On an unobserved Detering's remark about how Jesus was euhemerized

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
Post Reply
User avatar
Giuseppe
Posts: 11105
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

On an unobserved Detering's remark about how Jesus was euhemerized

Post by Giuseppe »

It has passed quasi unobserved the final remark of Detering on how Jesus was euhemerized. In the last footnote of his book (kindly translated by Stuart), Detering wrote:

It goes far beyond the limited task of this essay to trace in detail the complicated literary and historical process that led from the “ford crosser” Joshua ben Nun to the “historical Jesus”. It is clear that the idea of passion and resurrection was still alien to the original Jesus/Joshua cult. Presumably it goes back to a combining with the myth of the dying and resurrected mystery god (Osiris, Attis, Adonis, etc.) spread throughout the Mediterranean. The myth was originally without temporal fixation. It only originated in the second century from this foundation in the Gospels. In them, Jesus is described as a historical person under Pontius Pilate. The author of the Gospel of Mark was certainly one of the first to portray the image of the Savior as a historical figure and to portray Jesus as the Jewish Messiah (Christ).

(my bold)

Unfortunately, it is a bit ambiguous the presence of the phrase:

The myth [of a Jesus who dies and rises] was originally without temporal fixation.

...followed by the phrase:

It [= the myth of a Jesus who dies and rises] only originated in the second century from this foundation in the Gospels.

...since the ambiguity prevents us from realizing fully if what Detering meant was the following evolution:
  • (1) a mythical Jesus who doesn't die;
    (2) a mythical Jesus who dies and rises;
    (3) the Gospel Jesus (who dies and rises).
...or, in alternative, the following evolution:
  • (1) a mythical Jesus who doesn't die;
    (2) the Gospel Jesus (who dies and rises).
The latter scenario assumes that "Mark" (author) was the first who combined the not-crucified Jesus with the death (and a death by crucifixion) idea.

If Detering meant the latter scenario, should this explain, in his intention, the absence of an explicit gnostic passage about the crucifixion in outer space and in the same time the presence everywhere of only a mythical Jesus?

I ask if in the original German there is the same ambiguity I find in the English translation. Having also the German version of the book, I may post here the related passage.
Post Reply