Any account of non-Pauline "Christianity"?

[lsayre]

What if Paul's Christ only became Jesus Christ after Jesus worshipers usurped his letters?

[GakuseiDon]

But i'm not really answering your question and I will - I think everyone should have a pop at the whole Jesus conundrum
It really doesn't matter what one's starting position is or what evidence there is for it, all that matters is whether the thesis best explains the evidence and accounts for all the problems and gives a believable solution to them. In other words.. you have to start somewhere and any starting point is as good as any other - there's no reason one starting point is worse or better than another one

To my mind, most mythicists start with the conclusion, and that conclusion is based on a Fourth Century view of Jesus. If we want to set the expectation about what the earliest 'historicist' writers wanted to write about Jesus, then we need to start by deciding what that earliest layer is. That starting point may differ for each person depending on their reconstruction of the literature taking into account publication range, interpolations, etc.

Which texts do you see comprising the earliest layer of texts being unambiguously about an earthly Jesus?

[Secret Alias]

What's the difference between the mythicists and the historicists? The difference comes down to this - for the most part modern believers find most of the things in the gospel ridiculous at face value and so gravitate towards 'filling in the gaps' of credibility with 'Jesus the Jew.' Nothing in the sources prepares us for 'Jesus the Jew.' It just developed as part of the process of turning a dubious history into 'real history.' I am not sure 'dubious history' necessarily means 'entirely fake history' or myth. But it's not what you want it to be either.

[Secret Alias]

The real Jesus story is as follows:

1. a 'man' came to Judea (cf Marcion, Irenaeus, the Syriac Marcionite fragment)
2. the man's name is preserved in a curious script which in itself has no clear meaning.
3. according to Justin perhaps the oldest historical Christian source the name 'could' mean Jesus or it 'could' mean man.
4. this 'man' did things which never actually happened because what is described in the gospel is physically impossible (walking water, multiplying material objects out of thin air, expelling imaginary beings from people etc)
5. then this 'man' was arrested and was crucified and disappeared.
6. the disappearance of this 'man' proved that he was the messiah to a half hysterical woman (to quote Celsus) it was the fulfillment of prophesy cf. Daniel 9:26 just as his death narrative was pieced together bits from other scripture. But none of it happened (history doesn't unfold according to scripture) and the disappearance never happened because material things can't disappear.

So there's your great 'history' - this is what you laud over those who say it's myth. I am not sure it's either 'history' or 'myth.' It's just dubious nonsense or mysticism. It might have deep spiritual meaning. I am sure it does. It's the ancient precursor of the Teachings of Don Juan. https://youtu.be/ZyL2wFDQARY Was Castaneda knowledgeable about native American practices? Yes. Did he visit with shaman like Don Juan? Yes. But is what is described in this series 'factual'? No.

[GakuseiDon]

Sure, but to my mind, that expectation just doesn't appear to match the data that we have. If you look at the earliest 'historicist' writers (that is, writers who appear to believe in an earthly and apparently historical Jesus), those expectations aren't met. There are LOTS of examples of historicist writers who don't meet those expectations. I've raised this issue before. In the NT the obvious examples are 2 Peter, 1 Timothy and Acts of the Apostles (to an extent).

So why have that expectation, when that expectation isn't supported by the data?

Because the exception isn't to be set only in relation to Jesus. The exception should be set against other figures. It's not a matter of how early writers talked about Jesus, its a matter of how they talked about other real people. Even within Christianity we have the simple case of Paul. Look at how 1 Clement talks about Paul relative to Jesus.

But beyond that, look at how Jewish writers talked about other people they believed to be real. We can even use the Teacher of Righteousness from Qumran as an example. Even the ToR is talked about more like a real person than Jesus.

That is a good example. What expectations do you have with regards to how ToR is talked about in the texts as a real person? And are those expectations met with what you find in the literature? That is indeed the kind of analysis that is required.

You can't just say, no one talked about Jesus, therefore it was normal not to talk about Jesus, which proves that not talking about Jesus is what we should expect.

That is exactly what I'm saying. But note that because something is 'normal' doesn't mean it's explained. It is about expectations.

To me, the data suggests that the earliest Christians were focused on the meaning of the death and resurrection of Jesus. They didn't overly care about his life. That's because they thought that Jesus's death indicated that the world was coming to an end. It was only when the world didn't end that the Gospels were written and stories about the life of Jesus gained prominence. The problem I see with mythicists' reconstructions is the assumption that, if Jesus was historical, then the earliest Christians would have had the same fascination with the details of the life of Jesus as later Christians.

It appears that up until around the turn of the first century, Jesus is only described as a figure derived from the scriptures. Then there is some recognition of the Gospel Jesus in letters like Barnabas and 2 Peter, while still trying to blend the scriptural Jesus with this new Gospel concept. In this phase, as Papias alludes to, the Gospel stories are perhaps still not fully trusted. There are still strong traditions that relate Jesus to the OT scriptures.

Then, by around 140, which "coincidently", is both right after the Hadrian pogroms / Bar Kokhba Revolt and the "publication" of Marcion's Gospel, then we start seeing Jesus being talked about like a fully real person.

My question is: Outside of the Gospels, what texts in your opinion form the earliest layer of 'historicist' texts that talk about Jesus in the way that you'd expect them to talk about a 'historical' Jesus? We then have something to compare earlier and later texts against that expectation, to see if that expectation matches the data.

[Secret Alias]

You just pick inferior arguments where you can safely posit your 'historical Jesus.' There is no 'historical Jesus' or 'mythicist Jesus' - it all just comes down to a weird narrative which isn't quite history and isn't quite myth.

[Secret Alias]

Think about John gathering together Mark and Matthew and then - supposedly - adding his business about multiple Passovers. How could that be possible if John believed there was actual history at the core of the gospel? He knows it's bullshit. He has to know it's bullshit. Otherwise it would be like Moses being told to take off his shoes and instead takes a piss on the place God was standing. What about Irenaeus? He knows traditions that say 'one year' but he goes with this dubious 'nineteen year' ministry. How can you sit there with a straight face and pretend our sources are 'rock solid' when John and Irenaeus can manipulate a supposed 'reliable' historical account into a monstrosity? You're just not being honest. There is no history or there was a history and those at the head of our tradition didn't believe it and felt safe to completely make up shit. T-H-I-S C-A-N-T B-E H-I-S-T-O-R-Y.

[Secret Alias]

Again since you won't answer. Your argument and the argument of all 'historicists' is that because Acts lays out a 'history' then there must be history. Well Acts was identified as a forgery almost as soon as it was released (by the Marcionites). This means Luke is a forgery. And Luke is the only gospel which sets the exact date of the gospel which was contradicted strangely by the Acts of Pilate.

So there are TWO dates for the crucifixion right out of the gate.

Then John comes along and says 'you know what, I don't like the fact that heretics connect the gospel story to Isaiah 61. So let's blow that up and make that into a narrative that takes place over multiple Passovers.' The ability for all these writers to innovate with impunity is hardly an argument for historicity.

How the hell is that history? How the hell can you parade around like some 'expert' on the historical nature of the gospel when even the orthodox don't respect the idea of a historical gospel? If the gospel narrative was historical there'd be this first 'date.' This is the year of the gospel. But that isn't true. John builds out from whatever year was current and makes Jesus die 19 years later. Again I am not saying it is completely mythical but surely it was recognized even by the first orthodox Christians to be of 'dubious historical value' otherwise they wouldn't have been so free to make up shit.

* I know my arguments presuppose a knowledge of Irenaeus but I assume throughout that Irenaeus preserves the original exegesis and understanding of John.

[Secret Alias]

The closest parallel I see to the gospel in modern times is Don Juan from the Carlos Castaneda series. Was Don Juan historical? Maybe. Is the series historical? Probably not.

[Secret Alias]