maryhelena

Agreed! - My "had no need for" is simply an inference from the fact that Paul does not date his JC story. If he felt he had a need - then, surely, he would have dated his JC story - he did not do so - therefore.........he had no need..... What we have is the fact that Paul, in his recognized writings, does not date his JC story.

dog-on

Actually, it's ca. 30 plus forty to the destruction of the temple. The 0 to 29 bit is only relevant in the later redactions of Mark...

EarlDoherty

But in what way do you imagine that I am denying this? What you are saying here is so mundane, so natural, I don’t know what you think you are accomplishing by stating it. Of course the Gospel story, in a limited fashion (mostly confined to the ministry portion) is a product of the ‘history’ of its time. It’s not set on Mars. Even the crucifixion reflects the picture of Roman execution of the day. But so what?

You quote me from my website saying that, yes, hypothetically speaking, Mark could have modelled some aspects of his fictional Jesus figure on individuals of the time. He can hardly present allegorical characters which do not. But then you demand their names and somehow fault me for not supplying any! That’s silly. If Mark used models, we probably can’t know who they were, though some have suggested Judas the Galilean. But again, so what?

Whenever I present an argued position based on deductive analyses of the texts, you retort that it’s all my “opinion,” unbacked by any historical evidence. You don’t seem to realize that valid or probable conclusions can be drawn from analyzing what writers say, even if there is no “corroborating evidence” in whatever form you think is missing. Your objection is simply a way of avoiding having to address my arguments.

That’s nonsense. Of course there is evidence. The evidence lies first of all in the Gospels, which have hardly made up the entire picture of a type of community that never existed, containing itinerant apostles who went about preaching the coming of the kingdom and the Son of Man. Is all this simply fiction from start to finish, a figment of the evangelists’ imaginations? (Then you’d be the one who is excising ‘history’ from it.) Why would Mark do that and who would bother to show an interest in his writing? Why would at least two other separate writers take his story and refashion it into versions for their own communities and agendas if they, too, were not part of or had no knowledge of such a preaching movement? And since a Q document can be extracted from two of those versions (and it lurks in an oral sense behind Mark as well), this gives us evidence lying prior to the Gospels. (Please don’t just declare that there was no Q—you haven’t shown any but the most superficial familiarity with the arguments pro and con.) Then, external to all of them is the Didache—which is not derived from any Gospel and can be shown not to have knowledge of an historical Jesus—which presents direct evidence of such a community, detailing its activities and evaluating the itinerant apostles who form its backbone. Then there is the Gospel of Thomas which shows a clear relationship with one stratum of Q and its preaching activities, a relationship which several good studies by professional scholars have demonstrated cannot be explained away as simple dependence on an existing Gospel.

We also know that the first century was a period of upheaval in Palestine in which groups formed declaring the imminent arrival of God and his kingdom with some form of Messiah/apocalyptic expectation, movements which were a constant thorn in the Jewish establishments’ and the Romans’ side, ending in war. So the picture of an apocalyptic preaching community within the Gospels and expressing itself in Q, is evidence that these writers were not high on psychedelic mushrooms and making up stuff out of their own fevered brains but were reflecting communities (in the sense of loose groups and movements) that dotted the eastern Mediterranean. All this is “evidence”, Maryhelena, and you haven’t made the slightest case for rejecting it.

You have also failed to understand my problem with your quote of Wells, why it makes no sense—possibly because I’m lacking the context or Wells’ meaning behind what seems to be some very misleading wording on his part. But let’s look at your somewhat fuller quote of it in a later posting:

It is still unclear what “complex of traditions” in the gospels he is referring to. As I tried to explain earlier, this cannot be a reference to the Passion story, since Wells believes that this was invented by Mark (even if inspired by the Pauline cult) and never took place in history, so it doesn’t matter how soon after the epistles Mark might have written. So the “complex of traditions” must be referring to what is found in Q. But identifying them as preceding the Gospels does not identify them as the product of a specific founding sage, much less the one promoted by historical Jesus scholarship (whether identified with Paul’s Christ or not).

The wording that threw me, and still has to be seen as at least misleading, is Wells’ “from the early epistles”. The “from” suggests a derivation from the epistles or the circles which produced them, which would be a contradiction of Wells’ own view of the Pauline Christ. Quite possibly he means “after the epistles.” But if there is no connection between the two movements (Pauline and Q), then again, it doesn’t matter how soon after the time of the epistles—or even contemporary with them—the Q-type traditions were formed. One has nothing to do with the other in their genesis. So Wells still doesn’t make sense.

Wells should hardly have been swayed by Dunn, since Dunn’s argument presumes that the epistles reflect beliefs applied to an historical Jesus, which Wells had every right to reject. Dunn was apparently arguing that the traditions present in Q (and presumably the Passion story present in Mark, though missing in Q) had to have some historical basis, since the time frame for their development was too short if they were all fictional. Wells would already have ruled out that argument in regard to the Passion, yet why did he not see that the Q dimension, the ministry story, bore no relationship to Paul and could have its own derivation from something else preceding the Gospels with no time constraints involving the epistles? Even if he felt the identification of that derivation was demonstrable in terms of a specific individual founder (which it is not), he didn’t have to go along with Dunn and identify it with the Jesus of Nazareth character championed by NT mainstream scholarship. That is where Wells was short-sighted and gave up more of his original position than he needed to.

So in what way is Wells saying that “history matters”—in some significant way that you think I have rejected or ignored? You quote Wells as saying “it’s not all mythical.” But it’s all mythical in regard to the Pauline side. And I have never applied the term ‘mythical’ to the Q side. No supernatural figure lies behind Q, even if it could be demonstrated that an historical sage of some sort did. I have argued that it cannot, and that it can be shown that in fact one did not.

All I have said is that Wells is wrong in thinking that Christianity is made up of a composite of two elements: the supernatural Christ of Paul (who the latter thought had lived on earth at an unknown time), and the historical sage at the root of Q. My position is that Christianity is made up of a composite of the supernatural Christ of Paul (who never left the heavens), and the historical movement represented in Q. But there is just as much ‘history’ in both of us, since Paul’s unknown Christ gives us no identifiable history, and my history in Q is applied to the movement, not to some presumed originator.

P.S. And dare I say it? I do not recall that in any of his earlier books did Wells lay out the 'composite' principle of Christianity's formation (from the supernatural figure of Paul plus the separate Galilean preaching tradition). As far as I know, that picture of amalgamation was created by me in The Jesus Puzzle. Of course, I would be honored if Wells did in fact learn something from me, even if he didn't absorb my lesson on Q.

Earl Doherty

aa5874

No-one has made any arguments for an historical crucified JC. No such argument can EXIST when there is NO historical evidence in the first first place.

The argument for an historical crucified JC "MUST be an historical argument."

One cannot argue against "historical arguments" which themselves do NOT exist.

maryhelena

Earl, all I see is that you are dealing with pseudo-history, with the gospels....It’s not a case of people of that time being able to produce such a story as the gospel JC story. It’s a case of that gospel story reflecting actual history, an interpretation of actual history as ‘salvation’ history. It’s being specific instead of general. And you ask “so what?” Earl, if we are wanting to understand early Christian origins - then history matters...and I’m not talking about the pseudo-history of the gospel storyline re JC.


Earl, if Mark used historical models - then it’s not a case of “so what” - it’s a case of trying to discern those historical models so that we can gain some insight into what historical figures were important to those early Christian writers - and then to try and discover why they were important.
Judas the Galilean? Really, and just where does this figure appear outside of Acts and Josephus? No historical evidence as far as I’m aware. Best, perhaps to keep in mind that Josephus is not just a historian; Josephus is also a prophetic historian. (footnote re Judas the Galilean at end of post)

Two books dealing with Josephus as a prophet:

Dreams and Dream Reports in the Writing of Josephus, A Traditio-Historical Analysis (or via: amazon.co.uk) by Robert Karl Gnuse.

Prophetic Figures in Late Second Temple Jewish Palestine: The Evidence from Josephus: Rebecca Gray (or via: amazon.co.uk)


Sure, you can draw conclusions, one can interpret texts - but that’s anyone’s game - interpretations are two a penny. I’m primarily interested in historical realities, historical facts not interpretations of the NT.

It’s not nonsense, Earl. There is no evidence of a “kingdom preaching sect”. That theory is based upon the NT storyline. It’s not a “preaching movement” the early Christians had knowledge of - it was history they had knowledge of. Why would other writers take an interest in Mark’s JC story? Because they sought to develop that story.

And yes, Earl, it is all “fiction”, all story-telling from start to finish. It’s all a pseudo-history not history. Take out JC as being historical and retain all his followers - that is pure nonsense to my mind......
Q? Earl, I would not be so ready to bet on it’s existence.....Stories develop over time. Earlier versions being either rejected or modified. Oral traditions, memories of past historical figures, all of that is relevant to a developing storyline. History moves on, times change, storylines get updates....

The gospel story is historical minus its central figure of JC?? Sorry, Earl, that is bizarre. Imagine the Robin Hood story surviving without it’s central figure. Imagine Camelot surviving without Arthur.....Earl, we are dealing with a story, with pseudo-history, take out the main figure and your story no longer functions....

It’s not a fuller quote - it’s a shorter version of the quote I gave in an earlier post.
The context is Wells referring to his earlier books where he argued “that the gospel Jesus is an entirely mythical expansion of the early epistles”. His later position, is as he mentions, being a reflection upon what Dunn said to him re the time required for a “complex of traditions as we have in the gospels” to develop.
The full quote from Wells is here

Earl, Wells saw the weakness of his earlier position and made adjustments to his argument.
Wells is saying that history matters because he has found it necessary to adjust his JC theory to include a real flesh and blood Galilean preacher figure. As I said earlier, Wells has no historical evidence for such a figure.

What Wells has done is put the necessity for a historical component to the origins of early Christianity on the ahistoricists table. Just because there is no historical gospel crucified JC does not mean that a historical figure was not relevant to the ideas of the early Christians. We can debate just who that historical figure was who lived during the gospel time frame - and inspired other people to record their memories, their interpretations or ideas, regarding such a figure. That is, after all, what the gospel JC story is about: a man who motivated others to follow him, to change their lives, their thinking and seek something new.
Wells has his Galilean preacher and Paul’s supernatural figure fused into one figure. Earl, you have “early Christianity” plus Paul’s supernatural figure, made into a “composite” Christianity. Sorry, but I think Wells is on the right track here....history matters.....albeit all he has is a flesh and blood Galilean preacher without historical evidence. His point is - people matter, history matters.
Earl, Wells uses the word “fused” - Wells is talking about the Galilean preacher figure being “fused” with Paul’s supernatural figure. You are talking about something else - a composite Christianity made up of a kingdom preaching movement plus Paul’s spiritual JC figure - it’s apples and oranges here. Earl, give Wells his due, his “fused” gospel JC figure is an older theory than that published in your The Jesus Puzzle re a “composite” Christianity.

The Jesus Legend. Wells. 1996 (or via: amazon.co.uk)
The Jesus Myth. Wells. 1999 (or via: amazon.co.uk)
The Jesus Puzzle. Doherty. 2005 (or via: amazon.co.uk)

And Earl, if we are after understanding the origins of early Christian history - then does it really matter who came up first with an idea - there is no Nobel Prize at stake here (while the bonfire of years ago is no more, heretics are not welcome even now......). For what it’s worth, I wrote to Wells 21 years ago, 1990, with a suggestion that a historical figure was of interest to early Christian writers. Wells, at that time had no interest - as at that time his ideas were all mythical related - he later came up with his flesh and blood Galilean preacher - a figure he has no historical evidence for....
-----------------------------------------------
Judas the Galilean in Josephus.

This figure appears at the time of the census of Quirinius in 6 c.e. This was also the time when Archelaus was removed as ethnarch of Judea. A time of opportunity for messianic idealists.

Between 46 -48 ce, two sons of Judas the Galilean were killed. Again, a time period, from the death of Agrippa I in 45 c.e. when messianic opportunities could be seen to be viable.

Around 66 c.e. a son, more likely a grandson, of Judas the Galilean, Menahem, took up a messianic position in Jerusalem but was driven out and ended up at Masada. 66 c.e. was the time when Agrippa II was expelled from Jerusalem (Josephus....). Again a time when no Roman appointed ruler was in Judea - and Josephus has a messianic lineage from Judas the Galilean centre stage....

This story of Judas the Galilean could, of course, be history - but it could also be Josephus wearing his prophetic hat and having a family of messianic pretenders on hand whenever there was a lack of Roman appointed Herodians in Jerusalem. Pseudo-history alongside history.....(a bit like his use of Philo's Philosophical Essenes as prophetic markers............)

aa5874

That is NOT so at all. The Jesus story is about a character who came to FULFILL the words of the Prophets.

Jesus wanted the Jews to PERISH in the Sins. Jesus spoke to the Jews so that they could NOT understand him.

Matthew The early Jesus stories in the Canon are NOT about Salvation but about the FULFILMENT of Prophecy. Jesus would be REJECTED by the Jews and the Temple would come FALLING down. See Mark 13, Matthew 24 and Luke 21.

The Jesus story was INVENTED AFTER the Fall of the Temple as FULFILLED Prophecy it was LATER changed to a SALVATION story as can be CLEARLY seen in gJohn.