maryhelena

My apologies Earl if you have taken my wording to somehow bring your scholarship into question - not my intent at all. Different scholars produce different conclusions. From your earlier dismissal of Wells it seemed to me that there was a certain reluctance on your part to consider his position - a position that is also, like yours, subject to his own scholarship.

Neither my own definition of mythicism - my earlier posts - nor the position given by dog-on are 'limited'. On the contrary they are wide open concepts. Confining mythicism to a position re-Paul's spiritual Jesus is nonsensical. Obviously, Paul's resurrected Jesus, the Jesus of his vision, is not flesh and blood. The roots of mythicism do not lie there - they lie with the idea that the Jesus of the gospel storyline is not historical. They lie with the idea that the gospel storyline re the early, 'human', life of Paul's Jesus figure is not historical.


The Christ myth theory

I'm no scholar on Q - or anything else for that matter. But I can read - and read articles both supporting and opposing the idea of Q. Two sides of the story - Q is not cast in stone.

I don't think I mentioned any Markan community. Paul speaks about those who preceded him - a pre-Paul community/movement. Who they were, and what they believed etc is not determined by either the gospel storyline or Acts. It is that earlier pre-Paul tradition that is important in striving for early, pre-Paul, christian origins.

I would say it had an awful lot to do with the amalgamation issue. It is prior to the amalgamation process that Wells is suggestion his non-crucified historical figure - a figure that in the process of amalgamation has been 'fused', 'merged' with ideas re Paul's cosmic, spiritual christ figure. Leading to the Jesus of the gospel storyline. The historical figure X being submerged by the new mythological gospel Jesus figure.

No, Earl, it cannot be ruled out. Wells, at one time ruled it out - he has decided that was a faulty position - and, quite frankly, an illogical position. We don't have all the historical details we might like - so arguments, however finely tuned they might be - are only arguments. The possibility that the pre-Paul communities found a historical figure to be inspirational etc - cannot be ruled out.

No, Earl, there is only one myth - the New Testament myth of a dying and rising god. A myth that is quite able to handle both Paul's spiritual construct and the gospel' mythological Jesus.

(Q was only brought into the discussion re Wells - as he finds within it an indication re his historical non-crucified preacher).

EarlDoherty

Your line of reasoning is confused, which makes it very hard to follow and respond to. I was talking about ruling out an inspirational human figure behind Paul. Then you refer to what Wells ruled out, then reneged on, but that was not a human figure behind Paul. It was a human figure behind Q, which is quite separate. Regardless, you have to rule out theoretical possibilities which have no evidence behind them, otherwise you get nowhere, and certainly do not arrive at a balance of probability decision, which is what we are trying to achieve. Without evidence, all the "possibilities" in the world are pointless.

I have presented a case in both my books which would rule out any likelihood that Paul--or any of the other epistle writers--has based his spiritual Christ on a previous human man, real or imagined (Wells advocates the latter, but don't confuse that with the Q side of things). Unless you can counter that case and present some evidence, raising the opposite "possibility" gets us nowhere.

I am using 'myth' in its general sense. The "myth of a dying and rising god" is the Pauline side of things, introduced into the Gospels as someone who had lived and died on earth. But non-existence is equally--and separately--an issue where the Jesus who has a ministry in Galilee is concerned, since that aspect of the Gospels is derived from the Q traditions, which have nothing to say about a dying and rising god. You really need to get that distinction clear or your confusion, and confused comment, will continue. (If you don't like to use the term 'myth' in application to the Q side, that's your prerogative, but we're still talking about the question of the existence of two separate figures in two different arenas until they were combined by Mark. To that extent, we are talking about two 'myths', and in the Gospels they present us with two separate questions. Wells has simply retained one figure as a myth, but reneged on regarding the other as equally non-existent.)

Earl Doherty

aa5874

But, how could gMark be combination of "Q" and a "dying rising god" when gMark does not contain any "Q' material?

"Q" means no Markan material.

It is also clear to me that gMark does not contain any Pauline influence whatsoever and the Pauline writers were AWARE of the Jesus story as found in gLuke as stated by the Church.

dog-on

Ah, my bad. Not that he existed, but that he didn't exist. If we assume he didn't exist, than a new find could falsify that position.

maryhelena

Raising the opposite to your position, the possibility re a historical figure being relevant to the pre-Paul communities, is not a possibility that "gets us nowhere". The historicists believe they have a better argument - that a historical figure was relevant to the pre-Paul communities. Sure, they believe that figure was the gospel crucified carpenter Jesus - a position that is almost bedrock in its ability to sustain itself. One can say, well that’s what theology does, it’s a mind control type of thing. But if one goes that route - then there really is no need for the gospel Jesus story at all. If it’s all simply ideas, intellectual/spiritual fantasy, then there is no need to bring in the contentious issue of historicity - which is what the gospel storyline has done. History, historical time slots - theology does not need this. What does need these things is Jewish prophetic theology. A type of theology that is not pure mysticism but seeks to ground its theological understanding within its historical situation. That alone is argument enough for the possibility that a historical figure was deemed to be relevant to the pre-Paul communities; pre-Paul communities that Paul saw the necessity, for his own ideas, to be amalgamated with, associated with, fused with.

Why use ‘myth’ in a general sense when we are facing a particular myth - the ancient dying rising and god myth? To propose two myths in connection to the NT storyline is not only unnecessary it is illogical. It is not a case of Paul with his spiritual Jesus Christ construct and the hypothetical Q - with or without a historical figure.

By all accounts, in regard to the Q idea, there is no Q in gMark and there is no Q in gJohn. So issues regarding what is in it or is not in it has no relevance to the gospel storyline of a crucified carpenter named Jesus - which is a figure that has resulted from the amalgamation of the pre-Paul communities with Paul’s spiritual Jesus construct. If Paul’s theology/spirituality has influenced the pre-Paul communities - then, surely, the reverse must also hold, that the pre-Paul communities would have influenced Paul’ own theology/spirituality. Seeing that we do have the gospels, it seems self-evident, that a historical component was deemed to be relevant as a reflection of the input from the pre-Paul communities. Not ideas, in and off themselves - Paul has the ideas and is his own man - all that the pre-Paul communities could offer Paul is a historical context in which to base, to root, his ideas. A fusing of ideas is not relevant to a Jewish theology - but a fusing of ideas with a historical situation is.

Paul, or whoever was involved with the amalgamation process between the pre-Paul communities and Paul’ own ideas, would know the outcome - would know that the amalgamation produced the gospel storyline re the crucified carpenter Jesus. That Paul’s letters are perceived to have been written prior to the earliest gospel does not change that. Paul knows the gospel storyline that is the result of the fusing of his ideas with the pre-Paul communities. Consequently, debates over Paul’ letters being earlier than the gospel writing is purely a dating issue - and could have little relevance in what could well be a chicken and egg situation.

Hoffmann has suggested a “master-copy of the Jesus story”. And surely, if one is going with the amalgamation idea, then someone did it; someone knew the whole crucified carpenter Jesus storyline. Once the storyline was defined then others can copy it, develop it etc.

http://rjosephhoffmann.wordpress.com...-and-anacreon/


It’s a story, an origin story, that is not itself the history of early Christianity but only it’s theological/spiritual origin story. While there maybe reflections of the earlier historical, non-crucified figure, a figure that was relevant to the pre-Paul groups, within the gospel storyline, these reflections, or sayings, do not need a hypothetical non-existent Q document. What is missing re the gospel storyline re the crucified carpenter Jesus is the 'master-copy' of that story - the crucified carpenter Jesus story - not the the hypothetical Q. Possible sayings, remembrance, reflections of a prior historical non-crucified figure are already within the gospel pages - some in one gospel, some in another. An oral tradition that would have been an open source for those interested to use whatever whenever. It is the missing 'master-copy' of the crucified carpenter Jesus storyboard that is the illusive 'holy grail' for biblical scholarship.


Gospel storytelling was not simply a photo-copying exercise. It allowed for development of the storyline etc. Plus reflections, memory, of the non-crucified historical figure that was relevant to the pre-Paul communities and the historical time period in which he lived. Without the pre-Paul communities, and the historical figure that they found to be inspirational, Paul’s spiritual Jesus construct has no ‘legs’, it has no historical relevance. And, therefore, it would not be a Jewish story at all. It is the gospel Jesus construct - not Paul’ spiritual Jesus construct, that has staying power.


(Earl, I would appreciate it if you stop with this telling me that I am ‘confused’ - you may not understand my ideas - but throwing out, ‘your confused' is not conducive to a worthwhile exchange. I don’t work with some of the assumptions that you seem to do. I don’t go along with ideas re Q, I question the dating for Paul, I question Mark as being the earliest gospel - so, yes, we are not on the same page re many things. Our agreement is that the gospel crucified Jesus is not historical - from that we part ways re the traditions that were part of the pre-Paul communities. In other words; our ideas re early, pre-christian, pre-Paul, history, are at variance. It would be more charitable to simply acknowledge our differences instead of labeling me as being ‘confused’.)

aa5874

But, up to the third century, Origen claimed it was not taught that Jesus was a carpenter in any CURRENT gospel.

"Against Celsus" 6.36 The implication that Jesus was a carpenter in gMark was a late addition to the Jesus story.

It is completely flawed that the Pauline writings were earlier than the Jesus stories and that the Pauline writers were NOT aware of the Jesus story.

The Church have ALREADY provided the EVIDENCE in "Church History" 3.4.8.

The Pauline writers were AWARE of gLuke.

EarlDoherty

This is actually quite amazing, the amount of misunderstanding there is around the sources of the Gospels, beginning with Mark, and especially regarding the nature of Q. Q is (or was) a collection of sayings and anecdotes, a hypothetical document we can be pretty sure existed, if for no other reason than that alternative explanations for the common literary material in Matthew and Luke (such as that Luke copied from Matthew) don't work nearly as well. But Q--please pay attention here--is not simply a reference to a document, that document was the product of a community, a network of congregations spanning parts of Galilee and Syria who about the mid-first century preached certain counter-culture ethics at least partly derived from the Cynics, along with the imminent coming of God's Kingdom and the arrival of a heavenly judge called the Son of Man. So "Q" in regard to a source is broader than the document itself. It encompasses the movement which produced Q as a record of its teachings and expectations. The Synoptic Gospels, along with the Didache, began life within communities which were part of or followed on that movement, although they seem to have adopted as an additional dimension some form of cultic spiritual Christ.

Thus Mark does contain some Q, in that he reflects beliefs that were part of that movement, such as the imminence of the Kingdom, the coming of the Son of Man, and a few Q-like sayings. What he does not show is a familiarity with the actual document which embodied these things and which Luke and Matthew used and incorporated in their reworkings of Mark. But Mark, as I have said in both books, gives his Jesus a ministry "cut from Q cloth." To put it another way, Mark is thoroughly embedded in the Q ethos, even if the author didn't possess the Q document. So the content of Q has very much to do with the content of Mark.

The Gospel of John does not. It developed out of a network of communities probably in northern Syria which had some kind of cultic Son who was a revealer figure. There are no Q-like sayings in John. But for whatever reason, when a particular Johannine community came in contact with one or more Synoptic Gospels, it adapted the figure of the synoptic Jesus to its own theology, one that was gnostic-leaning, which is why John treats the death of Jesus, the system of salvation, just about every aspect of its presentation of the Jesus character, in its own unique way.

The “crucified carpenter storyline” first appears in the Gospel of Mark. The author created it (we have no evidence of its existence before this), amalgamating two expressions on the late first century scene. The Q ethos, with its itinerant missionary lifestyle, counter-culture message, its expectation of the Kingdom and the Son of Man, is on the one hand. If Mark had stopped his Gospel before Jesus goes to Jerusalem, it would have been an allegory of the Kingdom preaching movement, focusing on an imagined founder who was not considered a Savior and had not been crucified and resurrected. But he went on, and he added something (along with premonitions of it in the ministry portion) which has no precedent in the Q ethos. Namely, that the preacher Jesus of Nazareth, having gone to Jerusalem, was arrested, tried, killed and rose from his tomb. That side comes from the Pauline type of cult, which had nothing to do with any Q movement, even if it contained certain general beliefs and expectations in common with it. (For example, there is no Son of Man anywhere in the epistles, and no preaching figure teaching any ethics at all; but it does contain the expectation of the arrival of the Son and Christ from heaven.)

I do not understand Maryhelena’s strange view of amalgamation, one, she says, “between the pre-Paul communities and Paul’ own ideas,” who “would know the outcome - would know that the amalgamation produced the gospel storyline re the crucified carpenter Jesus.” This is non-sense. The pre-Paul communities which Paul joined had nothing to do with the Q Kingdom of God preaching movement, if that is what she means. Paul and his cultic Christ DO NOT arise out of the Q ethos. They had nothing to do with it. There is zero evidence that the Pauline type of cult was a growth from the Kingdom of God movement in Galilee, and virtually zero evidence of vice-versa.

How could a ‘wise sage’ whom many take to be present at the root of Q, one who had no traditions of undergoing a death which had any special significance, let alone of being resurrected, be turned into the cosmic heavenly Son of Paul, with the entire life and ministry of such a sage dropping into a black hole? Traditional scholarship’s centuries-long attempts to explain this bizarre phenomenon have never worked, and one of mythicism’s accomplishments is to make this clear. That is why the Jesus Seminar turned its efforts to excavating Q in an attempt to find the “genuine Jesus” at its root, but was forced to ignore or deny the fact that there was no death of Jesus in or behind Q, and to make no attempt to explain how the Pauline type of faith could have grown out of the figure they claimed to find in Q1.

One of the impulses to deny the existence of Q stems from the perception that with a Q, we have ipso facto very good evidence of some kind of human figure behind the movement. This is unnecessary. Even with a Q sage at the root of that movement, the myth of the dying and rising god of the Gospel would be dead. But a proper study of Q reveals that in fact the Jesus Seminar was wrong, and that we cannot exhume an HJ from Q; he was added along the way.

(Incidentally, just because there are those who advocate no Q does not mean that one should choose it as one's preferred option without examining the evidence oneself. There are vast numbers who advocate there was an HJ, but do we choose that option without investigating mythicism?--well, OK, of course that's what most scholarship still does.)

So I reiterate that we do, in effect, have two ‘myths’ to deal with, regardless of whether one likes the application of that term. We have the mythical Christ of Paul and the realization that the traditional Christian belief that Paul was speaking of the Gospel Jesus of Nazareth cannot be supported. And we have the alleged founder of the Galilean movement reflected in Q and the Synoptics proving to be equally a myth—or, if you prefer, a fiction, a non-existent entity. Perhaps I'll drop the colloquial use of the term.

MH claims she is not confused. I can't see how her picture hangs together, but I’ll drop the remark.

Earl Doherty

maryhelena

Thank you for that - it was an unnecessary remark to have made. That you don't see how my 'picture hangs together' is neither here nor there. Likewise, with your own 'picture' were some biblical scholars not able to see how it 'hangs together'. All we have, without some historical find or another, some archaeological discovery, is argumentation, interpretation etc - however much such interpretations are refined with scholarly language. Consequently, our different perspective, our different 'pictures' need to be continually re-examined, re-drawn. No one can claim to have found the 'truth' in this search for early christian origins and understanding. We are all endeavoring to make sense, as best we can, of the gospel's crucified Jesus storyline.

I applaud your work re Paul and his spiritual Jesus construct. However, I don't think your 'picture' is going to 'sell'. Ideas might fascinate but they don't provide the physical contact with our fellow man. And it is for that reason that the historical Jesus story has such staying power - that it's not all ideas, not all fantasy, that somewhere there was a human, a physical component, that lies behind, or entwined within, the gospel Jesus story.

My late husband used to say to me - 'don't give me another goddamn idea, I need a hug'. Intellectualizing, spiritualizing, mythologizing, only serve to embellish - they are no substitute for a physical connection. They are only a part of the gospel storyline - as they are only a part of our human reality. They are only a part of the gospel storyline not it's whole.

aa5874

Based on "Origen" in the 3rd century no extant Gospel in the Churches ever described Jesus as a carpenter.

"Against Celsus" 6.36
Jesus being a carpenter appears to be a late creation or after the writing of "Against Celsus".

EarlDoherty

Well, that's an admission that people will believe what they want to believe, regardless of the evidence, or lack of evidence, for it. That applies as much to scholars in this field as it does to the ordinary layperson. And you contradict yourself. You have just said that the HJ story has staying power, not because of proof or the demonstrable probability of it, but because it gives people something which has nothing to do with objective judgment of the record itself. But then you go on to say that for that reason it is not all fantasy. That's fallacious. Just because people want to believe in something for reasons that are purely subjective does not by that measure make the subject of their belief "not all fantasy." It could be all fantasy and they could still believe it. You are betraying (or suggesting) that your own disposition to reject my 'extreme' mythicism (no human Jesus anywhere) is likewise based on subjective reasons that are not the product of objective scientific analysis of the record. Unfortunately, that attitude will get us nowhere, and on a discussion board like this is a waste of time.

Earl Doherty