maryhelena

Well said Ted! In a nutshell this is the main point of contention between the Doherty type mythicism and Wells. Wells is seeking, however inadequately, to retain a human element in his reconstruction of the gospel JC figure. True, Wells cannot supply historical evidence for his Galilean preacher figure, but, after many years of writing on the JC problems, has come to realize that the JC story is not all mythological. In other words; flesh and blood, historical realities, have played a part in the creation of the JC gospel figure. Doherty, as far as I'm aware, works from the idea that Paul's cosmic JC figure has been historicized in the gospel JC. (however see my footnote)
So, while Wells cannot provide historical evidence for his Galilean preacher figure - his point is that we cannot discard the possibility that historical figures have played a part in the creation of the gospel JC figure. That there was no historical gospel JC does not translate into no historical figures being relevant to the gospel writers and relevant for the creation of their symbolic or mythological gospel JC figure.


The main point that Wells is offering is that his Galilean preacher was not crucified. Thus, if there was a charismatic figure living during the gospel date stamp, and that figure was found to be inspirational for the gospel writers - then psychologically speaking, the followers of such a figure were doing what comes naturally - people are drawn to such figures today as back then. People are inspired by other people. We all leave our footprint upon those we come in contact with, for good or for ill. Bottom line, it’s not just great deeds than an individual does but how that individual is comprehended, viewed by others, that is going to have lasting, staying power - long after the charismatic figure has died. The true leader must light a spark in others. No, not giving them cool-aid to drink to cloud their senses, but awakening their own potential for great things.

Ted, willingly dying for a cause is heavy stuff. Yes, people do that - but mounting the barricades brings with it tears as well as joy. If, Wells is right, and I happen to think he is, that his Galilean preacher figure was not crucified, ie an element, a part, of the gospel JC story is reflecting a non-crucified figure, then the element dealing with a crucified figure would indicate that we are dealing with a composite JC figure. And rather than go with Wells that the two fused figures represent his Galilean preacher and Paul’s cosmic Christ figure - I would stay with reality, with historical elements. Which means two historical figures are the primary elements in the creation of the gospel JC figure. One historical figure was crucified and the other historical figure lived out his days. The gospel JC is a composite, a fusing, of two historical figures.

(As to Paul’s cosmic Christ figure - Doherty is correct here - that is a heavenly, spiritual, intellectual context for this figure. The heavenly parallels the earthly - thus, two crucifixion stories in the NT. A position that would be illogical if one wants a historical JC. But with a symbolic or figurative JC - two crucifixion stories, earthly and heavenly, are possible - and would go a long way in overriding all the back and forth as to where JC has been crucified....

The Pauline JC crucifixion is heavenly, spiritual, intellectual. The rulers of that spiritual world crucify JC. In ancient terms that could have been interpreted as taking place in some sort of real out there in space other worldly sphere. A modern understanding would suggest a more individual intellectual world – our mental world, the world of our mind. It’s in that world, a purely intellectual world where ‘crucifixion’, death, of old outdated ideas can have great value, salvation value. ‘Resurrection’ deals with the fact that even new ideas owe something to what has gone before in the sphere of human intellectual evolution. Obviously there would be some overlap between the gospel JC and Paul's cosmic christ figure - resurrection would be the no-man's land...)

The position of Wells has more to offer in the psychological stakes. People don’t like to believe they have been taken for a ride. And it makes no sense to go the conspiracy route. Misunderstanding along the way are to be expected in understanding a storyline with such a long history. Yes, to tell someone that the gospel JC is mythological or symbolic, is a big deal. Knocking down the historicists position is simple because they can’t supply any historical evidence for their assumption. But you know what, destruction should be a creator’s prerogative - if one can’t provide a reasoned alternative one should not be so eager to knock down what is there. And that alternative has to have a measure of flesh and blood for it to be viewed as an alternative position. Paul’s cosmic Christ is cold comfort and cannot replace the heart warming pull of the gospel JC. Ah, but together - the spirit and the heart can indeed be uplifted....

-----------------------

Footnote: http://jesuspuzzle.humanists.net/rfset5.htm#Mary
I don't know if Earl is still prepared to uphold this position - because if he does then arguments re where JC is crucified become nonsensical - ie such a position allows for two NT crucifixion stories - one on earth and one in heaven....So, Earl can have his heavenly spirit realm crucifixion for JC - but he cannot then deny that a historical crucifixion was relevant to the creation of the gospel JC figure.

Doug Shaver

Lots of skeptics would agree with you on that point, and I think that accounts for much of the resistance from people who would otherwise be receptive to the ahistoricist hypothesis.

I for one strongly disagree. It is not the case that if Jesus didn't exist, then everyone who thought he did for all these centuries was some kind of fool. They were not fools, any more than pre-Copernican scholars were fools for thinking Ptolemy had gotten things right, or than scientists before Michelson-Morley were fools for thinking a luminiferous ether had to exist.

The time may come when it can be well argued that no reasonable person can believe in a historical Jesus. That time is certainly not here yet, and it will almost certainly not come within the next few generations.

All of our intellectual ancestors, ever since the gospels came to be widely regarded by Christians as factual accounts of their religion's origins, had every epistemic right to believe that Jesus was a real person, quite regardless of whether they gave any credit to the story about his rising from the dead. It was and remains to this day an entirely reasonable belief. Those of us who question it are embracing a new paradigm. We dare not sneer at those of our contemporaries who are not ready to adopt it, much less at those of our predecessors who were not even offered the opportunity of considering it for adoption.

Doug Shaver

I have not reach much of Acharya's writings, because the little I have read did not make me want to read any more.

That said, it's my understanding that although Acharya denies Jesus' historicity, she and Doherty/Wells don't agree on much of anything else about how Christianity got started.

MCalavera

You're right. I just read up further on what those two men believe. My bad.

TedM

I agree that believers in a historical Jesus aren't fools, but would (if Jesus never lived) say they have been 'made out to be fools'.. I do not think the myth hypothesis could exist without deliberate doctoring of texts and deliberate dishonest portrayals of Jesus in the common documents (mostly gospels) both Christians and believers accept as at least somewhat historical.. I do not think the transition from ahistorical to historical could have taken place without deliberate dishonesty. That is what I find offensive.

Toto

Your feelings of offense are misplaced, and will get in the way of understanding the issues.

There are a few debaters who think that Jesus was a deliberate fiction for some nefarious purpose - mountainman, Joe Atwill.

Most mythicists disagree, and see the historical figure as an evolutionary outgrowth of natural human processes. Some believers even prefer the mythical Jesus.

I don't think the Swiss were offended when historians decided that William Tell was a historicized myth who never actually existed.

TedM

I can see a case being made for combining a charismatic figure, but I have a harder time believing that the demise of that charismatic character would get so botched up in the history. Further, the very fact that he was charismatic would increase the odds of a dramatic demise--charismatic people arouse emotions, so the idea of crucifixion to me makes a lot of sense. The shorter-lived his ministry and the less well-known he was, the more likely we'd see a mixture of details on the pseudo-historical accounts too. For me then, what we actually see -- multiple conflicting accounts of a crucified charismatic leader -- is more consistent with an actual man who wasn't well known but who was charismatic and died that way, than an actual man who was very well known--enough to get integrated into Paul's Christ--but who never was actually crucified.

No where does Paul clearly indicate that Jesus was crucified by beings in a spiritual world. The passage you are probably referencing from 1 Cor 2 is IMO nonsensical in that light, as it would involve a switch from a discussion about the wisdom or lack thereof of MEN to the LACK of wisdom of the spiritual BEINGS in the spiritual world followed by a switch back to discussing the wisdom of MEN again. Even the OT verse Paul applies to the rulers is referring to the wisdom/knowledge of human MEN--not demon rulers in some spiritual world. IOW the context would have to be distorted in an unnatural way without explanation by Paul!

For me his works as a whole cannot reasonably be interpreted as Doherty does because Paul references a flesh and blood human Jesus over 90 times and simply does not provide the qualifications that would be needed or expected by anyone then or now to support this heavenly man concept. Paul's authentic epistles plus Colossians consist of a total of 1589 verses. In my bible the average full page has about 22 verses. Therefore Paul's epistles consist of only about 72 pages!

Despite the fact that Paul wasn't writing to non-believers or to people he needed to explain who Jesus was to, there are 92 different verses that reference Jesus in ways that 'sound human'. That's more than one reference per page. 31 of these refer to Jesus' death with no further detail. Another 27 include further detail associated with Jesus' death. The remaining 34 or so do not pertain to his death. IF Paul's Jesus lived and was crucified in some realm other than earth then the silences in his writings to that effect are a glaring omission of amazing proportion that can only be explained by multiple doctoring of his works. Such doctoring is IMO a deficient explanation and certainly doesn't deal with the actual evidence.

TedM

If someone is deliberately dishonest toward you, wouldn't you be offended? That's all I'm saying. IF it truly was an evolutionary development from myth to history then there is nothing to be offended by. What I am saying is that I don't think that was the case; therefore I would be offended personally and for all those who were duped.

GakuseiDon

Although the outcomes are the same (no historical Jesus) and there are similarities, their theories are quite different.

Both believe in a Jesus constructed from two main traditions: a "Galilean" tradition (represented as one coming out from a group of itinerant Galilean preachers) and a "Jerusalem" one (represented by a group focused on messianic beliefs and the death of Christ). There are historicists who push a similar view, except while they think the two traditions were inspired by the same person, Wells and Doherty think they were inspired by separate groups about different people/entities whose stories were eventually merged by aMark.

Wells believes that the hypothetical Q document is about an actual Galilean preacher who lived in the first half of the First Century, while Wells' Paul believed in a "Jesus Christ" who lived on earth in the past, possibly 200 years before. The Galilean preacher was probably not called Jesus nor crucified. The passion story in gMark comes from the Pauline side, the sayings and actions from the Q side.

Doherty believes that the Q document represents a group of itinerant Galilean preachers who claimed to perform miracles, preached an end times message about the Son of Man, and incurred the hostility of the religious establisment. These preachers at some point devised a figure to represent their thoughts and the actions of their group. Doherty's Paul believed in a celestial being who was crucified in a celestial realm in the indefinite past. As with Wells, Doherty believes that the passion story in gMark comes from the Pauline side, the sayings and actions from the Q side.

In my opinion, Doherty's theories fail since there is no evidence for such beliefs, especially for his views of pagan beliefs (it's unfortunate that so much is focused on Paul in this regard, since Doherty's views on the pagan side are all too often assumed to be correct.) There are too many implausible claims that remain unsupported, in my very humble opinion.

On the other hand, there is nothing inherently implausible about Wells' model.

But are you happy with that? It sounds like you are saying it doesn't matter what theory is being proposed, as long as you get the outcome that is consistent with your beliefs. That almost sounds like [censored].

maryhelena

Ted, I'm not about to make a plea for Doherty's position - but just as a matter of interest, here is what Wells had to say:

Apart from that - Ted, there is no way under heaven that the gospel JC figure can be historical. Yes, such a figure could have been a real flesh and blood figure - ie a crucified preacher that upset the Jews - but the jump cannot be made from that possibility to historicity. So, christians, and others, who want to uphold a real flesh and blood gospel JC do so without historical support for their position. Historical support that, because of the nature of their claim, can never be forthcoming. A nobody preacher is of no interest to history back then or now. And in the search for early christian origins such a nobody preacher figure is a non-starter. Useless. That millions of people believe in the assumed historicity of the gospel JC means nothing in the broader picture of intellectual evolution. There is no safe place in our intellectual world just as there is no safe place in our physical world. Both are subject to the unrelenting forces of change and chance. The forces of nature can devastate our physical environment. Our intellectual environment, our mental picture of the world, is subject to our intellect's constant striving for 'truth', for knowing, for searching for knowledge. A big difference is that while we can do nothing about the natural disasters to our environment - we so often fight with tooth and nail to prevent changes to our intellectual world. All the assumed historical gospel JC does is bring comfort to those who believe - but its a placebo effect only. There is nothing there but belief.