Agemegos

G'day

In what order were the elements of the Jesus story added to the written canon? If we sort the sources and redactions of sources into the sequence of their probable composition, and then note the order in which the several elements are attested, what is that order? Or if we take a Mythic Jesus postion, in what order did the elements accrete to the myth? Does this sequence tell a plausible story of the story, or are the elements first attested in a surprising sequence?

The earliest account we have is in the Letters of St Paul, right? In which the name 'Jesus' is used and there is mention of some sort of rebirth, but possibly a spiritual one or a Dreamtime event. What got attested (or added) next?

Regards,


Agemegos

robto

In the usual scholarly breakdown, we have:
40-55 AD: Q, Signs gospel, Paul, possibly G Thomas
65-75 AD: Mark
80-90 AD: Matt, Luke
85-100 AD: John

with the other NT docs sprinkled in there. (2 Pet is sometimes placed as late as 180 AD.)

Even at the earliest times, the diversity is considerable, but the general development seems to be in the direction of increasingly legendary and mythical elements as time goes on.

It seems to me a clear weakness of the mythicist view that there is no explanation of how the different elements of the tradition could have developed from a mythical Christ. Who introduced the human Jesus, at what point, and for what reason? And what is the evidence that it happened in that order?

Clivedurdle

http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=147693

Post 13

And let's wreck my street cred by mentioning Nazarenus as a key source!

RUmike

Not only that, but most scholars contend that Q was written sometime around 50-70. This means that Q might be just as early as the earliest letter of Paul (1 Thess). If true, this pretty much destroys the idea that the earliest writings about Jesus had no information about his earthly life.

Charioteer

There are plenty of essays on infidels and elswhere that offer the possible explanations you're looking for. Also, even if there were a lack of theoretical explanations (which there isn't), it would not be a "clear weakness" of the mythicist view at all. The entire strength of the mythicist view is the lack of evidence for an historical Jesus.

Are you actually claiming that if the Q document were written as early as two to four decades after the alleged death of Jesus, that it would "destroy" the idea that the earliest writers had no information about Jesus' life? By the same logic, I should be able to write my "eye witness" accounts of the Vietnam Conflict (I'm 31 years old).

Vorkosigan

Q does not contain any information about Jesus' life, RUmike, as the narrative of Jesus' life is a fiction invented by the writer of Mark. In any case Q does not exist. Hehehehehehe.

We actually discuss these questions a lot, and each one has been answered. One problem is not that there is no explanation, but rather, too many, and some not compatible. With the exception of Atwill (Jesus as fraud by ranking Flavians) and Carotta (Jesus is big Oops! On Caesar story), broadly speaking, mythicists see a long evolution from a Mythical Savior figure to a historicized savior.

The synoptics themselves preserve a summary of the path from unearthly to earthly savior. The earliest one, Mark, shows Jesus as an idealized believer who is an adopted Son of God. There is no history or biographical data, no explanation of how Jesus' character came to be, no presentation of his life as a genuine life. By the time we get to Luke we have a faux biography that ensonces Jesus in the reign of Tiberius, offers a glimpse of his youth, provides the circumstances of his birth, and so on. Luke developed the fictional narrative of Mark into the historicized savior.

The reason this was done was by the second century, when these documents were produced, the competing factions of the Church all drew legitimacy from descent through an earlier apostle, using ideas handed down privately from master to follower. The proto-orthodox faction, which was just one faction among many, hit upon the strategy of legitimating itself by creating a faux history that united its "Petrine" and "Pauline" wings. The result was Luke and Acts, the first of which neutralized the heretical tendencies of Mark's tale, the second of which provided an epic for the early Church that legitimated it by projecting it backward into history.

The slanders of the historicist crowd are actually correct. It is a debate between creationists -- people who believe that it all began with a bang at an identifiable point -- and evolutionists -- people who think it evolved slowly over time and had many roots and branches. Of course, they simply have the creationist-evolutionist reading backwards, is all.

Vorkosigan

Clivedurdle

Maybe it is time to write and publish the mythicist text book and/or reader, with chapters by each of the key authors, summarising all the various strands of the arguments, including the Marxist ones and those not in English! A collective effort, like the New Testament and the medieval art schools!

RUmike

I never said Q is an "eye witness" account or that it is necessarily reliable. My point is we may have a writing with the teachings of Jesus possibly as early as Paul's letters. But the mythicists constantly say that our earliest writings know nothing of an earthly Jesus or his teachings. Well, that's only if you consider Paul to be the earliest writings. But like I said, it's possible Q was just as early, and such a statement by mythicists may indeed be false then. Of course you may not believe that Q existed so early, or existed at all for that matter.

Do you have any evidence to support this assertion?

You can't say that we have NO biographical data. We learn at least that he was from Nazareth, had 4 brothers and at least 2 sisters, and was baptized by John. Other things, such as his reputation as a drunkard, the accusation of casting demons out in the name of Beelzebub, and his parents thinking him crazy are not very flattering things to make up about an idealized believer.

Clivedurdle

Have you read any fictional accounts of heroes, say Hercules? All this drunken stuff, killing kids is quite typical!

http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-08/anf08-72.htm

Charioteer

If this were all you were trying to say then I'd be compelled to not even argue, but this isn't how I read your last post. You made the claim that if Q was written between 50 - 70 AD then that would destroy the mythicist view. Not only would this not "destroy" the mythicist view; it wouldn't even damage said view. It also appears that there are some misconceptions about the Q document that could be taken from your post. For example, by reading your post I could deduce that: (1) Scholars have physical access to Q. (2) Q is a narrative of the life of a physical Jesus. (3) The mythicist view is dependent on the dating of the Q document.

None of those are true. Ofcourse you did not possitively assert any of them, but if I were not at all educated on the matter they would be easy assumptions to make from your post.