spamandham

But Abe, Christian theology as we see it in the NT is absolutely dependent on the crucifixion. How can you argue that it's embarrassing, when it's central?

Sure, you can argue that the theology might have followed the reality, but we have no evidence of that. The very earliest Christian texts (Paul's) show a fundamental dependence on the death and resurrection for all his theology, and there is nothing within any text I'm aware of to indicate it was ever any different.

ApostateAbe

Yes, indeed. Christian theology would be far different if Jesus lived to a ripe old age and died naturally. Every Jewish messianic prophecy of the time portrayed the messiah as a grand and powerful military hero who would crush the enemies of the Jews. It is simply unexpected that anyone would claim that their messiah was crucified by the Romans like a common criminal, regardless of whether or not he would be raised back to life seldom to ever be seen again. Instead, the whole story of the crucifixion and resurrection seems much more parsimoniously explained as a wishful adaptation to the reality that their cult leader was crucified like any other cult leader who poses a faint threat to Roman leadership. This point about the mismatch of the crucifixion and a messiah is something Paul explicitly admits when he says,

1 Cor 1:23 "...but we preach Christ crucified: a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles,"

Of course, it is not impossible that the crucifixion is an invention of a creative and risk-taking cult leader. I figure that Christianity would not have become predominant if not for the doctrine of crucifixion and all of the seemingly ad-hoc adaptations that went along with it. But, I think we need to think in terms of what is most likely. Is it really more probable that someone had a bright idea that an elaborately phony story of a crucified messiah may work?

bacht

My working assumption about the NT books is that they're Catholic texts, preserved and edited to reflect the beliefs and goals of christians from the 1st to the 4th C. They may belong in a special category apart from history or biography as we understand them. They may be closer to what we would call propaganda, meaning that objective truth was a secondary priority either to the original authors or later redactors.

The example of the earlier Jewish writers isn't encouraging. Arguments still rage about dating, authorship and intention for the Hebrew and Greek texts used by 2nd temple Jews. Almost everything before the Hellenistic period is fuzzy.

As for the cross there are various possibilities, one of which is that the symbol itself preceded any stories or myths. As aa5874 points out, the term Christian may have been adopted by people who considered themselves 'anointed' in some way, with no connection to any radical messiah figure.

spamandham

Cults only rarely outlive their leaders. Where is the cult of Bar Kochba? What of the cult of the Maccabees? It happens, but it's the exception rather than the rule, so this isn't a simple explanation. But worse, the idea that a messiah cult outlived it's leader who was humiliated and crucified, is certainly not parsimonious. A messiah is a liberator/conqueror, not a lamb for the slaughter. Yet that's the symbolism we have for Jesus. It is not simple to propose that a cult king became a cult lamb. A simpler explanation is that the lamb was constructed as a lamb from the start.

Even worse, we have direct evidence from Paul's own pen that he invented the theology. He claims multiple times that his gospel was his alone and not passed on to him from anyone. Christian theology depends on a crucifixion because it was constructed that way from its origin by Paul. That is the simplest explanation.

Whether Paul invented the idea or not, it is not surprising that he is familiar with the common objections. I don't see how that helps or hinders any particular historical perspective.

...particularly when we have a well documented creative risk taking cult leader (Paul) who claims to have invented it.

Yes, because it fulfills prophecy and provides an alternative to the conquering messiah idea that was obviously a failed approach in Paul's day.

There are two messiahs in the OT. There is the conquering messiah represented by wannabees like the Maccabbees and Bar Kochba, and the suffering messiah that no-one wanted to emulate.

The conquering messiah had been done to death in Paul's day, and led to the destruction of the Temple and Jerusalem and to pogroms against Jews. No-one had really tried the suffering messiah idea until Paul embraced it. It was novel. It was Rome friendly. It had scriptural support to back it up, and as a result, Jews and gentiles alike found it appealing.

ApostateAbe

OK, cool. Using the agreeable assumption that the NT books are "Catholic texts, preserved and edited to reflect the beliefs and goals of christians from the 1st to the 4th C," would you also agree that the claims that strongly reinforce the beliefs and goals of such Christians are less likely to be authentic?

bacht

I don't know Abe. As far as I can see, the early catholic writers followed the principle of "the ends justify the means". They were trying to save souls, not add to the sum of secular human knowledge.

By the 4th C the political element was established by Constantine and his followers. By then it's possible no-one knew anymore what actually happened in Paul's day, or if they did they weren't allowed to say.

We face not only the usual problems of recovering ancient history but the added complication of centuries of church spin, compounded by a huge emotional element from a living religion with many practitioners.

ApostateAbe

OK, yeah, I do come from a different perspective, and the criterion of dissimilarity may not be so useful from a perspective that the texts were drastically changed throughout the centuries of the early church.

spamandham

Isn't the very existence of the 4 canonical gospels proof positive that even within the realm of canonical texts, NT authors felt free reign to rewrite the stories as they saw fit? What other explanation is simpler?

ApostateAbe

Sort of. My paradigm is that the gospels were sourced from oral myths. In oral myths, all kinds of adaptations take place. Once it is written down, then change is suppressed, even actively resisted, as it becomes holy scripture. You may be aware of the margin note: "Fool and knave, leave the old reading, don't change it!"

spamandham

How do you square the oral myth idea with specific written scriptural quotes and specific references to written sources, such as "let the reader understand"?