Llyricist

Especially after a several hopeful "Messiahs" got themselves crucified. (That would include Jesus, remember all these ideas came up AFTER he got killed....if he existed)
I don't see any disagreement or need for expansion

well the sayings and teachings fit just fine overall, but the overarching concept doesn't fit at all with a Roman crucifiction, which is my point, IF he existed and he got crucified, he wasn't quite what the sources say he was. Besides all we know from Q has been reworked into the gospels.... so we can't really say what the overarching concept of Q was.
Not understanding the problem here, I see that whole thing as a device to explain the fact that none of the Jerusalem crowd's descendents were involved in the mystical movement that Paul Synthesized. I see the gospels as attempts to harmonize Paul's BS with an actual living human, not so much actual history of who he was.
well they aren't documented till the 3rd or 4th century so I wouldn't put TOO much credence into what they may have said, however, I think they had Paul's number fairly well spot on,
Frankly I agree entirely with Doherty on that score, them's were Mystical demons. In fact, age in this sense was probably referring to the 2160 years the sun rises in each zodiacal sign at the spring equinox (Paul was HEAVILY influenced by all the other Hellenistic religions and such)
well the point was they obviously believed he was SOME sort of threat. That is, not just some itinerate preacher with some idea of a kingdom IN heaven after death.
Actually the word I should have used was synthesis, not invention. Most of the concepts he put together were already in existence, just not put together quite the way he did.
It was most likely a very devotional and very Jewish cult that also had aspirations of removing the Romans, and died out when the Riomans routed them ca.70CE.

Actually I got the idea from an article Toto linked to a few months ago in this thread .

That person suggests that Simon = Jesus, which would solve the James as brother problem, but seems to me it creates more problems than it solves... though I could be wrong

Amaleq13

Except for the dual-messiahs described in the Dead Sea Scrolls, I think you are correct. I wonder if the Theraputae had their own twist on the Messiah concept? If there were evidence that they had anything close to Paul's theology, that would through the whole shebang into chaos.

I think it is reasonable to assume both Mt and Lk would have used any specifically messianic material if they had found it in Q. Unless, of course, it differed too much from their own views.

I think that idea works well with Mark's "abrupt" ending. Paul's letters/theology takes up right where it ends. I'm still not sure how much difference we can assume between the teachings of Paul vs the Pillars. Even assuming that the actual extent of their disagreement has been toned down in the NT, how specific can we get about their opposing beliefs?

I think this is the best reading even if we assume an historical Jesus.

So, you don't think preaching the gospel of the Kingdom as depicted in Q would be enough? Would it be enough to obtain the murderous hatred of the High Priest?

Thanks for the link. I thought I had seen something along those lines in some thread but I didn't have time to check it. I hope there is a book. I enjoy spending Christmas reading heretical theories.

Llyricist

Well wasn't that just the addition of a harbinger/prophet character to the Kingly Messiah? (much like Ezekiel(?) was to David)
Depends on how close and in what way.
Well I think your caveat covers it . But basically, I think they would have HAD to tone down any anti-Roman/This world kingdom material they may have found given their circumstances. (Post Jerusalem destruction Roman Empire)
We can only speculate, but I think it stretches credibility to think that such remarkably UN Jewish beliefs as the savior dying for sins and the eucharist could have survived that long in Jerusalem at the time.

On Edit: Not to mention the implicit deification of a person, that may work in the context of an entirely spirtual belief, but NOT in the context of an historical person basis.
Possibly, but then, It also would have grated on the Pharisees enough to gain a conviction in the Sanhedrin and stone him. On the other hand, the earthly Messiahship would NOT have bothered the Pharisees (in spite of the way the gospels represented them), but WOULD have bothered the High Priest AND the Romans proper.

My whole point here is that the Gospel Jesus would not have been considered a threat to the Romans at all, thus they would not have crucified him. Plus IF there were an historical personage behind the myths of Paul, it stretches credulity that his "epiphany" would have changed his mode of death. Which leaves us the most plausible alternative that Jesus (if he existed) was in fact a leader of some sort of "People's Front of Judea" , and lo and behold, we also have two guys named James and Simon attested to separately, that were involved in just such a movement or cult, and who themselves were killed at about the right time to match up with the biblical story (about the same time they disappear off of Paul's "Radar").

Amaleq13

That isn't the impression I've obtained. As I understand it, the text more or less divides the "job" between two guys. Instead of a Priest/King, you get a Priest and King.

The dying/resurrecting Messiah certainly seems foreign to Jewish beliefs but the eucharist appears to have developed from a Jewish thanksgiving meal. It is not consistently connected to the sacrificial death of Jesus in all Christian traditions. The Didache, for example, portrays a eucharist tradition where they gave thanks for all that they had learned from Christ. So, some Jewish Christians gave thanks for the Wisdom of Christ while others gave thanks for the sacrifice.

I agree that an assumed historical Jesus pretty much had to have been crucified. It seems too much to think that Paul could introduce such a horribly humiliating and culturally loaded death if it was known that he had died otherwise. Then again, Paul tells us that the cross was a "stumbling block" to the Jews.

Which, in turn, calls into question relying on Q for an understanding of the living Jesus. We're trying to build a house (admittedly of very fragile cards) and you keep pulling blocks out of the foundation!

I'm going to check that link out when I get home. Sounds interesting.

And I have to stop listening to my iPod while typing (spelling "throw" as "through" in my previous post?).

Doctor X

Good stuff:

Amaleq13 et Llyricist:

Horrors! I refer'd to the great theologian Bill the Cat. . . .

Why would Mk do that? From what I recall of Mk, the actual "what happened next" with regards to resurrection is not important to him. I agree the lack of a clear resurrection may explain why the "disciples" or "Jerusalem Group" did not have it as part of their theology-philosophy-corporate holidays.

But . . . Mk could have had a "what after" story like Lk-Acts and just had Junior appear to the "right people." Sure . . . perhaps a "secret" second part exists . . . but I do not like assuming sources into existence. I am not familiar with "Secret Mk"--maybe it expands on the "what next."

To my recollection, Paul's resurrection is not much of a resurrection--no real details. So . . . are we looking at an early picture of the development of the resurrection myth?

Good point! If Junior preached something and died . . . even if he performed some "faith healing" . . . his movement would probably disappear without "something" after getting executed--assuming all that happened for a moment. I think most agree that it was the Romans--Jews-stone-blasphemers--and that his movement could not have been that threatening or the Romans would have stamped it out.

So . . . something "mythic" had to be created. Does that mean someone "stole the body" in actuality? As noted by others, Romans left bodies to rot. Frankly anyone can make up a story of resurrection--look at the Elvis sightings!

As Llyricist notes, clearly the traditional Messiah did not come . . . or . . . he . . . like got run over by a Roman chariot or something. . . . It would be no problem for adherents to alter past traditions--even if they were not their own.

Indeed, Lk-Acts does this. If we did not have Galatians to compare it may not seem so obvious. If we accept current dating for the texts, we have a few decades after Paul and the composition of the Synoptics.

[quote]L: But basically, I think they would have HAD to tone down any anti-Roman/This world kingdom material they may have found given their circumstances. (Post Jerusalem destruction Roman Empire)[quote]

Just as an aside, methinks the "blame the Jews" results from apology for the Romans--not "politically correct" to blame them!--from any rivarly or tradition of rivalry with a Jewish community. However, if a community would not know a Jew if it bit them in the posteriors--Mk--it is easy after a long time to blame someone else. Monday morning quaterbacking. . . .

As an aside, when I was mucking about all of the stuff on child sacrifice . . . it nearly being Christman 'n all . . . Jon Levenson's book demonstrates that the tradition of a "death" and "resurrection" of a "beloved son" did exist in Jewish tradition. To make a long story short, he made me rethink the "death for others" as completely foreign to Jewish conceptions.

However, it is still a big step to the theology that developed on these concepts.

--J.D.

Toto

The Death and Resurrection of the Beloved Son: The Transformation of Child Sacrifice in Judaism and Christianity by Jon Levenson.

Incidentally, the article I linked to here is by Jay Raskin, who has already changed his mind on some questions.

Amaleq13

A much better pedigree. Berke Breathed is back in the Sunday Chicago Tribune.

Regarding the presence/absence of a resurrection in Paul/Mk, I wrote:
A resurrection is claimed and the story was written well after Paul, et. al. shared their resurrection experiences.

I'm not sure what you mean. Why would he simply claim a resurrection but not describe any subsequent visions of the walking dead? Perhaps, as I rather awkwardly tried to imply above, he was writing to an audience that already knew about subsequent appearances from apostles like Paul. If I might wax metaphoric, Mark's Gospel is the wooden leg covering the stump of Paul's gospel. It provides a living Jesus to tack onto the beginning of Paul's Gospel. The promise of resurrection (and appearances) connects the two without any potentially messy overlap.

How do you differentiate betweeen "not important" and "not necessary"? Especially if we assume his audience knew Paul's gospel. Can't we make that assumption safely?

It's a pretty interesting story, if true. Clementine seems to be admitting that a secret version of Mark existed that differed from the one available to the public. The two fragments he quotes are interesting because they seem to provide information missing from stories in our version.

If I remember correctly, only the Gospel of Peter offers a description of the actual resurrection and that portrays a talking cross floating in front of a parade of people.

I agree that, assuming historicity, the fate of the body was unknown to any follower. I've always imagined the resurrection experiences taking place after lengthy sessions of prayer, Scripture study, and maybe even fasting.

Amaleq13

Has the article been revised?

Doctor X

. . . and quite funny . . . at least funnier than Outland. Now if we can only bring back Sam Watterson. . . .

Indeed. Also, he does not refer or alude to the resurrection--unless you count the "naked man" running from the arrest. To me, it seem that it is not a major part of his theology. If it was I would expect him to expand on it.

When I first read that, I assumed you meant that Mk is building on Paul as if he was a follower of Paul. I am not sure about that. However, if I read you correctly, Mk is building upon a tradition certainly expoused by Paul.

I think you are correct. Mk "jokes" with his audience in that they know who Junior is, while the "highfalootin'" disciples never do. Yet, his message stresses that the "real followers" are those who quietly follow him and are not concerned with glory or the "hereafter." Burton Mack criticises seeing Mk as an apocalyptic gospel--as it is traditionally viewed--but the one problem with Mk is "what next?"

If Mk is not assuming "the end soon" . . . then what are people suppose to do? It seems "be like Junior." Anyways, this does not seem to involve any consideration of "Junior came back and said this and that" as it does in Acts.

I do not know, seriously. I do not think Mk so much "denies" the resurrection--as some scholars think--as not turn it into the "big thing" it is in other gospels. In other words, he does not expect or portray Junior visiting anyone in the "present day."

Indeed. My question is if it is "legitimate"--as in not a "modern" forgery--then how do we know it is "by Mk" and not "psuedoMarkan?" It would have to be strongly demonstrated as legitimate before one can expand on the theology of Mk with it. Yes, one poster supports it, but, frankly, his "argument" consists of the same ipse dixit and invective he applies against modern textual criticism.

Now that is conclusive evidence! Who would make that up? Seriously, I would mention Acts with Junior wandering to see the disciples. Of course, that is "late" whiich makes me suspect that those who believed in a physical resurrection as in "Elvis seen working at the Burger King" were few.

. . . and some "special" mushrooms. . . .

--J.D.

Llyricist

Well I heard it it was Prophet and Priest/King Who knows?
Actually the aspect of the Eucharist that is most Un Jewish is the body and blood analogy, (though Paul said it really was in some way the body and blood of Christ). Everyone has some sort of thanksgiving meal
But what really would have got the Jerusalem crowd stoned was the deification of a man. And THAT was one of the biggest parts of Paul's theology. As I said, as a spirit world thing as Doherty suggests, it wouldn't be so offensive to the Jewish faith, but in the context of an actual person?? I don't think so.
Paul tells us alot of things (hint hint)
we can always look to see some of the things Jesus may have taught if he existed , Though most of that wasn't particularly original.
remember, it mostly got my attention just because of those names, and the nature of the movement, I wasnt aware of it before.