maryhelena

Well then, I humbly suggest that people here need to re-think their ideas of just what a mythicist position re the gospel crucified carpenter Jesus is.
Good for Wells - re being able to acknowledge the weakness of his earlier position re denying any historical figure relevant to early christian history.

So - Wells has a historical figure, prior to Paul, who was not crucified. This historical 'preacher' figure has been 'fused' with the gospel Jesus figure. Wells has two figures of Jesus. One figure is purely historical with no crucifixion. His other Jesus figure is the gospel's 'salvific' Jesus, the Jesus with the supernatural personage of the early epistles.

The argument over historicity is not over Well's earlier historical preacher. The argument re historicity is over the gospel Jesus - the crucified carpenter Jesus. Wells is not saying, as far as I can see, that his Jesus no.1 is synonymous with his Jesus no.2. Otherwise there is no point to his argument.

To assume from this that Wells now believes that the gospel crucified carpenter Jesus is historical is, as far as I can see, an assumption that Wells has not made - and seems to be going out of his way to maintain a separation, a differentiation, between his Jesus no.1 and his Jesus no.2. Until Wells does that - then writing him out of the mythicist camp might just be premature.

All Wells has done is face some hard facts. However much some mythicists might want to write off any historical figure relevant to the pre-Paul communities/groups - the possibility that it is not all mythical needs to be faced. The gospel Jesus is not historical - the mythicists are right here. But that position does not, cannot, rule out a historical figure relevant to pre-Paul communities - a figure that was not crucified. The crucifixion storyline is theology not history.

Come on now - don't be ridiculous in what you are suggesting re my position.

Wells' 'defection' is from his own earlier position. He has not said, as far as I'm aware, that he now believes that the gospel crucified Jesus carpenter from Nazareth is historical. If he has - then produce his statement please.

And, for what it's worth. While I do find the position of Wells to be more advantages in seeking the historical origins of christianity than that of Doherty - I am my own mouthpiece and don't follow Wells in all his theories.

Simple answer - Paul is writing theology.
Theology - I'm not interested in theological ideas for the sake of theological ideas.

maryhelena

Great point, Earl.

EarlDoherty

Dunn's objection is based on a misconception, determined by orthodox attitudes toward early Christianity. If Paul and Q are entirely separate, then it is not a question of the amount of time the Q traditions took to develop in relation to the world of the epistles. Any contemporaneity, if that were present, would simply be coincidental. The roots of Q have their own development out of Cynic preaching precedents which go back much beyond the Pauline cult (and, of course, have nothing to with it), and the Q milieu itself arose out of a common expression of expectations during the entire first century in Palestine, the arrival of the kingdom of God. (The Christ cult Paul joined was itself one of those expressions, though unconnected with the KoG movement centered in Galilee and involving faith features the latter never adopted, such as a sacrificial savior.)

As for the non-Q traditions in the Gospels, that, as mythicism (or my case for it) suggests, was essentially an 'overnight' development by the author of Mark (perhaps reflecting a recent syncretism within his own community) which took elements of the Pauline cult and amalgamated them with the Q traditions, embodying that product in an allegorical story. Here, then, there should be no problem concerning time constraints.

I would have to fault Wells for not perceiving the inherent fallacy (in light of his own Jesus mythicism) in Dunn's objection, and for changing his position on that basis.

Earl Doherty

maryhelena

Unfortunately my cut and paste left out this first sentence to the above quoted paragraph from Wells' book.

It is possibly this position that Wells says Dunn objected to - ie a gospel Jesus figure that is an expansion of Paul’s epistles - and such a mythicist theory leaves itself open to a problematic relatively short time span. Therefore, Wells looks to Q for a longer time span - and find within it - and it’s longer time span - a possibility for a non crucified historical preacher that later gets fused with Paul’s crucified Jesus in the gospel Jesus storyline. Thus, his theory re two Jesus figures. The historical preacher from the Q tradition and the fused gospel Jesus figure.

Whether or not Q is able to survive the forces that are being raised against it - the pre-Paul situation remains. An earlier historical situation that revolved around its own tradition. A tradition that Paul had to acknowledge. If Paul's crucified Jesus spiritual construct has been fused with that earlier tradition - a tradition that the early layers of the gospel storyline seem to reflect - then, what Wells is suggesting - a historical figure that was not crucified - is not implausible. Thus, rather than Jesus no.1 and Jesus no.2 (as in Wells' ideas) there is rather the gospel mythological/symbolic crucified Jesus storyline plus a historical non-crucified figure, historical figure X. (As you remarked earlier - were there such a preacher in Q then changing his name to Jesus would be part of the amalgamation process with the dying and rising Christ of Paul).

Paul's Jesus and the gospel Jesus are not historical figures. But the pre-Paul historical realities, the historical tradition that Paul' crucified Jesus has been fused with in the gospel storyline - that pre-Paul tradition can have had an inspirational historical figure as it's focus, as it's motivating force.

There is nothing within a mythicist position that would cause it to reject such an idea.

aa5874

But, what you are proposing cannot be evidenced.

Continually making claims of what may have been possible is futile since any MULTIPLE possibilities can be proposed even without evidence .

Examine these possibilities:

1. The pre-Paul tradition may have had an inspirational historical figure as it's focus, as it's motivating force.

2. The pre-Paul tradition may NOT have had an inspirational historical figure as it's focus, as it's motivating force.

Proposal 1 cannot be supported since there is no evidence in any sources of antiquity external of apologetics for an inspirational character called Jesus of Nazareth.

Proposal 2 is good since non-apologetic sources of antiquity do NOT show that there was an inspirational character called Jesus of Nazareth.

Jesus son of Ananus may have been inspirational to Josephus when he was severely beaten for saying "Woe unto Jerusalem" and did not utter an word but there no evidence that a Jesus of Nazareth did or said anything inspirational to any real person of history.

Well, except "Paul" who was inspired by the resurrected dead.

What inspiration!

There are numerous ideas but no evidence to support them. Ideas can be rejected when they are just speculations based solely on imagination.

The inspirational Jesus idea can be rejected until evidence can be found.

EarlDoherty

But I'm afraid there is. At least in my mythicist position. A study of Q indicates quite clearly that the founder figure present in 'finished' Q used by Matthew and Luke (whatever his name and character could have been) is not present in the earliest layer, and we can identify the steps and process through which he was introduced. Unfortunately, this is not something that can be demonstrated in a few sentences.

As for Q "withstanding" the forces against it, I don't regard those forces as having too much power. Jesus: Neither God Nor Man points out the serious failings with the Luke used Matthew scenario appealed to these days to dispense with Q. Mark Goodacre is not the "no-Q" Messiah many make him out to be. Even Michael Turton admitted to me that my new book has forced him to seriously question his no-Q position.

Earl Doherty

Solo

If this is a humble request I wonder what would count with you as a conceited one.

At any rate, it was fun chatting.

Jiri

maryhelena

Quite - your own position, your reluctance to consider the possibility of a historical person X (prior to the amalgamation of the pre-Paul tradition with Paul's spiritual Jesus construct in the gospel crucified Jesus storyline) is what is defining your own concept of mythicism. The mythicist concept, a position that rejects the historicity of the gospel crucified Jesus, is not, however, defined by your particular take on it.

As regards Q - a mythicist position does not stand or fall upon the questionable grounds of this theory. All a mythicist theory needs - apart from a recognition of the gospel's mythological rising and dying god scenario - is Paul's own admission that there was another movement prior to his time. And, since Paul cannot be dated with anything he says in his epistles - the Damascus/Aretes text is ambiguous and cannot be used to date Paul - then the movement, or communities, prior to Paul could have had a considerable historical existence prior to Paul's time. You write that the amalgamation was an 'overnight' development. An 'overnight' development involving a pre-Paul tradition with Paul's spiritual Jesus construct. A pre-Paul tradition that went back to an undetermined time. Whether one dates Paul early or late, pre or post 70, the time distance between Paul' letters and the early pre-Paul tradition (ie its roots) is undetermined. Using the gospel dating system for this pre-Paul early tradition would be illogical. Consequently, since there is no simple way to work out the time lapse between the origins of the pre-Paul movement and Paul's own letters i.e how long it had been functioning - to simply write it off as not having a historical figure that was deemed to be relevant - seems unwarranted. One can argue for a Tom, Dick and Harry scenario - lots of people with different ideas - or one can go with the single inspirational figure. Mythicism already looks to Paul as such a figure - that there was another inspirational figure who lived and died pre-Paul - cannot, from a mythicist perspective, be ruled out.

All a mythicist position does is rule out as historical the gospel crucified Jesus i.e. a mythicist position rules out the gospel crucified figure of Jesus that was the result, the 'child', of the amalgamation, the 'marriage', between the pre-Paul movement and Paul' own spiritual Jesus construct.


By all accounts there are many people, scholars, out there who are seriously re-considering Q. No smoke without a fire - so, obviously these scholars would not be wasting their time for a pie in the sky idea.

dog-on

Correct Mary. I consider myself a mythicist simply because I view the gospels as myth. If there was someone that inspired this story, this person was quickly lost to history and, in my view, made irrelevant by Paul and the Gospel writers, themselves.

maryhelena

Perfect!
Really easy......