GakuseiDon

I've brought this over from another thread.
Out of interest, what text tells us that around 180 CE the proto-orthodox church decided to require its members to swear that they believed in the literal truth of those stories?

In fact, does anyone know the earliest occurrence of the church requiring people to do that? I know that Origen writing early 3rd C CE wrote in "Contra Celsus":

"And what need is there to say more, since those who are not altogether blind can collect countless instances of a similar kind recorded as having occurred, but which did not literally take place?

Nay, the Gospels themselves are filled with the same kind of narratives; e.g., the devil leading Jesus up into a high mountain, in order to show him from thence the kingdoms of the whole world, and the glory of them. For who is there among those who do not read such accounts carelessly, that would not condemn those who think that with the eye of the body--which requires a lofty height in order that the parts lying (immediately) under and adjacent may be seen--the kingdoms of the Persians, and Scythians, and Indians, and Parthians, were beheld, and the manner in which their princes are glorified among men?

And the attentive reader may notice in the Gospels innumerable other passages like these, so that he will be convinced that in the histories that are literally recorded, circumstances that did not occur are inserted."

Eusebius also comments along similar lines about the Old Testament.

It would be interesting to see when the first declaration was made that the Gospel stories had to be treated entirely literally. Is there something by later church historians referring to this?

jgoodguy

Maybe 'swear' is strong.

May I suggest this paradigm. Assuming a 90% illiteracy rate, only the leaders need to buy into a 'literal truth' whatever that means. I'll buy into the idea that 'historical kernel' was relatively unimportant, just like most folks in the pews have little functional knowledge of the bible, then most early Christians would not have a functional knowledge of Christianity other that was was preached.

There is is the issue of did the proto orthodox need the 'historical kernel' and invent it or was the tradition always there. Luck in the form of Constantine and a hierarchy/organization gave them the ability to take advantage of that luck(or was it the organization that attracted Constantine).

Bottom line, only the clergy needs to buy into the 'historical kernel' and then only as background info.

ApostateAbe

This is the fuller quote of Toto:
I think this theory is shared by Earl Doherty. But, it seems to be a bizarre theory--that the gospels were merely allegory and an entertaining story with a higher truth. Our earliest evidence seems to go against it. For example, the writing of Paul:

(1 Corinthians 15:1-11)

Now I should remind you, brothers and sisters, of the good news that I proclaimed to you, which you in turn received, in which also you stand, through which also you are being saved, if you hold firmly to the message that I proclaimed to you--unless you have come to believe in vain.

For I handed on to you as of first importance what I in turn had received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the scriptures, and that he was buried, and that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the scriptures, and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve. Then he appeared to more than five hundred brothers and sisters at one time, most of whom are still alive, though some have died. Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles. Last of all, as to someone untimely born, he appeared also to me. For I am the least of the apostles, unfit to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God. But by the grace of God I am what I am, and his grace towards me has not been in vain. On the contrary, I worked harder than any of them--though it was not I, but the grace of God that is with me. Whether then it was I or they, so we proclaim and so you have come to believe.

Paul's citation to five hundred witnesses seems intended to persuade Paul's audience of the literal historical truth of the resurrection. Or else what allegorical purpose could there be in it?

Also, the beginning of the gospel of Luke says:

(Luke 1:1-4)

Since many have undertaken to set down an orderly account of the events that have been fulfilled among us, just as they were handed on to us by those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and servants of the word, I too decided, after investigating everything carefully from the very first, to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, so that you may know the truth concerning the things about which you have been instructed.

I think such a Jesus-birther would need ad hoc explanations of some sort to explain this stuff, but, of course, why not believe that the earliest Christians actually believed their myths to be historical? Don't we see that happen time and time again in religious cults?

Of course, yeah, if there was evidence in their favor, then the Jesus-birthers would win. Toto was specific with the 180 CE date, and I bet Toto has at least some sort of reason for that.

ApostateAbe

To expand on what I wrote just now, a lack of direct evidence is not something that should be expected for such claims. We know of evidence of a handful of second-century heresies because of anti-heretical writings that remain with us. All we would need is the anti-allegory writing from any time in the early Christian church.

jgoodguy

JIMV

IMHO it is not important that Paul believed in a HJ or not, but that he needed his audience to believe in his account.

Juststeve

jgoodguy:

If Paul didn't believe in an historical Jesus what do you suspect his motive was for trying to others to believe something he didn't believe himself. Even though it is treacherous for mythers, isn't the most likely explanation for what Paul taught is that it was what he thought was true?

Steve

dog-on

Paul believed in a revealed Christ, obviously...

Toto

Except that it doesn't/

This passage has been marked as a probable interpolation - the 500 witnesses in particular appear to be a later insertion. But even taking the text at face value, Paul is describing an appearance, using the same term that he used for Jesus appearing to him - i.e., a spiritual appearance.

There is nothing in the passage that supports the idea that Paul knew any of the gospel details of Jesus' life on earth.

Luke is not writing to the earliest Christians.

Shall I start calling you "Jesus gullible"? Do I have to play the heavy and start editing out your insults?

Irenaeus.

jgoodguy

The surviving writings attributed to Paul indicate that Christ was revealed to him. What Paul believed is another issue. Reading dead men's minds is a bit chancy. Motives do not matter, they also require reading dead men's minds. In short, suggest a motive and someone can find another motive and it becomes difficult to determine which is correct.

I frankly believe that Paul was a con man like a televangelist and his motive was to avoid working too hard and used the reputation of a Jerusalem church to enhance his preaching. Quantifying that belief is a bit difficult.

The safest way is to use the literal words first and Paul writes of a literal physical Jesus. One can try to impeach the literal words to suggest something else.

hjalti

Well, I think some stories in the gospel of Mark make much more sense as allegory than as telling of actual history, e.g. the story of Barabbas.

Do they really think that e.g. Matthew or Luke are allegories?