Jan 4, 2011 -- 6:48AM, Dennis wrote:

I have read just a bit about mythicist positions, What'sonsecond, but I'm not familiar with any serious scholars (by that I mean historians with Ph.D's or something commensurate) who entertain this position. (I'm a stickler for credentials.)

The gospel of Mark is definitely allegorical, I think. The disciples of Mark, as well as the apostles of the Paulines are also severely flawed buffoons and hypocrites. I can see where one would make this connection. Though there is a complete disconnect between the Jesus of the synoptics and the Christ of the Paulines, I am not sure one can put the "Christ chicken before the Jesus egg." There is just too much humanity in the synoptics for me to envision that tradition coming from anything from the "cosmic Christ cult." I also wonder why there was a reason to set the synoptics in Galilee and Judea, since the Paulines were obviously Gentile and had a strong affinity to the Mystery Religions, Gnosticism and Marcionism which, as far as we know, didn't have any impact in Palestine.

 

 

Jan 3, 2011 -- 4:14PM, whatson2nd wrote:

Dec 27, 2010 -- 2:37PM, Dennis wrote:

 

Christianity can not be traced any earlier than after the first Jewish Roman war.

snip

 There might have been a "historical Jesus." It's impossible to say. Ted Weeden made his case that the Jesus of the Passion was lifted from Josephus' story of "Jesus ben Ananias." That tends to lend credibility to a metaphorical meaning for Jesus, the parabolic/chiastic reading of the story of Mark.

Dennis

 

Some have suggested that Mark is allegorical fiction of a failed Pauline tradition written by a possible member or follower. That Peter, James, and John are recast by the author of Mark as disciples of an earthly Jesus that represents Israel as you suggest, written because Jerusalem lay in ruin. This would place Paul's letters as written before the destruction of Jerusalem and that the earliest Christians worshipped a risen Christ that was spiritual, that was crucified in a heavenly realm by demons. What are your thoughts about this line of reasoning.

My understanding of the mythicist view as regards to Jesus and Christ; There is no connect between the Jesus of Nazareth and the Christ of the epistles until the author of Mark combines a Galilean Jesus movement with a Jerusalem Christ cult. Mark recasts apostles Peter, James, and John as disciples of an earthly Jesus when writing of a Pauline tradition which in turn goes far to explain why the disciples are portrayed as dimwits that just don't get the message. G. A. Wells concludes that an historical Jesus exists within Q but is not in any way the same Christ that Paul writes of.

Here's is what I found on Wells: My present standpoint is: this complex is not all post-Pauline (Q in its  earliest form may well be as early as ca. A.D. 40), and it is not all  mythical. The essential point, as I see it, is that what is authentic in  this material refers to a personage who is not to be identified with  the dying and rising Christ of the early epistles.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus_myth_theory

Jan 4, 2011 -- 7:21PM, whatson2nd wrote:

Jan 4, 2011 -- 6:48AM, Dennis wrote:

I have read just a bit about mythicist positions, What'sonsecond, but I'm not familiar with any serious scholars (by that I mean historians with Ph.D's or something commensurate) who entertain this position. (I'm a stickler for credentials.)

The gospel of Mark is definitely allegorical, I think. The disciples of Mark, as well as the apostles of the Paulines are also severely flawed buffoons and hypocrites. I can see where one would make this connection. Though there is a complete disconnect between the Jesus of the synoptics and the Christ of the Paulines, I am not sure one can put the "Christ chicken before the Jesus egg." There is just too much humanity in the synoptics for me to envision that tradition coming from anything from the "cosmic Christ cult." I also wonder why there was a reason to set the synoptics in Galilee and Judea, since the Paulines were obviously Gentile and had a strong affinity to the Mystery Religions, Gnosticism and Marcionism which, as far as we know, didn't have any impact in Palestine.

 

 

Jan 3, 2011 -- 4:14PM, whatson2nd wrote:

Dec 27, 2010 -- 2:37PM, Dennis wrote:

 

Christianity can not be traced any earlier than after the first Jewish Roman war.

snip

 There might have been a "historical Jesus." It's impossible to say. Ted Weeden made his case that the Jesus of the Passion was lifted from Josephus' story of "Jesus ben Ananias." That tends to lend credibility to a metaphorical meaning for Jesus, the parabolic/chiastic reading of the story of Mark.

Dennis

 

Some have suggested that Mark is allegorical fiction of a failed Pauline tradition written by a possible member or follower. That Peter, James, and John are recast by the author of Mark as disciples of an earthly Jesus that represents Israel as you suggest, written because Jerusalem lay in ruin. This would place Paul's letters as written before the destruction of Jerusalem and that the earliest Christians worshipped a risen Christ that was spiritual, that was crucified in a heavenly realm by demons. What are your thoughts about this line of reasoning.

My understanding of the mythicist view as regards to Jesus and Christ; There is no connect between the Jesus of Nazareth and the Christ of the epistles until the author of Mark combines a Galilean Jesus movement with a Jerusalem Christ cult. Mark recasts apostles Peter, James, and John as disciples of an earthly Jesus when writing of a Pauline tradition which in turn goes far to explain why the disciples are portrayed as dimwits that just don't get the message. G. A. Wells concludes that an historical Jesus exists within Q but is not in any way the same Christ that Paul writes of.

The motivation may have been set up much earlier when Herod killed off the remnants of the Jewish priestly lines... (they were called Babbas...is that a confused reference to "Barabas" ?).