The Jesus Of History Vs The Jesus Of Myth

[Blue Jay]

In light of Paul's Jesus, who seems to be a spiritual heavenly being, it would make sense in my mind that the gospel of John would have been next to be written after Paul's writings. And that the synoptics came last, sometime in the second century. That would show a "degenerating" or "materializing" trend of Jesus from heavenly to material flesh and blood. Is there any basis for such a theory? Seems I saw it somewhere but I forget where. In my mind, this would definitely indicate that there was no flesh and blood historical Jesus of the Bible.

I know this is opposite from what Christian biblical scholars say; they have Mark the earliest and John the latest for sure.

I am thinking this idea makes sense if we believe that Jesus is a mythical figure. Paul's Jesus is a heavenly being, is very different from the Jesus of the Gospels. I think the Jesus of John is very different from the Jesus of the synoptic gospels (Matthew, Mark, and Luke). Of course, Paul's Jesus and John's Jesus are very different, too.

If we think of Jesus et al as a myth that got written down sometime in the first century CE (AD) it makes sense in my mind to think that the fully developed theology preceded or came before the historicized versions in the synoptic gospels. In other words, the synoptic gospels sound like history, and John and Paul sound like theology. Maybe John came first, then Paul, then the synoptic gospels ???

The Gospel of John barely escapes being Gnostic. I have not yet seen any speculations about the beginnings of Gnosticism. Perhaps Gnosticism pre-dated Christianity. Perhaps Christianity grew out of Gnosticism.

This, of course, raises the question: Could Paul possibly have been Gnostic? "Mystery Religion" may not exactly equate "Gnosticism." However, "gnosis" equals "knowledge" or "knowing." I did a search in Strong's Concordance (electronic version) for the word "mystery," and there are a batch of references to Paul's writings about knowing the mystery [of the kingdom of God, etc].

Marvin W. Meyer (in The Ancient Mysteries) argues that Christianity rightfully is a mystery religion. He quotes Clement of Alexandria (orthodox Christian) where he says it is a mystery religion, and he also quotes Paul in 1 Cor. 15, online here.

What do you think? Any ideas?http://bible.crosswalk.com/OnlineSt...oq=&NavBook=1co&NavGo=15&NavCurrentChapter=15

 

[Thomas]

Hi Bluejay –

In light of Paul's Jesus, who seems to be a spiritual heavenly being,
Paul emphasised this aspect, but not at the cost of his human being. Jesus was, to Paul, the Second Adam in which the errors of the First were made right.

it would make sense in my mind that the gospel of John would have been next to be written after Paul's writings. And that the synoptics came last, sometime in the second century. That would show a "degenerating" or "materializing" trend of Jesus from heavenly to material flesh and blood. Is there any basis for such a theory?
I don't think so. Scholars tend to agree Paul was the earliest, and John the last.

Also assumes a lack of 'spiritual' vision of the synoptics, which is a bit ... shallow? There is a profound work on the mystical symbolism of Matthew which is so subtle as to be almost invisible.

Seems I saw it somewhere but I forget where. In my mind, this would definitely indicate that there was no flesh and blood historical Jesus of the Bible.
I think the weight of evidence pfrecludes that now.

I am thinking this idea makes sense if we believe that Jesus is a mythical figure.
Then the onus is on you to make your point, utilising the historical data available.

Paul's Jesus is a heavenly being, is very different from the Jesus of the Gospels.
Then why did the Gospel writers, who came later, not eradicate Paul? Why did the Apostles themselves not speak out against him? Why did the early community, many who heard Jesus at first hand, ever accept 'the enemy' into their midst? Is He different, or is it that you do not see the continuity? Or the Mystery made evident in Paul?

I think the Jesus of John is very different from the Jesus of the synoptic gospels (Matthew, Mark, and Luke). Of course, Paul's Jesus and John's Jesus are very different, too.
They are different because the witness is different. The Testimony is different. The Person is the same.

If we think of Jesus et al as a myth that got written down sometime in the first century CE (AD) it makes sense in my mind to think that the fully developed theology preceded or came before the historicized versions in the synoptic gospels.
But if there was no historicity - where and how did the myth originate with such staggering speed? It would be a conspiracy of epic proportion.

In other words, the synoptic gospels sound like history, and John and Paul sound like theology. Maybe John came first, then Paul, then the synoptic gospels ???
They are all both, in different proportion.

The Gospel of John barely escapes being Gnostic. I have not yet seen any speculations about the beginnings of Gnosticism. Perhaps Gnosticism pre-dated Christianity. Perhaps Christianity grew out of Gnosticism.
Where have you been looking?

Gnosticism predates Christianity in the sense that there were Egyptian, Hebrew, Greek, Persian and Oriental mystery religions around.

Also, the Gospel of John escapes non-Christian Gnosis utterly. It is non-dualistic, there is no demiurge, creation is good, God became man ... every aspect utterly refutes common gnosticism.

This, of course, raises the question: Could Paul possibly have been Gnostic?
Absolutely, but the gnosis of Paul, which is of being in Christ, is not the 'gnosis-so called' which he refuted:
"For both the Jews require signs: and the Greeks seek after wisdom. But we preach Christ crucified: unto the Jews indeed a stumblingblock, and unto the Gentiles foolishness."

and again:
"O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding the profane novelties of words and oppositions of gnosis falsely so called."
1 Timothy 6:20

"Mystery Religion" may not exactly equate "Gnosticism." However, "gnosis" equals "knowledge" or "knowing." I did a search in Strong's Concordance (electronic version) for the word "mystery," and there are a batch of references to Paul's writings about knowing the mystery [of the kingdom of God, etc].

'Mystery' derives from the root of the verb 'to initiate' – the catgechumenate were initiated into the Christian Mysteries.

Marvin W. Meyer (in The Ancient Mysteries) argues that Christianity rightfully is a mystery religion.
So does orthodox Catholicism.

Just some views from the orthodox perspective.

Thomas

 

[wil]

The issue I have with the synoptic gospels being history is the differences AND similarities between them. Now we all know if we put three people in a room and something happens we'll have three differing accounts. So like time if we have one clock we think we know what the time is, if we have two, we have no idea.

So then we add the oral traditions and 3 to 7 decades of time after the fact and the differences in any account may indicate that potentially one is right...but the similarities indicates a myth blended into oral traditions that was memorable enough to be repeated until it was written.

Much like in the US the myth of people starving, freezing and without clothes and boots at Valley Forge...it didn't happen yet it was taught in history (facts?) books for two centuries...And it wasn't decades before it was written and publicized. Part of the Myths of George Washington and our founding fathers...

 

[Thomas]

Hi Wil –

So then we add the oral traditions and 3 to 7 decades of time after the fact and the differences in any account may indicate that potentially one is right...but the similarities indicates a myth blended into oral traditions that was memorable enough to be repeated until it was written.

I can agree with much of this, and there is much evidence to support it. The references in the New Testament, drawn from the Old, show a continuity (albeit a radical departure) with the Old, in which the 'sources' or 'authors' of Scripture, J, E, P & D, edited the texts that came to them.

This highlights two things to me:
Scripture can only then be interpreted in the light of the Tradition which understands that blend of myth and oral history - in effect it makes the case for an authentic and traditional interpretation stronger, not weaker.

We must be vary wary of determining, according to our own limited reasoning, what is myth and what is not – without hard evidence to support the fact.

We must also be conscious of the reason for deploying certain hermeneutic symbols. Did the Voice of God speak from the clouds as Mark records, or the Dove descend? Not so much did it or did it not, as to why did Mark say that it did – what is the point he is making?

Thomas

 

[wil]

...- in effect it makes the case for an authentic and traditional interpretation stronger, not weaker.....We must also be conscious of the reason for deploying certain hermeneutic symbols....

The inclusion of all symbolism, the books are full as the traditions were both cumulative and specific to various authors. Between numerology, astrology, judaic place and people name meanings, huna, and...and...the books are rampant with stories within stories within stories...