rlogan

That's true. God forgot to inform himself when he was returning...

Vinnie, if I didn't thank you for that development on the "Stratum" by "stratum" answer, let me thank you now.

Koyaanisqatsi

Well, if you all don't mind joining me again in pure speculation land, let's look at this and the question of what Paul allegedly said back into the context of Roman propaganda. I know, it's my pet theory and I'm welcome to it, but consider the possibility that the Romans sought to destabilize allegiance to and the principles of Judaism as part and parcel to their occupation and conquering of the area. After all, one of the first things the Romans did with all conquered regions was assimilation; something they found exceedingly difficult with the Jewish people because of their beliefs (monotheism being the central difference and major strong point, I would argue).

What might sway people strongly devoted to one cult away from that cult? Well, with christianity, we've got threat of eternal damnation for disobeying god (aka, the cult leaders by proxy); the threat of their god having the power to kill both body and soul in hell (trumping "Hellenized" jewish beliefs); and we've got the promise of conquering death, itself!

What could be a better argument to switch over to the new cult--would have logically been the Roman thinking on this I will assert; or rather, miss-thinking on this--than if there was a promise that no one would die anymore for believing in Jesus; aka, the (pro) Roman revision of Judaism?

You've got an occupied country, wherein the occupiers could, at any moment, commit genocide in the region in order to maintain power and, historically, wouldn't hesitate to do such a thing if necessary and actually tried to do it in and around the period between Paul and Mark.

Again, if history is the barometer and my theory is at all correct, then what you've got in the NT mythology is part revisionist cover up and part anti-judaist doctrine, designed to undermine the orthodoxy by getting at the members themselves. Leading up to the First Jewish Revolt (a misnomer, in my mind), you no doubt must have had many escalating acts of "terror" (as we would call them today), but, of course, are actually acts from "freedom fighters" (as we also call them today, depending on your passport).

In other words, you've got insurrection in one of your conquered provinces and the cause of that insurrection is the clash of beliefs; they will not submit. They'll make deals, perhaps or bribes to keep the wolves at bay, but they will not, ultimately submit and become true Roman citizens. You've even got, perhaps, a radical Rabbi in the area who started the first "freedom fighter" militia--one leader of perhaps twelve major operatives and unknown sympathetics to the cause who were also a part of a religious movement that was part and parcel to the politics. We, as Americans, understand the concept of a separation between Church and State, but they didn't.

We have all assumed that separation, IMO. The "Jesus Movement" could just as easily have been in reference to their insurrectionist, anti-occupationist political beliefs; a topic that is never considered, for some strange reason, when discussing the people and their beliefs and the times and yet something that would have been far more primary to everyone's concerns.

They had been conquered and taken over by the Roman Empire. The presence of such infidels in their Holiest of all holy cities would have been a daily nightmare, just as it is today. Corruption at the highest levels was certainly a concern and probably a reality, but more likely isolated cases. We don't have this view of Jewish people, of course, because? Anyone want to take a wild guess?

So, to me, anyway, the idea of the Romans (or whoever) inserting the promise that this new cult would conquer death and that no one who believed and who was "standing before me" (i.e., the leaders of the cult reading those words) would die if only they believed (aka, gave up their prior beliefs and switched teams, as it were) is part and parcel to the whole lie and just another means of coercion. Coercion that I would once again posit as evidence of Roman thinking, more so than Jewish scholarship.

You've got a pro-authority, anti-judaism (not anti-semitic, but against the religion itself) doctrine that turns a most likely murdered insurrectionist by the Romans who got turned into a martyr for the "Movement's" cause, himself turned into a sacrificial messiah/savior/god who got murdered by his own "people," the "Jews" (always plural and non-specific, targeting primarily the elders and rulers of the cult, but always leaving room for the entirety of their cult), in order to save all those who believe in the new cult from death itself all at or around the time when the Romans were planning on military action to quell the uprisings. A propaganda campaign going on in conjunction with planned military intervention if things don't change in the region.

That this ploy didn't actually work on the people they initially may have targeted, but did work on others is likewise part and parcel to the spoils. The NT mythology is a slave mythology built not just upon Judaism, but on other theological concepts as well. In fact, as many scholars far more lettered than I have pointed out, it's an amalgalm of paganism and reformed judaism and Essene influence and Gnostic splits and a whole stew of various beliefs from in and around that region; a region that was taken over by the Romans and a region that was bucking back so badly that they had to send in troops several times all because of local beliefs causing a fanaticism the Romans were likely not prepared for (as no one is who fights in that area to this day).

Anyway, it makes sense, if only in a purely speculative manner and I once again offer it as a possible explanation as to how such things would logically be inserted and/or preached and/or retained for the new sheep to swallow.

Come on over to "our" side (never directly stated, of course, just implied, because if anyone knew it was actually the Romans behind all this, they tell them to pisch off) and you won't get killed when we send in the troops. It's the "Jews" we want, so if you're not a Jew anymore, then you're not our enemy anymore (today, anyway) and you're safe. No matter how you look at it, that's the message of Christianity regardless of my theory; if you're not a Jew, you won't get killed (And please, let's not go through another round of "what about the early martyrs" that never were. History is written by the victors, which of course means, rewritten).

We do the exact same thing today, only with pamphlets air dropped into the region just before we roll in the tanks and we get the same kinds of theological "hooks" wrong when we do it, so why is this any different? Because everyone was holy back then? Everything was a Ben Hur set?



Again and always, it ain't rocket science. Destroy their religion and their minds will follow. Or so goes the thinking of just about every military commander throughout history just prior to sending in the troops.

mike_decock

I'm basically working from the argument that Vinnie details after my OP. There is a sense of immediacy in the expectation of the parousia in the earliest Christian writings which gets reduced in later Christian writings. It's an embarrassing tradition that later authors have to account for.

I think that the roots of those sayings is very early since it wouldn't make much sense if it was created after the (supposed) disciples were all dead.

The mythicist argument at this piont is that this still isn't "evidence" for a HJ. It just means that the saying is early. Granted, but I'm trying to get one level further.

My question is:

Why "no HJ" is a better explanation for the source of this saying than "a HJ"? Why does "creation by a mythmaker" have more explanatory power than "attribution to a historical figure"?

-Mike...

rlogan

well, Mike - I guess it's neutral on that score. Taken alone.

The HJ school has been touting the fraudulent, conniving and elsewise immoral "second coming" version, which favors HJ. Taken alone.

Then you add in that this guy supposdly fed five thousand people with a large bag of potato chips and a six pack of diet coke...

mike_decock

I can accept "neutral" since I pretty much am neutral about an HJ. I just haven't been convinced either way.

Yeah, but it was a really BIG bag of potato chips and six KEGS of diet coke .

Or perhaps there is a historical root to this mythologized story:

Jesus, a historical reconstruction

Again, does the mythicist position have more explanatory power when claiming that this story was created by the mythmaker rather than the HJ position which attributes the story to a historical root?

-Mike...

Vorkosigan

The "earliest" source for the belief that Jesus would arrive in the lifetime of those then living is Paul, who is a bit vague about attribution. Looking at Paul, would you say that Paul clearly states this tradition came from Jesus, or does he use the phrase "tell you in the lord" as a way of adding weight to his claim? In other words, does the earliest stratum attribute this to Jesus? I think the answer to that one must be "no" in which case this is no longer a problem for the HJ/No-HJ argument, but instead must be moved over to the "Beginning of Christianity" pigeonhole.

Vorkosigan

Koyaanisqatsi

Mike, are you claiming that "HJ" means "some guy named Jesus actually lived" or are you claiming that "HJ" means a rabbi named "Jesus" was claimed to be a messiah and later turned into a messiah by mythmakers, or what?

I'm sorry, I must have missed your clarification. What does "HJ" mean to you? That a guy named Jesus did all the things atributed to him, but just aggrandized by imaginative followers and therefore no actual claims of divinity are involved?

Man or messiah/deity?

And by "mythicists"do you mean "fiction writers," as in they made everything up out of whole cloth? It seems you're delineating in this fashion, so again, pardon me if you already clarified this and I missed it.

I'm definitely a "mythicist," but to me, that means that probably a radical rabbi named Jesus had a movement (briefly outlined in my earlier post) and got turned into a myth probably by all concerned; a martyr for their anti-occupationist cause on the one hand and a propaganda tool for the Romans on the other.

It's more "dynamic" and requires imagining youself actually there and factoring in what the daily routine would have been as well as the most likely common discussion; which would have naturally been the occupation by the Romans and what to do about it.

Theologians, however, rarely (if ever) seem to view this point in history through those primary lenses, which I would argue is unfounded. They think that everyone went around worrying about God all the time and that the only issues were ones of divinety and while that certainly was part and parcel to their culture, I'm guessing that being occupied by the Romans was probably of more immediate concern. Again, however, the people in that region and especially at that time didn't separate Church from State.

Jews are Jews; that's a given. They're born Jewish and their judaism is as integrated into their beings as oxygen is. Of course there were many debates and discussions and factions as there always are, but more importantly would have been the daily horrors of living under Roman occupation and how that impacted upon their studies, yes, but more importantly, as their lives as Jewish poeple.

What I'm trying to get at is looking at this period through theological eyes is not going to give you the whole picture of what was going on and how it may (or may not) have been reflected in this new cult, later called Christianity, especially if you factor in the possibility that a rabbi named Jesus was actually executed by the Romans (not the Jews, but the Romans). The most likely (i.e., realistic, without theological glasses on) explanation for such an event, if it actually happened, would be because Jesus had done something seriously impacting Roman rule or Roman citizens. That or he committed murder (the two primary reasons for employing crucifixion as a means for capital punishment; insurrection/seditionist acts or murder).

Turning over some tables in the Jewish Temple and allegedly pissing off the Sanhedrin by going around claiming he was "King of the Jews" (a title that doesn't exist) would not, however, fall under the auspices of seriously impacting Roman rule or Roman citizens (aka, non-Jews in the region). It would be treated--if at all--as a mild disturbance; akin to a Mormon standing up in the Glass Palace (or whatever their central church is called) and claiming he's the "King of the Mormons!" How would that seriously impact the governor of Utah's power to the point of trying the guy in a court that has no laws to try him (other than disturbing the peace or trespassing, I suppose) and why would there be the need to have him put to death for such irrelevant nuissances, particularly if the State actually went through the bother of trying him and then finding him innocent of all charges?

So, if a rabbi named Jesus was indeed crucified by the Romans, there must be another reason than Pilate was ascared of the "crowd" (recall he allegedly didn't care at all about the wishes of the Sanhedrin, since he publicly humiliated them by declaring Jesus had committed no crime--thrice--and set him free and that it was only the crowd's influence that inexplicably forced him to murder a man he just declared completely innocent of all charges).

That myths were made around a man named Jesus is clear and in evidence. After all, dead men (if they were really dead) don't rise from their graves, so mythology is already locked in place.

The question isn't whether myths were created, the question is why were those myths created. I know some say there is no evidence that the Jesus depicted in the NT actually existed, and they're technically correct, but that can easily be dispelled by simply pointing out that there were many men named "Jesus" that existed during that time and any one of them (or several of them) could have been mythologized.

Looking for the "HJ" means you're looking for a man named Jesus that all of the myths were created around, IMO, so perhaps, again, we're working on differing definitions.

rlogan

well, I wold say that this feeding of the multitudes is a re-hashing of 2 Kings 4: 42-44. It's the Prophet Elisha there. The only difference is in scale - Jesus is feeding five thousand instead of a hundred.

I had seen a reference somewhere to Buddha feeding 500 with one loaf, and I would bet there are some more ancient babylonian stories too. Maybe google that and see what you come up with. Suffice it to say though that feeding the multitudes is not a unique Christ story.

Now here is a case where I think the myth is a better fit. My bullshit detector goes "BZZZZZZZZZT" when you tell me this story. Then I see the copycat nature from an earlier legend. So I sez myth. Remember too that I take into account all of the other adaptations from OT prophesy that can't possibly be true and this view is strenghtened here.

In the explanation offered there about the festival has two problems, really - the first is that nowhere does the text tip us off to such an explanation. Secondly, its clear to me that it's one of many miracles our God-man performed like raising of the dead and walking on water - tricks also borrowed from other legends.

Myth end of scale getting Heeeaaavvvvyyyyy.....

rlogan

Hmm, Vork - that's a new category. I think I understand your intent but I think too that Mikes question still pertains.

"Paul the Obscure" comes up with this first stratum encrustacion overlaying something.

It could have been added to an existing man. It could have been added to an existing myth. Paul never met Junior.

Amaleq13

Yes and it started with claims of witnessing the Risen Christ. This was considered to be the "first fruits" of the general resurrection expected to take place at The End. The whole focus of this early movement was the revealed truth of the Risen Christ. Paul goes rushing around to various cities trying to get his gospel out to everyone before The End.

This is the source of the "embarrassing tradition".

Because Jesus as the source only goes back to Mark. Prior to that we have Paul as the source. Prior to that, according to Paul, we have Cephas, James, John, etc. as the source. It all appears to begin with claims of witnessing the Risen Christ and the connection of those claims to the "first fruits" of the general resurrection at the End Times.