GakuseiDon

I've finally completed my review of Part 3 of Doherty's book, which deals with the Second Century apologists. It can be found here

There are two Sections:
Section 1 looks at general themes in Second Century writings
Section 2 looks at those apologists that Doherty suggests were believers in a non-historical Christ.

I conclude that there is no reason to indicate that those apologists believed in a mythical Christ.

I was surprised at how bad Doherty misread some of his sources. I found his suggestion that Justin Martyr converted to a Christianity devoid of a historical Christ as simply ludicrous. He also IMO misrepresents the writings of some of the apologists, esp Minucius Felix.

But the worst flaw is that he simply hasn't looked at all the literature. There are very few comparisons with the writings of other second century apologists. If the themes that Doherty believes represent an expression of a mythical Christ can be found in the writings of the 'historical Christ' apologists, it weakens the force of his argument. I believe that those themes can be found in both MJ and HJ writers.

Any comments on my article is welcomed.

Bede

It's a good article Don, and the point you made on the "Challenge to Doherty" thread is also valid. We are expected to believe that Christianity went from MJ to HJ in the space of less than fifty years without a single trace of the MJ tendency left. And this despite the long lists of heresies that we hear about in the second century.

But is it fatal to Doherty's thesis? Probably not. The dividing line that he can always point to (assuming he does retreat from his second century examples) is the Jewish revolt ending in 70AD. Aside from Paul, getting back before that is always hard (although Hebrews is a big help here), and the only way to kill mythicism is to prove that Paul knew of a historical Jesus. Given almost all scholars (all until Carrier's so far unexplained conversion) already think this is proven, the argument is unlikely to develop.

What we need is someone very good at Greek (which means neither you, me, Doherty or Carrier) to carefully analyse the relevant Pauline passages with all the critical apparatus that is available. Then we will see where we are. I suppose the advent of computerised texts does make this much easier, though.

Best wishes

Bede

Bede's Library - faith and reason

Layman

If he did have to retreat all the way back to before the destruction of the Second Temple, it will have to be more than a retreat in the face of the enemy. He will have to completely recast his theory. But even if he did, I'd be skeptical. How can there be absolutely no detectable MJ presence in the second century if Christianity started as a "riotous diversity" of different groups affirming a MJ? Perhaps they all ascended to a higher plan of existence, which seems as likely an explanation as any I've seen proposed so far.

Additionally, I think GKD does a good job of examining Doherty's methodology as far as determing when a writer was supposedly an MJer. He shows that admittedly HJ writers could write just like MJers, with a similar seeming lack of concern for the historical Jesus and influence by the "Logos" stream or platonism. That being the case, an absence of references to the HJ and obvious logos or platonic influence cannot be the basis for asserting that someone is a JMer.

Great work especially on Trypho (with a nod to Kirby's piece on that as well), on Theophilus , and Minucius Felix ,

Great piece of work overall, GKD.

Peter Kirby

This is good stuff. Do you think I could host a copy on ChristianOrigins.com?

best wishes,
Peter Kirby

GakuseiDon

Hi, Peter. Thanks! Sure, no problem. I may be making small changes, based on feedback I get here, but feel free to use it.

GakuseiDon

Thanks, Layman!

But, would even that do it? Assuming the mythicists are correct, GMark was written as a midrashic-styled mythicist exposition of Christ within 20-30 years of Paul. Carrier and Doherty see Paul as being an initiate 'in the know'. If Paul talked about Jesus of Nazareth, miracles, the apostles, etc, why couldn't this be Paul using the mythicist GMark source when writing to people not 'in the know'? Or would the gap of 20-30 years be the determining difference in this regard?

The problem is that from what I see, there is currently no case to rebute. There are a series of statements from Doherty regarding the writings of Christians in the first couple of centuries, but when you try to pin down the case that he is actually arguing, things get frustratingly vague. There is no cohesive case there. All that we are left with are a number of curiosities - Paul's lack of references of Jesus's ministry, for example - that tend to get argued separately.

That's one reason why I wanted to concentrate specifically on Doherty's comments on second century writings. At least there were specific claims that could be examined and possibly rebuted. I don't think there is ANY way to rebute "Paul was a mythicist who presented a historicized version to non-initiates", short of Paul saying, for example, "Jesus was REALLY born of a woman". But then Carrier might say that Paul is protesting TOO much, which IIRC he does for 2 Peter.

But hopefully, given his training, Carrier will provide a more rigorous and precise mythicist theory that can be examined.

Vorkosigan

Narkinsky reviews Doherty here. It is extremely bad, and very low level. Don's work is much better.

Amaleq13

I think Bede is right both about what would be required to conclusively deny mythicism and about the likelihood of any attempt to do so. Perhaps Carrier's treatment will provide the motivation for such an effort.

With regard to your question, I think that argument would only work if it could be established that the recipients were new initiates. If he included references like that to his extant audiences, who appear to have been sufficiently "in the know", I don't think mythicism would have a leg to stand on. The absence of those explicit references is the foundation of the theory.

andrewcriddle

IF Mark wrote his Gospel as an attempt to describe in a symbolic metaphorical way what he and his intended readers regarded as a non-historical mythical reality, then I see no reason why Paul would have avoided similar ways of communicating his message.

IF Mark wrote his Gospel intending that new converts would be misled into believing that Jesus was a historical figure when in fact he was not, then the above argument would not apply. However this seems an unlikely suggestion.

Andrew Criddle

Peter Kirby

Oh, I've never looked at it that way before... the plot thickens.

Technically, though, wouldn't the compatibility of mythicism with Markan-like details in Paul raise the probability of mythicism?

best wishes,
Peter Kirby