Since we ave discussed the trial of Jesus scenes and reconstructions of UrMark etc. I thought I'd just post this comment made on another forum. The author is John Abrowus who is working on a reconstruction of UrMark. This comment was in response to other comments desiring him to provide a sample of his method.
"For the moment, I am more concerned with the most recovering the most primitive story, rather that the late embellishments of the Marcan redactor(s). As we shall see, there are at least three levels.
When this method is applied, the seems in Mark's passion narrative become glaring. It is immediately obvious (to me) that the document has gone through one (probably more) redactions before appearing in its present form.
Take for example the two alleged trials of Jesus. The trial before the high priest is recorded in Mark 14:55-65.
The first thing to note is the invention of the false witnesses in verses 56-59 based on such texts as Psalm 35:11; 27:12. Removing Mark 14:56-59 results in a more coherent text. Mark 14:55 states that _no_ witnesses were found against Jesus, but the (now discarded) 56-59 contradict this with there were many witnesses, they just didn't agree indetails.
The next thing to note in this alleged trial before the chief priest is that Jesus didn't answer his accusers (vs. 60-61). This was invented from such texts as Isaiah 53:7, Psalm 38:13-14. The elimination of this again leads to a more coherent text, because Jesus is reported to indeed speak in verse 62!
Jesus answers in the affirmitive, but the elaboration about the clouds and the right hand of power were added by the redactor from Psalm 110:1 and Daniel 7:13.
The rending of the chief priest clothes is elimiated as being invented from Numbers 14:6, and Mark 14:64-65 are eliminated based on Lev. 24;16, Isaiah 50:6, Esther 7:8. etc.
What we are left with is a very coherent trial seen. No witnesses are produced against Jesus, but he is asked one question which he aswers in the affirmitive which is sufficient to establish his guilt.
"And the high priest stood up in the midst, and asked Jesus, saying, Art thou the Christ, the Son of the Blessed? And Jesus said, I am.
Then the high priest and saith, What need we any witnesses?"
Are we on the right track? The indication is yes, because when the same techniques are applied to trial before Pilate, we arrive with the very same scenerio. I don't have time to render the precise logic as above (i.e. the elimination of Barabbas, Son of the Father, etc.), but we find a trial before Pilate where Jesus is simply asked one simple question, answers in the affirmitive, and is judged guilty with no more ado.
"And straightway in the morning the chief priests bound Jesus, and carried him away, and delivered him to Pilate. And Pilate asked him, Art thou the King of the Jews? And he answering said unto them, Thou sayest it. And so Pilate delivered Jesus to be crucified. And the soldiers led him away and they crucified him."
Also notice that in each case, once the clutter is cleared away, it is precisely the question that it would be presumed to offend the juding parties, "Son of God", and "King of the Jews".
The complete parallelism of the two trials is a strong indicator that there is an even more primitive version of the passion narrative that underlies this level, in which there is only one ruler, and one question. The means that the high priest and Pilate are extrapolations of a more primitive Ruler, and we are coming very near to the crucifixtion in a nonhistoric setting at the hands of Archons.
A quick example about the elimination of the name Judas. It has been obsevered in the past that "Judas" as the betrayer was just another way to lay blame at the feet of the Jews (Judas equals Judah), and that the name Judas Iscariot was created from Duet 27:12. There are indications in the text that the original betrayer was indeed nameless. In the crucial scene, when the actual betrayal is alleged to occur, the description is merely "he that betrayed him" (Mark 14:44).
John Abrowus
Trial Scene Reconstruction
by peacefulpete 8 Replies latest watchtower bible
-
peacefulpete
-
Leolaia
Very interesting peacefulpete.....though I am skeptical that the Markan passion narrative can reduce to an ahistorical judgment and execution at the hands of the Pauline archons. I view the whole narrative endeavor as historicizing whereas the primitive Pauline notions need no narrative framework. And if there was an original narrative involving nonhuman archons, why is there no trace of this in subsequent literature, especially gnostic -- or have I missed this? Existence of such narratives would strongly support the thesis while their absence would not disprove it but they would weaken the case somewhat. Indeed, it seems the whole gnostic enterprise is disinterested in the narrative genre, whereas the historicizing proto-orthodox and proto-Ebionite factions make copious use of the genre.
-
peacefulpete
I think what John means is that the early material (oral or written) that UrMark was framed upon more closely resembled the Pauline Christology. By stripping the narrative of it's late accertions we are probably getting loser to the intent of the original compiler. In John's model the earliest traditions were mythic only but in the first century melded to a Jewish Messianic movement that may or may not have centered upon an historical person. He feels that Uramrk is as old as any authentic Pauline writings and of the same genre.(mythic) Narrative is a necessay element in either Christology. Even sayings traditions have a framework resembling narrative.(tho incidental)
What may be regarded as authentic Pauline does use narrative tho meager and devoid of historical markers. -
John Abrowus
Hi with all.
I have been invoked several times on this board, sao I will make so bold as to elaborate on the poin of this thread.
The Paulinics as well as gnostic works indeed mention the crucifixtion of Jesus by spritual rulers, the Archons. "Paul" preached the mystical aspect of the crucifixion and the struggle of the spiritual Christ against demons,
a hidden knowledge only for a select few. This is all closer to later Gnosticism than later orthodoxy.Which none of the ARCHONS of this AEON knew: for had they known it, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory. 1 Cor. 2:8.
The crucifixion (Gal. 2:20), resurrection (Col. 3;1), and ascention (Eph. 2:6) are spiritual events in which initiates have mystically participated. "Wherefore he saith, Awake thou that sleepest, and arise from the dead, and Christ shall give thee light." Ephesians 5:14. Only in latter writings and interpolations (1 Thess. 2:25, 1
Timothy 6:13) do allusions to historicity creep in. If Paul intended the "Archons of this Aeon" in 1 Corinthians 2:8 to be Pontius Pilate and assorted Jewish rulers, then he doesn't say so.
In addition to 1 Corinthians 2:8, numerous Christian sources of the early centuries CE attribute Jesus' execution to the activity of unseen powers who did not recognize him.
"Jesus took them all by stealth, for he did not appear as he was, but in the manner in which they would be able to see him. He appeared to them all. He appeared to the great as great. He appeared to the small as small. He appeared to the angels as an angel, and to men as a man."
The Gospel of Phillip.
"Nevertheless they see and know whose will be thrones, and whose the crowns when He has descended and been made in your form, and they will think that He is flesh and is a man. And the god of that world will stretch forth his hand against the Son, and they will crucify Him on a tree, and will slay Him not knowing who He is." Ascension of Isaiah 9:13-14.The remarkable point to be made here is that this is precisely as it is related by Paul. "Which none of the princes of this world knew: for had they known it, they would not have crucified the Lord of
glory." 1 Corinthians 2:8.
The principalities and powers of Col 2:15 can only refer to spiritual entities. "And having spoiled principalities and powers, he made a shew of them openly, triumphing over them in it."
In the gospels, when was Jesus ever alleged to openly humiliate earthly rulers? The answer is never. The humilation occured in the heavenly realms as as the descended Redeemer ascends back to heaven, not incognito but in full glory.
"And I saw Him, and He was in the firmament, but He had not changed Himself into their form, and all the angels of the firmament and the Satans saw Him and they worshipped. And there was much sorrow there,
while they said: "How did our Lord descend in our midst, and we perceived not the glory [which has been upon Him], which we see has been upon Him from the sixth heaven?" Ascension of Isaiah, 11:23-24.
"Then the archons will relinquish their aeons, and their angels will weep over their destruction, and their demons will lament their death." The Hypostasis of the Archons
Thus if the rulers (archons) who are humilated must be spiritual, those who crucified the "Lord of Glory" must also be spiritual. Jesus didn't lead anyone anywhere while allegedly nailed to the mysterious cross. No enties of any sort are embarrased at this point.
The spiritual powers have a temporary victory over the incognito Jesus while he is nailed to the cross. But soon afterwards these same powers are humiliated when Jesus ascends through the spheres in full glory. "...When he ascended up on high, he *led* captivity captive..." Ephesians 4:8.Everything that is "known" about the alleged "Historic Jesus" comes to us from the gospels. But to find evidence of the gospels, we must move forward all the way to the middle of the second century when we finally come to Justin Martyr. This is much too late to provide a single historical fact about the alleged founder of Christianity.
John Abrowus
-
Leolaia
Welcome John!!
I certainly agree that Paul alludes only to the heavenly archons and not earthly rulers (also along the lines of Wells, Doherty, et al.), but what I was skeptical of was whether Mark as it was first composed (i.e. Ur-Mark) related the trial, judgment, and resurrection in specifically Pauline terms, or whether the narrative endeavor from the start was designed to historicize the archons as human rulers, or even whether the composer drew more directly from the "Suffering Servant" of Deutero-Isaiah which referred to human kings, princes, despots, and crowds (Isaiah 49:7; 52:14-15). Regarding the spoiling of the Sovereignties and Powers in Colossians 2:15, it is clearly stated as a consequence of Jesus "nailing the Law to the cross" in the previous verse (v. 14), and this view depends on Paul's notion that "the Law was promulgated by angels" (Galatians 3:19; compare Hebrews 2:2) and that the "death of Christ" freed man from the Law (2:15-21), which had previously enslaved them "to the Stoichea of the world" through sin (4:3, 9; compare Colossians 2:20). Since Christ was "subject to" this same Law and was "cursed" by this same Law (3:13; 4:4), Christ's judgment would have been under the domain of the Law, whether as it is practiced on earth or in heaven. And since the Law places humanity under the tyrrany of the angels and unseen powers (Galatians 3:19; 4:3; Colossians 2:14-15), the Pauline allusions to these powers would not by themselves require a non-earthly interpretation, or would they? Then there is the very old ANE belief that what happens on earth between kings and governments are reflections of conflicts between the gods in heaven, and we see a late reflex of this in Daniel which designates angelic "princes" as the unseen leaders of the warring kingdoms of Persia, Greece, and Judea (cf. Daniel 10:13, 20-21; 12:1), the belief in rabbinical literature (cf. Targum Ps.-Jonathan) that angels maintain the borders between the nations, and the frequent notion in Qumran texts that the armies and leaders of the world are led by "Belial and all the angels of his dominion" (1QM, 11Q13; 4Q177). The same notion appears in Revelation 13:2 which has Satan the Devil (the Dragon) "handing his power and throne and worldwide authority" to the Roman empire (the Beast), and Luke 4:5-6 similarly has the Devil declaring that "the kingdoms of the world ... have been committed to me and I give them to anyone I chose". Thus, unseen spiritual forces may have been thought to lie behind both the Jewish Law and earthly rulers (but then compare Romans 13:1), and if Paul held such a view, his focus on what happened at the heavenly, spiritual level could simply be due to his redemptive theology which viewed all the very important things as happening at the mystical level between Christ and the unseen Archons, and not at the human level between Christ and earthly rulers. Of course, as you noted, there is indeed no reference to earthly rulers (tho "crucifixion" still sounds too specific imho, unless we are thinking in terms of Prometheus) and rather meager evidence in Paul of an earthly existence of Jesus, so I am not necessarily vouching for this point of view, I'm just wondering how it could be excluded?
I was also wondering if you can comment on these posts of mine:
http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/10/66120/1030844/post.ashx#1030844
http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/10/66538/1032453/post.ashx#1032453
http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/10/66538/1033115/post.ashx#1033115Back to Mark, I thought that the presence of both the secular leaders and religious leaders in the trial owed somewhat to Deuteronomy 21:1-9 which named both the "elders/judges of the city" and "the priests, sons of Levi" as the two parties involved in the ceremony. And very interesting what you related re Deuteronomy 27:12 on "Judah Issachar", especially in connection with v. 25: "A curse on him who accepts a bribe to take an innocent life". Great find! Do you think there might also be a connection with Sychar, the Samaritan town that played a significant role in John?
-
John Abrowus
Hi Leolaia!
I enjoy the reading of your posts very much.
At the risk of not doing justice to your excellent questions (that will take several posts), I will make a few brief comments. Your analysis of the Pauline doctrines makes the assumption that the canonical letters we possess are original. A great deal of evidence exists to the contrary. The Marcionites possessed a textual tradition that was more primitive than what we now possess, and this was interpolated by the proto-orthodox to steal away the "Apostle of the Heretics."
(This is in opposition to the prevailing view that Marcion took the "catholic" letters, and elimiated what he did not like.)
Van den Bergh van Eysinga worked towards showing that not only Marcion?s Gospel (or at least the sources used by Marcion) was more original than Lucas canonicus, but its priority to all of the canonical gospels.
Proto Luke (or urLUke)had no more birth narratives than GMark. These are of latter addition. In Marcion's gospel, Jesus descends directly out of heaven to Galilee and begins to preach with no introduction, save from demons.
"(In the fifteenth year of Tiberius Caesar,
Pontius Pilate being governor of Judea,)
Jesus descended [out of heaven] into Capernaum, a city in Galilee,
and was teaching [in the synagogue] on the Sabbath days;
And they were astonished at his doctrine,
for his word was in authority.
33 And in the synagogue there was a man,which had a spirit of an
unclean devil,
and cried out with a loud voice, saying,
34 Let us alone; what have we to do with thee, thou Jesus ?
art thou come to destroy us? I know thee who thou art; the Holy One
of God.
35 And Jesus rebuked him, saying,
Hold thy peace, and come out of him.
And when the devil had thrown him in the midst,
he came out of him, and hurt him not.
36 And they were all amazed, and spake among themselves, saying,
What a word is this!
for with authority and power he commandeth the unclean spirits,
and they come out.
37 And the fame of him went out into every place of the country round
about."
"The Gospel of Marcion"
In my reconstruction of urMark, the likely earliest version of Mark is congruent with Marcion.
(The) Jesus came {out of heaven} into Galilee, preaching the
gospel... and he went immediately into Capernaum.. (Mark 1:13 & 1:21)
followed by the same recognition of the demon.
Doceticism is a most interesting view in opposition to the proto-orthodxoy. It seems to have arisen from within the very earliest strata of extant Christian writings.
Jesus is said to have come "in the likeness of sinful flesh" (Romans 8:14). This is not exactly the same thing as when a modern scholar states that "Jesus did not exist," although it certainly isn't an endorsement for the case of an historical human being. Instead, it is a conception of Jesus as existing in the spiritual nether world just outside our own, un ordre symbolique. Jesus interacts in our world, but not fully. This is the explanation of Mark's messianic secret.
It is the reason that only the spiritual forces of this world (the demons) recognize him as other than a man, but the disciples do not.
Jesus is plain and comprehensible only to those of insight. _Gnosis_, Kurt Rudolph, page 157. In docetic systems, it is imagined that Christ acheives his triumph of redemption by outwitting the demiurgic powers into thinking they can kill him. Indeed they are said to so attempt, but in failing are humilated and defeated. He is revealed not to be a man, or a messenger, or an angel, or any lesser being, but the Lord of Glory himself.
Marcion's Docetic opinions are battled by Tertullian. It should be easy to refute a dead man, as he cannot answer, but
Tertullian's argument is a failed Reductio ad Absurdum.
"Indeed, if it was not flesh (upon the cross), but a phantom of flesh (and a phantom is but spirit, and so the spirit breathed its own self
out, and departed as it did so), no doubt the phantom departed, when the spirit which was the phantom departed: and so the phantom and the spirit disappeared together, and were nowhere to be seen. Nothing therefore remained upon the cross, nothing hung there, after "the giving up of the ghost;" Tertullian: _Against Marcion_ Book. 4, chapter 42.
To which Marcion would have replied, if indeed he had such an opportunity, would have been, "of course". Marcion taught neither the reality of Jesus' body or the physical resurrection. Tertullian's alleged refutation of Marcion consists of an ad hoc mishmash of later gospels, and is revealed by the anarchic references. One need not assume that the conclusion, "Marcion, I pity you; your labour has been in vain. For the Jesus Christ who appears in your Gospel is mine" is reflective of the actual gospel of Marcion.
G.R.S. Mead has certainly refuted the orthodox view. "His (Marcion's) Gospel was presumably the collection of Sayings in use among the Pauline churches of his day. Of course the Patristic writers say that Marcion mutilated Luke's version; but it is almost impossible to believe that, if he did this, so keen a critic as Marcion should have retained certain verses which made against his strong anti-Judaistic views."
Bart D. Ehrman identifies two clear proto-orthodox changes to GLuke, inserted to combat docetic interpretaions of Jesus.
These are
Luke 22:43-44 (Jesus sweating blood)
Luke 24:12 (Peter running to the tomb).
Ehrman states that these passages are not found in the other gospels, or in the oldest and best manuscripts of Luc. In every instance the former is first used by the orthodox (Justin, Irenaeus, Hippolytus) as texts against their so-called heretic opponents, and were likely created just for this purpose. _Lost Christianities : the battles for scripture and the faiths we never knew_, Oxford University Press, Inc., 2003, page 226.
Despite the best attempts by the proto-orthodox, traces of the docetic Jesus still remain in the gospel of Luke. When the people in the synagogue attempt to throw Jesus from the cliff, he passes unseen and ungrasped through their midst. Luke 4:29-30.
Even the late doctrines of the Roman Catholic Church retain traces of docetism. It is never said that Jesus is tried by the sexual desire. Mary is Virgin not just in conception but ever intact; no physical child emerged through her birth canal. Indeed, John the Baptist is conceeded to be the greatest ever born of woman, indicating that Jesus was not.
John Abrowus
-
John Abrowus
Leolaia wrote:
"crucifixion" still sounds too specific imho, unless we are thinking in terms of Prometheus.
Iananna, the Sumerian Queen of Heaven, decides to descend to the underworld. This ancient Sumerian myth (1750 BCE) contains several precedants to the Christ myth.
Before beginning her journey, she gathers the seven divine decrees and puts oinment on her face, by which she could arguably be called a "christ".
As Iananna descends, she must pass through seven gates. (One will note the similarity the archonic gates the Gnostic Redeemer has to this earlier myth). In order to pass through, at each gate she is obliged to give up one of her seven divine decrees.
When she finally passes through the seventh gate, she is left bowed and naked, even her garments have been removed. (one will note the similarity of Phillipians 2 humbling of Christ).
Naked and bowed low, Inanna entered the throne room of the underworld ruler, Ereshkigal.There she is executed and hung upon a stake to rot. (one will note similarities of crucifixtion). Outside the last
gate, Heb. 13:12).
But Iananna has left instructions with her servant Ninshubur that if
she does not return from the nether world in _Three Days and Three
Nights_ the god Enki is to be entreated for help. Just so, Iananna
is resurrected from the dead by the powers of the Bread of Life and
the Water of Life.
"Upon the corpse hung from a stake they directed the fear of the rays
of fire,
Sixty times the food of life, sixty times the water of life, the
sprinkled upon it,
Inanna arose."
Even so, she ascends! The dead accompany her ascent. The under world rulers flee. The demons throw themselves in the dirt at her feet.
John Abrowus -
Narkissos
Welcome John and thanks for this highly valuable input...
I think I can agree with most of what you have written, re: the basically "docetic" (avant la lettre?) character of the "Pauline" and Synoptic Saviour (and even the Johannine one, with a slightly different "Revealer" flavour). I agree this cannot be explained away as a mere ad hoc construction to answer the "scandal of (actual) crucifixion", since it has a very long prehistory (as the Inanna myth has been relayed in the Graeco-Roman imaginary world by Orphic and other mysteries).
Yet the death of the founder is also attested, I think, in a very different line of thought which assigns it no salvific value at all. I mean the "Jesus" of Judeo-Christian tradition, who doesn't die to save anybody but dies anyway as an exemplary pious martyr, the "Just" or "righteous one": this is the tradition of James, which also appears in the Passion narratives and in the early Acts discourses, echoing the Wisdom of Solomon tradition.
I feel those two traditions are originally independent, but they do meet somewhere in history (perhaps John the Baptist's martyrdom could be a sufficient candidate, as has been suggested on another thread, after R.M. Price's suggestion) -- only to depart immediately from one another, before being artificially reconciled in the final NT writings.
Just my 2 euro cents.
-
Leolaia
John....I concur that the Pauline correspondence has been interpolated in quite a few places and includes pseudepigrapha (e.g. 2 Thessalonians, Ephesians, the second-century Pastorals), but I am persuaded more by the analysis of Doherty and Wells (who view the correpondence as the oldest Christian texts) than by Price's more radical view, designating the corpus Paulinum as Marcionite compositions. As for the Gospel of Luke, I agree that it was a work-in-progress for quite some time (like the Gospel of Mark, which evidently went through several editions, and Matthew which was the main source text for the Gospel of the Hebrews), but I think it is too simplistic to regard Marcion's gospel as the original -- perhaps "more original" and closer to the earlier editions of Luke, but doubtlessly containing Marcion's own redactional and literary work as well. In other words, the original (if we can even speak of an original) stood somewhere between Marcion's version and the canonical one. I fully concur that the earlier versions were more docetic; a most clear example is the corporeal resurrection appearance in Luke 24:36-43 which obviously corrects the patently docetic appearance in 24:28-33. The promise to the thief in Luke 23:43 also assumes an immediate assumption at death and not a corporeal resurrection. But docetism was not a monolithic belief and there is a difference between docetism of Marcion, wherein Jesus always had only the semblence of flesh, and the docetism of Cerinthus, who regarded the Heavenly Man as filling a fleshly vessel (a real human being) during his earthly life and continuing as a spirit after his departure:
"Cerinthus ... represented Jesus as having not been born of a virgin, but as being the son of Joseph and Mary according to the ordinary course of human generation, while he nevertheless was more righteous, prudent, and wise than other men. Moreover, after his baptism, Christ descended upon him in the form of a dove from the Supreme Ruler, and that then he proclaimed the unknown Father, and performed miracles. But at last Christ departed from Jesus, and that then Jesus suffered and rose again, while Christ remained impassible , inasmuch as he was a spiritual being. Those who are called Ebionites agree that the world was made by God; but their opinions with respect to the Lord are similar to those of Cerinthus and Carpocrates. They use the Gospel according to Matthew only, and repudiate the Apostle Paul, maintaining that he was an apostate from the law . As to the prophetical writings, they endeavour to expound them in a somewhat singular manner: they practise circumcision, persevere in the observance of those customs which are enjoined by the law, and are so Judaic in their style of life, that they even adore Jerusalem as if it were the house of God." (Irenaeus, Against Heresies 1.26.1-2)
This is an adoptionist christology viewing Jesus as a natural man who between his baptism and death was used as the recepticle of the divine Christ. The Gospel of the Ebionites presented a similar adoptionist view by having the Holy Spirit "descend and enter into" Jesus at his baptism (GEbi, fr. 4). The apologists similarly characterize the Ebionites as believing that Jesus was "a man in a like sense with the rest of the human family" but who was the first to "observe completely the law" (Hippolytus, Against All Heresies 7.22), "a plain and common man, who was justified because of his superior virtue, and who was the fruit of the intercourse of a man with Mary" (Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History 3.27), "begotten by Joseph" and "natural birth" (Irenaeus, Against Heresies 3.21.1; 5.1.3), "a bare man, merely the seed of David" and "born of human seed" (Tertullian, De carne Christi 14, 18), "begotten like other human beings" (Origen, Contra Celsus 5.61), and so forth, and Eusebius distinguished between Ebionites who simply believed that Jesus was a human prophet who was saved from death and others who believed that the Lord also pre-existed as Wisdom and Word and came upon Jesus. The Ebionite Ascents of James similarly has two recensions, an earlier one where Jesus is simply the True Prophet "foretold by Moses" who teaches how to "follow a perfect life" in the Torah so that people may "abide in immortality" and "be kept unhurt from the destruction from war which impends over the unbelieving nation" (a concept quite akin to the Qumran "Teacher of Righteousness"), and a later recension which designates Christ Jesus as "a man to rule over man," just as in nature there is a fish to rule over the fishes or a bird over the birds, who "in the waters of baptism was called by God his Son" and "by which the priesthood or the prophetic or kingly office was conferred," just as "Arsaces among the Persians, Caesar among the Romans, Pharaoh among the Egyptians, so among the Jews a king is called the Christ", through whom the "Son of God and the beginning of all things ... became man" (1.39, 45). This kind of adoptionism, strikingly similar to the type described by Hippolytus, also appears in muted form in Hermas of Rome:
"The preexistent Holy Spirit, which created the whole creation, God caused to live in the flesh that he wished. This flesh, therefore, in which the Holy Spirit lived, served the Spirit well, living in holines and purity, without defiling the Spirit in any way. So, because it had lived honorably and charitably, and had worked with the Spirit and had cooperated with it in everything, conducting itself with strength and bravery, he chose it as a partner with the Holy Spirit, for the conduct of this flesh pleased the Lord, because while possessing the Holy Spirit it was not defiled upon the earth. So he took the Son and the glorious angels as counselors, in order that this flesh also, having served the spirit blamelessly, might have some place to live, and not appear to have lost the reward of its service. For all flesh in which the Holy Spirit has lived will, if it proves to be undefiled and spotless, receive a reward" (Hermas, Similtude 5.6.5-7).
There were thus early Christians who believed that Jesus (or in Hermas, the fleshly recepticle of the Spirit) was born in the flesh and had a corporeal existence but did not subscribe to the proto-orthodox belief in the incarnation, or that the Revealer himself had any fleshly body of his own. Then there were Jewish-Christians who didn't view Jesus as a heavenly being figure at all, but who thanks to his fidelity to the Law was saved from death and (like the faithful men of old like Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob) was given a place in Paradise to live. The view in Hermas and the view attributed to Cerinthus by Irenaeus would thus seem to be a compromise between the more pure Heavenly Man belief of Marcion and the Jewish-Christian view of Jesus simply as a human prophet foretold by Moses (a view which survives in Islam, which drew on Jewish-Christian sources), possibly representing the same return of the divine Wisdom of God to human prophets as we find promised in 1 Enoch, Qumran texts, and other sources. I regard both as components of early Christianity and suspect that Doherty and Price might be too "Paulocentric" or "Marcion-centric" in viewing the entire movement as stemming from the Hellenistic mysteries, which do not explain the nature and texture of Jewish-Christianity. I suspect something more complex was afoot: that Christianity represented the convergence of a first century Nazorean movement, centered on a new way of interpreting and practicing the Law (whose eponymous founder was believed to have restored the true way of following the Law, who perfectly followed the Law, and who was rewarded from death by assumption into Paradise to dwell with Abraham, Moses, etc.), and the proto-gnostic movement of Paul and others who added the whole notion of the Savior being heavenly, judged, crucified, glorified, etc., and thus the later gospel tradition, Cerinthus, proto-orthodoxy, Ebionites, and others combined these originally independent streams of tradition in different ways. That would explain why the earliest documents in the Jewish-Christian Nazorean tradition (i.e. Q, and the earliest strata of the Didache) show no familiarity with the suffering and Passion of Christ and have no concept of the ransom-redemption doctrine that was the whole heart of Paul's gospel, and why Paul resists the whole idea of Nazorean/Ebionite practice of the Law in Romans and Galatians but adopts their moral teaching in certain sections of Romans and 1 Corinthians. The Nazorean movement may not have had any single founder, or perhaps it was a vague "Teacher of Righteousness"-type figure, or even (borrowing the suggestion of Price) the founder (or late leader) was John the Baptist, and his martyrdom at the hands of the authorities was the key locus where Hellenistic mystery traditions of a dying-rising Savior glomed onto the very different traditions of the Nazoreans.
Going back to the Gospel of Luke, my opinion is that -- in view of Luke 23:43 which has Jesus going to Paradise on the same day as his death, Luke 9:28-26 which expands the Markan transfiguration scene to have Moses and Elijah (two prophets who also ascended to heaven at death) discuss with Jesus his upcoming "departure in Jerusalem" (v. 31), Luke 13:22-30 which uniquely has Jesus describing "Abraham and Isaac and Jacob and all the prophets in the kingdom of God", Luke 13:33 which also uniquely implies that he himself would be the "prophet" perishing in Jerusalem, and especially Luke 16:19-31 which explicitly describes the faithful man in death being lifted up into the "bosom of Abraham" to be in fellowship with Abraham -- my opinion is that the older strata of Luke designate Jesus as a prophet who, as in the Ascents of James and the "righteous flesh" of Hermas, was saved from death, taken into heaven to the blessedness of association with Moses, Elijah, and Abraham, and thus "abides in immortality". The Life of Adam and Eve, Testament of Abraham, the Testament of Isaac, the Testament of Jacob, the Assumption of Moses, and the Apocalypse of Zephaniah all attest such a fate for the prophets and even King David. Note that it is just this view, that Jesus' body rotted in the grave while Jesus ascended to heaven like David and the faithful of old, that Acts 2:24-34 strenuously tries to disprove (without understanding that such ascensions occurred without the body). The Gospel of Peter, which has a form of docetism similar to Cerinthus, incorporates the resurrection and three-day motifs from the developing Passion tradition, but varies from the orthodox gospel narrative of the Resurrection in an interesting way: the Lord is "taken up" (the same verb that is used of Elijah in the LXX of 2 Kings, and of Jesus in Acts 1:11) while Jesus on the cross cries out "My power, my power, you have forsaken me" (5:19), then the "body of Jesus" was sealed up in the tomb and three days later two angels came down from heaven and took Jesus out of the tomb (10:38-43). Thus the Lord and Jesus are distinguished, with the Lord leaving Jesus at his death and Jesus being raised separately three days later.