GakuseiDon

So, if we have evidence for such early Christians (aware of traditions about a historical Jesus, but not interested in details for some reason): why couldn't Didache, Epistle to Diognetus, 1 Clement, Shepherd of Hermas and the Pauline Epistles have been written by similar Christians?

EmmaZunz

Well Xians managed to copy plenty of texts that contained no or little HJ.

If there were any that had lots of HJ, chances are we'd have them, just like we have Mark.

We have even found a bunch of other HJ Gospels that the later Church authorities rejected and tried to destroy.

So I don't think you can argue that the silence is unreal.

Josephus and Tacitus I'm not going to go over, but if you think they constitute reliable evidence then you have a long, hard road to go down before you prove it!

It's not extreme, cranky, discredited or worthless but it is fringe, I'll grant you! I personally don't understand why people get so emotional and upset against it. I have no interest either way, but when I read Earl Doherty I found it very reasonable and highly persuasive. HJers are yet to produce anything of the quality of EH's work in defence of their case: viz. Ehrman's latest!

EmmaZunz

How many Xians do you know who would write a whole letter about their faith and never mention the life of Jesus? Can you imagine the writer of the Epistle to Diognetus, who is attempting to explain the basis of the Xian faith to a pagan, neglecting to mention anything about the man who founded it? Whose life and resurrection proved the validity of the faith?

Maybe one or two such cases would be possible. But case after case after case?

No. Xians who know HJ talk about him. If they don't, then most likely they don't know him.

Duvduv

Emma, that's why it is relevant to suggest that such letter were not originally written by Christians, but were adopted and ADAPTED by Christians later on.

EmmaZunz

Huh?

Then who wrote them originally if not MJers of one sort or another?

MrMacSon

A few have proposed there were various stories, doing the rounds of various non-Jewish communities, and that those that fulfilled the prophecies of the Olde Testament were the most popular. That is likely have to have been a tradition over many years - centuries - before Christianity evolved.

Christianity evolved over a few centuries, too.

So, the stories that were popular in one place at one time, may have been replaced by other stories - it would have been a moving mist (pun intended).

It does seem likely thatIt has been proposed the popular stories -those that fulfiilled the prophecies of the Olde Testament- were the ones eventually selected for the canon: hence the myriad of apocryphal "gnostic" gospel stories.

It seems likely theology-politics played a role in various communities in various ways. The council of Nicea supposedly spent a lot of time deciding between Arianism (with a non-corporeal leader?) and Christianity.

add - the writings attributed to the mysterious Paul are gnostic-like.

Duvduv

Who knows? Who says they were written by Christians? It would appear they belonged to some philosophical school or other, or were monotheists, and got adapted by later Christians who may have thought it belonged to them even without any mention (!) of the Christ at all.

GakuseiDon

But we HAVE examples (or close to it) of such Xians, as you've granted above.

You need to be careful not to be influenced by 1800 years of Christianity viewed through the lens of the Gospel Jesus. Let's not fall into the trap of "HJ == Gospel Jesus".

Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but your own point was that there is evidence of Christians who didn't know details, but were nevertheless aware of traditions about a historical Jesus. As you wrote earlier:

"... they might be Xians who are aware of traditions about a historical Jesus, but don't have much detail because Mark's Gospel is not widely available in written form yet".

So why NOT case after case after case of such Christians? At least until Mark's Gospel is widely available in written form?

When do you think Mark's Gospel was widely available in written form?

Well, let's have a look at the Epistle to Diognetus then:
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/diognetus.html

It appears to have been written in 180 CE, though some give an earlier date of 130 CE (Doherty prefers the earlier date). For the author, Christianity had spread throughout the Roman Empire, and was undergoing official persecution, which suggests a Second Century date.

Are you okay with a date of at earliest 130 CE?

When talking about Christians, the author writes of them existing throughout the Roman Empire. So whatever version of Christianity this is, it is widespread:

... inhabiting Greek as well as barbarian cities... [Christians] dwell in their own countries, but simply as sojourners. As citizens, they share in all things with others, and yet endure all things as if foreigners. Every foreign land is to them as their native country, and every land of their birth as a land of strangers. They marry, as do all [others]; they beget children; but they do not destroy their offspring. They have a common table, but not a common bed. They are in the flesh, but they do not live after the flesh. They pass their days on earth, but they are citizens of heaven... They love all men, and are persecuted by all... they are assailed by the Jews as foreigners, and are persecuted by the Greeks; yet those who hate them are unable to assign any reason for their hatred.
...
To sum up all in one word--what the soul is in the body, that are Christians in the world. The soul is dispersed through all the members of the body, and Christians are scattered through all the cities of the world...

When talking about what Christians believe, the author writes that its origin is not human opinion, but from God, via the Word. The Word did not come in tyranny and power, but seeking to persuade:

For, as I said, this was no mere earthly invention which was delivered to them, nor is it a mere human system of opinion, which they judge it right to preserve so carefully, nor has a dispensation of mere human mysteries been committed to them, but truly God Himself, who is almighty, the Creator of all things, and invisible, has sent from heaven, and placed among men, [Him who is] the truth, and the holy and incomprehensible Word, and has firmly established Him in their hearts. He did not, as one might have imagined, send to men any servant, or angel, or ruler, or any one of those who bear sway over earthly things, or one of those to whom the government of things in the heavens has been entrusted, but the very Creator and Fashioner of all things--by whom He made the heavens... This [messenger] He sent to them. Was it then, as one might conceive, for the purpose of exercising tyranny, or of inspiring fear and terror? By no means, but under the influence of clemency and meekness. As a king sends his son, who is also a king, so sent He Him; as God He sent Him; as to men He sent Him; as a Saviour He sent Him, and as seeking to persuade, not to compel us; for violence has no place in the character of God. As calling us He sent Him, not as vengefully pursuing us; as loving us He sent Him, not as judging us. For He will yet send Him to judge us, and who shall endure His appearing?

So God sent his Son to men. And will send him again to judge us. I know that some mythicists try to explain this as a "sending into men's hearts" (we see "firmly established Him in their hearts" above), but it doesn't read like that above. It sounds like an entity that was actually sent.

What about the timing of God's sending of the Son? The author writes:

[God] is, and will ever be, kind and good, and free from wrath, and true, and the only one who is [absolutely] good; and He formed in His mind a great and unspeakable conception, which He communicated to His Son alone. As long, then, as He held and preserved His own wise counsel in concealment, He appeared to neglect us, and to have no care over us. But after He revealed and laid open, through His beloved Son, the things which had been prepared from the beginning, He conferred every blessing all at once upon us, so that we should both share in His benefits, and see and be active [in His service]...

As long then as the former time endured, He permitted us to be borne along by unruly impulses, being drawn away by the desire of pleasure and various lusts. This was not that He at all delighted in our sins, but that He simply endured them; nor that He approved the time of working iniquity which then was, but that He sought to form a mind conscious of righteousness, so that being convinced in that time of our unworthiness of attaining life through our own works, it should now, through the kindness of God, be vouchsafed to us; and having made it manifest that in ourselves we were unable to enter into the kingdom of God, we might through the power of God be made able. But when our wickedness had reached its height, and it had been clearly shown that its reward, punishment and death, was impending over us; and when the time had come which God had before appointed for manifesting His own kindness and power, how the one love of God, through exceeding regard for men, did not regard us with hatred, nor thrust us away, nor remember our iniquity against us, but showed great long-suffering, and bore with us, He Himself took on Him the burden of our iniquities, He gave His own Son as a ransom for us...

"When our wickedness had reached its height", God "gave His own Son as a ransom for us". This appears to be a recent event. And the Son will come again to judge us. That's a nice summary of Christian belief. And part of a Christianity "scattered through all the cities of the world".

Now, there is no talk about a Gospel Jesus here. Nothing to do with miracles, nor Galilee, fishermen, nor parables (though the Son apparently taught something). The names of "Jesus" and "Christ" are not used. If there was a human being in there, the author doesn't reference him. Instead it is about "the Son of God" and "the Word". If the author is aware of a human Jesus Christ being a part of any of the Christians living throughout the Roman Empire and being persecuted, he is not eager to share this with Diognetus.

My own view is this: this Epistle, like the others of its time, is a product of a high context culture. The Gospels weren't referenced because they weren't considered authoritative until towards the end of the Second Century. But the broad themes are consistent with a proto-orthodox view of early Christianity.

And if the hints in the Epistle are enough to conclude it is most likely the product of proto-orthodoxy, then we need to reset our expectation about what we would see in the other early literature.

steve_bnk

The form of the myth is not unique.

Offspring of human and deity takes on the burden of the world, aka tribe or clan, and dies in the act of salvation going to the celestial homestead.

I'd have to look them up, but weren't Greek and Roman myths combinations of gods and human offspring with gods messing about with human destiny?

The gospel tale is set on a Jewish stage , but the Jesus myth as virgin birth/ son of a god along with ressurection is incongruent with the OT.

JonA

I'm not going to buy your overpriced books, Earl.

And your silly posts aren't working to guilt me into doing so.