Were both "Mark" and Paul "Jesus Agnostics"?

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
Post Reply
Giuseppe
Posts: 13732
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Were both "Mark" and Paul "Jesus Agnostics"?

Post by Giuseppe »

The Gospels can't allow a clear distinction between history and myth. A lot of reasons are given for this.

Something that is not examined, to my knowledge, is the possibility that at least "Mark" didn't know if Jesus existed really or not. So "Mark" imagined simply the life of Jesus. In this sense, he was euhemerizing Jesus without not even knowing that Jesus existed or not. From this POV, he is not so different from who today (or better: yesterday) wrote books on the "historical Jesus".

How was this Mark's ignorance possible? Between the death of Paul and the community of Mark there was a kind of "Dark Age" of which the same "Mark" was a victim, in terms of real knowledge of the Christian past. So Mark had to imagine first, and then give a meaning to the mere fruit of the his imagination. Something of similar Josephus did, when he merely imagined who was "John the Baptizer" by placing him under the wrong Herod (given the fact that - per Greg Doudna - the true historical John was Hyrcanus II).

So the fact that there is not distinction between history and myth in the earliest Gospel was a deliberate act by "Mark" to give to others definitely the answer to the question if what he wrote was true or not. The others were the his same readers. They decided that what "Mark" wrote was entirely or partially true.

Now, the "Jesus agnosticism" of "Mark" is derived also from the "Jesus agnosticism" of Paul. Also Paul didn't know if Jesus existed or not "in the flesh".

From now on, therefore, we regard no one according to the flesh. Even though we once regarded Christ according to the flesh, we regard him thus no longer

(2 Cor 5:16)

The sense would be: even if Jesus existed really "in the flesh", we don't know and we don't care.

So Paul didn't imagine the life of Jesus, differently from Mark. He limited himself to imagine the meaning of Jesus's "known" act. That meaning was true for him even if Jesus didn't exist really "in the flesh".
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: Were both "Mark" and Paul "Jesus Agnostics"?

Post by Giuseppe »

So the natural question is the following: how could Paul himself raise doubts about the historicity of Jesus "in the flesh" (as he did de facto in 2 Cor 5:16) after anything by him said about the cosmic Christ etc?

The best answer is: because Paul was sure about the "historical" existence of Jesus in the heavens, but not (so equally sure) about the historical existence of Jesus on the earth. He had about the latter Jesus the same doubts of the Jewish Trypho: if he existed really, he was obscure and we don't know nothing about him.
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: Were both "Mark" and Paul "Jesus Agnostics"?

Post by Giuseppe »

Given the textual evidence (=2 Cor 5:16) on which to found the suspicion of a Pauline doubt about the historicity of Jesus, then the Jesus's crucifixion in Paul may be placed even on the earth and be even seen as a Roman crucifixion. This shouldn't prove the his historicity more than before. Simply Paul didn't know, according to the his own words (=2 Cor 5:16), if these things happened really or not.

If even Paul had the right to doubt about the historicity of Jesus, why we don't too?
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.
Bernard Muller
Posts: 3964
Joined: Tue Oct 15, 2013 6:02 pm
Contact:

Re: Were both "Mark" and Paul "Jesus Agnostics"?

Post by Bernard Muller »

To Giuseppe,
Now, the "Jesus agnosticism" of "Mark" is derived also from the "Jesus agnosticism" of Paul. Also Paul didn't know if Jesus existed or not "in the flesh".
From now on, therefore, we regard no one according to the flesh. Even though we once regarded Christ according to the flesh, we regard him thus no longer
(2 Cor 5:16)
"in the flesh" does not necessarily mean "according to the flesh". From http://historical-jesus.info/20.html:
Because "according to the flesh" (Greek: 'kata sarka') cannot mean here "in person" (neither Paul or his Corinthians met Jesus in the flesh), the sense in that context appears to be "according to worldly ways" (Collins' dictionary definition for "worldly": "not spiritual; mundane or temporal"). Please note the NIV Bible renders 'kata sarka' here as "from a worldly point of view"; the NRSV translates the same as "from a human point of view".

And Paul can be demonstrated to use this expression in the same epistle with that connotation:
2 Cor 1:17c "... Or the things I plan, do I plan according to the flesh ..."
2 Cor 5:15a "... we regard no one according to the flesh"
2 Cor 10:2-3 "But I beg [you] that when I am present I may not be bold with that confidence by which I intend to be bold against some, who think of us as if we walked according to the flesh. For though we walk in the flesh, we do not war according to the flesh."
2 Cor 11:18 "Seeing that many boast according to the flesh, I also will boast."
BTW, in http://historical-jesus.info/20.html, I concluded from verses 2 Cor 5:16-17 that Paul and his coverts in Corinth had been told about Jesus in worldly ways, and that Paul wished they forget about that depiction of human Jesus and focus on the heavenly post-existent Jesus.

Now, I have to leave you with your fertile imagination and twisted logic.

Cordially, Bernard
I believe freedom of expression should not be curtailed
Post Reply