GakuseiDon

My evidence is there. Argue away.

He says "5 or 6", so perhaps he isn't clear on the criteria either. But you are right - Doherty doesn't state who the major apologists are. Does he mean writers whose writings are extant, or who was known to have been a major apologist of the period? It's hard to argue when he isn't clear, as you point out.

I argue that apologists to the pagans deliberately didn't use the historical Jesus in their apologies. They nearly all wrote in the same period (late 2nd C) and all said much the same things, and many of those things appear in the HJ apologists as well. I have examples from Tertullian, Ignatius and (arguably) Tatian who were believers in a HJ and ALSO wrote apologies that didn't include details of a HJ. How does that fit into Doherty's theories? How CAN that fit into Doherty's theories?

What are the red herrings? You'll note that the only thing I claim is that the silence isn't as great as Doherty suggests.

So, what are the red herrings?

Amaleq13

Why would they deliberately avoid mentioning what is arguably the most significant difference between Christianity and the pagan Mysteries?

the_cave

Well, but the interesting thing is, most of the sandwich is not in fact dirty. Also I can estimate that, for example, the surface millimeter of the bread may have dirt on it, but the interior will not. And so on. Dropping it on the floor makes it difficult to know with certainty that we can clean it, but it doesn't mean we don't have any idea how clean it is.

Ok--but does that mean you do accept a literary position?

Presumably it would mean that what is left is good...

Literary gospels, perhaps, but what about oral gospels?

I admit many people might not be able to get past "could be". Though speaking for myself, I am very interested in what people believed.

spin

You didn't answer my question. If it were a peanut butter sandwich and there were sh*t on the floor when I dropped it, but I cleaned it off so you could see nothing, would you or would you not eat it if I offered it to you?

The problem we face is not knowing if, and what, there is that is historically usable.

We are really only dealing with text, as there is almost no historical data to throw into the stew.

That's one of the problems we face: we don't know. Maybe, yes, maybe, no, maybe, some, maybe all. We have only eliminated that which we can identify.

Mostly, oral gospel is irrecoverable. We, might be able to identify that there was oral gospel, because of hints such as those found in the Didache of itinerant preachers, and we might be able to identify some liturgical material again found in the Didache and also in the gospels, but beyond those oral gospel remains only oral, ie lost.

There's lots about what people believed strewn through the cadres of church fathers. It's rather difficult though to get at the sources of what they believed. You just get what they believed. Trying to do history is about reconstructing the past. The history we are doing is reconstructing the development of xianity.


spin

the_cave

Well, first of all, before it was just dirt we were talking about...But I again reply I might just get rid of the bread, if I were really hungry.

Not knowing, no, you're right, we can't know. But we can make better guesses than others.

But are you saying the text is necessarily fictional? I guess you would say that the most we can say about it is, we don't know what it is.

Sure--but of course beliefs also have histories.

spin

The point is: you wouldn't eat the sandwich, because you couldn't be sure.

No, you cannot. Until you have better information, any guess is worthless.

Definitely not.

Right. Until we have historical and/or other pointers to help elucidate.

Obviously, and their history follows the same rules as any other historical pursuit.

What is important to me is that although xianity has held sway for 1670 odd years, it still hasn't consolidated its history. There have been more [pious forgeries than we need care count, inventing gospels, histories, royal letters, perverting other texts. We are really dealing with a field we could call the archaeology of the religious obfuscation. Like an archaeological site, religious cultural artefacts have layers. The difference here is that with archaeology you eventually know when you've hit bedrock. How do we know when we get to what Paul actually wrote? I just read a reconstruction of Galatians based on what has been preserved in the church fathers of Marcion's copy of Galatians. We've already removed the Pastorals, Ephesians and Colossians from his corpus. There are doubts about parts of Philippians and questions about Philemon, but getting beyond doubts and questions to resolve matters one way or another is certainly not easy. We have to accept that corruption of the texts is the norm and not the exception. It all makes for extremely difficult material on which to make historical analyses.

The approach of denigrating attempts at analyses regarding a mythological Jesus is understandable on the xian's part through a certain fear -- after all the implications are profound for the religion -- covered with contempt, but this is a relatively new field of study, functionally in existence for less than two hundred years, though always on the fringe and treated as tomfoolery. It might not be correct, but I'd like to see where it can lead, as I think any thinking person should. It is through exploring corridors that are not often taken that surprising things are often found.

Having a good grasp of the available history, I know that there is no historical evidence for the existence of Jesus, though he may, or may not, have existed. Any endeavour based on sound methodology to show one way or another is positive.

Science works on the fact that, although it may get a lot of things wrong, next time it will get fewer of those things wrong. It has a few corollaries: 1) that nothing is beyond question and 2) that some things may not be able to be explained -- but one will never know until one tries many times and maybe then never know.


spin

Bernard Muller

Spin:References come late, and not trustworthy. But "Luke" pretended to be a contemporary of the first apostles. Thereafter we have to look for Irenaeus and Clement of Alexandria. The later says Mark composed the gospel when Peter was still alive in Rome (and approved of it!). By the way, Papias did not say when that was written, relative to Peter's lifespan.

What does that mean? I notice you have a few demons to fight in order to stick on your theories.

You are very evasive. If I would be an apocalyptic sectarian leader, and composed a writing in secret, would I say the end will come soon after the destruction of Ypres (which happened in WW1)?
A literary trope? Maybe you should read again the passage in question.

Jerusalem in the mountains? Not really, as I observed in person. Fleeing in the hills/mountains is not to be trapped in Jerusalem, but going in places where you can hide and not be killed, as most of the ones who took refuge in Jerusalem. And you agree "Mark" knew about the events of 70.

This is not what I read in the mini apocalypse. But later apologists commented like that, such as Tertullian, which makes sense, relative on when they were writing. I already wrote, for "Mark", what's important was to keep his flock under him, and not have them go to false christs and prophets, which in these times of upheaveal (the great distress), appeared. What you wrote is just assumptions, not evidenced, and certainly not history.

Best regards, Bernard

spin

Remember the temple destruction of Nebuchadnezzar, Antiochus Epiphanes was attributed one, Pompey violated the temple after a siege which broke through into it, and then you've got Titus


It's not your perspective which is important: think of Mount Moria, Mount of Olives, Mount Zion and Mount Scopus, all in or near Jerusalem.

And I didn't even imply it. I was commenting on how it reflected on the Marcan writer's lack of local knowledge.

It certainly wasn't meant to be history either: the paragraph starts "The gospel may easily have been written long after . . ." It is counter-conjection to yours.


spin

Bernard Muller

Jacob Aliet:
"Your father is a historical person". Why not HJ? After all he is described in Paul's epitles to have a human father and come from a woman, in sinful flesh, just as I am. One difference: Paul said he was "under the law", I am not a Jew.

Who said that 'Hebrews' and Paul's letters should provide enough to reconstruct the (true) historical Jesus, with all kind of details? These authors were building up a theology towards the heavenly/mythical Jesus/Word/Son of God. Providing infos about a humble mortal Jew was not of interest and quite a digression. And then, how do you know the Christians did not get the basics about HJ? 'Hebrews' and Paul's epistles said those have been visited before by the authors, and also others. 'Hebrews' strongly alludes about one thing heard from Jesus by eyewitness(es) and indicates his flesh & blood condition.

Here is what transpires about (incarnated) HJ through only Paul's letters (not including 'Hebrews'):
from "Israelites, ... whose [are] the fathers, and of whom [is] the Christ, according to the flesh ..." (Ro9:4-5 YLT) and "the seed of [allegedly] David, according to the flesh" (Ro1:3), "come of a woman, come under law" (Gal4:4 YLT), "found in appearance as a man" (Php2:8) "in the likeness of sinful flesh" (Ro8:3) who "humbled himself" (Php2:8) in "poverty" (2Co8:9) as "servant of the Jews" (Ro15:8) and "was crucified in weakness" (2Co13:4) in "Zion" (Ro9:31-33 & Ro15:26-27).

Best regards, Bernard

GakuseiDon

Any explanation needs to include the writings of Tertullian and Ignatius and (arguably) Tatian, HJers who also wrote apologies that didn't include references to the historical Jesus.

Nowhere in Doherty's writings does he mention this. Is it important, do you think? How would you explain it?