Donnmathan

Good thing I haven't, then. The examples I chose all have one thing in common - despite ridiculous embellishment, they are all believed to have a historical character somewhere behind them. No reason Jesus can't as well, but that's no excuse for the fact that while people seem very much able to determine that (for example) the real Gilgamesh coun't possibly have done the supernatural things he's credited with, they are unable to make the same distinction regarding whatever poor sot is behind the Jesus myth.

Didymus

Possibly. But that wasn't my point. Can you cite any 1st or 2nd century evidence that Palestinian Jews of that period knew anything about the Jesus described in the gospels?

As far as I can tell, they had no knowledge of his ever existing, despite their proximity to the alleged feedings, healings, exorcisms and other public miracles. You would think that they would have heard eyewitness reports, wouldn't you? Nonetheless, and notwithstanding Luke's reports of mass conversions after the resurrection, there is no archeological, paleographic or epigraphic evidence of Christianity in Palestine until the church at Megiddo, which dates to well into the 3rd century. And it is of Byzantine origin!

Perhaps his lack of presence is the reason why they didn't "believe in him." Or can you offer a better explanation?

Didymus

Didymus

So are you saying that Paul didn't respect the Pillars' authority or knowledge of Jesus' teachings, even though they had actually witnessed, day after day for three years, his words and deeds?

His ignoring those "facts" would be a lot like someone writing a tribute to John Kennedy without mentioning the Cuban Missile Crisis. Or debunking Kennedy's iconographic status without suggesting that he had a mob-connected extra-marital "interest." It's possible to leave out such information, but how likely is it? With regard to Paul, he didn't even HINT at any of the series of events that led to Jesus' crucifixion. He dwelt at length on the crucifixion and resurrection (pivotal events in his theology), but he didn't even HINT that those things took place in Jerusalem!

Sure, lots of things are possible.

Didymus

Didymus

If he was nothing more than a poor sot, it's hard to imagine why and how such spectacular deeds would have been attributed to him.

Didymus

Didymus

A yoke is a pair.

At BEST accidental? Come on. Turton provides literally hundreds of such similarities. He doesn't weight them all alike. Some are undeniable; others more conjectural. Turton acknowledges this, and he gives them the weight they deserve.

What is your hypothesis?

By bringing up the oral tradition, are you saying that Mark's stories about Jesus, despite their resemblance to passages in the OT, have nonetheless been accurately transmitted and in turn transcribed by Mark? That Mark's gospel is historically accurate?

Or what?

(It is important to keep in mind that "historicist" Christians like Mark would have gone through the LXX with a fine tooth comb to find passages which would have helped them figure out what Jesus would have taught and when, where and how he lived and died. Of course, they would have also considered how he might have interacted with various historical people and contexts. And I don't deny that some elements may have had roots in the oral tradition or in sayings collections. But, as Turton makes clear, God's holy writ would have had first priority.)

Well, that conclusion is based on next-to-no data whatsoever.

Mark was writing, at the earliest, in the last decades of the first century, at least two decades after Paul. Those late-century hearers of Mark's gospel may have heard that Paul, John and James were early Christian leaders. Or they may have read or heard Paul's epistles. These hearers may have assumed, just as you do, that Paul had neglected to report the Good News - now revealed by Mark - that they had followed Jesus around during his previously unknown earthly ministry in the early part of the century.

I didn't say anything about a "discussion." I said it would be reasonable to expect that Paul would say some small something about all that. No digression would have been necessary. To mix my cliches, you are grasping at strawmen.

Prolific writer that he was, he had plenty of opportunities to make such an informative "digression." You seem to think that even mentioning Jesus' ministry in Galilee, or the role of the disciples, would have been an enormous departure for Paul. That seems like a pretty lame excuse for such an important omission.

And disrespect the chosen companions and hearers of Jesus in full view of his congregations? DESPITE the "fact" that everyone knew that Peter, John and James had witnessed firsthand the miracles and teachings of the Savior? DESPITE the fact that they had even been privy to the private words of Jesus? And DESPITE the fact that, if Luke is to be believed, they had performed many miracles themselves?!

Not a chance!

The only distinction Paul makes between himself and the Pillars is that they saw the Risen Christ before he did. Having not accompanied a non-historical Jesus, they possessed no more authority than Paul himself or any other apostle (messenger), and Paul treats them exactly as one church leader who said he had visions of the deity would treat another who said he had similiar visions.

Didymus

jjramsey

True, but there is no evidence of any attempt to emphasize this in the story of the calling of Elisha.

No, not at all. Rather, I am saying that Turton's model of Mark's use of the LXX is inadequate to explain, for example, the looser OT allusions that look like the byproduct of someone who wasn't trying to echo the OT but happened to do so unconsciously because of his/her familiarity of OT stories--which is what I'd expect from a Jewish Christian creating or expanding on oral tradition. Nor does it explain well some very forced applications of the OT that look like implied post hoc proof-texting.

First off, I am not assuming that Paul is neglecting anything. He is writing letters addressing local church problems, not delivering history lessons. Second, you seem to be presuming that there is a severe lack of continuity between the beliefs of the first and second generations of Christians, as if Christians wouldn't have passed down the traditions of who Peter and James were, and under your scenario, the Jesus of this misty past.

Actually, for him to say that some small something would be a digression.

Actually, what I am saying is that there is no reason to suspect that letters troubleshooting church problems would necessarily mention details unrelated to their purpose. If they do, that is unexpected good luck, but still unexpected. Paul's letters are not written to posterity to answer the questions that we want answered.

Ahem. See Galatians 2:11-13:

J-D

What precisely are you talking about when you talk about ‘Messiah-seekers’? Do you mean people who are trying to identify an actual flesh-and-blood individual as the Messiah? Or do you mean people who are attempting to achieve an esoteric ‘vision’ of or relating to the Messiah? Or do you mean something else? And whichever is the case, what is the evidence that it was a common activity at the relevant period?In that case, what sort of communal worship do you see the original Christians as partaking in, and how did this worship group turn to ‘Messiah-seeking’, in whatever form you are positing?Would it be fair for me to sum up that you are not suggesting that a special emotionally charged atmosphere is a necessary precondition from the beginning? That what you are suggesting is an origin with a single hysterical vision in a ‘fantasy-prone’ individual, which then readily spreads to others? But is it necessary for this model that those others were looking for visions of the Messiah? And if so, is there evidence that there were groups of people looking for visions of the Messiah?DSS? What’s that?But that doesn’t answer my question: why would the first visionary vanish into obscurity?Now the scenario you’re suggesting looks (to me) like this:

Numbers of people start asking: ‘Why has the Messiah not come?’ They form study groups to investigate the question. An individual in such a group experiences a ‘vision’ and recounts it to others as demonstrating that traditional expectations of the Messiah as a physically manifest human individual are wrong, because the Messiah is a purely spiritual being without physical manifestation. Others are receptive to this message, and a distinct religious movement forms around the idea. Later the doctrines of this movement gradually evolve into Christianity as we know it now and give rise to the present Christian scriptures.

If that’s a misinterpretation of what you’re saying, please do correct it. But if that is what you’re saying, then this is what it makes me think:

The idea of numbers of Jews at that particular historical juncture starting to puzzle over the non-appearance of the Messiah: yes, on first principles that sounds plausible. Forming religious study groups to investigate: very plausible, and very Jewish. Somebody has a vision, and wins the belief of others: yes, I can believe that. But two things still niggle me.

The first and smaller is that I don’t know whether there’s any direct evidence of widespread activity of the sort you’re supposing at that historical period. Of course, it might not have left any evidence, but if it had it would tend to strengthen your hypothesis.

The second and larger niggle is this. If I’ve read your views rightly, then crucial to the origins of the movement is the explicit repudiation of an earlier doctrine of a physical Messiah in favour of a spiritual one. Yet after what seems a short time, this doctrine of a spiritual Messiah must have been reconverted back into the erstwhile repudiated doctrine of a physical manifestation, and all references to the crucial repudiation must have been utterly purged. Perhaps that’s possible, but how likely is it?

Donnmathan

Hey, if even half of the non-mystical events attributed to the guy are fact, he had a rough and very short life. Given that he might have deliberately tried to take on the Romans, I can't feel to bad for him, but still...

No Robots

May we please be careful how we use the word "mystical"? It refers to a particular mode of thinking. It is not a synonym for "mythical", "magical", "supernatural", or "legendary". Christ is rightly viewed as a mystic, and it is therefore important that we maintain a clear understanding of what that means.

That is all.

Amaleq13

It is my understanding that groups were attempting to understand why the traditional expectations had not been fulfilled and were appearing as though they would never be fulfilled. It is also my understanding that at least one other group engaged in reinterpreting those expectations (ie Dead Sea Scrolls with its dual Messiahs).

I'm sorry but I don't have a formal collection of information readily available and I really don't have the time or interest in researching the subject for you. All I can do is share the impressions/conclusions I've developed over years of reading a variety of materials. If you are truly interested, I encourage you to do your own homework.

ETA: I do have the following list of related sources obtained from IIDB member CJD:

H.L. Ellison, The Centrality of the Messianic Idea for the Old Testament
S. Mowinckel, He That Cometh
J. Klausner, The Messianic Idea in Israel
H. Ringgren, The Messiah in the Old Testament
J. Liver, "The Doctrine of the Two Messiahs in Sectarian Literature in the Time of the Second Commonwealth," (HTR 52: 149–85) 1959.
Samson H. Levy, The Messiah: An Aramaic Interpretation
J. Neusner, Messiah in Context
_____, et al., Judaisms and Their Messiahs at the Turn of the Christian Era
J.H. Charlesworth, The Messiah: Development in Earliest Judaism and Christianity

Judaism.

The Messiah was an important part of Judaism for many Jews.

No because I'm not sure what you mean by "special" or exactly what object of the "necessary precondition" you intend. I tend to assume that any and all religious hallucinations are experienced within an emotionally charged atmosphere whether it is a tent revival or subsequent to a tremendous loss.

Yes and that applies whether Jesus was historical or not.

I thought I already answered this: No.

Dead Sea Scrolls.

Sorry, my "not" seems to have disappeared though I would think it obvious that it was intended. Cephas has not vanished into obscurity so your question is moot.

I have no idea where you obtained any of the above I have placed in red. It certainly isn't from me.

Replace it with: "...the Messiah was sent by God to be sacrificed to provide salvation rather than by force as we've always thought."

If you follow Doherty, this Messiah was executed in the sublunar realm.

If you follow a view more like Wells, this Messiah was executed some time in the past.

If you follow the traditional view, this Messiah was their former leader.