archibald

Mythers morphing into Docetics or Gnostics.

Then....there is never going to be any evidence?

This does explain the lack of 'mythicist heresy'.

But in the absence of any evidence for the morph, it does not, it seems, add anything to the hypothesis that there ever were mythicists.

I have no problem with speculative scenarios. When they are unevidenced, I would like good reasons to think them likely, that's all.


I will do that. Going off line now.

I must say that I do tend to feel I don't need anyone to tell me that a crucifixion is not in the Septaguint. Unless I am not reading the right translation, it simply isn't there. It is completely lacking in Psalm 22. Isiah 53 appears (in your previous link) to refer to 'stripes' and in the translation I had been using, to 'pierced and crushed'. I'm a bit baffled as to why the apologist cited 'stripes' and not 'pierced'?

Not only that, but it was my impression that these passages were not seen by Jews as being about a messiah. That is not to say that they weren't pressed into service, but I do find the idea that they were pressed into service around the time of (or after) an alleged crucifixion to appear more like the result of someone going back into the Septaguint to find something which might explain an unexpected event than someone finding what must surely be described as an unusually (for Jews) distasteful and contrary denouement for a messiah (a mental stumbling block if you like) completely 'unaided by any actual events' as it were, and then afterwards also claiming the event had happened, in any location or realm.

Maybe I implied that his hypothesis was not strong, IMO, but that is not the man himself. And I didn't say he was wrong. I said his hypothesis was, for me, 'possible but not likely'. I do my best to appraise Doherty as objectively as possible. I have not always disagreed with him either. I just find his conclusions to be very unpersuasive. He says this is because my mind is locked. If he is trying to do an impression of a dogmatist in saying that, he is doing a good job of it. :]

It would be, if that's what was being done.

I certainly do not. I would expect it to be 'winner's bias'. Very much so. The good thing about this bias, which is not the case when reading other ancient accounts (of, say, battles, or political inter-group struggles) is that it is a clearly signalled bias. The thing is, imperfect as they may be, what we know (or can reasonably deduce) about heresies sort has to be read via this evidence, as best it can be.

But the general comment 'expect bias' is very much like the general comment 'expect interpolations'. Neither, of themselves, sends us off in the particular direction of MJ (or NEP), especially in the absence of any such heresy.

And that is where we should be discussing what 'clues' there are that this was the case. Even if these clues are not conclusive, we might ask whether they are somewhat indicative.

Incidentally, what do you make of the Nag Hamadi Codices? Gnostic, or not? They had a copy of Plato in there, as I recall.

Stringbean

It's that very lack of bio that is his down fall. Matter of fact its the very lack of bio in the entire NT that is the downfall of the entire book. That said no writer of the HT ever claimed to be writing a history of any jesus. Matter of fact they knew little about a man they supposedly followed...in other words they wrote what they imagined not what they saw.

archibald

'Lack of bio' is not 'myth'.

Doherty's problem, in a nutshell (and I will only attempt a nutshell here, because I will inevitably leave out certain other things, which I have listed on another thread) is basically twofold (as I see it) with his raw material for 'Paul'. This is what Paul contains (in it's extant form):

1. Many references to things which seem to refer to earthly events and an earthly central character, and a rationale to go with this (what sort of basis is it for humans to expect resurrection if some heavenly entity only gets as far down as an upper realm and 'dies' there and floats back up again? The rationale almost requires a 'human' - or humanesque - template, as I see it, for it to have any potency for the expectations of earthly converts and believers)

2. No clear references to upper realms and no myth narrative worth talking about. Except when 'Paul' is talking about a post-death figure, in which case, it's hardly either surprising or controversial. Even here, an intermediate upper realm is virtually unevidenced.

That's it. Bar explaining away as many items in 1. as possible by pointing to possible ambiguities.

Compare this with Ascension of Isiah. Here, I could understand the citation of narrative having been thought of as having taken place in upper realms.

This is all getting off topic though. :]

Btw, there is no lack of bio in the NT. :]

mountainman

The quick and fast answer to your question might be obtained by reading through the following two references related directly to your question.


Two Gnostic Gospels
Robert M. Grant, Journal of Biblical Literature > Vol. 79, No. 1, Mar., 1960

On the Gospel of Thomas:



The Naming of the Naassenes: Hippolytus, Refutatio V. 6-10 as Hieros Logos
Mark J. Edwards, Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik, Bd. 112, (1996) (pp. 74-80)

If this doesn't make sense ask more questions.

Finally I noticed this above ....

I have had a very close look at the Coptic version of Plato.

Comparing Plato' Republic in the Nag Hammadi coptic to the Original Greek

archibald

All of that is very interesting, and I read it all (not the books themselves, since they are not in full at your links, but that's ok, I accept your quotes).

But it doesn't seem to answer my question. Unless I have missed something.

Why would these guys have a text in their library which starts:

'These are the secret sayings that the living Jesus spoke and Didymos Judas Thomas recorded.

1. And he said, "Whoever discovers the interpretation of these sayings will not taste death."

2. Jesus said.......'

And almost everything thereafter appears to relate to earth?

As for Plato, corrupt or faithful to the original does not seem to be the big issue for me. It suggests Platonism, either way, doesn't it?

aa5874

Your claim is ERRONEOUS and KNOWN to be FALLACIOUS. "Paul" is NOT littered with HJ references.


Again, the historical Jesus is a REJECTION of the NT Jesus, the Jesus of Faith.

Why are you NOT complying with the strict meaning of the "historical Jesus" in the HJ/MJ argument?

Do not confuse the issue.

The "historical Jesus" of Nazareth is PRESUMED to be an ORDINARY MAN who had ZERO ability to FORGIVE the Sins of mankind, did NOT resurrect on the Third day, cannot come back a SECOND time to earth and is NOT God Incarnate.

Please, please, please, the ENTIRE Pauline writings are ABOUT the RESURRECTED Jesus of Faith not some unknown man of whom nothing is documented.

You have ALREADY ADMITTED that is virtually IMPOSSIBLE to know anything with certainty about YOUR HJ so please stop your nonsense claiming that "Paul" is LITTERED with references to HJ.

Your assertion is "almost impossible" to be certain or corroborated.

It is CERTAIN that in Galatians 1.1 it is claimed that "Paul" was NOT an apostle of an historical Jesus.

It is CERTAIN that in Galatians1 .11-12 it is claimed that "Paul" did NOT get his gospel from an historical Jesus.

It is CERTAIN that in Romans 1.25 it is implied that the CREATURE should NOT be worshiped ONLY the Creator.

It is CERTAIN the Extant Pauline writings are NOT LITTERED with references to HJ.

It is the COMPLETE OPPOSITE.

The Pauline writings are LITTERED with MYTH JESUS, the resurrected Jesus of FAITH.

Resurrected MYTH Jesus is the FOUNDATION of the Pauline writings.

andrewcriddle

Hi Pete

I think I've raised this before.

Nobody claims Arius was a Christian bishop. He was a presbyter, a Christian priest.

Andrew Criddle

mountainman

The text of the gThomas does not actually say "Jesus said this, and Jesus said this, and Jesus said that, etc, etc, etc. The Coptic text uses an abbreviated "nomina sacra". Here is some further info on this:

Fabulating Jesus, the Coptic Nomina Sacra, and intriguing questions


FYI my take at the moment on this practice is as follows.

The role of "Pontifex Maximus" had with it a discretion for the Emperor to subscribe to his favorite cult. All emperors before Constantine subscribed to their favorite cults. The nominated deity of the "Pontifex Maximus" was traditionally always provided a great deal of respect. This is to be expected, since the deities were already established in the empire. Jesus was very new in the empire as far as I can see. When the divinity of Jesus was bound inside the greek new testament books, it was purposefully encrypted --- the most ancient evidence discloses the universal use of "nomina sacra".

When the new testament greek became authoritative, the "nomina sacra" used in the NT was re-used by the Gnostics writing in Greek the earliest Greek Gnostic Gospels and Acts. However these Greek texts were searched out and destroyed. The Gnostics therefore translated the Greek to Coptic, and buried the books c.348 CE, because they were too hot. If these books had been found by Athanasius for example while searching the Pachomian monastery at Nag Hammadi, then it would have been death for the entire "monastery" (imo).

mountainman

Hi Andrew,

Thanks again for the clarification. I was responding too quickly. In my recent essay I have consistently used the term presbyter. However the issue that I explore in the essay (after dicussions here and elsewhere) is that everyone is claiming Arius to be a Christian (following Eusebius and the other later heresiolgists).

The idea that I am exploring is that Arius was not any kind of christian, but rather a theological Platonist philosopher, who's spiritual father was Ammonias Saccas the non christian "father" of the revival in Platonism, often termed Neoplatonism.

Pete

archibald

MM, your posts are interesting, but do not seem to address my question. You may use 'IS' instead of 'Jesus' if that is correct. I am not sure whether you prefer the explanation that the character in this book is another prophet or whether you prefer to think that said prophet is not earthly. Neither appears to be the better explanation.

Here's another couple of lines, from slightly further in:

52 His disciples said to him, "Twenty-four prophets have spoken in Israel, and they all spoke of you."

He said to them, "You have disregarded the living one who is in your presence, and have spoken of the dead."