Originally Posted by Toto

Mark Goodacre's blog links to an interesting discussion (with some familiar names) on the ChristianOrigins yahoogroup on the role of evangelicals in the NT profession.

Start Here

Several posts down:

Originally Posted by K.L. Noll

...
Therefore, I'd like to change the thread and submit two theses for discussion
and deconstruction. These two theses are my response to the kind of claims
that, apparently, were being made by some participants at the infamous SBL
session.


First thesis:
By Christian accounts, the historical Jesus was a part of the movement we now
know retrospectively as early Christianity for, at most, three years. Probably,
the historical Jesus was involved for a shorter period than that. No matter how
charismatic a fellow might be, it is improbable that a fellow involved for so
short a period exerted much of an influence on the movement he started. Both
intuitively, and by comparison with analogous historical situations, one can
conclude that the image of Jesus was shaped by the movement, and not vice-versa.
Therefore, from a historian's point of view, Jesus is not very significant to a
study of Christian Origins. Focus ought to remain on those who are known to
have influenced the movement for an extensive period of time (e.g., Paul,
perhaps James the brother of the lord, the various authors of early gospels,
etc.). These people created various Jesuses to suit their needs.

Second thesis:
I submit that some of the things that Paul wrote were later attributed to Jesus,
even though they originated with Paul (e.g., "passing judgment on your brother "
Rom 14, cf. Matt 7 and passim; declaring all foods clean, Rom 14, cf. Mark 7;
the "a thief in the night" saying in 1 Thess 5, etc.). Also, Paul's soteriology
became, I submit, the foundation of later alleged sayings of Jesus, such as Mark
10:45 and 14:22-25. It is, in my view, significant that Paul is silent about
alleged miracles performed by Jesus, yet Paul claims that he himself performs
miracles (2 Cor 12, Gal 3). Therefore, I submit that the image of a
Jesus-miracle-worker was invented post-Paul, and shaped by the prior image of
Paul as a miracle worker.


Again, these two theses are a response to the previous thread's description of
the events at SBL. I have articulated them in a very stark way, absent nuance.
I encourage a response and will be most interested to learn what others think of
these possibilities.

Originally Posted by Joe Banks

This strikes me as rather similar to the mythicist case, but without the controversial part: that Jesus was entirely mythical. Sure Kroll suggests Jesus was historical and was part of a movement for 1-3 yrs, but really the Jesus stories originated later, and it was the Gospel writers and Paul who created Jesus as it suited them. It isn't much of a stretch to say that perhaps all of the stories came later and there may not have been anyone historical to inspire them.

Or is it a big stretch? Is it, in a general sense, that last step that is so vigorously opposed by so many NT scholars?