Zeichman

For advocates of Doherty's thesis (namely, big bang Christianity with an MJ), I have some questions about how you deal with potential problems, as it seems about a half-dozen of these threads are made each day directed at HJers. They are numbered so responses will be more clear.

1a) The Messianic Secret - This feature of Mark seems to presuppose that an Historical Jesus existed and did not claim to be the Messiah. That it was written as an allegory for the hiddenness of Jesus, only being revealed to his dicsiples is problematic, as even his disciples fail to understand the messianic consciousness. There is no indication that anyone ever does, aside from the young man at the tomb.
1b) The lack of understanding in the Gospel of John - "You have seen, yet do not believe" appears to presuppose the same sort of problem which I believe Mark's messianic secret does.

2) Paul absent from the Gospels - It appears that the authors of the canonical gospels were each aware, to some extent, of Paul's teachings. The foolish disciples, as mentioned in another thread (and by Hyam Maccoby), may have functioned as polemic against the Pillars. There is little indication that the pillars had any other major enemies (aside from both gentiles [Galatians 2] and some Pharisees [Josephus]). Though Paul noted that the pillars were apostles before him, is there any other reason why he would not have been treated as a disciple (even if not one of "the twelve")?

3) Unifying factor in Big Bang Christianity - As an advocate for this relatively new hypothesis, it seems that the best explanation for several disparate communities coming together to form proto-orthodoxy is a unification in a historical figure. Why is the use of the name "Jesus" found in all of these wildly different communities? Why were these very different theologies combined? The role this figures plays is totally different in each, suggesting that it isn't knowlege of each other's writings that led to this common feature.

4) Multiple Attestation - Doherty, along with the far majority of scholars, does not believe that the author of Mark and the Q/Thomean communities were aware of each other. How then, does he explain their overlaps?

5a) Beloved Disciple/True Disciples - The Gospel of John is well known for its inclusion of the mysterious "beloved disciple." This disciple is appealed to as an eyewitness whose testimony the gospel is based upon. Such seems to presuppose that a historical Jesus existed, regardless of the historicity of the beloved disciple. Likewise, as Burton Mack observes (Who Wrote the New Testament 60-64) the Thomas people viewed themselves as the true disciples of Jesus, on the authority of both James and Thomas. Being a "true disciple" assumes that an historical Jesus existed. Related to Question 6b.
5b) Apostolic Authority - Throughout early Christianity, various documents were attributed to individuals on the basis of their discipleship. Matthew, for example was eventually attributed a Gospel, as was Mary. From the earliest evidence (before 70 CE writings), there seems to be no evidence that these individuals were prominent (save the possibility that Mary is mentioned in Romans 16). Their role in writings for the final quarter of the first century CE is hardly significant, save perhaps in the Thomean community. Why then, would documents be attributed to them in the early second century had there not been other reasons for giving them authority, namely discipleship of Jesus?
5c) Multiple Attestation of apostles - The pillars are an important part of many disconnected early Christianities: Paul, Thomas and Mark, later levels of John (perhaps before the knowlege of Mark to the community). If these are anywhere near as disconnected as Doherty would have us believe, why would these principle figures repeatedly show up (as Paul does not), if they were not related to the Historical Jesus in some way?

6a) Wisdom in Q2 - Doherty believes that the saying "Wisdom is vindicated by her children" was originally of the Q1 layer and later attributed to Jesus. Doherty fails to notice that the personified Wisdom is wholly absent from the Q1 level and seems to be basing this assumption on pure speculation, going against the corroborating evidence.
6b) Redaction of Q/Thomas - Like Mack and Doherty, I believe that the best explanation for the overlap between Q1/2 and Thomas1/2 is that they came out of the same community, but probably broke apart as a result of the eschatology which the Q community developed. The attribution to Jesus in the final layer of Q is explained as a biographizing way which the community went, culminating in the attribution to Jesus. However, Thomas, almost completely void of biography (John the Baptist is mentioned and the Disciples make appearances, but are only indicental and function largely as means for using dialogue), yet the evangelist attributes these sayings to Jesus. THe knowlege between Q and Thomas stops at the Q2 level, and the second (of three) levels for Thomas.
6c) Redaction of Q/Thomas II- Doherty notes that the Q community (if he is correct regarding the attribution of the sayings) seems to be priming John the Baptist for the role of the apocalyptic Son of Man. However, he fails to provide a reason why they would not have done so, had there not been an historical Jesus in mind the whole time.

7) Luke the Historian - Luke is also well known for being the historian of the gospel tradition. If there was no Historical Jesus, why would the evangelist devote so much effort and research into an ultimately pointless aspect of his gospel? Many of the "historical" aspects of the Book of Acts are well known for being an apologetic work emphasizing the unity of the early church. Notably, Luke is quite faithful to his known sources, from what scholars have detected in his Gospel.

8) Lack of Controversy regarding HJ - There is a nearly all-pervading silence regardin the historicity of the Historical Jesus, which indicates near-unanimity among early Christian communities, whether it is an acceptance or denial of such. Evidence from 2 John is all we have about any sort of controversy, iirc. Here, the controversy is one of docetism (v 7), and no mention is made of a lack of a Historical Jesus, simply the nature of his being. While it is relatively little to hang it on, the only evidence of a controversy is in favor of the HJ crowd.

I would like to clarify that I'm not necessarily saying my conclusions lead to a historical Jesus, but rather that the earliest Christian communities (to use the term in the most broad of senses) believed a historical Jesus to have existed. I lent out my copy of The Jesus Puzzle, so I don't have page numbers now, but I can get it should it be necessary. All replies from Dohertians (or whatever) are appreciated.

GakuseiDon

Well, I'm not a mythicist, but IIRC Doherty doesn't believe in a Big Bang Christianity. He believes several streams of thought - an unnamed heavenly redeemer, Paul's descending Christ, possibly a Logos figure - merged together at some point in the First Century, and eventually transformed into the historicist movement in the Second Century.

Carrier, though, supported the idea of a Big Bang Christianity, though I'm not sure whether he has changed this view since declaring his support for a MJ.

Yes, this is a good point.

I think Doherty supporters here would point to Second Century writers like Theophilus and Minucius Felix as proof that the name "Jesus" wasn't in fact being used the different Christian communities.

Zeichman

I see. Perhaps I'm not too well informed. I was under the impression that Big Bang Christianity would have been a proper term for Doherty's position, with Mack and his ilk representing a much more source-critical form of such thinking.
I'll have to do some reading up on Carrier when I get the chance.
Thank you.

While this is certainly more your boat than my own (as one who tried to keep up on your debate with Doherty), it seems inconceivable that this philisophical form of Christianity was not in some way dependent on the Christianity of the gospels, if completely deviated from the theologies they espoused. The books which may have provided independent knowlege of an historical Jesus are the ones which I sought to address. That is, the earliest Christianities.

Thanks for your response, Don.

NOGO

Denial was the true mark of the real messiah.
The disciples are made to look like fools as an example to Christians as the way not to be. Those who have witnessed Christ, his teachings and miracles had doubts and did not understand but you can be better than they.
Peter even denied him twice.
None of this is a problem for the MJ.

There is no reason for Paul to appear during Jesus' life. Paul never met Jesus and all the Gospels stories take place before Paul even became aware of Christianity.

You are so wrong. Jesus as a name is central to early Christian theology.
This name was not selected at random. Also Christianity did not start among the peasants in Galilee. It came from people like Paul who knew the Hebrew scriptures well and it is in scriptures that the idea of Jesus began.

The Big Bang theory of Christianity belongs to those who believe in an historical Jesus who started it all.
If Jesus really existed and started it all then why does Paul not name him as the source of revelation of his faith? He claims scriptures as a source and also claims direct divine revelation but not this historical Jesus. He dwells on this subject so you cannot claim that he never thought of mentioning it in his letters.

The basic story of Jesus either comes from the HJ or from scriptures. The overlaps can be explained by a common source which does not require an HJ.
To me the common source is Hebrew scriptures. The original story came from it and given this idea people (like Paul) felt free to add to it by reading scriptures.

Prominent or not documents were written and attributed to people who supposedly knew Jesus simply because it made such documents more credible.
Pseudonyms were a common thing. No HJ needed.

Paul who never knew Jesus claimed equal authority to other apostles.
You can see the problem. If anybody can come along and claim authority then you have chaos and a plit church. Even Paul had trouble with this.

At some point it time it was realized that virtually nothing was known about Jesus (historical or not). It became necessary to create the apostolic tradition to give authority to the established Church and silence others.

You can see this problem even today with the Protestant movement splitting into a million groups. The Protestant made the mistake of following Paul and recognizing direct divine revelation. Now anyone can have it.

There is controversy in Paul's letters concerning other apostles teaching a different Jesus than Paul.
Also there are obvious differences which point to anything but the HJ.
I cannot go though them all here but for example
The Gospels claim that Jesus said that it in not what goes into a man which makes him impure but what comes out of it. Yet Peter and Paul do not agree on this point with Peter being the one who still observes the Jewish dietary laws. So what scholars do is to assume that this bit was put in Jesus' mouth by later Christians. Which is fine by me. When you remove all of these from the HJ what do you have left? Nothing!

The Gospels claim that Jesus resurrected with the same body as he died with, wounds and all. They have him eat fish to prove that he is not a Ghost.
Paul claims that the body that dies is not the same as the one that resurrects. One being corruptible and the other being incorruptible.
Paul would have been really suprized to learn that Jesus resurrected still bleeding.

Paul says that Jesus was declared son of God upon his reentry into heaven.
The Gospels have him son of God a) at birth, b) at his baptism c) declared to be son of God by various demons.

Controvery?
There is plenty... until it is all silenced by force.

Chili

The test of a mystic is how well he can keep it a secret so he will get crucified and become gnostic.

Religion gives births the inner child, will nurture it to maturity and clean up the aftermath without a trace left to make repeats possible inside the same religion. This would be the only way we, as in each one of us, can be followers of Jesus to the very end.

TedM

I think the point was that Paul was so instrumental in the spread of Christianity, one might expect a mention of him as "one to come" or some such thing in one of the gospels.

I don't agree that Paul "dwells" on the subject of where his revelation of his faith in Christ as the Savior came from. The "appearance" of Jesus to Paul in 1 Cor 15 may be just what it sounds like--a direct "appearance" as opposed to "revelation" of Jesus. Paul does rely heavily on scripture for his gospel, but his gospel was that of a message to Gentiles, which was not a primary message or teaching of Jesus, so one should not expect Paul's main gospel message to have come from Jesus' teachings.


The problem with that reference is that Paul never tells us exactly what they were teaching. Also, it can be read as a hypothetical situation and not a real one. The clearest reference to what others were teaching ("another gospel") is in Galations, which clearly shows that they were teaching the necessity that Gentiles be circumcised to be saved--something Paul disagreed with. To conclude that others were going around talking about a second person named Jesus or a Jesus who taught different things is really, really stretching the passage into something which can't be supported.


There is no support for the claim that Paul and Peter disagreed on the dietary laws. Paul even says that Peter ate with the Gentiles and "lived like a Gentile and not like a Jew" in Gal 2:14. What Paul disagreed with was Peter's lack of backbone to stand up for what he believed in when Jews from James' group came. So, your conclusion is based on a false assumption. The passage says nothing about what was being eaten. Rather it speaks about WHO was associating with WHOM.

Where does Paul say that? (Phil 2 doesn't say that). Even if it does, does that mean he was FIRST declared that then, and that demons could not have declared it before that time? Did you know that when Paul talks about baptism in Galations he refereces all believers becoming "sons of God", and referring to God as "Abba", which means "Father" in the same native tongue the gospel Jesus is said to have spoken?

ted

Zeichman

I'm not sure I understand why you feel that way. What evidence is there that the Messiah would not claim to be such? Obviously the other evangelists didn't feel that it was the "true mark" as none of them uphold the messianic secret.

But if the gospels are wholly fiction then why would the evangelists be limited as such? And you're using circular logic: Paul never appeared because Paul never appeared. Why then are Peter, John and James all portrayed as having met him, when they didn't? You'll have to do better than that.

One would expect that the man who, based on his own testimony, was in conflict with all of these groups would make an appearance if the gospels are wholly fiction.


Q, Thomas, the Markan Pronoucement Source, and the Miracle source(s) are evidence otherwise. They show no knowlege of the Christ cult and are contemporaneous or perhaps even before.
Then you're not talking about the Doherty-style MJ, which was the one I was specifically seeking to address in this thread. I don't believe Paul knew the HJ at all, so it isn't a "problem" that he never mentioned him as a source for his teachings. Nor do I think the HJ had anything to do with a Christ Cult.

That's hardly convincing. First, you'd have to demonstrate that all parallels could be derived from the Hebrew Bible, then you'd have to demonstrate that it was all a coincidence. Here's Crossan's multiple attestation sheet, if you wanna get started: http://www.faithfutures.org/Jesus/Crossan2.rtf . Also, how has Paul added to it by using the Hebrew Scriptures?


Wrong. Why would they be more credible if the communities did not beleive there was a historical Jesus? A Beloved Disciple means the community believed in the historical Jesus, and sought to connect their own theology to that of an unnamed disciple.


Then why does he label certain ones "superlative apostles." Certainly he was not equal to them. And "reputed to be pillars" indicates their are held to be more authoritative than Paul. You may actually want to read Paul's letters before making such claims.

What's the evidence for this?

I don't recall this ever happening. All I remember is a different Gospel.
And even if such were the case, it would function as supporting evidence for Big Bang Christianity.
Poor, poor example. Almost no critical scholar accepts that pericope (Mark 7//Matthew 15). I think most of the gospels were written as polemic for early Christian controveries. I don't believe we can know much about the historical Jesus, but that's not an argument for the MJ. If anything, it supposes there was one.

Uh... I'm certainly not arguing for the historical reliability of the Gospels. The point at which Jesus became the messiah is evidence of a christological controversy in the early Church. A controversy best explained by a historical Jesus.

Amaleq13

Hasn't some scholar argued that the young man (Mark 14:51-52) is a reference to Paul?

TedM

Probably, but I don't know. Vorkosigan likely would know. If it is, the reference is certainly obtuse.

NOGO

Your claim that Paul speaks only about bringing salvation to the gentiles and does not talk about salvation itself is totally absurd in my book. However if you wish to keep believing this it is ok with me as well.

Where? Romans 1 and also another author says so in Hebrews 1.