Infidelic

I am currently reading "Beyond Belief" by Pagels and I am hoping to get some opinions on how her view of the development of the Christian description of Jesus contrasts with that of Doherty.

As I understand Doherty, he postulates that Jesus was originally considered a spiritual being and he uses texts other than the four "main" gospels to support this. He further argues that it was only later that Jesus was described as an actual human who existed at one time on the Earth.

Pagels, on the other hand, seems to accept as a given that Jesus existed as an actual human being. Her take on the four "main" gospels seems to be that the Mark starts things off with a normal man who is "adopted" by god as something special upon his baptism. Matthew and Luke push this back to his birth. It is John, in Pagels view (or in my view of Pagels argument), where Jesus finally becomes a spiritual being, pushed all the way back to the "beginning," who takes a human form. Pagels argues that the Matthew, Mark, and Luke are read in light of John and that phrases in the first three that are ambiguous (son of man, etc.) in those gospels are read as establishing the spiritual nature of Jesus because of this.

So Doherty sees Jesus as originally spirit and becoming a man, while Pagels sees Jesus as originally a man and becoming spirit. I would like to see some comments on this and in particular on whether you think this flows only from their different perspectives on whether Jesus existed as a human or not.

Thanks and I'll hang up and listen for my answer.

Amaleq13

I've just finished Pagels' book and I think she makes a very good argument that GJohn is a reaction against specific "heretical" views of the time. I especially liked her discussion of the views held by early Church Fathers like Irenaeus. I also think you are correct that whether one starts out assuming Jesus to have been historical or not can have a significant impact on one's consideration of the evidence.

I would note, however, that Pagels doesn't really try to incorporate Paul's letters into the evidence considered. Even if we assume an HJ, Paul's theology is clearly not much different from that expressed in John. The pattern you describe is restricted to a consideration of the Gospels only. Bringing Paul into the picture has Jesus starting out as a pre-existent, spiritual entity which, of course, messes up the pretty pattern described above.

justsumner

Just remember, Elaine is a Xian and is writing from that viewpoint. There exists NO actually proven documents that date prior to around 170 AD that mention Jesus in any aspect, human or spiritual. It is, in my opinion (as well as that of a great many other agnostic/atheist scholars and writers) that the Jesus/son of man/son of God mythos is a very thorough case of historical revisionism by Tertulian, Eusebius, and other "Church fathers" to use a popular mythos of the combined Apollo, Mithra, et all into a unifying ideology to hold togeather a disparate Roman empire. If one looks at the writings of Paul in the earliest parchments, the Greek seems to be different than that of most 2nd century non-church based Greek writers. The verbage can be seen to have been changed from copy to copy as the ideas behind the Jesus idea evolve. This can be seen quite well in my coleague's book "The Christ Consipracy" as well as in my own work.

Doctor X

I doubt that the HJ/MJ discussion will ever be solved.

Most scholars started out [As Strawmen.--Ed.] a believer in something. Many remain believing in "something" whether it is the religion they started with or something "new." I think it is hard for them to consider that "no figure" existed.

However, even those who feel that one "must have" existed note that we have absolutely no idea what he said or did with any certainty. Each scholar can come up with a story that explains why certain traditions arose, but that is hardly "evidence."

So goeth it round and round.

--J.D.

Mageth

For an interesting book that posits an HJ and a possible scenario on how his legend grew in the First Century that does incorporate Paul's letters and other NT texts, see John Shelby Spong's Resurrection: Myth or Reality?

And I agree with the good Doctor X: I doubt if the question of HJ/MJ will ever be solved, barring some amazing and convincing archaeological finds (ambiguous ossuaries and mysterious shrouds of questionable provenance need not apply).

Doctor X

Ha!

Maybe behind the toilet we will find Codex Rectus which contains "the Gospel of Jesus"--written in Latin . . . of course. . . .

--J.D.

Mageth

Or maybe "Jesus Christ was here - for a while" written inside a first-century tomb....

Doctor X

"It is a used ossary, but the occupant only used it for three days. . . ."

--J.D.

Gregg

I wouldn't have any trouble with the idea that "Jesus" was an ordinary (if charismatic) man who got a lot of mythology heaped on him. It's just that this isn't the way the evidence points.

First, you'd think if Jesus was going to have all those titles laid on him, he would have done something that got him noticed by someone other than his followers. But nobody seems to have heard of him. The two mentions in Josephus are both almost certainly later Christian interpolations. Beyond that...nothing.

Second, from the very beginning of the faith Jesus is seen as sharing in the father's divine nature. For Greek Platonists and devout Jews, the idea that a physical being could be part of the Godhead would have been rather blasphemous.

Third, there were people who believed many of the same things about other gods--Attis, Adonis, Mithras, etc.--that Christians believed about Jesus, but no one insists that those gods must have been real people at one time.

Fourth, Paul never unmistakably refers to Jesus as a human being. Even when refuting Christians who insisted that Jesus didn't come "in the flesh" and wasn't crucified, he relied on theological arguments and Scripture to make his case. Why didn't he just refer his readers to Jesus' family and friends and other eyewitnesses to the incarnate Word?

Fifth, the writer of Hebrews shows no awareness AT ALL of a Jesus who was on earth. All his information about Jesus comes from the Jewish scriptures. Heck, he even says that if Jesus HAD been on earth, his sacrifice wouldn't have been any more efficacious than animal sacrifices!

Sixth, the picture of Christianity we get from Acts is belied by the picture we get from other Christian documents and from history. Christianity appears very early on to have been a widespread and diverse movement, with people calling themselves Christians who nevertheless denied what was supposedly the basic tenet of the faith, Christ crucified. If it all started with people heading out from Jerusalem to spread the news of Jesus' crucifixion and resurrection, how did such radically different beliefs arise so fast?

These are just a few reasons that the MJ thesis makes sense to me. I was a historicist for a long time, but I never felt very comfortable with it. The idea that Christianity almost immediately broke into factions each emphasizing a different "aspect" of Jesus, especially, struck me as a rather ad hoc explanation. So, the incarnate Word walks the earth, but Paul has no interest in what it said or did beyond the barest essentials--meanwhile, other Christians focus only on Jesus' teachings, and have little or nothing to say about his divinity. And still other Christians outright deny the man came in the flesh or was crucified. All very weird if there was an HJ. Makes perfect sense if there wasn't.

NOGO

Greeg,

Good summary!
I agree 100%

I would like to add a few things which I have been posting about lately.

People often speak about Paul's silence on the HJ.
One should actually say all the epistles' silence about the HJ.
But there is not just the silence.
Paul says many things which are contrary to the Gospels

For example
Paul says that flesh and blood cannot enter the Kingdon of God.
Luke describes the resurrected Jesus as being "flesh and bone", has him eating fish and then ascending to heaven.

Paul says that Jesus got his title of Son of God upon his resurrection. Hebrews says the same thing. The Epistles also have this idea that Jesus was the firstbord of God. Since you cannot be a firstbord until you are a son then Jesus became the firstborn upon his resurrection. Clearly the Gospels are all over the place on this one. Luke calls him son of God because he was born of a virgin. The father calls him his beloved son at his baptism and various demons and Peter recognize Jesus as the son of God.

Paul tells us that he got all that he knows directly from Jesus through inspiration. He tells us that all believers have access to the mind of God and it is during the Lord's supper where they share this inspired word of God. The Gospels on the other hand emphasize Jesus earthly teachings which Paul knows nothing about.

Paul tells us that Jesus was kept secret for eons but has recently been revealed through scriptures. Obviously the Gospels are based on the idea that Jesus revealed himself personally to his disciples.

Paul saw a light and heard a voice on the road to Damascus yet the Gospels have Jesus ascending to heaven in human form. The Gospels have Jesus appearing to his disciples many times and then ascending to heaven implying that the appearances ended. Paul, on the other hand, could not possibly have had his experience with Jesus on the road to Damascus within 40 days of the resurrection.

There is more ...

All this makes one doubt that there was a single source (read the HJ) for the birth of Christianity.