Mormonism would be perfect for this thesis if only the writer knew something about it. It was founded by Joseph Smith, who conveyed the ideological vision (and presumably forged the Book of Mormom). Smith was lynched long before the Mormons got to Utah, and the movement came into the hands of a brilliant institution builder named Brigham Young, who really built the Mormon establishment of Utah (before it became a state).
Yes, I know that. But Smith, I believe, knew it was baloney while he was making it, and that’s the important part for this pattern. Brigham Young didn’t, AFAIK, significantly change Mormon doctrine, so he doesn’t fit this pattern.
And then neither Lenin nor Stalin established anything like the end state of affairs imagined by Marx.
That’s the point. I get the feeling you missed the main point of my post, which is that a movement needs the energy generated by impractical idealism, but can never deliver on the promise. Somewhere along the way, someone needs to do a bait-and-switch. (I’m adding that phrase to the post now.)
In Paul’s day, my impression is that Jesus was a set of stories and writings, not all that consistent, but which had started a movement in the Jewish world that was starting to make some headway outside that world. Paul and his successors determined who the Jesus we would remember was.
I don’t have impressions, I have knowledge from many years of close study of the New Testament. Jesus is described in the four Gospels, which Paul never touched. I consider the first 3 Gospels “reliable”, meaning they probably contain things Jesus really did, while John seems more made-up. Paul didn’t change who Jesus was or what he said; he reinterpreted it, and focused attention on the culture, institution, and theology of the Church rather than on radical, immediate action.
In the American Revolution, many theorists wrote important contributions before Thomas Paine appeared on the scene,
The American Revolution doesn’t fit the pattern unless you can point to claims that were made before the revolution that were discarded after the revolution.
Re Che Guevara, it seems to me he was charismatic and wrote some inspiring things, and had movie star good looks which made him a great “poster boy” for people who have almost no idea what it was all about, but he didn’t start the Cuban Revolution, but was recruited by Castro.
Which I mentioned in my post. We would have to go back and see what Castro promised in the early stages of the revolution, but either (A) Castro made the kind of popular claims Che did, in which case I suspect he was deliberately lying about his plans, and it fits the pattern that way, or (B) Castro didn’t make those claims, but Che did, in which case it fits the pattern a different way.
Let’s not call Che a poster boy. He was a brilliant general. Castro would’ve been lost without him.
Jesus is described in the four Gospels, which Paul never touched.
I don’t know history. Was Paul involved in selection of which Gospels are correct, and which are not? Because that too is a way to influence an outcome.
(As a wild analogy to evolution, even if mutations are random, if you have selection under control, things can move approximately your way. All you need is at least some mutations giving you the desired outcome.)
I don’t know history. Was Paul involved in selection of which Gospels are correct, and which are not? Because that too is a way to influence an outcome.
No. The Gospels were written at about the same time as Paul’s letters. The selection we have to day was finalized about 300 years later.
Yes, but my understanding is that they were written following Paul’s example.
For instance, I once asked a teacher if the Gospels, written by Jews for a the followers of a Jewish rabbi, were originally written in Aramaic. With the possible exception of Luke, we are pretty certain that the original versions were written in Greek, and not Hebrew or Aramaic, because the Gospel writers were following the convection set by Paul. Christianity did not have any texts (other than the traditional Jewish ones) before Paul, and his actions prompted other people to write down their oral history of Jesus.
The fact fact that Paul chose to write in Greek, is itself interesting, and reflective of the content of his reformed message; that it was one meant for the world, and not just the Jews (which it can certainly be argued was not the case of Jesus’s original teachings).
The earliest Gospel (Mark) is thought to have been written about the same time as the last letters of Paul, so this is plausible. But even if they were responding to Paul, they may have been responding against him, not responding to imitate him.
All that is speculation, but we know from reading them that the Gospels have a different focus than the letters.
Luke was traditionally thought to be a Gentile &, if so, wouldn’t speak Aramaic. Some of Luke is copied from Matthew, & some from Q, so it’s pretty certain it was written in Greek.
Yes, I know that. But Smith, I believe, knew it was baloney while he was making it, and that’s the important part for this pattern. Brigham Young didn’t, AFAIK, significantly change Mormon doctrine, so he doesn’t fit this pattern.
That’s the point. I get the feeling you missed the main point of my post, which is that a movement needs the energy generated by impractical idealism, but can never deliver on the promise. Somewhere along the way, someone needs to do a bait-and-switch. (I’m adding that phrase to the post now.)
I don’t have impressions, I have knowledge from many years of close study of the New Testament. Jesus is described in the four Gospels, which Paul never touched. I consider the first 3 Gospels “reliable”, meaning they probably contain things Jesus really did, while John seems more made-up. Paul didn’t change who Jesus was or what he said; he reinterpreted it, and focused attention on the culture, institution, and theology of the Church rather than on radical, immediate action.
The American Revolution doesn’t fit the pattern unless you can point to claims that were made before the revolution that were discarded after the revolution.
Which I mentioned in my post. We would have to go back and see what Castro promised in the early stages of the revolution, but either (A) Castro made the kind of popular claims Che did, in which case I suspect he was deliberately lying about his plans, and it fits the pattern that way, or (B) Castro didn’t make those claims, but Che did, in which case it fits the pattern a different way.
Let’s not call Che a poster boy. He was a brilliant general. Castro would’ve been lost without him.
I don’t know history. Was Paul involved in selection of which Gospels are correct, and which are not? Because that too is a way to influence an outcome.
(As a wild analogy to evolution, even if mutations are random, if you have selection under control, things can move approximately your way. All you need is at least some mutations giving you the desired outcome.)
No. The Gospels were written at about the same time as Paul’s letters. The selection we have to day was finalized about 300 years later.
Yes, but my understanding is that they were written following Paul’s example.
For instance, I once asked a teacher if the Gospels, written by Jews for a the followers of a Jewish rabbi, were originally written in Aramaic. With the possible exception of Luke, we are pretty certain that the original versions were written in Greek, and not Hebrew or Aramaic, because the Gospel writers were following the convection set by Paul. Christianity did not have any texts (other than the traditional Jewish ones) before Paul, and his actions prompted other people to write down their oral history of Jesus.
The fact fact that Paul chose to write in Greek, is itself interesting, and reflective of the content of his reformed message; that it was one meant for the world, and not just the Jews (which it can certainly be argued was not the case of Jesus’s original teachings).
The earliest Gospel (Mark) is thought to have been written about the same time as the last letters of Paul, so this is plausible. But even if they were responding to Paul, they may have been responding against him, not responding to imitate him.
All that is speculation, but we know from reading them that the Gospels have a different focus than the letters.
Luke was traditionally thought to be a Gentile &, if so, wouldn’t speak Aramaic. Some of Luke is copied from Matthew, & some from Q, so it’s pretty certain it was written in Greek.