gurugeorge

The way I look at it is this: the Messiah was a myth, right? I think we can all agree that the Jewish idea of the Anointed One is classifiable as a myth.

I reckon the only difference between the "standard" Messiah myth and the Messiah myth we all know and love as "Christian" is that the first Christians just had the wizard wheeze that the Messiah had been and gone, and wasn't one to come. That's what they believed they "saw" in Scripture.

Still mythical, just a revision of the myth, putting him in the past instead of the future, and having him be more spiritual than military.

Toto

I can't parse this.

The current debate is between two camps - the "historicist" and the "mythicist".

The historicist camp includes the Jesus Seminar types and the Jesus Questers, who think that there was a historical person, probably named Jesus, at the beginning of Christianity. Later Christians built up legends around this person, and started to regard him as the son of god or god incarnate. This camp includes Christians who believe that Jesus was much more than a mere human, but who think that Jesus was at least fully man even if they don't discuss their other beliefs about him (or "Him").

The mythicist camp reverses this, and believes that the myth came first, and later Christians invented a historical person who walked on earth and played out the drama of being crucified and rising from the dead.

aa5874

You have described the "Doherty" mythicist camp.

The myth Jesus theory is simply that Jesus of the NT was NOT a human character.

stephan huller

I am just asking why does Jesus being an ahistorical figure necessarily negate the historicity of the gospel narrative? Irenaeus's testimony is about as old as any testimony about the gospels. If there were two figures at the heart of the narrative why does it necessarily negate the possibility that the narrative was based on a historical event?

I don't have any difficulty accepting the idea that Jesus was not originally understood to be a man. Tertullian after all says that Jesus's mother didn't originally appear anywhere during the account of the ministry of Jesus. There are enough heretics who said that Jesus wasn't human, didn't have a mother, brothers, a home town etc.

The difficulty I have with the idea of the whole narrative being ahistorical is the amount of time the original author takes establishing the coming of the Jubilee year. Since the Jubilee only came once every forty nine years the fact that 27 CE according to the calculation of the Tulidah (which was also at least a sabbatical year according to the Jewish system and probably also a Jubilee). The other system of Jubilee calculation in Abul Fath made 37 CE a Jubilee (but Abul Fath's system might have been faulty; he wrote in the fourteenth century).

The point of course is that the fifteenth year of Tiberius was 26 CE according to all the numismatic evidence. Jesus comes down from heaven and appears in 'Bethshidah' according to the Marcionite understanding (the alternative is Capernaum if Tertullian's testimony is taken at face value). Whether or not people subscribe to my argument that beth shidah = house of demons = the temple of Jerusalem it seems to me that the whole concept of 'gospel' and Jesus's coming develops from an adaptation or taking over the 11QMelchizedek expectation. That's why it is called 'the gospel' = the announcement of the Jubilee.

The argument that the whole story is mythical, made up from scratch goes against all the most fundamental understanding of why the text was called 'the gospel.' Even if the text was written after 70 CE it seems to me at least to be odd that such efforts would be taken to establish a wholly made up event to an absolutely specific year associated with an absolutely specific theological function = the Jubilee.

A parallel example. the Seder Olam remembers that the destruction of the temple occurred on the goings out of the Sabbath on the goings out of a Sabbatical year. There is an obvious mystical significance being pointed to here. It would be impossible to believe that the Jews could have 'made up' from scratch this amount of detail associated with the destruction and the Samaritan system of sabbatical years - preserved entirely without any reference to 'Jewish history' or an interest in Jewish history - confirms the information from the Seder Olam and other sources.

If 27 CE was a Jubilee the only other Jubilee in the first century was 76 CE. Assuming the gospel was written shortly after 70 CE (or between 70 and 76 CE). How could it be that Mark or whomever else wrote the gospel could have developed a narrative refracted through a pivotal event on the sixth sabbatical year since 27 CE (the destruction of the temple in 69 - 70 CE) based or 'predicted' in a wholly made up historical event on the previous Jubilee?

It's possible I guess in the most abstract sense. But are there any other examples of a wholly invented 'myth' being assigned an absolutely specific year? Could an Iranian writer in 2011 have developed a myth about the Mahdi appearing in 1961 and developed from a completely fictiitious historical event with completely non-existent individuals? I find this incredibly hard to believe especially if 1961 was a periodically repeating year in which the Mahdi was expected to appear. Someone had to be keeping track of whether or not a messianic claimant had or hadn't appear in the Jubilee of 27 CE.

BTW it just occurred to me that the anti-Roman uprising in the eastern portion of Alexandria where Christianity was based (i.e. the Boucolia) fell on a Jubille year. Dio Cassius 72:

I have always thought that it was tempting to identify 'Isodorus' with the Basilidean of the same name. But it seemed pretty far fetched. There is no doubt that this was where the Church of St. Mark was located though (and is). The anti-Roman uprising in Egypt during the reign of the Roman Emperor Marcus Aurelius is either assigned to 172 CE (according to other data, in 174 CE). If 174 CE is the correct date (which I think it is) then we can begin to see it as a Christian revolt which started on the third Jubilee since the coming of Jesus (mythical or otherwise).

Incidentally later Christians assign the miracle of the 'Thundering Legion' to this year (the emperor and the Romans attributed the timely event to Iupiter Tonans). Christians affirmed that God granted this favour on the supplications of the Christian soldiers in the Roman army, who are said to have composed the Twelfth, or Meletine, Legion; and, as a mark of distinction, we are informed by Eusebius that they received from Marcus Aurelius. The year here was 174 CE.

aa5874

Such a statement cannot be true. Simon BarCocheba was called the Messiah or considered a Messianic ruler when he was ALIVE.

Even Vespasian was considered by Romans to be the Messianic ruler of the Jews as predicted by Josephus.

It is Jesus called Christ that was myth and had nothing whatsoever to do with the Jewish idea of the Messiah.

The Jewish Messiah was expected to be a RULER and was expected to KILL and DESTROY and order Jews to kill and destroy their enemies just like Simon BarCocheba.

Toto

What signficant history is there in the gospels other than the story of Jesus? What historical event would have been the basis of the narrative? I'm just trying to understand your position here.

Note that 70 CE is about the earliest date that Mark could have been composed, but there is no evidence that Mark's gospel existed before the 2nd century.

spin

I'm a little surprised by this line of reasoning. There were different strands of Jewish speculation in the pre-christian era:

1. There was the human being who would lead the Jews to the eschaton and bring about world peace and Jewish hegemony. Simeon ben Kosibah attempted to fulfill this speculation.
2. There was the hokhmah sex change into the logos, ambulant purveyor of wisdom who was mainly rejected, but a few did heed herhis words. The logos, like wisdom was there in the beginning, came from the mouth of god, and fulfilled god's fiat.
3. And of course there was the suffering servant, who would do the right thing for his people, no matter the consequences.

(One could add other flavors to this stew including the angelic figure from Daniel 7 and the itinerant sage.)

What's important is that there was already a tension within Jewish speculation which had to deal with human and divine strands. Now real live flesh and blood messianic pretender is necessary, so the stuff that Irenaeus records doesn't help you excavate a body for the messiah. It merely reflects that already existing tension.

Kapyong

Gday,

But the JM theory (generally) does NOT say it was "made up from scratch at all" - but this misunderstanding seems to be repeated endlessly.

An important point of the common JM theory is that the Gospels are derived from the Tanakh, and to a lesser extent pagan writings too.

Even AcharyaS's crackpottery insists Jesus was created from solar mythology.

The Jesus myth was not "made up from scratch", "made from whole cloth".


K.

stephan huller

Toto,

I don't know if I would call what I am suggesting a position per se. I just try to develop my opinions from a few bits of certainty. The Jubilee year concept is one of those bits of certainty. The idea that Mark was the earliest gospel. Irenaeus's testimony regarding the existence of a different conclusion to a contemporary version of Mark is another. I'd even say the testimony of the Letter to Theodore about Jesus initiating said 'Christ' into the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven is another. The bits and pieces of the Marcionite tradition etc. Even that this Marcionite gospel was 'according to Mark' (Philosophumena 7.18).

Another kind of certainty is what you reference:

I think that 'gospels' were redacted or reformed in the second century but that the core gospel narrative was post 70 CE. It makes little sense to take such interest in the events of the destruction of the temple when the Bar Kochba revolt was probably a bigger catastrophe for Jews/Judaism in terms of blood etc.

Spin,

Yes there were different strands of Jewish speculation in the pre-christian era but the gospel as a literary genre seems to have developed especially closely from 11QMelchizedek text especially.

I acknowledge all the different types of expectation that you bring up. I still think Moses and Joshua were the primary typologies in the gospel but above all else Jesus was developed to be 'like Moses' especially with respect to the narrative of the death of Moses, the commissioning of Joshua and never living to see the promise of the 'kingdom of God.' In this respect one could argue that the gospel narrative was 'mythical' or developed from pre-existent 'myths' of the Jews (and Samaritans).

Well, except for the fact that if what Irenaeus says is true (which we must assume that it is) and the Letter to Theodore's testimony about a similar 'heretical' Gospel of Mark too (I have never a seen a reason to doubt its authenticity) then the basic framework is in place for the idea that the real purpose of the gospel was to establish that a disciple of Jesus was like Joshua.

My thesis or position develops from the authenticity of Against Heresies 3.11,7 and the Letter to Theodore with respect to an 'original form' of the gospel of Jesus written by Mark. If either of these propositions is rejected then there isn't much to my theory. If the two propositions are accepted then I believe it is possible to formulate a scenario where Jesus wasn't necessarily a historical person but the narrative was about a historical event.

One more piece of evidence for my theory - the old Syriac version of the Transfiguration narrative. Not only does the voice from heaven say 'my Son and my beloved' after Jesus transforms himself into someone else. There are many more ...

avi

Logically, is there any difference between your phrase, above, and mine, below:

I claim that you possess no evidence supporting the veracity of Irenaeus. The manuscript evidence is thin.

But, for sake of argument, let us suppose Stephan, that you are correct about "Irenaeus", and that he was a genuine Bishop of Lugdunum, who somehow managed to evade the Roman Centurions sent to execute him, and that he was the real author of the real text Adversus Haereses,
SO WHAT?

Irenaeus' accounts, his arguments, his input to the equation, even if genuine, and not fabricated, do not in any way explain, or justify, the notion that JC was an historical figure, born of the "sperm" of David, two centuries before Irenaeus' time on planet earth.

I claim that you, and others like you, are relying NOT upon Irenaeus' own writings, but rather, upon Eusebius' account of Irenaeus' writings. Ditto for Marcion, and perhaps for Origen and Tertullian too. Your favorite author, Clement of Alexandria, is another chap with a long pedigree, and very short collection of authentic writings.

Evidence is the key. Not opinions. DATA is what we require. Pottery, coins, statues, buildings, and especially, unadulterated TEXT.

We need some dead sea scrolls equivalent for "Irenaeus", Origen, Tertullian, and Clement. What we have instead are knock-offs, reflecting nothing more than political propaganda. So, in my opinion, NO. NO, Stephan, we must NOT "assume" that Irenaeus' writings are accurate. On the contrary, the historian must adopt the attitude to allow the data to speak for itself. The data for "Ireneaus" is miserable, at best.

In this field of inquiry, as with any other, one is obliged to minimize, not emphasize, assumptions....

avi