An Abstract Mythicist Hypothesis

[Mcreal]

My questions were for McReal as I was trying to get an outline of how he thought Christianity came about in the absence of a flesh and blood Jesus.

I think the NT texts arose over time out of a Gnostic/Jewish/pagan millieu after the First Jewish War. I think they represent new theology that arose in response to the Jewish/Hebrew distress over the Fall of the Temple; as a result of various groups of the Diapora being placed in pagan or Gnostic communities where a new syncretic theology developed; through various interactions of various communities over time.

The Pauline texts represented one community (or maybe two) that was/were largely Gnostic-Docetic, and the other 14 books of the NT represented at least two other communities, at least one of which was strongly Judaic, and at least one was also mixed Jewish & Gnostic or Docetic.

Some of these communities would have had concepts of dual gods, a la Marcionism - Marcionism was probably a continuation of one of these communities; as may have been the Ebionites, the Nazoreans, etc. Various names would have been given to these the entities they were focusing on. Christ was probably one of them.

The writings of Irenaeus, particularly Against Heresies, show there were still different perceptions in different communities of the nature of the Savior entity, and how concrete He was, over a long period of time: at least through to the end of the 2nd century; and maybe until after the Council of Nicea.

Eventually the idea of a Savior-angel-god-man became universal, and that entity was eventually portrayed as having been on earth as a human ie. in the image of God who was ironically in the image of man.

The NT writers likely co-opted, yet re-wrote, various figures & events of the 1st century, and maybe later, and probably included stories of various preacher dudes wandering around transmitting these stories when they were being developed or when they were evolving or both. One may have even been a Jesus of Galilee of even of Nazareth, but much much later than the late 20s/30s a.d

Because such a savior could not restore the Temple in Jerusalem in the times these stories were being developed (or elsewhere, b/c Diasporic Jewish groups were not dominant in their new communities), He had to be placed in time before the Fall of the Temple (the Fall of the Temple mimicking The Fall of Man as brought about by Adam), but with prophetic traits/narratives that were positive, and thus attractive to those hearing them, and with the prospect of a 2nd Coming. With King Agrippa being popular and overseeing a period of stability, and zealot uprisings increasing after his death, Jesus Christ had to be placed before Agrippa. The Resurrection narrative confirmed He was a dying-rising God capable of rising again.

 

[Brainache]

OK. Thanks for the new thread. It might take a while for me to respond to this, but my first impression is that you would need a lot more specific details to convince a Historian.

 

[Craig B]

Some of these communities would have had concepts of dual gods, a la Marcionism - Marcionism was probably a continuation of one of these communities; as may have been the Ebionites, the Nazoreans, etc. Various names would have been given to these the entities they were focusing on. Christ was probably one of them.

The writings of Irenaeus, particularly Against Heresies, show there were still different perceptions in different communities of the nature of the Savior entity, and how concrete He was, over a long period of time: at least through to the end of the 2nd century; and maybe until after the Council of Nicea.

Eventually the idea of a Savior-angel-god-man became universal, and that entity was eventually portrayed as having been on earth as a human ie. in the image of God who was ironically in the image of man.

The NT writers likely co-opted, yet re-wrote, various figures & events of the 1st century, and maybe later, and probably included stories of various preacher dudes wandering around transmitting these stories when they were being developed or when they were evolving or both. One may have even been a Jesus of Galilee of even of Nazareth, but much much later than the late 20s/30s a.d.

With the exception of the para I have italicised, the statements in this extract are I think too conditional and tentative, with "probably" and "maybe" and suchlike appearing too frequently. These observations will require more evidence from the documentary record to support them.

 

[vridar]

The Resurrection narrative confirmed He was a dying-rising God capable of rising again.

I wonder if the first burial and resurrection narrative was in fact a midrashic adaptation of Isaiah 22:16 (LXX) where the Temple was portrayed as a sepulchre hewn from a rock. The resurrection was the replacement of the old temple by the new spiritual temple in Jesus.

 

[Mcreal]

I wonder if the first burial and resurrection narrative was in fact a midrashic adaptation of Isaiah 22:16 (LXX) where the Temple was portrayed as a sepulchre hewn from a rock.

That's interesting .. [continued below]

The resurrection was the replacement of the old temple by the new spiritual temple in Jesus.

I had wondered if the Resurrection narrative developed out of the alleged rebuilding of the Temple by Bar Kokhba (or alleged start of the rebuilding) and, with that put to rest by Kokhba's demise, the Second Coming was initially a euphemism for hopes for the eventual rebuilding of it (I though of that when I was positing the Fall parallels in my OP, but thought mentioning it would only complicate things).

 

[Mcreal]

.. my first impression is that you would need a lot more specific details to convince a Historian.

.. the statements in this extract are I think too conditional and tentative, with "probably" and "maybe" and suchlike appearing too frequently. These observations will require more evidence from the documentary record to support them.

Sure, but it was just a quick outline: possibly the start of a bigger project.

Thanks for the feedback so far, though.​

 

[Kapyong]

Gday Mcreal and all

I had wondered if the Resurrection narrative developed out of the alleged rebuilding of the Temple by Bar Kokhba (or alleged start of the rebuilding) and, with that put to rest by Kokhba's demise, the Second Coming was initially a euphemism for hopes for the eventual rebuilding of it (I though of that when I was positing the Fall parallels in my OP, but thought mentioning it would only complicate things).

Hmmm... interesting idea.
I suspect that the Gospels were released / revealed / publicised, specifically as a response to the Bar Kokhba disasters - once all hope for the physical Temple was lost, perhaps in an attempt to provide people something to believe in ?


Kapyong

 

[Mcreal]

I suspect that the Gospels were released / revealed / publicised, specifically as a response to the Bar Kokhba disasters - once all hope for the physical Temple was lost, perhaps in an attempt to provide people something to believe in ?

Kapyong

Thanks!!

I heard somewhere there's talk the gospels were written in the 2nd century.

 

[Kapyong]

Gday Mcreal and all

I heard somewhere there's talk the gospels were written in the 2nd century.

It's an intriguing possibility -

In favour might be the Abomination of the Desolation :

"Some scholars, including Hermann Detering, see these verses as a vaticinium ex eventu about Emperor Hadrian's attempt to install the statue of Jupiter Capitolinus on the site of the ruined Jewish Temple in Jerusalem leading to the Bar Kokhba revolt of 132-135 AD."​

But it seems more likely to me the Gospels were written c.70 because of the Temple references, but probably redacted during Bar Kokhba.

BTW -
I just found this crap on wikipedia, following above :

" This view, however, is refuted by the fact that a 1994 discovery of the Magdalen Papyrus containing segments of Matthew 26 and 31 was dated to prior to 66AD.[citation needed] Adding to the physical evidence supporting Matthew as an eyewitness account, an electron microscope scan of the papyrus was conducted. This scan lead to the conclusion "that the Gospel according to Matthew is an eyewitness account written by contemporaries of Christ."[18] (December 24, 1994, The Times, London, front page. Carsten Peter Thiede, Director of the Institute for Basic Epistemological Research in Paderborn, Germany; first published in Zeitschrift fur Papyrologie.)"​

I deleted it


Kapyong

 

[vridar]

T
I heard somewhere there's talk the gospels were written in the 2nd century.

The normal method of dating an ancient text is to start where we are on firmest ground, where we are best informed for our position, and then to work back to where we are least well informed.

It is not normal practice (except in biblical studies for some reason) to just assume a text is old because it appears to say it is old, or to just assume that it contains so much detail it simply had to be by an eyewitness or contemporary. The reasons this approach is invalid are surely obvious.

With the gospels, we are on our firmest ground with Irenaeus. He is the first to definitely refer to our four canonical gospels Matthew, Mark, Luke and John.

So we can infer that these gospels were in existence around 170 CE.

Prior to that we have Justin. He refers to "gospels" and "memoirs of the apostles", apparently equating the two, but does not appear to know of our own forms of the gospels, and certainly not by the names or titles they are known by today. He does, however, refer to Jesus changing the names of James, John and Peter, and since we read about this in the Gospel of Mark it is reasonable to assume that Justin knew of that gospel.

There must remain some doubt, however, given that other details he gives about the narrative of Jesus do not square with what we find in our gospels. Example, he says John the Baptist was "sitting" as he preached and the Jordan was engulfed in fire when Jesus entered it for baptism, and he even seems to suggest that Jesus gave the eucharist to his 12 (not 11) disciples after his resurrection. His details of Christ's nativity appear to be taken directly from OT prophets instead of Matthew.

It seems that if Justin knew of the canonical gospels he did not consider them any more authoritative than other gospels at the time, or perhaps our canonical gospels were later heavily redacted until they looked quite different by the time of Irenaeus.

We cannot go any earlier than 70 CE for the gospels, as we know -- although some try to argue that we should date Mark as early as 35 or 40 CE. I think the literary grounds for dating them post 70 are pretty strong, however.

Mark's themes of crucifixions and persecution are other clues as to date. We don't know of any persecutions of Christians until the 90s and even there the evidence is flimsy. We have more (though still not very much) evidence for persecutions of Christians in the time the Bar Kochba rebellion. Mark 13 also appears to have more in sync with the Bar Kochba war than with that of 66-70.

The evidence for the Neronian persecution in Rome is too problematic to be brought into the game, I think. Pliny the Younger appears to indicate some patchy persecution here and there.

On the basis of the above I think it is not unreasonable to think that the gospels in the form in which they appear today came together some time between the Bar Kochba war and the mid or early half of the second century.

Their original form may well have been composed some time between 70 and 140, and perhaps it took some time, along with competition with other gospels, before they were redacted to what we know today.

This is of course only an attempt to explain the evidence we have in a manner that is consistent with how ancient texts are normally dated.

An alternative is to presume that since the gospels "must have been" based on true stories that were orally transmitted and put down in writing within the generation of the eyewitnesses then they "must have been" written no later than the latter part of the first century, even earlier. But that is a argument driven by a combination of naivety (assuming a narrative can be a testimony to its own truth) and apologetics and faith that the gospels convey historical truth, not normative historical methods.

Having said all that, I am still prepared to date Mark to around 70. The reasons are literary. The context is crucifixion and there were way too many crucifixions around Jerusalem for anyone to ignore around 70 CE. The text also appears to contain numerous "midrashic" allusions to the destruction of the Temple. And it makes sense to think of the Joshua gospel emerging as a response to the fall of the Mosaic cult.

The anachronisms in the gospels also support a post 70 date. Pharisees appear in Galilee post 70. Nazareth is probably unknown in Mark (despite 1:9) but it was settled soon after 70 so makes its appearance in Matthew and Luke. And the disputes with the Pharisees appear to reflect disputes post 70 between early rabbinic scholars and Christians -- although this particular anachronism may be better explained by an even later date.

Another reason for dating Mark as early as 70 might be that it was written to defend Paul's legacy. But that argument is too complicated to address now.

In other words, I keep an open mind on the date of the gospels. Anywhere between 70 and 170.

 

[David Mo]

I wonder if the first burial and resurrection narrative was in fact a midrashic adaptation of Isaiah 22:16 (LXX) where the Temple was portrayed as a sepulchre hewn from a rock. The resurrection was the replacement of the old temple by the new spiritual temple in Jesus.

This is speculation. Is it not?

The problem with symbolic interpretation is that we don't know if it comes before or after the described event. Cause or justification. In early Christianity I bet on a post event justification.
I am reluctant to the symbolism as a form of explaining everything. I am fed up Eliade.

 

[David Mo]

In other words, I keep an open mind on the date of the gospels. Anywhere between 70 and 170.

In general I agree. However the datation problem is not exclusive of the gospels. Almost all ancient texts have similar problems. What bothers me is the dogmatic confidence in conjectural dating that is a common flaw in the problem of the historical Jesus (sic). Unfortunately, not ever in the same side that we (unbelievers) could expect.
Therefore the 70-120 dates are the most plausible that we have for the moment.

(I have lived agressive debates even on the dating and the autentication of Plato's dialogs).

 

[David Mo]

Since the moment of speculation is arrived, here is mine:

(1) First Jewish phase: A small sect around a prophet (messianic?) that is crucified by Romans.
(2) Second Jewish phase: Failure of the messianism with a jump forward: escatological expectation in a heavenly messiah that returns after his death as a man.
(3) Universalism and hellenization (Pauline): My kingdom is not of this world.Submission to the earthly authority
(4) Confrontation between (2) and (3); other hellenistic influences. Gospels, apocriphal (except Thomas), gnosticism, early Christian literature until approx. 150.
(5) Triumph of the universalist tendencies (end of the second century). Only some deformed remnants of the first phases and manipulated texts of the third phase.

Very consistent and economic , is it not?

 

[Craig B]

... messianic? ...

I think so.

Acts 1:5 For John baptized with water, but in a few days you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit.” 6 So when they came together, they asked Him, “Lord will You at this time restore the kingdom to Israel?” 7 Jesus replied, “It is not for you to know times or seasons that the Father has fixed by His own authority.…

Luke 19:11 While the people were listening to this, Jesus proceeded to tell them a parable, because He was near Jerusalem and they thought the kingdom of God would appear imminently.​

The sources of these things, whether they were directly uttered by Jesus or not, have identified him as a very traditional kind of Messiah.

 

[vridar]

This is speculation. Is it not?

The problem with symbolic interpretation is that we don't know if it comes before or after the described event. Cause or justification. In early Christianity I bet on a post event justification.
I am reluctant to the symbolism as a form of explaining everything. I am fed up Eliade.

It is part of a much larger analysis of intertextuality by Karel Hanhart, The open tomb : a new approach, Mark's Passover Haggadah .

The argument is not about comparisons of symbols. Intertextuality and literary mimesis belong to the realm of comparative literary analysis.

 

[David Mo]

It is part of a much larger analysis of intertextuality by Karel Hanhart, The open tomb : a new approach, Mark's Passover Haggadah .

The argument is not about comparisons of symbols. Intertextuality and literary mimesis belong to the realm of comparative literary analysis.

I didn't know this author. Does he have any text on line? (If published on a specialized journal maybe I have access via my library). eanwhoile I have found: "The Four Beasts of Daniel's Vision in the Night in the Light of Rev. 13.2" I don't know if this is useful for our discussion.

Not symbol? Do you recognize this: "Jesus’ Crucifixion As Symbol of Destruction of Temple and Judgment on the Jews"? "that the resurrection of Jesus symbolized the emergence of a new “body of Christ” and “Temple of God” in the “ekklesia” or assemblies of Christians (what we think of as the “church”)". Your words, I think.

In my opinion both texts speak of an excavated tomb because this was the Jewish costum. Where do you want that Jesus were buried? I don't find any symbolism. No mystery.

I agree that many passages of the gospels are retouched (or invented) to fit other passages of the Ancient Testament. But not this one.

 

[vridar]

Not symbol? Do you recognize this: "Jesus’ Crucifixion As Symbol of Destruction of Temple and Judgment on the Jews"? "that the resurrection of Jesus symbolized the emergence of a new “body of Christ” and “Temple of God” in the “ekklesia” or assemblies of Christians (what we think of as the “church”)". Your words, I think.

In my opinion both texts speak of an excavated tomb because this was the Jewish costum. Where do you want that Jesus were buried? I don't find any symbolism. No mystery.

I agree that many passages of the gospels are retouched (or invented) to fit other passages of the Ancient Testament. But not this one.

It is not a comparative study of symbols as per Eliade -- your reference that I was addressing. It is not about comparative mythology. It is about intertextuality. The intertextuality or "midrashic" re-writing of the OT creates the new images that produce Jesus as the new temple. His death is symbolic of the destruction of the temple, but it is more than that, too. He is both a symbol and an embodiment of the new Israel. But the argument is not based on comparing symbols as might Campbell or Eliade or another anthropologist. It is the conclusion that arises from a close study of the intertextual weaving of OT passages (many scores of them) in the gospel of Mark.

Mark does not simply say Jesus was buried, and he does not give us a colourful narrative description for our enjoyment etc. He provides details, word-matches, with Isaiah 22:16 LXX, for example, that iirc he reinforces in preparatory symbolic or foreshadowing narratives -- the sepulchre hewn out of a rock in Isaiah -- a roof hewn out in a healing scene rich with other overlaps -- a tomb hewn out of a rock . . . . But one of well over a hundred such recyclings of OT images.

As I said, it is an argument grounded in comparative literary analysis.

(The Daniel article has no relevance.)

 

[Craig B]

intertextual weaving of OT passages (many scores of them) in the gospel of Mark.
-- a tomb hewn out of a rock . . . . But one of well over a hundred such recyclings of OT images.

Please refer me to a list of these scores of allusions, which I presume can be found, as I would be interested to see an exhaustive account of them.

 

[vridar]

Please refer me to a list of these scores of allusions, which I presume can be found, as I would be interested to see an exhaustive account of them.

I was merely pointing out to you that your assumption that my point was grounded in some sort of comparative mythology (Eliade like discussion) was not so, and that it is rather based on the detailed scholarly work of those who do studies in mimesis and intertextuality. You jumped to a conclusion that was unwarranted and I simply pointed out to you that I was not basing my comment on what you assumed.

Evidently you are unaware of these studies. I gave you the details of the book from which I took the one specific example that sparked the discussion here.

I have no intention of spending the time it would take to copy and paste details from other posts and blogs or digging up dozens of citations of scholars of intertextuality and literary analysis of the gospels.

Just google intertextuality, mimesis, literary analysis, new testament, etc ..... Check out the book I referenced via interlibrary loan.

Or even look up works on ancient classical (Greco-Roman) literature. Or the vast range of midrashic (haggadah) styles of narrative.

Meanwhile if you have something specific you would like to genuinely discuss I am happy to engage.

 

[vridar]

Please refer me to a list of these scores of allusions, which I presume can be found, as I would be interested to see an exhaustive account of them.

Actually if you specifically mean to learn the grounds of the scores of allusions in Mark you don't need to have a bibliography of dozens of authors, although scores of authors have written on them in depth. A single article by Howard Clark Kee (1975) "The Function of Scriptural Quotations and Allusions in Mark 11-16" sets out iirc over a hundred in those chapters alone. There are many, many detailed books on the Gospel of Mark by NT scholars discussing these sorts of details throughout the book. Google them. (I think the rules here forbid me from linking to other blog posts where they have been abundantly cited from the literature.)

Kinghardt is the only scholar I know of who has published the identification of the Isa 22:16 (LXX) in the tomb scene in Mark.