Didymus

And elsewhere:Well, I don't know of any books on organizational dynamics that specifically address early Christianity. There are modern textbooks on the general subject, however, but I don't think most of them regard a single "original leader/teacher/preacher" as essential for the founding, growth and success of an organization. On the other hand, you seem to think that the existence of such an individual is axiomatic. Can you explain why?

As I'm sure you know, the course of early Christian history is set forth (and mythologized) by Luke in Acts (the apostolic tradition, with much credit to Paul) and by Eusebius in the Ecclesiastical History (the church fathers). Neither puts Jesus in the role of "organization man" or tells us that he played any significant role in the founding of the Church.

(Of course, whether or not he existed, his purported life and teachings constituted "Christianity-the-idea." But you said that's not what you're looking for.)

I'm not sure where you've gotten the idea that Jesus did anything by way of organizing the Church (except for "sending forth" the apostles), since it didn't even exist until the middle of the 2nd century.

Didymus

Clivedurdle

But the alleged beginnings of this movement are anything but clear!

Didache might be earliest, with Revelation. Very unclear about HJ.

Paul - might be as late as 130. No clear mention of HJ.

Mark - all the hallmarks of a novel and or play.


Others derivative.

Eusebius clear political reasons to make superstitio into religio.

Letter to emperor about 100 shows evidence of a sect with cultic beliefs verging on treachery - refusal to worship gods - and crime of atheism. It might be a revolutionary idea but it does not need one person to have thought it.

On other examples - flash gordon, superman, Christ is a classic superhero figure!

Didymus

So what is the conventional explanation? Does it really rely on an HJ?

HJ offers no greater role for Jesus than does MJ. Whether Jesus was historical or not, the disciples and the church fathers, not Jesus, carried the water for the movement.

You keep defining "first origins" in organizational terms, but there was no organization in the "first origins" phase. No church appears until after he was dead. Then Luke comes along to purportedly explain what took place AFTER the Crucifixion, i.e., the Apostolic Tradition. I keep getting the feeling that you not really cognizant of the conventional explanation for church origins! If you were, you wouldn't confuse "first origins" (the alleged ministry of Jesus) with the process of organizing the Christian church. Nor would you place much importance on the role of a "leader/teacher/preacher" in an organizational process that took place after his death!

Jesus, whether he was historical or not, was not a factor in organizational development. He set no organizational goals, created no heirarchy, and handed out no job assignments beyond a vague "go forth."

Even if he had been more specific, whether Jesus' words came from a single man or from Mark and the other NT writers wouldn't have mattered so long as the words were believed to have come from Jesus. He was the raison alright, but he did not form a church.

And even if he had existed, the apostles and church fathers played out their roles in his absence.

Didymus

J-D

Exactly! Exactly! That is the question! And if the answer isn't 'the movement of followers of Jesus' then what is it?But do you know of any confirmed instances in which a religion got started this way?But what community was that, if it wasn't 'the community of the followers of Jesus'?

J-D

I assume that you are aware, in general terms, of the meanings of 'organisation' and 'idea', but I'm happy to give further specific illustration. It is very common for a political party (to take examples from another kind of organisation) to stand for political ideas different from those for which it stood when it was first founded, even if it is has a continuous organisational history. Thus the question of how the party first came into being can be--and must be--answered without the political position it currently occupies being part of the explanation. Taking a slightly different example, the questions 'did Andrew Jackson and Thomas Jefferson stand for the same political ideas' and 'did Andrew Jackson and Thomas Jefferson lead the same political organisation' are two different questions, and the answer to the one doesn't necessarily depend on the answer to the other. Thus, when I ask 'what was the historical origin of Christianity', I am not asking the different question 'what was the origin of a religion whose doctrines include the Trinity, the Incarnation, the Resurrection, and the Redemption', since I do not assume that those doctrines were necessarily held by the first Christians. I entertain the possibility that Jesus is the answer to the first question (that is, a group of followers gathered around him were the first Christians) but not the answer to the second question (that is, he did not teach those doctrines).I find the idea of Christianity originating from the merger of several different groups with different origins and different doctrines implausible. The only example I can think of where a religion originated in this way is the Uniting Church in Australia (a merger of Presbyterians, Methodists, and Congregationalists), and I don't see the necessary analogy between the conditions of that merger and the conditions in which Christianity emerged.Well, I don't yet see how the Christian movement could have originated without a flesh-and-blood founder (and no, this can't be Paul, unless it is explicitly contended that the movement did not exist before Paul). If I saw that alternative explanation I might change my mind. But I haven't seen it yet.

J-D

'Messiah-seeking' is one thing, and 'an existing group of Messiah-seekers' is another.Not 'wholly'. See post #495.

Amaleq13

It is a collection of like-minded Messiah-seekers. I do not see why this is an unreasonable notion.

J-D

In the introduction to his Lays of Ancient Rome, Macaulay discusses two medieval ‘Border Ballads’ about the Battle of Otterburn. One ballad tells of the Scottish commander (Douglas) being killed by a member of the English rank-and-file and the English commander (Percy) being killed by a member of the Scottish rank-and-file. The other tells of the two commanders meeting in single combat, with Percy killing Douglas but then being taken captive himself. According to the first ballad a Scottish knight called Sir Hugh Montgomery was killed, while according to the second he was captured. These ballads, according to Macaulay, were written not long after the period they refer to, probably while there were still people alive who remembered the events, yet they contradict each other. However, it would be wrong to conclude that either the battle or the individuals mentioned were fictitious: they were all historical, even though both ballads report them inaccurately. (The first ballad is right about the circumstances of Douglas’s death, but wrong about Percy’s death; the second is wrong about Douglas’s death, but right about Percy being captured. They are both wrong about Montgomery: he was neither killed nor captured in this battle.)

I hope the implications of this for the argument here are clear, but if not I shall elucidate further.

J-D

But who was this man? Why did they respect him? What made him authoritative?

Sparrow

And what is the time period between the events and the recording of the ballads? Is it like the some 40 years between the alleged death of Jesus and the penning of GMark? How do you know the actual facts in the battle case? Do you have some contemporaneous external corroborating evidence? If you've got some evidence for Jesus written during the time of his life, please bring it out for us to marvel over.