Ted Hoffman

The degree of the ignorance regarding Doherty's actual thesis is sometimes disheartening. Since Capnkirk was disagreeing with Doherty here, let me quote him even though he claims he agrees with Doherty 95%.

NB: Capnkirk, note that whichever way the cards fall, regarding Q, the mythicist case harvests from the proceeds.
Doherty's arguments is against the historicity of the founder figure of Christianity. Thus the game is in the Christian ballpark. The use of the word messiah in Judaism, IMO, has little bearing on Doherty's argument.

Amaleq has already shown that the arguments regarding Judaic roots has been misrepresented by Capnkirk.
A HJ was fabricated in the second century. There is no evidence of ANY apostolic tradition in the first century outside the Gospels. Even Paul himself, NEVER relies on what Jesus taught on Earth to base his teachings: Paul uses divine revelation and scripture - he never, NOT EVEN ONCE says : Jesus said "be kind to the poor..."

The Marcionite controversy may have catapulted the "Church" to fabricate a HJ. Some probable reasons:

1) To destroy the docetic Jesus that Marcion preached - notice that Marcion either used a proto Luke or excluded huge chunks of what is known as Luke today (I think Knox argues that he slashed Luke).
This involved fabricating a birth narrative and an earthly life for Jesus. Predictably, the Homeric influence permeated their creativity as shown by MacDonald and others.

2) To consolidate all existing canon and "deprive" Marcion of any canon material. The church wanted to distance itself from Marcion - who was a huge threat to them at the time.

3) To design an apostolic tradition. This provided an earthly "lineage" from which the church fathers (in queue after the so-called apostolic fathers) could draw authority from. This involved (a) create a HJ (b) create the 12 (c) draw from the 12. (d) draw from apostolic fathers/apostolic tradition.

4) To deal with critics (influenced by Homer and Hellenistic influence) who equated a mythical Jesus with Greek gods like Odysseus and Hercules. Materialistic philosophy (thanks to Alexander the great) was taking over and Jesus had to be Euhemerized - with a materialistic strain or the skeptics easily laughed off (loud belly-filled mirth) the story of Christ Logos - as seen in John and early christian writers like Shepherd of Hermas, Didache etc.

IMO, the strongest reason would be number 3 above.

Just for blind amusement, leta examine this:

The people who edited the Gospels can't be counted. They may have done it for apologetic purposes, they may have tried to correct what they saw as errors and they may have been trying to piece things together of create some semblance of harmony.
Its layers and layers. Stratum is the word.

But the question is a red herring and the identity of the interpolators or corruptors is irrelevant to the mythicist case. For example if one can demonstrate that a story is false (by comparing factual evidence to claims), the identity of the storyteller or the motive is irrelevant.

What a sect held is irrelevant in finding out the truth. We had Marcionites, Essenes, Ebionites, Monothelites, the Adoptionists, the Predestinarians, the Berengarians, the Manichaeans, the Essenes, the Qumran sect, Docetae etc etc. Heresies flourished this was a melting pot of religion, occultism and all sorts of belief systems philosophies competed - gnosticism, docetism, platonism, dualism, atomism...its endless.

Why should the beliefs of Ebionites be held special? This is like asking: "If God does not exist, how come Christians believe he exists". Ponder the silliness of the question.

Minucius Felix (a Christian) says regarding early Christianity in his treatsie Octavius in Chapter 9 (as quoted by Doherty):

Octavius Chapter 9

Now, what does this tell you about early Christianity and early Christians? One word springs to mind: medley. WHo sorted it out? the church. Because people like Marcion could use the loopholes to come up with his own "church" and steal congregation (and money) from them.

I suggest that if GakuseiDon and like-minded individuals are really serious about the weaknesses of Doherty's thesis, they start a new thread, laying down, point by point, what they consider to be the weaknesses of Doherty's thesis. And they shall get a comprehensive and complete response including one from Doherty himself - if necessary but I confident that me, Vork,Amaleq, spin and Iason can take them out with our eyes closed <distributes blindfolds to Jesus Mythers>.

Posting objections to a mythicist case in a disorganized, staccato manner like this in an obscure thread undermines the degree of exposure such weak arguments can get.

Start a new thread titled "Why the myhicist case has failed" or "Ten reasons why Doherty's thesis does not hold water" etc etc.

Just start a thread, organize the arguments and we shall gleefully, cheerfully, merrily and overzealously take them out.

One by one.

Layman can provide some useful inputs so that the arguments are consolidated in one thread and we lay anti-MJ demons to rest once and for all.

Was it Kosh that was arguing that GakuseiDon is actually...?

GakuseiDon

Rlogan, me questioning Doherty doesn't establish historicity. I question Doherty because I see weaknesses in his arguments. Many of his arguments against a HJ can also be applied against an MJ.

rlogan

Yeah baby. Now we're on it.

rlogan

Hi G.D.

You haven't shown that. You've just asserted it. And asserted it. And asserted it.

There are some myths about Gods with details. So? Jesus is one of them. Those details were very, very late arriving in the written record. It isn't that they are absent from the final iteration.

It is that they are absent from the first iterations. The earthly details, that is. That makes perfect sense if it was myth first and was later converted.

So again, I don't know how many different ways I can show your argument does not follow.

Amaleq13

That isn't my understanding but I would be interested in any specific statements by Doherty. PM me to prevent creating a tangent. It was my impression the religion began with a group of Jewish "mystics" incorporating the Hellenistic concepts you describe in an effort to redefine what "Messiah" meant for their people.

I think even the scenario you describe provides sufficient "Jewish roots" that they don't need to be invented.

Gawen

I respectfully request that Gregg not post a PM, but to offer whatever explaination here in the thread. If it veers away to far we can split the thread. I don't want to miss a thing, especially opposing points and the responses. This is most fascinating.

Gregg

Much obliged. I don't know that I could point to any specific statements by Doherty, my comment was an impression based on my reading of his work. Exactly how the Jerusalem apostles and Paul actually came by their beliefs is, obviously, unknown to us, we can only make reasonable guesses. But I think it's logical to suppose that Greek neo-Platonist ideas came first, followed by various forms of Logos/Christ worship springing up independently around the Empire, with the specifically Jewish version emerging around the same time the others did.

Despite Paul's claim of having received his gospel from "no man," by his own admission he persecuted Jewish Christians, so I think we can assume he was familiar with their beliefs. But he still regards the revelation, the opening of his eyes to the mystery of the Logos/Christ previously concealed within the Scriptures, as his own--a direct revelation from God. Evidently he brings his own ideas, interpretations, and perspectives into the mix (seeing God and/or Scripture as their source, except on one or two occasions when he admits he's just offering his personal opinion), and he refuses to subordinate himself to the apostles based in Jerusalem.

In promoting the Jerusalem/Paul version of Christianity Paul then ran up against other Christ-worshippers and preachers who taught a more Greek-centered Logos/Christ--one that apparently saved through imparting spiritual knowledge and had never come "in the flesh" or been crucified.

IMO this is one of the strongest arguments against an HJ. If Christianity originated with an actual crucified Jewish rebel or rabbi, then why, so soon after his death and supposed resurrection, would there have been Christians denying he'd come in the flesh or been crucified? And why wouldn't Paul, in defending his version of Christianity against these people, have said something like, "Of course Jesus came in the flesh and was crucified! His parents, his brothers and sisters, his immediate followers, and many eyewitnesses to his ministry and crucifixion are still alive!"

Paul uses Scripture and theological arguments to demonstrate Jesus came "in the flesh" and was crucified, instead of doing the obvious thing and pointing to all the evidence of Jesus' recent physical existence and death. The best explanation for this, IMO, is that there was no HJ--just differing (and competing) theologies about the same invisible spiritual being.

capnkirk

Have you considered Maccoby's exegesis of who Paul was with regard to this? Hyam also makes a pretty compelling case that The Jerusalem Church (TJC) were not Xtians at all, but observant Jews and followers of a crucified and allegedly resurrected HJ who made no claims to being "the Christ", and that the nature of the quarrel between Paul and James and Peter (the leaders of TJC) revolved specifically around their diametrically opposed visions of who Jesus/Christ was.

Amaleq13

I disagree though, like you, I can't claim Doherty as my specific source. There seems to me to be good reason to conclude that James, leader of the Jerusalem group, had an already established reputation for his Jewish piety. Early Church Fathers say he was known as "the Just" and that many Jews (and apparently some Christians) considered the fall of Jerusalem the punishment for James' murder. Paul refers to them as men of "high reputation" but then rejects that reputation as irrelevant. It seems apparent to me that he is referring to their reputation among their fellow Jews. How could they obtain such a reputation among the Jews if they were not first known as pious Jews?

Gregg

Well, there's nothing in my model that says James and the other leaders of the Jerusalem church couldn't have been Jews of high reputation. I don't see the objection.