The Jesus Myth Part II

The catch-all forum for general topics and debates. Minimal moderation. Rated PG to PG-13.
User avatar
Kishkumen
God
Posts: 6121
Joined: Tue Oct 27, 2020 2:37 pm
Location: Cassius University

Re: The Jesus Myth Part II

Post by Kishkumen »

Somewhere in the Library of Mendel there is a book about Johnny Cocheroo that would move people to tears and would inspire a new religion. The author of this unwritten book wouldn't have invented John the Conqueror out of whole cloth. Rather, he would have written about a mythical figure that put him into a historical context. I am conceding it is very unlikely this is what Mark did. But it seems entirely consistent with the evidence.
No, it isn’t entirely consistent with the evidence. As you concede, Mark is not making up his material out of whole cloth. There are other sources on Jesus’ life and teachings that he is relying on. The fact that Paul, the educated Jew who was converted to Jesus by way of vision, does not spend time talking about the man Jesus is really not that surprising. Everything we know about him is consistent with his letters, and so I am not at all surprised that the man who did not know Jesus the man, did not hear him preach, and did not really think too much about those who did, did not talk a lot about Jesus the man and his teachings. It is completely unsurprising. And yet he does seem to assume that Jesus had lived a human life, at the very least.

I don’t see this as mysterious or a real problem. The Jesus movement went in a lot of different directions. Some were more Jewish than others. Some were more mystical than others. I am comfortable with the evidence we have pointing to Jesus’ human reality and Paul’s idiosyncrasy. Paul is, frankly, more tiresome than Cicero as a self-promoting, verbose person. Thank goodness for the other epistles, which are in their own way often more interesting than Paul. Or at least less irritating.
Last edited by Kishkumen on Sun Sep 19, 2021 11:21 am, edited 1 time in total.
“If they can get you asking the wrong questions, they don’t have to worry about the answers.”~Thomas Pynchon, Gravity’s Rainbow
huckelberry
God
Posts: 2579
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2020 3:48 pm

Re: The Jesus Myth Part II

Post by huckelberry »

Analytics wrote:
Sat Sep 18, 2021 10:55 pm

You may have misunderstood my point here, because I think what I said manifestly is true. My understanding of nascent Christianity is that the various churches that Paul and others established all had a member of two who could read and write. We know this because Paul wrote them letters and expected there to be somebody in the church who could read it. Those letters would then be read to the body of believers. They must have been read repeatedly. If a letter was good, meaning that it really touched the people who heard it, the letter was cherished, read over and over, copied and recopied, and sent to other congregations. If a copy of the letter started to wear out, a fresh copy was made. The letters that spread through the Christian community and persisted in this way are what I'm referring to as the "textual tradition."

Like Jews, Christians were a people "of the book." Teachings they thought were important were written down. If the community as a whole cherished what was written, it entered the textual tradition. If the community didn't like what was written, it may have been copied a few times, but otherwise faded from the textual tradition.

Chronologically, the earliest documents that got traction in the Christian textual tradition were Paul's epistles. These epistles weren't the least bit interested in the life of Jesus. We do have some attestation of writings about Jesus that predate Luke. According to Luke 1:1, Luke consulted "many" sources of Jesus that "were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word." The most important of Luke's sources are Mark and Q, but there were probably others.

What do we know about these sources that existed prior to Mark? Not a lot because we don't have them. Why wouldn't we have them?

1- Because for whatever reason, unlike Mark and Paul's surviving epistles, these earlier sources about the life of Jesus didn't gain sufficient traction in the textual tradition to survive to this day.

2- A conspiracy theorist might say they were systematically destroyed in the 4th century because what they said contradicted the official religion.

3- Something else?
Analytics,

Well yes something else. I can see your observation about the early church keeping written material they valued. I think the churches written notes for Jesus sayings got absorbed into the gospels. Once there that was the form that got copied and saved. To copy the material is labor intensive so the presentation most valued was what got copied. The earliest notes simply were not carried forward in a separate form.

Of course there is not solid proof of this something else but I think it is reasonable. There is the evidence of Q for this process. Sure we do not have a copy of Q just the shadow of it left in the expansion of Jesus sayings from Mark to Luke and Matthew. If you wish to think no material was being copied from Jesus prior to the gospels you might generate an alternative theory of the Q material.
Last edited by huckelberry on Sun Sep 19, 2021 5:22 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Manetho
Valiant B
Posts: 187
Joined: Tue Jan 05, 2021 2:28 am

Re: The Jesus Myth Part II

Post by Manetho »

huckelberry wrote:
Sun Sep 19, 2021 2:37 am
Of course there is not solid proof of this something else but I think it is reasonable. There is the evidence of Q for this process. Sure we do not have a copy of Q just the shadow of it left in the expansion of Jesus sayings from Mark to Luke and Matthew. If you wish to think no material was being copied from Jesus prior to the gospels you might generate an alternative theory of the Q material.
And the Gospel of Thomas seems to also be derived from the Q material but not from the canonical gospels (it's purely a collection of sayings, which don't appear in the same order as they do in Matthew and Luke). Thomas may not prove the existence of a written Q document — the academic community has never entirely settled this question, and the argument about it delves into minutiae that I'm not interested in and really aren't relevant here — but it seems to me to prove that Jesus's sayings did circulate among early Christians independently of the canonical gospels, either in written or oral form. And that would undermine the assertion that nobody cared about Jesus's teachings until Mark wrote about them.
Analytics
Elder
Posts: 350
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2020 3:11 pm

Re: The Jesus Myth Part II

Post by Analytics »

Manetho wrote:
Sun Sep 19, 2021 3:48 am
huckelberry wrote:
Sun Sep 19, 2021 2:37 am
Of course there is not solid proof of this something else but I think it is reasonable. There is the evidence of Q for this process. Sure we do not have a copy of Q just the shadow of it left in the expansion of Jesus sayings from Mark to Luke and Matthew. If you wish to think no material was being copied from Jesus prior to the gospels you might generate an alternative theory of the Q material.
And the Gospel of Thomas seems to also be derived from the Q material but not from the canonical gospels (it's purely a collection of sayings, which don't appear in the same order as they do in Matthew and Luke). Thomas may not prove the existence of a written Q document — the academic community has never entirely settled this question, and the argument about it delves into minutiae that I'm not interested in and really aren't relevant here — but it seems to me to prove that Jesus's sayings did circulate among early Christians independently of the canonical gospels, either in written or oral form. And that would undermine the assertion that nobody cared about Jesus's teachings until Mark wrote about them.
What evidence do we have that Q and/or Thomas was written before Mark?
Philo Sofee
God
Posts: 5017
Joined: Thu Oct 29, 2020 1:18 am

Re: The Jesus Myth Part II

Post by Philo Sofee »

A good read, this thread. Another factor I think which may be seriously relevant and has amazing amounts of data is the approach of the classicist, Dennis R. MacDonald. His approach demonstrates with quite a lot of evidence is the writers were employing Greek epic, comedy, and tragedy materials in a mimetic (using, imitating, copying - though not slavishly), Mark utilizing Homer's epics, Luke (who could have been Plutarch!) utilizing a lot of Vergil's epic, and John most certainly using Euripides Bacchae, the theme being to demonstrate Jesus has now surpassed the old gods of the peoples. In a remarkable series of books (almost dozen now - and multitudinous articles) MacDonald has shown we cannot ignore the mimetic factor and the use of ancient Greek sources in the compositions of the Gospels. The outlier is more or less Matthew who appears to have stuck more closely to the Jewish materials (although all the Gospel writers utilized the Jewish materials thoroughly). Thomas Brodie, Miller, Winn and others have shown the basis of the story plot of Jesus in the Gospels most certainly lie within the orbit of the story of the Elijah/Elisha cycle from the Old Testament.

So, in some respects, the mythicist idea that it is made up may have some teeth to it, yet, the basis is not whole cloth invented. On the other hand, the historicist view that there was a real Jesus is obviously plausible as well, just not literal historical, but events based on what was known in the literature, adapted from said literature, and improved, made more relevant to the themes the Gospel writers wanted people to know concerning Jesus. Here was a new man, a new and better version of the divine which was handed down from antiquity. Now, here in this man, Jesus, we have a more sure foundation was the theme the Gospel writers were apparently shooting for for their own audiences.

The reason MacDonald is not so well known - at least to the public - is the expensiveness of his materials. It is ridiculous, but I have bitten the bullet and bought everything he has published, and it is incredibly profound! I think he most definitely is onto an added layer of reality needed to be brought into the discussion. I have every intention of producing many videos sharing his ideas, themes, and mimetic analysis for the larger public audience I believe deserves to have his information, including this fine group of board participants here on Shades terrific message board. What is taking my time is producing artwork for the video series. I am painting it all myself, which is really enjoyable, but time consuming.
Analytics
Elder
Posts: 350
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2020 3:11 pm

Re: The Jesus Myth Part II

Post by Analytics »

huckelberry wrote:
Sun Sep 19, 2021 2:37 am
Analytics,

Well yes something else. I can see your observation about the early church keeping written material they valued. I think the churches written notes for Jesus sayings got absorbed into the gospels. Once there that was the form that got copied and saved. To copy the material is labor intensive so the presentation most valued was what got copied. The earliest notes simply were not carried forward in a separate form.

Of course there is not solid proof of this something else but I think it is reasonable. There is the evidence of Q for this process. Sure we do not have a copy of Q just the shadow of it left in the expansion of Jesus sayings from Mark to Luke and Matthew. If you wish to think no material was being copied from Jesus prior to the gospels you might generate an alternative theory of the Q material.
This reminds me of a guy who posted on this forum 15+ years ago. He was a young married Saint trying to figure out how to get going economically, and had an idea to make some serious money. He said he had an amazing idea for a book that would undoubtedly be a best seller. The problem is that he didn't have the time or talent to actually write it. He said he wanted to form a partnership with somebody--he would tell his co-writer what the idea was, and the co-writer would then actually write the book. They would then publish it together and split the profits.

Of course something like that would be a terrible deal for the person who actually wrote the book. Ideas are a dime a dozen. What takes real genius is making it happen--it is writing the book, building the business, etc.

My point here is that Mark is the one who had the genius to actually write the story in a way that got traction in the textual tradition. Maybe he didn't make any of it up. Maybe he made all of it up. In all likelihood the truth is somewhere in the middle. Regardless of how much or how little creative license he took with the story, Mark was the first one with the genius to tell it in a way that got traction. Clues inside the book such as Mark saying Jesus was from Nazareth point to some actual historicity.

Regarding Q, do we have any evidence that dates it before Mark? There was one creative genius that came up with that material, or at least compiled it from various sources. Maybe that creative source was Jesus of Nazareth in the 20's. Or maybe it was somebody writing Mark fan fiction in the 60's.

According to Earl Doherty, there are three layers of Q. The first layer is Greek in nature and wouldn't have been thought of by an Aramaic speaking Jew. The second and third layers don't seem the least bit connected to the crucified Jesus of Nazareth nor the resurrected Christ Jesus of Paul. Because of that, he thinks Q is further evidence that Christianity wasn't started by Jesus. In Doherty's words:

A more sensible solution would be that all these expressions of the idea of "Jesus" and "Christ" were separate distillations out of the concepts that were flowing in the religious currents of the day (as outlined in Part Two). Scholars now admit that "the beginnings of Christianity were exceptionally diverse, varied dramatically from region to region, and were dominated by individuals and groups whose practice and theology would be denounced as 'heretical'. " (Ron Cameron summarizing Walter Bauer, The Future of Early Christianity, p.381.) It is no longer possible to maintain that such diversity—so much of it uncoordinated and competitive—exploded overnight out of one humble Jewish preacher and a single missionary movement.

https://www.jesuspuzzle.com/jesuspuzzle/partthre.htm
Philo Sofee
God
Posts: 5017
Joined: Thu Oct 29, 2020 1:18 am

Re: The Jesus Myth Part II

Post by Philo Sofee »

From Analytics quoting Earl Doherty
It is no longer possible to maintain that such diversity—so much of it uncoordinated and competitive—exploded overnight out of one humble Jewish preacher and a single missionary movement.
I agree for the most part. The great cult of Isis was one of the main religions around the entire Mediterranean, (The Mother Goddess and her Divine Son was prominent in Early Christianity as well) another was that of Dionysus. Several studies of the impact, the overall power and spread of the ancient Greek Mysteries concerning the influence of Dionysus, give us very good background for at least one of the Gospels (John's) attempts at taking Jesus beyond the thresh-hold of the Dionysian influence, most interesting concentrated in the very place where John's Gospel was written - Ephesus, precisely where the Dionysian cult was strongly established.

Carl Kerenyi - Dionysos, Archetypal Image of Indestructible Life
M. David Litwa - Iesus Deus, The Early Christian Depiction of Jesus as a Mediterranean God
Carl A. P. Ruck, Blaise Daniel Staples, Clark Heinrich, The Apples of Apollo, Pagan and Christian Mysteries of the Eucharist
Dennis R. MacDonald The Dionysian Gospel, the Fourth Gospel and Euripides
Brian C. Muraresku The Immortality Key

Grasping that each of the Gospels were written in different locales - Mark written in Rome; Matthew in Syrian Antioch; Luke written possibly in Antioch or Asia Minor at Ephesus or Smyrna; and John in Ephesus, of course, there are going to be differences in the story, and written over a spread of some what, 60 years(?) of each other, yet within a generation or two after Jesus, the story was being told, from adapting existing and available sources to these authors in these various locales, and all of them were concerned with a man named Jesus - utilizing stories from other gods and heroes - and improving on them with their version of Jesus for their receptive audiences.

The Gospel writers were already aware of the diversity, I cannot imagine how they could not be, and they used that diversity of sources (Hebrew, Greek, Egyptian, Aramaic) to show their deity, this gent Jesus, surpasses them all. It was in a Hellenized world the Gospels arose in after all, and the Romans were obviously only too happy to allow whatever groups of peoples worshipped whoever they worshipped to continue doing so. There was no clamp down on accepting only a singular deity. But the effort does occur when it comes to Jesus having achieved a greater status from that diversity of various Mediterranean deities. Whether from his own experiences recorded or remembered, or some experiences embellished with the help of ancient hero/god stories as Vergil did within his Aeneid from Homer's epics - which was the story par excellence in early Roman times into Jesus' day - it would not be criminal or even an odd act at all for the various Gospel writers to propound their own version of this new deity's appearance into their world. Of course they were interested and anxious to show the greatness of Jesus, others had done so for their own deities - most and most importantly, Dionysus - which John specifically focused on and demonstrated over and over and over again throughout his gospel, that Jesus was an one greater who had come and now converting his own community to worshipping.

The uniqueness of Jesus lay not in what had happened to him, for that had been happening to various deities throughout the centuries. Jesus' uniqueness lay in that he was greater than all former deities, not that he had died and was resurrected again. The uniqueness of Jesus lay, as MacDonald so wonderfully shows (The Dionysian Gospel) in the over-arching love and inclusion and saving of the people, not destroying them as Euripides does in the Bacchae, especially to King Pentheus, and the Theban citizens. Jesus's gospel did not destroy people to elevate the deity, it saved the people with the deity.
User avatar
Kishkumen
God
Posts: 6121
Joined: Tue Oct 27, 2020 2:37 pm
Location: Cassius University

Re: The Jesus Myth Part II

Post by Kishkumen »

Analytics wrote:
Sun Sep 19, 2021 4:54 pm
My point here is that Mark is the one who had the genius to actually write the story in a way that got traction in the textual tradition. Maybe he didn't make any of it up. Maybe he made all of it up. In all likelihood the truth is somewhere in the middle. Regardless of how much or how little creative license he took with the story, Mark was the first one with the genius to tell it in a way that got traction. Clues inside the book such as Mark saying Jesus was from Nazareth point to some actual historicity.
That's great. Mark told the best version of The Jesus story up to his time . . . . Maybe. I dunno. The survival of texts has so many happenstance factors involved. Maybe it was the best Jesus text to date, and maybe there is a lost precursor to John that was better. One that Mark, Matthew, and Luke did not use or have access to for whatever reason.
Analytics wrote:
Sun Sep 19, 2021 4:54 pm
Regarding Q, do we have any evidence that dates it before Mark? There was one creative genius that came up with that material, or at least compiled it from various sources. Maybe that creative source was Jesus of Nazareth in the 20's. Or maybe it was somebody writing Mark fan fiction in the 60's.

According to Earl Doherty, there are three layers of Q. The first layer is Greek in nature and wouldn't have been thought of by an Aramaic speaking Jew. The second and third layers don't seem the least bit connected to the crucified Jesus of Nazareth nor the resurrected Christ Jesus of Paul. Because of that, he thinks Q is further evidence that Christianity wasn't started by Jesus. In Doherty's words:

A more sensible solution would be that all these expressions of the idea of "Jesus" and "Christ" were separate distillations out of the concepts that were flowing in the religious currents of the day (as outlined in Part Two). Scholars now admit that "the beginnings of Christianity were exceptionally diverse, varied dramatically from region to region, and were dominated by individuals and groups whose practice and theology would be denounced as 'heretical'. " (Ron Cameron summarizing Walter Bauer, The Future of Early Christianity, p.381.) It is no longer possible to maintain that such diversity—so much of it uncoordinated and competitive—exploded overnight out of one humble Jewish preacher and a single missionary movement.

https://www.jesuspuzzle.com/jesuspuzzle/partthre.htm
I am sorry, but Doherty is a hack. His work is riddled with errors. If he makes a claim, I am likely to doubt it just because he is the one who made it. I will certainly dig further into the Q question, but I am not sure where he is getting this idea. But then, Q is not something I have spent a great deal of time on. Anyhow, Galilee was home to two Greek cities, so I don't know that I would be so confident that Jesus did not know any Greek. He may well have learned at least some in his work as a tekton laboring for hire in cities that were being built (Tiberias) or expanded in Galilee. Indeed, Jesus was closer to many of the Greek cities of the Decapolis and may have gone there more frequently than he did Jerusalem. Scythopolis, often called the leading city of the Decapolis, was rebuilt by Pompey's lieutenant Gabinius. It was west of the Jordan River and not far from Nazareth.
“If they can get you asking the wrong questions, they don’t have to worry about the answers.”~Thomas Pynchon, Gravity’s Rainbow
huckelberry
God
Posts: 2579
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2020 3:48 pm

Re: The Jesus Myth Part II

Post by huckelberry »

Philo Sofee wrote:
Sun Sep 19, 2021 5:38 pm
....... The great cult of Isis was one of the main religions around the entire Mediterranean, (The Mother Goddess and her Divine Son was prominent in Early Christianity as well) another was that of Dionysus. Several studies of the impact, the overall power and spread of the ancient Greek Mysteries concerning the influence of Dionysus, give us very good background for at least one of the Gospels (John's) attempts at taking Jesus beyond the thresh-hold of the Dionysian influence, most interesting concentrated in the very place where John's Gospel was written - Ephesus, precisely where the Dionysian cult was strongly established.

.....stories being told, from adapting existing and available sources to these authors in these various locales, and all of them were concerned with a man named Jesus - utilizing stories from other gods and heroes - and improving on them with their version of Jesus for their receptive audiences.



The uniqueness of Jesus lay not in what had happened to him, for that had been happening to various deities throughout the centuries. Jesus' uniqueness lay in that he was greater than all former deities, not that he had died and was resurrected again. The uniqueness of Jesus lay, as MacDonald so wonderfully shows (The Dionysian Gospel) in the over-arching love and inclusion and saving of the people, not destroying them as Euripides does in the Bacchae, especially to King Pentheus, and the Theban citizens. Jesus's gospel did not destroy people to elevate the deity, it saved the people with the deity.
Philo, I think you end with an important point here Jesus was Jesus and not Dionysus even if there are common elements. People sometimes allow themselves to think that Christianity should not share things with other religions. This is not very likely or thoughtful. Religious ideas or understandings are built upon human experience which is shared around the world. The themes of sacrifice death and rebirth are found in myriad forms because the are important to humans in a variety of ways. People have wondered how those themes might touch on what it means to die, a mystery people cannot help but at least wonder about. .

There are parallel patterns in the thinking of different Mediterainian peoples peoples but that does not require dependency. To note parallels for Christianity makes no argument against an independent source, a man Jesus.

I am a bit frustrated considering what might be an appropriate reply to observations about use of culture wide sources in forming the gospels. Philo your comments are general. Am I to recognize some general themes imported? They meet on a beach, that has poetic resonance. Have I forgotten the part in the Iliad where the army is fead on a basket with a couple of fishes? it is hard to know what sort significance is pointed to beyond the author of Mark employed the narrative devices he thought would give the story some unity, movement and direction. Mark seems to have some ideas of what aim Jesus had which have clear connections with Jewish tradition. After all he was telling the story of a Jewish prophet.

I am not sure if it is another subject but what in the world are you referring to with the early Christian concern over a Mother Goddess and a divine son. I do not read this in any New Testament texts. I do not read it in the collection of secondary materials from the first100 years. I have heard speculation that the role of Mary grew as a response to cultural attachment to the mother goddess.Possible but not showing up early.(rural beliefs in Judea 1000 to 500 bc would be a different matter)

I admit that though I am hesitant in seeing mother goddess I can see that the ideas of Christianity were far from closed at anytime in the first century so allowed ,perhaps encouraged by default a significant diversification of Christian beliefs. I have read Irenaeus collection of different beliefs so have an idea of the spread. I am unsure of a reason to not expect this diversification when people were thinking about how to understand meaning for the Jesus story.
Philo Sofee
God
Posts: 5017
Joined: Thu Oct 29, 2020 1:18 am

Re: The Jesus Myth Part II

Post by Philo Sofee »

Huckleberry
I am a bit frustrated considering what might be an appropriate reply to observations about use of culture wide sources in forming the gospels. Philo your comments are general. Am I to recognize some general themes imported? They meet on a beach, that has poetic resonance. Have I forgotten the part in the Iliad where the army is fead on a basket with a couple of fishes? it is hard to know what sort significance is pointed to beyond the author of Mark employed the narrative devices he thought would give the story some unity, movement and direction. Mark seems to have some ideas of what aim Jesus had which have clear connections with Jewish tradition. After all he was telling the story of a Jewish prophet.
What is frustrating about having more sources for various aspects of the Jesus tradition? I don't understand how it is frustrating. Sure the story is about a Jewish prophet, but that can easily be accorded using Greek sources, epics, tragedies etc., as MacDonald has shown. Many events used anciently and described in the available literature were continually used by the Jewish population (such as fishing), and we now know, without question, that the idea of Jesus helping his disciples catching the 153 fish is a borrowing of an ancient Pythagorean story, as David Fideler (Jesus Sun of God) has demonstrated along with John Michell (The City of Revelation). It has nothing to do with history, it is a numerology puzzle and code hidden in plain sight for the initiates in the know. The same thing of the supposed miracle of Jesus walking on the water. The reason the Gospel authors utilized that Greek epic story was to show the Homeric readers of the Hellenized Diaspora from 600 B.C. that though great as the story is in Homer, it is even better in Jesus. This is a major premise and principle of mimesis, using a well known story and improving on it, giving it a better twist, a more confirming morality, etc. In Jesus day, Homer was considered as the premiere inspired theologian/poet as Lamberton (Homer the Theologian) has aptly and abundantly demonstrated, most especially to the early Neoplatonist authors.

MacDonald is showing the continuation of centuries old tradition which virtually all education and ancient authors insisted upon, namely taking from the best literature, the best examples of "inspired" stories from the original poet/author, and working it into their own stories. Vergil is primo evidence No. 1 for doing this with Homer's Illiad and Odyssey, in his world wide read and famous Aeneid whom many Roman areas and communities considered the most sacred, powerful writing in existence, and all three epics were continually being taught, read, memorized and emulated in Jesus' day by Greek and Roman authors alike. To find the Gospels utilizing not only the main important technique in rhetoric and writing, but also the most credible authors is pure historic gold as far as I am concerned.
Post Reply