Chris Weimer

That really didn't come off right. I meant the Biblical material antedates both Homer (although certainly not all of it) and Spartacus.

J and E are dated to the 8th century, P to the late 8th century, early seventh century, and D to middle-late seventh century.

The oral composition of the Homeric epics probably date to the eighth century at the earliest, but usually dated now to the seventh century.

Spartacus happened in 70 BCE, well after most of the Hebrew scriptures had been written.

spin

Oh, come on, Chris. You're just rehearsing this stuff. Can you indicate to me some tangible reason why you think any of the Hebrew literature was written before the exile? :angel:


spin

Chris Weimer

Yes, actually, I had been gathering some basic stuff. I'll have to get back to you later on this (what's new, eh nips?) but I do have some small tidbits. But as far as it goes, what I gave was standard scholarship, and certainly you don't think that the Homeric corpus influenced the Hebrew literature, do you? To do so would deny it its own heritage among Canaanite, Urgaritic, and other Near Eastern cultures.

Chris Weimer

btw - I was conservative on dating both Homer and JEPD. Radical criticism, such as spin is implying, have dated JEPD to after the exile, and a fixed text of Homer to the third century CE. But that's far beyond the scope of this jocular thread.

Gregg

Yes, this is a common counter-argument, which, IMO, Doherty quite thoroughly rips to shreds. Why don't you read his argument, then, if you don't agree with it, we can discuss that.

GakuseiDon

Well, I'll put my hand up here. Doherty compares Paul to the Gospels and finds silences from that. But, unless Gospel inerrantists are the target, I can't see the validity of this method.

Paul needs to be evaluated firstly as he stands. If we do that, there doesn't appear to be any doubt IMHO that he is talking about a historical person who'd lived on earth. "Born of a woman", "born under the law", seed of David, etc. AFTER THAT, we can look to see why there are so few details about Jesus in Paul's writings. And when we look at writings in the first three centuries, we find many similar examples: Christian writers and apologists who make few, if any, references to a historical Jesus. Paul is simply not unique in this regard.

I think that for Paul, Jesus was an observant Jew ("born under the law") whose words and actions -- other than perhaps the crucifixion -- weren't useful to Paul in his fight with the Judaizers. If you could show where Doherty offers arguments along that line, I'd be interested, but Doherty doesn't AFAICS. TedM created an interesting thread on Doherty's silences here:
http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=145420

I believe I've responded to this before. Paul and other apostles had visions of Jesus after he died, and so were convinced of his special status from that. Is this a possibility IYO?

GakuseiDon

Gregg, as I mentioned, there are many examples of other writers with such silences. Here is an example of a historicist apologist who doesn't use any details about Jesus in one of his apologies to the pagans. Tertullian wrote around 200 CE, and was well aware of the Gospels. In his "Ad nationes", he doesn't mention any details about a historical Jesus, not even his name (he refers to "the founder").
http://www.earlychristianwritings.co...tullian06.html

"The name Christian, however, so far as its meaning goes, bears the sense of anointing... If, therefore, a sect has a bad character because its founder was bad, it is punished as the traditional bearer of a bad name. But this would be indulging in a rash assumption...

For what mark do we exhibit except the prime wisdom, which teaches us not to worship the frivolous works of the human hand; the temperance, by which we abstain from other men's goods; the chastity, which we pollute not even with a look; the compassion, which prompts us to help the needy; the truth itself, which makes us give offence; and liberty, for which we have even learned to die? Whoever wishes to understand who the Christians are, must needs employ these marks for their discovery."

Why does Tertullian use "prime wisdom" here, instead of referring to Jesus himself? Why does he miss the chance to rehabilitate the founder by showing that Jesus was a good and wise man? What do you make of this silence?

Gregg

Good question, G'Don. I must admit that I'm not at this time familiar with Tertullian's writings, so it's hard to give a response on the basis of just one of them. I would like to point out very quickly, once again, that the argument from silence is not the whole mythicist case; it is only part of it. I freely admit that there could be other explanations for Paul's (and the rest of the epistle writers) silence. Nevertheless, the universality of this silence, especially so early in the history of the movement, is significant. Note that by the mid- to late- 2nd century, we have plenty of references to the gospel Jesus, and I'm sure we even have examples of writings from the same person in which he refers to the gospel Jesus in some of them and not in others.

Doherty has this to say:

It must be stressed that nowhere in the literature of the time is there support for the standard scholarly rationalization about the apologists' silence on the figure of Jesus. Nowhere is it discussed or even intimated that these writers have in fact deliberately left out the essential elements of Christian faith in their defences of it, for reasons of political correctness or anything else. The occasionally quoted account of Origen in the third century, that he sometimes expounded his ethical views without labeling them as Christian, since he feared his listeners' hostility to the very name of Christianity and Christ, is not applicable here, for in such cases Origen was not identifying himself as a Christian at all, he was not offering a defence of Christianity, even in a limited way. If he had been, he would certainly not have left himself open to challenges he was not allowed to answer. His own writings are proof of this. Origen does not conceal Jesus or his resurrection. He counters every scoff and calumny of Celsus with all the resources at his disposal.

This is true also of Tertullian, writing his apology around the year 200 and borrowing, or at least using as inspiration, parts of the work of Minucius Felix. Tertullian indulges in no such cryptic concealment. In his own day, the hostility to Christianity was no easier than it had been a generation earlier when Felix wrote, or a mere two decades since Athenagoras and Theophilus had penned their defences. Tertullian's work is full of vivid references to Christ's incarnation, to his death and resurrection. Near the end of his account of "that Christ, the Son of God who appeared among us," he declares: "let no one think it is otherwise than we have represented, for none may give a false account of his religion . . . . We say, and before all men we say, and torn and bleeding under your tortures we cry out, 'We worhip God through Christ!' " Apparently, if we believe the commentators, the bulk of the second century apologists possessed no such conviction, no such courage. Certainly, Tertullian would have had no sympathy with their policy of concealment. The above quote may even be a veiled condemnation of them, if he were familiar with the likes of Athenagoras or Tatian or Theophilus. Or it may have been directed at Minucius Felix himself, whose work he would have felt constrained to expand on and fill in the painfully missing blanks.

So it appears Tertullian himself is not silent about the gospel Jesus in all of his writings. Again, I don't really know enough about Tertullian or "Ad nationes" to give an informed opinion as to why he doesn't give Jesus' name or any gospel details in the excerpt you provided.

GakuseiDon

And that is why I've repeatedly suggested that you start investigating this for yourself, rather than relying on Doherty. IMHO Doherty too often only gives one side of the picture. Without that familiarity with Tertullian's writings, you have a potential piece of evidence that sits against Doherty's thesis left unexamined.

Yes, and you have pointed this out before. But I'm afraid you seem to use it to avoid investigating Doherty in depth in any particular area. I've seen the same excuse by "Jesus copycat" mythers when they are asked to back up claims about a crucified Mithras. They will eventually admit that there is no evidence for this, but then they will cite how many other gods fit the bill. But if their sources are misleading or wrong in one area, then it is reasonable to start asking them to back up their other claims with evidence. The same with Doherty. I agree that his argument from silence is not his whole case, but let's start looking at parts of his case in depth, to see if his conclusions are supportable.

I've suggested a few times that you give what you regard as Doherty's strongest piece of evidence and we investigate it together. I can assure you that you will start to see holes everywhere. Two of the holes in this case are: (1) Paul, taken alone, seems to be referring to an earthly Jesus, (2) There are quite a few examples of historicist writers who provide little or no earthly details about Jesus.

We do indeed. The question is: why? We can start by looking at Tertullian's "Ad nationes". Aren't you even a little bit curious about why a HJer would write an apology without even referring to Jesus's name? Is that something that Doherty informs his readers about in his book or on his website? Is it a piece of evidence that should be looked into, IYO?

So, why has Tertullian left out everything about Jesus, even his name? Isn't this support for the very thing that Doherty says is lacking? SHOULD Doherty let his readers know this piece of evidence?

Isn't Tertullian here indulging in the very concealment that Doherty says HJers didn't do?

Exactly. Which makes his complete silence about Jesus in "Ad nationes" all the more curious. So why? And what does that mean for Paul? Do you think we have all the writings of Paul?

What is your answer to this multiple choice question:
Tertullian is completely silent about Jesus, even his name, in "Ad nationes" because:
(A) His audience already knew the details about Jesus so he didn't have to repeat them
(B) Jesus's works and sayings were completely irrelevant, even if the pagans had the opinion that the founder was a bad man
(C) Some other reason.

That's why I recommend investigating Doherty's claims, rather than just rely on his opinion. What is the evidence for him? What is the evidence against him? The later requires your own investigation.

Here is a recent review of Plutarch's literature, where the reviewer noted (my emphasis):
http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/bmcr/2004/2004-04-32.html

"But again we return to the problem that Plutarch rarely adverts directly to the contemporary world (the allusion to Domitian at Publicola 15, discussed by Stadter, is a rare and striking exception). For two contributors to this volume, his writings are notable not for their engagement with issues of contemporary currency but for their avoidance of them... Schmidt's conclusion is that Plutarch's approach is entirely traditional and reflects nothing of the contemporary world: he is wholly insulated by literary confabulation from contemporary politics. Chris Pelling, meanwhile, argues that the Caesar is carefully written to avoid the many resonances it might have had, so that the text might have a timeless rather than a contemporary feel; overall, he suggests, the Lives strategically aim for an immemorial rather than a time-specific feel."

I know that this isn't a "smoking gun" to explain Paul's lack of details about Jesus, but it underlines that the people of that day had their own writing conventions. Doherty is looking back through modern eyes. But any theory to explain the lack of historical details regarding Jesus in early literature needs to take into account that this in itself was not an unusual occurrence. The writings must be evaluated using the context of the literature of the day. This is a problem that few Jesus Mythers seem to be even aware of, much less addressed.

Gregg

The problem is historicism is all over the map. There's no single agreed-upon historicist picture of Jesus to focus on. Now, the argument from silence does not address only inerrantism (one does not even need the AFS to discredit inerrantism, obviously); it can also address historicist arguments that eliminate, say, the miracles and "huge crowds" but leave the basic structure of Jesus' life, ministry, and teachings intact. But if we're proceeding from the assumption that Jesus did not actually do or say anything that the Gospels say he did, other than be "born of a woman" and "born under the law," being descended from David, establishing a sacred meal on the night he was given up, and being crucified, dying, and supposedly resurrected, then obviously the argument from silence doesn't work in the same way. But we're still left with the question of just who this person was and what he did that convinced certain Jews that he was the incarnate Son of God, through whom all things were made, whose sacrifice reconciled the creation to the Father. Are there any other examples of other Jews not just declaring a living, dead, or martyred Jew the Messiah, not just giving him some divine attributes, but calling him the incarnate Word who sits at the right hand of God and will come on the clouds at the end of time?

Yes, I know that historical people back then were deified. But I haven't seen clear parallels of historical individuals being deified in the way Jesus was deified. A Roman emperor or a well-known and beloved Greek philosopher being deified is one thing, a virtually unknown, crucified Jewish man is another. Since we have no other examples of crucified Jewish men being deified by other Jews in the specific way Jesus was deified, it makes sense to assume that this was a unique case. We do not even seem to have "copycat" cases; other Jews making the same specific claims about their martyred leaders/teachers that the Christians made about Jesus.

Given all this, I don't think only a "modern" mind would expect Paul to give some definite information about this Jesus: his lineage perhaps, since he was claimed to be a descendant of David; where he lived; what he did to get in trouble with the authorities; where he was crucified, and by who. If it was unusual for crucified Jewish men to be deified in this way among Jews, it was certainly doubly unusual for them to be deified this way among Gentiles. Yet, again, Paul never justifies why he believes the crucified Jewish man Jesus is the Christ. He seeks to justify his belief that the Christ was crucified, but, apparently, his critics accept his claim that Jesus was the incarnate Christ at face value.

Now, if we accept that Paul was teaching some of the same things other people taught; a divine intermediary who provided salvation in some fashion; but was also teaching something different, drawn from his own reading of the Jewish scriptures and perhaps influenced, even if unconsciously, by existing, ancient myths of dying/resurrecting "savior" gods, then it makes sense.

(Saying, "But why would the Greeks consider the crucifixion of the Christ 'folly' since they believed in dying/resurrecting gods too?" is an oversimplification-- was Paul really talking about "all" Greeks? Did all Greeks believe in both Gnostic-type descending redeemers who saved by imparting spiritual knowledge, and the dying/rising saviors of the mystery religions? Would a believer in the former necessarily take kindly to someone introducing elements seemingly of the latter into the equation? We shouldn't assume that other people at that time didn't take their beliefs just as seriously as Paul took his.)

One thing I would appreciate, G'Don, is for you to stop making this assumption about me. No, I am not as widely read as you (or Doherty for that matter). I have no classical training and I don't read Greek. But I have done reading on my own and I don't "just rely on (Doherty's) opinion." A few weeks ago I read Ascension of Isaiah and was working up a big post to you about it, making points about it that were entirely my own, when I happened to notice Doherty's exchange with you about AofI reproduced on his site--I had never seen it before-- and realized that he'd already made the same points to you that I'd just come up with independently.

Now, am I biased in favor of Doherty's mythicist case, leading me to read AofI and independently draw the same points from it Doherty did? Perhaps. But I don't think any more so than you are biased in favor of historicism.

Come on, G'Don. You know you're dealing with a stubborn, hardheaded Jesus myther here. You know Doherty's Jesus myth thesis addresses the above. You know I'm not going to spot you this. If I do, the argument's over and you won. There's nothing more to debate. All the rest of Doherty's thesis becomes superfluous.

See the bolded portion above. I've often been told by historicists that Paul's letters are situational, that he dictated them to someone on the fly (Doherty thinks this too, but I just wanted to point out this opinion is held by historicists as well). Where is the time for "careful writing" to "avoid the many resonances it might have had" and give the text a "timeless rather than contemporary feel?" And to raise the objection Chris or gnosis raised about Paul not writing for people 2,000 years in the future, why would taking such care to give his letters a "timeless rather than contemporary feel" have mattered to Paul? The end was nigh, for heaven's sake. And these were letters to churches dealing with, well, issues of contemporary currency, not contributions to scholarly or historical tomes. Seems to me clarity, concision, practicality, and writing for maximum impact would be the order of the day; there were souls to be saved, apostles of Satan to be rebuked. I don't think Paul thought for a second that the world as he knew it was still going to be around 150 years later for a Tertullian to be writing anything.

Of course, in the Jesus myth thesis, Paul WAS writing with clarity, concision, practicality, and for maximum impact. He was saying exactly what he knew and believed about Jesus, and leaving nothing out, nor sacrificing clarity for the sake of adhering to a writing convention. He had no "strategic aim" to give his letters an "immemorial rather than time-specific" feel. He was not just giving his readers all the information he felt they "needed" to know about Jesus; he was giving them all the information there was. Simple.

Edited to add: And let's not forget it wasn't just Paul who wrote like this. All the early epistle writers (let's be fair and exclude the psuedo-Pauline letters) did. All of them apparently took care to give their letters an "immemorial rather than time-specific feel."