maryhelena

What Christianity became is a historicizing of the gospel Jesus story. What it started out as - well, if we start with GJohn, it, perhaps more than the other gospels, could be said to be a mythological exercise from the start. Perhaps that is one reason why it might be uncomfortable for historicists to have to face GJohn as the earliest gospel. (and also, now that I think about it - could well be a reason that this gospel might have been an embarrassment from the very beginning - or rather, once Mark, Matthew and Luke hit the scene, much better to push GJohn in the background - just too much there that might reflect badly on their historicizing efforts. GJohn the gospel for those in the know - the inner circle - and the others for the public consumption....)

I only mentioned Paul having something to work on, re an early GJohn, because some mythicists seem to think everything came out of Paul’s vision. I didn’t become a mythicist by trying to figure out what Paul is trying to say. I became a mythicist by considering the gospel story. I did not find any sense in removing the mythological ‘clothes’ of the gospel Jesus and thinking that a normal man lies therein. On a theological basis such a man is meaningless. On a historical basis such a man is a phantom - impossible to ever find, impossible to ever establish or prove his existence. Rather than flip the pages on to Paul - I simply reached for a history book...

Acts? Great as an origin story re the beginnings of early Christianity - as a history of early Christianity - hopeless. There really is no way that the story contained in Acts could ever have taken place prior to 70 ce. The Jesus story is not historical - how then could Acts be historical? Its just an idealised history.
One can go back and forth re arguments, discussion, on any specific gospel scenario - and at the end of the day all one is discussing is the ins and outs of a literary construct - or interpreting prophecy - or theological ideas. That approach has got nowhere as far as finding a historical Jesus or throwing any light on the history of early Christian beginnings. My approach has been to take a real inspirational historical figure from history - and see if there are any reflections of such a person within the gospel’s evaluation, interpretation of the years between 26 -36 ce (Pilate’s rule).And, additionally, to acknowledge that if Christian history has been inspired by such a historical figure as Philip - that the consequences of that particular figure, for Jewish Christians, would have been extremely difficult. There could have been no way, for example, prior to 70 ce, that any Jewish Christian movement could have been operating openly in Judea. Talk, intellectualizing, speculation re Philip - it would have been all so preposterous that to take it any further than talk would have been foolhardy.

I don’t think Marcion was anti-Jewish as much as he did not want his Jesus mythology to have a Jewish genealogy, nativity etc. Perhaps he knew a thing or two regarding the real history of Christian beginnings....and was not prepared to fall for the wholesale take over by a pseudo-Jewish transformation process...

maryhelena

And the later the better for the mythicists?

Well, lets see how things develop re an early pre 70 ce date for GJohn - methinks mythicists should take advantage of the interim and realize that to be forewarned is to be forearmed....

Toto

Christians who try to claim that there is some history preserved in the gospels try to push the dates of the gospels to the earliest possible. Otherwise, as I think you noted, mythicists have no particular investment in any particular date.

The standard view of the fourth gospel is that it incorporates an earlier document, sometimes called the "Signs Gospel." Signs Gospel on earlychristianwritings

aa5874

The Canonical Gospels appear to have been triggered by the Fall of the Jewish Temple and the destruction of Jerusalem where Jesus of the NT, the GOD/MAN MESSIAH, the heavenly Messiah, was offered to the Jews as the correct interpretation of their scripture.

The Jews believed that a physical Messiah would come to deliver them but after the Fall of the Temple and destruction of Jerusalem it was believed that the Jews had mis-interpreted their own prophets.

Josephus made mention of this error in Wars of the Jews 6.5.4 Josephus appear not to know of any Johanine Messiah or of any prediction of a Johanine Messiah during the days of Pilate who would die for the sins of all mankind.

Even in the writings of Philo there is no mention of a Johanine Messiah who would be a sacrifice for all of mankind.

Now, the Gospel of John is later than the Synoptics when the information contained in these Gospels are examined .

For example, the final prayer of Jesus before he was arrested in gJohn is far more detailed and completely different in theme then the final prayer in the Synoptics where Jesus displayed fear, humility and uncertainty. In gJohn, Jesus is almost arrogant and is ready to be "glorified" (crucified). He virtually commands God to have him "glorified (crucified).

The Synoptic authors appear not be aware of gJohn's Jesus final prayer.

An entire chapter of gJohn 17 with 26 verses was devoted to the final prayer of Jesus yet not one single verse or theme of the prayer can be found in gMark, gMatthew or gLuke where there is only one single verse.

This is the beginning of the prayer of Jesus in gJohn 1.1.... John's Jesus is ready to be glorified.

Now , look at Mark 14.36 All the Synoptics devote a single verse to the final prayer of Jesus and the author of gMatthew repeats the very similar verse twice.

The Gospel of gJohn's Jesus appears to be a vast improvement of the Synoptic Jesus.

The Johanine Jesus knew exactly why he came to earth, he came to die for the sins of mankind and plainly taught everyone about salvation.

The Synoptic Jesus did not know about the Johanine Jesus salvation teachings.

These words from the Johanine Jesus are completely absent from the Synoptic Jesus.

John 3.16
These are the words of the Synoptic Jesus about his death. He did not teach that he would die for the sins of all mankind

Mr 9:31 - The so-called failed prophecies of the Synoptic Jesus are also evidence that the Synoptic Jesus predated the Johanine Jesus.
The Synoptic Jesus claimed the Sanhedrin would see him in the clouds but the Johanine Jesus avoided being called a false prophet.

The Johanine Jesus is later than the Synoptic Jesus.

spamandham

If anything, an early date almost demands mythical treatment, as it raises sooo many question as to how these stories could be invented so close in time to the life of Jesus.

I base the later dates on quotes such as the one I pointed out that demand a later date. If you examine the arguments for earlier dating, I think you'll find they are essentially absurd.

One such argument goes that since the gospels predict the fall of the temple, they must therefor have been written right before the fall of the temple when such a prediction was obvious.

There is nothing of substance to early dates. They are based 100% on the reluctance to buck with tradition. If history were a science rather than an art, such silliness would have been rejected long ago.

You can make whatever assumptions you want. I prefer to date the works based on their clear references to well known historical events.

maryhelena

Thanks, Toto, for the links.

I'm not really concerned re what Christians might have up their sleeve re wanting to get an early dating for the gospels - as if the gospels were a historical story. I'm more interested in getting the gospel storyline right way up, so to speak. And if its dating that will do that then well and good.

Reading GJohn as the latest gospel could well be a case of reading the last page of the gospel storybook first (often do that myself.....)but being patient and seeing how the storyline developed through its various chapters has its own value. And in the case of such a controversial storyline - the far better way to go. Appreciating the development would contribute to ones understanding of the end page.....GLuke in this case and his pièce de résistance - the 15th year of Tiberius.

As to a mythicist position having no particular investment in any particular date - indeed. But if some mythicists are stuck with Paul being the only written material prior to 70 c.e - and they are then faced with, for example, GJohn being re-dated prior to 70 c.e. - then, their siren song re 'don't read the gospels into Paul' might end up being an embarrassment.

I'm sure the GJohn we have today is not exactly as the earliest version was. That's why dating is such a difficult exercise - which layer is one dating etc. However, seemingly, some of the details in GJohn indicate that the earliest version could well have been written prior to 70 c.e.

Was Paul active prior to 70 c.e.? If he was then his mission at that stage would not have been to the gentiles - (going with the Philip idea) as early 'Christians' were most probably already active outside of Judea and Galilee. And interestingly, Steve Mason's recent article indicates that Paul's unique message was an apocalyptic message. Mason suggests that Paul's unique message was later toned down - and became a good news message that all embraced.

Paul an apocalyptic prophet type; a message that could only have had a primarily significance to the Jews, a short lived message that would have only been given, as are apocalyptic messages, shortly prior to the end, 70 c.e.


Bottom line in all of this - a re-think on GJohn looks to be on the cards - The John, Jesus and History Project - and others, my earlier links, are interested in having a new look at GJohn.

gurugeorge

I don't think there is a unified "NT faith", I think what we see peppered throughout are various stages in a transition from "trust in experience" (individuals' severally trusting in their own mystical/visionary experience of the divine) to "assenting to dogma" (i.e. to a theology dependent on the truth of specific propositions).

That's not to say there wasn't belief-faith in the earliest forms (some hardcore dogma undoubtedly existed) and trust-faith in the later forms (some mysticism was allowed, so long as mystics toed the party line), it's just there's an "official" shift in emphasis, going hand-in-hand with the concept of the Apostolic Succession, which is based on the notion - not actually found in the very earliest materials so far as I can tell (it seems to start with Mark) - that the earliest apostles were disciples of the cult figure.

(IOW: if you can convince people that you are in a lineage that goes back to people who knew the cult figure personally - and that you have got teachings directly from him, that you've got in writing - that trumps any claims coming from followers of mere visionaries like Paul. It's a by-product of the struggle between a growing orthodoxy and the then-extant Christian universe of variegated "takes" on an originally mystical/visionary theme, as found in Paul, and possibly his predecessors - who are nowhere, in Paul, spoken of as having been personal disciples of Jesus. That's Mark's novel twist, which is then taken up with enthusiasm by the then-growing orthodoxy.)

Doug Shaver

Every position depends upon those shifting sands. Any theory of Christian origins, from inerrantist fundamentalism to mythicism and everything in between, absolutely depends on the early Christian writings, both canonical and otherwise. Nobody has any other evidence to work with. And, any theory has to include some estimate as to when the documents were written. It makes no sense to try figuring out what a writer was trying to say without considering when he probably was saying it.

I must beg to differ. The earlier the gospels were originally written, the more credible historicity becomes. If the synoptics could be incontrovertibly dated to the middle first century or earlier, then I think it would be extremely difficult to defend any version of ahistoricity. Not saying it couldn't be done, but we'd have a mighty tough row to hoe.

Quite so. Indeed, all else being equal, the earlier John is, especially relative to the synoptics, the better for mythicism.

For any theory that relies on late dating, early dating, once proven, is a problem.

The issue of what Paul was on about is inseparable from the issue of early Christian history. Anybody who tries to address either issue without addressing the other is wasting time.

If you presuppose ahistoricity, then your dating had better be consistent with ahistoricity.

maryhelena

If someone says, or writes, that the snake actually spoke, it matters not on the context in which it was said or the date it was written down. Dating the gospels cannot have any real, historical, effect upon the words they contain. The words stand on their own feet - they will relate to real things or to imaginary things. Dating the words does not confer any real world reality or historical 'legitimacy' upon them. Why? It makes no sense that an early date makes historicity more credible. Its the words within the gospels that are the determining factor not any date re the writing of those words. But have you not contradicted your earlier point here? You have just said the earlier the gospels are dated the better the case for historicity - and now you say the opposite re GJohn - if this gospel is the earliest the better the case for mythicism...I think there are two issues here. One is the actual historical beginnings of the Christian movement/religion - and the other, involving Paul, is the content, the spirituality, that Paul was preaching. Sure, both are necessary in order to understand the whole of what Christianity has become - but both can be studied separately, as two related but different aspects of Christianity. Reading the gospels into Paul, reading Paul into the gospels - while that might be interesting - it can only become so once the history of early Christianity has been established. Otherwise one is blowing in the wind...
Dating the four gospels only contributes towards getting the gospel story the right way up, getting the storyline in order. That's all it can do. The content of that storyline has to be evaluated on its own merit. The storyline will stand or fall on the rationality of its content. Dating is no magic wand for historicity concerns.

tradewinds

I think it came with the fall of the Roman empire and the rise of threatening forces who could conquer old Roman holdings, this led to the adaption of a cult religion that was mainly Hellenistic, This religion was a defense against the physical power of the Germanic tribes; it pacified them and began the rise of vassalage and the feudal system. This led to the rise of the Roman christian Church and the holy Roman empire later on.