Toto

OK, sorry

You just dropped out of the discussion at that point. :huh:

What part of the analysis is missing? Paul was a near contemporary if he wrote in the 50's. [I think both you and Doherty agree with that dating, so let's work with it.] Historicists think that he must have learned about Jesus from the pillars of the Jerusalem Church, but there is a vast unexplained silence in Paul's epistles, where we would have expected details about Jesus' life and teaching. These same historicists think that Jesus had a charismatic personality that led to the formation of the early church, so his life and sayings should have been burned into people's memories, and Paul would have learned of Jesus from someone.

Then stuff happens, and it appears that Christians are so focused on the theological message of Jesus' death that they forget all about his life, and the gospel writers construct a history of Jesus by interpreting the Hebrew Scirptures. Yes, they believe that Jesus walked the earth - but not because they have material evidence. It was part of their theology.

So by the time of the gospels, there is no more historical Jesus. The charismatic personality has vanished. It's all theology.

[Note that I contend the second century authors did not believe in a historical Jesus. No one believed in a historical Jesus until the Enlightenment, when rationalists tried to strip the supernatural elements out of the gospels to find the real human behind them.]

To expect a debate between mythicists and historicists in the second century is to import our modern materialist mindset back to those centuries. That wasn't part of their world view. It wasn't an issue that mattered. What mattered to them was whether Jesus was of the same substance as God, or merely a similar substance.

EarlDoherty

This is getting ridiculous. How can Don continue to accuse me of selective reading when he tried to build an earlier case solely on me allegedly not having read Tertullian, and I have given him pages of response in which I do just that, demonstrating that Tertullian contributes nothing to alter my case. He mentions Ignatius, yet JNGNM contains an entire chapter on Ignatius. What, does that now leave "Melito" (whom I did not address in regard to the 2nd century apologists), and my whole case now supposedly falls down on that one omission? (Notice that Don does not take it onto himself to point out how Melito's extant literature would demonstrate that it would in any way be an "omission", or affect my claims about the 2nd century apologists!) What will it be next, the fragments of Hegesippus? Papias?

Doesn't anyone see what is going on here? The dishonesty is overwhelming. (You can all check out my last posting about him in the Vision of Isaiah thread.)

Earl Doherty

rlogan

Exactly so.

There are so many things radically different in this field as compared with science that ought be acknowledged in any reasonable discussion.

GDon's writing is attended with terms like "heroic" whereas Earl is cast as a kook, and there is a certain amount of smugness about it that can only be gotten away with through failing to acknowledge these differences.

Journals are run by religious devotees. The Church suppressed and destroyed non-canonical writings; forged and fabricated extrabiblical pieces -

So of course what remains supports orthodoxy and of couse the journals support orthodoxy. To then say it is "radical" to differ from orthodoxy and pretend that orthodoxy is "critical scholarship"...

This is like they hydra that cannot be killed. No matter how many times it is pointed out, it keeps coming back: the implicit assumption that orthodoxy is a true and untainted historical record and the practicioners of Christianity are actually unbiased scholars.

THAT is what's kooky.

TedM

Thanks Don. You are compiling an important checklist of significant issues that need to be further evaluated in order to properly analyze Earl's theories. Maybe would be good to summarize those briefly (more briefly than your review) for any who wish to tackle one or more. Hopefully Earl will weigh in on some or all of them here too.

GakuseiDon

The part backing the assumption. You wrote:

I pointed out to Don that the second century and later Christians believed that Jesus was "historical" for theological reasons. They based their opinion on reading the Hebrew Scriptures, not on any evidence that Jesus walked the earth. This is not the stance that one would assume a first century writer would take, if Jesus were a near contemporary.

What stance do you mean? Not writing about a HJ?

I agree, we would have expected those things. But would they have expected those things? That's the question. I use Doherty's comments that there is also a strange silence in the Second Century writings. So, from what time period would we not expect these things? And what is the basis for that assumption.

Thanks for your comments. Maybe that's why I dropped out of the debate before. Expand your comment above to 800 pages, and you have Doherty's book.

EarlDoherty

The "sources" for my knowledge about mystery cults are the books by scholars that have been published on them, containing the primary sources which they have had access to. What, you expect me to completely ignore anything said, published, printed by anyone else on the matter, even recognized scholars in the field, and go to the sites, libraries, etc. which contain those primary sources and start from scratch by myself? Who the hell does that? Do you? Does Don? Does any critical scholar working in the field do that.

Do you even understand what you are going on about? Or is it just foaming out of your gut animosity toward mythicism.

I asked you if you had the capacity for rational thinking. I guess I've got my answer.

As of this moment, you are on my ignore list. And Don is one step away as well.

Earl Doherty

Toto

The idea that Jesus was merely flesh was also a grave heresy. This "flesh" was a theological concept, not necessarily a historical marker.

"I can't see how the idea that Jesus never came to earth was anything that would be ignored" is just an argument from personal incredulity.

GakuseiDon

And that's a fair point! I haven't provided the analysis; more is needed.

Toto

Paul would not need to mine the Hebrew Scriptures to find out about Jesus if he had heard about him from James. He would have had ready access to Jesus' teachings on marriage. He would have known if Jesus were married or not.

I can't make it any simpler.

Doherty calls the silence "strange" from the point of view of historicism. He thinks that the idea of a historical Jesus was just catching on, but wasn't firmly implanted.

I don't know why you are rolling your eyes. What part is not clear? What part do you disagree with?

TedM

At the risk of muddying the thread, a quick comment. It is quite possible that Jesus was a flash in the pan charisma who simply didn't have enough material to impress Paul a lot as a human being. Paul's few mentions of teachings may reflect the fact that Jesus' teachings were minimal in scope. But this relative unknown's alleged resurrection had tremendous THEOLOGICAL significance to Paul--spurring him to preach his own gospel of salvation through faith to the Gentiles. This seems a reasonable explanation for the relative silence of Paul and contemporaries.

So far in the thread I see these as the issues pertaining to historical existence requiring further comment/evaluation, some of which perhaps is contained in Earl's book or that he will wish to comment on:

1. How are the silences of known HJrs in the 2nd century explained?

2. Is there a general lack of historical context in 1st and 2nd century writings that is greater than what we would expect?

3. Would 2nd century believers in a HJ be more or less likely than 1st century believers to write about the historical sayings or doings of a historical Jesus?

4. What should we reasonably expect in terms of comments/arguments in the 2nd century regarding the lack of a historical Jesus if there was an evolution from mythism to historical?