aa5874

You knew in advance of posting that English translations used the word "James" yet try to give the impression it was only the KJV.

WHY??

Examine your own post.

Grog

For processes, here is mechanism to start with:

Evolution of Memes

For hypotheses on the evolution of the Jesus-meme, read any number of popular mythicist books. Doherty would be a good place to start. No one is making a simple assertion sans evidence. The evidence of evolutionary development of this meme (the Jesus-meme) exists. I think it is a stronger case that the idea of Jesus evolved than a big bang theory that Jesus existed and got the ball rolling.

How did the William Tell story start? Historians have largely concluded that there was no William Tell, yet there is no step-by-step analysis of how that occurred.

As far as the analogy with evolutionary biology goes, we know how evolution occurs and have a hypothesis of the intermediaries, but, in the case of human evolution, there are still a lot of holes. We do not know "stage-by-stage" how it occurred. We get a clearer picture as time and research progress, though.

What I am arguing, in the case of the Origins of Christianity, is that accepting the memetic evolution hypothesis as a contingency would open up avenues of research and exploration that could be (I think would be) fruitful and lead to more solid theories of how Christianity began. That isn't happening. Right now, there's a handful of very knowledgeable amateurs advancing the theory, backed by a few credentialed scholars.

The field itself, though, I think is still caught in the "strange contingency" position of dismissing out of hand a contingency they view as strange and therefore need not be considered. This is reinforced by a strong case of confirmatory bias where bits and pieces of confirmatory evidence are used to reinforce the dominant paradigm, while the evidence against it is ignored, dismissed, or rationalized away with ad hoc explanations that have little evidence to support them.

As far as your assertion that I am misrepresenting your argument, I do believe you made the statement several times that religions begin with an individual preaching a message that catches on with a number of followers. If that is not your argument, could you clarify.

You have backed that statement with the assertion that all "documented" religions begin in that manner. Could you provide at least a few examples of what you mean by a documented religion?

I have a couple of examples of the relatively recent emergence of "new religions" in the type of fashion that I think Christianity may have emerged:

--New Age spirituality--which is not a unified religion per se, but in my thinking neither was Christianity in its early stages. An organized "religion" could emerge from this primordial stew.

--Unitarianism--evolved out of Christianity but not with an individual preaching a message. It is a clear case of evolution.

Jaybees

Religions seem to spring up like dragons' teeth, with as many variations in origin and chances for survival as cockroaches in a sewer. Joe Smith launched a successful one (so far) with only a fevered imagination and a lust for women. David Karesh didn't do so well. The John Frum movement in the South Pacific still hangs on despite a lot of evidence that it's going nowhere. Stray beliefs can become the basis of a thriving cult or whither away soon after birth.

aa5874

Doherty is not a good way to start because his argument is contrary to "evolutionary" development.

Doherty argues that Paul is early when the writer stated he was Last and Persecuted those BEFORE him.

Doherty cannot produce any actual early manuscripts of the Pauline corpus which are dated to c 70 CE or earlier.

Even when the NT Canon is examine we clearly see the "evolutionary" development of the Jesus story.

In gMark, the earliest Jesus story, the origin of Jesus is unknown but by the LATE gJohn, Jesus is the Logos, God and the Creator who was in the beginning and before anything was made.

In the NT, the Last Gospel Jesus who originated from heaven preached that he was EQUAL to God.

The Pauline Jesus is compatible with the LAST Gospel Jesus in gJohn--NOT the early Jesus in gMark.

John 10:30 KJV 2 Philippians 5 In the early gMark, there is Nothing about God's love and that Jesus would be Crucified and Sacrificied because of his love for mankind.

This is a most significant "evolutionary" development.

In gMark, the Crucifixion of Jesus is Not regarded as a product of LOVE of God and Jesus.

Now, look at the "EVOLUTION" in the LAST Gospel Jesus in gJohn.

All of a sudden, the Crucifixion of Jesus is a product of God's Love which was UNHEARD of in gMark.

The "Evolutionary" development in gJohn is compatible with the Pauline Corpus.

John 3:16 KJVGalatians 2:20 KJV Another extremely significant "evolution" in the NT Canon is the proclamation to the Roman Empire that Jesus was raised from the dead in the Pauline Corpus and that WITHOUT the resurrection there would be NO Salvation and No Christian Faith.

No such proclamation is in short gMark. No-one, not even the disciples and Peter, were told Jesus was raised from the dead by the visitors to the tomb in the EARLY gMark.

Mark 16 It is clear the story of Jesus EVOLVED in the Canon.

We can clearly see the EVOLUTION in gJohn and the Pauline Corpus.

Romans 10:9 KJV1 Corinthians 15:17 KJV
The Pauline writings begin EXACTLY where gMark ENDS.

The Pauline Persecution BEGIN AFTER the Resurrection--AFTER gMark ENDS.

The Pauline Revelations BEGIN after the Resurrection--AFTER gMark ENDS.

The Pauline Gospel was preached in the Roman Empire after the Resurrection--AFTER gMark ENDS.

The Pauline Corpus is the LAST in the EVOLUTIONARY development of the Jesus story in the Canon.

Grog

Where did the idea of "Jesus" come from?
Why did the author of Mark name his main character "Jesus Christ?" Did he just think "Jesus/Joshua" would make a good name?
If Paul is not the earliest Christian writing, what is?

It's true that Paul does not represent an "early Christology" if we make an assumption of what that should look like. I tend to think that Paul's version is the earlier and Mark's the later. I am not sure where John fits, possibly a synthesis? I don't see evidence that the author of the four to seven writings attributed to Paul has knowledge of gMark.

aa5874

We have a very good idea where the name "Jesus" most likely came from. We have the writings of Josephus with probably the most characters named Jesus in all writings of antiquity.

In fact, Josephus writings include a character named Jesus who lived in Galilee and another Jesus who brought before the procurator and was beaten and did NOT utter a word.

It would appear the author selected a very common name for his Jesus Christ character. In the writings of Josephus persons called Jesus were even considered robbers and perhaps murderers.

Why do you want the latest writings to be the earliest?

Why do you want the Pauline Persecutor of the Faith to be the earliest writer when the same writer claimed Jesus DIED for OUR Sins, was buried and was RAISED on the THIRD day according to the Scriptures.

Only in the Scripture of the Jesus cult it is found that Jesus DIED for OUR Sins, was buried and was raised on the THIRD Day.

No such thing is in the Septuagint or Hebrew Scripture.

The Scriptures of the Jesus cult was ALREADY composed before the Pauline Corpus was invented.

You seem quite reluctant to use the evidence in the very Canon and is "hell-bent" on assuming that the Pauline writings must be first.

Do you not see that in gMark that it is claimed that NO-ONE was told that Jesus resurrected by the visitors to the Empty Tomb?

Now, look in the Pauline letters.

The Pauline writers are claiming to be WITNESSES that God RAISED Jesus from the dead and supposedly went "all over" the Roman Empire with his Gospel since c 37-41 that OVER 500 persons were seen of Jesus including the very DISCIPLES and APOSTLES.

How is it that at least 35 years after the people of Roman Empire were allegedly told of the Resurrection by Paul the author of gMark wrote a story that Jesus was RAISED from the dead and claimed that NO-ONE was told he resurrected--Not even the disciples?

The Pauline Resurrection story should have ENHANCED the story in gMark.

The story in gMark most likely predated the Pauline over 500 resurrection visit by Jesus.

MrMacSon

The Jesus the Christ of Nazareth narrative is likely to have evolved during dispersal of the Jewish peoples (during & because of the Roman-Jewish Wars), through the Gnostics (such as Deocetism, Marcionism, Montanism, etc), and with Hellenic influence.

outhouse

Then you would have to place Paul as writing at a later date then currently attributed.

What evidence is there for dating Paul after the fall of the temple?

aa5874

There is no corroborative evidence at all that the Pauline Corpus was composed before c 70 CE or in the 1st century. In fact, the author of Acts wrote nothing about the Pauline Corpus and the Pauline letters themselves have no known date of authorship.

Early Pauline writings is merely a long-held presumption installed by Chineses Whispers.

MrMacSon

Early Pauline writings is merely a long-held presumption installed by Chineses Christian Whisperers.