Accuracy of the Various Gospels: Why Mark Uber Alles?

[Queequeg]

I was reading exerts from a rather interesting book called The Evolution of God today.  With regards to Christianity, the author, Robert Wright, presumes that the Gospel of Mark, being the oldest attested Gospel, gives the most accurate description of the life of Jesus and his teachings, concluding that all subsequent Gospels are attempts to market the faith to other religions.  Jesus was originally a fairly generic, if especially charismatic, Jewish attempted Messiah, the exception being that his 'cult' didn't die with his crucification.  Mark appears to play this up; there is little talk of love, heaven, brotherhood, etc....Wright presumes most of this was invented by Paul. 

This strikes me as highly suspect.  While I don't doubt that there was certainly that element in the teachings of Jesus and his early disciplines, it strikes me that the opposite case is almost as likely true; that Mark was meant for and written by Jews accustomed to the traditional Messiah claimant narrative of the period, and substantially altered the original text (including, of course, oral narratives) to fit this.  While I don't doubt that the Jesus of the other thee gospels is to varying degrees more Gentile friendly, I think something in the initial sermons must have been as well, as we find Christians in Rome just a lifetime after Jesus' death, perhaps within living memory.  I don't think Jesus' gospel was such a *fantastic* leap either; the Old Testament talks of charity and brotherhood for fellow Jews, why couldn't the initial Christians (including, most obviously, the big J himself) make this universal? 

I think Wright is going too far right here.  There is no reason Jesus couldn't have been a Syncretic Reformist Jew, instead of just another Messiah or a self conscious starter of another religion, as Aryan Paganism spawned not one but two (or arguably three, if you see Hinduism as different than an evolved, native form of Aryan Paganism) entirely distinct moral-religious reformers who ended up at the exact opposite conclusions.  A lot of Jesus' ideas were out there already, and I don't think it is that far of a stretch to presume that he start preaching to goyim, as in antiquity I think Judaism was far more of a postheletyzing faith than it is today (look at the Khazars, and the various Arab and Berber Jewish groups, presumably converts rather than migrated Jews.  Why couldn't Jesus have taken this to the next level, with Paul solidifying the goyification of mainstream Christianity, with offshoots like the Ariminians attesting to a more Jewish-oriented but still prostheletyzing time. 

Thoughts?  Objections?

[Jaron]

In before the lock.

[Eddie Teach]

as Aryan Paganism spawned not one but two (or arguably three, if you see Hinduism as different than an evolved, native form of Aryan Paganism) entirely distinct moral-religious reformers who ended up at the exact opposite conclusions.

Who are you referring to?

[Razgovory]

as Aryan Paganism spawned not one but two (or arguably three, if you see Hinduism as different than an evolved, native form of Aryan Paganism) entirely distinct moral-religious reformers who ended up at the exact opposite conclusions.

Who are you referring to?

I'm guessing Zoraoster and Buddha.  Maybe a Greek like Pythagoras.

[Queequeg]

as Aryan Paganism spawned not one but two (or arguably three, if you see Hinduism as different than an evolved, native form of Aryan Paganism) entirely distinct moral-religious reformers who ended up at the exact opposite conclusions.

Who are you referring to?

Raz got it.  I don't know who exactly the reformer for Hinduism would be, there are a ton of important ones but no one sticks out. 

[Queequeg]

By  Ariminian I meant Ebionite and Paulician.  Whoops. 

[Razgovory]

as Aryan Paganism spawned not one but two (or arguably three, if you see Hinduism as different than an evolved, native form of Aryan Paganism) entirely distinct moral-religious reformers who ended up at the exact opposite conclusions.

Who are you referring to?

Raz got it.  I don't know who exactly the reformer for Hinduism would be, there are a ton of important ones but no one sticks out.

As garbon once pointed out you're the only person here who is as crazy as me.  So it makes sense.  I think you could argue that Plato was a religious reformer his version of philosophical religion did have a big impact.

I avoid threads like this cause of Crazy Canuck.  Ever since he suggested I read the "Pagan Christ" I found these debates kinda vapid.

[citizen k]

I prefer the Gnostic Christ myself.
Knowlege>Faith

[Razgovory]

I prefer the Gnostic Christ myself.
Knowlege>Faith

Gnostics were like Scientologists of ancient Rome.  You had to pay for each level of enlightenment.

[Martinus]

I prefer the Gnostic Christ myself.
Knowlege>Faith

Gnostics were like Scientologists of ancient Rome.  You had to pay for each level of enlightenment.

They had better orgies than Scientologists.

[Martinus]

Anyways, Spellus, you need a girlfriend. Or a boyfriend. Of any species.

[Viking]

Is this where they are filming FoX's new series "When Berkuts Attack" ?

[Razgovory]

Is this where they are filming FoX's new series "When Berkuts Attack" ?

That's about every thread these days.

[The Brain]

Let me turn the question around: why not Mark uber alles?

[The Larch]

By  Ariminian I meant Ebionite and Paulician.  Whoops.

That totally changes everything.