mg01

What are the proposed scenarios for the origin of Christianity by a historical person named Jesus and do they account for the following elements?

• role of Messiah as "self sacrificing savior for sins" vs "kingly hero"
• appearance predicted by scripture
• attribution that historical Jesus WAS the predicted Messiah
• attribution of mythical features ("son of god", virgin birth, miracles, resurrection, etc...)
• Gospel Jesus’ deeds fulfilling scripture
• criticisms of the law found in gospels
• teachings of morality and compassion found in gospels
• disparate positions on Jesus in 1st and 2nd century

If the religion began with a historical figure, how are these elements of Christianity accounted for? Which are taken to be original to Jesus versus later attributions?

If most of these elements are regarded as later attributions, what did Jesus preach that was so radical it earned him crucifixion and inspired followers to attach them to him after his death?

Of particular interest is the relation to scripture and the nature of the Messiah (savior for sins vs kingly hero). Did these ideas originate from Jesus or later by his followers?

What details are offered by scenario for the origin of Christianity as emanating from a single man, Jesus, was inflated by followers, and within 200 years had developed into a religion (or religions) that coherently explain these elements in a historical format?

Solitary Man

1. role of Messiah as "self sacrificing savior for sins" vs "kingly hero"

What we have is likely a long process of accumulation. The mytheme of the returning after three days is accounted for in Jewish thought by the Hazon Gabriel, a 1st century BCE inscription which talks about the Messiah dying and returning in three days. Having failed at the conquering of the world and restoring earthly Judaism, his followers placed him in the other category, the category of the dying and conquering Messiah. The self-sacrifice seems obvious, how else do you hide an ignominious death? The savior and the sins is a later development.

2. appearance predicted by scripture

You'll have to be more explicit with this one. I think the texts actually strongly lend support for an historical Jesus based out of Galilee (Nazareth), since Luke and Matthew both keep that tradition, but force him to get to Bethlehem (whence the Messiah was supposed to have come) in different ways to be born there.

3. attribution that historical Jesus WAS the predicted Messiah

This likely goes with his teaching, e.g. the Kingdom of God.

4. attribution of mythical features ("son of god", virgin birth, miracles, resurrection, etc...)

Miracles aren't necessarily "mythical" so much as they're legendary, and the resurrection looks like a post-failure imagination development. The virgin birth has often before been explained by Mary bearing Jesus illegitimately, but I'm not so sure there's enough evidence for this. It certainly follows the "Son of God" claim, since the most likely development would be to negate a father only after God is claimed as the father.

5. Gospel Jesus’ deeds fulfilling scripture

A mix of framing by the evangelists and self-fulfillment by Jesus himself.

6. criticisms of the law found in gospels

Pretty common in those days, actually. Pharisees and Sadducees weren't on the best terms.

7. teachings of morality and compassion found in gospels

Goes hand in hand with number 6, i.e. a full exposition of the Tanakh would include all three.

8. disparate positions on Jesus in 1st and 2nd century

Paul and the Gentile inclusion.

mg01

I've rearranged your comments just to try and put some order to them. As I stated I'm interested in understading how the historical Jesus scenerio proposes Christainity developed.

So early Jesus in these aspects is seen as not all that unlike other figures mentioned in records of the time.

My understanding is the scriptures of the Old Testament, particularly the prophets, were viewed as fortelling of the arrival of a savior at the end times, and that later gospel traditions point to Jesus' deeds as fullfilling those prophecies. I am intrested to know where in when the timeline of the development of Christianity via a historical Jesus is this idea thought to emerge? Before Jesus, by Jesus, or after Jesus? I would surmise that some degree of layering is assumed, but the key element with this re-interpretation of scripture is the idea of the Messiah as divine savior from god, not future king. Where does this key feature lie?

Isn't the historically proposed timeframe between Jesus' death and the writings of Paul only around 20 years? Does this imply the idea that scripture was a prophesy of a future Messiah developed during that time?


By miracles I was referring to the healings and raising of the dead and such. Legendary over mythical is fine, symantics as far as I'm concerned. As for possible origins concerning particulars such as virgin birth, or son of god, even the attribution of such claims (which may or may not have had more mundane beginnings), neither have any meaning without equating Jesus as the Messiah. So if Jesus claimed he was the Messiah, both ideas may have been quickly attributed as proof. If others associated him as the Messiah following his death, then they are simplly additional legendary attributes, both which tie back once again to scriptual context.

So the scenerio of Jesus then is:

• An individual named Jesus criticizes the established tradition of the law, an activity not uncommon for the time.
• He claims the world is ending and people should prepare for the kingdom of god, and is killed.
• Claims of legendary deeds attributted to him
• Scriptural messiah reinterpreted as end-of-world sacrifical savior rather than kingly hero
• Jesus said the world was ending, so Jesus must have been the messiah
• Paul's mission to the Gentiles causes confusion over the nature of Jesus and multiple versions of Christianity emerge.

Yes I am oversimpling, but for the moment however I am only interested the key features of Christianity and where they are thought to originate assuming the tradition begain from a historical figure.

Solitary Man

Well, depends on the model, of course. Some saw Jesus as iconoclastic, or cynical, or something equivalent to an ancient hippie. I don't think those models are accurate, and opt for the apocalyptic millennarian espoused by Allison, Fredriksen, Meier, Sanders, and Ehrman.

Before Jesus.

When does it emerge? I'm not sure. It becomes pronounced with the overthrow of the Hasmonean dynasty in 63 BCE.

What do you mean?

Great men, even if only in the eyes of followers, tend to attract legendary qualities about them. Cult leaders get it all the time, why would Jesus be any different?

• The last one isn't clear.
  
  
  Quote:

  Jesus said the world was ending, so Jesus must have been the messiah

  Not necessarily.
  
  
  Quote:

  Paul's mission to the Gentiles causes confusion over the nature of Jesus and multiple versions of Christianity emerge.

I think you got it.

aa5874

Once a person rejects the Jesus of the NT, the offspring of the Holy Ghost that ascended to heaven, and tries to re-construct an historical Jesus there are several problems that really cannot be resolved.

• It is not known for certain who was the original author of the Jesus story.

• It is not known if the original author ever lived in Judaea.

• It is not known when the original Jesus story was written.

• It is not known when the HJ would have lived.

• It is not known if the HJ would have been a Jew.

• And it is not known for certain that there was an HJ.

Without any credible external corrobrated source for an HJ, then this position will just be a case of futility with endless speculative characters.

gstafleu

I don't think that it is necessary for an HJ to have all the properties you list. For example, Jesus ben Ananias is an excellent candidate for an HJ. (Why HJers don't promote him as much is beyond me). But he does not have the list of properties you give. These could easily have been attached later. E.g., Mark hears about Paul-like Jesus worship, then hears about Jesus ben Ananias, and decides to improve on both stories with his gospel.

Gerard Stafleu

Solitary Man

Of course its not necessary, but it's one model. And why no one pushes for Jesus Ben Ananias is because the evidence doesn't suggest it.

gstafleu

The evidence doesn't suggest it? Maybe not if you are looking for a "big bang HJ," who would have everything you want all at once. But how about the following:
Of course the Romans did not kill "him" by crucifixion but rather by accident, but later oral transmission, aware that Romans often killed rebels by crucifixion, changed the death method. Mark then picked that up, etc...

Isn't a scenario like that how we would expect an HJ to work?

Gerard Stafleu

Solitary Man

I never said there couldn't be conflation, however, Paul antedates Jesus ben Ananias, and Josephus distinguishes between the two. Mark is a different matter.

gstafleu

Agreed, that is why I posit a scenario where the idea of a Jesus messiah, as in Paul, develops first, be it without much historicity attached. Then later people attach more historicity, which they can get from a variety of sources, JbA being one that seems to fit well (unless you only want to consider exact matches, of course).

So, again, it would seem the JbA should be a very good candidate for an HJ. Not for a full-fledged-gospel-HJ of course, but then I'm pretty sure that not many are still looking for that. Why, then, do HJers not propose such a perfect candidate as at least a partial solution to the HJ question?

BTW, an objection could be that it is a bit much of a coincidence that Paul would have a Messiah called Jesus, and then other Jesuses would pop up to provide the historical details. However, given the proliferation of Jesuses around that time I do not really see that as a problem.

Is it perhaps that, when people think about an HJ, they intuitively assume that it must be one HJ that would cover the whole range from Paul to John? I think my example shows that that would be a misconception.

Gerard Stafleu