A "tripod" argument against mythicism

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
User avatar
Jax
Posts: 1443
Joined: Sun Aug 06, 2017 6:10 am

Re: A "tripod" argument against mythicism

Post by Jax »

Irish1975 wrote: Sat Dec 16, 2017 9:32 am
Any fans here of James Tabor? IMO the best interpreter of Paul alive today.
Until now, I had never heard of him, but when I read things like this

"By his parents' marriage, Jesus was better placed to be King of Israel than Herod Antipas was. The two contradictory blood lines in the gospels are seen as compatible if one belongs to Mary and the other to Joseph. In such a case Jesus would have united a formidable list of families into his ancestors.

Jesus joined John the Baptist's movement - John was a close relative of Jesus (John's mom being Mary's aunt which makes jesus his second cousin)- and the two were prepared to bring about an uprising in Judaea, but John's arrest and execution caused Jesus to go underground to avoid the same fate. Eventually he resurfaced to carry on the Baptist's work alone."

from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Jesus_Dynasty

I pretty much see no real reason to read the rest of his material.
Giuseppe
Posts: 13732
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: A "tripod" argument against mythicism

Post by Giuseppe »

Irish1975 wrote: Sat Dec 16, 2017 9:32 am It seems there are two incompatible claims here: (1) that James was originally a Jewish text, and (2) that it was composed by anti-Marcionite 2nd century fathers. (Or is Nienhuis arguing that it was merely redacted in the 2nd century? Certainly it must have been redacted at some time.)
You have given the answer. the Jewish ''Epistle of James'' was redacted by simply adding the name of Jesus and of James somewhere. In anti-marcionite function.
Note that James was called ''The Just'' against Marcion who called ''Just'' (but cruel) the Demiurge. Just as Paul was called ''THE Abort'' (assuming the relative passage was a later anti-marcionite interpolation) as ''The Abort'' was the Demiurge in the Gnostic mythology.
And now I think that something of this kind occurred.
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.
Giuseppe
Posts: 13732
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: A "tripod" argument against mythicism

Post by Giuseppe »

About James Tabor, I like FULLY the fact that he considers the ebionites as the late followers of the Pillars (enemies of Paul).


Only that, differently from him, I think that the original ebionites were MYTHICIST Christians, and only later, in the Second Century, some of them were moved to become fully historicists (by considering Jesus not even semi-divine, but merely a man).

I show my reasons to consider the original Ebionites as the same Elkeseans here.

In short, it is strongly expected that Epiphanius thought wrongly that the original ebionites were historicists, and that only later they became followers of a so absurd High Christology (Christ as a giant, etc) as the Christology of Elxaios.


The real trajectory was the contrary, pace Epiphanius: before the Jesus Giant, and then the Jesus mere man.
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.
User avatar
Irish1975
Posts: 1057
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2017 8:01 am

Re: A "tripod" argument against mythicism

Post by Irish1975 »

Jax wrote: Sat Dec 16, 2017 5:25 pm
Irish1975 wrote: Sat Dec 16, 2017 9:32 am
Any fans here of James Tabor? IMO the best interpreter of Paul alive today.
Until now, I had never heard of him, but when I read things like this
...

from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Jesus_Dynasty

I pretty much see no real reason to read the rest of his material.
Tabor has had a strange career. His lifelong fascination is with Paul. He wrote his PhD dissertation on Paul's celestial vision in 2 Corinthians, and Paul and Jesus is undoubtedly his best book. But Tabor has also pursued a side career as archeologist in Palestine, and made much of the discovery of the James ossuary that came out in 2002. He subscribes to the theory of "2 original Christianities," one centered on John the Baptist + Jesus + James (with Peter as a minor sidekick), and the other emanating from Paul. On this account, the author of Luke-Acts effectively buried the legacy of James, and enshrined Peter and Paul as parallel founders of the first-in-Jerusalem-finally-in-Rome Church. (Tabor pays homage to the 19th century founder of this approach, FC Bauer.)

I have tried to read The Jesus Dynasty, but it doesn't hold up. I don't blame you for being unimpressed. But that shouldn't keep you from reading his book on Paul. He gets into the mind of the apostle with both fascination and skepticism, a rare combination I find.
John2
Posts: 4309
Joined: Fri May 16, 2014 4:42 pm

Re: A "tripod" argument against mythicism

Post by John2 »

... the author of Luke-Acts effectively buried the legacy of James, and enshrined Peter and Paul as parallel founders of the first-in-Jerusalem-finally-in-Rome Church.
That's the way I see it too (though more so Paul than Peter). That is where Acts ends after all, with Paul in Rome.

28:30-31:
For two whole years Paul stayed there in his own rented house and welcomed all who came to see him. He proclaimed the kingdom of God and taught about the Lord Jesus Christ—with all boldness and without hindrance!
Acts doesn't really identify James at all and doesn't say what happens to him, nor does it say what happens to Peter. I see it as being more about smoothing over the differences between Paul and Jewish Christians while at the same time favoring Paul.

I used to despise Acts as worthless fantasy, but lately I've come to have respect for it. I think if you factor in the above and all the ancient "special effects" (which other NT writings exhibit too, so that's just par for the course), there is some important information in Acts, even if you think it is late as I do (I reckon it's somewhere in the early to mid second century CE).

I'm not big on what "sources" various NT writings use, but Acts is an exception. For example, I think Luke/Acts knew Mark and Matthew (and not Q) and MacDonald makes me think the author knew Papias as well. And Ben wrote something in another thread regarding Papias' account of the gospel of Mark and the Mark in 1 Peter that is worth quoting in full:
Luke 1.2 says that the gospel message was passed down by "eyewitnesses and attendants of the word," the Greek word for "attendant" being ὑπηρέτης, the same word used of the person in Luke 4.20 who seems to be in charge of keeping the scrolls of the synagogue. (The word can also mean "officer," however, so this connection is not automatic.) At any rate, in Acts 13.5, Paul and Barnabas are said to have "John as their attendant," using the same word again (this John is John Mark; refer to Acts 12.12, 25; 15.37).

And think about the threefold cultural nexus at which this John Mark is supposed to work and live. His mother lives in Jerusalem (Acts 12.12) and he bears a Jewish name (John), thus giving him Hebrew/Aramaic roots; but he also helps Paul, who apparently preaches and writes in Greek; and he also bears a Roman/Latin name (Mark = Marcus). Compare this trifecta to the gospel of Mark itself, which has stories allegedly of Hebrew/Aramaic origin (translating several of the Semitic terms into Greek for the reader), is written in Greek, and also bears many Latinisms (not to mention its alleged Roman provenance), including the translation of a couple of Greek terms into Latin.

Mark's mother purportedly living in Jerusalem is interesting for another reason. The gospel of Mark, in presenting the Galilean ministry, comes off as a string of individual episodes which could be chronologically rearranged without damaging the sense of things. But the Jerusalem stuff is more of a narrative; events cannot be rearranged willy-nilly without impacting the flow of things.

Furthermore, the gospel of Mark has a lot to say about Peter; simultaneously, it seems to touch upon Pauline themes and ideas a lot, as well, and probably (it seems to me) drew from several Pauline epistles. And, of course, we find Mark being associated with Peter in 1 Peter and with Paul both in Acts and in Colossians 4.10; Philemon [1.]24.

So a purely circumstantial case can be made that this John Mark had something to do with the gospel of Mark. Yet finding firm statements to this effect from people whose access to the information can be accurately traced is a different story. Papias' transmission of John the elder's words is the closest we come.

So these days I'm thinking that the author of Luke/Acts knew some things about early Christianity (just like they say from the outset) but is spinning the information to favor Paul (and Rome) and downplay his differences with Jewish Christians.
You know in spite of all you gained, you still have to stand out in the pouring rain.
Post Reply