archibald

Sorry, did I miss something? The coins you posted were evidence of two Jesuses?

You may need to elaborate on that for me.

maryhelena

Before one tries to date Paul from later sources - first try and establish historicity!
As for l Clement - there is no eyewitness there. Paul, supposedly, died prior to 70 c.e. Tradition, hearsay, stories - you need more than that to date Paul.

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/1clement.html

Name changing is quite a big deal in the NT - consequently, that "Jesus" had other names cannot be ruled out. And did not Paul say that the name "Jesus" was only given to his JC after the resurrection - when every knee should bend...
I'm not aware that I have done so - perhaps you could be kind enough to direct me to where I have?

The question is meaningless unless you have first established the historicity of Paul.

What evidence?
I think Wells goes with the consensus - but don't quote me on that. I don't have his books and have to rely on what is available online.
So your reading the gospel JC story as history? Presumably minus the mythology and miracles. Sure, as I've said earlier - quite in order - but continually banging ones head against a brick wall re trying to establish historicity for the gospel JC figure must be a bit painful.....

maryhelena

You are misreading what I wrote.....

Re-read it. The coins I posted are evidence for two historical figures. Two historical figures whose lives have been used, by the gospel writers, in their creation of their JC figure - note ONE gospel JC figure.

The fundamental difference between Doherty and my theory, on this point, is that Doherty has not gone to the trouble of identifying the historical figures that have been used, by the gospel writers, in the creation of their composite JC figure. Doherty is focusing on Middle Platonism, ie intellectual speculation. I am focusing on history.

GakuseiDon

:huh: I'm lost, I'm sorry. How did you get that from my response?

The Gospels are no good as history until the historicity of Jesus is established as the most likely alternative. Wells and Doherty disagree in parts, but it is possible to pull bits from each -- where they feel there is positive evidence for a position -- to help to construct a plausible historical Jesus.

archibald

I'm like Gakuseidon. Totally confused by your reasoning.

Theudas: agnostic

John the Baptist: agnostic

Paul:agnostic

Two Jesuses: select 'Add to basket'

There is, as far as I can see, no historical evidence in anything you have said to support a two Jesus position. It appears to be a postulation, and nothing more.

As such, it seems there is a gaping hole in your methods.

maryhelena

The historicity of JC cannot be established from the gospel story. If the gospel JC is historical - then that historicity has to be established from evidence outside of the gospel storyline.

GDon - I find the insight of Wells re a non-crucified figure to be of value - it is a position I have held for around 30 years now. I find the insight of Doherty that Paul's JC is crucified in a spiritual/intellectual context to be of value - it is a position that I have held for around 30 years. These two point are valuable. However, both Wells and Doherty need to move from the NT JC storyline to historical realities. That is the road to ground zero for early christian origins - not more and more interpretations of the gospel JC story.

maryhelena

How about providing the historical evidence for Theudas, John the Baptist and Paul?

Oh, better present your evidence in a new thread though - this thread is for Wells = Doherty.......

archibald

No. You see, I don't have to do that, since I am not arguing for their historicity at this point.

I'm picking up on what appears to be a large inconsistency in your methods, since you appear to have said (in this thread) that you took a two-Jesus position, based on historical evidence, and have used several 'unevidenced' figures as illustration.

We can compare methods after, if you like. :]

Now, these two 'Jesus component' guys on the coins. Who are they? I've read your links, and so far, I don't see which one of them was the preacher who got crucified.

maryhelena

Reference please - where did I state that I took a "two-Jesus position".
Reference please - where have I used "several 'unevidenced' figures as illustration".

The "guys on the coins" - check out Wikipedia.

Reference please - where did I state that one of the "guys on the coins" was a "preacher who got crucified".

archibald, unless you are prepared to quote me accurately, then I really have better things to be doing with my time...

This is not RS here - so please be a little more constructive and accurate in your responses.

avi

1. why should one not “assume a non-historical Jesus in Paul”? It seems to me, that Paul writes of having experienced hallucinatory encounters with JC after the latter’s demise. I observe nothing “historical” about Paul’s description of JC. Can you point to some extant document, (obviously not Paul’s epistles, themselves), in support of the notion that Paul possessed a written description of JC, thereby confirming JC’s historicity in Paul’s mind, rather than the imaginary creature he has described? How do you interpret “grafas” in 1 Corinthians 15:3-4?

2. How does this issue affect the debate of Wells = Doherty?

avi