Arch

Clivedurdle have you ever put a puzzle together?

Clivedurdle

Yes, I was only proposing a possible objection. I have great difficulty putting this puzzle together in the shape of a real Jesus!

show_no_mercy

I never liked this argument. Everyone who always proposes it (not saying you are) seems to want their cake and eat it too. They claim that we're all looking at something from different points of view and thus have an incomplete picture of things; yet at the same time say that their particular vantage point is right.

Arch

The idea of "Q" material and the formation of the four gospels has intrigued me off and on for quite some time. I first noticed that something was "up" while in vacation bible school as a youngster. I remember thinking, "Why do these guys get to plagairize each other?"

Sorry I can't add anything to the discussion, I need to study up again.

Carry on please.

avi

The original post hypothesized multiple genuine or fictitious persons representing the single figure, Jesus of Nazareth. That certainly seems reasonable in view of the many contradictory themes surrounding this mythical giant. On the other hand, perhaps our present day confusion on this question relates not to multiple "jesus'", but to multiple accounts of the same fictitious or genuine person.

Consider, as an illustration, the birth of Jesus. Even this simple topic has multiple theories, explanations, derivations, and creators. Constantine? Hmm. Well, yes, in 325 he did proclaim the 25 December as a feast day in honor of Jesus' birth, but, was Constantine the first to assign Jesus' birth to that date? Apparently not.

I am not disputing the validity of a concept of multiple humans, as expressed in the original post. I simply propose a less complex, alternative focus: one single person, whether real or imaginary, about whom there is such a paucity of credible data from which to reconstruct fundamental aspects of his life, that we offer plausible theories of multiple individuals to explain the jumbled "facts" appearing in such a contradictory fashion.

A person who is ill, presenting to the clinic with multiple complaints may have multiple diseases, analogous to the suggestion in the OP. However, when possible, one seeks to find a single diagnosis to explain the disparate signs.

gentleexit

To quibble. Constantine said and did nothing about December 25th. The east and most Christians cared little for the birth of Jesus. They obsessed on the passion and the relationship of father and son. But your statement does illustrate how real figures accrue credit.

Sheshbazzar

Personally, I am quite persuaded that there never was any actual single individual.
I believe that following upon the long general acceptance of The Messiah type figure that was to come, several claims were presented that The Messiah had came, and that the prophesies were now fulfilled, or in process of being fully fulfilled and realised.
Out of this, several groups seeking after that new "Promised Land", saw in "Joshua the son of Nun" the type of The Anointed ("christ" inLXX Greek) that was The Messiah leading them into this new Promised Land, and that "Kingdom of Heaven" on earth as was promised in the Tanaka.
So "Joshua The Messiah" ("Jesus The Christ" in Greek) was an idealised conception of the OT Joshua, this new "Joshua/Jesus' "history" and "life story" were fabricated from midrashim on various LXX scriptures, many carefully, yet artificially contrived and arranged into the NT's chiasims.
As all this was being performed in a Hellenistic environment and idiom, many "pagan" elements from Hellenistic language, philosophy and religious thought and practice, became thoroughly syncretised and embedded.

These various cultic groups all operated independently for several generations, all building upon the same theme, yet developing a wide variety of views about interpretation, doctrine, and practice, and of exactly what was required for acceptance of membership in each faction.
Not "Christianity" or "Messianism" but multiple "Christianities" and "Messianisms" co-existing, yet competing for converts.

It wasn't until the middle of the third century that certain basic "tenets of the faith" became recognised by church leaders as representing "the orthodox view", and the books were "narrowed down" as to what was to be recieved as being canonical "Scripture", with the consequent rejection, stigmatizing and outing of other "heretics", heretical views, versions and writings.

The church's orthodox leaders came to prize conformity, and the consequent power of subjugating the entire church under themselves. And by the means of Constantine, and the employment of the Imperial Roman military machine, all non-conformity was marginalised and extremely penalised.

gentleexit

Two questions come to mind. IYO, were these "Christianities" mainly diasporan Jewish ("bad Jews trying to be good Greeks") before the mid third century? And also, why "Orthodoxy", that fixation with "my way or the high way"? Where did that attitude come from?

Sheshbazzar

The only known source that we have to investigate this from are the writings of "Paul". By them, it appears to me, that the form of doctrine he was preaching was directed at, and appealed primarily to the Gentiles that associated with the synagogues of the Diaspora, the so-called "Ger Toshavim" "strangers of the gate", who were involved in the teachings, doctrines, and social life of Judaism without becoming full converts, by undergoing circumcision, or taking on the heavier obligations of observances that were required of those who chose to live "under The Law".
The Jews that heard his preaching were only of a secondary consideration to him and to his cause, as his Gospel was directed to the Gentiles, he does often digress into explanations and interpretations of Scripture only to answer the charges and challenges of the Jewish audience that resist his gentile oriented preaching.
These are the Jews and Jewish proselytes who viewed the "ger toshav" as only a intermediary step on the way to full conversion, whereas under Paul's teaching remaining in "uncircumcision" was a Scripturally approved and acceptable permanent and even desirable state.
Such an approach was unbearable to those who were convinced that Gentiles, to worship the El of Israel properly needed to take on the whole "burden" of The Law -thereby becoming Jews (and in so doing of course, place themselves under their tutelage and control)
Paul's Messianic "Freedom" message utterly and royally fouled up all their plans and efforts to make proselytes out of all interested gentiles.
I would imagine, and there seems evidence for it, that many Hellenised and marginally observant Jews of the Diaspora were also attracted to Paul's message, although he was careful not to make these the focus of his preaching.
If they accepted what he was saying and "came over" to his side, he was more than willing to accept them. If they didn't, he left the preaching of The Gospel to them, to those Jerusalem brethren who's form of Gospel was especially oriented towards those who were of The Circumcision, but also accepted and believed in Joshua The Messiah, while yet remaining faithful to most of the observances of The Law. (The Sect of The Nazarenes)

In the first four centuries CE there were many cults competing for members, the church's hierarchy understood that to compete effectively, they would need to maintain a distinct identity, while yet incorporating such ideas as would appeal to the widest spectrum of society. Syncretism was their bait, Christianity became the something for everyone religion by adopting and incorporating and "Christianising" whatever was popular, that was not directly in opposition to its core teachings. The old pagan "fisherman", "Good Shepherd", "Earth Mother", and "Dualism" cults were simply absorbed.
Then there was a consolidation and closing of the ranks in an opposition to all remaining that could not be absorbed and syncretised.

This "my way, or the highway" mentality still permeates most Christian denominations. As anyone who has ever attempted to significantly influence "church policy" soon is made aware of, by being invited to "move on down the road" to this or that (despised) denomination that might be open to a "different" line of thought or of interpretation.

gentleexit

My issue with this is where did "Paul"'s churches go? Why for example was Egypt such a big player (in a small religion)? Why were so many Christians and their thought in Alexandria. I don't know if the tale of "Paul to the gentiles" and "Jerusalem church" makes sense, given how the Church seemed to actually grow. Was Alexandrian Christianity the big one left standing and if so, what were its roots? (This gets into what were the various Christianities)

But isn't the very existence of hierarchy the question? Why did Christianity develop it when, for example, their peer cults didn't have such notions. Yes, different philosophical sects quarreled but hardly in the way the Christians did.