gurugeorge

This is an excellent point Andrew, and it's something I keep meaning to bring up but forget about.

There is indeed a sort of confusion running through all these discussions between two things:

1) There is the sense of "historical" that a rationalist would use - in this sense, only an ordinary human being is historically allowable.

2) There is the sense of "historical" that a believer would use - in this sense, the entity can be both historical and mythical (i.e. superhuman, possessed of miraculous powers, a spiritual entity, etc.). As GDon often points out, many ancient myths were "historical" in this sense. Let's put that sense of "historical" in scare quotes.

Clearly, whether Jesus was historical, on any reading of the ancient texts he would have been understood to have been "historical". The real nub of the matter in my view is, was he historical in the sense of someone who had been known personally by the Apostles (in which case a rationalist would say, yes, he was historical, but merely didn't have the mythical qualities ascribed to him)?

That, in my view, is the thin thread on which this whole debate really hangs. Can we find any evidence in any of the early writings, to suggest that the entity of whom Cephas, the Pillars, the Apostles, Paul, etc., had visions, was someone who had been known to Cephas, the Pillars, etc., in the recent past?

For this is the "story" given by the proto-orthodox version of Christianity, this is the point of the idea of Apostolic Succession. It's the SOLE potential "proof" of an entity living in Paul's recent past who might be historical. EVERYTHING ELSE in the early evidence is mythical (and therefore possibly "historical", but not necessarily more historical than any other myth).

GakuseiDon

Possibly one problem here is that there are times that Paul and other early Christians definitely DO refer to a non-earthly Jesus, which is when Jesus has ascended to heaven. But other passages -- like Jesus being of the tribe of Judah -- certainly do appear to support a belief in historicity, at least at face reading.

gurugeorge

But - using your own emphasis on the earthbound, historicity-bound nature of some mythology - those readings don't imply historicity in the sense that a rational person would mean (unless you think Hercules must have existed because certain ancients placed his birth here or his parentage there!).

IOW , the references are ambiguous between historicity and "historicity" (as I defined these in the post above). But if you take into account the generally spiritualised nature of the early Jesus, even the "historicity" in the early views (Paul, Hebrews) seems merely formal (i.e. in fulfillment of Scripture - ticking the boxes, as it were, of the earthly traits a decent Anointed One ought to have). And that, to my mind, tilts the balance to myth. When you've taken all that mythico-historical, or "historical" stuff away, there's nothing there that would make the entity historical in the sense modern-day rational people mean.

What you would need for that, as I say, is something that ties the entity to some of the people mentioned in the texts. Traditional Christianity made that tie to Cephas, the Apostles, etc., but that may be precisely the mistake upon which proto-orthodoxy was based. (Well, either mistake or deliberate subterfuge in order to make the idea of Apostolic Succession plausible - maybe it was just an innocent mistake at first, merely one kind of interpetation.)

ynquirer

Frankly, gurugeorge, it is very difficult for me to follow your argument and figure out what your picture of early Christianity looks like. Was it a Jewish milieu turning into a pagan mindset - Yahweh being replaced with Jesus-like-Hercules mythological persons - or the other way around, that is, mystery cultists just trying to call Dionysus/Osiris, “Jesus”?

gurugeorge

I'm more a Jewish milieu type of guy myself, but with the caveat that our view of what the Jewish milieu was like at the time is somewhat distorted - I reckon it was actually more "pagan" and polytheist than we think (cf. Price's review of Margaret Barker's The Great Angel.) and probably influenced by the dying/rising concept more than we think (cf. Thomas L. Thompson, The Messiah Myth (or via: amazon.co.uk)). I think the more blatantly Hellenized mythical elements of the Gospels maybe come in later, as imports from the Greek popular novel tropes and from Gentile influence as Christianity spread.

It also has to be borne in mind that most of the Hellenic Mystery deities are Middle Eastern imports.

There's also a kind of backdoor influence later on from a pre-Mysteries version of the dying/rising mytheme from the line Pythagoreanism/"Orphism" - Platonic and Middle and Neoplatonic "Logos", which creeps in with full-blown Gnosticism, although it probably also influenced other kinds of Christianity too.

Full-blown Gnosticism was a development of the Jewish (or more likely Samaritan) proto-Gnosticism of "Paul". (When I say "more likely Samaritan", what I mean is I follow that aspect of the Radikalkritik view, especially Detering's suggestion that "Paul" was actually "Simon Magus", a real historical person attested in Josephus as a Samaritan, real name Simon Atomos, "Atomos" being greek for "Shorty", which is of course English for "Paulus".)

My theory (which is mine - Python reference ) is:-

Roundabout 30-40 CE, a novel wrinkle on the old Messiah idea, a time reversal from the future ("He's coming!") to the past ("He's been!"), mixed with a bit of dying/rising (as much as is indigenous to Jewish culture, as shown by Barker and Thompson), developed in the course of feverish scriptural study and visionary/mystical experience in a Jewish religious community by Cephas and other Jewish "Apostles" of the idea, spread by them amongst Jews and to some extent Gentiles (becoming Jewish Christianity), but simultaneously taken up by the Samaritan "Paul" (Simon Atomos, Simon Magus) and universalised as a form of proto-gnosticism, splitting on the one hand into proto-orthodox Christianity in Rome, and on the other hand eventually into full blown Gnosticism mainly in Egyptian (Alexandrinian) and Eastern (Syrian) Christianity.

Proto-orthodoxy is characterised by its taking one particular version of the myth, "Mark"'s, seriously as what rationalists would call history (as opposed to mythic "history"). It develops from "Mark" the gospel of "Matthew". ("Mark"'s original gospel is probably a dramatisation of the Christ myth by some educated Roman genius, to whom we owe the "good story" quality of Christianity that has so captivated people down the centuries. "Mark"'s plot is basically a "killler app", a neutral memetic framework on which all sorts of theological stuff can be hung. I'd say it incorporates wisdom sayings from a Jewish apocalyptic sect, which in turn took some of its wisdom from Cynic sayings - "take no thought for the morrow", natch.)

Simultaneously, in the East, Mark develops into "ur-Luke" (the hypothesised original of Luke) and is eventually taken up as the basic Gospel of Marcionite and Gnostic Christianity (both of which stem from "Paul" - by inspiration to Marcion and directly via Theudas to Valentinus, Bardesanes, etc. There are probably other lineages from Paul to other Gnostic sects, although I think the Jewish/Samaritan proto-Gnosticism of "Paul"'s milieu probably developed on its own too, becoming Sethian Gnosticism).

Proto-orthodoxy, influenced by its Roman milieu and the Roman penchant for organisation, develops the idea of "apostolic succession", requiring a further hardening of their favoured historical angle in order to have some lineage connection back to the cultic figure, in order to centralise and control the growing religion (i.e. it firms up the historicity of Jesus in a way that we would understand historicity - I mean as opposed to merely mythic "historicity", which all Christians believed in, but weren't all that fussy about).

From the proto-orthodox view, its two main sister versions of Christianity (Jewish and Gnostic) are "heretical" because (politically) they don't agree with its "apostolic succession" lineage, and (theologically) because they hold either a too-human view of the cultic figure (i.e. Jewish Christianity, which eventually becomes "Ebionite" Christianity, and under the influence of the historicism touted by the proto-orthodox, loses much of the mythical angle, viewing their cultic figure more as a prophet in the traditional Jewish line) or a too spiritual view (Gnostic). Proto-orthodoxy blows hot and cold with its sister cults - it wants them on board to bulk up the numbers, but it can't handle their views. It needs Jewish Christianity to give it that "ancient" cachet through connection to the OT, and it needs Gnostic Christianity because Gnosticism is fairly popular. Eventually it harmonizes and incorporates them in the fabrication of Acts and Eusebius' "history", making "Peter" and "Paul" shake hands, but it takes quite some time before this develops (at this stage also "ur-Luke" becomes Luke, and John is proto-orthodoxidised, both to keep the Gnostics happy).

Eventually through various financial and political maneouverings, proto-orthodoxy becomes orthodoxy when taken up by Constantine, Ebionite Christianity fades out altogether, and Gnosticism fades into "docetism" (i.e. Gnostics who "bought" into the proto-orthodox umbrella organisation, and accept its "apostolic succession" idea and the strong historicisation, but still retain a spiritualised view of the cultic entity).

Running through all this is the occasional rising of apocalyptic expectations, and their disappointment, and the adjustment of dogma thereto by the proto-orthodoxy and the Jewish branches. The Gnostic branches weren't so concerned with that idea, nor with the "Kingdom" idea that the Jewish branches favoured. Their "kingdom" remained faithful to the original idea of a Kingdom that was already present, mystically, and a job that had already been done.

(This is of course all just my amateur work in progress, but the general outline I'm happy with and I think there is some scholarship to back up most of the main points.)

GakuseiDon

I think we need to be careful here differing between what is evidence for a belief in historicity, and what is evidence for actual historicity. Those readings within Paul imply that Paul believed that Jesus was historical, i.e. at some point within time on earth. The ancients placed Hercules life on earth, and fairly clearly believed that he was historical, though this may not be evidence for his actual historicity.

I agree that it may well tilt the balance to myth. But just a myth on earth. It doesn't lead to a "spiritualised" Jesus any more than it leads to a "spiritualised" Hercules (unless I've misread your meaning of the word "spiritualised").

gurugeorge

Erm, and the difference is? You are saying here that both Paul and the Greeks thought their respective mythical entities were historical.

But we rationalists are not supposed to accept the historicity of an entity that has supernatural powers and abilities - such beings don't exist, they are mythical. The supernaturalness is the clue to their not existing historically.

Why is it not the same with Christ? Why aren't Paul's "historical" references no more to be trusted as history than the legendary "historical" associations with Hercules' biography?

Despite the "historical" references in the myth of Hercules, do you really think an entity called Hercules existed, did all those labours and stuff, immolated himself, and is now a porter in a place called "Olympus"? Of course not: he cannot have existed because no entity, so far as we moderns are aware, can have possibly done those things.

Now, we might say the legend is based on a historical character, a real human being, in some sense, but it wouldn't be on account of the "historical" beliefs of Hercules believers - to find the Historical Hercules we'd be doing an investigation BEHIND those beliefs, we wouldn't be taking those beliefs seriously as being about the historical Hercules, because they're about the mythical Hercules.

Now at this point, somebody might say, "well, alright then, we have here to do with a myth that has a historical kernel, only in this case the historical kernel is somebody recent."

But that's the very evidence that's missing. All the "historical" stuff is ambiguous between being pseudo-historical (i.e. "historical") and actually historical. (I mean, there's a chance that the historical reference to the House of David is to a real human being who happens to be in that lineage, but it's a bit of a coincidence that this just happens to be the mythological requirement for the Messiah - normally a future-coming entity - isn't it? So that kind of evidence is really not good enough.)

What we need is something to tie Paul to a human being that lived in his recent past. But there's nothing like that in any of his letters. The only thing that could possibly make that link is if you take Cephas, somebody known by Paul, as having known a human being who subsequently was crucified, and then he had a vision of him. But there's nothing like that - that's just a Christian assumption I should think rationalist historians would blush to take seriously. Cephas and the others JUST HAD A VISION. That's the START of it.

"We preach Christ crucified", just means "We preach the idea of an Anointed One who has been and done his work, fooling the Archons by dying an ignominious death", not "We preach a bloke who was crucified, whom we identify with the traditional concept of The Anointed One". The preaching is the novel idea (either embodied in a vision or possibly just inspired by Scipture and "grokked", probably both, by the first few, Cephas, etc., and by Paul), of a Messiah who has been, rather than is to come.

Hehe, I feel like a proto-orthodox heresy hunter when I warn you to remember all the spiritual qualities Christ has, as well as the earthly qualities.

There's a balance - there are spiritual qualities (god-like) and earthly qualities in the myth. If the preponderance of qualities was plainly earthly, with little to no mythical component, or mythical component of the merely sentimental kind, there'd be no problem, no silence, and we'd OBVIOUSLY be talking about a prophet who people had known as a human being.

But we're obviously not.

As I pointed out elsewhere, many of these mythic tropes are connected to earthly places, but you have to remember at the same time they are filled with events and things that are impossible in the physical world - IOW the mythic category is "fuzzy", stretching from "Dreamtime"-like concepts of things being enacted "everywhen" on the one hand, to quite specific times and places that can be linked to geography and history on the other. This is what Doherty is getting at, and I think he's quite right. It's almost impossible to figure out what Paul might have meant, without more detail, but given the Hebrews idea, if they were roughly in the same ballpark, it looks more like a "Dreamtime" concept than a strictly historical concept, even though there are indeed a few "historical" elements.

However, that's not the main point, the main point is that nothing in Paul or other early writings can unambiguously tie the entity to history as we rationalists understand it. It all looks like mythic "history", until something genuinely historical can be found, such as my hypothetical link between Cephas' "appearance" of the Christ, and some bloke he knew as "Jesus".

As I said in another post, I think this is actually the nerve of the proto-orthodox error, or fabrication - to anchor their idea of "apostolic succession" to their more strongly historicised Jesus, they either mistook or invented that very link.

DCHindley

The key passage here is 2 Corinthians 5:16:

From now on, therefore, we regard no one from a human point of view; even though we once regarded Christ from a human point of view, we regard him thus no longer.

This statement, of course, I would assign to my hypothetical redactor. It would indicate that the redactor's community had transformed a human Jesus into the mythical divine redeemer Christ.

DCH

ynquirer

I appreciate your answer, thank you.

Just a few brief remarks. The theory that Paul was Atomos as well as Simon Magus was not Detering’s but Bauer’s, as Detering himself acknowledges in The Falsified Paul, ch.1. Surely your source read Detering in English but was not able to read Bauer in German and cooked up an expedient citation? Atomos was, as Josephus says, “a beloved Jew and by birth a Cypriot” (AJ 20:142). Simon Magus of Acts, a Samaritan could not possibly be the same person. Thus, the theory is a contradictory chain of groundless speculations, none of which might honestly be styled ‘default’.

My question addressed the issue of what type of mythological speech Paul and Hebrews look like. You imply it rather looks like a Jewish mythological speech. Well, no. You have Jewish mythological speeches in some parts of the Book of Daniel and, still more conspicuously, in the Book of Enoch. In early Christianity, you can find that type of speech in Apocalypse or the Book of Revelation. Yet, not in either Paul or Hebrews.

Actually, Paul’s speech does not resemble any type of mythological speech ever written, whether Jewish or heathen. I think the time has come for you to point at just one example of unquestionably mythological speech akin to Paul and Hebrews. Otherwise, the theory that both of them start a genuine tradition of theological writing merits the greater credibility.

gurugeorge

I can't find a reference that it's Bauer's theory in The Falsified Paul - Detering takes his departure from Bauer, but the Paul=Simon Magus idea is his own, so far as I can see:

At this point in our investigation a surprising possibility, never before considered in previous research, comes into view: from the writings of early Christian commentators we know that the Church fathers regarded the Samaritan Gnostic Simon Magus as the spiritual father of the Gnostic-Marcionite heretics.

Look, I'm not a scholar, but I have been digging around as much scholarly work as I can, both orthodox and radical - there's no need for this sort of covert insult. It may make you feel better to think that I'm some punk who's just glommed onto Freke & Gandy, but I assure you that's not the case. (Well, I admit, I may be a punk - but my theory is built on reading as much good scholarship as I can, in my amateur way, and as much investigation of original sources as I can do short of having the original languages and being academically trained in their interpretation.)

"Could not possibly" if you take Acts seriously, but obviously I don't. (See the Fabricated Jesus above, but as I understand it there's a range of doubts about Acts in biblical scholarship, from the conservative "maybe a bit exaggerated" to the radical "extremely doubtful as history" - see for example Ehrman and Price. There's certainly enough doubt to make "thinking outside the box" reasonable.)

According to Thompson (linked in my previous post), some of the NT stuff is continuous with Biblical stuff in its tropes and mythemes. It's not all that unique as mythology in the Biblical context.