Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Toto · 03-31-2011, 07:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by graymouser

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Earl Doherty sees Christianity as a synthesis of an early Q tradition, based around a Galilean preacher (who was not crucified, so would not be the historical Jesus) and the mythical Christ worship in Paul.

The Q tradition would be the sayings, with no history connected to them.

This differs from the standard historicist model in that historicists think that the origin of the Q sayings was in fact Jesus, and that he was crucified and his followers started the Christian religion, which later attracted Paul. But then everyone sort of forgot most of the details about Jesus' life, although glimmers of it can be detected in the gospels which were written several generations later.

It's been quite a while since I read the Jesus Puzzle, but I don't remember this quite being the picture drawn there - is it more clear in Jesus: Neither God nor Man?

In the whole, the picture drawn seems more or less sensible to me, although it's not quite clear what your slant on the rising Christology would be. Is it that the Galilean element was more clearly expressed in Mark and then subsequently overtaken by the mythical Christ of Paul? Does that mean that Mark is more of a window into the real-preacher-but-not-historical-Jesus figure that you posit?

I don't think that Doherty sees any history in Mark. He does think that there was a Galilean preaching tradition (I forget if it's one or more individuals) that lies behind Q, the sayings that Matt and Luke have in common that are missing from Mark. I'd have to go back and check on whether he says anything about "rising Christology" among the gospels.

mountainman · 03-31-2011, 08:49 AM

Any study of Mythicism, Historicism and Christology in the NT that does not also examine very carefully the Post Apostolic Christological Controversies is a study which will forever remain unconnected with ancient history. The Christological controversies commence in political earnestness with Arius of Alexandria at the Council of Nicaea, and have raged unabated ever since.

maryhelena · 03-31-2011, 09:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Any study of Mythicism, Historicism and Christology in the NT that does not also examine very carefully the Post Apostolic Christological Controversies is a study which will forever remain unconnected with ancient history. The Christological controversies commence in political earnestness with Arius of Alexandria at the Council of Nicaea, and have raged unabated ever since.

Seems to me, from the quote on Christology from Wikipedia, that before one can do christology, that first one must have a Jesus from whose life one can gain a clear understanding of his role in salvation....Assumption of an historical Jesus here - right at the ground zero of christology....Thus, it's a history book that one needs before one can join Paul on his Christological adventures....

Quote:

Christology

Christology (from Christ and Greek -λογία, -logia) is the field of study within Christian theology which is primarily concerned with the nature and person of Jesus Christ as recorded in the Canonical gospels and the letters of the New Testament.[2] Primary considerations include the relationship of Jesus' nature and person with the nature and person of God the Father. As such, Christology is concerned with the details of Jesus' life (what he did) and his teachings (what he said) in order to arrive at a clearer understanding of who he is in his person, and his role in salvation.[3]

No Robots · 03-31-2011, 09:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by maryhelena

Seems to me, from the quote on Christology from Wikipedia, that before one can do christology, that first one must have a Jesus from whose life one can gain a clear understanding of his role in salvation....Assumption of an historical Jesus here - right at the ground zero of christology....Thus, it's a history book that one needs before one can join Paul on his Christological adventures....

Not at all. There are many Christologies of a mythical Christ. Look at Doherty's neo-Platonic Christ, or the ever-popular <edit> solar Christ.

maryhelena · 03-31-2011, 09:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by No Robots

Quote:

Originally Posted by maryhelena

Seems to me, from the quote on Christology from Wikipedia, that before one can do christology, that first one must have a Jesus from whose life one can gain a clear understanding of his role in salvation....Assumption of an historical Jesus here - right at the ground zero of christology....Thus, it's a history book that one needs before one can join Paul on his Christological adventures....

Not at all. There are many Christologies of a mythical Christ. Look at Doherty's neo-Platonic Christ, or the ever-popular <edit> solar Christ.

Sure, one can have a million and one Christologies - the question is whether they can be considered NT christologies. NT christology has not cut itself free from history, from a foothold in physical reality.

aa5874 · 03-31-2011, 09:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by maryhelena

....So, then, two traditions - which according to Wells, have been fused together! Not one Jesus but two Jesus figures. In other words, two historical figures have been used as models for the gospel JC construct. One historical figure that was not crucified and the other historical figure that was crucified.

Really simple - I can't for the life of me fathom out the problems here.....

.....

And "PAUL" ACTUALLY knew these TWO historical figures???

And PEOPLE of Antiquity ACTUALLY knew these TWO historical figures????

You have SIMPLY CREATED a lot of PROBLEMS with your TWO-FOR-ONE historical Jesus.

maryhelena · 03-31-2011, 09:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by maryhelena

....So, then, two traditions - which according to Wells, have been fused together! Not one Jesus but two Jesus figures. In other words, two historical figures have been used as models for the gospel JC construct. One historical figure that was not crucified and the other historical figure that was crucified.

Really simple - I can't for the life of me fathom out the problems here.....

.....

And "PAUL" ACTUALLY knew these TWO historical figures???

Do you have historical evidence that 'Paul' existed?

Quote:

And PEOPLE of Antiquity ACTUALLY knew these TWO historical figures????

Silly question - of course people who lived at the time these two historical figures lived knew them......

Quote:

You have SIMPLY CREATED a lot of PROBLEMS with your TWO-FOR-ONE historical Jesus.

Silly statement - 'TWO-FOR-ONE historical Jesus'.:hysterical:

No Robots · 03-31-2011, 10:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by maryhelena

NT christology has not cut itself free from history, from a foothold in physical reality.

As opposed to... what? Vedic christologies? I would agree that the latter certainly has cut itself off from reality. Why do consider that a good thing?

maryhelena · 03-31-2011, 11:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by No Robots

Quote:

Originally Posted by maryhelena

NT christology has not cut itself free from history, from a foothold in physical reality.

As opposed to... what? Vedic christologies? I would agree that the latter certainly has cut itself off from reality. Why do consider that a good thing?

Any christology that cuts itself off from reality, from a foothold in physical reality, is just mysticism. I don't think NT christology is doing that - and that's the primary reason that I don't go along with Earl's theory. It's only half a story - the other half is wedded to the gospel story. One has to take that story along somehow or otherwise ones christology - better ones philosophical musings - have no value for living in the here and now, living in this world. The gospel story, with it's instance upon flesh and blood, upon a historical component, can't be sidestepped in developing a NT christology, in developing an intellectual framework that does justice to our dualistic human nature.

No Robots · 03-31-2011, 11:19 AM

^Excellent answer, with which I agree whole-heartedly. Thank you.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

03-31-2011, 08:49 AM	#12
mountainman Contributor Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: Falls Creek, Oz. Posts: 11,192	Any study of Mythicism, Historicism and Christology in the NT that does not also examine very carefully the Post Apostolic Christological Controversies is a study which will forever remain unconnected with ancient history. The Christological controversies commence in political earnestness with Arius of Alexandria at the Council of Nicaea, and have raged unabated ever since.

03-31-2011, 11:19 AM	#20
No Robots Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: Edmonton Posts: 5,679	^Excellent answer, with which I agree whole-heartedly. Thank you.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.