wells's Paul, wrote an entire gospel about that perceived - and only perceived - human figure. Why not so Paul, too?

This, in fact, is the other significant anomaly which Prof. Ellegard must address, one which equally applies to the views of G. A. Wells. If the Essenes of the Empire followed the authority of a great teacher and prophet who had lived and died around the late second century BCE (or if Jesus was simply regarded as a man who had lived earlier than the first century), how did the movement end up producing a tale of that founder which was set in the much more recent past of Pilate's time?

(my bold)

Another serious objection: a «secret» can be hidden by God for long generations only if it happened in heaven, not on earth because otherwise it is not more a secret revealed uniquely by revelations: an oral tradition is required to confirm that the «fact» is happened really in the earth.

Those difficulties are compounded by the language with which Paul and the other early writers speak of Christ and the beginnings of their faith. Why would the Teacher Jesus be spoken of as a "secret" hidden by God for long generations? Why would he be said to be "revealed" for the first time in these last days? What would be the significance of casting him as a spiritual channel through which God now worked upon the world: Paul's ubiquitous phrase "in Christ Jesus"? Such concepts belong in the spiritual realm, attached to a spiritual force which contemporary philosophy and mystery cult tradition—part of the universal language of the time—has awakened in the minds of visionaries like Paul.
If so many aspects of the Pauline Christ clearly parallel the expression of the mysteries and their savior gods, and yet the Christian Jesus was uniquely a savior who had been on earth, either as the teaching, miracle-working Jesus of Nazareth, the Essene Teacher of Righteousness, or Wells' more obscure incarnation, why is no notice taken, or use made, of such a unique distinction from the cults?

(my bold)

[TedM]

Hi, I may regret this because I don't want to get into a discussion, but this peaked a few various thoughts that you may want to comment about:

The non-gospels reflect expectations of a Christ/Messiah, culled from the OT scriptures, which in the pre-Christian era did not include a crucifixion.

Had Jesus had a relatively obscure 'career' which culminated in gaining some small following during his lifetime, which was dramatically expanded upon his reported resurrection after a very public crucifixion during Passover, this would explain several things:

1. An original focus on the meaning of the crucifixion and resurrection and whether this relatively obscure person could have been the Christ/Messiah that some circles were saying the OT scriptures had predicted. This is what we see in Paul's writings. The historical details are far less relevant than the concept of a crucified and resurrected Messiah..Paul would have had little need to argue and convince others that Jesus had been crucified and that people were claiming he had been resurrected -- those would be facts. His challenge would be to convince others that there was OT support for applying such claims to the expected Christ/Messiah.

IOW given the context of a people oppressed looking for a Savior, the first issue is whether a dead man could be that Savior, not what miracles the man may have performed, or what ideas he may have taught.

2. An increasing interest over time in the 'career' of Jesus. This is what we see in the gospels. The sheer volume of information the specifics of historical placement suggest that the basics are true -- when he lived, that some miracles were attributed to him, his being a teacher of basic ideas, that he had a following, that he was crucified during Passover, and that his followers believed he had been resurrected.

[Giuseppe]

1. An original focus on the meaning of the crucifixion and resurrection and whether this relatively obscure person could have been the Christ/Messiah that some circles were saying the OT scriptures had predicted. This is what we see in Paul's writings

I would say: an original focus on the revelation, given to apostles as Paul, of the crucifixion etc...

An increasing interest over time in the 'career' of Jesus.

Someone (Horst Fuhrmann) said:

There is no better apologist for the spirit of the times than the counterfeiter: what many people thought was necessary, but missed, he brought it to light.

Post Scriptum:

the basics are true -- when he lived, that some miracles were attributed to him, his being a teacher of basic ideas, that he was crucified during Passover, and that his followers believed he had been resurrected.

the basics can really find a perfect mythical analogue:

• ...the Son descends through the lower spheres everywhere healing and hunting out demons and revealing himself to his chosen «brothers»...
  (note that Galilee means «circle»).

• ...the Son is going to ascend to celestial Jerusalem with the his chosen «brothers»...

• ...but before he has to suffer on a celestial cross by hand of demons...

• ...and after he ascends to celestial Jerusalem, definitely, going again through the spheres but this time in the contrary direction (again: «Galilee» means «circle»).

[Giuseppe]

IOW given the context of a people oppressed looking for a Savior, the first issue is whether a dead man could be that Savior, not what miracles the man may have performed, or what ideas he may have taught.

Really, Josephus is evidence that about many so-called Messianists, the first issue is if they were able to perform miracles, totally beyond if after the miracle they died.

If a Theudas had open really the waters of Jordan (was it even during a collective hallucination) before the his death, then he would fit perfectly the messianic expectations.

[TedM]

That's because those people weren't dead. Once those potential Messiahs were killed their followers disbursed.

I'm saying that if a group comes along and claims that a dead person is the Messiah, the emphasis logically wouldn't be on whether that person did miracles when he was alive or what he taught -- it would be on the direct issue of whether a dead person can be a Messiah or not. That's what the book of Acts shows also -- early Christians trying to find support for the case of a crucified and risen Jewish Christ/Messiah. All the miracles and teachings in the world would be meaningless if they can't find that kind of support.

[Giuseppe]

Note that even the minimal historical Jesus accepted now by Roger Parvus is captured by a analogue mythical scenario:

Parvus's words	a de-euhemerizing (=mythical) reading of the Parvus' words
In other words, I think the pocket gospel may actually give us an earlier and more accurate look than the canonical gospels at what a historical Jesus could have been like. He was not a teacher or even a leader of any kind.	simply, he limited himself to descend to lower heavens
If he went up to Jerusalem with some fellow believers in an imminent Kingdom of God—perhaps a group of John the Baptist’s followers—he was not the leader of the group.	he had to ascend again to celestial Jerusalem with the his chosen «brothers» (the only people to whom he revealed himself, possibly in the third heaven,as Isaiah and the same Paul), during the his descending though the lower heavens.
Once in Jerusalem he may have done or said something that got him pulled out from the others and crucified.	To overcome the guard of the demons (in order to ascend to celestial Jerusalem), he had to pay a tribute: the his death on the celestial cross.
That would have been the end of the story. Except that another member of the group had a vision of him resurrected, and interpreted it as meaning that the Kingdom of God was closer than ever. Jesus thereby began to take on an importance all out of proportion with his real status as a nobody.	Visions of the Risen Christ. Paul could have seen the Son even before the his crucifixion, when he descended thorugh the Third Heaven (just as Isaiah saw, as in a movie, the voyages of the Son)
The accretions began. And the excuses for why no one had taken much notice of him before.	the excuse was the his preaching in «Galilee»: i.e. he had shown himself only during the his descending through the heavens.

[Giuseppe]

That's because those people weren't dead. Once those potential Messiahs were killed their followers disbursed.

I'm saying that if a group comes along and claims that a dead person is the Messiah, the emphasis logically wouldn't be on whether that person did miracles when he was alive or what he taught -- it would be on the direct issue of whether a dead person can be a Messiah or not. That's what the book of Acts shows also -- early Christians trying to find support for the case of a crucified and risen Jewish Christ/Messiah. All the miracles and teachings in the world would be meaningless if they can't find that kind of support.

Apart the surprising silence about the details of that death, if that was the case, Paul would have conceded at least that the death was an embarrassing death. He seems to reject even the idea itself that the death was an embarrassing death:

Jews demand signs and Greeks look for wisdom, 23 but we preach Christ crucified: a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles, 24 but to those whom God has called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God

(1 Corinthians 2:22-24)

Paul doesn't say, there: ok, the death may be even embarrassing, but the embarrassment is overcame by the resurrection, etc.

Paul is saying: the death itself is a motive of great pride, because the death itself is a cosmic death, a celestial death. The embarrassment is absent a priori, about the fact itself of the death.



P.S. the author of Acts insists that the dead person was the Jewish Messiah because he was opposing the gnostic claims that the dead person was not the Jewish Messiah.

[TedM]

Paul isn't going to say that the death is embarrassing, because it wasn't to him. It was God's plan, which cannot be embarrassing. The passage you gave says nothing about it being a celestial death. He says it is a 'stumbling block' to Jews. That's exactly what I'm talking about -- the need to explain how a dead man can be their Messiah.

[Giuseppe]

Paul isn't going to say that the death is embarrassing, because it wasn't to him. It was God's plan, which cannot be embarrassing. The passage you gave says nothing about it being a celestial death. He says it is a 'stumbling block' to Jews. That's exactly what I'm talking about -- the need to explain how a dead man can be their Messiah.

No, you are saying that Paul conceded that the death (of which he was talking about) could be seen by the Jews as a 'stumbling block'. Which is equivalent to say that «Paul had need to explain how a dead man can be their Messiah».

My point is that Paul didn't concede even that, that the death (of which he was talking about) could be seen by any human being as a 'stumbling block' or a 'folly'.

For Paul to see the crucified Christ means (=is equivalent) to be dazzled by the his glory. Period.

Only a cosmic cross could provoke that effect on Paul. Not the mere image of the Golgotha, etc.

[Giuseppe]

In other words, Paul is denying that the Jews and the pagans have in mind the same death of which he is talking about. The Jews and the Pagans are thinking: Paul is deifying a dead man and this is scandal/folly. Said otherwise: (they believe that) Paul has in mind a mere, earthly, death on earth.

Paul denies that. He isn't deifying a dead man. He isn't talking about an earthly death. He is talking about a cosmic death. The resurrection is not even necessary to be persuaded that it is a cosmic death, because it is already a cosmic death.