Dean Anderson

Very true - except that you are assuming (and I happen to agree with you on this) that the virgin birth story was designed to make him fulfill Isiah's pseudo-prophesy.

However, my point was that if capnkirk's hypothesis (that the virgin birth story was designed to sidestep any geneological irregularities by making the father irrelevant) is true then there is no need for the geneologies to also be included in the story... but aLuke and aMatthew put two in anyway.

My implication was that this went against his hypothesis - unless he has another good reason for them to include geneologies aside from the "Look - he's David's heir" reason.

Amaleq13

What were Jesus' former followers saying?

Then Paul is lying when he claims they approved his gospel for the Gentiles?

capnkirk

You seem to be presuming that any given gospel was written by ONE author over a relatively short period of time, but that is not the case, especially so far as the first two gospels (GMark and GMatt) are concerned. Evidence is that in their earliest versions, they reflected the views of those who believed Jesus was a traditional Jewish messiah, then were later edited and re-edited to reflect Paul's christographic views. Remember that the canonized version of the first gospel (Mark), or a very close relative, did not appear for at least 40 years after Jesus' death, and GMatt about 10 years later (GLuke, another 10+ yrs and GJohn, another 30+ yrs.). By the time of GMatt, there had been three more Jewish Messiah candidates (like Jesus, all failed), three Jewish insurrections, provoking the destruction of Judea and wholesale exile or extermination of the Jewish population. Jewish stock is very cheap at this time (Jewish messiahs are not popular, even outside Judea.), but Paul's Xtianity has become quite popular, especially along the north coast of the Med, popular enough that there has been a period of Xtian persecution by the Romans.

This is when I believe that the Virgin Birth myth was added (Most likely lifted from the popular pagan god Attis who was born of a virgin) by Paulist Xtian editors seeking to spin the proto GMatt story away from Jewish Messiahship. Mithraism, a Hellenistic faith related to Zoroasterianism, was most likely the source of most of the rest of the Bethlehem nativity. Mithras was born on Dec 25 in a manger with shepherds and animals around, and visited by Zoroastrian priests called Magi.

Whether they realized that the Virgin Birth addition removed Jesus' royal blood claim is ultimately unknowable, but remember that it is much less risky to add information or to subtly change the wording of existing content than it is to remove content from a book/document that has already been read or heard by many.

Let me turn the question of Joseph's geneaologies around for a moment. If the original version of GMatt supposed that HJ was HJC, then why go to such pains to certify his (step)father's blood line? Joseph's geneaology is only important to certify Jesus' eligibility to be the traditional Jewish messiah, and only if Joseph were in fact his natural father. This applies primarily to GMatt, since GMark begins with Jesus' baptism and goes forward from there. By the time Gluke (the 2nd source of Joseph's geneaology) is written, GMatt has been in circulation for 10+ years and is well known, making it more risky to leave it out. Besides, in GLuke that geneaology is included in the account of Jesus' baptism, not as part of the Nativity story at all, thus including it, but at the same time shunting it away from its original significance, further amplifying my contention that the Synoptic Gospels were increasingly edited away from their original form (HJ) to support HJC.

capnkirk

The only information concerning The Jerusalem 'Church'(TJC) (the synagogue founded by Jesus' disciples and followers after Jesus' death) that is readily available is what Luke tells us in the book of Acts. While it is Luke's intent to play down the depth of the rift growing between Paul and TJC, there is still plenty of evidence that TJC considered themselves to be observant Jews. Also, their selection of James (rather than Peter) to head the movement provides insight into their beliefs. James was Jesus' brother (a brother whose only other mention in the gospels is as one who opposed Jesus and thought he was deluded), so why pick him over Peter, the 'spiritual' leader of the movement?

If HJ was in fact a Jewish messiah, then James' selection makes perfect sense. The prophesied messiah would ascend to the throne of the reestablished Kingdom of God (Israel). Just as it was important to demonstrate Jesus' royal blood, monarchy being hereditary, only someone of royal blood could act as Prince regent in the King's absence. James was Jesus' closest living relative. In fact, after James was executed by the HP in 62 CE, they chose another relative, Simeon, son of Cleophas, who was Jesus’ cousin. This further demonstrates that the structure of TJC was monarchial rather than ecclesiastical. Moreover, there is evidence that the Romans saw the matter in this light, for they issued decrees against all descendants of the house of David, ordering them to be arrested. Simeon was eventually executed by the Romans as a pretender to the throne of David. "Paul" claims nothing in Acts, for Paul was 10-20 years dead when Acts was written. Luke, the author of Acts traveled with Paul and was a strong advocate. One should expect that Luke's perspecitve on the events in Acts was seriously colored by extensive exposure to Paul's version of those events. Because Paul started his ministry preaching to Jewish enclaves, it was critically important for him to demonstrate (for himself) high Jewish credentials (his claim to Pharisaic training) and by virtue of those credentials demonstrate direct continuity of his message with contemporary Judaism. Therefore he played down his differences with TJC, and this is reflected in Acts. In general, though, it is true that TJC was less concerned with Paul's missionary work among the gentiles, and Acts also reflects this. What is downplayed is Paul's claim of the abrogation of the Torah which in Jewish minds defined Paul's as a NEW religion and was the issue that led to the final split between them.

Amaleq13

What about what Paul tells us in his letters? According to him, they were all preaching the same gospel and the TJC approved his teachings for Gentiles. Even though, like the author of Luke/Acts, he seems to be overstating that agreement since the next story he tells involves an apparent disagreement over the need to follow the Law, I don't understand why you don't consider Paul to be evidence as well.

Why would the Romans allow the brother of an executed messianic claimant to continue the movement?

Actually, I would be more interested in why he would accept if the depiction in Mark is true.

If he converted, why wouldn't such a powerfully persuasive scene be depicted in Christian writings?

I was referring to Paul's letter to the Galatians where he claims his gospel was approved for Gentile consumption by the TJC.

What convinces you of this?

gregor

I'd tap the brakes a bit on the Mithra comparisons. There have been far too many unsupported assertions about Mithracism to get much traction there. I think I've read other threads here that justify some parallels, but I don't recall it being too blatant.

capnkirk

When Paul wrote in his letters that TJC approved his teachings for Gentiles, he was lying. Acts describes the result of his first 'appearance' before TJC in 37 CE. He was forced to leave Judea and go live in Antioch. It would have been worse had Paul been more honest about his teachings (Compare Paul's letters to what he 'said' to TJC in Acts). These discrepancies form part of my basis for arguing that Acts plays down the depth of conflict between Paul and TJC.Since Jesus was dead, the Romans (having little faith in resurrection) didn't see TJC or James as a (political) threat to Rome. That eventually changed, and James was executed. I don't have an answer for that. Only if he converted to Christianity!!! Not if he came to believe that Jesus WAS the (political) messiah. THAT would have been quietly swept under the rug.I view Paul as someone so convinced of his mission that he was not above telling a lie to get his larger point across. Almost all that we know about Luke comes from the NT, so what specifically does it say in this regard?

Near the end of his letter to the Colossians, Paul sends greetings from his friend Luke, the physician (Col 4:14). In Acts 16:10 the author of Acts says "After Paul had seen the vision, we (emphasis added) got ready at once to leave for Macedonia. In Acts 20:4-5 Luke says, after listing a number of people who accompanied Paul back through Macedonia, "These men went on ahead and waited for us at Troas. but we sailed from Philippi..." All through Acts 21, Luke speaks in the first person about the route he took to catch up to Paul and what followed their success. So, either Luke WAS a follower of Paul, or he went to great pains to make the readers think so.

Amaleq13

I don't see why it would be necessary for the Romans to have faith in resurrection in order for them to be concerned about a continuing movement run by the brother of an executed seditionist. Unless, of course, they made no reference to Jesus or James wasn't known as his brother.

What changed?

I appreciate your honesty.

Right, I should have realized that.

I can't deny that even though it makes figuring out what was really going on difficult. I think Toto's recent post about the likelihood of interpolation in Paul is equally frustrating. Makes it difficult to know what to trust.

Sorry, I guess I wasn't clear. I was questioning why you consider this Luke to be the author of the Gospel. Isn't Irenaeus (c.180) the first to identify the author as the companion of Paul?

capnkirk

Simple, they knew that until there was a resurrected Jesus for EVERYONE to see, the movement was going nowhere, hence, no threat. The little matter of an insurrection led by Benjamin the Egyptian (another Messiah wannabe) ended Roman tolerance of James and TJC.

P.S. This is when TJC chose another relative (a cousin of HJ) to succeed James.capnkirk: ...and I appreciate yours.

Quote:

amelaq13: I can't deny that even though it makes figuring out what was really going on difficult. I think Toto's recent post about the likelihood of interpolation in Paul is equally frustrating. Makes it difficult to know what to trust.

In my quest for the truth, I am still constructing my 'most likely' scenario for the origins of Xtianity, but the basic framework is as I have described here. As new information is processed, I have edited my construct to accept the new data. The picture I have presented here is what has evolved thus far.

Now consider this...how much difference would an interpolated Paul (vs. HPaul) make to the process I have described. Mostly it would call into question the historicity of Jesus. It could be that there never was a messiah wannabe named Jesus, but the surviving scripture still shows signs of being substantially edited after-the-fact by followers of HJC, yet upon close examination much of the original tone of the document still be detected. This observation in-and-of-itself fairly shouts that there was an earlier story that was unacceptable to the editors. As soon as I had built a timeline that included significant events all around the Mediterranean from 30 BCE thru 150 CE, I placed myself at the 'old' end...and began assimilating each event chronologically. Several things fairly jumped out at me. Profound things, like: in 70 CE most Xtians lived either in Greece or in Asia Minor, and the only written Xtian works were Paul's epistles. To people living in what was left of Alexander the Great's empire, steeped in Persian Zoroastrianism (a dualistic, messianic, eschatalogical, apocalyptic religion that shares dualisms like God/Satan, Heaven/Hell, flesh/spirit with contemporary Xtianity), Paul's sacrificial messiah was not a radical idea. Back in the '60's, the oral history of Jesus was just beginning to be collected and compiled. The first copies were in Aramaic and not widely read outside Jewry. Later these texts were discovered by Xtian leadership and were translated into Greek. It is in this period of translation that I believe most of the Xtian editing was done. This process could have extended all the way to 315 CE or so (when Constantine I commissioned the first Catholic Bible...in Latin).

I proceeded through the gospels chronologically, comparing different accounts of the same event, integrating information gleaned from my study of OT Judaism up through the Post-exile world and the beginning of rabbinism and the rabbinic era. Understanding that the Pharisees were Gen 1 rabbis and being recently exposed to the tenets of Rabbinic life and mission, I found a Jesus described as arguing with Pharisees while actually quoting precise Pharisee philosophy, repeatedly. I also found that scenes depicted in GMark as friendly cordial discussions took on a clearly hositle, confrontational tone in (later) GMatt. I found both Pharisees and Sadducees misrepresented.

Then I began to explore Paul himself, comparing the Paul of the epistles to the Paul of Acts, finally exploring Paul's background in Tarsus. Paul's Tarsus was a city where Zoroastrianism, gnosticism, and mysticism were dominant. It was during this exploration that I had my epiphany...realizing (roughly) that if you took Jewish monotheism, applied that over the Zoroastrian cosmos, and replaced one of the Zoroastrian sacrificial/resurrected/divine redeemers with (the resurrected and ascended) Jesus, you would have a very good description of Xtianity. Could it be more than coincidental that the Xtianity that I knew bears far closer resemblance to the above named religions and religious cults than it does to Judaism? Was Paul the key? Was Paul's Damascus Rd experience the event that melded Jesus into this gnostic panopoly and gave birth to Xtianity? My previous posts to this thread reflect the current state of the answer to each of these questions and more.

True, it HAS been hard to decide what to believe. I feel like I have worked hard at finding the underlying kernels of truth in the historical process that hatched Xtianity from Judaism, and that the basic framework I have offered here is sound, and is the best available understanding of the detectible pro-Xtain editing of the Gospels. Is it the only scenario? No! Just the one that requires the least rejection of traditional 'historicity'. If later it can be demonstrated that there was no HJ crucified, then the entire creation of Xtianity is much more mythical than currently thought. If Paul's writings were also edited so as to inflate Paul's stature and centrality, or even his doctrine, it does not significantly change the fact or nature of the corruption process, so is not 'key' to understanding. Nonetheless, it would still be better to 'know'.

Since we are discussing Paul, I presume that you mean 'Acts' instead of the 'Gospel' and will respond on that basis. In the context of the arguments I have made, it is not necessary to identify Luke as the author (of Acts). It is only necessary to demonstrate that 'the author' WAS a companion and follower of Paul (which the author asserts in Ch 21 by speaking in the first person). Erasing Luke's authorship does not erase the charge of bias.

Amaleq13

Since I already question the historicity of Jesus, the likelihood of Paul's letters containing interpolations certainly doesn't help me to think otherwise. As you point out, his background in Tarsus also doesn't require one to assume he had to adhere to traditional, Jewish thinking by any means.

If, however, we assume an historical Jesus, I think your argument is a generally credible explanation of the evidence. I haven't been able to obtain a copy of Maccoby's book (out of print at Amazon.com) but it certainly seems like something I would enjoy reading.

I assume that the same author wrote Luke/Acts and I agree that Acts significantly revises the original tension between Paul and TJC. I'm not convinced, however, that the author was actually a companion of Paul since I'm not sure that the "we" passages must be taken literally. Kirby, for example, thinks otherwise but I've found some of the arguments against that conclusion presented here in various threads to be credible.