What were Jesus and early Christians like?

[TimOneill]

I mean rather than "A" happened, then B, C, D, and E all reported on A, my proposal is A happened, B wrote a story about A (to what extent of accuracy or fanciful addition is another matter), C and D each wrote their own mutually incompatible fanfic versions of B's story and then E comes along and writes a new story based on the political/religious needs at the time.

And I wasn’t entirely disagreeing with your summary, which I think is generally a very accurate one. But it did seem like you were giving the impression all the stuff in gMatt, gLuke ultimately goes back to gMark, with just the addition of some “fanfic”. Which ignores the Q material, which clearly indicates another early source or sources which possibly pre-dates gMark. Then there is the Aramaic source or sources that lie behind gMark and the independent traditions (and probably sources) which lie behind gJohn.

I’m highlighting all this because I keep coming across this strange idea that all of the gospels can ultimately be traced back to gMark, with a bit of “fanfic” added. And this is wrong. That wasn’t you were saying, but I was elaborating for the benefit of others.

John actually glosses over the whole baptism. Notice how JtB never baptizes Jesus at all in John.

Yes, that was what I was referring to. The different ways in which all the gospels deal with the awkwardness of the Baptist baptising his supposed superior is something that indicates this whole Jesus/Baptist story has a historical core.

---

I keep wondering about Mandaeism (the John the Baptist Gnostics http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mandaeism ).
I'll include an image of the Mandaean cross. Daily baptism is a part of Mandaean beliefs (I think), and it was also part of Essene beliefs. I wonder if there were cross-like racks where the Essenes hung their robes during their daily baptism ritual. This is what the Mandaean cross appears to represent - a robe hanging on a rack while somebody is baptized.

Now, one of the sayings of Jesus in the Gospel of Thomas symbolizes the material body as a robe. If the crucifixion represented Jesus' spiritual body returning to heaven, then his physical body would be an empty robe. If Jesus was an Essene, then his body would be depicted hanging on a cross - just like the robes of the Essenes might have hung on crosses while they purified themselves through baptism.

LOTS of speculation in there! Firstly, it’s very difficult to the point of being almost impossible to extrapolate much from modern Mandaean beliefs and traditions, because their origins are so uncertain. That tradition has been heavily influenced by so many other faiths and strands of belief – gnostic, Zoroastrian, Muslim, Jewish – that it’s pretty much impossible to untangle what may be ancient, what is much more recent and how the two fit together.
Secondly, you can come with all kind of speculation about Mandaeans, Essenes, the Baptist etc, but none of it is going to be more than that. Were the Mandaeans really directly connected to any sect of John the Baptist? Maybe, but it’s very hard to tell. Was the Baptist an Essene? We really don’t know. Is that “Mandaean cross” symbol ancient or a later Christian-influenced accretion? Again, we don’t know.
There simply isn’t enough solid evidence here to do more than play with “maybes”.

---

Easily done - here you are: The Q Material.

Excuse me but that is the same shit.

Pardon? I mentioned the Q material – the material in gMatt and gLuke that is common to both, but not found in gMark and also so close verbally as to obviously be from a common source or sources. You demanded I show you this material and so I did. So what exactly is the problem?

I assume that you have nothing which constitutes any sort of Quelle material. This does not surprise me.

That comment makes no sense, given I have just given you what you asked for – the Q material I was referring to.

It remains a 19th century hypothesis by a bunch of (mainly) German protestants.

Ummm, no. The idea that this material represents a single lost source remains a hypothesis. But the material that hypothesis is based on is right there in the text. That is the “Q material” I referred to and which you asked to see. And which I have shown you.

When you can produce actual evidence be sure to drop me a line.

Already done – see above. As I said in my last reply to you, whether this common material represents one source, two, several or a mix of sources and oral traditions is up for debate. But that it exists and that at least some of it (most of it, actually) is based on a written source or sources is pretty hard to dispute.
How do you account for this material? Simply shouting “hypothetical” doesn’t help you here – you need to explain this material common to gMatt and gLuke and then explain its clear textual origin.

Until then, I have to tell you that I don't care how many bible-thumpers swear to it. They have an agenda to push.

What I actually pointed out to you is that the “Bible-thumpers” don’t swear to it. Like you, they try to reject it. So I’m afraid you and the “Bible-thumpers” are on the same side on this one. Make of that what you will.

I want to see facts.

I gave you the textual evidence that the Q material exists. Perhaps you could pause for a moment and explain why it is there if it isn’t evidence of some kind of lost source, sources and/or oral traditions.

---

Here is a quote from Ephesians which dates 80 CE to 100 CE and is Paulian. Notice how gnostic this sounds. I don't have time to find them now, but the parables of Jesus sound very gnostic to me - even the idea that the meaning is hidden from most listeners.

EDIT: My take on gnostic theology: eternal spiritual beings fall from heaven and are entrapped in material human bodies. Salvation comes from waking up and remembering that we are not physical beings and don't belong here. Christ descended deliberately into human form to wake us up, so that we can go follow him home to heaven where we belong.

So doesn't this sound gnostic?

Ephesians 5:14

Wherefore he saith, Awake, thou that sleepest, and arise from the dead, and Christ shall shine upon thee.

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/te...s-asv.html

Firstly, most scholars don't think Ephesians is actually by Paul. That's why Early Christian Writings puts the dates for it at 80-100 AD - if it was Pauline it would have to predate the most likely date of his death in the 60s.

Secondly, since you asked, no that passage doesn't sound particularly Gnostic to me at all. It is talking about the coming general resurrection expected when Jesus was supposed to return.

---

Yes, I'm well aware of those passages. Those epistles are pseudepigraphical and most scholars date them to the early second century.

On a related note, is there a way that scholars determine what is pseudo-epigraphical and what isn't with any degree of certainty? I mean this as a sincere question.

With any degree of certainty? No. People who like certainty should avoid this whole field like the plague – it will drive them mad. In the case of 1John and 2John we can be pretty certain on linguistic and stylistic grounds that its author was an educated Greek and not a Galilean fisherman’s son. It shows some influence from the theology of gJohn, but stylistic differences. So this is why it is usually dated to after the most likely date for that gospel, putting it in the first two decades of the second century AD.

I was under the impression that Doceticism was one of the brands of Gnosticism, like Christianity is to Theism. One is a subset of the other.

Not quite. Docetism was believed both by most Gnostics and some non-Gnostics. It’s a theological position on the nature of Jesus’ form that can be held completely separately from Gnostic dualism and its wider cosmology. So you could be a Docetist but not be in any way a Gnostic (even given how rubbery that latter term is).

There is nothing to indicate this in any of the Pauline material or in any of the earliest gospels.

Paul doesn't get very specific on the life of Jesus and what we do have, I'm rather confused by and let me explain why.

Before you do – note that Paul wouldn’t need to go into Jesus’ life to make it clear he held Gnostic views. He has a lot to say about who he thought Jesus was and how he fitted into Jewish cosmology. That’s plenty of opportunities to make it clear that he held to a Gnostic cosmology. But there is nothing there.

Paul was originally the poster prophet for Marcionite Christianity. Ehrman's book on Lost Christianities mentions that Marcion's scriptures used Paul's letters. Marcionite Christianity, I probably don't need to explain to you but for the benefit of others, preached that the OT god Yahweh was a lesser god to Jesus. He wanted to ditch the OT completely and all things Jewish to create a whole new religion, centered around the superior god Jesus who offered us salvation. Jesus would never have been a baby, so ditch the whole Mary and Joseph drama along with any linage to King David. Jesus came down to earth as all gods do, appearing fully formed as an adult.

Yet when Paul does mention Jesus, he writes of the "seed of David", came to us "by woman", that "the head of Christ is (Yahweh)", and that he sits "at the right hand of (Yahweh)". etc.

So I'm confused. Did Marcion not read the letters of Paul? Or did he promote the letters of Paul hoping no one else would read them? Or do we have the letters of Paul as they existed at that time?

Good questions. The answer lies in the fact that all kinds of people read the Pauline material and come away having seen substantiation for wildly contradictory views. Orthodox Christians assure me they can read them and see validation of their belief that Jesus was God in human form and equal to the Father etc etc. Though when I ask them to show me this validation by reference to Paul’s letters they came back with very slim pickings. At the same time Mythicists insist they can find no mentions of an earthly historical Jesus in Paul, despite several references that are well nigh impossible to read any other way.

People see what they want to see. Fanatics doubly so.