Solitary Man

Without, as spin fails to mention, any evidence in favor of his position.

spin

Another dose of pot looking for kettle.

Solitary Man

I've already given my evidence. I've referred to books, and I've even made several posts. Sorry that you continue to ignore it.

spin

What? When you linked to a post by Chris Weimer?

What evidence do you think I need?


spin

gurugeorge

Yes you can, it's pretty similar to Chris Weimer's actually, except obviously there's no Jesus at the beginning, it all just starts with the Pillars group and the (theophanic) "appearance" to them ("hidden" in scripture) of the Messiah's having been and done his stuff already (hence the "good news of a victory won"). It starts with a religious community in Jerusalem who have a new vision of an "inverted" Messiah (not a military victor, but a spiritual victor, not a glorious king but obscure and died ignominiously).

i.e., instead of being like everyone else and waiting for their Messiah (or worse, claiming some contemporary jackass is the Messiah), they say that He's already been, already won His great spiritual victory, and that the evidence for His already having been can be found in scripture (as well as anything He said).

"Paul" has a similar vision, only more universal, less tied to Judaism, sort of proto-Gnostic. He checks in with the Jerusalem crowd, they shake hands on him spreading the message to the Gentiles and them to the Jews (but they later welsh on the deal).

The lineage from Paul in Rome (probably in collusion with the church in Alexandria), when re-mixed with a stream from the Diaspora Jewish crowd, becomes proto-orthodoxy, then (later) eventually orthodoxy. It pushes a strongly historicized Christ because from its Jewish side it claims to have a lineage going back to Jerusalem and (this is the crucial step) it pretends that the Pillars knew the Christian Messiah as a human being. This gives it a better lineage than the merely spiritual lineage of the (at first majority) proto-Gnostic, turning-into-Gnostic Pauline churches. In this way, the tail of the necessity for a strong "apostolic succession" better than the proto-Gnostic Pauline churches' merely spiritual lineage, wags the dog of the "historical Jesus".

The Pauline lineages in (mostly) the East, under the influence of the general Graeco-Roman culture and of local religions, become more spiritually eclectic, eventually become Gnostic as we know it. By this stage orthodoxy is financially and politically powerful, and eventually persuades most of the Gnostic churches of the validity of its lineage (by that stage the events are so far in the past nobody's any the wiser). The Gnostics who kowtow to the orthodox "apostolic succession" become "docetists".

The lineage from Jerusalem fades away fairly early (apart from the guys who got cosy with what eventually became proto-orthodoxy).

Re. the gospels: the original Messiah concept of the Jerusalem crowd put the Messiah in an indeterminate recent-ish past. Even before 70 CE, but especially after, rank-and-file Christians started to wonder about the historical details (sort of like comic book fans discussing the backstory and character details of their favourite superhero). There are doubtless snippets of stories floating around, and the Pauline, proto-Gnostic story coalesces first in a (probably quite simple) "ur-Luke" some time before Marcion (who can be looked on as a particularly noteworthy proto-Gnostic in Paul's line). "Mark" gets wind of it and writes the first coherent gospel, based around some of the "ur-Luke" bio sketch, but more from the point of view of a detractor, or perhaps a disgruntled Christian. However, it's a good story, it gets corrected by "Matthew" who writes the first proto-orthodox gospel. Then (after Marcion) "ur-Luke" gets corrected by the author of the Acts fabrication, which is proto-orthodoxy's first serious attempt to establish its "apostolic succession" con. "John" is a bone thrown much later to those Gnostics who have submitted to (what is by that stage) orthodoxy, based on some original proto-Gnostic text that had some traces of the originally purely spiritual Messiah.

This all seems a million times more plausible than that some obscure preacher/revolutionary/magician (read your Rorschach blot here) in Galilee was impressive enough to his immediate followers to be deified, but, strangely, not impressive enough to leave the slightest mark on external history, nor his teachings impressive enough to be remembered by any of his followers.

Solitary Man

With pleasure. First, you can see some reasons for Q there, and then factor in things like genealogy (especially where they overlap) and virgin birth narratives as independent of Mark altogether.

1. Tacitus, Annals, 15.44; Josephus, Antiquities Antiquities 18.3.3, 20.9.1. If Stephen Carlson following the mini-synoptic is correct, Jerome and Luke, the latter of whom imitates Josephus throughout, both follow Josephus AJ 20.9.1. Tacitus, who is gave multiple viewpoints about the origins of the Jews, only gave us one origin, the standard orthodox origin, of the history of the Christians. Under the Christ Myth, Tacitus would have presumably have heard about other forms of the myth, since the orthodox would not yet have come into existence. Instead he gives us what we expect - that a man named Christus, who gave his name to the Christians, was crucified by Pilate.

Yes, James, Cephas, and John, whom Paul mentions were the Pillars, and the first of whom he called the Lord's brother.

No. I'm the first to admit that I don't know. It's my evaluation of the hypothesis in light of the evidence. Anyone, mythicist or otherwise, who says that they know is using hyperbolic language or is so dogmatic that they ought to be re-evaluated.

You can't show a negative. You can't say "Hey! Find no correlations between these two documents." If that were the case, then I already am finished. Is there any trace that John used Mark? I haven't found any. Now it's up to you to find some and establish literary dependence.

The onus of evidence always falls on the one establishing literary dependence. I've given some reasons for why the Synoptics should be seen as independent of each other, as well as introducing Q, but for John and Mark, I'm afraid that's your task.

Do you know what Paul was doing? He was writing letters, right? For whom was he writing? He was writing to the Galatians, Romans, Corinthians, Philippians, Thessalonians, and Philemon. He indicates in those letters that though there is some dispute over gentiles, they preach about Christ. How else would Paul be able to write to these communities in the name of Jesus Christ if Jesus wasn't a part of it?

Paul calls Jesus Lord. Paul calls James the Lord's brother. Paul uses a different syntax when referring to the Lord's brother v. the brothers. James cannot be a God, therefore James cannot be God's brother. There's only one option left.

Except all else hasn't failed. It's another brick, not another stone to toss.

Solitary Man

That was a trajectory. I gave my own post for evidence for it, and dog-on has quoted it. You've given a trajectory, but now no evidence!

Solitary Man

Which Jewish groups other than these Pillars followed an imaginary Messiah? Why do other messianic groups follow real people instead of deriving it from scripture? Why do other cultures, especially ones we've observed, follow real people who "fulfilled" their scriptures, instead of making it up? When the Spanish landed in Mexico, then they thought the Gods had come. When Prince Charles (I think it was him) landed on the Polynesian Island. then they thought their God had come. There's no evidence that these people just "make up" their messiahs, especially since they've been waiting for them to come, and especially moreso since that Messiah is still around.

Except Paul, affiliated with the Pillars, makes no mention of this. Paul alludes to a recent Jesus, not a far-distant one, or a mythic one. Of the many arguments for silence, the total lack of the mythicist Jesus who already came is disturbing. At least there's some evidence for the historicist Jesus among the preaching of Paul.

Except Paul is clear that Jesus actually came to earth, and he persecuted the people assembled in his name. By context, it's pretty clear that this person only recently lived.

Except there's no evidence that any of this happened.

Preacher/revolutionary/magician - in certain days past, there didn't have to be a distinction. And what do you mean his teachings weren't impressive enough to be remembered by his followers? What is Q and Mark then (under the historical paradigm)? And why do the historicist stuff, including Paul, predate the Gnostics? Why can we see a clearer trajectory from Paul's ambivalent stances, post-dating James' very Jewish and legalistic (supposed) stance, to a later less ambivalent less Jewish stance obviously influenced by the new Pauline movement?

Your theory doesn't make any sense.

Solitary Man

Mythra

It is indeed.

Thanks for the explanation.

Michael

spin

I have frequently cited Paul's claim to revealed knowledge about his Jesus. His letters pitch to proselytes with different background knowledge, some more Jewish, some less. It's all there in Paul's writings. Now you show no content to the theological transmission from anyone prior to Paul on to Paul. I see no justification to invent any prior linkage as you do. It seems logical that different Pauline groups could provide the link to later christian heresies (in its original sense).

You have two steps of complication more than the trajectory I've put forward, ie prior to Paul -- two steps without any evidence to contravene Paul's claim of having received his gospel from divine intervention, not from human transmission.