Jehanne

This is debatable. Most scholars are of the opinion that early Christianity began as a strict sect of Judaism, and through the influence of Paul, left its Judaism roots sometime after the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD. One thing is for certain and that is Christianity was anything but a coherent religion in the beginning.

Ted Hoffman

Against Doherty? If the reason X states Y is guilty of murder is because of the victims blood in his hands and the reason Z states Y is guilty of murder is because he was found with the murder weapon, Z is said to think so against X? On what basis do you erect this alleged opposition of viewpoints?

The title of the OP is whether the passage is a smoking gun. You've also asked whether it is a smoking gun because of the time order in which Jesus was named. The latter is about a specific argument that can be made from the passage, which in my view, is a narrow and not a general approach.

I see it as a smoking gun as it is, even without having to go to the nitty gritty over whether Lord or God was used and whether Jesus was named before or after ascending.

Now, do you think the reasosnI have presented for regarding it as a smoking gun for mythicism are adequate? If not, why not? I'd like to see my reasons addressed. This is not just about polling, is it?

Ben C Smith

You have misunderstood thoroughly.

This is the source of your misunderstanding. The procedure you outline here is invalid, but who do you have in mind who uses it? I do not doubt that there is somebody out there who may do this, but the people I explicitly listed do not. They specify the content of item A, and (as I explicitly stated) that content is usually (though not always) the crucifixion.

How did you miss where I did just that?

I did not exactly specify my own potential minimalism or that of Amaleq13 in my post, but that was because it was, I think, the same kind of minimalism as that of Diogenes the Cynic.

I think Burton Mack is also a minimalist, but the item he specifies (yes, specifies) is Cynic wisdom teaching in Galilee rather than crucifixion in Jerusalem. (But I may also be oversimplifying his views here.)

Ben.

Ben C Smith

In your analogy, Y may well have both had blood on his hands and been holding the murder weapon.

You wrote or implied that the name bestowed upon Jesus was either Lord or Christ (you did not seem to decide in favor of either one). Doherty thinks that the name bestowed upon Jesus was... Jesus. Name is singular, so it cannot very easily have been both.

Here is my statement again, for ease of reference:

I worded this very carefully. I wrote that your choice of names agrees with mainstream commentators and disagrees with Doherty and Price.

And that is true.

Of course. The OP is naturally going to be narrower than the title. How long a title would you prefer?

No. But your reasons were not the point of the OP.

Of course not. It is about whether the name in question is Jesus or Lord, and what the former (especially) would imply. (It is certainly not about whether the concept of an incarnation implies mythicism, though if you wish to delve into that you are welcome to do so.)

Ben.

Ted Hoffman

Rick, with all due respect to you, whether or not you were persuaded is not an argument. And anyone who is familiar with the subject would know that it is not a cut and dried subject. You have made no counterargument. What we all would like is to see how you account for the silences that Doherty has argued and his arguments are available for you to rebut. You have done NOTHING except roll your eyes and tell us you are not persuaded.

Doherty points out problems and suggests solutions. You claim the solutions he presents are not solutions and plead about a few technicalities about this or that passage. What is your solution? Where is your critique of his thesis? Or will you tell us there is no silence? GDon at least admitted that the sound of silence in the second century Christian texts is loud and requires an explanation which he tried to offer. What about you? Is it enough for you to present a parade of unpersuaded people as a counterargument? Are we supposed to gird our loins, roll up our sleeves and get back to work because Rick and Trafford are still waiting in the queue of the unpersuaded? And you expect to be taken seriously?

Can you explain the more than a dozen silences that Doherty argues? Where is your thesis on the entire case that Doherty presents? If you cant, then clearly, you and like-minded individuals are not willing to do the job. It is very easy to maintain your reclining position and moan that you are not persuaded.

What are your alternative explanations? At least TedM tried. The rest of you have done no work. These piecemeal quibbles that ignore his entire case are not helpful. As Vork has noted, it is a silence that cuts accross centuries and involves more than Paul or just a single passage.
Let us give the subject the attention it demands of us please. We should be comitted to dissecting this matter and not go round and round tiny passages and ignoring other numerous texts spanning centuries. Where is your critical review of Doherty for example? Can you show us a paper you have written against Doherty's brand of mythicism? Why not?

Are you too busy? I think you have been arguing this matter long enough in boards. This problem (the paucity of data and uncovering of the historical Jesus) confronts us all as people interested in understanding Christianity. Let us see some seriousness.

Ted Hoffman

So the OP is about whether that Phillipians passage is a smoking gun because of the name Jesus or Lord?
As opposed to simply whether the passage is a smoking gun for mythicism or not?
I apologize because I assumed the latter. If I am correct, please address my reasons. If this is about Jesus or Lord, I am Greekless as you guys put it.

krosero

I'm not sure how far Earl would press this analogy. He has used it explicitly to make a point about inductive reasoning, and presumably there are correspondences between the parties in his modern story and those from earliest Christianity; but I'll let him tell us how far his argument from silence relies on hypothetical situations generally and this one particularly.

krosero

No problem there, Rick.

gstafleu

I was thinking about what people on this forum had said, but you're right, you did give two examples of perhaps valid minHJs. But as always, the devil is in the details. For example, for a crucified minHJ, was he crucified as the gospels specify? If not, to what extent not? Given that Jesus was a common name at the time, and that crucifixions were also common, I'm pretty sure that someone called Jesus was crucified somewhere at some time around the turn of the era. You'd have to come up with something like: This person was crucified around then under these circumstances, and that makes him a good minHJ. I'm not saying that cannot be done, just that I haven't seen it done, fwiw.

Something similar goes for a cynic teacher in Galilee. I'm sure there were such. Was the candidate called Jesus, do we have a particular teacher in mind or just a hypothetical unspecified one? The latter is pretty unfalsifiable.

BTW, I have proposed Jesus ben Ananias as a historical core for the gospel Jesus, but nobody took me up on that (not that I claim any originality here). At least we have something more or less substantial about him: his name, his time, some of his actions. We'd need something similar for any crucified minHJ or any teacher, cynic or otherwise.

Gerard Stafleu

Gerard Stafleu

aa5874

If almost every one outside the courtroom believes that OJ is guilty, then the question is why did the 12 jurors come back, in less than an hour, and deliver a not guilty verdict? The answer is simple, the prosecution bungled the case, in spite of all the circumstantial and DNA evidence.

This is almost the same position that the HJers find themselves, their position should have been a slam dunk, but they have bungled their own case. The HJer present a figure that existed before time, virgin born, son of a holy ghost, transfigured, resurrected and ascended who was crucified under Pontius Pilate.

It takes less than an hour to see that this figure is a myth.