Amaleq13

While I realize this was meant as a joke, I think there is more truth to it than humor. I know that even despite my lack of faith I have often found it difficult to avoid falling back on the assumptions and understandings inherent to the orthodox view in which I was indoctrinated throughout my early life. I can only assume that it is even more difficult for someone who still has faith in the truth of the "orthodox story". I still often find myself falling back into those old assumptions and often wonder if that has more to do with my lingering (though diminishing) doubts about The Jesus Puzzle than anything more specific to his thesis. I think a true understanding and appreciation of Doherty's thesis requires one to make the enormous effort of setting aside all those long-held assumptions and try to read the evidence with "fresh eyes". It is very similar, IMO, to the difficulty one has reading Paul's letters without having the Gospel stories in mind. It certainly seems to me that the more I question whether those assumptions are justified by a given text, the more I find the beliefs of Christians in the first few centuries to be so widely varied as to make it more difficult to believe that anything like what the Gospel stories describe was the actual inspiration for all of it. In other words, I don't know if Doherty's thesis is correct but I am essentially convinced that the notion that the Gospel story (or any historical events upon which they are loosely based) can be assumed the inspiration for all the early expressed beliefs we call "Christian" is utterly without credibility. There is, IMO, simply too much variety at too early a time to support such a notion.

TedM

Hi Amaleq13. It may be that one day I'll see things more like you do now. You have studied the issues more thoroughly than I. I agree that it is hard to read Paul without having the Gospel stories in mind. I can see why with a HJ there would be a lot of variety fairly soon--because so much was left unclear about who Jesus was and how that affects those after he is gone, and their relationship to God. With Paul, I think he was very caught up with a mission to the Gentiles, and so that is what we see coming through in his epistles. I'm not aware yet much of evidence for developed thought about Jesus/Wisdom/Logos etc.. prior to Paul that might explain this variety in other ways.

I did say that to Don as a joke against Doherty because I am not at all convinced that his skepticism is reasonable (though I'm very impressed with his writing ability and ability to throw doubt on things). I may one day feel foolish for not respecting his final judgements, and have to admit that I was the one without the proper imagination.

take care,

ted

Amaleq13

It seems to me that an idea rather than an inspirational man is more likely to result in a variety of interpretations. It also seems entirely inconsistent with the notion that it was the divine plan of an omniscient deity. What is the basis for your assumption of a lack of clarity? The Gospel depiction of the disciples? Seems more like an author with an agenda to me.

As you study the writings of the early Christians (if not Doherty directly), pay attention to what they declare is the source of their information. One thing I've found surprising and difficult to reconcile with the orthodox view is the many who appeal to the Hebrew Scriptures and not to the testimony of "eyewitnesses".

I don't know that imagination is the appropriate word. It is more an awareness of the assumptions you bring to a text that are not actually supported by the text. I've found them to be so deeply embedded by early indoctrination that they are slippery bastards to catch.

TedM

I think if all we had to go on is the gospels, that would leave lots of questions unanswered for Jewish Christians who thought Jesus' arrival on earth was the beginning of the kingdom of God since such kingdom is 'prophecied' in their scriptures, but not always clearly.

I'd like to see your list of many that you believe to be credible works and early enough to fall into this category.

However, since this is off topic, I think we should move any continuation to another thread.

thanks,

ted

Amaleq13

But aren't you assuming that all the early Christians had to go on was the Gospel stories? What I'm talking about when I refer to an early variety in Christianity is the existence of people teaching "another Jesus" and "another gospel" by the time of Paul. How does that happen in the context of an HJ? You start with an inspirational leader preaching and working miracles. He is executed but his followers come to believe he has risen from the dead so they begin preaching this new gospel of the Risen Christ. Where does the lack of clarity enter into the picture? From one guy to the small group or from the small group to those they convert or from the initial converts to others? Wouldn't you expect the small group to maintain some coherence and solidarity at least while they lived? Yet that is not what happened according to Paul.

I believe Doherty discusses it in his response to Don (he lists several places in Paul where Scripture is given as the source) as well as the initial article on Second Century Apologists. Time and again you will read that these men came to be Christians just from reading the Jewish Scriptures.

TedM

What I meant was that EVEN WITH all of the HJ detail in the gospels, it still leaves so much unanswered--which invites variety. As for the "another Jesus" and "another gospel" I looked into that a while back and concluded that it isn't near as dramatic to us as it was to Paul. The other gospel Paul was talking about that of the Jewish Christians who insisted that Gentiles needed to be circumcized in order to be welcome in the kingdom of God. That's primarily what Paul's letter to the Galations is disputing. The context makes this quite clear to me. It is not about a mythical vs historical Jesus or Logos vs Wisdom vs descending Savior kind of Jesus. It is about the Jewish law Jesus vs the Gentile Savior Jesus.

I'd say there was a lack of clarity first among the small group simply because their leader probably didn't address what would happen in his absence. There is a lot that would be debated with regard to what comes next that possibly Jesus didn't address when here: Why did he have to die? When is he coming back? How does that affect the Jews? How does that affect the Gentiles? How does Jewish law fit into the scheme? And we see all of these questions dealt with by Paul and in Acts.

Given that the Gentiles are prophecied to recognize and worship the Jewish God in the end days accompanying the coming of the Messiah it is not surprising that some--like Paul--would feel called by God to help usher in the Gentiles into the kingdom. We see throughout Paul's letters and Acts how that was a very controversial idea. In Acts 15 it is reported that James of the early Jewish Christian council decided that "we should not trouble those of the Gentiles who turn to God, but whould wirte to them to abstain from thepollutions of idols and from unchastity and from what is strangled and from blood. For from early generations Moses has had in every city those who preach him." Yet, it didn't take long for circumcision and the rights of Gentiles to enter the Temple or issues regarding payments to the Temple to be hotly debated. It appears to me that it is THESE kinds of issues that created variety early on among the Christians. Add to it various philosophies from the Greeks and others and we would see even more variety over time.

Had people like Paul not been around we may well have seen much less variety as the religion may have been contained as a sect (the Nazarenes mentiond in Acts, led by James the Just) without much global reach.



I'd have to go through the list more closely to get a better idea on it. Thanks,

ted

Amaleq13

Hence my question about the implied assumption that all they had to work with were the Gospel stories. The fourth version of the story says there is much that hasn't been told but, assuming the first apostles were followers of the living Jesus, I would imagine they had access to the rest and would share it. IOW, the earliest Christians would presumably have had more information than is contained in the Gospels yet they had less clarity?

Weren't "the pillars" part of this group of Jewish Christians and didn't they approve Paul's gospel as the same as their own? The only thing they seem to have been concerned about with regard to taking the gospel to the Gentiles was that the cash kept rolling in from Paul's efforts. Also, this addresses the notion of another gospel (however adequately) but it seems a bit weak with regard to explaining another Jesus. Why would anyone listen to preachers claiming Jesus said something completely different or represented something completely different? Competing revelations? Why would anyone listen to anything anyone said who hadn't learned at the feet of the Messiah, himself? This doesn't seem to make an HJ more likely to me.

First, this mess again makes me wonder why anyone would believe it could be considered a divine plan created by an omniscient deity. Second, doesn't Acts completely deny the existence of early diversity and certainly any lack of clarity within the initial group of apostles? It depicts the early Christians as one happy family all on the same page including Paul. Third, are those questions that the initial apostles had or questions Paul had to answer for potential converts? It seems to me that the initial apostles found the answers to the first three and the fifth quite readily available (ie no lack of clarity) in the same Scriptures they seem to have used to support everything else they believed. As for the fifth, I don't get the impression from Paul that this was much of a concern for them. It just seems that everything in earliest Christianity leads back to Scripture or revelation and it is only much later that the actions and teachings of the alleged inspiration for the whole thing becomes a source. How does that happen with a real guy doing really impressive things and teaching really impressive lessons? Do you know of any other examples of this sort of pattern? I mean, it seems like you would expect an enormous amount of "Jesus said..." and "Jesus did..." at the beginning with that eventually being overtaken by "the risen Christ revealed to me..." and "this Scriptural passage newly understood means..." but the actual evidence seems the complete reverse!

Both Paul's letters and the passage you quote suggest it wasn't something that particularly concerned the initial apostles. I get the impression they were entirely focused on their fellow Jews without any sense that there were Gentile conversion prophecies to be fulfilled.

But none of that leads back to an HJ and those who presumably knew him and learned directly from him were pushed aside in favor of what came from the Risen Christ. We get stories that depict them as knuckleheads who didn’t understand the man while he lived. It is almost as though the living guy was never really relevant. No wonder Paul feels free to ignore him.

I'm not sure if this requires a new thread or not. You want me to split it out?

TedM

I think we should, as it is off-topic mostly. I'm quitting for the day, having already passed my daily time-limit quota

ted

TedM

Amaleq13, I owe you an apology. I had seen you split this out a couple of days ago. I've been trying to reduce my time on these threads, yet ended up going back and forth with Johnny again, and kind of put off a response here, which I'll now attempt..

That ais possible, but it is also possible that they actually had LESS than what is in the gospels--that the gospels actually contain more than Jesus' actual message and deeds. The 4th version verse you refer to is considered by many to be a later add-on. I am suggesting a possibility that Jesus may have had a simple message of righteousness and about God's kingdom--leaving a lot of questions unanswered, and that EVEN IF his message had been embellished to the point we see in Mark's gospel, for example, there woudl be a lot of unanswered questions after he died, which can account for a lot of variety. Your comments above presume accuracy of the Gospels. Mine don't.

Even if they were--and I'm not so sure given the rebuke of Peter, that is beside the point: There were other Jewish Christians that Paul was saying were teaching "another gospel', and this issue was primarily about the Gentile role in the church, with great emphasis on circumcision. This is one example of 'early variety'.

I think you are saying that as long as Paul paid off the pillars, they were ok with whatever message he had to give, even if it entailed 'another Jesus'? I guess that is possible, though it seems to imply Paul is pandering to their authority. But, it doesn't answer the question of why the variety between Paul's message and theirs or others existed in the first place? Why was there this belief that the kingdom of God had arrived?

Just to stay focused, let's go back to my original comment and your response:


In response you said this:

I"ve responded that they may have had even less to go on than the gospels stories, that the 'early variety' you are talking about is explained by Paul himself, and that it happens because Jesus possibly didn't address how Gentiles would be part of the kingdom of God--a question that permeates Acts and Paul's epistles, and clearly is at the heart of the variety Paul alludes to in Galations. You may be very right that the 'small group' maintained solidarity while they lived: James' epistle seems quite Jewish, as does the Didache, for example. Yet, once you throw out those magic words "the kingdom of God has arrived", you are going to get others saying the Gentiles are now welcome as Isaiah predicted. I suggest the small group couldn't correct that, and that if they too believed the kingdom of God had arrived they would have been expecting some Gentile inclusion: This is indicated in Acts and even in Galations.

I'm not disagreeing with that, but it isn't an argument against a HJ.

I don't think so, though it does try to portray some unity. Peter's dream which basically says it is ok to eat all foods and convert Gentiles--apparantly AFTER Paul's conversion, so several years perhaps after the crucifixion certainly suggests a change in doctrine from the earlier years. Yet, it wasn't good enough: There still needed to be a council to vote on the Gentile role, led by James some time AFTER Peter's dream. These suggest that Acts actually supports the idea of early diversity and lack of clarity within the initial group of apostles.

In response to my questions:
"Why did he have to die? When is he coming back? How does that affect the Jews? How does that affect the Gentiles? How does Jewish law fit into the scheme? " you wrote:

That may be but we don't have their writings or Paul's interpretation of their viewpoints to know to what extent they debated it.

I'll bet it was given the indications that the persecutions of Paul were largely due to this very issue, and the need for the group to hold a council, and they were being put in the position to rule on the issues--something that could have big implications for them. He also relates how false brethren snuck in to potentially arrest him during that trip to Jerusalem (2:4), so it makes sense that they would be concerned too. It was clearly a huge concern to Paul for to other reasons too--enough to go to Jerusalem and privately lay out his gospel "lest somehow I should be running or had run in vain."

I agree, it does look weird, but it may be that Jesus just wasn't that impressive a teacher. In Paul's case he knew the scriptures forwards and backwards, so it may be that whatever teachings he heard came from Jesus were not much new. It may also be that having never met the earthly Jesus, any impact of his teachings was reduced for Paul. These may explain why Paul focused on Jesus as Savior instead of as Teacher.

I find it curious that Paul, despite sometimes appearing to say the opposite, did see in the pillars some authority that he found important. He stayed 15 days with Peter, he privately laid out his Gentile plan "lest somehow I should be running or had run in vain", he found it very important to respond to their request to remember to poor--even to the point of coordinating collections for the 'saints in Jerusalem'. When Paul talks about whether he is also an apostle, he appeals to his own revelations or visions "have I not seen the Jesus our Lord", which could imply that some of the apostles actually knew Jesus, and maybe Jesus really did have brothers as Paul says just 2 verses later, perhaps James being one of them as mention in Galations.. Would Paul have recognized this group as having authority had they not known Jesus? Does Paul talk about their source for authority as having been revelations from the risen Christ? No. So, why did he care what they thought--he was busy traveling the world thousands of miles from them. What did they matter to him?


The knucklehead stories may have more truth in them than we realize: He may have had some kind of teaching role, or may have been kind of an 'on the edge kind of man" that they didn't quite get--healing in some places, being unable to back at home, talking about righteousness but turning over tables in the temple, but perhaps they loved him anyway--always curious but never quite sure what to think. Whatever clarity they had perhaps didn't come from Jesus life, but from his manner of Passover death, and alleged resurrection, and perhaps that is why this is the focus of Paul. His death meant much more to them than his life.

ted

Amaleq13

No you don't. It doesn't matter to me how long you take in formulating a response.

This and several similar comments you offer seem to me to create more credibility problems for imagining a historical Jesus. How does it make sense to suggest that a man with a "simple message" or one who "wasn't that impressive a teacher" would, subsequent to his death, be considered the incarnated Son or the incarnation of God's Wisdom or anything even remotely amazing? Why would the followers of such a lackluster individual ever become convinced he had risen from the dead or that it was of such monumental significance?

This apparent dichotomy is enormously puzzling to me. It seems reasonable to assume that the living man was in some way remarkable whether through demonstrations of apparently supernatural power or through amazingly wise teachings to inspire the dramatic response he obtained from his followers subsequent to his death. Yet, however one chooses to depict that amazing aspect of the man, it is this amazing inspirational part that Paul utterly ignores!!! It is like someone writing page after page venerating a Risen Elvis while completely ignoring the fact that he was a singer! It makes no sense.

I have a hard time accepting that Paul or any other Christian would consider this issue, alone, to constitute "another gospel". It is clearly not the "good news" that Paul is preaching but much more of a secondary issue relating to it and I find it difficult to imagine anyone referring to the notion that Gentiles must conform to the Law as "another good news". It seems to me the use of "another gospel" implies a much broader difference in message than you suggest.

What evidence is there that this was a point of dissent? According to Paul, the appearance of the Risen Christ was the signal of the coming Kingdom.

I disagree. If the message was already being taken to the Gentiles well before Paul converted, why does he depict himself as the one the risen Christ chose to start such an effort?

Then they wouldn't have been much new to any other Jew to whom he preached.

What explains why the authors of the Didache seem to have focused on the opposite? Their eucharist says nothing about a sacrifice but appears to only thank Jesus for knowledge.

It isn't just an appearance, he clearly disregards their reputation but I think he recognized that many in his potential audience might not.

It seems to me that such a conception reduces the historical Jesus to little more than a sidenote about whom we can say almost nothing while leaving the majority of our knowledge, based on divine revelations and inspired reading of Scripture, about the Risen Christ. When the HJ becomes so insignificant, it seems to me but a small step to suggest he is entirely unnecessary to explain the outcome.

If it is reasonable to think that the initial apostles could be so inspired by a man with a "simple message" or one who "wasn't that impressive a teacher" then it doesn't seem unreasonable to think they might be just as inspired by a novel idea developed from an inspired re-examination of Scripture or an appearance of the Son shared by someone they respected (ie Cephas).