jgreen44

How did Christianity's understanding of the biography of Jesus cross the Rubicon from..parable to literal history?


1) The Pauline epistles strongly indicate that Paul's Jesus never walked the earth. So it is highly unlikely that anyone believed there was ever an historical Jesus of Nazareth until later. Several decades later.

2) Early Christians, such as Justin Martyr, did not start writing about a gospel or gospels until Marcion. This suggests that Marcion's gospel was the first and that the canonical gospels were based upon Marcion's gospel. Which pushes the germ of the historical Jesus idea up to the ministry of Marcion.

3) Marcion's Jesus was docetic, which explains the canonical gospels "fleshing out" of Marcion's Jesus bio.

4) Marcion's gospel was intended to be read as a parable or midrash.

If Marcion was writing a parable why did Marcion make the Jesus character in his parable a phantom?

But more importantly by what process did the idea of an historical Jesus develop? Was it simply the inevitable result of a theological arms race between the docetists and the anti-docetist?

Q: Mirror, mirror on the wall who is the realest Jesus of them all?

A: Why, the Jesus we can locate in history, of course.

Which would make the anonymous author of the Gospel of Mark the Edward Oppenheimer of his age.

sotto voce

I learn something new every day.

jgreen44

If you prefer....

The Pauline epistles give little indication that Paul's Jesus ever walked the earth.

Duvduv

Your points assume that what the heresiologists/apologists claim about Marcion is in fact true. C.P. Sense in his book 100 years ago on Luke makes strong arguments against the idea that Marcion believed that Jesus was of a different God (gnostic) or that Marcion was really docetic. He also argues against the idea that Marcion had a gospel or had different epistles, or perhaps that he had any epistles at all.

Again this is based on accepting the claims attributed to "Irenaeus" "Tertullian" etc. And we notice that even in the writing of Justin Martyr who is said to have lived at the time of Marcion, Justin does not mention anything about texts used by Marcion. Of course Justin can somehow tell you where to find some obscure dusty record about Bethlehem in the basement of the Emperor but can't name a single person by name who was an apostle of his Savior Messiah who was the source of anything stated in the "Memoirs of the Apostles"!

Good old Justin can't even tell you the name of the old man who told him about the Christ, where this man himself learned about the Christ, or anything significant that the old man actually told him about the Christ. And all this supposedly occurred a bare century after the death of the man who Justin apparently believed was the Messiah, and LESS than 100 years after someone named Paul was traveling around.

sotto voce

It's almost as amusing.

It's still only January.

jgreen44

Re: the subject of Christians origins, in order to grope towards a conclusion, we all end up assuming one thing or another.

What is your theory of how and why the historical Jesus idea developed?

Iskander

Ah! Marcion rides again. Posts about Marcion remind me of the film Harvey, that one with James Stewart and the huge invisible rabbit.


http://www.cinemablend.com/new/Spiel...vey-14185.html

Toto

The actual process is lost to history, since the winners claimed that their version had been around from the beginning.

aa5874

Your claim is erroneous and does NOT make much sense. The Pauline writings STRONGLY indicate that the author believed or wanted people to believe that God's Son, made of a woman was on earth and was crucified, died, and resurrected on the THIRD day.

Galatians Paul claimed Jesus was made of a Woman so your claim is totally FLAWED and baseless.

Galatians 4.4 There is also NO evidence whatsoever that anyone knew of the Pauline writings before the mid 2nd-3rd century based on the dating of P46 and the writings of Justin Martyr, Aristides, and "Against Heresies" 2.22.

Again, more erroneous information.

Justin Martyr did NOT claim that Marcion had written a gospel.

Again more erroneous information.

Justin did NOT claim Marcion preached about Jesus. Marcion's Son of God was NOT Jesus according to Marcion.

Marcion's Son of God was NOT the Son of the God of the Jews and was NOT found in Hebrew Scripture.

First Apology It is NOT at all logical that the Pauline writings were Canonized with Heresies and were also interpolated and Sanitized to be Compatible with the Church.

This is so basic.

GakuseiDon

It depends on when you date Marcion's Gospel. The Apology of Aristides is thought to date to around 125 CE:
http://www.earlychristianwritings.co...tides-kay.html

The Christians, then, trace the beginning of their religion from Jesus the Messiah; and he is named the Son of God Most High. And it is said that God came down from heaven, and from a Hebrew virgin assumed and clothed himself with flesh; and the Son of God lived in a daughter of man. This is taught in the gospel, as it is called, which a short time was preached among them; and you also if you will read therein, may perceive the power which belongs to it. This Jesus, then, was born of the race of the Hebrews; and he had twelve disciples in order that the purpose of his incarnation might in time be accomplished. But he himself was pierced by the Jews, and he died and was buried; and they say that after three days he rose and ascended to heaven. Thereupon these twelve disciples went forth throughout the known parts of the world, and kept showing his greatness with all modesty and uprightness.

Also, fragments of Papias, as recorded by Eusebius, were thought to be written around the same time:
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/papias.html

If, then, any one who had attended on the elders came, I asked minutely after their sayings,--what Andrew or Peter said, or what was said by Philip, or by Thomas, or by James, or by John, or by Matthew, or by any other of the Lord's disciples: which things Aristion and the presbyter John, the disciples of the Lord, say. For I imagined that what was to be got from books was not so profitable to me as what came from the living and abiding voice...

Mark having become the interpreter of Peter, wrote down accurately whatsoever he remembered. It was not, however, in exact order that he related the sayings or deeds of Christ. For he neither heard the Lord nor accompanied Him. But afterwards, as I said, he accompanied Peter, who accommodated his instructions to the necessities [of his hearers], but with no intention of giving a regular narrative of the Lord's sayings.

While Papias doesn't appear to refer to the writings as "Gospels", it is clear that Eusebius believes that Papias was quoting from writings that were later to be known as "Gospels". Justin Martyr prefers the term "memoirs of the Apostles" though he also notes that the writings were called "Gospels". I don't think the term "Gospels" were applied to the writings generally until after Justin Martyr, at which time they started to take on the same reverence that the Old Testament had. (This was probably driven in response to their use by heretics like Marcion.)