OK ... there's a lot going on here, so I'll sketch through my responses, and we can take it from there.
I’ve been thinking about a possibility that doesn’t qualify as either mythicism or historicism, but it seems more likely to me than either one alone.
That's the Big Question, isn't it. The mythicists say it's
all myth, the historicists say otherwise.
My own view it's both.
I’m imagining that the earliest Jewish disciples already had all the cosmic categories including pre‑existent heavenly agents, Wisdom motifs, Logos‑like intermediaries, and exalted redeemer figures, because these were part of Hellenized Jewish cosmology before Jesus began teaching.
Fore sure. Jesus taught in parables, we can also assume a number of
logia, "oracular sayings", but the point is Jesus would have to speak in terms comprehensible to his audience, otherwise they wouldn't understand what he was saying.
So I see a three-step process:
Step 1: There is a lexicon of theological terms and ideas, from the doctrinal to the speculative.
Step 2: Jesus claims some or all of these cosmic categories refer to himself, and
Step 3: The New Testament writers make such claims on his behalf.
Mythicists is the extreme ilk will skip step two entirely, and argue that
all of it was a construct about a person who may not have even existed. The majority of scholars disagree with that, and insist Jesus was an historical person. The minimal argument then is most likely an apocalyptic preacher, perhaps a wonder-worker ... and we go on from there to the maximalist argument of orthodox Christianity.
We have to decide where on that axis (minimal-maximal) we're going to place ourselves.
So the “mythic” part (the cosmic categories) is older than the teachings of Jesus and already shaped by Greek philosophy.
Necessarily so. He cannot explain himself in incomprehensible categories. Nor would He, as He clearly sees himself in Jewish categories. At the very least, He is a Jew preaching repentance to the Jews, as was John the Baptist.
Again, He's preaching in synagogues, but He's largely preaching to the common people. To rural communities. These were not necessarily educated Jews, and nor would they have had all those Greek philosophical and even Hebrew speculative categories to hand. The Enochian writings, for example, were influential in speculative circles – but educated speculative circles – they'd be niche reading. By the same token, there would be a lot of speculative 'superstition' among His listeners.
As the son of a carpenter from a somewhat disreputable town like Nazareth, who settled in Galilee, regarded by Judean Pharisees and Jewish authorities as provincial, rustic, and ignorant. Would Jesus himself have known Greek philosophy? Unlikely,
Even so, the idea of identifying all that with Jesus came from Jesus himself, not explicitly but because he implicitly applied the same scriptures to himself that were used in Jewish cosmology. Then Paul learned that from the disciples that he interrogated before his conversion.
Well I'd argue explicitly, and clearly, on occasion, his audience thought so too, as they often accused him of blasphemy.
Yes! – Paul heard the message and saw the heresy, and was so adamant he won a commission to hunt down followers of the movement. He knew the basic gist of the message, he knew the stories, he would know about the cross, and ther supposed resurrection ... but then
something happened, and
everything changed – and that was Paul's epiphany that the resurrection
actually happened.
1 Corinthians 1:
"Where is the wise man? Where the scribe? Where the dialectician of this age? Has not God made foolish the
sophia toutou kosmos wisdom of the cosmos?" (v20)
"Since Judaeans ask for
semeion signs (miracles, wonders) while Greeks seek
gnosis wisdom (philosophy), and we proclaim Christ crucified – both a stumbling-block to Judaeans and a folly to the gentiles" (22-23).
It's the crucifixion and resurrection that clinches it for Paul – because he was schooled in Hebrew theology and Hellenic philosophy and regards both as being kicked into touch as it were, by the cross – that is the totality of the gospel, the rest of his writings is in support and explanation of that, and its implication, which he understood when he met Christ face to face:
"For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: And that he was seen of Cephas, then of the twelve: After that, he was seen of above five hundred brethren at once; of whom the greater part remain unto this present, but some are fallen asleep. After that, he was seen of James; then of all the apostles. And last of all he was seen of me also, as of one born out of due time." (15:3-8)
If that’s true, then the cosmic Christ wasn’t invented by Paul, and he wasn’t invented by later Christians. He was Hellenized Jewish cosmology applied to a real historical teacher by Jewish disciples seeing him apply the same scriptures to himself that they used in their cosmology.
Exactly. And later, the Councils would add their layers, at Nicaea, at Constantinople, at Chalcedon, and so forth.
i see a lot between the lines in what happened in and around Peter’s house. Anyway, we don’t actually know anything, by any definition. Everything I say is my inference to the best explanation.
