Peter Kirby

Visit my historical Jesus Theories page if you need ideas for this thread. The idea is to put forward an idea--without focusing too much on supporting evidence--for how the Jesus story originated.

The rules are...

(1) No rebuttals.
(2) No parody posts, please.
(3) A minimum of 200 words developing the theory, and a maximum of 1000.
(4) You may please indicate whether your theory is 'new' to this thread or a revision or addendum of an existing theory. (To make it easier to lump very similar theories together.)
(5) There are NO RULES of scientific or logical support for your theory. We will get into that later.

In the second stage, we will focus on the gathering of discriminants that help us to promote certain theories or sets of theories above others with reason. For example, the discriminant of archaeological and mss. finds suggests against a medieval origin of the Jesus meme.

It is okay, if you yourself do not believe the theory that you explain. It is enough to put forward a theory.

Finally, please participate in the early census on where people stand concerning the "big four" classes of Jesus theories, as I see them. I'd like to see how that evolves as our study progresses.

kind regards,
Peter Kirby

mountainman

Jesus was originally an imperial idea, in the mind of Constantine,
about a being who didn't actually touch down on earth but who
commanded alot of respect in the literature published by that
Roman Emperor circa 330 CE (Constantine Bible).

Peter Kirby

Addendum/Modification: The same theory, but in the mind of Constantine and Eusebius, this being did live on earth in the time of the emperor Tiberius.

(From a theoretical standpoint, I don't see how you get away with lumping yourself with E.J. Doherty rather than G.A. Wells.)

kind regards,
Peter Kirby

aa5874

I speculate that Jesus Christ was the concept of one person that was developed some time after 70CE as an alternative to the religion of the Jews in order to create a universal religion.

Joseph Smith and the mormon religion parallels the development of Christianity, in my opinion.

Peter Kirby

Please observe the rule to develop a theory in 200 words or more. (Perhaps someone could kick us off right by summarizing the views of Earl J. Doherty?)

kind regards,
Peter Kirby

Diogenes the Cynic

I voted for the second option as marginally more believable (to me) than the third. I tend to waver on historicity but I think the independently attested sayings traditions are better evidence than mythicists give them credit for.

Peter Kirby

Thank you Diogenes for your vote and explanation.

I still need a first candidate for a full fledged theory with 200 words or more developing it.

The four options are classes of theory, not themselves theories.

kind regards,
Peter Kirby

Diogenes the Cynic

Sorry about the terseness of my response but I really don't have a strong personal theory about it. I don't think we have enough data to do that. I will amplify my point about the common sayings tradition to say that I think it contains a core which is not only multiple attested but which looks stylistically and philosphically consistent (to me) with having arisen from a single author.

Peter Kirby

Thank you again Diogenes.

This type of commment seems to fall more under the category of discriminant among theories. If it's alright with everyone here, I will table discussion of it until we get into the second stage of this.

(i.e.: Please don't sound off against Diogenes. Get to work on those theories!)

kind regards,
Peter Kirby

Diogenes the Cynic

Let me try this out. It's something I've been kicking around in my head for a few years but haven't ever written about on the internet. It's not really a formal theory so much as a speculative hypothesis for what could have happened. Some of it's based on ideas from Crossan and Ehrman. Some of it's informed by studies I did in college on Eastern mystics as well as what Stark and Bainbridge call the "psychopathological model" of cult formation. Here goes nothing:

A Galilean peasant becomes a follower of John the Baptist. Initially he is convinced that a strong adherence to the Law will help to bring the advent of the "Son of Man" and the ensuing Messianic kingdom. Somewhere along the line he becomes disillusioned or disappointed with the movement he is involved in (perhaps the arrest and execution of JBap? Perhaps something else). This precepitates a personal emotional crisis which, combined with religious fervor, brings about a psychotic episode leading to an experience of "revelation" or cognitive/emotional resolution to his crisis (ala the Stark and Bainbridge model). I use the word "psychotic" (as S&B do), but one could also use refer to it as a "religious" or "mystical" experience.

At this point, our hero decides that he has been taking the wrong tack with the Law and that what he really needs to do is adhere to the compassionate spirit of the law rather than the legalistic letter. He begins his movement. He is charasimatic enough to attract devoted followers (a characteristic which is often found in mystics). He is an interesting and subversive speaker but perhaps more significantly than that, he takes his movement directly to the most disenfranchised and ritually "unclean" people in his culture. He may perform spiritual "healings" or even exorcisms (both of those things are still done in third world, shamanistic cultures. I've seen it). He institutes common dining practices and breaks other codes of ritual purity (ala Crossan's ideas of "open commensality" and "radical egalitarianism").

He begins to speak more of the coming of the Son of Man and the eventual "Kingdom of Heaven."

After a while, he becomes more and more obsessed with the idea that the Temple is an illigitimate barrier to God and that the entire institution is both exploitive and useless. Ultimately he ends up engaging in some kind of symbolic attack on the Temple, perhaps actually saying out loud that he will "destroy" it. This act comes as a shock to his disciples who weren't expecting it and don't know what to make of it. Ehrman thinks that Jesus may have believed the act would bring down the Son of Man and the apocalyse. Maybe he's right.

The incident occurs during Passover, creates a ruckus in the Temple courtyards and Jesus is arrested and taken away for a summary crucifixion so as to avoid any chance of a riot. His disciples scatter and flee back to Galilee.

After that....

That's where I have the most trouble. It appears that some time later (maybe years later) some of his disciples claim that Jesus has "appeared" to them in some way. In visions, maybe or dreams? I don't know. I also don't know what they thought he was saying to them or what Paul meant by the "500." All that stuff is still a conundrum to me. We don't know how the Jerusalem Pillars saw Jesus or how they perceived his relationship to the Messiah. It does seem to me that someone at least tried to preserve some of his sayings.

Then Paul came along.

That's kind of where I'm at right now.

I'm probably going to get lit up but my goal isn't really to argue that I can prove any of this but to offer it as a hypothesis for a Historical Jesus which at least has some base plausibility and isn't directly contradicted by the available data.