How did the myth of Jesus' resurrection originate?

[rightcoaster]

I know Min has read this book, The Bible Unearthed by Finkelstein and Silberman.

To summarize their findings, we are given the impression of an original adherence to a strictly monotheistic cult of YHWH from which the people (especially the northerners) lapsed into the polytheism of the neighboring nations. However, polytheism was there from the beginning. ...

OK, I ordered the book, but for the particulars rather than the general POV. I'm well aware of the need to whip the populace into obedience to monotheism, away from the charms of the alternatives.

We can know and agree about the generalities, however, and still be out-of-focus on the particular situation to which this thread was addressed: the origin of the Jesus-resurrection myth, as distinct (the way I see it) from the myth of divinity. The NT gospel stories have about zero (before John, anyway) to do with divinity, and a lot to do with the mortal human guy Jesus. Do you say that the original group, the very first followers, the mostly Galilean Jews, those who invented and spread the resurrection story, ascribed divinity to Jesus? Divinity of Jesus, as distinct from apocalypticism and messianism, for which no divinity was required? Where in the (unforged, at least) earliest writings (Acts, Letters) do you find persuasive evidence of that? If the earliest writings had lots of divinity stuff there, why were so many of the early "heresies", still rather later on the scene than the 1st C CE, concerned with the issue of the acquisition of divinity by Jesus, the when and the how?

I agree with the syncretism, and that in the stewpot of the area and the times it happened pretty fast (John was not so very late), I only disagree that it was there ab initio, which was the title of the thread.

I'm reminded by this discussion of what I was told by Bart Ehrman: his shtick is finding the earliest, most original text of the Gospels. He really doesn't care about the actual history. I'm interested in that history.

[Minimalist]

One argument that always annoys the shit out of me with jesus freaks is the "we have thousands of manuscripts" routine. But we only have one original story. "Mark" (or whoever) that wrote the original tale. Everything else is a derivative or expansion of it, basically fan-fics in the modern parlance. It is possible that some of the Nag Hammadi texts are more ancient (Gospel of Thomas, perhaps, which is just a collection of sayings with no narrative) but here we find ourselves facing the problem that Ehrman has identified. No original manuscripts, merely copies of copies of copies and this one seems to have been translated from Greek into Coptic to boot.

Most of the early, fragmentary, manuscripts we have date to the 2d century. Ehrman assumes that these are copies because in spite of all his work casting aspersions on this stuff he is still firmly in the camp of there having been a "historical jesus" although his views on that are of no comfort to fundies. But what if he is wrong. What if there are no first century "originals" because this shit started in the 2d century?

[Minimalist]

I know Min has read this book, The Bible Unearthed by Finkelstein and Silberman. It too pokes holes in the picture of the ancient Jews as devout monotheists.

To summarize their findings, we are given the impression of an original adherence to a strictly monotheistic cult of YHWH from which the people (especially the northerners) lapsed into the polytheism of the neighboring nations. However, polytheism was there from the beginning. The archaeologists have unearthed hundreds of figurines of naked fertility goddesses, and a few inscriptions are found in both Israel and Judah referring to the goddess Asherah as the consort of YHWH, Of Judah too the authors say, "the idolatry of the people of Judah was not a departure from their earlier monotheism. It was, instead, the way they had worshiped for hundreds of years."

X-P, have you ever read "Did God Have A Wife" by Bill Dever?

[Mudhammam]

The apostles believed Jesus was the Son of God or Messiah and as a result from their interpretation of Scripture, resurrection was the only explanation they could offer themselves after he died. Of course, the idea of zombie Jesus came along afterward when other gullible followers understand bodily resurrection to occur on Earth in their day rather than at the end of time as Pharisaic Judaism traditionally taught.

[Minimalist]

Of course, that assumes that there were any "apostles."

They could have been invented later with the rest of the story.

Robin Hood's Merry Men did not pre-date Robin Hood.

[Mudhammam]

One argument that always annoys the shit out of me with jesus freaks is the "we have thousands of manuscripts" routine. But we only have one original story. "Mark" (or whoever) that wrote the original tale. Everything else is a derivative or expansion of it, basically fan-fics in the modern parlance. It is possible that some of the Nag Hammadi texts are more ancient (Gospel of Thomas, perhaps, which is just a collection of sayinghubs with no narrative) but here we find ourselves facing the problem that Ehrman has identified. No original manuscripts, merely copies of copies of copies and this one seems to have been translated from Greek into Coptic to boot.

Most of the early, fragmentary, manuscripts we have date to the 2d century. Ehrman assumes that these are copies because in spite of all his work casting aspersions on this stuff he is still firmly in the camp of there having been a "historical jesus" although his views on that are of no comfort to fundies. But what if he is wrong. What if there are no first century "originals" because this shit started in the 2d century?

To play devil's advocate (or rather Jesus's advocate), Christians will likely reply that most of important facts (death, resurrection, high Christology) can be derived from the works of Paul, many of which can be shown to date from the mid-first century and contain creeds that date to perhaps only a few years after Jesus' death.

[Minimalist]

Again, the claim that "paul" is first century is part of the story. We have no first century manuscripts of any "paul." We also have no Greco-Roman sources which mention xtians in the first century in any of the places that "paul" claims to have established churches.

In 1936 Margaret Mitchell wrote Gone With The Wind about actual events in American history and created a whole cast of characters to populate her book. That does not make any of her characters "real."

[Mudhammam]

Again, the claim that "paul" is first century is part of the story. We have no first century manuscripts of any "paul." We also have no Greco-Roman sources which mention xtians in the first century in any of the places that "paul" claims to have established churches.

In 1936 Margaret Mitchell wrote Gone With The Wind about actual events in American history and created a whole cast of characters to populate her book. That does not make any of her characters "real."

I don't know any scholars who would take your Fictional Paul hypothesis seriously. There's no reason to think the Greco-Roman world would take notice of such a marginal group in the first century (unless of course the Resurrection actually occured).

[Minimalist]

And their evidence is ......................?

Hint: They always end up pointing to the bible itself as evidence of itself.

Roughly in the 150s AD a xtian writer named Justin wrote an apologia to Emperor Antoninus Pius. He never mentions anyone named "Paul." For that matter, he never mentions any gospels by matthew, mark, luke or john.

Think about that. We know the dates of Antoninus Pius' reign. 138 - 161 AD. That's a fairly short window as these things go.

[The_Thinking_Theist]

And their evidence is ......................?

Hint: They always end up pointing to the bible itself as evidence of itself.

Roughly in the 150s AD a xtian writer named Justin wrote an apologia to Emperor Antoninus Pius. He never mentions anyone named "Paul." For that matter, he never mentions any gospels by matthew, mark, luke or john.

Think about that. We know the dates of Antoninus Pius' reign. 138 - 161 AD. That's a fairly short window as these things go.

Yeah, most of the Epistles of Paul are pseudepigraphy. It's to be noted that some of them are widely attributed to Paul. You're definitely right on that point.