Dominus Paradoxum

Don't get me wrong, I find Doherty's thesis very convincing overall. There's just one thing that troubles me . It seems that on his thesis the order of the progression of the theology of the Gospels is the reverse of what it should be. We start out in Mark with a very human Jesus, one who "could not perform any mighty works" in Capernam. Gradually we ascend through Matthew and Luke whose Jesus seems to be omniscient and omnipotent, though still quite human. Finally we have the theology of John with its totally divine Jesus, who is one in being with the Father. This is what we should expect if there was a historical Jesus who was gradually elevated that Godhead. But with Doherty, we have a divine Jesus, who was gradually lowered and historicized. So we should expect to start out with the theology like John's, gradually descending to the human Jesus of Mark. So what do you think a Mythicist could come up with to explain this anomaly?

Layman

Notable insights, thanks for posting.

I think the issue is further complicated by the contexts of the supposed tragectory. Doherty sees a divine, nonphysical Jesus birthed in a Jewish context, which only becomes human and physical, as well as less clearly divine, as it becomes a predominantly Greek phenomenon. This is not what we would expect from either context.

Cretinist

You have misunderstood Doherty. Doherty uses Crossan's distinction between the Galilean and Jerusalem traditions. According to Doherty, Mark's Jesus is a combination of the two traditions, with all his biographical details composed from material in the Galilean Tradition (Q stuff, basically) and from Mark's own midrashic inventions. Paul's Jesus is completely from the Jerusalem tradition (the cosmic Christ).

You are also forgetting, Dominus Paradoxum, that Paul's Jesus is already a cosmic being before the Gospels were ever written.

Dominus Paradoxum

And where did I forget that? I realise that mark had both traditions in mind, but still should we not expect that Mark's Jesus should be a little more fully divine if he is drawing directly on Paulinism? Why does he seem to draw on the Q material so much more than the Pauline? I mean, what did he really get from Paul besids the Crucifiction and the Resurrection, and perhaps, the twelve? Sould we still not expect his theology to be a bit more developed if he has such a master to draw on?

Dean Anderson

I understood Doherty's point to be that Mark's beliefs were squarely in the Galilean (Q) tradition. He incorporated some bits of the Jerusalem (Paulean) tradition into his gospel, but did not feel comfortable accepting all of the Jerusalem tradition.

Once this first 'foot in the door' happened with the blending of the traditions, other Galilean writers (Luke, Mark) were prepared to incorporate more Paulean stuff, until with John the two traditions have fully merged and the belief corpus contains pretty much the whole of both traditions.

Layman

Luke as a Galilean writer? Matthew as more Pauline than Mark?

Can I get page references for this to Doherty's book?

Amaleq13

If Mark relied on Paul at all for his description of a living Jesus, he would not have concluded he exhibited signs of being divine. The minimal references Paul makes to the pre-crucifixion Christ do not suggest a divine figure at all (e.g. humbled, no reputation, likeness of a servant).

Within the context of Doherty, the behavior/expressed beliefs of the Q prophets is Mark's primary source for his depiction of the living Jesus and we would expect that influence to result in a very human portrayal.

Aside from the very minimal descriptions I mentioned above, what else could the author have obtained from Paul? There really is no living, preaching Jesus in Paul upon which Mark's author could have based his story. He did, however, apparently know quite a bit about a certain rural, prophetic movement and seems to have decided that this was a good model.

Dean Anderson

I'm afraid you can't.

I said that this was my understanding on reading The Jesus Puzzle, not that this was something explicitly stated by Doherty.

Actually, he may or may not have stated it, but without acquiring another copy of the book I can't tell you either way.

It's perfectly possible that I misunderstood him - I'm the first to admit that I'm no expert...

Vinnie

I don't find Doherty's thesis convincing at all but I have to disagre with how you formulated this. No progression is indicated.

Mark = ca 70 ad.

Matthew Luke and John = end of the 1st century.

How do you find a progression from Mark through Matthew and Luke to John when its possible John may predate Matthew and/or Luke?

There is a progression from mark on to the other Gospels but it should not be uncritically assumed it goes from Mark through Matthew and Luke to John.

Vinnie

Dominus Paradoxum

I thought John was universally acknowledged to be the latest. Shows what little I know...