the_cave

Let’s say there was a member of the early Christian community who preached the same message they did--an amalgam, perhaps, of Q-sayings and Christ-theology, along with other teachings and practices recorded in the gospels and early Christian writings. In other words, an apostle. We don’t know this apostle’s name, so let’s call him the J-apostle. (Indeed, his name may have been Joses, the brother—literally or figuratively—of James, perhaps even the son of a Mary.)

Perhaps his message was little different than that of his fellow-apostles. Or perhaps it differed by degrees—perhaps he preached that the Christ had to appear on earth, and not merely in heaven. Perhaps he welcomed a wider circle to his audience, or held a more encompassing standard of repentance than others. Perhaps indeed there was some conflict within the community regarding his practices and teachings. But he remained a marginal figure, on the edges of the movement.

Now, let’s say further that this apostle was martyred—or, perhaps, disappeared after being seized by the authorities. Perhaps rumors of his death—even by crucifiction—circulated afterwards.

If this scenario is at all plausible, it’s not necessary that he become at all famous after his death. He was after all merely one apostle among many—and a somewhat controversial one, at that. He may well have been seen by the community as a well-intentioned but troublesome martyr for the cause—not merely one apostle among many, but perhaps even one martyr among many. Or, perhaps his martyrdom was somewhat unremarkable to his contemporaries—just one sad story in the growing history of a movement. He may have had friends, or companions, or relatives, who remembered him and remembered his death, but to most it was a small story (or even a forgotten one, or an entirely unknown one) alongside a much larger one.

Then, after the fall of Jerusalem (perhaps even in the years, or decades, preceding it…) a group of Christians began to identify this apostle—or memories of him, anyway—as the earthly incarnation of the Christ-figure.

Or perhaps memories of his career and death became garbled and transformed, or perhaps merely re-told and re-shaped, into the gospel we know today.

Perhaps elements from other traditions—like a Logos-tradition, or the very Christ-tradition that he himself taught—became woven into the fabric of this tale. And so the story of this apostle became the story of Jesus Christ that we know today.

(Indeed, perhaps he himself had inaugurated the Christ-tradition! This may be going too far, but it is possible. He may also have simply been a member of a small band of apostles who inaugurated the tradition. Or he may have come to it afterwards—there are numerous possibilities.

(Furthermore, let’s say that Paul was originally just another preacher of this same Christ-tradition. I still have my doubts, but I’ll be generous. Later, once the J-prophet became identified with the earthly incarnation of the Christ, Paul’s teachings on Christ—or even on Jesus Christ—became applied, naturally enough, to the J-apostle.)

In other words, the birth of Christianity would not be a linear development from a single source—but rather an intersection of at least two real sources: the heavenly Christ tradition, and the career of the earthly J-apostle. And, of course, these two threads may be intertwined from the very beginning, if the J-apostle in fact inaugurated the idea of the heavenly Christ.

Is this scenario so implausible? None of it seems to stand against the evidence, anyway.

Shouldn’t it take its place among the many plausible scenarios suggested here for the history of the early Christian movement?

GakuseiDon

Cave, I think various similar scenarios already exists: for example, Jesus was a member of the Essenes, and came to be associated with the Teacher of Righteousness.

the_cave

I thought the theory was that Jesus was the Teacher of Righteousness...

Also just to be specific, I'm proposing a J-apostle who was associated with James, Cephas, etc., not from an earlier era.

But anyway, what I'm really saying is, the idea of a heavenly Savior that folks like Doherty think developed independent of the career of any historical Jesus is still compatible with the existence of a historical figure. I think the sides of the debate are too polarized.

What if Paul was preaching the idea of a heavenly savior? Or, what if he preached that he did indeed have to appear on earth (and perhaps indeed had appeared on earth) but simply didn't associate it with any specific person? (Again, I'm still skeptical of this, but I'm willing to allow it for the sake of argument.) Then, later, his ideas were applied to the preaching of the J-apostle.

I'm even willing (with reservations) to admit that we don't know that this J-apostle was named Jesus--the name might have been given to him much later. I'm perfectly willing to admit it doesn't matter what his name is. Or it might in fact have been Jesus--and maybe the idea of a heavenly savior named Jesus was later applied to him. There are other possibilities. What I'm trying to do is get people to think outside of the lines that the debate has been drawn with so far...

Amaleq13

I think we have to at least assume that he was quite the charismatic speaker since considering him to have been the incarnation of God's Wisdom appears to have been an early belief.

Also, your view would obtain enormous credibility if evidence of pre-J apostle Christ belief could be demonstrated.

the_cave

Well...possibly he was a charismatic speaker. But while I myself do tend to favor a traditional interpretation of the evidence, I'm trying to find a way to admit the ideas set forth by folks like Doherty and Price into the scenario...if they're at all right, then the idea that the J-apostle was an incarnation of Wisdom need not be an early idea at all (again, I myself think it was, but I'm willing to admit maybe it wasn't.)

Sure, but again I'm wondering if the J-apostle himself was a part of the beginnings of Christ-belief...in which case, there is no evidence of earlier belief, because there wasn't any earlier belief.

Amaleq13

Good point.

What you suggest doesn't seem that far from Maccoby's views expressed in The Mythmaker. I think.

the_cave

Haven't read it--I'll look it up. Thanks!