Which model best explains the lack of credible secular reference to Jesus? Which explains best the confusion on the part of Church Fathers about the story details. Which accounts best for Gnostic xtian phantasmal doctrines? Worthy scholars like Price whose model is only slightly different from Doherty's assume some core elements of the legends are composits of numerous sources, some of whom may have been historical persons. That makes sense. Doherty's model simply differs in that his assumes a foundation built upon the preexisting mytery cults, where as Price essentially recognizes no one foundation for the core but rather a mosaic of Jewish and nonJewish themes and stories. Others insist upon a single Jewish core, these are then split as to whether the miracle working magician, the sage teacher reformer, or the militant zealot was the original historial figure at the core. While actually reserving judgement, I presently favor Doherty's thesis because of what I see as explanatory power.
Resurrection Appearance to James the Just
by Leolaia 77 Replies latest watchtower bible
-
-
Narkissos
PP: earlier in this thread I wrote about every river having many sources. People can discuss endlessly about which is the main course and which are the affluents, taking into account criteria such as length of course, rate of flow and so forth. But in the end the distinction is artificial.
To me (as Leolaia pointed, I follow Derrida on that) the ultimate source of religions and philosophies are not people, but texts (even in an oral form). No so-called "founder" creates everything ex nihilo, he has behind him a lot of traditions which merge into his mind in a relatively "original" way. That's all. Moreover, the rivers we're speaking about merge and separate again at several points. The only "myth" (in the negative sense) is "pure origin". This simply never exists in culture.
If you focus on a man (say, Jesus or Paul) as the main character of your story, you will find he was always preceded by many tradition threads: those in the OT, those in the extracanonical Jewish writings, and probably lots of others. If you focus on traditions, you will find they happen to cristallize in historical people, later on turning them into mythical characters. No man (even Jesus) is an absolute beginning, or an absolute end either.
I think Jesus as a miracle-worker (or magician) has some historical consistency, which does not rule out his being also a wisdom teacher and apocalyptic activist. Of course further miracles, wisdom and apocalypticism were later added to his story, as well as deification in a fairly "pagan" way. The later adjunctions, however, do not rule out some of this very material being already in Jesus' mind, words and acts (in fact, as a man of his time and place, he just could not escape it). To me the total fabrication of Jesus is highly improbable historically. But the historical Jesus' praedicans mind, whoever he was, was partly a mythical fabrication (as our own minds are) -- and of course the mythical Jesus praedicatus was even more so. It is not either the myth or the man (tertium non datur). It is necessarily both.
This is not to say that tradition history is not interesting. Quite to the contrary. It's fascinating indeed, especially if you get rid of the "either-or" frame of mind -- which is itself a tradition running at least from Aristotle to scholasticism and scientism...
-
Leolaia
Peacefulpete....I think we agree more than we disagree on this matter (e.g. on the fictive midrashic nature of the Gospels, etc.). I'm not as familiar with Price's model than Doherty's model, but I would definitely not posit a mythic, heavenly Christ substratum for the movement as a whole because of the objections I mentioned in my earlier message, e.g. the very deep divergences between Western/Pauline Christianity and Eastern Jewish-Christian faiths, and the evidence that specific mystic motifs are later accretions to the gospel tradition. I do not find a model to be explanatorily adequate if it must derive the early non-mythic Jewish-Christian view of Jesus (as attested in Q which has no knowledge of Jesus as Christ and Redeemer) from a mythic substrate. In fact, Doherty acknowledges this and emphasizes the division between the Jesus of the Q tradition and the Christ of the Pauline tradition, and suggests that two separate traditions (the wisdom tradition of a Galilean Cynic community and the Heavenly Christ of the Johannine-Pauline tradition) merged in Hellenistic churches in Syria. I agree with this view, except unlike Doherty I view Paul as taking part in this mingling; although Doherty denies Pauline dependence on the Q Jesus, Q-type sayings are found throughout Paul's letters (cf. the examples I mentioned earlier). This suggests to me that Paul's kerygma knew of an earlier Q tradition. Paul's attribution of these didactic commandments to his revelation of the Lord should not be construed as indicative of a mythic etiology but rather an attempt by Paul to integrate pre-existing material from a non-mythic Jesus tradition into his own mythic-derived framework. Similarly, I don't agree with Doherty that Paul viewed Jesus in purely mythological terms and that every earthly allusion must be regarded as an interpolation or a Platonic heavenly equivalent of an earthly situation; I think Paul's theology was messier than Doherty's characterization and was not static but evolved over time (e.g. with the theme of Christ's pre-existence being more clearly articulated in his later writings than in the earlier ones). Furthermore, the expectation of an earthly Messiah descended from the House of David was a real one in first century Judea, as attested in Qumran literature, and a messianic interpretation of Jesus would have naturally followed from this -- of which Paul shows later dependence (cf. Romans 1:3). The evidence Lapham presents regarding a late first-century Petrine community in Syria also has made me reconsider the bias towards Paul's version of Christianity and consider that there were different competing attempts in these mixed gentile-Jewish communities to merge the Jesus of the sapiential tradition with mythic constructs. On the matter of whether there was a historical personage behind the Jesus of the Q traditions, I do lean like Sheehan towards a historicist explanation that recognizes the existence of a Nazorean teacher (to whom the whole body of Nazorean Cynic teachings would later be attributed), who specifically adopted a liberal stance on Law observance and who offered an alternate theory on justification (e.g. the Kingdom of God) that stood in conflict with the Jewish orthodoxy. The "Kingdom of God" notion in its original Law-abiding milieu has almost nothing to do with Pauline kerygma and mysticism, and I view this instead as the initial organizing principle of the Jesus movement in Judea, and imho the originality and revolutionary nature of the "Kingdom of God" notion is best explained by its genesis as a specific new formulation of traditional concepts, and I don't find it implausible that this formulation could have been accomplished by a rabbi founding a new way of observing the Law. The silence of secular sources is not surprising and does not consitute an adequate argument from silence because there is no reason for assuming that such a teacher would have attracted much attention at the time from secular authorities (even if he were crucified, as he would have been one of many troublemakers routinely executed) and very little if any documentary material survives from the Judea of the first half of the first century. But the question ultimately is probably as intractable as the question of whether the Teacher of Righteousness of the Qumran sect was a real individual (most scholars assume he was, but the evidence is weaker than that of Jesus). The strong didactic moral nature of early Jewish-Christianity, its theory of justification that has nothing to do the Pauline doctrine of the Redemption, the evidence that the mystical nature of the Eucharist and Resurrection are later reinterpretations of earlier, more traditional Jewish concepts, the seeming anteriority of adoptionism to high christology, and the dependence of Paul on Q sayings and use of received traditions other than his direct revelation (cf. Galatians 1:23; 1 Corinthians 11:2) suggest to me that the Pauline mythic Christ was a later accretion of the Jesus tradition, and Paul himself seems to admit that his revelatory gospel departed from the kerygma of his predecessors (Galatians 2:2). The whole path of development makes better sense to me if it is first assumed that the movement was originally focused on issues surrounding the Law and justification without strict Law observance (with the salvation of Jesus from death constituting a chief proof of the validity of this approach), which was minimized and eventually lost in gentile areas where this message made little sense or had little appeal, but where the message of Jesus' victory over death had a very different appeal in terms of the pre-existing mystery cult mythos and Jesus was recast as a different sort of Savior. I still can't see how the developmental path was really the reverse, and I believe even Doherty does not attempt to derive the Q community teachings from that of Paul and views them as fundamentally distinct. I'm not familiar with Price's theory, but your description of his stand sounds closer to my still developing opinion.
-
Leolaia
I think Jesus as a miracle-worker (or magician) has some historical consistency, which does not rule out his being also a wisdom teacher and apocalyptic activist. Of course further miracles, wisdom and apocalypticism were later added to his story, as well as deification in a fairly "pagan" way.
What do you think of the idea that a executed miracle-worker/magician figure, who emphasized the power of the Holy Spirit and its gifts, was the Jesus known to Paul and only later, especially in the Gospel of Mark, was this person conflated with the didactic moral philosopher of the Nazorean tradition. I believe this is the opinion of Wells. The main problem with this, as I see it, is again the familiarity Paul shows with the Q tradition.
-
Leolaia
I just found this fascinating text in 1 Enoch 42:1-3 that seems to have prime importance for understanding the interpretation of Jesus as heavenly Wisdom incarnate:
"Wisdom could not find a place in which she could dwell; but a place was found for her in heaven. Then Wisdom went out to dwell with the children of the people, but she found no dwelling place, so Wisdom returned to her place and she settled permanently among the angels." (1 Enoch 42:1-3)
Isn't that pretty striking? I don't know if this is dependent on Philo or earlier Jewish wisdom literature, but the original reference seems to be to the failure of the nation of Israel (and later, Judea) to accept God's wisdom that had been sent to be with his people (cf. the Deuteronomic history's polemic about Israel's rejection of the Law). This is especially brought to light by Sirach 24, where Wisdom tells how she "had my tent in the heights" and "encircled the vault of the sky" but then was instructed by God to pitch her tent "in Jacob and make Israel your inheritance" (Sirach 24:2-13). The writer then identifies the Law as where Wisdom was made to reside and Wisdom pours out prophecy through the prophets (24:33-34), and while the outlook is optimistic the implication is that rejection of the Law entails a rejection of God's Wisdom. 1 Enoch has carried the thought to its logical conclusion, that Israel already rejected Wisdom and she has returned to her heavenly origin. Wisdom 7:27 also specifies the prophets as the medium God's Wisdom has passed through: "In every generation she passes into holy souls and makes them friends of God and prophets." Matthew 23:37-39 condemns Jerusalem for killing its prophets and the thought seems to be close to that of 1 Enoch. Matthew seems to make Jesus speak as Wisdom does in Sirach, saying "I am sending you prophets and wise men," but the Pharisees' rejection of Law (cf. 23:23-24) is like the killing of the prophets and rejecting their wisdom. The thought of Wisdom returning to heaven and settling "permanently among the angels" sounds almost ready-made for reinterpretation into a Wisdom christology.
-
Narkissos
What do you think of the idea that a executed miracle-worker/magician figure, who emphasized the power of the Holy Spirit and its gifts, was the Jesus known to Paul and only later, especially in the Gospel of Mark, was this person conflated with the didactic moral philosopher of the Nazorean tradition. I believe this is the opinion of Wells. The main problem with this, as I see it, is again the familiarity Paul shows with the Q tradition.
This reconstruction seems quite plausible. I would perhaps add a pinch of politics into it, just to explain the Sadducean/Roman crucifixion...
About "the familiarity Paul shows with the Q tradition", I think it must not be exaggerated. I just quickly checked the references you gave earlier on this thread:
Nonliteral correspondences with Mark// (not Q):
1 Corinthians 7:10-11,25
Romans 12:18, 13:7,8-10; 14:13,14
1 Thessalonians 5:13,15
Nonliteral correspondences with GThomas:
1 Corinthians 4:8; 10:27 (also Q) ; 13 :2 (also Mark)
Galatians 3 :28 (also Q)
Nonliteral correspondence with Q:
1 Corinthians 9:14 Romans 12:17; 14:10, 1 Thessalonians 5:2Literal correspondence with GThomas (which way?):
1 Corinthians 2:9
Literal correspondence with Q (though not as a saying of the Lord):
Romans 12:14
(Btw, I didn't find Philippians 3:3 // GTh 54 = Lk 6:20)
So in fact there is not so much left, especially since the textual histories of Q, GTh, AND the Pauline corpus from the 50's to 140 remain an open question...
-
Leolaia
Perhaps a better way of putting it was "familiarity of Paul with the stream of oral tradition of Jesus sayings shared by Q, Mark, and the Gospel of Thomas" rather than limit it specifically to Q (good point). Also, though I mentioned only one gospel source, many of these are in fact shared between Q and Mark or between Thomas and/or Q; it wasn't an exhaustive list of parallels, or even the best parallels with Paul. Koester gives a more detailed and principled discussion of Paul's knowledge of the oral sayings tradition. In 1 Corinthians, Paul also shows knowledge of a very different body of Jesus sayings (with emphasis on mysteries and secrets) which Koester argues was popular in Corinth and of a much different nature than that in Syria.
-
Narkissos
About Wisdom: the motif is especially apparent in Luke, who has no Logos or Son of God preexistence:
2:40: The child grew and became strong, filled with wisdom; and the grace of God was upon him (also 52).
7:35: Wisdom was vindicated by all her children.
11:31: The queen of the South will rise at the judgment with the people of this generation and condemn them, because she came from the ends of the earth to listen to the wisdom of Solomon, and see, something greater than Solomon is here!
11:49: Therefore also the Wisdom of God said, 'I will send them prophets and apostles... (Cf. Origen's reading, "the Wisdom will send her children").
21:15 for I will give you words and a wisdom that none of your opponents will be able to withstand or contradict.
Interestingly, in Acts the wisdom theme, linked with "grace" or "spirit" too, is concentrated in chapters 6--7 (6:3,10; 7:10,22), which focus on the "Hellenistic" tradition (the Seven, Stephen). The last reference being "the wisdom of the Egyptians", which may well point to Alexandria...
-
peacefulpete
Great posts. Very educational thread.
I agree with you Narkissos that ultimately religions source from interpretation of texts. The queston we may never satisfactorily answer is the nature of that text. Unquestionably multiple streams converged to form the orthodox picture. Some of those streams had hstorical person s in them.
Questions that I have are: Paul seems to refer to Jesus cult predecessors that he aknowledges but disregards. At other times he speaks of Jesus culters that have left his group that resemble the image we have of the Jewish Xtians. Gal 2:2,4-6 seems to allude to both groups. (vs 7,8 are interpolations). This makes we wonder if our understanding of what the James the Just group was like is greatly flawed, shaped by later Jewish Xtian developements. Were they Xtian at all? A poster at Jesus Myst. recently pointed out that the Shepard of Hermes text refers only to a heavenly Son of Man, no Jesus,not Christ. In this it resembles the family of texts of late Judaism. If this text is associated with the James group as some have insited then can we call them Xtian?
Another posted quoted Ephiphamus (c.375) as describing the Ebionites as being like the Nazaraeans and Cerithians in believing a docetic Christology, where in the Lord inhabited bodies and left. What should we make of that?
I like the question of why the mini apocalypse of Mark 13 is associated with 70CE rather than 132-35. It seems it was only do to apologetic reasons placing the date early enuf to be able to have the "Apostles" compose it.
The descriptions better fit the Bar Kochba revolt and antiXtian tide that developed from it. Speaking about Bar Kochba, interestingly this taken name means, "son of the star". According to Eusebius, he claimed to have decended from heaven! Could this be a source for some of the Jesus legend?
I love that site, every day I pick up something interesting, albeit inconclusive. But again I don't have a mind as disciplined as you two. -
peacefulpete
sorry about my spelling again. that's Epiphanius. The quote was from Epiphanius' Panarion.