dog-on

Unless of course cristou is referencing annointment by the big G himself...

archibald

Thanks.

Does he not do the epistles? That's a pity, since that's what I would lke to read a comparative study on.

Plus, he's a theologian, and I would ideally have preferred an historian. But that's just preference. If the book had been about the epistles, I might have thought about trying to read it.

Incidentally, and I'm sure you'll agree here, it's no criticism of Doherty personally 'why' his book is not subject to more academic review, it's just that it would be better, for both him and for everyone, if it were. I do accept that he must face some difficulties.

Btw, I recently, while browsing online as a result of participating in this thread, came across an interesting-looking book on Plutarch's Isis and Osiris. The author was a classical historian, and at the start of the book, he listed at least a dozen people who had commented on his book prior to publication, the first few of which I checked, and they were classical history professors at universities. Now, all I am saying is that this sort of thing gives me (as a layman) some degree of confidence regarding ovbjectivity.

More's the pity we couldn't get those same guys to respond to a comparative analysis, and see how they think the Jesus story compares. Perhaps they too are disinclined. It's a pity that the topic doesn't seem to be treated more objectively, or at least as a crossover topic.

Though I do recall, over at ratskep, that there were at least a couple of historians who cited references to show that ancient historians generally (I'm sure there are exceptions) do in fact see Jesus as historical. And I think I'm even right in saying that Tim O'neill quoted an eminent professor of ancient history (at Stanford, I think) as saying 'the search for historical Jesus is as uncertain as the search for the historical Alexander the Great'. Controversial, I know, but I think the quote had more to do with establishing historical facts about each person's life than being about whether the mere existence of which of them was more 'historical' or not per se. I'm assuming he wouldn't have put them on an equal footing in that basic sense, by any means.

maryhelena

And the other alternative is that 'Paul' has had a quick review of the history of the last King and High Priest of the Jews, the anointed King/High Priest, Antigonus. A king/priest who was bound to a cross, crucified and beheaded by Marc Antony.

'Paul' had no need for the gospel JC storyline for his heavenly JC construct. What goes on in 'heaven' is a reflection, a parallel, of what goes on in the earthly 'temple'. The only difference, the context. An earthly context in which the crucifixion and beheading of Antigonus would have no value, no resurrection value. However, within a new context, the new spiritual 'heavenly Jerusalem', a parallel 'crucifixion' could have value ascribed to it. Within that context of 'heavenly Jerusalem', all things are possible - like rebirth/resurrection. Moral of the story - physical crucifixion is an abomination - spiritual/intellectual 'crucifixion' can have value ascribed to it - rebirth/resurrection. What has value in one context can fail to have value in another context. 'Paul' made the switch to where 'crucifixion' can be of value - within a purely intellectual context. (old ideas being prepared to die for their 'friends' - no greater love had no man etc.......the greatest Love Story - with apologies to aa5874....)

The gospel pseudo-historical crucifixion of JC story? A fusing of history and theological/spiritual/philosophical ideas.

(And no, I'm not saying 'Paul' preceded the JC story: History is what it is; the Antigonus history preceded 'Paul' - and that history, in and of itself, is capable of being the well-spring of many an oral tradition/myth re a crucified messiah/anointed figure)

dog-on

Very few ideas happen in a vaccuum, I suppose.

avi

Hence, my argument, that where we read "cristou" in the Greek texts, we can be certain that we have encountered interpolation.

In other words, we need, in my opinion, to discontinue imagining that the Jews living 2000 years ago were as uneducated as we are.

Now that we do understand the distinction, i.e. that "cristou" does NOT EQUAL MESSIAH, and that Jesus was never annointed, (neither in history, nor in myth) then the next step is to ask why we think that "Paul" was authored BEFORE the Gospels? How does uncertainty regarding the date of original authorship of Paul's epistles, (i.e. once acknowledging the existence of overt interpolation) affect one's understanding of the fundamental tenets of Christianity?

avi

Solo

Perhaps, there is a way to understand the silences and they indeed would be different for the first and second century writers.

Paul had no interest in the historical figure and whatever was being traditioned about him. For Paul, Jesus' earthly life had simple utility of a sacrificial offering. God made him a sin who knew no sin. Paul would not admit stories about the apostolic figure of the Jerusalem messianists. Paul never "joined" the Jacobite assembly. His collections for the poor saints I read as a determined effort to obtain recognition from James for his own, independent ministry. By all appearances, that recognition never came.

After the gospel of Mark, and even more so after the re-write of Mark by Matthew by the post-70 Nazarenes who accepted Paul's teaching of the cross, the epistolary silences on the gospel events, are probably due to two factors:

1) the scripts were cherished as sacred and were not to be revealed to the outsiders;

2) the inner core of the communities organized around the synoptic narratives knew that the gospel 'events' were allegorical ciphers which were not to be read historically but theologically, as revealed mystery.

Ad 1) Jesus, in the sermon on the Mount admonishes not to give dogs what is holy and not to throw pearls before swine (Mt 7:6). This is interesting when related to Mark's key verses 4:10-4:12, and the mysterious prologue add-on in Luke with its diēgēsis not of things that happened in 'Jesus life', but things that 'are fulfilled among us'.

The secrecy also relates - I believe - to the 'power' the written gospel itself was held to have in exorcising demons (i.e. stabilizing the mental ill) among the literate, which the earliest communities would have protected against wide circulation, lest its curative effect should be compromised. (Mark's gospel had 'a magical' property in that the narration suggests a cycle which ends in the spirit departure. The success stemmed from the 'predictive effect' of such a story on someone experiencing great joy and elation, with delusions of grandeur and then ending up in horrendeous pangs of persecution and annihilation psychosis.) The stories about Simon Magus were more or less inspired by these early concerns for the keeping secrets of the trade from competition.

Ad 2) Bultmann thought that the 'appearances' of Jesus post-mortem originated in the disciples' visions they associated with their fallen leader. My take on it is except for a fraction, the business of recalling Jesus' pronouncements was a mimesis of oracular contact with the "risen" or "living" phantasma of Jesus. There were very few sayings in circulation which went back to Jesus himself. The visions were not what the followers of the historical figure reported but were planted in them by the later church. Matthew started this process by re-working the Transiguration so that Peter, John and James received the vision and the shekinah. But Mark's intent was transparently to deny the vision of transfigured Jesus to them, as it is a pneumatic event, which in Mark's community specifically related to the experience of resurrected Jesus (as per 2 Cr 3:18). In Mark, Peter & Co receive only the exterior of Jesus. But the glorious transfiguration (into Lord) is evidently an internal event. Peter thinks Jesus speaks to him and the Zebs (9:6) of Moses and Elijah. He is confused and frightened because Jesus seems out of reach. 9:8 looks like a later gloss which was to re-align the story to Matthew and Luke.

The point that I am making is that at the earliest stratum the overriding concern was for access to the "oracles of the Lord" and whose representations of the Lord thus were authoritative. In Mark it was the Spirit and the Spirit only. In Matthew and Luke, the twelve apostles' authority is key. In John, it's a mess. An interesting window on the processing of the memories of the Lord, was open by the Pseudoclementines which more or less give the game of "oracles" away.

What the writer describes here, is a revelatory process known to many artists, scientists and engineers in which creative work is continued in one's sleep and becomes 'available' on sudden middle-of-the-night waking. For comparison, here is a description by August von Kekule, of his strange dream in 1865 which revealed to him the 'secret' of molecular binding in organic compounds:

So, at least as the writer of the Recognitions was concerned, Peter was dreaming up his memories of the Lord's words, and Peter felt no shame admitting it.


But what changed in the third century, when gospel events (other than the miracles) are quoted more or less freely and refered to as historical happenings even by the church luminaries like Tertullian and Origen ? I would say that it was the transformation of the original Markan 'ruse' (taken over by Matt and Luke) of narrating psychic events, manifests of the spirit, theological arguments, and community moral maxims as stories about Jesus of Nazareth. What was once 'ruse' designed to fool outsiders into mis-reading the text, became what Origen called the 'somatic', or, literal meaning of the gospel. The original audience (in Mark especially) was restricted and the text was not to be deciphered except by the initiates. But as the church grew and the spirit was driven out in favour of apostolic authority, what was originally designed as the food for infidel fools appears to have become legitimate level of reading for the church rank-and-file.

Best,
Jiri

aa5874

Well, you seem to be wrong.

In the MYTH fables of gLuke and gJohn Jesus was ANOINTED.

Luke
Joh 11:2 - So in Myth fables of the NT, Jesus was indeed anointed.

Toto

I have to ask: is English your first language? We seem to have a communication problem.

The term manipulation implies some sort of underhanded deceptive practice. But everything here is out in the open.

There are people who claim that the gospel Jesus might be myth, but that there still was a historical Jesus. However, if you look at any academic who writes on the historical Jesus, they start off by explaining that the only source for this historical Jesus is the gospels. There are a few other historical sources that they might use to convince themselves that Jesus existed, but there is no significant amount of reliable information in those sources. The historical Jesus is constructed from the gospels.

We had a long thread that Chaucer started, in which he tried to claim that he could establish the existence of Jesus without the gospels, but his claim was largely based on the interpolated section in Josephus.

This doesn't make sense. The Romans crucified a lot of people. Why was the death of Jesus theologically significant, if not because of something in his life or his teaching?

aa5874

What INSIGHT are you talking about?

I only PRESENTED what is WRITTEN over 1600 years ago. The CRUCIFIXION LOVE stories in gJohn and the Pauline writings are also KNOWN to Scholars.

People here are making UNSUBSTANTIATED claims without taking into account that the very Gospels on which they rely CONTRADICT them.

Toto

To archibald:

This thread is becoming unmanageable.

There have been numerous threads on Burridge - search the index. Burridge was a theologian, and his thesis that the gospels have the form of ancient biographies has been somewhat demolished here by Joe Wallack and by Neil Godfrey on his blog. See Are the Gospels Really Biographies? Outlining and Questioning Burridge and Second Thoughts on the Gospel of Mark as Biography.

You wanted to know why I thought Jesus was crucified. I do not think that we can show that Jesus existed, but if he was some sort of religious leader / wisdom teacher, I don't think he was crucified. I think the crucifixion in the gospel is a literary devise.