Notsri

Mr. Doherty, hello.

I don’t want to sidetrack you too much here, but I did have one quick question. With regard to the Epistle to the Hebrews, you had suggested above:


How does one reconcile that statement with Hebrews 7:14:


-?-


Regards,
Notsri

TedM

What an excellent summary of your views regarding the formation of Christianity, Earl. There is much food for thought here.

Others here have much more knowledge than I to address it in any comprehensive way, so I will have to resort to just questioning a few things which you wrote:

Paul calls Apollos "our brother" in 1 Cor 16:12:

And earlier, he says that Apollos built upon Paul's bascic message of Christ's crucifixion:

I simply don't see any basis for Apollos as having denied the crucified Christ of Paul. There is no way he would have referred to Apollos in these ways had that been the case.



In the case of Paul I see little reason to conclude that those Paul says preached another Jesus were anything other than those who required Gentile converts to follow Jewish law, a message repeated throughout Acts as it pertains to the opposition to Paul's ministry. This is a clear message throughout Galations. It is less clear in 2 Corinthians, but he seems to be referencing the same kind of opposition:

Liberty from what? The Jewish law:


At least as far as Paul is concerned, it seems to me that "another Jesus' " isn't something as exciting as a historical man (vs a mythical one by Paul) or a non-crucified Jesus. Rather, the phrase is referring to a specific opposition to Paul's message regarding Gentile salvation through faith without the need to follow Jewish law. This would have been a big issue with Jewish Christians, so such references are not surprising.

Even with regard to the Q Jesus, Paul writings reflect nearly every teaching found in a hypothetical reconstructed Q1: Love your enemies, don't worry about things, give up all to follow Christ, don't judge lest you be judged, don't be a hypocrite, don't just hear-obey, the kingdom of God is mysterious, don't cling to this life and it's concerns, be peaceful and humble, God's kingdom isn't just for the privileged, and apostles have certain specific instructions or rights. These suggest to me a common tradition to both Q1 and Paul. If Q1 was based on an actual human teacher, do we attribute Paul's teachings to that same figure or to something else?

There are enough similarities between the Jesus of Paul, Apollo, Q, and of Paul's opponents that may suggest he was one and the same person. In these few examples I don't see variety that requires a foundation on something other than a man believed to have been resurrected from death, who had been long-anticipated to come as the Jewish Messiah. That belief alone may well have been sufficient to account for many different early interpretations and portrayals of such a being and his messages for mankind.

ted

krosero

Mr. Doherty, welcome (back) to the forums.

I found your essay thoughtful, particularly your many points about the diversity of the ancient Christian world. The diversity certainly needs to be accounted for, and one thing I thought while reading your essay is that the historicist models might not have presented, yet, a satisfactory account of the diversity.

But I offered a textual analysis as specific as any of equal length in this thread. Where, specifically, do you find my recapitulation of M Felix's statements to be at fault? And I asked several pointed questions which you did not address.

I remember that clarification, and it was useful. Indeed nowhere do you present M Felix as preaching Paul's mythological events in the lower heavens. But when I said that M Felix does not seem like a mythicist, I did not mean a Pauline mythicist. All I meant was that he did not believe that a man had been crucified -- or appeared to be crucified -- on the surface of the earth by other men. That's what I mean by "mythicist." Regardless of what M Felix's precise theology was, if he was a mythicist then he was not a historicist, i.e., someone who did believe that historical agents had crucified a real man.

I presume that you disagree, and you argue that M Felix was not a historicist. That seems the whole point of this debate.

If that is the case, why does M Felix not just say the following?

WE DO NOT WORSHIP A CRIMINAL. THE LOGOS [OR CHRIST] IS NOT A HUMAN BEING, MUCH LESS A CRIMINAL.

That is an irrefutable argument. It would certainly be stronger than going into the question of whether criminals deserve or earthly beings are able to achieve regard as God. And the latter argument would leave him vulnerable to such questions: "Why are you talking about what criminals deserve? You don't believe there was a criminal. Or do you? Why are you talking about what earthly beings can achieve? What's this got to do with your faith, which has nothing to do with earthly beings?"

Your guess is that M Felix regarded the crucifixion as a "story" like the Greek myths. If I may elaborate on this idea: he thinks that those Christians who do look to a crucifixion are thinking somewhat like Paul thought, of a crucifixion in the heavens, where the pagan gods underwent (so you say) their mythical experiences. Presumably, pagan audiences heard about the heavenly crucifixion story and misunderstood, thinking it referred to an earthly crucifixion of a human criminal, and this became one of the calumnies.

If you're right, and a mythical man is involved, why is M Felix going into the question of what criminals and earthly beings achieve?

No, if M Felix regarded the crucifixion as a myth, he should just say,

WE DO NOT WORSHIP A HUMAN BEING. WE WORSHIP SOMETHING ETERNAL [OR SOMETHING THAT WAS NEVER ON THE EARTH].

But there is a simple reason that he chooses instead to talk about what a criminal deserves or what an earthly being can achieve. In the historicist model, he needs to do that, because the criminal appeared to exist -- only he wasn't a true criminal, and if he had been, he would not have deserved to be made God. M Felix needs to talk about whether an earthly being could achieve divine reputation, because the earthly being appeared to exist -- only he wasn't a true earthly being, and if he had been, he would not have been made God.

If a mythicist, M Felix does not believe that either a criminal or any earthly being appeared to exist. Only the Logos (your suggestion for M Felix's beliefs), existed. M Felix does not need to ask what a true criminal or earthly being can do; he needs only say that no criminal or earthly being existed.

But I am confused by your arguments, frankly. For you also say:

If I read you correctly, you're saying that M Felix might very well have believed there was a human being. Am I clear on that?

You are mistaken when you say that M Felix merely wants to deny that Christians worship "a crucified man and his cross." His actual words are "a criminal and his cross." Your paraphrase makes it seem like M Felix wants to deny the whole crucifixion scene, when in fact he focuses only on the impossibility of a criminal, or an earthly being, becoming God. It sounds very much like the crucifixion is assumed. If it is not assumed, why does he not just say that it did not happen?

That was your response to Don (whose arguments, IMO, have been excellent). What does this mean? In the mythicist model, M Felix did not believe a man was crucified, and so he could have no opinion on whether the man was wicked. You can only be referring to M Felix's description of what a mythical story said about the crucified man. But why would a mythical story say that its protagonist was wicked? Moreover, do we have any version of Christianity that says Christ was wicked?

Now, you make the following point several times:

I didn't think you'd say so strongly that Felix's form of Christianity, and similar forms, were alienated from historicist beliefs (esp. when you say that it's uncertain whether Felix denied the human being). If you're right, M Felix would ignore the historicist worship of a criminal and would only defend his spiritualized forms of faith. He needs only to say, "We worship an eternal principle, or spirit, not a human being." Instead he starts talking about whether, in human history, criminals or earthly beings could achieve the status of God. Why do that?

I understand that in your mythicist model, M Felix is saying, "Earthly beings don't become God; we don't worship an earthly being. We worship something in heaven." But why go into what a human being can achieve? What's the point? It risks associating Christianity with a human being. It exposes M Felix to those questions I mentioned, "Why are you talking about what criminals deserve? You don't believe there was a criminal. Or do you?"

As I suggested, the only reason he makes his argument this way, if the mythicist model is correct, is that he wants to put things in such a way as to also defend his fellow Christians, the historicists. Opening up the question of what an earthly being deserves and achieves can get the calumnies off their back as well as defend his own spiritualized faith. That would be a supremely subtle tightrope to walk. And it would mean that M Felix was concerned enough about historicist brothers to forego his own best argument and muddy it by talking about human beings.

Those who know Felix's faith will hear him saying,

LOOK, EARTHLY BEINGS DON'T GET MADE INTO GOD. WE WORSHIP AN ETERNAL PRINCIPLE THAT WAS NEVER HUMAN.

Those who are thinking of Christian historicists will hear Felix saying,

LOOK, EARTHLY BEINGS DON'T GET MADE INTO GOD. OUR MAN WAS NOT AN EARTHLY BEING, BUT A MAN FROM HEAVEN.

The second is intelligible. The first is not convincing, for people will just say to him, "If you believe in an eternal principle that was never human, why are you talking about what human beings deserve and achieve?" They will then talk to the rest of the audience and know that M Felix is playing some sort of game.

I really doubt that M Felix was a mythicist who cared so much for historicists that he made better arguments for them than for himself. He was, simply, a historicist. He had a strong emphasis on the Logos, and believed that the eternal Logos was briefly a man.

GakuseiDon

Hi Earl,

I think that, even if your analysis of the key passage was correct, it would still lead to support of a historical Christ. M Felix can only be arguing against a Christianity that didn't regard Christ as a god, e.g. some form of Ebionites.

If we take:... with this:... then we have within M Felix's "Octavius" itself a recognition that some people worshipped a crucified man and his cross. Given M Felix's comment: "Miserable indeed is that man whose whole hope is dependent on mortal man, for all his help is put an end to with the extinction of the man", this would not have in scope those Christians who regarded Christ as a god (like Justin Martyr and Tertullian). Thus there is no reason to assume that M Felix didn't share similar orthodox views.

You also added:I don't see why that would be the case. How is it possible to determine that M Felix's version of Christianity was more likely a reflexion of how the entire movement started than, say, Justin Martyr's version?

I agree, and this view would certainly be shared with other Christian writers of the day.

A bit of a tangent, but out of interest, I also think that Andrew Criddle has raised an important point by suggesting that pagans equated a Christian focus on a crucified man and his cross as practising black magic. Celsus also raised similar charges against Christ:
http://www.earlychristianwritings.co...origen161.html

"Continuing to pour abuse upon Jesus as one who, on account of his impiety and wicked opinions, was, so to speak, hated by God, he [Celsus]asserts that "these tenets of his were those of a wicked and God-hated sorcerer."

GakuseiDon

Fair point. Yes, you are right. I should perhaps have added Pliny to that as well. Tacitus didn't say that Christians regarded Christ as a god.

GakuseiDon

I think that the allusion is there, though I agree that it should not be taken as a direct reference. I would need to prove my case on the key passage before trying to draw any significance from the later statements.

The question is, why does M Felix even bring up this topic? How does the idea that "honour should be bestowed on an illustrious man and love to a good man" add to "miserable is the man who relies on a mortal man"?

GakuseiDon

I forgot to address:Yes, this is my fault, I'm afraid. I did give this definition at the start of my first rebuttal:

"MJ" is used to refer to a "mythical Jesus". An "MJer" is one of the writers identified by Doherty as believing in a Christianity that didn't include a "historical Jesus" at its core. I use “MJ� only to note that these authors are purported by Doherty to disbelieve in a historical Jesus.

So I've been using "mythicist" as a catch-all word to describe those Christian apologists that Earl believes supports his view. But as Earl correctly points out, using it to describe M Felix misrepresents Earl's view on the matter. It really isn't the correct word I should be using for M Felix, so I'll try to be clearer on this in future.

Amaleq13

I wondered later if you were confusing Pliny's statements with Tacitus'.

With regard to the main discussion, though, I would say that taking both into consideration calls into question how much we can assume pagans knew about what Christians believed.

Pliny knows that Christians worship "Christ" as a god but he says nothing about this "Christ" being a man or appearing as a man or being executed.

Tacitus knows that "Christus" founded the Christians and their "pernicious superstition". This fellow was executed by Pilate but that only briefly checked the movement.

Neither says one word about a man named Jesus nor do they mention the central belief of the group (ie that this man rose from the dead). They also offer no suggestion that they understand what "Christ" meant. If we were to combine these two comments, there would be support for an assumption that pagans at the time understood Christians to worship a godman but that is obviously not a legitimate approach.

In short, I don't think we have much support for the assumption that pagans (at least at the time of Pliny and Tacitus) were aware that Christians worshipped a godman.

krosero

Don, I don't think this is your fault. Your definition of an "MJer" as one who didn't believe in a historical Jesus is exactly the same thing that I mean when I say "mythicist." In my private thoughts I might have equated a mythicist Felix with Pauline mythicism, but that issue was clarified for me in post #8 of this thread; I did not get the idea from your catchall definition. If anything, your catchall definition implied to me that many different non-historicist views needed to be caught under an umbrella, as all having in common a disbelief in a historical Jesus.

I thought that was the major point at stake here: whether Felix believed in a historical man or not. Sure, it's extremely interesting what Felix believed precisely, and it may impact the question of whether he believed the human man existed, but Felix's precise form of mythicism is a secondary issue here, unless I'm mistaken.

I'm not sure why we can't use "MJer" or "mythicist" in a catchall manner. Has Mr. Doherty said that the terms "MJer" or "mythicist" should be reserved for Pauline mythology? If so, then whatever terms are left for Felix won't focus so sharply on whether he accepts or rejects the existence of the historical man, which is what we're trying to focus on.

I don't know what the problem would be. Mr. Doherty has guessed the M Felix took the crucifixion story to be like a Greek myth. The terms "MJer" and "mythicist" do not misrepresent such a Felix.

Now, I do note that Mr. Doherty has described Felix as if he were an agnostic on the matter of the human being: "We don’t know whether Felix 'doesn’t believe there was any human being at all to begin with.' He’s not clear on that point" (post #100). And elsewhere: "he is assuming, I assume, that the crucified man was wicked since he was executed as a criminal, and if he says that no man deserves to be so worshiped, then he must reject any notion of regarding him as a god. Note that he seems to be against any “earthly being� being worshiped as a god, not just a crucified criminal" (post #98). I asked whether it made any sense to make Felix refer to a criminal on earth on in a myth. Such an argument takes me completely by surprise.

Ted Hoffman wrote: "Yet MF is not offended [at the charge, in Don's words, 'that Christ was a malefactor who committed wicked crimes']. Indeed that is how he regards Christ: as a wicked man." You asked Ted if he now believed that Felix was referring to a crucified man. You were as perplexed by the argument as I was by the one I quoted in the last paragraph; you threw up this emoticon :huh: (post #66). That was right before Ted rested his case.

So I think you and I both have been asking for clarification here. Allow me to say why it's so perplexing. If Felix was referring to a mythical belief in a crucified man, it makes no sense, because myths don't say that their protagonists were wicked, or at least, no Christian story has ever presented Christ as wicked. If Felix was referring to an earthly man who must have been wicked because he was crucified, he is basically agreeing with Tacitus and numerous other pagans who, upon hearing of Roman justice upon a Jew, probably did not believe that Roman justice miscarried. Felix is also being ranged, essentially, with Jews, who believed that Christ was a magician and a deceiver, as his fate was probably thought to prove.

Ted Hoffman does lay out the essence of the argument here: "In any event, his brand of Christianity detested the idea of worshipping a chap who suffered at the cross. That is primary to the MJ hypothesis because he is a towering example of a Christian who rejected the idea that a man died and through that conferred salvation to those that remained" (post #40). This is in keeping with Mr. Doherty's statement that Felix "simply wants to deny that proper Christians would do such a thing as worship a crucified man and his cross" (post #100). Both statements imply that Felix was aware that men were doing such a thing. (The pagans were obviously aware of the practice, since they brought it up as a calumny). His statements in Octavius are a silent swipe at them.

But this does not settle any confusion. For Felix would then have to believe that somehow, some Christians had started worshipping a wicked, crucified man. With pagans and Jews, he's in agreement that such a worship is a bad thing. He believes in something else. Yet whatever he believes, he says it's what "Christians" believe. He is defending them -- the people who carry Christ's name. Whatever he believed Christ to be, he must have believed that his Christ was different from the man who was crucified. He must have believed that this man did not carry the name of Christ, or that he should not be carrying the designation of Christ. He believed that a man who died in the previous century had been affixed improperly in later years with the name of Christ?

Actually, let's use the mythicist model to explain: Paul, a full century before Felix, had been preaching a heavenly Jesus Christ, who was crucified. The gospels then made this crucified Jesus Christ into a human being on earth. The calumnies started. Felix heard of them, and explained it to himself by thinking that some Christians believed in a man, unlike the one in the Gospels, who really was wicked since he suffered Roman justice; Felix believed further that these Christians were not worshipping the true Christ, but had adopted the designation of Christ falsely, through the epistles or the Gospels, which all speak of Jesus Christ; his Christians, the ones he is defending, are named after the only true Christ. Whatever his Christ was, it was not the Christ of the Gospels or the epistles, for that Christ is not wicked. And if we're going to say that Felix thought the man was wicked because he was crucified, he's definitely not using Paul's "heavenly" Christ. Whatever his "Christians" are named after, it's a Christ that goes against the whole New Testament. A very strange Christianity indeed. How doubly perplexing that Felix treats such a Christianity as having the only true Christians. How further perplexing that Felix defines his people's faith so weakly that his tract comes to be regarded as an orthodox defense of historicist Christianity.

I think I understand now why Mr. Doherty replied to my first post with an essay stating several times that the apologists could really scorn or ignore all the other Christianities around them, but were radically co-opted later by the very ones they scorned.

It makes much more sense that Felix followed a Logos thought which was evoked in the NT, but that his faith did not deny the corporeal Christ found in the NT. Then he has in common with NT Christianity the idea that the eternal principle appeared as a human briefly. Then he can speak for many more strands of Chritianity than he is allowed to do by the mythicist interpretation of his statements. Then his easy adoption by orthodox Christianity makes sense.

And so does the positive reception he received even in his own time by the orthodox. In post #69, Don, you say that Felix was praised. You say that in Doherty's model, Felix inspired Tertullian. But how can he have been praised by, or been the inspiration for, Christians who believed what Felix was supposedly so clearly rebuking? If when Felix says that mortal man should not be worshipped, he is referring to Jesus the crucified criminal, then how can anyone who deifies that man really be inspired by Felix? However, if Felix means only that mortal men like the Pharaohs should not be deified, but that Christ was not a true earthly being or a mortal man, this is in keeping with Christian rejection of pagan godmen in favor of their own man from heaven.

GakuseiDon

Yes, that's right. Some of the MJers appeared Logos-centric, others don't refer to the Logos. Some appear to have a Person in mind (e.g. Tatian), M Felix doesn't. So I used "MJ" to mean anyone who Earl believed didn't have a historical Christ in mind. But, terminology is important, and I think that I need to be careful to use it in the way that Earl means (unless I can show it is inappropriate, of course).

Krosero, that is an excellent summary of the problem I myself have with Earl's view of the key passages. And when we realise that Felix is critical of people worshipping a wicked man (there is that distinction again!) rather than someone regarded as a god, then any unorthodox views attributed to Felix disappear. I think Andrew Criddle's post - that some viewed a worship of a wicked man and his cross as a practising of black magic - is the deciding point. I'll put this into a separate post, though.