maryhelena

I didn't see the point re - pulling my leg -

Why should a mythicist position have to do that? The Ebionites according to Wikipedia:

The Ebionites possibly found something of interest within the gospel storyline - and then go their own way. Take your pick back then as remains so today...

How do I explain the existence of heresy? Simple - christianity is the mother of heretics. That's its inherent nature. The issue is not how many or how different are the heresies. The issue at stake is the claimed historicity of the gospel crucified carpenter Jesus. That the Ebionites may have had a purely human, historical, crucified Jesus figure - good for them to jettison the 'divine' elements - but if they built 'salvation' theories upon that crucified Jesus figure - they are in the same boat as conventional christianity. Christianity is defined by its crucifixion and resurrection theories - defined by its theology. A purely human crucified Jesus minus the theology is useless. As a martyr figure to some secular cause or another - OK. However, if the Ebionite movement revolved around a martyr figure - their cause re such a martyr figure seems to have lost steam. Whereas it's the NT crucifixion theology that has won the day!

The only difference between a 'salvation' theology based upon a purely human figure and a theology based upon a divine or partly divine figure - is that one theory has more icing on the cake...:blush:

The NT has a human sacrifice, albeit what would have been a miscarriage of justice, as the basis of its salvation theology. Such a theology is morally repugnant. This travesty of morality - on its very own - is enough to raise very loud the cry for rationality. It is enough to raise serious questions regarding the historicity of this theological premise - and thus the historicity of its crucified Jesus figure. Without a historical crucifixion of its assumed Jesus figure - christian theology, as we know it, falls flat on its face.

Paul does speak of those who may preach another Jesus - so, competing versions, competing Jesus scenarios in his day. And bottom line - the name Jesus is simply a name tag that could be applied to any figure, historical or figurative, that was viewed as being either relevant to some secular 'salvation' ideas or theological 'salvation' ideas.
You mean that a historical Jewish Jesus was re-judaized as a Jewish Jesus myth - assumption here, methinks.

There is enough written in the gospel storyline to give the Ebionites - or anyone so inclined - to view the gospel Jesus as being Jewish. That, after all, is the motivation of that storyline.

What was Paul up to re collecting money - who knows for sure - but buying blessings...................

Solo

Did Paul borrow (steal, buy, re-reference) the Jesus figure of the Ebionites and create (or partially borrow, steal, buy, re-reference) a complex myth and saviour theology around him ? Or did an obsure heretical sect decide "ex nihilo" - yeah, we want him, so let's make him historical and Jewish ? What seems the more probable direction of spreading Jesus around ?

....and the historical cake comes as a way to fill in the empty space under the mythical icing, right ?

Jiri

maryhelena

If Paul is looking for an inspirational historical figure he surely does not have to settle for a nobody purely human Jesus of the Ebionites - far bigger fish in the historical 'sea' than a crucified carpenter, named Jesus, from Nazareth - or wherever.

Far more plausible that the Ebionites took a leaf out of the gospel Jewish Jesus storyline.

No - you got that wrong - there is no empty historical space underneath a mythicist position. A mythicist position can uphold a historical figure as being relevant to the pre-Paul communities/groups - it simply rejects the premise that that historical figure is the gospel's crucified carpenter, named Jesus, mother Mary, father Joseph, from Nazareth.

It really is very simple :constern01:

The gospel Jesus story is theology - it is not history.
Take away the supernatural elements, take away the salvation/atonement crucifixion, take away the name 'Jesus' - since that is no identification at all - and bob's your uncle - nothing there at all in order to substantiate any historical claims re said Jesus.

The most that can be gleamed from this exercise is a purely human Jesus that was martyred - and as I wrote earlier - Jesus as a martyr for some secular cause did not do the cause much good. There was no longterm prospect in such a Jesus. Martyrs come and they go - as do the seasons of the year. As do the ideas for which they give their lives. So, it boils down to a battle of ideas - and the relevant staying power of the idea - not the historical importance, or lack thereof, of the one who originally gave voice to the idea.

Obviously then, the Ebionites idea re a purely human Jesus did not have the staying power of the 'divine' but human Jesus. Not that this 'divine' but human Jesus idea has any inherent immortality. It was nothing more than 'an idea whose time had come' - and now its an idea that has reached it's old age and is showing up its inadequacies for the modern rational mindset - but still attempting to hold on to the glory days of it's youth. The historical crucified carpenter Jesus idea is an idea that is on its deathbed - screaming and shouting for some miracle to save its life - or maybe that should be praying to the god who is not there - because if there is a god - he has moved on...

Solo

But Paul was not looking for an inspirational figure: he preached his gospel 'because of illness', remember ? He badmothed the Nazarenes publicly, and then God revealed his Son to him, Paul figured, just to assure him that improbable as it was to Paul the vainly proud upholder of Judaic traditions, God sent Jesus who was not of noble birth, rich or wise by worldly standards, in fact a Jesus who appeared foolish and offensive - just like God made Paul look ! (1 Cr 1:26-28).

Let's just say, it is possible. But I think the idea of secondary mythologization of Jesus, downward to a human and culturally correct dimensions, is an unnecessarily convoluted process when we the possibility of straightforward mythologization is available.

I am afraid that is not what I would call a mythicist. In my understanding of the term, a mythicist denies that the figure of Jesus existed, whether or not the gospel portraits of him are historically accurate.

I know you believe that !

...or so you say. To you it is very simple.

I am a historicist minimalist, so I would tend to agree. In a post while back, I quoted the opening line fron the 'Big Red One' as my personal approach to the gospels. This is a story of fictional life which ended in real death. Obviously, Jesus did not die of natural causes. He was, if one accepts Paul as refering to the same person as the Nazarenes, still an object of a hot controversy at the time of Paul's writing. One of the most difficult lines from Paul for a mythicist would be Gal 6:12, [those who would compel you to be circumcized, do so] only in order that they may not be persecuted for the cross of Christ. Now, this verse all but excludes the crucifixion as some mythical event in netherland. Because, if it was and Paul's differ with the Petrine missions was only in that Peter and Co. denied the mid-heaven Platonic catastrophy, then the verse would be tantamount to Paul admitting the idiocy in conjuring legal consequences for an event that did not happen. But then again, this may be not be very simple, to some.

Jiri

spamandham

What is of interest to Paul in 1 Cor 15 is not those who knew a physical Jesus, but those who saw the resurrected Jesus. How do your ideas resolve this odd dichotomy?

aa5874

But such a view it is just down right illogical. Fictitious characters cannot REALLY die.

You are confused. Fiction is not minimal history.

Fiction means NO history.

maryhelena

Whether Paul went out of his way looking for an inspiration historical figure is really not here or there. History is what history is - such an inspirational historical figure would be well known. We don't have to confine the search to carpenters named Jesus...

All the term can mean is that a mythicist rejects the idea that the gospel Jesus is historical That's the bare bones of it! And that is what I do. And really, at the end of the day, the idea that the gospel Jesus is historical is an interpretation of the storyline - there being no historical source to substantiate the claim.

And to repeat - a mythicist position does not require that one reject the idea that a historical figure was relevant to the pre-Paul communities/groups. Seemingly, Doherty would prefer if the pre-Paul communities/groups be without an inspirational historical figure. Wells, on the other hand, has a historical figure that was not crucified - having this non-crucified historical figure later 'fused' with the Christ figure of Paul.

Christianity, as we know it, seems to have originated with the ideas of Paul. What transpired pre-Paul is what is at issue. Taking the crucified Jesus storyline as a later theological idea - the pre-Paul 'movement' revolved around something other than a crucified Jesus storyline. One can assume that a multitude of conflicting ideas did the rounds - but ideas about what? With the gospel storyline we see how very early on that there were various heresies etc. Different takes on the crucified Jesus storyline. Now, if we can see, historically, that this is what happened to the crucified Jesus story - then we really have no gripe with the idea that something similar happened pre-Paul - something similar happened with an actual historical figure. Various communities/groups found some inspiration, some 'salvation' - perhaps in a secular sense - with a historical figure. Leading, of course, to different variations, different ideas, different appreciations, of such a figure. A single historical figure.

Paul, or whoever, comes along and wants to transform this historical 'movement' into a purely spiritual context. Paul cannot deny what has transpired prior to his time. Thus, whatever spiritual construct he comes up with, there would have to be some reflection, however faint, of the original pre-christian history. (he meets the brother of the lord.....)

The no going back, the cut off point - the crucifixion storyline of Paul's spiritual Jesus. A storyline that propelled the new christian movement into history. For bottom line - no human, however inspirational and meaningful to those who encounter him - has the inherent power of 'an idea whose time has come'. It was Paul - not the historical figure that was meaningful to those who came before him - that originated the crucified/resurrected Jesus idea, an idea that strives to capture the inherent nature of our human reality - our intellectual or spiritual identity. We do Paul a disservice were we to attempt to turn his spiritual crucified Jesus into a meaningless historical crucified Jesus.

aa5874

Not true.

Even the Pauline writers did NOT make such a claim.

Why do you refuse to use the EVIDENCE provided by the "PAULS".

1Co 15:9 - The Church of God was ESTABLISHED before the "PAULS".

Ga 1:13 - The "PAULS" persecuted the Church of God BEFORE he preached the FAITH.

Ga 1:23 - The "PAULS" NOW preach the FAITH they once destroyed.

Ro 16:7 - There were people IN CHRIST BEFORE the "PAULS".

Ga 1:17 - There were apostles in Jerusalem BEFORE the apostles called "PAUL".

There is simply NO source of antiquity that show that the "PAULS" were the origin of the ideas of Christianity. NONE. ZERO.

Solo

With respect, maryhelena, we cannot have an intelligent and fruitful discussion about anything if we do not have clarity about the terms we use. The historicity of gospel narratives, or as you say, the Jesus storyline, has been doubted since Reimarus, and the great majority of NT academics today who are not outright apologists would not put any kind of weight on an assertion that Jesus belonged historically to a branch of Davidian royal ancestry who fell on hard times and by force of circumstance was forced to eke out a living as village handymen.

Now then, in your nomenclature nearly everyone would be a mythicist, because every intelligent person who is free of want, would see without difficulty that the gospel narratives are hugely hyperbolic and written to fulfill needs other than sober chronicling of Jesus and events around him.
But that is not what people call Jesus mythicism here.

Right here, you illustrate the nature of the problem. Doherty is a mythicist. Wells is no longer one. He conceded that his hypothesis that there was no historical figure behind the gospel tales was not tenable in view of the distance between Paul and the so-called Q material. He changed his mind and moved off the mythicist premise. You can dance around that all you want but you will not change a thing on that. The disappointed Robert Price commented in reviewing Wells' last book:

It seems evident, maryhelena, that you are in denial of Wells' defection to the historicist camp, or rather to one of its more arcane peripheries. (Price makes light of the "two Jesuses" theory, and for a good reason. Wells' new theory is, in my estimate, much easier to dispose of than his original deconstruction.) But you can't admit that Wells walked out on mythicism and try instead move the semantic goal posts of the term. And the reason of course is that you, unlike Wells, cannot admit you are wrong.


Was Jesus crucified or not, maryhelena ? Simple question: Does Paul in Galatians (6:12) talk of an actual historical event ?

Even a simpler question: does the statement, 'They do so and so only to avoid being persecuted for the cross of Christ', accuse 'them' of awareness that the threat of persecution was real ?

Jiri

EarlDoherty

Wells was simply swayed by the 'Jesus Seminar' type of research in the 80s and 90s that it was possible to uncover a specific figure at the root of the evolving Q record. As far as I can tell, Wells did not subject this research and conclusion to his own skeptical examination.

However, my own research into Q and its evolution has produced a very good case that in fact the Jesus Seminar / Mack, etc.'s conclusions are wrong, and that the 'founder' figure we can see in the Q document Matthew and Luke used was in fact a later developed founder who cannot be identified as having been there from the start. After devoting an entire chapter to demonstrating the existence of Q and the weakness of the alternative (Luke using Matthew), Jesus: Neither God Nor Man has an arc of several chapters demonstrating that a founder figure cannot be found at the root of Q and that the evolution of such a figure took place through later stages. I was able to turn the so-called evidence of Q scholars such as John Kloppenborg and William Arnal against their conclusion and demonstrate that the Q founder is as 'mythical' as Paul's Christ.

The invention of a Q founder (one who spoke the community's sayings and began its practices) is no more unlikely or different than that of figures that have been discussed here before, such as Ebion of the Ebionites and Elchasai of Elchasaites, or any of several other founder figures such as Lao-Tze, Confucius or even William Tell whose existence has been questioned in modern times. Incidentally, we have no good reason to even be sure that the founder figure who eventually entered the Q tradition was called "Jesus." When Q was amalgamated into the Synoptics and the cultic Christ, any other name would have been altered to conform with the dying and rising Jesus.

Earl Doherty