andrewcriddle

This may possibly be relevant. I have no further information about its reliability http://www.bede.org.uk/gawells.htm

Andrew Criddle

ichabod crane

Whoah! One step at a time. I'm suggesting there's an alternative explanation for the central piece of evidence for the MJ hypothesis. I can't answer all your questions: to do so would require my doing a lot more reading and research.

In general terms, I would explain portrayels of a heavenly Christ figure lacking in historical details as coming from a Pauline-influenced Christian community. Intermediate figures such as the "son" may or may not be connected specifically with the person of Jesus Christ; as you know, there was all sorts of speculation about such figures. But such figures never gave rise to a Jewish messianic movement, a point I'll discuss in a moment.

You're assuming that Mark is a metaphorical text. I don't agree. I think it was intended to be read as narrative of real historical events - regardless of whether those events actually occurred or not. Even if Mark made the whole thing up from scratch, which I think is unlikely, I think he still hoped that it would be read as real history. It does not have the characteristics of texts intended to be read metaphorically or allegorically.

Why does nobody know where Jesus was entombed? I would say the most likely explanation is the minor matter of the destruction of Jerusalem by Titus.

Why had Josephus never heard of him? Well actually, this should be, why did Josephus not mention him (let's stick with the actual evidence). Don't know. Can't answer that one. Maybe in Palestine Christians were of less importance then their own records make them out to be. They might have still been below the radar.

The rest of your questions are virtually impossible to answer, due to lack of evidence. We simply have no way of knowing which bits of the gospels are real history and which bits aren't.

But here's my "killer argument" against the MJ theory (drum roll):

HJ-ers think that a Jewish messianic movement started because a real human individual inspired people to think he was the messiah.

MJ-ers think that a Jewish messianic movement started because people began to believe that a heavenly god-like figure was the messiah.

I think the MJ hypothesis is intrinsically unlikely; but in discussions with MJ-ers they have been unconvinced and think that it is quite likely. But I've come up with an objective measure of the intrinsic probability of each. Let's discount Christianity altogether. Let's just take other Jewish messianic movements.

Q: How many other non-Christian Jewish messianic movements started because people came to believe that a real human person was the messiah? A: Numerous, many.

Q: How many other non-Christian Jewish messianic movements started because people came to believe that a heavenly god-like figure was the messiah? A: None.

I rest my case. The evidence shows that the HJ hypothesis is vastly more intrinsically likely than the MJ hypothesis.

Vorkosigan

Have you read Tolbert's Sowing the Gospel or Fowler's Let the Reader Understand?

My own view is that Mark is allegorical or parabolic, and did not intend for his work to be read as history. It's full of sly jokes, irony, puzzles, etc.

Neil Godfrey, whom I stimulate with bonehead question just to read his marvelous writing, has been posting some very thought-provoking stuff over on JM. Here's a post of his from a couple of weeks ago entitled "Reading Mark."

*******************************
Following is based for most part on my notes from a reading of
Fowler's "Let the Reader Understand" (1996). It is presenting a case
that Mark never intended readers to single out Peter for special
honour at the end of the gospel, that there was not necessarily any
meeting between Jesus and his disciples after the resurrection, and
that the ending of Mark is, along with its entirety, written as a
parable to engage readers in a discourse, and not as history or
biography at all.

Robert Fowler in "Let the Reader Understand" argues that Mark is
interested in creating and using a story primarily for the purpose
of establishing a discourse with the reader/hearer. Hence the many
ambiguities and puzzles he created for the reader. The end (16:8) is
just one of these. Matthew on the other hand, and Luke, re-wrote
Mark in order to create first and foremost the correct story itself
thus changing the whole purpose and message of Mark. It is all too
natural for us to read Mark in the light of what we know of the
stories told us by Matthew and Luke. Since the ambiguities of Mark
have allowed us to do this ever since we were first introduced to
the Bible it can become very difficult for us to see Mark as it must
have appeared to its very first readers. If it seems an overly
sophisticated way to view Mark then a reading of "Classical
Closure : reading the end in Greek and Latin literature" edited by
Deborah H. Roberts, Francis M. Dunn, and Don Fowler (1997) should
establish that this view of Mark actually shows him to be nothing
more than a product of his time and attempting nothing more than
critics have come to expect from the likes of Herodotus, Euripides
and Virgil.

To focus on just one of these ambiguities in Mark, 16:7:

But go and tell his disciples and Peter, 'He is going before
you to Galilee; there you will see him, as he told you.'"

Peter is singled out, and knowing the other gospels and Church
tradition it is the most natural thing in the world to assume that
Mark is also telling us that Peter receives special honour despite
his earlier human failings. But if we look for why Peter is singled
out in Mark alone without any subliminal reference at all (if
possible) to our preconceptions of the status of Peter then a very
different possibility emerges and it will soon become apparent why
others were quick to re-write this gospel story.

To learn why Peter may have been singled out at the end here we
ought to look back into what was written about him earlier in Mark
(not Matthew). Peter was the first disciple called; he was the first
listed of the twelve; he was the closest to Jesus, always listed as
the first of the inner three; he recognized Jesus as the Christ; he
argued against Christ's mission; Christ called him Satan; he
disbelieved Jesus and found him incomprehensible and was among those
who spoke against him at Bethany; nevertheless he swore that his
loyalty to Jesus was stronger than that of all the others; he
deserted Jesus along with all the rest; he subsequently went even
further than the others by publicly denouncing any knowledge of
Jesus and cursing at the mere mention that he could be associated
with Jesus. Before 16:7 he had already been singled out as the
strongest denier of Jesus, as the biggest sham and empty vessel, of
all the twelve. According to Mark Peter is doomed above all others
to hear Christ deny him with shame in the judgment (8:34-9:1). 16:7
singles him out -- within context -- presumably as the worst of the
twelve, or at least of their epitome. If we knew nothing other than
the story of Mark there is no way we would entertain the notion that
he was singled out because he was destined to be the foundation of
the church.

16:7 also says the message is not just to Peter but to all the
disciples. As Fowler reminds us, there is no suggestion in Mark
(only in Matthew, John and Luke) that Judas is not still included
among the disciples. Reading Mark alone we have to assume Judas is
included. So the message in 16:7 is then directed at Peter and Judas
alike. Only invalid preconceptions tell us otherwise.

16:7 says that Christ is going "before" the others to Galilee. In
the beginning of the gospel Christ accosted people directly
commanding them to follow him. Now we simply hear that he is "going
ahead" and Mark leaves it agonizingly open as to whether anyone is
actually going to follow him this time.

Fowler observes that "there you will see him" was taken by Matthew
to mean Jesus would meet his disciples again but it is far from
clear that this is what Mark himself meant. Up to this time Mark has
spoken much of the women seeing and looking for Jesus, from seeing
him "from afar" on the cross to seeking him in the tomb. What the
young man in the tomb is doing is telling the women that they won't
see Jesus in a tomb but "there", in Galilee. He is telling them they
are looking in the wrong place for Jesus and need to look in Galilee
instead. We can only read a future meeting with the disciples into
this if we want to. And of course most of us do want to. And that
was very likely Mark's point. He is engaging the reader in a
discourse, not just telling them a story. The question for the
reader is: Who will follow Jesus into Galilee? Will anyone? Will
they? But they are doomed but will they somehow? Will I? What is my
position regarding Jesus?

Galilee? By the time we arrive at this point in the story we realize
Galilee was nothing but a metaphor, part of the parable that is the
whole story. For when Jesus said he was going before them into
Galilee we must recall that Mark has already explained: "But without
a parable spake he not unto them" (4:34). Galilee is just as
metaphoric as the tomb, the lepers, the lake and its storm, the
raisings from the dead, the healings, the temple and the fig tree,
even Peter (the rocky soil in the parable of the sower) himself.
***************

Vorkosigan

Vorkosigan

Alas, like most historicist analyses, your puzzle encodes its answer within. The correct riposte is:

"What makes you think Christianity began as a Jewish messianic movement?"

Why don't you work on another question, beginning like:

Q: How many other syncretic religious movements began on the colonial peripheries of major imperial powers.....

A: Many.

Vorkosigan

Oh don't worry. We have lots of information about that site's reliability!

Killer Mike

Im no bible scholar, just an interested bystander. My level of study on the origins of Christianity would be equivelant to an undergraduate freshman. But I did take two undergraduate courses at the University of Minnesota which exposed me to "Introduction to the New Testament" by Howard Clark Kee and Introduction to the Old Testament by Bernard Anderson. "Jesus" may very well have initially been a galilean preacher. But Wells no longer argues "Jesus" was purely mythical.

I personally find it easier to believe there was some sort of historical figure and that stories about him began to circulate and eventually came to be written down, rather then to believe in a purely "mythical" idea. I mean with all the dozens of preachers, miracle workers, and the such floating around during this time, it seems more reasonable to assume one of them would have developed a following of believers that eventually evolved a new religion.
Part of the problem is the evidence is not complete. Obviously every written document from this period has not survived. It would be like trying to make a detailed phylogenetic tree based on an incomplete fossil record, and then arguing evolution did not happen because nobody can agree on all the details.
My question from an interested bystander is simply why has Dohertys' work not taken hold within the mainstream of Bible scholarship? I mean why has not the John Dominic Crossens' and Helmut Koesters' of the world openly endorsed the purely mythical idea?

andrewcriddle

Answer, because all our early Christian sources are strongly Jewish in one way or another.

(One could dispute this by claiming that Thomas is our earliest Christian source but IIUC neither of us would do so.)

Andrew Criddle

andrewcriddle

The idea that what the angel says to the women at the end of Mark is not intended by Mark to be read as literal reporterage is IMO probably true, it is far less clear that the same applies to Mark as a whole (or even IMO to the story of the empty tomb itself).

Andrew Criddle

Amaleq13

First, Wells claims this to be a misunderstanding of his actual position:

"Some recent scholars (such as Freke and Gandy in their 1999 book and Early Doherty, whose book was also published in 1999) hold that the earliest Christian writers did not believe Jesus to have come to Earth as a man at all. I have never maintained this view, although it has often been imputed to me by critics who have been anxious to dispose of my arguments without troubling to see wherein they consist." (Can We Trust The New Testament?, p4)

Second, his actual position does not appear to be similar to your own (ie a Galilean preacher gets blown out of proportion by later mythologizing). In fact, he spends several paragraphs describing his agreements with Doherty. If I understand him correctly, a historical figure is likely to exist as the basis for Q but this figure has had the theology of Paul grafted onto him rather than being the inspiration for it. Wells appears to be open to the possibility that Paul's Jesus was assumed to have been killed at some unknown point in the past and/or that, in agreement with Ellegard, "earliest Christian ideas about him were to some extent shaped by imprecise knowledge about the Teacher of Righteousnes".(p.8)

I agree that this notion is more simple but that doesn't make it any more likely to be true and, IMO, it is too simple to account for all the evidence.

And the other part of the problem is that the existing evidence has no information that can be reliably identified as historical.

The case is not without its flaws and the conclusion is contrary to centuries of accepted assumptions. Even if the argument was rock-solid (ie sufficient to convince someone like Richard Carrier rather than just intrigue him), I would be shocked if it didn't take a considerable amount of time to overturn the existing assumptions/conclusions.

Do you really expect scholars to immediately embrace the notion that their own numerous scholarly efforts have been seriously misguided? That said, Crossan's The Birth of Christianity has generated almost as much doubt in my mind about the "traditional view" as the efforts of men like Price, Wells, and Doherty. He openly acknowledges and discusses, though failing to explain, the "great divide" between the apparently separate traditions in earliest Christianity (ie Life and Death).

On that note:
I find that to be a very compelling explanation but doesn't it require that the life being ignored was dramatically different from the one portrayed in the Gospels? It is consistent with Paul's depiction of the executed Christ as disguised and without reputation but that seems inconsistent with the sort of man whose life would result in followers so devout that they continued to be faithful even after his death.

I would also repeat my earlier quote and question in case it was buried under subsequent discussions:

I've seen this forumula before and I wonder why this doesn't require an earth-bound "Jesus" even if we assume that Paul, et al believed the true Jesus existed in a heavenly sphere? Doherty, IIRC, attributes this belief to the early Christians including Paul.

andrewcriddle

IMO the "great divide" in Crossan's picture of early Christianity is at least partly a result of Crossan's particular picture of the Historical Jesus and the early traditions about Jesus's life.

If the Historical Jesus and the early tradition about Jesus are seen in eschatological terms then one can connect this with Paul's teaching by emphasising the eschatological elements in Paul's teaching.

Albert Schweitzer has interesting things to say about this in 'Paul and His Interpreters' and 'The Mysticism of Paul the Apostle'.

If however, one's picture of the Historical Jesus and the early tradition are non-eschatological as in Crossan's work, then linking the early tradition to Paul becomes much more problematical.

Andrew Criddle