Vorkosigan

In the other thread,

Gooch hasn't even noticed that Paul never refers to James as the brother of Jesus, but as the brother of the lord. But never mind that.

One of the fascinating responses of the HJ crowd is that they are almost never aware of their own interpretive frameworks, Gooch's Dad being a prime example here. Gooch's assertion here is essentially made as if it were framework-free, though in fact it is underpinned by a massive edifice of assumptions and suppositions. Gooch, in other words, understands his own assertion backwards. When he asserts that Paul's remark that "James is the Brother of the Lord" means they are related by blood, he asserts an interpretive framework in which the Brother of the Lord becomes evidence of a blood relationship. "Brother of the Lord" could not be "evidence" of a blood relationship unless the framework already specified Jesus was a human -- "evidence" exists after, not before, interpretive frameworks. To take this a step further, if Paul had never written that James was the Brother of the Lord, no one's positions would be shifting. Something else would simply be "sufficient evidence."

Just for fun, I've laid the two frameworks out side by side. The question is, really, how does one choose among the two frameworks?

(image link at Flickr)

GakuseiDon

First off, by seeing how the texts were understood in the literature of the time. That "Brother of the Lord" was used by others to mean some kind of brother to Jesus is data. What did it mean to others? If we find examples of where such expressions were not used literally, then this should weigh the evidence in that favor.

Similarly, for other points: "born of a woman", "according to the flesh", the existence of a "fleshly, non-earthly realm", etc. Let's gather the data, see how it fits within the literature as a whole, and make our evaluation.

Let's look at some of your examples below. On "Second Century Apologists", you have "dissembling to hide truth from Romans" on the Mainstream side. Yet, that is a Doherty strawman IIUC. Nearly all (if not all) of Doherty's mythicists wrote after 160 CE, at a time when (paraphrasing Doherty) the Gospels were in general circulation and most pagans had an understanding of what Christians believed. Christians couldn't have been hiding "the truth", since according to even Doherty the pagans already knew. Some other explanation must be the reason. Do you think that Tatian knew nothing about a historical Jesus, even if he were a mythicist? Is "unaware of historical Jesus" a reasonable conclusion, given how late those authors wrote?

There are quite a few examples of silences about a historical Jesus in letters that go through to the Third Century. If mythicists want to use silence about a historical Jesus to be meaningful, then they need to factor this into the equation. Doherty certainly hasn't. He treats all authors as if they are stand-alone. If anyone asks him for evidence to back up a claim, he all too often invokes "failure of imagination" and "stuck in a paradigm".

What about the letters of Ignatius? Some have references to a HJ, some don't. On the mythicist side, you put down "fiction". (Doherty treats them as genuine, though he has also suggested that they may not be) But fiction by whom? By mythicists? Then what about those letters that have HJ details? By historicists? Then what about those letters that don't have HJ details?

What we don't have is any real investigation BY MYTHICISTS on these things. The assumption seems to be that they have made their case, and now it is up to the historicist to counteract it. But they haven't made their case at all. The mythicist case is filled with special pleading (Tatian was "unaware of a historical Jesus"???) and interpretation of passages that simply aren't supported by the literature of the time.

How about, for a framework, we start with: If there are two intepretations of a passage, and one of them is consistent with the literature of the time, and the other one isn't, then we should go with the former. How does that sound for a beginning?

(ETA) And let's see some MYTHICISTS review Doherty! How long can they keep trotting out the one-page review by Carrier as if that is all that is needed? Or just keep pointing to Doherty's book whenever questions arise?

Where are the MYTHICISTS that are helping Doherty build his case?

dog-on

How about, if it walks like a duck, looks like a duck and quacks like a duck

....it's probably an interpolation.

ughaibu

I dont understand this controversy, the mere existence of the HJ/MJ controversy is sufficient to demonstrate that Jesus, if he lived, was a person of no special noteworthiness.

Diogenes the Cynic

Just a faint point of criticism -- not even the mainstream dates GMark earlier than the late 60's. Those who date Mark to the 40's are overt apologists and conservative religionists, not mainstream NT scholars.

Ted Hoffman

It would be pointless to review Doherty IMO. I will be told I am Greekless and dont have credentials. Instead, I would rather review the HJ case. I reviewed Sanders Historical Figure of Jesus. I was told I reviewed garbage and was told to review Jesus and Judaism. I am reading it and can see it has the same weaknesses and will be writing another devastating review soon.
I invite HJers to tell me which book contains the best case for a HJ so that I can take it out next.
Regarding Vork's nice presentation, there is something to be said about anagogic interpretation - especially about Jerusalem (in Galatians) as a heavenly city. Donahue (Interpreting the New Testament) has written about the various ways passages are interpreted - I cant recall right away.

Ben C Smith

Except Crossley, surely.

Ben.

TedM

YES! Of course mythicists will NEVER agree to that because it doesn't support their positions.

The existence of the controversy is sufficient to demonstrate that Jesus, if he lived, was not documented in a way that convinces a certain group of people of that. Such lack of documentation is not by itself sufficient to conclude that he wasn't noteworthy. I'm sure there are thousands of noteworthy people who have lived who have never been documented or who HAVE been documented but such documentation has evolved over time, been dismissed outright as false, or disappeared.

tedm

mountainman

The final word in the framework of the MYTH is the word FORGED.
A certain group of people will entertain the notion that the TF
was FORGED, but that the gospels (for example) or paul, could
not have been.

May god have mercy upon their souls.

Best wishes,


Pete

GakuseiDon

It seems to me that you are more interested in disproving the HJ than proving Doherty's MJ. It's fine to review the HJ case. I think it should be reviewed, and I think that assumptions should be exposed. But make sure that we don't drift into the false dichotomy that seems to lie behind some of the arguments, which is: EITHER a HJ, OR a Doherty MJ. BOTH could be wrong. Wells could be correct, or (hypothetically) Mountain Man. What I don't understand is why mythicists who believe that Doherty is correct aren't out there, digging up the data that provides support for his ideas.

Is Doherty's framework sustainable? How does he support a "fleshly non-earthly realm"? Can someone OTHER than Doherty present the data for that, perhaps in another thread? And if there is nothing to support such a belief, is there much point proceeding further?